From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 00:07:13 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 01:07:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> References: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <40BBBAA1.7070806@hdw.be> I think (but I'm no Squeeze expert) that this is a completely normal=20 squeeze for a world class player to find. I accept that a player in 7NT with an ace out claims after seeing the=20 non-ace led, and that it is not normal for him to play it out without=20 checking all the possibilities. I award 13 tricks. Start flaming. Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi everyone, >=20 > A very serious TD exam somewhere in the > middle of Europe. Here is one of the 14 hurdles > the participants had to take: >=20 >=20 > 6 > K75 > AKQ1054 > K75 > J875 A10932 > J10982 64 > 83 J976 > 86 43 > KQ4 > AQ3 > 2 > AQJ1092 >=20 > 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? >=20 >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 00:28:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:28:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) Message-ID: 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 9 T85 982 987652 AKQ4 J763 6 AKQ9432 KQJT63 void KT J4 T852 J7 A754 AQ3 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 - West did not know that their system required a spade rebid instead (2) RKCB in hearts (3) 1 or 4 keycards - East did not know that their system used old-fashioned RKCB, and instead expected a holding of 0 or 3 keycards At the table, South chose the unlucky lead of the ace of diamonds. Two of the blmlers responding to the opening lead survey considered leading the ace of diamonds. While the third, David J. Grabiner, stated that, "The DA should not be led but is not a clear bridge error." Question 1: Since (according to the blml poll) the ace of diamonds lead was merely a careless or inferior lead, but not an irrational lead, if this deal had been played in a USBF event, would North-South be entitled to have their score adjusted to 6H -1460, because East-West had infracted the USBF General Conditions of Contest by not knowing what their system was "early in the bidding"? Question 2: Since Law 40A states, "A player may make any call or play ..... provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding", are the USBF General Conditions of Contest unLawful? Best wishes Richard James Hills From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jun 1 00:45:21 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 19:45:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040531193549.02c24278@mail.comcast.net> At 07:28 PM 5/31/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >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 > > 9 > T85 > 982 > 987652 >AKQ4 J763 >6 AKQ9432 >KQJT63 void >KT J4 > T852 > J7 > A754 > AQ3 > >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 - West did not know that their > system required a spade rebid instead >(2) RKCB in hearts >(3) 1 or 4 keycards - East did not know that their system > used old-fashioned RKCB, and instead expected a holding > of 0 or 3 keycards > >At the table, South chose the unlucky lead of the ace of >diamonds. Two of the blmlers responding to the opening >lead survey considered leading the ace of diamonds. While >the third, David J. Grabiner, stated that, "The DA should >not be led but is not a clear bridge error." > >Question 1: Since (according to the blml poll) the ace of >diamonds lead was merely a careless or inferior lead, but >not an irrational lead, if this deal had been played in a >USBF event, would North-South be entitled to have their >score adjusted to 6H -1460, because East-West had infracted >the USBF General Conditions of Contest by not knowing what >their system was "early in the bidding"? I don't agree with the adjustment because there was no infraction. However, if the CoC require an adjustment be made, it would not be to -1460. The DA would not be led against 6H, at least on a sensible auction, so the score should be adjusted to -1430. I do feel strongly that the DA is not "irrational, wild, or gambling." It took me quite a while to figure out which errors E-W were most likely to have made, and determine that the DA was the lead most likely to give up the grand slam. >Question 2: Since Law 40A states, "A player may make any >call or play ..... provided that such call or play is not >based on a partnership understanding", are the USBF General >Conditions of Contest unLawful? Only if they are used to justify this type of adjustment. If a player is given a procedural penalty for failing to know his system (and, say, providing MI as a result), that should be Lawful, if not necessarily wise. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 00:44:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:44:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: 6 K75 AKQ1054 K75 J875 A10932 J10982 64 83 J976 86 43 KQ4 AQ3 2 AQJ1092 Herman De Wael: >I think (but I'm no Squeeze expert) that this is >a completely normal squeeze for a world class >player to find. Richard James Hills: If the world class player is in a normal frame of mind. Herman De Wael: >I accept that a player in 7NT with an ace out >claims after seeing the non-ace led, and that it >is not normal for him to play it out without >checking all the possibilities. Richard James Hills: If the world class player was aware that 13 tricks were not certain, the world class player would not have claimed. Herman De Wael: >I award 13 tricks. >Start flaming. Richard James Hills. Fahrenheit 911. The computer program Deep Finesse could claim the contract whenever East holds the ace of spades, since Deep Finesse peeks at the opponents' cards. For if West holds the guarded jack of diamonds, Deep Finesse chooses to finesse the ten of diamonds. And if East holds the guarded jack of diamonds, then Deep Finesse chooses to squeeze East. But the fact that the world class player has made a *premature* claim suggests that the world class player is a Tasmanian with only 12 fingers, so that the world class player has carelessly miscounted their top tricks. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 00:57:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:57:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>>Question 2: Since Law 40A states, "A player may make any >>>call or play ..... provided that such call or play is not >>>based on a partnership understanding", are the USBF General >>>Conditions of Contest unLawful? David J. Grabiner: >>Only if they are used to justify this type of adjustment. >>If a player is given a procedural penalty for failing to >>know his system (and, say, providing MI as a result), that >>should be Lawful, if not necessarily wise. Richard James Hills: But the USBF GCoC outlaws not knowing your system early in the bidding, even if there are *zero* consequent MI infractions. Can such a blanket ban on not knowing your system be Lawful? WBF Code of Practice: >In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who >forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject >to automatic penalty. Best wishes RJH From john@asimere.com Tue Jun 1 01:06:27 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 01:06:27 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] avg- at cross imps In-Reply-To: <005201c44642$d50336c0$9281b6d4@LNV> References: <005201c44642$d50336c0$9281b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: In article <005201c44642$d50336c0$9281b6d4@LNV>, Ton Kooijman writes > > >> > > 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. never mind the regulations, it's mathematically correct. The law says 3 imps for a head to head teams of 4 and this formula carries the same weight as that three imps for any imp scored event (head to head or cross-imps). So you can make whatever regulation you like and I would point out it is flawed :) > 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? the square root applies to the number of comparisons, the number of results and the digit 2. For teams of 4; C=1, R=2 and the formula gives you 3 x root (1 x 2 / 2) or 3 x root (1) or 3 (which the law requires). if you're playing teams of 12 cross imped, you'd have 6 results and 9 comparisons and so average plus would be 3 x root(6 x 9 / 2) = 3 x root(27) = 9 x root(3) or about 15.5 imps. It really is as easy as that. cheers john > >ton > >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Jun 1 01:42:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:42:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] 7.5 tables; late pair to 8-table Relay Mitchell Message-ID: David Babcock: [snip] >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. [snip] Richard James Hills: For what its worth, the small one-night-a-week South Canberra Bridge Club always KISSes, and never uses an arrowswitch in its Mitchell movements. However, as a consequence, the South Canberra Bridge Club has separate North-South and East- West winners of an evening's matchpoint pairs. The implied ACBL policy of having only one winner in a non-arrowswitched one session Mitchell movement is theoretically unsound. Without an arrowswitch, the North-South and East-West fields are comparing results with totally distinct opponents. Just because a North-South orange pair totally outclassed the other North-South oranges, does not mean that the North-South orange is a better pair than the most successful East-West apple pair, who could only slightly outscore the rest of the other East-West apples. Best wishes RJH From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jun 1 01:52:40 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 17:52:40 -0700 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) References: Message-ID: <001e01c44772$c0466820$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > From Richard Hills> > >> >Players are expected to know their system, especially early > >in the bidding. > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: All > > 9 > T85 > 982 > 987652 > AKQ4 J763 > 6 AKQ9432 > KQJT63 void > KT J4 > T852 > J7 > A754 > AQ3 > > 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 - West did not know that their > system required a spade rebid instead > (2) RKCB in hearts > (3) 1 or 4 keycards - East did not know that their system > used old-fashioned RKCB, and instead expected a holding > of 0 or 3 keycards > > At the table, South chose the unlucky lead of the ace of > diamonds. Two of the blmlers responding to the opening > lead survey considered leading the ace of diamonds. While > the third, David J. Grabiner, stated that, "The DA should > not be led but is not a clear bridge error." > > Question 1: Since (according to the blml poll) the ace of > diamonds lead was merely a careless or inferior lead, but > not an irrational lead, if this deal had been played in a > USBF event, would North-South be entitled to have their > score adjusted to 6H -1460, because East-West had infracted > the USBF General Conditions of Contest by not knowing what > their system was "early in the bidding"? -1430, because a heart or spade might have been led against 6H. But see below. > Question 2: Since Law 40A states, "A player may make any > call or play ..... provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding", are the USBF General > Conditions of Contest unLawful? No, if the penalty is a PP and table result stands. Yes, if the score of either side is to be adjusted. The CoC should state what the penalty is for Convention Disruption, and do away with the weasel words "are expected" unless there is no penalty. By the way, this was not "early in the bidding," but the weasel word "especially" makes that moot. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From bthorp@bigpond.net.au Tue Jun 1 01:52:42 2004 From: bthorp@bigpond.net.au (Brian Thorp) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:52:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) References: Message-ID: <002e01c44772$bf34aa00$0100000a@brianizbqqxcx7> Richard, There is another factor here, is there not. I was aware at the table that the technically correct rebid was 1S, rather than 2NT. However, I chose 2NT to protect my CK and, on a lucky day, to get a S lead against a NT contract. Also, I knew that if you were interested in a S contract you could always ask via Crowhurst. Also, playing with your goodself I like to limit the strength of my hand asap so you can assume captaincy and make the wise decisions! Surely, even in the US it is permitted to know one's system but chose to deviate when suggested by the circumstances, tactical or otherwise?? "Inferior bridge forbidden" indeed - please re-title email along the lines of "thoughtful bidding rewarded". bwB ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Inferior bridge forbidden? (was Matchpoint dumping) > > > > > 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 > > 9 > T85 > 982 > 987652 > AKQ4 J763 > 6 AKQ9432 > KQJT63 void > KT J4 > T852 > J7 > A754 > AQ3 > > 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 - West did not know that their > system required a spade rebid instead > (2) RKCB in hearts > (3) 1 or 4 keycards - East did not know that their system > used old-fashioned RKCB, and instead expected a holding > of 0 or 3 keycards > > At the table, South chose the unlucky lead of the ace of > diamonds. Two of the blmlers responding to the opening > lead survey considered leading the ace of diamonds. While > the third, David J. Grabiner, stated that, "The DA should > not be led but is not a clear bridge error." > > Question 1: Since (according to the blml poll) the ace of > diamonds lead was merely a careless or inferior lead, but > not an irrational lead, if this deal had been played in a > USBF event, would North-South be entitled to have their > score adjusted to 6H -1460, because East-West had infracted > the USBF General Conditions of Contest by not knowing what > their system was "early in the bidding"? > > Question 2: Since Law 40A states, "A player may make any > call or play ..... provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding", are the USBF General > Conditions of Contest unLawful? > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 1 03:15:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:15:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thoughtful bidding rewarded Message-ID: Brian Thorp: >Richard, >There is another factor here, is there not? > >I was aware at the table that the technically correct >rebid was 1S, rather than 2NT. However, I chose 2NT >to protect my CK and, on a lucky day, to get a S lead >against a NT contract. [snip] >I like to limit the strength of my hand asap so you >can assume captaincy and make the wise decisions! John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, epitaph for Charles II: >>>>Here lies our sovereign lord the king, >>>>Whose word no man relies on; >>>>He never says a foolish thing, >>>>Nor ever does a wise one. Brian Thorp: >Surely, even in the US it is permitted to know one's >system but chose to deviate when suggested by the >circumstances, tactical or otherwise?? Edgar Kaplan (paraphrased): >>>Here's to the USBF's clever >>>Clarification endeavour >>>You're allowed to psyche >>>As much as you like >>>As long as you like to psyche never! Brian Thorp: >"Inferior bridge forbidden" indeed - please re-title >email along the lines of "thoughtful bidding rewarded". >bwB Richard James Hills: I agree that my thoughtful miscounting of aces after I thoughtfully used Blackwood with a void rewarded us with a thoughtful victory in a Swiss Teams championship. :-) But seriously, it is worrying that getting lucky after stupidity may become an infraction in the 2006 Laws. That would be (in my opinion) a fundamental attack on the fundamental fun of bridge. Grattan Endicott, semi-official seminar on Bridge Ethics, October 2002: >>How ethical can we consider ourselves once we rise to >>the levels of national tournaments, or of regional >>tournaments in larger countries, if we are unable to >>give our opponents an accurate account of our system >>agreements and our special understandings? Is it >>acceptable if we go to such major tournaments >>inadequately prepared? - using methods that we have >>not fully grasped? :-( Best wishes RJH From adam@tameware.com Tue Jun 1 05:17:19 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 00:17:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Fall 2003 appeals casebook In-Reply-To: <000801c4473a$3b5c5a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000801c4473a$3b5c5a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 11:08 AM -0700 5/31/04, Marvin French wrote: >the publication of casebooks is now a question mark. In an apparent effort to cut costs the ACBL has asked their Memphis staff to edit the casebooks. Work is underway on the Reno casebook. >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. No doubt this couldn't hurt. >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. Marvin, I thought you liked me! Seriously, I doubt the job would suit me. I enjoy writing software too much. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jun 1 06:15:57 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:15:57 +1200 Subject: [blml] Thoughtful bidding rewarded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00cd01c44797$8586e320$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2004 2:15 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: linchpin@bigpond.net.au; bthorp@bigpond.net.au > Subject: Re: [blml] Thoughtful bidding rewarded > Grattan Endicott, semi-official seminar on Bridge > Ethics, October 2002: > > >>How ethical can we consider ourselves once we rise to > >>the levels of national tournaments, or of regional > >>tournaments in larger countries, if we are unable to > >>give our opponents an accurate account of our system > >>agreements and our special understandings? Is it > >>acceptable if we go to such major tournaments > >>inadequately prepared? - using methods that we have > >>not fully grasped? > I would think that we are usually happy if our opponents are unprepared. I would call into question the ethics of those who do not accept that at times the opponents will screw up and it will benefit their side this is the nature of this game and of many other games. The best description of one who automatically expects a good score or a penalty imposed on the opponents when they make an honest mistake that fortuitously benefits their side is "a poor sport". Wayne From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jun 1 06:25:43 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 06:25:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: <08d601c44798$e34b9900$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Konrad Ciborowski] > 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? [Nigel] I agree with the TDs that two down seems obvious. What is the catch Konrad? --- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 08:17:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:17:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40BC2D7B.7000000@hdw.be> Hello Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > 6 > K75 > AKQ1054 > K75 > J875 A10932 > J10982 64 > 83 J976 > 86 43 > KQ4 > AQ3 > 2 > AQJ1092 > > Herman De Wael: > > >>I think (but I'm no Squeeze expert) that this is >>a completely normal squeeze for a world class >>player to find. > > > Richard James Hills: > > If the world class player is in a normal frame of > mind. > True, but I don't interpret this claim as proof the player is not in a normal frame of mind. > Herman De Wael: > > >>I accept that a player in 7NT with an ace out >>claims after seeing the non-ace led, and that it >>is not normal for him to play it out without >>checking all the possibilities. > > > Richard James Hills: > > If the world class player was aware that 13 tricks > were not certain, the world class player would not > have claimed. > True, but we can only deduce therefrom that the player was not aware that 13 tricks were not certain, we cannot deduce that he thought 13 tricks were certain. Surely you can see that this player never counted his tricks? > Herman De Wael: > > >>I award 13 tricks. >>Start flaming. > > > Richard James Hills. > > Fahrenheit 911. The computer program Deep Finesse > could claim the contract whenever East holds the > ace of spades, since Deep Finesse peeks at the > opponents' cards. For if West holds the guarded > jack of diamonds, Deep Finesse chooses to finesse > the ten of diamonds. And if East holds the guarded > jack of diamonds, then Deep Finesse chooses to > squeeze East. > That is of no importance. > But the fact that the world class player has made a > *premature* claim suggests that the world class > player is a Tasmanian with only 12 fingers, so that > the world class player has carelessly miscounted > their top tricks. > No, to me this suggests that the player was so happy not to be down from the start that he mistakenly thought he could claim without a statement. I then rule on the claim on that basis and find that it would be irrational for this (class of) player to not notice that diamonds are not yet established, that there are two lines available to him (the finesse and the squeeze), and that the squeeze line clearly offers the better chances. Even I, not squeeze expert, was able to work this one out withing five minutes of going to bed (in the dark without cards, that was). Just to make sure: declarer cashes hearts and clubs and opponents need to keep 4 cards, so an opponent with the SA and 4 diamonds to the jack cannot hold on to them. If the SA has not come, declarer plays four diamonds from the top. This wins with diamonds 3-3, jack doubleton, or jack fourth with the SA, clearly better than the 50% chance the finesse offers. Surely a world class player will make this analysis at the table. Surely he will offer this explanation at first asking (and yes, I know that this is technically too late for his claim statement). And just to make absolutely certain: if the player cannot offer this explanation as soon as possible, I do not award him the 13 tricks. > :-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 08:19:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:19:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20040601011755.00e14f18@ip-worldcom.ch> References: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> <3.0.6.32.20040601011755.00e14f18@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <40BC2DFC.5060400@hdw.be> Yvan Calame wrote: > At 01:07 01/06/2004 +0200, you wrote: > >>I think (but I'm no Squeeze expert) that this is a completely normal >>squeeze for a world class player to find. >>I accept that a player in 7NT with an ace out claims after seeing the >>non-ace led, and that it is not normal for him to play it out without >>checking all the possibilities. >>I award 13 tricks. >>Start flaming. > > > Do you give one more trick to a "world class" player who misscounted > his tricks than to a non-"world class" player ? > Yes I do. The laws clearly indicate that this is possible. I would never allow this claim to say, Herman De Wael, who often claims without fully counting his tricks. I would not be certain that Herman could find that squeeze within 2 seconds of realizing there was still a problem. If you think that is unfair, just imagine the hand is played out. The world class player will make it, Herman will go down. Do you think that is fair? > yvan > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jun 1 05:05:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 05:05:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? Message-ID: <068b01c4478d$ae30a180$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0688_01C44796.0ED01180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yesterday, in the Welsh Seniors Swiss, we were enjoying=20 our last match against a hitherto charming couple when the=20 following incident spoilt what had been a friendly weekend. =20 (1) As declarer, I perused LHO's beautiful computer-prepared CC=20 for Discarding methods and read "Count". I also asked about their discard system. RHO confirmed "Only count."=20 (2) At the end of the hand, opponents had a mild argument.=20 RHO told LHO that he had noticed her signal for the ace=20 of spades. Puzzled, I asked "How?" LHO said that that her=20 first discard, the spade nine, advertised a high card in=20 spades. (3) I asked why this had not been divulged to me. RHO explained that he thought I had asked about the meaning of a discard to=20 a later trick. (4) I asked RHO why "attitude" was not mentioned on their CC. RHO told me to "Shut up". (5) Since we appeared to have reached impasse, I called the TD. (6) The TD established the facts (as above). I simply requested that the TD ask opponents to change their CC. (7) The incident left opponents fuming; and my partner and I=20 confused and embarrassed. (8) The TD said he would consult his colleagues before returning=20 with his verdict. (9) A few boards later the event ended. We waited to watch the prize giving. As far as we know, no ruling was given and=20 our opponents left with their CC unaltered. Questions (some irrelevant to this event)...=20 A. In some local (and national) events, in spite of many=20 (suspected) infractions, few call the TD because it upsets=20 most opponents and disturbs busy TDs. During the above=20 incident, my partner advised me not to call the TD. Should=20 you really call the TD after all (alleged) infractions? B. I can understand players who take liberties to get even=20 with all their local rivals who seem to break the law with=20 impunity; but is failing to call the TD just reinforcing=20 this trend? =20 C. Then again, what about Richard's bunnies? =20 D. In simple cases like non-disclosure, is it incumbent on=20 all players to call the TD in case the opposing pair have=20 gained and continue to gain advantage against other pairs? =20 E. Or is this another case of "the field can protect itself"? F. In practice, how should a TD deal with rude behaviour? G. Do current laws put would-be players off bridge? Would the law be less of a bogey to players if it were less=20 chauvinist, subjective, sophisticated, and biased in favour=20 of experienced players and secretary birds? --- 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0688_01C44796.0ED01180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yesterday, in the Welsh Seniors Swiss, we = were enjoying 
our last match against=20 a hitherto charming couple when the =
following incident = spoilt what had been a friendly weekend.
 
(1) As declarer, I perused LHO's beautiful = computer-prepared CC 
    for Discarding=20 methods and read "Count". I also = asked
    about their discard = system. RHO=20 confirmed "Only count."
(2) At the end of the hand, opponents had a mild = argument.=20
    RHO told LHO that=20 he had noticed her=20 signal for the ace
    of spades. Puzzled, I=20 asked "How?"  LHO said that = that her=20
    first discard, the=20 spade nine, advertised a high card in =
    spades.
(3) I asked why this had not been divulged to = me.  RHO=20 explained
    that he thought = I had asked=20 about the meaning of a discard to
    a later trick.
(4) I asked RHO why "attitude" was = not mentioned=20 on their CC.
    RHO told me to "Shut = up".
(5) Since we appeared to have reached impasse, I = called the=20 TD.
(6) The TD established the facts (as=20 above). I simply requested
    that the TD ask opponents to change their=20 CC.
(7) The incident left opponents fuming; and my = partner=20 and I 
    confused and=20 embarrassed.
(8) The TD said he would = consult his colleagues before returning
    with his verdict.
(9) A few boards later the event ended. We waited to = watch=20 the
    prize giving.  As far as we = know, no=20 ruling was given and
    our opponents left with=20 their CC unaltered.
 
Questions (some irrelevant to=20 this event)... 
 
A. In some local = (and national)=20 events, in spite of many 
   (suspected) infractions, few=20 call the TD because it = upsets=20
   most opponents and disturbs busy=20 TDs.  During the above
   incident, my=20 partner advised me not to call the=20 TD. Should
   you really = call the TD after all (alleged) infractions?
 
B. I can understand=20 players who take liberties to get even=20
   with all their local rivals=20 who seem to break the = law with=20
   impunity; but=20 is failing to call=20 the TD just reinforcing =
   this trend?  
 
C. Then again, what about Richard's = bunnies?  
 
D. In simple cases like=20 non-disclosure, is it incumbent on =
   all players to call the TD in = case the=20 opposing pair have
   gained and = continue to=20 gain advantage against = other=20 pairs? 
 
E. Or is this another = case of "the field can protect = itself"?
 
F. In practice, how should a TD deal with rude=20 behaviour?
 
G. Do current laws put would-be players off=20 bridge? Would the
   law be less of a bogey to players if=20 it were less 
   chauvinist, subjective,=20 sophisticated, and biased in favour
   of experienced = players and secretary birds?
 
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus = Free.
Checked=20 by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: = 6.0.676 /=20 Virus Database: 438 - Release Date: = 03/05/2004
------=_NextPart_000_0688_01C44796.0ED01180-- From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Jun 1 09:22:46 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:22:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> <087201c44796$52fe98e0$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <003e01c447b1$a1057750$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > [Konrad Ciborowski] > > 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? > [Nigel] > I agree with the TDs that two down seems obvious. > What is the catch Konrad? > > The catch is... well, read Herman's e-mail first. Then, the correct answer at the exam was 7NTx =3D ("for a world class player the squeeze is automatic"). Quite astonishing to me. How can we assume that a player who has just proven that he can't count to thirteen actually can? World class or not - the player was so ecstatic that he hadn't been set from the start that he miscounted his tricks. As he had believed he had 13 tricks from the top he might as well have started by cashing the diamonds because what difference does it make if you have 13 top tricks? However Herman (and the top Polish TDs who prepared the questions) seem to assume that if there were no such thing as a claim declarer would obviously have turned into Mr. Cool in no time. I don't buy it - to me it is not irrational to cash 3 top diamonds for someone who believes he has the rest from the top. Regardless of his class. And I firmly believe that this player would go down from time to time taking into account the state of mind he was in. Jaap, who *is* a world class player, stated recently that screwing up the squeeze positions is by definition not irrational even for the cr=E8me de la cr=E8me. I hope he hasn't changed his mind since then. Jaap? At the very least this ruling means that if you are good it pays off to say as few as possible when claiming. Because if South said "I cash 3 diamonds, 3 hearts and my clubs and I have 13 tricks" Herman et al would happily rule one down; they would make the player follow his claim statement. So it looks that for the good players it is best to provide no statement at all - I don't see what reading of the laws might lead to that conclusion. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 1 09:42:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:42:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: <068b01c4478d$ae30a180$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000401c447b4$62f11a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> I have on several occasions been summoned for similar reasons and = without exception I have instructed the "offenders" to either complete the information in their CC or, if that is difficult for some technical = reason (writing on plastic cover, space limitation etc.) that they MUST = verbally make sure their opponents are aware of the missing information before beginning each round. When apparently needed I also inform both parties at the table that it = is never wrong to summon the Director (provided this is done properly); the Director is there to assist the players with anything that might appear = as a problem. In your case (assuming that the facts have not been twisted - and this = is not meant as any insult!) I would have warned your opponents that they = had conducted misinformation and that if their opponents had shown possible damage due to this I would have had to adjust the result. And I would require them to correct this misinformation immediately with effect for = all remaining rounds. I would not even have to consult with anybody when the discrepancy between the CC and their agreements was so obvious.=20 BTW. "Count" is in any case an incomplete declaration as is "Strength" = etc. The declaration must include the meaning of a high or a low card, an odd = or an even card, a low-high or a high-low sequence; whatever is relevant. Regards Sven =20 Nigel Guthrie wrote the following tale: Yesterday,=A0in the Welsh Seniors Swiss, we were enjoying=A0 our last match against a hitherto charming couple when=A0the=20 following=A0incident spoilt what had been a friendly weekend. =A0 (1) As declarer, I=A0perused=A0LHO's beautiful computer-prepared=A0CC=A0 =A0=A0=A0 for=A0Discarding methods and read "Count". I=A0also asked =A0=A0=A0 about=A0their discard system.=A0RHO confirmed "Only count."=20 (2) At the end of the hand, opponents had a mild argument.=20 =A0=A0=A0 RHO=A0told LHO that he had noticed her signal=A0for=A0the ace=20 =A0=A0=A0 of spades. Puzzled, I asked "How?"=A0 LHO=A0said that = that=A0her=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0first discard, the spade nine, advertised a high card in=20 =A0=A0=A0 spades. (3) I asked why this had not been divulged to me.=A0 RHO explained =A0=A0=A0=A0that=A0he thought I=A0had asked about the meaning of a = discard to=20 =A0=A0=A0 a later trick. (4) I asked RHO why=A0"attitude" was not=A0mentioned on=A0their CC. =A0=A0=A0 RHO told me to "Shut up". (5) Since we appeared to have reached impasse, I called the TD. (6)=A0The TD established the facts (as above).=A0I simply=A0requested =A0=A0=A0 that=A0the TD=A0ask=A0opponents to=A0change their CC. (7) The incident left opponents fuming; and=A0my partner and I=A0 =A0=A0=A0 confused and embarrassed. (8) The TD said he would consult his colleagues before=A0returning=20 =A0=A0=A0 with his verdict. (9) A few boards later the event ended. We waited to watch the =A0=A0=A0 prize giving.=A0 As far as we know, no ruling was given and=20 =A0=A0=A0 our opponents left with their CC unaltered. =A0 Questions (some irrelevant=A0to this=A0event)...=A0 =A0 A.=A0In some local (and=A0national) events, in spite of=A0many=A0 =A0=A0 (suspected) infractions, few call the TD because it upsets=20 =A0=A0=A0most opponents and disturbs busy TDs.=A0=A0During the above=20 =A0=A0 incident, my partner=A0advised me=A0not to=A0call the = TD.=A0Should=20 =A0=A0 you really call the TD after all (alleged) infractions? =A0 B. I can understand players who take liberties to get even=20 =A0=A0 with all their local rivals who=A0seem to break the law with=20 =A0=A0 impunity;=A0but is failing to call the TD=A0just reinforcing=20 =A0=A0 this trend?=A0=A0 =A0 C. Then again,=A0what about=A0Richard's bunnies? =A0 =A0 D. In simple cases=A0like non-disclosure,=A0is it incumbent on=20 =A0=A0 all players to call the TD=A0in case=A0the opposing pair=A0have=20 =A0=A0 gained and continue to gain=A0advantage against other pairs?=A0=20 =A0 E. Or is this another case of "the field can protect itself"? =A0 F. In practice, how should a TD deal with rude behaviour? =A0 G.=A0Do current laws put would-be players off bridge?=A0Would=A0the =A0=A0 law be less of a bogey to players if it=A0were less=A0 =A0=A0=A0chauvinist, subjective, sophisticated, and=A0biased in favour=20 =A0=A0 of experienced players and secretary birds? =A0 =A0 --- 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 CaryEngel@parkcity.ne.jp Tue Jun 1 10:42:01 2004 From: CaryEngel@parkcity.ne.jp (Stovall Vicky) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:42:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Prince Message-ID: Blml angelfish tenable scenario oxidate bop afterword prerequisite barbital amende fluorine clung gerhardt Image is Loading . . . .


Content not L'oading?
No D.o.c.t.o.r Needed, O.r.d.e.r H.e.r.e





blink gnaw crawl tarantara bus element potentiometer courageous desolate fitzroy asinine nihilist glimmer hickey interpolant codeposit ground hornet conakry wile citric bereft coffman brockle konrad smash delphinium intact hardboiled buffet columbus rodeo twice combat berwick spalding latex wise vasectomy barge kamchatka niagara stupefaction cloud swap retinue circumferential interpolatory implode han porosity riotous orestes spalding thermal accommodate portend affricate multiplet robin alp deferent fountain cheshire champagne haploidy brillouin cylindric desecrate acquit sleek warehouseman amethyst barber iconic gangway micron deane bstj southbound sweetheart antony botany gyro balance biddy particulate archibald jane concertmaster finite rube gut suicide alizarin committable associable absenteeism immaculate danielson extraditable delusive foible spectrogram antiperspirant reducible uracil seriatim smut adhere bagley lansing inextinguishable kapok caret populous hamilton bellyache jingle puppeteer knowhow bishopric trifluoride magisterial obsolescent ounce impracticable remunerate sial areaway polyhymnia catawba lutz arab eyeball bracket hijack sodden chowder averse reef bladder neolithic depot cuba kochab disciplinary imputation harpy zambia alcove gerhardt flaw turbulent spikenard equilibrium imagery sooth track slavish adorn loop academy oneself davison destabilize gulp carlo greenery pronounceable somali defiant denver bream appeal extroversion barberry violent miracle commonweal astrology skid colossi transoceanic athabascan wang cyclic botch merck mercenary intestinal soapy calendar pennyroyal togo wealthy perceptible xylene bidirectional dossier sandal clown gauleiter daphne dilemma spector embeddable blackbird northwest abbe demarcate quantico contemptible apport garry aden hedge aggravate finale die turret binaural athenian condominium parkland superfluous headquarter night throb symbiotic outrageous coincid ental hundredth linda fend injury octagonal turtle craggy concrete lynch awn ado phenomenology distributive proposition country cinematic hurrah saginaw callisto boa giddap eider babylon corduroy dyer function done inboard emaciate revive bernet plantain prefab charta thick cemetery chipboard duplicity acceptant posy supplant semper bel snoop h deprecatory catcall excoriate hilly santo bimetallic phoneme adolphus pacesetting phyla montana thought uprise inhuman humanoid platelet antigorite coattail prostitute trough grayish thirteen babysitter conspirator From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 10:38:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:38:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <003e01c447b1$a1057750$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> <087201c44796$52fe98e0$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <003e01c447b1$a1057750$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: <40BC4E97.7060908@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >>[Nigel] >>I agree with the TDs that two down seems obvious. >>What is the catch Konrad? >> >> >=20 >=20 > The catch is... well, read Herman's e-mail first. > Then, the correct answer at the exam was 7NTx =3D > ("for a world class player the squeeze is automatic"). Well, maybe that should teach you guys something. Herman is NOT alone. > Quite astonishing to me. > How can we assume that a player who has just proven > that he can't count to thirteen actually can? Because he has not proven this! He has claimed without considering the situation. He has not counted till thirteen. This does not prove he cannot. > World class or not - the player was so ecstatic > that he hadn't been set from the start > that he miscounted his tricks. No, that he failed to count them! > As he had believed he had 13 tricks from the top > he might as well have started by cashing > the diamonds because what difference does it make > if you have 13 top tricks? >=20 Konrad, have you never experienced the following: 1- 7NT 2- "let's wait to see what dummy brings down" 3- drum roll as dummy slowly appears ..... 4- all suits seem solid 5- thirteen tricks, ouff !! 6- let's count them again : 3 spades, 4 diamonds, 3 hearts and 4=20 clubs, ehmmm, that's not as solid as it looked from the first view 7- what shall we do about it - ahh, i see ... 8- playing a few tricks 9- 13 tricks made I believe this is a very rational way of thinking. Now sometimes, and quite wrongly, the player claims between items 5=20 and 6. That does not prove he cannot count to 13, if anything, it=20 proves he has not counted yet. Well, the laws state that you cannot impose on a player an irrational=20 line. Irrational lines include IMO playing without first checking if=20 there are no more problems. Now in most cases a player who claims before doing item 6 will suffer.=20 Because more often than not there will be more than one rational line=20 after item 7. And he should suffer from that. But sometimes there are no loosing rational lines. Those cases make=20 for good exam questions, but are rarely seen at the table. But you must accept that this is the correct answer to your exam question. > However Herman (and the top > Polish TDs who prepared the questions) > seem to assume > that if there were no such thing as a claim > declarer would obviously have turned into > Mr. Cool in no time. Well, it's the laws that impose on us nothing but "rational" lines. > I don't buy it - to me it is not irrational > to cash 3 top diamonds for someone > who believes he has the rest from the top. True, but this player did not believe he had everything from top. He=20 believed his contract was safe, but he had not yet checked to see if=20 it was. > Regardless of his class. > And I firmly believe that this player > would go down from time to time > taking into account the state of mind he was in. >=20 Maybe that is true, maybe that is not true. Only the TD and the AC can=20 rule on that one. > Jaap, who *is* a world class player, stated > recently that screwing up the squeeze positions > is by definition not irrational even for > the cr=E8me de la cr=E8me. I hope he hasn't changed his > mind since then. Jaap? >=20 I'm sure he hasn't. I'm also sure that he sees that any class player=20 (not even world class) cannot screw up this squeeze once he has seen=20 it's workings. Even I would make this contract, probably. > At the very least this ruling means that if you are good it pays > off to say as few as possible when claiming. No it does not. I'm sure this player would come to regret his decision to claim at=20 this point if even one card were lying differently. > Because if South said "I cash 3 diamonds, > 3 hearts and my clubs and I have 13 tricks" > Herman et al would happily rule one down; Of course we would, because that would be a declarer who had=20 miscounted his tricks. This one did not miscount them - he never=20 counted them in the first place! It's not a question of saying more or less - it's a question of=20 thinking more or less. If this declarer had refrained from claiming=20 when he did, he would have played off his contract just the same way.=20 Why, he might even have claimed it 2 minutes later without playing any=20 further: "I cash the hearts and the clubs, if the SA appears I'm home,=20 otherwise I play diamonds from the top. I win if diamonds are 3-3 or=20 if the jack appears or if you're squeezed". Full statement, completely OK. > they would make the player follow his claim > statement. So it looks that for the good players it is > best to provide no statement at all - Well, if this player had thought for 2 minutes, and would then have=20 claimed without the statement I mention above, I shall investigate=20 further to see what strange things were going on in his mind. But that would be an irrational claim. > I don't see what reading of the laws > might lead to that conclusion. >=20 the right one? >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jun 1 10:47:43 2004 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:47:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <08d601c44798$e34b9900$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <007101c447bd$7c5a4be0$536b2452@mikeamos> The catch is that Tds everywhere rule the contract down 2 but *$£*0&9$*s whos sit on appeal committees rule 7NT= :))))) (Herman is big enough to take the odd insult) Even world class players make verrrryy silllly mistakes (BB last board ????!!!) If you cannot count to 13 how the **** do you expect to be making 7NT? Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > [Konrad Ciborowski] > > 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? > [Nigel] > I agree with the TDs that two down seems obvious. > What is the catch Konrad? > > > > --- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 10:51:04 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:51:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BC4E97.7060908@hdw.be> References: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> <087201c44796$52fe98e0$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <003e01c447b1$a1057750$6a51fea9@ams.com> <40BC4E97.7060908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40BC5188.6000400@hdw.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > 6- let's count them again : 3 spades, 4 diamonds, 3 hearts and 4 clubs, this does not prove I cannot count to 13, just that I failed to re-read my own lines. Change the clubs into 2 please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nsousa@fc.up.pt Tue Jun 1 11:27:14 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:27:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam Message-ID: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CAE@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Hi all, Here's how I would rule the 7NT an ace off: Why didn't South refer to the squeeze when claiming? Wouldn't it be = normal for a world-class player, who's certainly proud of his skills, to = point out he'd execute an advanced manoever? I therefore judge it to be = more likely that declarer, still sweating from having escaped the spade = lead, rushed out to count his tricks and made a mistake due to the hasty = procedure. I should thus try and adjudicate a result. Given what South said, on = normal play, declarer would presumably cash out his tricks. While = noticing the squeeze is indeed relatively easy for an expert, that MAY = or MAY NOT happen after a top diamond is cashed. If it happens after, = the squeeze fails, and I must therefore give the benefit of doubt to the = defenders and award 7NT -1 (0+3+3+6 tricks). What do you think of the ruling? Regards, Nuno Sousa From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 11:34:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:34:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <007101c447bd$7c5a4be0$536b2452@mikeamos> References: <08d601c44798$e34b9900$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <007101c447bd$7c5a4be0$536b2452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <40BC5BAD.4060205@hdw.be> Mike, I would have expected otherwise from you! mamos wrote: > The catch is that Tds everywhere rule the contract down 2 but *$=A3*0&9= $*s > whos sit on appeal committees rule 7NT=3D >=20 > :))))) >=20 >=20 > (Herman is big enough to take the odd insult) I sure am. It's not the insult I mind, it's your inability to grasp=20 the reasoning here. > Even world class players make verrrryy silllly mistakes (BB last board > ????!!!) >=20 Indeed - but there are no silly mistakes after claiming. Even world class players revoke sometimes, yet we don't rule every=20 claim as if there had been a revoke. > If you cannot count to 13 how the **** do you expect to be making 7NT? >=20 But my point is that we find that this player never did count. He did=20 not miscount, he never counted at all! And if you don't see that this is the case in this (purely fictional)=20 exam question, then your english is even worse than the Poles'. Did you have another point that I overlooked? In this mail you only reiterated things that have been said 27 times=20 times and that are plainly wrong as the question was put. This player did not miscount! > Mike >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From joanandron@worldnet.att.net Tue Jun 1 11:38:37 2004 From: joanandron@worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 06:38:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Fall 2003 appeals casebook References: <000801c4473a$3b5c5a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004301c447c4$9ac17bb0$70224c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi All, Marvin..... you are quite right. Rich has done a competent, caring and dedicated job and he will be missed by everyone who not only enjoys reading our casebooks but actually learns from them. Adam..... Marvin's suggestion was a good one. It wouldn't prohibit your writing software. But it is not clear that Management is looking for anyone else to do this job. And last... Marvin's suggestion to write to Management and let them know how you feel would perhaps be a guide for their plans in the future. The contact person is: Rick Beye at: rick.beye@acbl.org Take care, Joan Gerard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Marvin French" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Fall 2003 appeals casebook > At 11:08 AM -0700 5/31/04, Marvin French wrote: > >the publication of casebooks is now a question mark. > > In an apparent effort to cut costs the ACBL has asked their Memphis > staff to edit the casebooks. Work is underway on the Reno casebook. > > >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. > > No doubt this couldn't hurt. > > >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. > > Marvin, I thought you liked me! > > Seriously, I doubt the job would suit me. I enjoy writing software too much. > > -- > 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 hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 11:43:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:43:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CAE@MAIL.fc.up.pt> References: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CAE@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <40BC5DEF.3040600@hdw.be> This is the most correct ruling I have read thus far, from those that ended up in a different result than 13 tricks. Well Done, Nuno. However: Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa wrote: > Hi all, Here's how I would rule the 7NT an ace off: > > Why didn't South refer to the squeeze when claiming? That is indeed a very important question! The most important one, I should think. > Wouldn't it be normal for a world-class player, who's certainly proud > of his skills, to point out he'd execute an advanced manoever? Yes, that would be normal. But when he doesn't, does that prove he did not notice the squeeze, or that he did not take the time to look for it? > I therefore judge it to be more likely that declarer, still sweating > from having escaped the spade lead, rushed out to count his tricks > and made a mistake due to the hasty procedure. If that is your judgment, then your ruling is correct. However, I have another question for you then: "Do you think it is normal for a world class player, to count this hand and arrive at 13 top tricks?" Now if you think that is normal, then OK, by all means, rule 12 tricks. I for one don't believe it is normal, and I choose to believe something else happened: the player did not count at all! > > I should thus try and adjudicate a result. Given what South said, > on normal play, declarer would presumably cash out his tricks. > While noticing the squeeze is indeed relatively easy for an expert, > that MAY or MAY NOT happen after a top diamond is cashed. > If it happens after, the squeeze fails, and I must therefore > give the benefit of doubt to the defenders and award > 7NT -1 (0+3+3+6 tricks). As I said, that is correct, given your assumption that declarer miscounted his tricks. Don't you agree that this is (almost) equally unlikely as him not noticing the squeeze? > > What do you think of the ruling? > > Regards, > Nuno Sousa > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 1 11:45:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:45:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CAE@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <000701c447c5$8f856530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa > Hi all, Here's how I would rule the 7NT an ace off: >=20 > Why didn't South refer to the squeeze when claiming? Wouldn't it be = normal > for a world-class player, who's certainly proud of his skills, to = point > out he'd execute an advanced manoever? I therefore judge it to be more > likely that declarer, still sweating from having escaped the spade = lead, > rushed out to count his tricks and made a mistake due to the hasty > procedure. >=20 > I should thus try and adjudicate a result. Given what South said, on > normal play, declarer would presumably cash out his tricks. While = noticing > the squeeze is indeed relatively easy for an expert, that MAY or MAY = NOT > happen after a top diamond is cashed. If it happens after, the squeeze > fails, and I must therefore give the benefit of doubt to the defenders = and > award 7NT -1 (0+3+3+6 tricks). >=20 > What do you think of the ruling? I would rule exactly the same way. The more of an expert the more I = expect him to point out the essentials with his claim. So when he fails to = mention the word "squeeze" I rule that he failed to notice the need for a = squeeze with his claim until it was too late. And it is not irrational to begin cashing the high Diamonds before = realizing that you need a squeeze when you believe you have 13 "Aces". (Having 13 "Aces" was in fact what he really stated with his claim). Experts do make errors, silly and even irrational errors (ref BB!). The Director and AC are not there to protect the experts from making errors; they are there to allow them the possibility of failing when they = present an incomplete claim statement. Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jun 1 11:56:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BBBAA1.7070806@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I think (but I'm no Squeeze expert) that this is a completely normal > squeeze for a world class player to find. Come off it. As East my first discard is ST, my second the D6, I then chuck small cards under no apparent pressure (S9, S3, D7, S2) while pard chucks the majors. and even a world class declarer will get this wrong some of the time. Tim From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 1 11:57:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:57:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BC5BAD.4060205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c447c7$2ff9caa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > > Even world class players make verrrryy silllly mistakes (BB last = board > > ????!!!) > > >=20 > Indeed - but there are no silly mistakes after claiming. Why not?=20 > Even world class players revoke sometimes, yet we don't rule every > claim as if there had been a revoke. There is a difference between an illegal play and a silly play. =20 > > If you cannot count to 13 how the **** do you expect to be making = 7NT? > > >=20 > But my point is that we find that this player never did count. He did > not miscount, he never counted at all! Exactly. And the result was that he claimed having 13 top tricks in = which case the sequence in cashing his 13 tricks is immaterial. It is now = inferior but not irrational play even by an expert to begin cashing his 6 tricks = in Diamonds only to discover that he has just 3. If your logic were sound I feel that the best strategy for any player = (and in particular for any famous expert) would be to claim just after the opening lead on every board and leave it to the Director and AC to sort = out what would be his "normal" play. That strategy would protect him from = making (silly) mistakes, but this is IMO definitely not the job for any = Director or AC. Regards Sven=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 12:50:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:50:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40BC6D74.7010702@hdw.be> Well Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>I think (but I'm no Squeeze expert) that this is a completely normal >>squeeze for a world class player to find. > > > Come off it. As East my first discard is ST, my second the D6, I then > chuck small cards under no apparent pressure (S9, S3, D7, S2) while pard > chucks the majors. and even a world class declarer will get this wrong > some of the time. > you're saying that you're trying to induce the player to go for the finesse after all? OK. So maybe that's an argument in favour of not allowing the claim. But then tell me this, Tim. Suppose your declarer claims after the lead and tells you he's going to play the diamonds from the top after executing the squeeze - would you give it to him - or would you also rule that opponents might play as you do trying to induce declarer to still change his mind and take the diamond finesse? But really Tim, you dissapoint me. Here I am, once again, all alone in speaking out for what turns out to be the correct ruling (the Polish federation is not the worst in the world). You seem to agree with me on the basics of the ruling, and only want to discuss some further point of it. You have a valid point, and you may in the end win the AC over. Why then don't you, for once, start your collaboration with "basically I agree with Herman, but ...". Sometimes I feel that I'm alone in defending the "correct" view to a gang of morons who refuse to listen to arguments and who have chased off all the other sensible people from this list. (and the non-morons, as well as the morons, will know in what class they are). > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 1 12:55:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:55:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000801c447c7$2ff9caa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c447c7$2ff9caa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40BC6EAB.8010902@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ......... > >>>Even world class players make verrrryy silllly mistakes (BB last board >>>????!!!) >>> >> >>Indeed - but there are no silly mistakes after claiming. > > > Why not? > because the law says so! > >>Even world class players revoke sometimes, yet we don't rule every >>claim as if there had been a revoke. > > > There is a difference between an illegal play and a silly play. > I know, but I was just trying to make you see sense that your sentence is just as silly as mine is illegal. > >>>If you cannot count to 13 how the **** do you expect to be making 7NT? >>> >> >>But my point is that we find that this player never did count. He did >>not miscount, he never counted at all! > > > Exactly. And the result was that he claimed having 13 top tricks in which > case the sequence in cashing his 13 tricks is immaterial. It is now inferior > but not irrational play even by an expert to begin cashing his 6 tricks in > Diamonds only to discover that he has just 3. > I give up. You refuse to understand. > If your logic were sound I feel that the best strategy for any player (and > in particular for any famous expert) would be to claim just after the > opening lead on every board and leave it to the Director and AC to sort out > what would be his "normal" play. That strategy would protect him from making > (silly) mistakes, but this is IMO definitely not the job for any Director or > AC. > You have, again, stepped into the blml trap. No it is not better to claim every board after the lead and let the TD settle it. Because you will, in all cases, get the worst of all normal lines. But every once in a while, all normal lines lead to 13 tricks. As here. Those cases are very rare, even more rare in real play than in TD exams, but when such cases come up, they end up on blml. Where a bunch of know-it-alls start bashing at the laws for allowing a declarer off with the same 13 tricks he would have got all the time. As I said, I give up. But don't let that foor any of the interested listeners into thinking the morons have won. This claimer ends up with 13 tricks. In any AC with sensible people on board. And yes, if you want to interpret this as meaning that you're not sensible if you don't award 13 tricks here, then please accept that I do mean it as such. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From dpb3@fastmail.fm Tue Jun 1 13:16:41 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:16:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: 7.5 tables In-Reply-To: <20040601072717.937.97704.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040601072717.937.97704.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1086092201.22586.197533349@webmail.messagingengine.com> Richard and list, > > Richard James Hills: > The implied ACBL policy of having only one > winner in a non-arrowswitched one session > Mitchell movement is theoretically unsound. > Without an arrowswitch, the North-South and > East-West fields are comparing results with > totally distinct opponents. Yes. The H8ROVER movement is fundamentally flawed in that it must be one-winner--one has to score the rover pair somehow--yet it does not have the arrow switch needed to make it theoretically tenable. I could add the arrow-switch, but then many of the players are in unfamiliar territory (literally), and I can't forestall a discussion with "ACBL says so", because they don't. A curiosity here is that ACBL shows no bias against arrow switches otherwise; ACBLscore comes with a slew of Scrambled Mitchells. ( None of them switches only the last round, but let's not go there. ;-| ) What I expect I will do is tout a 7-table Mitchell with a rover. It's a 4-board sit-out but at least everyone plays 24+. An 8-table Mitchell with a phantom relay works, with only a 3-board sit-out, but then EW play only 21. I'll be playing later today and will ask around about what people are used to and might like. They may be playing 21 without knowing there's an alternative. A Howell offers the necessary 3 stationaries (for us) but the folks do prefer Mitchells. David Babcock Florida USA From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 1 13:38:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:38:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BC6EAB.8010902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .......... > >>>Even world class players make verrrryy silllly mistakes (BB last = board > >>>????!!!) > >>> > >> > >>Indeed - but there are no silly mistakes after claiming. > > > > > > Why not? > > >=20 > because the law says so! If you always consider any silly mistake equivalent to irrational play = then I agree. But I (and many with me) do not consider these terms = equivalent. =20 > > > >>Even world class players revoke sometimes, yet we don't rule every > >>claim as if there had been a revoke. > > > > > > There is a difference between an illegal play and a silly play. > > >=20 > I know, but I was just trying to make you see sense that your sentence > is just as silly as mine is illegal. >=20 > > > >>>If you cannot count to 13 how the **** do you expect to be making = 7NT? > >>> > >> > >>But my point is that we find that this player never did count. He = did > >>not miscount, he never counted at all! > > > > > > Exactly. And the result was that he claimed having 13 top tricks in > which > > case the sequence in cashing his 13 tricks is immaterial. It is now > inferior > > but not irrational play even by an expert to begin cashing his 6 = tricks > in > > Diamonds only to discover that he has just 3. > > >=20 > I give up. You refuse to understand. Indeed. And I don't feel alone.=20 The whole case hinges on the question on whether we consider it = irrational for a player who according to his own statement believes he has 13 top tricks to ignore the possible need for a squeeze (or other advanced = lines of play) when he claims with no indication that he is aware of such possibility. In this case I would without hesitation accepted the claim had declarer mentioned the word squeeze or stated in any way that he would first cash = his tricks in Clubs and Hearts before playing Diamonds from the top. I = wouldn't even require him to having added the words "unless the Ace of Spades is discarded". As he just stated that he had 13 (top) tricks I would rule that a = "normal" (but indeed inferior) line of play could be to begin cashing his = Diamonds.=20 We all know the declarers who at the moment of dispute say: "But of = course I would ......". I don't know how they handle such statements in other regions; in Norway = we know them too well to accept such afterthoughts unless we feel = absolutely convinced that "of course, that is the only real way to play cards even = for a tired, exhausted player". And as you accepted (I believe): Why on earth did declarer not in any = way indicate the possibility for needing a squeeze? =20 ........ > But don't let that foor any of the interested listeners into thinking > the morons have won. This claimer ends up with 13 tricks. In any AC > with sensible people on board. I don't think many Norwegian ACs would award him more than 12, but then again I don't think many Norwegian Directors or ACs would be involved = with top class players failing to mention the possible need for a squeeze in = this situation. The absence of such a remark would to most of us be = conclusive I think. > And yes, if you want to interpret this as meaning that you're not > sensible if you don't award 13 tricks here, then please accept that I > do mean it as such. Thanks for the flattery Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Jun 1 14:11:30 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:11:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <000801c447c7$2ff9caa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BC6EAB.8010902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00a401c447d9$f9819170$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>Herman De Wael > > > > ......... > > > >>>Even world class players make verrrryy silllly mistakes (BB last bo= ard > >>>????!!!) > >>> > >> > >>Indeed - but there are no silly mistakes after claiming. > > > > > > Why not? > > > > because the law says so! OK, let's stop right here. If you consider "a silly mistake" an irrational play then to me it follows that the term "careless" has no meaning for you whatsoever. Declarer's action is something I would call a piece of carelessness - that is the word that first comes to my mind. What declarer did wasn't irrational at all - it is not irrational to claim in this position for someone who believes he has 13 top tricks. What would be an example of careless play for a world class player according to your understanding of these words? Please provide an example. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Jun 1 14:35:40 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:35:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <08d601c44798$e34b9900$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <007101c447bd$7c5a4be0$536b2452@mikeamos> <40BC5BAD.4060205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001801c447dd$cbb619b0$e9f7f0c3@LNV> Herman: But my point is that we find that this player never did count. He did not miscount, he never counted at all! And if you don't see that this is the case in this (purely fictional) exam question, then your english is even worse than the Poles'. Did you have another point that I overlooked? In this mail you only reiterated things that have been said 27 times times and that are plainly wrong as the question was put. This player did not miscount! ton: You seem to know what the player did instead? You seem to suggest that he counted till 12 and then knew that he would make 13. No, he didn't count to 12 either, he never counted at all, you say. His suits were so long and powerful that he got the impression to have at least 13 tricks. Is that what you say? Don't blame others for not accepting this way of playing bridge and claiming. . Being quite liberal in clumsy claims myself, which I think is the intention of the laws, I would not accept this one. The question whether to decide -1 or -2 is hardly important but the TD has to decide something. I tend to award -1. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jun 1 15:02:16 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:02:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601092815.021d1970@pop.starpower.net> At 05:23 PM 5/31/04, Konrad wrote: > 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? Down one. This may be a "world class declarer", but he apparently cannot count his top tricks. He is presumed to cash his top tricks in the least advantageous order. He will not (presumptively) "wake up" to the fact that he has only 12 top tricks until he has (prematurely) cashed the D AKQ and "noticed" that the J has not fallen. At that point, the best he can do is cash out for down one, which I will "allow" him to do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jun 1 17:06:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BC6D74.7010702@hdw.be> Message-ID: H Herman, > Suppose your declarer claims after the lead and tells you he's going > to play the diamonds from the top after executing the squeeze - would > you give it to him - or would you also rule that opponents might play > as you do trying to induce declarer to still change his mind and take > the diamond finesse? Of course I give it to him - the stated line works. Indeed I'd give it to declarer who showed his hand and said to East "playing you for DJ", or even one who said "3H, 6C and the Diamonds" (I rule such a player would notice a SA discard and, beyond doubt, wake up). But I ain't giving a declarer who can work out that it is a squeeze/finesse position the benefit of the doubt. Now if declarer was merely competent (rather than world class) my judgement might differ. In reality I would consult with some rather better players than myself and might discover a reason why declarer would not consider a finesse - I would expect a "pass" answer to this question in the exam - regardless of the Polish answer. Tim From jrhind@therock.bm Tue Jun 1 17:11:38 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:11:38 -0300 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: Much has been said about declarer finessing the diamond and therefore going down 2. This seems to me not to be a reasonable line of play. Most players, IMHO, would play for the squeeze. Since there are ways to play the hand tha= t make the squeeze unsuccessful, I would award declarer only 12 tricks on thi= s hand. Regards, Jack Rhind On 5/31/04 6:23 PM, "Konrad Ciborowski" wrote: >=20 > Hi everyone, >=20 > A very serious TD exam somewhere in the > middle of Europe. Here is one of the 14 hurdles > the participants had to take: >=20 >=20 > 6 > K75 > AKQ1054 > K75 > J875 A10932 > J10982 64 > 83 J976 > 86 43 > KQ4 > AQ3 > 2 > AQJ1092 >=20 > 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? >=20 >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Tue Jun 1 18:30:18 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:30:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status Message-ID: I took Joan Gerard's advice and emailed Rick Beye, expressing concern about the ACBL's plans for future casebooks, and about the status of former editor Rich Colker. Rick immediately called me on the telephone! He berated me for describing Colker has having been "fired" by the ACBL. According to him, what has happened is that the ACBL Board of Directors decided to start putting the job of Casebook editor out for bids (an unusual procedure for literary work!), and Colker declined to submit a bid. On the other hand, he indicated that the Board had not yet decided on the format for future Casebooks; it is not clear how one could bid on such an ill-defined project. Beye also stated that he had offered, to several BLMLers, to make all the cases from the Reno NABC available to them, and that they had declined. (He refused to name them.) Beye invited me to post this. He did not indicate why he did not want to do it himself. Perhaps we should not lament the Casebooks. If the ACBL will just make the cases available, discussion groups like BLML can surely supply adequate commentary. Jim Hudson DeKalb, IL, USA From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 1 19:11:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c44803$e6831ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jack A. Rhind ....... > Most players, IMHO, would play for the squeeze.=20 > Since there are ways to play the hand that make > the squeeze unsuccessful, I would award declarer > only 12 tricks on this hand. I believe this statement requires some explanation? With the following cards at his disposal: > > 6 > > K75 > > AKQ1054 > > K75 > > J875 A10932 > > J10982 64 > > 83 J976 > > 86 43 > > KQ4 > > AQ3 > > 2 > > AQJ1092 > > South really has only one squeeze position possible: > > - > > - > > AKQ10 > > - > > ? ? > > KQ4 > > - > > 2 > > - A player that claims all tricks on a squeeze cannot be assumed to fail = this. (But a player who just claims without making any note of a squeeze shall = not be given this end position because he could as well start cashing his = high Diamonds early in the play believing that he had all the tricks from = top). Regards Sven From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Tue Jun 1 19:40:58 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:40:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pre-emptive raise Message-ID: Since I'm relatively inexperienced, it's anybody's guess what I'll do. The LAs are Pass and 4C. >>> "Wayne Burrows" 5/30/2004 1:12:11 AM >>> 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 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 1 23:35:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:35:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: 7.5 tables In-Reply-To: <1086092201.22586.197533349@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Jun 1, 2004, at 08:16 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: > A Howell offers the necessary 3 stationaries (for us) > but the folks do prefer Mitchells. Heh. We were discussing movements at the club the other day, and the subject of "strange" (i.e., not a simple Mitchell or, in a pinch, a basic Howell) movements came up. One woman objected to such movements because, she said, "I don't come here to think"! From jrhind@therock.bm Wed Jun 2 00:09:27 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:09:27 -0300 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000001c44803$e6831ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: You are quite correct Sven. I was considering that a player could concievably play the hand to this end position: - Kx 10 - ? A ? - ? Jx K Ax - - And then there is no squeeze. Regards, Jack On 6/1/04 3:11 PM, "Sven Pran" wrote: > Jack A. Rhind > ....... >> Most players, IMHO, would play for the squeeze. >> Since there are ways to play the hand that make >> the squeeze unsuccessful, I would award declarer >> only 12 tricks on this hand. > > I believe this statement requires some explanation? > > With the following cards at his disposal: >>> 6 >>> K75 >>> AKQ1054 >>> K75 >>> J875 A10932 >>> J10982 64 >>> 83 J976 >>> 86 43 >>> KQ4 >>> AQ3 >>> 2 >>> AQJ1092 >>> > South really has only one squeeze position possible: >>> - >>> - >>> AKQ10 >>> - >>> ? ? >>> KQ4 >>> - >>> 2 >>> - > > A player that claims all tricks on a squeeze cannot be assumed to fail this. > > (But a player who just claims without making any note of a squeeze shall not > be given this end position because he could as well start cashing his high > Diamonds early in the play believing that he had all the tricks from top). > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 01:23:22 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:23:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] The road to hell is paved with good conventions Message-ID: ACBL New Orleans casebook, appeal 36 Event: Stratified IMP Pairs, 23 Nov 03, Evening (Only) Session Bd: 11, Dlr: South, Vul: None 87 AJ6 J652 J963 KT65 A9432 K95 QT43 AKQ8 T973 AT --- QJ 872 4 KQ87542 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 2D(1) Pass 2S(2) Dbl 3C 4C 5C Pass Pass Dbl Pass 5C Pass Pass Pass (1) 18-19 HCP, balanced, or a good 3-level minor-suit preempt. (2) Denied four spades. The Facts: 5S went down one, +50 for N/S. The opening lead was the CK. The Director was called after the 2D bid and determined that this use of a 2D opening was not permitted on the GCC (in use for this event) and N/S were therefore playing an illegal convention. As per ACBL procedure in such situations, he allowed the auction and play to proceed and stood ready to protect E/W if damage resulted. E/W, a 0-200 pair, thought they should not have had to digest a new system and defense. They also noted that facing this new method was disconcerting and left them less well equipped to deal with this hand. North had about 1780 MP, South 1920, East 180 and West 80. If you were an ACBL TD, how would you rule? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 01:49:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:49:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Committee Message-ID: ACBL Laws Commission minutes: [snip] >The Commission expressed no strong feelings on the >WBF Drafting Committee proposal to amend Law 42B2 >to allow dummy to attempt to prevent an >irregularity by defenders as well as declarer if >he so chooses. [snip] Richard James Hills: Oops. When I am a member of the declaring side, I have a habit of attempting to prevent a defender from perpetrating an opening lead out-of-turn. I did not realise that my action was legal only if I was declarer, but illegal if I was dummy. On the other hand, what is the legality of this sequence? -> (a) I am dummy, and illegally warn a defender not to perpetrate an opening lead out-of-turn, (b) the defender could not react before the opening lead out-of-turn is consummated, (c) partner exercises their Law 54A option to force me to switch to being declarer, then (d) since I am now declarer, has my illegal warning of a defender become retrospectively legal? Best wishes RJH From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Jun 2 01:38:19 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:38:19 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] The road to hell is paved with good conventions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Event: Stratified IMP Pairs, 23 Nov 03, > Bd: 11, Dlr: South, Vul: None > 87 > AJ6 > J652 > J963 > KT65 A9432 > K95 QT43 > AKQ8 T973 > AT --- > QJ > 872 > 4 > KQ87542 [5SE-1 after artificial 2D opening by South] I am going to adjust to 5CX-3. The irregularity is the 2D opening. The usual GCC-legal auction would start 3C-3NT or 3C-X, after which I think there's at least a 1/3 chance of bidding spades at the 4-level and choosing to defend at the 5-level. So, for me, 5CX meets the "likely" and "at all probable" criteria. If another director judged that North was always going to raise to 5C immediately even over 3NT, I would understand a ruling of no adjustment, since East is unlikely to sit with a void if he has had no chance at all to show his hand below the 5-level. If EW came from a background where they would be expected to know how to defend mutli-type preempts, ruling No Damage becomes clearer. (Note for non-ACBL members: we have few enough Mid-Chart events, and few enough people who play Mid-Chart conventions when they are allowed, that it's quite possible to rack up several thousand masterpoints without ever encountering this kind of opening. I don't think you can automatically rule No Damage against an EW pair just because they happen to be Flight A.) I'm sure many in the ACBL would assign a PP for the illegal convention. We've had the "is it right to assign a PP only if you don't adjust the score?" argument before and I won't start it again. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 02:27:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:27:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] >(4) I asked RHO why=A0"attitude" was not=A0mentioned on=A0their CC. > RHO told me to "Shut up". >(5) Since we appeared to have reached impasse, I called the TD. [snip] >(8) The TD said he would consult his colleagues before > =A0returning with his verdict. >(9) A few boards later the event ended. We waited to watch the > prize giving.=A0 As far as we know, no ruling was given and > our opponents left with their CC unaltered. > >Questions (some irrelevant=A0to this=A0event)... > >A.=A0In some local (and=A0national) events, in spite of=A0many > (suspected) infractions, few call the TD because it upsets > most opponents and disturbs busy TDs.=A0=A0During the above > incident, my partner=A0advised me=A0not to=A0call the TD.=A0Should > you really call the TD after all (alleged) infractions? Richard James Hills -> Not necessarily. The TD should only have been summoned if: (a) Nigel thought that the opponents' infraction of Law 75 had damaged Nigel's partnership on that board or on a previous board, or, (b) Nigel's enjoyment of the game was interfered with due to his annoyance or embarrassment caused by RHO's "Shut up". If neither (a) nor (b) applied, then a more appropriate decision for Nigel to take would be to refer the matter to the Welsh Law and Ethics Committee. [snip] Nigel Guthrie: >F. In practice, how should a TD deal with rude behaviour? Richard James Hills: Severely and consistently. Ignoring rude behaviour is a major failing of minor TDs. On the other hand, only one side of the story has been related. It is possible that Nigel's RHO may have gained the impression (correct or otherwise) that Nigel was perpetrating an officious, rude and Secretary Birdish interrogation of RHO's methods. If RHO did gain such an impression (correct or otherwise) that Nigel was an officious and rude Secretary Bird, then RHO may have thought that saying the rude "Shut up" was a justified retaliation for prior rudeness. Of course, if that was RHO's reasoning, I totally disagree. No matter what the provocation, rudeness is never justified. Now if only I could abide by my own advice. :-) Best wishes RJH= From mustikka@charter.net Wed Jun 2 03:42:41 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:42:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention References: Message-ID: <001501c4484b$47ed5620$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> [Snipped some] > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 2D(1) > Pass 2S(2) Dbl 3C > 4C 5C Pass Pass > Dbl Pass 5C Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) 18-19 HCP, balanced, or a good 3-level > minor-suit preempt. > (2) Denied four spades. > > The Facts: 5S went down one, +50 for N/S. > The opening lead was the CK. > > The Director was called after the 2D bid > and determined that this use of a 2D > opening was not permitted on the GCC (in > use for this event) and N/S were therefore > playing an illegal convention. As per ACBL > procedure in such situations, he allowed > the auction and play to proceed and stood > ready to protect E/W if damage resulted. ******** The 2D conventional opening that this pair used is not allowed at any level of play in the ACBL, not even the Super Chart as far as I can tell reading the charts. So to say "not allowed under GCC" is misleading, when in fact it is not allowed. Period. Maybe the TD's words were misquoted, or the TD didn't check the charts, or Richard misquoted, or I am reading the chart wrong. Something is amiss somewhere. As to any ruling, I am not a TD and not qualified to suggest one. However, I do have an opinion. Feel free to laugh at it, or prove that it is not in accordance with laws, but from a non law experts's point of view, the following seems reasonable. I think a PP for use of illegal convention should clearly be in order. Regarding 5S going down, I don't know how it can possibly go down but apparently it went down...perhaps because the declarer was not-so-good, inexperienced, made errors, or whatever description one might use. In any case, the result seems to reflect the declarer's ability to play a hand so I would leave the result unchanged for them, why should they get away for butchering a hand just because there was an infraction by the opponents? Isn't there a requirement to continue to play bridge in order to be eligible for score adustment? Going down in 5S IMO qualifies as "no longer playing bridge". But the OS should have their score adjusted to the worst likely result had there been no infraction, in addition to the PP assigned to them. Raija Davis ******** > > E/W, a 0-200 pair, thought they should not > have had to digest a new system and > defense. They also noted that facing this > new method was disconcerting and left them > less well equipped to deal with this hand. > > North had about 1780 MP, South 1920, East > 180 and West 80. > > If you were an ACBL TD, how would you rule? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jun 2 04:50:31 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 22:50:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Committee Message-ID: >From the Laws of Duplicate, Definitions: "Dummy 1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced." You may warn an opponent not to lead out of turn, because at that time you are not yet dummy. >>> 6/1/2004 7:49:06 PM >>> ACBL Laws Commission minutes: [snip] >The Commission expressed no strong feelings on the >WBF Drafting Committee proposal to amend Law 42B2 >to allow dummy to attempt to prevent an >irregularity by defenders as well as declarer if >he so chooses. [snip] Richard James Hills: Oops. When I am a member of the declaring side, I have a habit of attempting to prevent a defender from perpetrating an opening lead out-of-turn. I did not realise that my action was legal only if I was declarer, but illegal if I was dummy. On the other hand, what is the legality of this sequence? -> (a) I am dummy, and illegally warn a defender not to perpetrate an opening lead out-of-turn, (b) the defender could not react before the opening lead out-of-turn is consummated, (c) partner exercises their Law 54A option to force me to switch to being declarer, then (d) since I am now declarer, has my illegal warning of a defender become retrospectively legal? Best wishes RJH _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 07:40:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:40:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Blml on blmlers (was A question) Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >Why then don't you, for once, start your collaboration >with "basically I agree with Herman, but ...". > >Sometimes I feel that I'm alone in defending the >"correct" view to a gang of morons who refuse to >listen to arguments and who have chased off all the >other sensible people from this list. > >(and the non-morons, as well as the morons, will know >in what class they are). Richard James Hills: Basically I agree with Herman that there is a lack of diversity on blml. But..... It seems to me that Herman and I are the Dynamic Duo of morons who refuse to listen to arguments, and we have chased other sensible people off blml because we have clogged their email boxes with our numerous moronic postings. Sorry about that. And further apologies for further clogging blml email with *this* moronic posting. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 2 07:48:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:48:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status Message-ID: [snip] >Beye also stated that he had offered, to several BLMLers, to make all >the cases from the Reno NABC available to them, and that they had >declined. (He refused to name them.) > >Beye invited me to post this. He did not indicate why he did not want >to do it himself. > >Perhaps we should not lament the Casebooks. If the ACBL will just make >the cases available, discussion groups like BLML can surely supply >adequate commentary. > >Jim Hudson >DeKalb, IL, USA If Rick Beye renews his offer to forward the cases from the Reno NABC to blml for discussion, then I will volunteer to collate the blml commentaries on the Reno NABC cases into one document. The ACBL casebooks have been useful for TDs across the world, not merely ACBL-resident TDs. Best wishes Richard James Hills President, Bridge Federation of the Australian Capital Territory From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 08:58:56 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:58:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40BD88C0.8010806@hdw.be> Hello Tim, strange really: Tim West-Meads wrote: > H Herman, > > >>Suppose your declarer claims after the lead and tells you he's going >>to play the diamonds from the top after executing the squeeze - would >>you give it to him - or would you also rule that opponents might play >>as you do trying to induce declarer to still change his mind and take >>the diamond finesse? > > > Of course I give it to him - the stated line works. But isn't that the same as me ruling that the Polish declarer would also execute the squeeze. You replied to that that opponents could foil this by clever discarding. May I repeat my point of view on the original: it is clear to me that this player never counted his tricks before claiming. I believe it is irrational for a player to not count his tricks before playing, I believe it is irrational for a player of any class not to notice that he does not have 13 tricks, and I believe it is irrational for a player of this class not to notice that there is a squeeze, and that this is a clearly superior line than the finesse. Therefor, I rule that he playes for the squeeze and makes his contract. I don't see any difference then between this player and one who claims stating he shall play for the squeeze. Now you say that clever discarding might detract a player who is going for the squeeze to still opt for the finesse later. Yet you do this only for the player who has said nothing (but for whom I impose the squeeze line), and not for the player who has stated he'll go for the squeeze. Was I wrong then in thinking you agreed with me, basically? > Indeed I'd give it to > declarer who showed his hand and said to East "playing you for DJ", or I would too, provided that statement could be considered equal to the squeeze statement (I believe it can). > even one who said "3H, 6C and the Diamonds" (I rule such a player would > notice a SA discard and, beyond doubt, wake up). I would not. It depends. If the statement is such that the order of the suits is intended, then that is again equal to the squeeze statement. But if that statement merely gives the number of tricks, without implying the order (as is most common), then I rule that this declarer has miscounted to 13 and I won't allow him to wake up in time. Notice that this last case is quite different from the original one. In the original, I ruled that claimer had not counted at all, in this one I rule that he has counted, and miscounted. > But I ain't giving a > declarer who can work out that it is a squeeze/finesse position the > benefit of the doubt. Well, that is where you are wrong. Well, actually, you are not. Of course we don't give any claimer the benefit of the doubt. (In the original, I am in no doubt that declarer would discover the squeeze, once he starts looking more closely at the cards than what he has done so far). So your statement above is really non-sensical. If you intend it to mean something like "I don't give a declarer a squeeze line if he hasn't said so in advance", then you are simply wrong. The laws clearly state that a claimer is entitled to the benefit of an unstated line if all other lines are deemed irrational. That is what I rule. > Now if declarer was merely competent > (rather than world class) my judgement might differ. In reality I would > consult with some rather better players than myself and might discover a > reason why declarer would not consider a finesse - I would expect a "pass" > answer to this question in the exam - regardless of the Polish answer. > I don't understand this. You don't give it to a world class player, but you do give it to a merely competent one? Why should a merely competent player be allowed to claim without checking, and a world class one not? > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 09:00:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:00:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40BD8933.2040607@hdw.be> Sorry Sven, you're way off line here - Sven Pran wrote: >>>> >>>>Indeed - but there are no silly mistakes after claiming. >>> >>> >>>Why not? >>> >> >>because the law says so! > > > If you always consider any silly mistake equivalent to irrational play then > I agree. But I (and many with me) do not consider these terms equivalent. > Of course a silly mistake (like ruffing your own ace) is an irrational play. At least that's what I understand in the word "silly". If you use another definition for the word silly mistake, then this discussion is over. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 09:21:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:21:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>I give up. You refuse to understand. > > > Indeed. And I don't feel alone. > > The whole case hinges on the question on whether we consider it irrational > for a player who according to his own statement believes he has 13 top > tricks to ignore the possible need for a squeeze (or other advanced lines of > play) when he claims with no indication that he is aware of such > possibility. > You are equating the words "believes he has 13 top tricks" with "has counted 13 top tricks". Those are not the same. I agree with a statement such as: "it is rational for a player who has counted 13 top tricks to not notice that he does not have 13 of them in time for something to do about it". But I also want to state that: "it is irrational for a player who has not yet counted his tricks to play any trick before actually counting them and notice he does not actually have 13 of them." You seem to believe this player has counted his tricks. I don't believe he has. So: yes, this player _believes_ he has 13 tricks. But: no, this player has not _counted_ 13 tricks. He believes it, intuitively, and he is wrong. I consider it highly unlikely that he will not discover his mistake. Hence, all lines that simply play on must be considered irrational. > In this case I would without hesitation accepted the claim had declarer > mentioned the word squeeze or stated in any way that he would first cash his > tricks in Clubs and Hearts before playing Diamonds from the top. I wouldn't > even require him to having added the words "unless the Ace of Spades is > discarded". > I agree with that statement. > As he just stated that he had 13 (top) tricks I would rule that a "normal" > (but indeed inferior) line of play could be to begin cashing his Diamonds. > I don't believe that one is true. I am convinced that this declarer, if he had refrained from claiming, would not have started playing diamonds before noticing he does not have 13 tricks. This is a firm conviction, not merely a high likelihood. Are you in agreement with my conviction or not? If you are, then our disagreement is still about legal issues. If you are not agreed with my conviction, then we simply have different views on the particulars of the case, and since it is a fictitious one, there's nothing we can do about it. > We all know the declarers who at the moment of dispute say: "But of course I > would ......". > Indeed - and most of the time we don't believe them. But some of the time we do. Could you believe a world class player who says "Of course I play this hand like this"? I certainly could. > I don't know how they handle such statements in other regions; in Norway we > know them too well to accept such afterthoughts unless we feel absolutely > convinced that "of course, that is the only real way to play cards even for > a tired, exhausted player". > Which is what I believe is the case here. > And as you accepted (I believe): Why on earth did declarer not in any way > indicate the possibility for needing a squeeze? > Because he never noticed he did not have 13 tricks off the top - he claimed before checking that! I'm not saying he miscounted, I'm saying he never counted at all! I'm not saying he did not notice the squeeze, I'm saying he never knew he needed something else than 13 top tricks. > ........ > > >>But don't let that foor any of the interested listeners into thinking >>the morons have won. This claimer ends up with 13 tricks. In any AC >>with sensible people on board. > > > I don't think many Norwegian ACs would award him more than 12, but then > again I don't think many Norwegian Directors or ACs would be involved with > top class players failing to mention the possible need for a squeeze in this > situation. The absence of such a remark would to most of us be conclusive I > think. > Well, I happen to believe that the absense of the remark has a very good reason: he claimed before noticing it was needed. But I agree, this case will not come up very often. Which is precisely why we need to discuss it, so that we don't have to agree only after a misruling from the Norwegian AC. > >>And yes, if you want to interpret this as meaning that you're not >>sensible if you don't award 13 tricks here, then please accept that I >>do mean it as such. > > > Thanks for the flattery > Sorry Sven, that was absolutely not intended as flattery. In fact, it was quite malicious and I want to apologize for the remark. Please Sven, do me a favour. If you've got this far, read this mail again. I've put a lot of time and effort into a thread of which I'd said I'd given up. Please try and understand the different steps in my reasoning, and try and see if you agree or disagree with any of them. Maybe we have a major disagreement regarding the laws (and I would find that a pity), maybe we are just interpreting differently the case that the Polish examinators have presented us with. > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 09:29:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:29:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <00a401c447d9$f9819170$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <000801c447c7$2ff9caa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BC6EAB.8010902@hdw.be> <00a401c447d9$f9819170$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: <40BD8FD7.6030102@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam >=20 >=20 >=20 >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>>Herman De Wael >>> >>>......... >>> >>> >>>>>Even world class players make verrrryy silllly mistakes (BB last bo= ard >>>>>????!!!) >>>>> >>>> >>>>Indeed - but there are no silly mistakes after claiming. >>> >>> >>>Why not? >>> >> >>because the law says so! >=20 >=20 > OK, let's stop right here. OK. Don't you believe the law says that there are no silly mistakes=20 after claims? The please indeed stop. > If you consider "a silly mistake" an irrational > play then to me it follows that the > term "careless" has no meaning for you > whatsoever.=20 Silly is not careless. Silly is trumping your own aces. That is not=20 careless, it is irrational. And yes, there are some things that are careless. > Declarer's action is > something I would call a piece of > carelessness - that is the word > that first comes to my mind.=20 Of course. But that is before the claim - not afterwards! > What declarer > did wasn't irrational at all - it is not > irrational to claim in this position > for someone who believes he has 13 top tricks. >=20 Of course it is not. What are you trying to say? > What would be an example of careless > play for a world class player > according to your understanding of these words? > Please provide an example. >=20 Why? could we not equate the words "world class" with "someone who=20 never makes careless mistakes". Is there a reason this class needs to=20 be non-empty for all players? I sure need the words careless play for=20 players of my calibre. I make careless mistakes all of the time (not=20 noticing I need to unblock a certain suit, for example). But for a=20 world class player, that same action can be regarded irrational. I see=20 no problems in that. But your main problem, Conrad, is that you forget that careless and=20 irrational actions are important only after the claim, not before.=20 This player has done something careless: "claiming before counting"=20 (at least that is my perception of the case). What we are talking of=20 is the normalcy of quite another action: "not noticing the need for a=20 squeeze play before playing a single card". I consider that action to=20 be irrational for a world class player in this situation. > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 2 11:29:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:29:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4488c$79a9a9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > You are equating the words "believes he has 13 top tricks" with "has > counted 13 top tricks". Those are not the same. I most certainly am not equating those terms because I am fully aware = that they are different! =20 > I agree with a statement such as: > "it is rational for a player who has counted 13 top tricks to not > notice that he does not have 13 of them in time for something to do > about it". > But I also want to state that: > "it is irrational for a player who has not yet counted his tricks to > play any trick before actually counting them and notice he does not > actually have 13 of them." >=20 > You seem to believe this player has counted his tricks. I don't > believe he has. I don't care; the question whether he has counted his tricks or not is completely irrelevant. The important fact is that he believes he has thirteen top tricks because that is what he stated. >=20 > So: yes, this player _believes_ he has 13 tricks. > But: no, this player has not _counted_ 13 tricks. >=20 > He believes it, intuitively, and he is wrong. I consider it highly > unlikely that he will not discover his mistake. Hence, all lines that > simply play on must be considered irrational. HUH????? I am convinced he will discover his mistake - after cashing three tricks = in Diamonds only to discover that the Jack is still missing.=20 >=20 > > In this case I would without hesitation accepted the claim had = declarer > > mentioned the word squeeze or stated in any way that he would first = cash > his > > tricks in Clubs and Hearts before playing Diamonds from the top. I > wouldn't > > even require him to having added the words "unless the Ace of Spades = is > > discarded". > > >=20 > I agree with that statement. >=20 > > As he just stated that he had 13 (top) tricks I would rule that a > "normal" > > (but indeed inferior) line of play could be to begin cashing his > Diamonds. > > >=20 > I don't believe that one is true. I am convinced that this declarer, > if he had refrained from claiming, would not have started playing > diamonds before noticing he does not have 13 tricks. This is a firm > conviction, not merely a high likelihood. > Are you in agreement with my conviction or not? No, definitely not. The moment this player has demonstrated his mistake = in believing that he had thirteen top tricks the laws instruct us to rule = that any possible sequence of cashing such top tricks is within the scope of "normal play". So I rule that beginning by playing his top Diamonds is = one of the perfectly normal lines of play. > If you are, then our disagreement is still about legal issues. > If you are not agreed with my conviction, then we simply have > different views on the particulars of the case, and since it is a > fictitious one, there's nothing we can do about it. >=20 > > We all know the declarers who at the moment of dispute say: "But of > course I > > would ......". > > >=20 > Indeed - and most of the time we don't believe them. But some of the > time we do. Could you believe a world class player who says "Of course > I play this hand like this"? I certainly could. As I said, I would probably ask him why on earth he didn't mention = anything of that kind with his claim statement. Adding this line of play when he discovered that his statement revealed his error is unacceptable. The = higher the class of player the more I expect him to be aware of such simple principles. Law 70D prohibits the Director and AC to accept the = "discovery" of the need for a squeeze at this time. >=20 > > I don't know how they handle such statements in other regions; in = Norway > we > > know them too well to accept such afterthoughts unless we feel > absolutely > > convinced that "of course, that is the only real way to play cards = even > for > > a tired, exhausted player". > > >=20 > Which is what I believe is the case here. >=20 > > And as you accepted (I believe): Why on earth did declarer not in = any > way > > indicate the possibility for needing a squeeze? > > >=20 > Because he never noticed he did not have 13 tricks off the top - he > claimed before checking that! Precisely! > I'm not saying he miscounted, I'm saying he never counted at all! > I'm not saying he did not notice the squeeze, I'm saying he never knew > he needed something else than 13 top tricks. Consider Dummy holding A K Q J T 9 in Diamonds instead of missing the = Jack. Now please tell me why it would be irrational for Declarer to cash his = (more than) thirteen tricks starting with his tricks in Diamonds. If you agree that beginning with the Diamond tricks in this case would = not be irrational then please tell me why it becomes irrational to start = playing the Diamonds when the Jack is missing although Declarer according to his = own statement has overlooked the fact that he has only three (top) tricks in Diamonds instead of the six tricks he apparently visualized. > >>But don't let that foor any of the interested listeners into = thinking > >>the morons have won. This claimer ends up with 13 tricks. In any AC > >>with sensible people on board. > > > > > > I don't think many Norwegian ACs would award him more than 12, but = then > > again I don't think many Norwegian Directors or ACs would be = involved > with > > top class players failing to mention the possible need for a squeeze = in > this > > situation. The absence of such a remark would to most of us be > conclusive I > > think. > > >=20 > Well, I happen to believe that the absense of the remark has a very > good reason: he claimed before noticing it was needed. Precisely! And we do not allow him to "discover" and correct this = mistake because of the objection to the claim! The fact that the claim is disputed is Unauthorized Information to = declarer, he may not select any line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if the (new) line of play "could have been suggested" by the objection. ....... > Sorry Sven, that was absolutely not intended as flattery. In fact, it > was quite malicious and I want to apologize for the remark. Fair enough and accepted. =20 > Please Sven, do me a favour. If you've got this far, read this mail > again. I've put a lot of time and effort into a thread of which I'd > said I'd given up. Please try and understand the different steps in my > reasoning, and try and see if you agree or disagree with any of them. > Maybe we have a major disagreement regarding the laws (and I would > find that a pity), maybe we are just interpreting differently the case > that the Polish examinators have presented us with. I think our main disagreements go on what tolerance we allow for top = class players. My personal opinion is that many recent cases have been = resolved far to lenient for OS, and I feel corroborated in my view by the recent incident with Lauria in BB. In that particular case I was extremely surprised that the decision by the Director was even appealed; on an AC = I would have ruled forfeiture of the deposit for an appeal absolutely = without merit. We too often assume that top players do not act "silly", but Lauria demonstrated very well what they can be capable of. And I still have my = firm opinion that it is not the job for a Director or an AC to "protect" a = player from his own possible mistakes. In claim cases this implies that what = the claimer has not addressed with his statement is to be considered = something he is unaware of (if it turns out to be important). Regards Sven=20 From fvieira@fe.up.pt Wed Jun 2 11:50:39 2004 From: fvieira@fe.up.pt (Fernando Vieira) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:50:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40BDB0FF.6070908@fe.up.pt> Hi all, If I understand correctly, those who decide 13 tricks assume that playing diamons first is irrational and not careless. I'm sorry but I can not believe this. I believe that the player (and he doesn't need to be a top class player) would start playing the clubs if he was playing the hand in the "usual" way. But that is not the point, the situation is not a normal one, he is playing for 13 tricks doubled missing an Ace and the lead was favourable. He relaxed and made a mistake. It's not difficult to imagine that a player that produced this careless claim (I supose there is no doubt this is a careless claim, if it wasn't we wouldn't be discussing it) could produce the "careless" play of diamonds first. My decision would be -1 . I failed the test :-( regards, Fernando From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 12:03:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:03:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000001c4488c$79a9a9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c4488c$79a9a9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40BDB416.90600@hdw.be> Hello Sven. Thanks for giving my post the amount of attention that you gave it. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>You are equating the words "believes he has 13 top tricks" with "has >>counted 13 top tricks". Those are not the same. > > > I most certainly am not equating those terms because I am fully aware that > they are different! > OK. > >>I agree with a statement such as: >>"it is rational for a player who has counted 13 top tricks to not >>notice that he does not have 13 of them in time for something to do >>about it". >>But I also want to state that: >>"it is irrational for a player who has not yet counted his tricks to >>play any trick before actually counting them and notice he does not >>actually have 13 of them." >> >>You seem to believe this player has counted his tricks. I don't >>believe he has. > > > I don't care; the question whether he has counted his tricks or not is > completely irrelevant. The important fact is that he believes he has > thirteen top tricks because that is what he stated. > This is not an important fact, this is the simple fact of the case. Don't say things and call them important when we agree upon them. You have agreed that there are two possibilities. You may state that you don't believe the difference to be important, but please don't write things like "the important fact is what he stated". We agree that this is what he has done - whether it is important or not does not matter. > >>So: yes, this player _believes_ he has 13 tricks. >>But: no, this player has not _counted_ 13 tricks. >> >>He believes it, intuitively, and he is wrong. I consider it highly >>unlikely that he will not discover his mistake. Hence, all lines that >>simply play on must be considered irrational. > > > HUH????? > Yes! > I am convinced he will discover his mistake - after cashing three tricks in > Diamonds only to discover that the Jack is still missing. > No Sven, this is not OK. Above, you agree that there are two possibilities. Either he has (mis)counted them, or he has not counted them. You don't say which of the two you believe in, because you don't think it is important. I think it is, and so I want you to assume it's the second. He has not counted them. Don't you agree that no player (of this class, if you wish) will start playing diamonds without counting his tricks? > >>>In this case I would without hesitation accepted the claim had declarer >>>mentioned the word squeeze or stated in any way that he would first cash >> >>his >> >>>tricks in Clubs and Hearts before playing Diamonds from the top. I >> >>wouldn't >> >>>even require him to having added the words "unless the Ace of Spades is >>>discarded". >>> >> >>I agree with that statement. >> >> >>>As he just stated that he had 13 (top) tricks I would rule that a >> >>"normal" >> >>>(but indeed inferior) line of play could be to begin cashing his >> >>Diamonds. >> >>I don't believe that one is true. I am convinced that this declarer, >>if he had refrained from claiming, would not have started playing >>diamonds before noticing he does not have 13 tricks. This is a firm >>conviction, not merely a high likelihood. >>Are you in agreement with my conviction or not? > > > No, definitely not. The moment this player has demonstrated his mistake in > believing that he had thirteen top tricks the laws instruct us to rule that > any possible sequence of cashing such top tricks is within the scope of > "normal play". So I rule that beginning by playing his top Diamonds is one > of the perfectly normal lines of play. > But he has _not_ demonstrated his mistake in counting 13 top tricks. He has demonstrated he has not counted them. So the laws do not instruct us to cash top tricks. The laws instruct us to rule oin which lines are normal and which are not. And I rule that for a player who has done nothing wrong so far, it is not normal to cash top diamond tricks before making a plan. > >>If you are, then our disagreement is still about legal issues. >>If you are not agreed with my conviction, then we simply have >>different views on the particulars of the case, and since it is a >>fictitious one, there's nothing we can do about it. >> >> >>>We all know the declarers who at the moment of dispute say: "But of >> >>course I >> >>>would ......". >>> >> >>Indeed - and most of the time we don't believe them. But some of the >>time we do. Could you believe a world class player who says "Of course >>I play this hand like this"? I certainly could. > > > As I said, I would probably ask him why on earth he didn't mention anything > of that kind with his claim statement. Adding this line of play when he > discovered that his statement revealed his error is unacceptable. The higher > the class of player the more I expect him to be aware of such simple > principles. Law 70D prohibits the Director and AC to accept the "discovery" > of the need for a squeeze at this time. > But we know why he didn't mention a squeeze - because he never counted his tricks, he only estimated them. And I am convinced he would not play on without actually counting them. > >>>I don't know how they handle such statements in other regions; in Norway >> >>we >> >>>know them too well to accept such afterthoughts unless we feel >> >>absolutely >> >>>convinced that "of course, that is the only real way to play cards even >> >>for >> >>>a tired, exhausted player". >>> >> >>Which is what I believe is the case here. >> >> >>>And as you accepted (I believe): Why on earth did declarer not in any >> >>way >> >>>indicate the possibility for needing a squeeze? >>> >> >>Because he never noticed he did not have 13 tricks off the top - he >>claimed before checking that! > > > Precisely! > Precisely! So all normal lines, for him, must start with a check, because it is irrational not to check. > >>I'm not saying he miscounted, I'm saying he never counted at all! >>I'm not saying he did not notice the squeeze, I'm saying he never knew >>he needed something else than 13 top tricks. > > > Consider Dummy holding A K Q J T 9 in Diamonds instead of missing the Jack. > Now please tell me why it would be irrational for Declarer to cash his (more > than) thirteen tricks starting with his tricks in Diamonds. > But this is not the case. Dummy does not have the jack. Then it is irrational to start cashing them without checking all the rest. > If you agree that beginning with the Diamond tricks in this case would not > be irrational then please tell me why it becomes irrational to start playing > the Diamonds when the Jack is missing although Declarer according to his own > statement has overlooked the fact that he has only three (top) tricks in > Diamonds instead of the six tricks he apparently visualized. > But his statement is nothing of the sort. His statement was not "I'll cash 6 diamond tricks". His statement, if you want to give him a statement was "I think I have 13 tricks". > >>>>But don't let that foor any of the interested listeners into thinking >>>>the morons have won. This claimer ends up with 13 tricks. In any AC >>>>with sensible people on board. >>> >>> >>>I don't think many Norwegian ACs would award him more than 12, but then >>>again I don't think many Norwegian Directors or ACs would be involved >> >>with >> >>>top class players failing to mention the possible need for a squeeze in >> >>this >> >>>situation. The absence of such a remark would to most of us be >> >>conclusive I >> >>>think. >>> >> >>Well, I happen to believe that the absense of the remark has a very >>good reason: he claimed before noticing it was needed. > > > Precisely! And we do not allow him to "discover" and correct this mistake > because of the objection to the claim! > That is true. But we do allow discoveries in claims, such as people showing out. If we are convinced that the player would certainly discover something, then we allow the discovery. I am convinced this player would discover he does not have 13 tricks before embarking on any line. > The fact that the claim is disputed is Unauthorized Information to declarer, > he may not select any line of play not embraced in the original > clarification statement if the (new) line of play "could have been > suggested" by the objection. > Of course, and if there are two possible lines, then I will give him the worst one. But IMO there is only one possible line. > ....... > >>Sorry Sven, that was absolutely not intended as flattery. In fact, it >>was quite malicious and I want to apologize for the remark. > > > Fair enough and accepted. > > >>Please Sven, do me a favour. If you've got this far, read this mail >>again. I've put a lot of time and effort into a thread of which I'd >>said I'd given up. Please try and understand the different steps in my >>reasoning, and try and see if you agree or disagree with any of them. >>Maybe we have a major disagreement regarding the laws (and I would >>find that a pity), maybe we are just interpreting differently the case >>that the Polish examinators have presented us with. > > > I think our main disagreements go on what tolerance we allow for top class > players. My personal opinion is that many recent cases have been resolved > far to lenient for OS, and I feel corroborated in my view by the recent > incident with Lauria in BB. In that particular case I was extremely > surprised that the decision by the Director was even appealed; on an AC I > would have ruled forfeiture of the deposit for an appeal absolutely without > merit. > First of all, don't use the words OS in the case of dispute claims. A claim in not an offence. And secondly. What is lenient if we give a player the number of tricks we are 100% certain he would make? > We too often assume that top players do not act "silly", but Lauria > demonstrated very well what they can be capable of. And I still have my firm > opinion that it is not the job for a Director or an AC to "protect" a player > from his own possible mistakes. In claim cases this implies that what the > claimer has not addressed with his statement is to be considered something > he is unaware of (if it turns out to be important). > Yes indeed, this player was unaware of the fact that he did not have 13 tricks. He has not proven to be unaware that diamonds might be 4-2; he has not proven to be unaware of the possibility of a squeeze. All he has done is claim. And we now have to rule the worst of all possible outcomes. IMHO 12 tricks is not a possible outcome if this player had played it out. > Regards Sven -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 12:11:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:11:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BDB0FF.6070908@fe.up.pt> References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> <40BDB0FF.6070908@fe.up.pt> Message-ID: <40BDB5DF.7010805@hdw.be> Hello Fernando, Fernando Vieira wrote: > Hi all, > > If I understand correctly, those who decide 13 tricks assume that > playing diamons first > is irrational and not careless. > Isn't it? For a player who has all his faculties and is considered world class? > I'm sorry but I can not believe this. I believe that the player (and he > doesn't need to be > a top class player) would start playing the clubs if he was playing the > hand in the "usual" > way. > But that is not the point, the situation is not a normal one, he is > playing for 13 tricks doubled > missing an Ace and the lead was favourable. He relaxed and made a > mistake. indeed. > It's not > difficult to imagine that a player that produced this careless claim (I > supose there is no > doubt this is a careless claim, if it wasn't we wouldn't be discussing > it) could produce the > "careless" play of diamonds first. > You fall into a common trap. If a player does something silly, we must assume he will do something else silly as well. That is not the case, and claims law (IMO) does not work like that. If a player does something silly, then we stick him to that sillyness, but we don't impose another sillyness. So if the player claims because he believes that 3 hearts, 3 diamonds and 6 clubs total 13, then we stick him to that. But I believe that the silly thing this claimer did was "claim without counting". And the silly mistake he would have to make would be to "play without counting". I don't believe those are the same thing. Let's put it like this. Suppose he has the DJ as well, and claims without a statement. Do you impose on him the "silly mistake" of forgetting that the SA is out and trying to cash his spade winners. No you don't. Similarly, I don't impose on this player the silly mistake of "playing without counting". It's the "Strange Claim" all over again. > My decision would be -1 . I failed the test :-( > > regards, > > Fernando > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 2 11:25:36 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:25:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <40BD88C0.8010806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006d01c44893$b51410c0$e3ab87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > Now you say that clever discarding might > detract a player who is going for the squeeze > to still opt for the finesse later. Yet you do this > only for the player who has said nothing (but > for whom I impose the squeeze line), and not > for the player who has stated he'll go for the > squeeze. < +=+ It seems to me that if West clings on grimly to two diamonds and two small spades, East letting a diamond go early, the four card ending is clearly subject to Law 70E. Failure to play for the drop is inferior perhaps, but not to be considered irrational unless consultation with a number of world class players, who are given that fall of the cards, puts this beyond any reasonable doubt. Declarer has not stated his line and it is too late now to 'read' whether it is West or East who has retained the missing small spades. It is not a question whether 'clever' discarding would cause declarer to 'change his mind', it is a question of applying the relevant law and whether, therefore, it is irrational for the class of player to believe that East may have come down to three spades and a diamond. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 2 12:23:03 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:23:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BD88C0.8010806@hdw.be> References: <40BD88C0.8010806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <36C2B026-B487-11D8-A197-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 2 Jun 2004, at 08:58, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> H Herman, >>> Suppose your declarer claims after the lead and tells you he's going >>> to play the diamonds from the top after executing the squeeze - >>> would you give it to him - or would you also rule that opponents >>> might play as you do trying to induce declarer to still change his >>> mind and take the diamond finesse? >> Of course I give it to him - the stated line works. > > But isn't that the same as me ruling that the Polish declarer would > also execute the squeeze. There's a difference between what we think someone would probably have done if they hadn't claimed, and what their claim statement says. We know this from the case of Gunnar Hallberg's claim on a squeeze, which he failed to execute when erroneously asked to play it out. If we allow Gunnar's claim (which is what happened at Maastricht), it is not logical now to judge this current claim on the basis of what we think declarer might have done if he had not claimed, but had been forced to play it out. He did claim, and it is on the basis of that claim that we now rule, not on the basis of what might have happened if declarer had been woken up by a "play-it-out" demand. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 2 12:25:44 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BD8FD7.6030102@hdw.be> References: <000801c447c7$2ff9caa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BC6EAB.8010902@hdw.be> <00a401c447d9$f9819170$6a51fea9@ams.com> <40BD8FD7.6030102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <963397AC-B487-11D8-A197-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 2 Jun 2004, at 09:29, Herman De Wael wrote: > Silly is not careless. Silly is trumping your own aces. That is not > careless, it is irrational. > And yes, there are some things that are careless. Like failing to count your tricks, because it looks as though you have enough and you've escaped the killing lead? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jun 2 12:44:02 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:44:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:21:12 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Because he never noticed he did not have 13 tricks off the top - he=20 >claimed before checking that! >I'm not saying he miscounted, I'm saying he never counted at all! I suspect that you are right. But why in the world did he claim 13 tricks if he hadn't even counted his tricks? How did he know how many tricks to claim without counting them? A top player really should know better than to assume that a grand slam will necessarily win just because they didn't cash their ace in trick one. >I'm not saying he did not notice the squeeze, I'm saying he never knew=20 >he needed something else than 13 top tricks. If a vague feeling that there probably are 13 top tricks is enough basis for this top player to claim, then surely it is also enough basis for the same top player to begin playing it out with, for instance, diamonds first. This is the point which again and again divides Herman from just about everybody else on BLML: where I come from, people do not claim unless they know how how many tricks they are going to get and how they are going to get them. But it seems to be a common occurrence in Herman's circles. I must admit that I simply fail to understand the point of view that you can claim whatever number of tricks you would like without thinking at all, expecting the TD to find the winning plan for you if he believes that you would have found it if you had taken the trouble to think. Bridge is a game where you are supposed to actually do your thinking yourself. When you choose not to think, you get fewer tricks - even if you can convince the TD that had you chosen to think, you would get 13 tricks. I also find such claims quite rude to the opponents. This declarer has, if Herman is right, left the counting to the opponents because he couldn't bother himself. In other words, he is trying to win his doubled grand slam on a claim even though he has no idea whether the claim is valid. When I claim, my opponents at least know that I seriously believe my claim to be valid - if I appear to be reasonably awake, they will usually not run any serious risk by not studying the claim very much before accepting it. Claiming should not be a substitute for counting tricks and planning the play; it should be a substitute only for physically playing out the tricks. (I will attempt to not get involved in a long repetition of arguments with Herman (we've done that before), so I intend to participate further in this discussion only if I believe that I actually have something new to say. Silence from me will not mean that Herman has convinced me :-) ) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 2 12:51:02 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:51:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BDB416.90600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c44897$e17cf1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .......... > > I am convinced he will discover his mistake - after cashing three = tricks > in > > Diamonds only to discover that the Jack is still missing. > > >=20 > No Sven, this is not OK. > Above, you agree that there are two possibilities. Either he has > (mis)counted them, or he has not counted them. > You don't say which of the two you believe in, because you don't think > it is important. I think it is, and so I want you to assume it's the > second. He has not counted them. What I "Believe" is that he saw two hands (his own and Dummy) with an overwhelming number of tricks between them so he was convinced there = were at least 13. In fact I am pretty convinced that he "saw" six tricks in each minor suit plus three tricks in Hearts for a total of 15. Why bother to count them? > Don't you agree that no player (of this class, if you wish) will start > playing diamonds without counting his tricks?=20 No I don't agree with that. When he was certain of having 15 tricks at = his disposal his only concern would be to avoid blocking himself away from = more than two of them. There was no reason for wasting energy by = double-checking, just claim all tricks and get on to the next board. If he hadn't claimed he might very well have started off by cashing his = 6 tricks in Diamonds, the only suit without communication both ways. = (OOPS!)=20 >=20 > >> > >>I don't believe that one is true. I am convinced that this declarer, > >>if he had refrained from claiming, would not have started playing > >>diamonds before noticing he does not have 13 tricks. This is a firm > >>conviction, not merely a high likelihood. > >>Are you in agreement with my conviction or not? I have seen too many failures in this respect to agree with you. > > > > > > No, definitely not. The moment this player has demonstrated his = mistake > in > > believing that he had thirteen top tricks the laws instruct us to = rule > that > > any possible sequence of cashing such top tricks is within the scope = of > > "normal play". So I rule that beginning by playing his top Diamonds = is > one > > of the perfectly normal lines of play. > > >=20 > But he has _not_ demonstrated his mistake in counting 13 top tricks. > He has demonstrated he has not counted them. > So the laws do not instruct us to cash top tricks. The laws instruct > us to rule oin which lines are normal and which are not. And I rule > that for a player who has done nothing wrong so far, it is not normal > to cash top diamond tricks before making a plan. Why should he waste energy by making a plan? He has 15 tricks to cash! = (Or so he believes)=20 =20 > > As I said, I would probably ask him why on earth he didn't mention > anything > > of that kind with his claim statement. Adding this line of play when = he > > discovered that his statement revealed his error is unacceptable. = The > higher > > the class of player the more I expect him to be aware of such simple > > principles. Law 70D prohibits the Director and AC to accept the > "discovery" > > of the need for a squeeze at this time. > > >=20 > But we know why he didn't mention a squeeze - because he never counted > his tricks, he only estimated them. And I am convinced he would not > play on without actually counting them. Fundamental disagreement. And I still consider my opinion supported by = the laws. Beginning by cashing 6 tricks in Diamonds is not irrational when = all your tricks are top tricks. Playing without double-checking your plan is = not irrational when you know that you have 15 tricks. > >>Because he never noticed he did not have 13 tricks off the top - he > >>claimed before checking that! > > > > > > Precisely! > > >=20 > Precisely! > So all normal lines, for him, must start with a check, because it is > irrational not to check. Claiming without such a check is careless and maybe even irrational. But that is what he has done. Law 70 specifically prohibits him from = "planning" after his claim is disputed. > > Consider Dummy holding A K Q J T 9 in Diamonds instead of missing = the > Jack. > > Now please tell me why it would be irrational for Declarer to cash = his > (more > > than) thirteen tricks starting with his tricks in Diamonds. > > >=20 > But this is not the case. > Dummy does not have the jack. I didn't say it was the case, I asked you if it would have been = irrational to start with the Diamonds if that had been the case. > But his statement is nothing of the sort. His statement was not "I'll > cash 6 diamond tricks". His statement, if you want to give him a > statement was "I think I have 13 tricks". Precisely, and on that statement he is to be ruled upon a claim based on = the assumption that he had 13 top tricks with no need to look for any = advanced line of play. > > Precisely! And we do not allow him to "discover" and correct this > mistake > > because of the objection to the claim! > > >=20 > That is true. But we do allow discoveries in claims, such as people > showing out. If we are convinced that the player would certainly > discover something, then we allow the discovery. I am convinced this > player would discover he does not have 13 tricks before embarking on > any line. The claimer will be allowed his discoveries from authorized information = but not his discoveries from unauthorized information.=20 >=20 > > The fact that the claim is disputed is Unauthorized Information to > declarer, > > he may not select any line of play not embraced in the original > > clarification statement if the (new) line of play "could have been > > suggested" by the objection. > > >=20 > Of course, and if there are two possible lines, then I will give him > the worst one. > But IMO there is only one possible line. I am awaiting your reason why beginning by cashing in six tricks in = Diamonds (in the case that Dummy held all the top cards including the Jack) would = be irrational? It is certainly a possible line. Don't ignore the "fact" = (from his statement) that this is what declarer has visualized. >=20 > First of all, don't use the words OS in the case of dispute claims. A > claim in not an offence. I am fully aware that claims are not offences. But for the purpose of applying the laws when we have a disputed claim then the claimer is considered OS and his opponents NOS. The claimer is the part who must "prove" his case. > And secondly. What is lenient if we give a player the number of tricks > we are 100% certain he would make? Nothing. But the question is rather what it takes to "convince" the = Director and later the AC how many tricks he would make. >=20 > > We too often assume that top players do not act "silly", but Lauria > > demonstrated very well what they can be capable of. And I still have = my > firm > > opinion that it is not the job for a Director or an AC to "protect" = a > player > > from his own possible mistakes. In claim cases this implies that = what > the > > claimer has not addressed with his statement is to be considered > something > > he is unaware of (if it turns out to be important). > > >=20 > Yes indeed, this player was unaware of the fact that he did not have > 13 tricks. He has not proven to be unaware that diamonds might be 4-2; > he has not proven to be unaware of the possibility of a squeeze. All > he has done is claim. And we now have to rule the worst of all > possible outcomes. IMHO 12 tricks is not a possible outcome if this > player had played it out. And in any such case I rule based on the principle that the more = experienced a player who makes a claim is the more I expect him able to point out = all relevant details with his claim statement. I am also fully aware that = the more experienced he is the greater chance does he stand to "invent" a successful line of play once he realizes that his original claim = statement is insufficient. I may be lenient with less experienced players (except that I stress = upon them never to claim unless they feel absolutely sure), but I never = accept the possibility that experienced players come up with a line of play = they didn't consider for their claim unless that line of play will reveal = itself automatically as the cards lie. Regards Sven From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jun 2 12:54:31 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:54:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468DB@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal [mailto:blml@dybdal.dk] Sent: 02 June 2004 12:44 To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam [snip] (I will attempt to not get involved in a long repetition of arguments with Herman (we've done that before), so I intend to participate further in this discussion only if I believe that I actually have something new to say. Silence from me will not mean that Herman has convinced me :-) ) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). _______________________________________________ Likewise, my failure to post at all on this thread does not mean I agree with Herman. Was the original poster interested in <13 v 13 tricks or 11 v 12 tricks, I wonder. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 2 13:02:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:02:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468DB@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000301c44899$8c464c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robin Barker ......... > Was the original poster interested in <13 v 13 tricks or 11 v 12 = tricks, I > wonder. >=20 > Robin As I remember the original post the question was whether the claim = should be approved (13 tricks) or not. One or two down was at best a minor issue. Regards Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Jun 2 13:13:23 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:13:23 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECF3@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Jesper Dybdal wrote: On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:21:12 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Because he never noticed he did not have 13 tricks off the top - he=20 >claimed before checking that! >I'm not saying he miscounted, I'm saying he never counted at all! I suspect that you are right. But why in the world did he claim 13 tricks if he hadn't even counted his tricks? How did he know how many tricks to claim without counting them? A top player really should know better than to assume that a grand slam will necessarily win just because they didn't cash their ace in trick one. >I'm not saying he did not notice the squeeze, I'm saying he never knew=20 >he needed something else than 13 top tricks. If a vague feeling that there probably are 13 top tricks is enough basis for this top player to claim, then surely it is also enough basis for the same top player to begin playing it out with, for instance, diamonds first. This is the point which again and again divides Herman from just about everybody else on BLML: where I come from, people do not claim unless they know how how many tricks they are going to get and how they are going to get them. But it seems to be a common occurrence in Herman's circles. I must admit that I simply fail to understand the point of view that you can claim whatever number of tricks you would like without thinking at all, expecting the TD to find the winning plan for you if he believes that you would have found it if you had taken the trouble to think. Bridge is a game where you are supposed to actually do your thinking yourself. When you choose not to think, you get fewer tricks - even if you can convince the TD that had you chosen to think, you would get 13 tricks. I also find such claims quite rude to the opponents. This declarer has, if Herman is right, left the counting to the opponents because he couldn't bother himself. In other words, he is trying to win his doubled grand slam on a claim even though he has no idea whether the claim is valid. When I claim, my opponents at least know that I seriously believe my claim to be valid - if I appear to be reasonably awake, they will usually not run any serious risk by not studying the claim very much before accepting it. Claiming should not be a substitute for counting tricks and planning the play; it should be a substitute only for physically playing out the tricks. (I will attempt to not get involved in a long repetition of arguments with Herman (we've done that before), so I intend to participate further in this discussion only if I believe that I actually have something new to say. Silence from me will not mean that Herman has convinced me :-) ) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. ----- I agree with Jesper. After a couple of fruitless discussions concerning = claims with Herman, I won't waist my time on that again. Silence from me = in claim threads will generally mean that I disagree with Herman. Not = necessarily all his arguments, but certainly his general idea on how = claims should be treated and most of his conclusions. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 13:26:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:26:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000201c44897$e17cf1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c44897$e17cf1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40BDC78E.1090205@hdw.be> OK Sven, now we are getting somewhere. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > .......... > >>>I am convinced he will discover his mistake - after cashing three tricks >> >>in >> >>>Diamonds only to discover that the Jack is still missing. >>> >> >>No Sven, this is not OK. >>Above, you agree that there are two possibilities. Either he has >>(mis)counted them, or he has not counted them. >>You don't say which of the two you believe in, because you don't think >>it is important. I think it is, and so I want you to assume it's the >>second. He has not counted them. > > > What I "Believe" is that he saw two hands (his own and Dummy) with an > overwhelming number of tricks between them so he was convinced there were at > least 13. In fact I am pretty convinced that he "saw" six tricks in each > minor suit plus three tricks in Hearts for a total of 15. Why bother to > count them? > That is a valid assumption. At least this has some internal logic to it. > >>Don't you agree that no player (of this class, if you wish) will start >>playing diamonds without counting his tricks? > > > No I don't agree with that. When he was certain of having 15 tricks at his > disposal his only concern would be to avoid blocking himself away from more > than two of them. There was no reason for wasting energy by double-checking, > just claim all tricks and get on to the next board. > Well, this too has some internal logic. I don't fully agree with your perception of the state of mind of this individual, but then we'll never know, we can't ask him. > If he hadn't claimed he might very well have started off by cashing his 6 > tricks in Diamonds, the only suit without communication both ways. (OOPS!) > Well, I don't buy that one. I can see people start cashing suits because they don't know where (not) to start, but I don't see people cashing AKQxxx and be surprised a jack-fourth appears. >>>>I don't believe that one is true. I am convinced that this declarer, >>>>if he had refrained from claiming, would not have started playing >>>>diamonds before noticing he does not have 13 tricks. This is a firm >>>>conviction, not merely a high likelihood. >>>>Are you in agreement with my conviction or not? > > > I have seen too many failures in this respect to agree with you. > No you haven't. You have stated yourself that you've never come accross this one. I have never, ever, seen a player start cashing suits without considering, even for half a second, whihc one to start with. It's simply not done. I have seen (and done so myself) people claim without doing that same check. But I will allow those claimers the benefit of a "quick" check. > >>> >>>No, definitely not. The moment this player has demonstrated his mistake >> >>in >> >>>believing that he had thirteen top tricks the laws instruct us to rule >> >>that >> >>>any possible sequence of cashing such top tricks is within the scope of >>>"normal play". So I rule that beginning by playing his top Diamonds is >> >>one >> >>>of the perfectly normal lines of play. >>> >> >>But he has _not_ demonstrated his mistake in counting 13 top tricks. >>He has demonstrated he has not counted them. >>So the laws do not instruct us to cash top tricks. The laws instruct >>us to rule oin which lines are normal and which are not. And I rule >>that for a player who has done nothing wrong so far, it is not normal >>to cash top diamond tricks before making a plan. > > > Why should he waste energy by making a plan? He has 15 tricks to cash! (Or > so he believes) > Now that is a valid counter-argument. If indeed we find out that the player thought he had 15 tricks, then you are right in ruling against him. Still, I don't believe that this is the case, or at least not what the Polish examinators had in mind when setting the case. > >>>As I said, I would probably ask him why on earth he didn't mention >> >>anything >> >>>of that kind with his claim statement. Adding this line of play when he >>>discovered that his statement revealed his error is unacceptable. The >> >>higher >> >>>the class of player the more I expect him to be aware of such simple >>>principles. Law 70D prohibits the Director and AC to accept the >> >>"discovery" >> >>>of the need for a squeeze at this time. >>> >> >>But we know why he didn't mention a squeeze - because he never counted >>his tricks, he only estimated them. And I am convinced he would not >>play on without actually counting them. > > > Fundamental disagreement. And I still consider my opinion supported by the > laws. Beginning by cashing 6 tricks in Diamonds is not irrational when all > your tricks are top tricks. Playing without double-checking your plan is not > irrational when you know that you have 15 tricks. > Sorry Sven, I allow you to disagree with me with regards to the actual state of mind of claimer. I also allow you to consider the cashing of diamonds to be normal within the frame of mind of claimer such as you see it (in fact you'd be compeletely right in doing so). But I don't allow you to quote the laws in that respect. This is no longer a laws matter. I believe we have fairly similar ideas on what the laws say. "playing without double-checking is not irrational when you know that you have 15 tricks" is a completely correct statement. I happen to believe this player did not "know" he had 15 tricks, but that is a minor matter as opposed to the major one of what the laws say. > >>>>Because he never noticed he did not have 13 tricks off the top - he >>>>claimed before checking that! >>> >>> >>>Precisely! >>> >> >>Precisely! >>So all normal lines, for him, must start with a check, because it is >>irrational not to check. > > > Claiming without such a check is careless and maybe even irrational. But > that is what he has done. Law 70 specifically prohibits him from "planning" > after his claim is disputed. > No it does not. L70E just says that such planning shall be disregarded if there are other rational plans available. Claiming without a check is careless, true. But it has happened. As I said, one careless thing does not imply that the player must perforce do another careless one. So we have to judge whether "playing without checking" is careless or irrational. And the fact that he claimed without checking does not change the nature of "playing without checking" from irrational to merely careless. I believe that "playing without checking" is irrational. You might be right that it would be careless if the player thinks he has 16 tricks, not just 13. But I am talking of the case where he thinks he has his contract, nothing more. I repeat, "playing without checking" must be irrational in that case. > >>>Consider Dummy holding A K Q J T 9 in Diamonds instead of missing the >> >>Jack. >> >>>Now please tell me why it would be irrational for Declarer to cash his >> >>(more >> >>>than) thirteen tricks starting with his tricks in Diamonds. >>> >> >>But this is not the case. >>Dummy does not have the jack. > > > I didn't say it was the case, I asked you if it would have been irrational > to start with the Diamonds if that had been the case. > and I would answer that, but I fail to see what it brings to the case. > >>But his statement is nothing of the sort. His statement was not "I'll >>cash 6 diamond tricks". His statement, if you want to give him a >>statement was "I think I have 13 tricks". > > > Precisely, and on that statement he is to be ruled upon a claim based on the > assumption that he had 13 top tricks with no need to look for any advanced > line of play. > But that assumption is wrong. He did not assume he did not need to look further. He claimed without checking. > >>>Precisely! And we do not allow him to "discover" and correct this >> >>mistake >> >>>because of the objection to the claim! >>> >> >>That is true. But we do allow discoveries in claims, such as people >>showing out. If we are convinced that the player would certainly >>discover something, then we allow the discovery. I am convinced this >>player would discover he does not have 13 tricks before embarking on >>any line. > > > The claimer will be allowed his discoveries from authorized information but > not his discoveries from unauthorized information. > What UI? He claimed, the claim was contested, and the TD was called. it is up to the TD to decide whether this player is good enough to discover this line of play, or not. In trying to decide this, the TD will ask the player what his line would be, hoping the player won't find it, thus making the TD's life simple. If the player finds it, the TD still has to make the decision as to whether he believes the player would have "always" found it. > >>>The fact that the claim is disputed is Unauthorized Information to >> >>declarer, >> >>>he may not select any line of play not embraced in the original >>>clarification statement if the (new) line of play "could have been >>>suggested" by the objection. >>> >> >>Of course, and if there are two possible lines, then I will give him >>the worst one. >>But IMO there is only one possible line. > > > I am awaiting your reason why beginning by cashing in six tricks in Diamonds > (in the case that Dummy held all the top cards including the Jack) would be > irrational? It is certainly a possible line. Don't ignore the "fact" (from > his statement) that this is what declarer has visualized. > OK, if it turns out that claimer had "visualized" (nice word), that he held also the DJ, the case is suddenly different. But usually, players are honest, and when you ask them why they claimed, they will either answer "because I thought I had the DJ" or "because I thought the contract was safe" or "because I counted 13 tricks". And we should normally believe them and rule against him when he answers 1 or 3. But not 2. And I don't think 1 is the case the Polish exam had in mind. You're clutching at straws here, trying to win an argument rather than trying to get to the bottom of a tricky problem. > >>First of all, don't use the words OS in the case of dispute claims. A >>claim in not an offence. > > > I am fully aware that claims are not offences. But for the purpose of > applying the laws when we have a disputed claim then the claimer is > considered OS and his opponents NOS. The claimer is the part who must > "prove" his case. > > >>And secondly. What is lenient if we give a player the number of tricks >>we are 100% certain he would make? > > > Nothing. But the question is rather what it takes to "convince" the Director > and later the AC how many tricks he would make. > Well, I'm 100% convinced. You're not. I suspect we haven't been looking at the same case, with the same evidence. I suspect that if the story is acted out in front of the two of us, we might form more coherent views of the same case. You have to look at this from another point of view, Sven. This is a fictitious case, and the examinar has tried to do his best to present a picture of a player who has claimed without pause for thought. You're trying to invent a number of case where there has been pause for thought. You're using your imagination to try and cast doubt. In real life, you'll ask the player "did you think you had the DJ?", and he'll say "no" and you'll believe him. And you'll rule as I do. > >>>We too often assume that top players do not act "silly", but Lauria >>>demonstrated very well what they can be capable of. And I still have my >> >>firm >> >>>opinion that it is not the job for a Director or an AC to "protect" a >> >>player >> >>>from his own possible mistakes. In claim cases this implies that what >> >>the >> >>>claimer has not addressed with his statement is to be considered >> >>something >> >>>he is unaware of (if it turns out to be important). >>> >> >>Yes indeed, this player was unaware of the fact that he did not have >>13 tricks. He has not proven to be unaware that diamonds might be 4-2; >>he has not proven to be unaware of the possibility of a squeeze. All >>he has done is claim. And we now have to rule the worst of all >>possible outcomes. IMHO 12 tricks is not a possible outcome if this >>player had played it out. > > > And in any such case I rule based on the principle that the more experienced > a player who makes a claim is the more I expect him able to point out all > relevant details with his claim statement. I am also fully aware that the > more experienced he is the greater chance does he stand to "invent" a > successful line of play once he realizes that his original claim statement > is insufficient. > And we shall certainly investigate why he didn't offer the statement. > I may be lenient with less experienced players (except that I stress upon > them never to claim unless they feel absolutely sure), but I never accept > the possibility that experienced players come up with a line of play they > didn't consider for their claim unless that line of play will reveal itself > automatically as the cards lie. > Which is precisely how I handle this case. I rule that the line of play will reveal itself automatically. I don't hold against a player the fact that he claimed within a split second of seeing dummy. If this same player claims after studying his own hand for 10 seconds, and then does not mention the squeeze, my ruling will be entirely different, as you may well believe. > 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 hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 13:38:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:38:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40BDCA4D.4040302@hdw.be> Hello Jesper, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:21:12 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >>Because he never noticed he did not have 13 tricks off the top - he >>claimed before checking that! >>I'm not saying he miscounted, I'm saying he never counted at all! > > > I suspect that you are right. But why in the world did he claim 13 > tricks if he hadn't even counted his tricks? How did he know how many > tricks to claim without counting them? A top player really should > know better than to assume that a grand slam will necessarily win just > because they didn't cash their ace in trick one. > Jesper touches on another point. Do we have to have compassion for a player who refuses to do his thinking for himself? Maybe we shouldn't have. > >>I'm not saying he did not notice the squeeze, I'm saying he never knew >>he needed something else than 13 top tricks. > > > If a vague feeling that there probably are 13 top tricks is enough > basis for this top player to claim, then surely it is also enough > basis for the same top player to begin playing it out with, for > instance, diamonds first. > I don't have the same vague feeling. > This is the point which again and again divides Herman from just about > everybody else on BLML: where I come from, people do not claim unless > they know how how many tricks they are going to get and how they are > going to get them. But it seems to be a common occurrence in Herman's > circles. > Yes, I do it myself far too often as well. And I have suffered many more down tricks that could have been avoided with more careful play, than that I have had to get the TD to give me the tricks I could not have failed to make. > I must admit that I simply fail to understand the point of view that > you can claim whatever number of tricks you would like without > thinking at all, expecting the TD to find the winning plan for you if > he believes that you would have found it if you had taken the trouble > to think. Bridge is a game where you are supposed to actually do your > thinking yourself. When you choose not to think, you get fewer tricks > - even if you can convince the TD that had you chosen to think, you > would get 13 tricks. > Well, the fact that in 95% of case you end up with 12 tricks, should suffice you to not claim in this manner. And it should also suffice us on blml not to want to rule 12 tricks in the other 5% also. > I also find such claims quite rude to the opponents. This declarer > has, if Herman is right, left the counting to the opponents because he > couldn't bother himself. In other words, he is trying to win his > doubled grand slam on a claim even though he has no idea whether the > claim is valid. When I claim, my opponents at least know that I > seriously believe my claim to be valid - if I appear to be reasonably > awake, they will usually not run any serious risk by not studying the > claim very much before accepting it. > I agree with that statement. I also try to get claim statements more complete, out of courtesy to your opponents if nothing else. > Claiming should not be a substitute for counting tricks and planning > the play; it should be a substitute only for physically playing out > the tricks. > > (I will attempt to not get involved in a long repetition of arguments > with Herman (we've done that before), so I intend to participate > further in this discussion only if I believe that I actually have > something new to say. Silence from me will not mean that Herman has > convinced me :-) ) Let me give an alternate example in which the balance of compassion is different. Same Lay-out, same contract, same lead. Declarer: "partner, where's your third ace?" Dummy: "I bid xxx, which shows only 2" Declarer: "no it does not, luckily they haven't found the lead, so I'm going to make this contract" Defender: "I think this is a claim - Director" TD: "who called me?" Defender: "I did - he said he would make his contract, that's a claim" TD: "yes, technically it is - did you say how you'd play it?" Declarer: "no I did not, because I did not intend to claim, and I haven't even watched my own cards yet". TD: "sorry sir, but I'll have to rule this as a claim - have you anything to add?" Declarer: (without pause for thought) "yes I have, I will play my clubs and hearts and iuf the SA doesn't arrive the diamonds from the top - I'll win if diamonds are 3-3 or the jack is doubleton or fourth in the same hand as the SA." In this story you will have to have every sympathy for declarer. Are you still going to rule against him because he claimed without a claim statement? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jun 2 15:48:04 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] The road to hell is paved with good conventions In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Jun 02, 2004 10:23:22 AM Message-ID: <200406021448.i52Em4I9013736@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > ACBL New Orleans casebook, appeal 36 > > Event: Stratified IMP Pairs, 23 Nov 03, > Evening (Only) Session > > Bd: 11, Dlr: South, Vul: None > > 87 > AJ6 > J652 > J963 > KT65 A9432 > K95 QT43 > AKQ8 T973 > AT --- > QJ > 872 > 4 > KQ87542 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 2D(1) > Pass 2S(2) Dbl 3C > 4C 5C Pass Pass > Dbl Pass 5C Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) 18-19 HCP, balanced, or a good 3-level > minor-suit preempt. I don't consider this an adequate description. Does it for instance *deny* an outside ace? (My sister would call QJ, AJx, x, KQxxxxx a good 3C bid. So would a lot of players starting out) > (2) Denied four spades. > > The Facts: 5S went down one, +50 for N/S. > The opening lead was the CK. > > The Director was called after the 2D bid > and determined that this use of a 2D > opening was not permitted on the GCC (in > use for this event) and N/S were therefore > playing an illegal convention. As per ACBL > procedure in such situations, he allowed > the auction and play to proceed and stood > ready to protect E/W if damage resulted. > > E/W, a 0-200 pair, thought they should not > have had to digest a new system and > defense. They also noted that facing this > new method was disconcerting and left them > less well equipped to deal with this hand. I guess the argument is that East had no idea what West thought his initial action showed. Yeah the 5S call is a true lemon, but that kind of thing happens with increased frequency when you're put in an unfamiliar situation. Say the auction starts with West making a takeout double of a 3C opener.. East won't pull a penalty double of 5C out of fear. > North had about 1780 MP, South 1920, East > 180 and West 80. > > If you were an ACBL TD, how would you rule? 5CX -4. And a warning about playing an illegal convention. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jun 2 15:58:56 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:58:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: <068b01c4478d$ae30a180$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Jun 01, 2004 05:05:29 AM Message-ID: <200406021458.i52EwuJf013816@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > > Yesterday, in the Welsh Seniors Swiss, we were enjoying > our last match against a hitherto charming couple when the > following incident spoilt what had been a friendly weekend. > > (1) As declarer, I perused LHO's beautiful computer-prepared CC > for Discarding methods and read "Count". I also asked > about their discard system. RHO confirmed "Only count." > (2) At the end of the hand, opponents had a mild argument. > RHO told LHO that he had noticed her signal for the ace > of spades. Puzzled, I asked "How?" LHO said that that her > first discard, the spade nine, advertised a high card in > spades. > (3) I asked why this had not been divulged to me. RHO explained > that he thought I had asked about the meaning of a discard to > a later trick. > (4) I asked RHO why "attitude" was not mentioned on their CC. > RHO told me to "Shut up". > (5) Since we appeared to have reached impasse, I called the TD. > (6) The TD established the facts (as above). I simply requested > that the TD ask opponents to change their CC. > (7) The incident left opponents fuming; and my partner and I > confused and embarrassed. > (8) The TD said he would consult his colleagues before returning > with his verdict. > (9) A few boards later the event ended. We waited to watch the > prize giving. As far as we know, no ruling was given and > our opponents left with their CC unaltered. > > Questions (some irrelevant to this event)... > > A. In some local (and national) events, in spite of many > (suspected) infractions, few call the TD because it upsets > most opponents and disturbs busy TDs. During the above > incident, my partner advised me not to call the TD. Should > you really call the TD after all (alleged) infractions? Yes. > > B. I can understand players who take liberties to get even > with all their local rivals who seem to break the law with > impunity; but is failing to call the TD just reinforcing > this trend? I don't ascribe their actions to bad faith. However, failing to call the director means that they'll continue. > > C. Then again, what about Richard's bunnies? Call the director. It can be done in a non-confrontational way. > > D. In simple cases like non-disclosure, is it incumbent on > all players to call the TD in case the opposing pair have > gained and continue to gain advantage against other pairs? I don't care about the field. I'm calling the director anyhow. > > E. Or is this another case of "the field can protect itself"? > > F. In practice, how should a TD deal with rude behaviour? As seems apropriate. (I personally believe that you've given a good faith version of your side of the situation. I just don't believe it's accurate. Nobody gets to the level of directing at a tournament without being capable of dealing with rude players) > > G. Do current laws put would-be players off bridge? Would the > law be less of a bogey to players if it were less > chauvinist, subjective, sophisticated, and biased in favour > of experienced players and secretary birds? Nigel, we've been over these grounds before. Instead of this kind of whining, if you feel you have a constructive suggestion to make, do so. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 2 16:21:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:21:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BDC78E.1090205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Herman, Are you trying in so many words to convince me that this (fictitious) = player did claim without in any way bothering to assure himself he has 13 = tricks? That would be the most ridiculous claim I ever heard of. >From his claim I am convinced that he was sure of 13 tricks, either = because he actually (mis-)counted them or more probably because he "saw" two = minor suits each giving 6 tricks together with the 3 tricks in Hearts for a = total of 15 tricks. I am absolutely convinced that any need for an end play (squeeze) was not at all in his mind because of what he did NOT say. ....... snip (a lot here, and more below) > > I have seen too many failures in this respect to agree with you. > > >=20 > No you haven't.=20 Yes I have. I am referring to players cashing what they thought was a running suit only to discover after some tricks that opponents had a stopper. ....... > Now that is a valid counter-argument. If indeed we find out that the > player thought he had 15 tricks, then you are right in ruling against > him. Still, I don't believe that this is the case, or at least not > what the Polish examinators had in mind when setting the case. I really do not care what the Polish examiners had in mind. When someone gives me a case I prefer to rule on the given facts, not on any = assumption of what the examiners possibly might have had in mind. The facts here is a player who we must assume is sure of (at least) 13 tricks. The only way he could have been "sure" of that is with 10 minor = suit tricks from the top. There is no way this can be unless he has (at = least) 13 "Aces". Then it is immaterial in which order he cashes his "Aces" so we = are bound by law 70 to rule an unsuccessful although not irrational line of = play if so exists, and given the facts this calls for ruling that he starts = off with his Diamond tricks, one of the suits he believes has no loser. With = 13 "Aces" this can certainly not be ruled an irrational play. ....... more snip =20 > > Fundamental disagreement. And I still consider my opinion=20 > > supported by the laws. Beginning by cashing 6 tricks in=20 > > Diamonds is not irrational when all your tricks are top=20 > > tricks. Playing without double-checking your plan is > > not irrational when you know that you have 15 tricks. > > >=20 > Sorry Sven, I allow you to disagree with me with regards to the actual > state of mind of claimer. I also allow you to consider the cashing of > diamonds to be normal within the frame of mind of claimer such as you > see it (in fact you'd be compeletely right in doing so). But I don't > allow you to quote the laws in that respect. This is no longer a laws > matter. I believe we have fairly similar ideas on what the laws say. As the laws have no definition on the term "irrational" I agree with you that judging whether some play is irrational or not is not directly a = law matter. However, I stand by my statement that I feel my opinion = supported by and consistent with the laws. ......... > > Claiming without such a check is careless and maybe even irrational. = But > > that is what he has done. Law 70 specifically prohibits him from > "planning" > > after his claim is disputed. > > >=20 > No it does not. L70E just says that such planning shall be disregarded > if there are other rational plans available. And there is - cashing his Diamond tricks. ......... > I believe that "playing without checking" is irrational. You might be > right that it would be careless if the player thinks he has 16 tricks, > not just 13. But I am talking of the case where he thinks he has his > contract, nothing more. I repeat, "playing without checking" must be > irrational in that case. CLAIMING without checking is irrational. Law 70 binds the claimer to the line of play consistent with his claim when this line of play is not irrational from the premises for the claim! The only possible premises for his claim here is that he sees at least = 13 top tricks, and on such premises it is not irrational to begin cashing = the Diamonds. .........=20 > > The claimer will be allowed his discoveries from authorized = information > but > > not his discoveries from unauthorized information. > > >=20 > What UI? He claimed, the claim was contested, and the TD was called. The fact that either defender contested the claim is UI.=20 Declarer may not select any line of play which could have been suggested = by the fact that a defender contested the claim.=20 The exceptions to this principle are: 1: If he demonstrably had this line of play selected before the claim = was contested in which case that line of play should be evident from the = claim statement itself. 2: Such line of play becomes obvious during a line of play specified in = the claim statement. An example of case 2 is when declarer has forgotten a trump but there is = no way opponent can ruff with this trump without declarer over-ruffing and still have all his claimed tricks. > it is up to the TD to decide whether this player is good enough to > discover this line of play, or not. In trying to decide this, the TD > will ask the player what his line would be, hoping the player won't > find it, thus making the TD's life simple. If the player finds it, the > TD still has to make the decision as to whether he believes the player > would have "always" found it. No this is not at the discretion of the Director. He must decide whether = the successful line of play could have been the result of afterthoughts = because of declarer's claim being disputed. Law 70D specifically prohibits the Director from accepting such a new line of play.=20 A possible fact that the only line(s) of play consistent with the claim statement would be deemed irrational does in my opinion not alter this application of Law 70D. ........ > OK, if it turns out that claimer had "visualized" (nice word), that he > held also the DJ, the case is suddenly different. But usually, players > are honest, and when you ask them why they claimed, they will either > answer "because I thought I had the DJ" or "because I thought the > contract was safe" or "because I counted 13 tricks". And we should > normally believe them and rule against him when he answers 1 or 3. But > not 2. And I don't think 1 is the case the Polish exam had in mind. > You're clutching at straws here, trying to win an argument rather than > trying to get to the bottom of a tricky problem. Visualize is an ordinary verb which you find in any decent dictionary. = It means forming a mental image of something. My understanding of this case has all the time been that the only basis declarer could have had for his claim is that he visualized two running minor suits together with three solid tricks in Hearts. ............. > Well, I'm 100% convinced. You're not. I suspect we haven't been > looking at the same case, with the same evidence.=20 I have no reason to suspect that we have not? > You have to look at this from another point of view, Sven. This is a > fictitious case, and the examinar has tried to do his best to present > a picture of a player who has claimed without pause for thought.=20 Where does "pause for thought" enter the picture? I cannot remember = having seen those words in this thread until now. > You're trying to invent a number of case where there has been pause > for thought. You're using your imagination to try and cast doubt. In > real life, you'll ask the player "did you think you had the DJ?", and > he'll say "no" and you'll believe him. And you'll rule as I do. No, in the real life I will ask the claimer to repeat his claim = statement, and if he wants to add something for clarification I shall listen to = that and rule whether that addition is admissible or not, all according to = the prescriptions in Law 70. From the facts presented in this thread I shall undoubtedly rule down 1. .......=20 > Which is precisely how I handle this case. I rule that the line of > play will reveal itself automatically. I don't hold against a player > the fact that he claimed within a split second of seeing dummy. If > this same player claims after studying his own hand for 10 seconds, > and then does not mention the squeeze, my ruling will be entirely > different, as you may well believe. This is the second time I see anything about "within a split second" = (the first time was by you a bit higher up in this same comment). The facts have been that he made an ordinary claim like "I have the = rest". If on being summoned to the table I find that he on seeing dummy and the opening lead had given an impulsive remark something like "Oh fine, = we'll make it" I would allow him depending upon the finer details to either = play it out (treating the remark as a null) or to for his complete claim statement there and then. But this last situation is completely new to me, and I believe also to = the thread. Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jun 2 16:51:36 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:51:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status References: Message-ID: <000401c448b9$7e031f60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > If Rick Beye renews his offer to forward the cases from > the Reno NABC to blml for discussion, then I will > volunteer to collate the blml commentaries on the Reno > NABC cases into one document. > > The ACBL casebooks have been useful for TDs across the > world, not merely ACBL-resident TDs. > I think the simplest solution is for the ACBL to publish the AC decisions on its website (without a copyright notice), making it available to anyone for any purpose. I'll suggest that to Rick. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Wed Jun 2 16:51:36 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:51:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000001c4488c$79a9a9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> <000001c4488c$79a9a9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c4488c$79a9a9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes big snip > >I think our main disagreements go on what tolerance we allow for top class >players. My personal opinion is that many recent cases have been resolved >far to lenient for OS, and I feel corroborated in my view by the recent >incident with Lauria in BB. In that particular case I was extremely >surprised that the decision by the Director was even appealed; on an AC I >would have ruled forfeiture of the deposit for an appeal absolutely without >merit. > >We too often assume that top players do not act "silly", but Lauria >demonstrated very well what they can be capable of. And I still have my firm >opinion that it is not the job for a Director or an AC to "protect" a player >from his own possible mistakes. In claim cases this implies that what the >claimer has not addressed with his statement is to be considered something >he is unaware of (if it turns out to be important). > This entirely states my view too. When Hamman claims holding AKTxx facing Q9xx, he loses a trick when Jxxx sits over AKTxx because he didn't mention it. I know AND he knows AND he knows I know AND I know he knows, that he doesn't get it wrong, but he didn't say so at the time and the Wendy coup may just be in operation. ... and Hamman should shrug and say "yeah, bum claim" rather than squeal for the AC. I've had this happen at a table of internationals on a club night at the Acol. "Serves you f*****g right for the bum claim" were the words used by claimer's partner (which the whole table and I agreed were an exact description of the problem, and thus not subject to penalty). I think it's a mistake for AC's to have a tolerance for this, as we see world class players make enough errors that a bum claim may well be a bum line, well into the threshold of careless. cheers John >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Jun 2 17:00:35 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 18:00:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <000201c44897$e17cf1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BDC78E.1090205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003601c448ba$c04c9da0$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Herman De Wael" > > The claimer will be allowed his discoveries from authorized informati= on but > > not his discoveries from unauthorized information. > > > > What UI? He claimed, the claim was contested, and the TD was called. I think that the fundamentally wrong assumption you make is that you consider what is irrational or careless for a player armed with the information that his claim is flawed. In that case - yes, you are right. Every world class player knowing that the claim he has made in invalid would bring this contract home about 100% of the time. But my reading of the laws tells me that the words "irrational" and "careless" refer to the lines of play which are irrational or careless for the player of the appropriate class who has just showed his cards to the opponents and made such-and-such statement. IOW - I think that for the class of "world class players who have just made the <> statement with the pair of hands from my first post" cashing the diamond ace is not irrational. This is how I interprete the words "for the class of player involved". BTW Herman, my Herman, I can forgive you everything but please Don't kall me "Conrad"! Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jun 2 17:44:00 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:44:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention References: <001501c4484b$47ed5620$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <001b01c448c0$d2a0f0e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Raija Davis" > > [Snipped some] > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- --- 2D(1) > > Pass 2S(2) Dbl 3C > > 4C 5C Pass Pass > > Dbl Pass 5C Pass > > Pass Pass > > > > (1) 18-19 HCP, balanced, or a good 3-level > > minor-suit preempt. > > (2) Denied four spades. > > > > The Facts: 5S went down one, +50 for N/S. > > The opening lead was the CK. > > > > The Director was called after the 2D bid > > and determined that this use of a 2D > > opening was not permitted on the GCC (in > > use for this event) and N/S were therefore > > playing an illegal convention. As per ACBL > > procedure in such situations, he allowed > > the auction and play to proceed and stood > > ready to protect E/W if damage resulted.Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California > >> > As to any ruling, I am not a TD and not qualified to suggest one. However, > I do have an opinion. Feel free to laugh at it, or prove that it is not in > accordance with laws, but from a non law experts's point of view, the > following seems reasonable. > I think a PP for use of illegal convention should clearly be in order. > Regarding 5S going down, I don't know how it can possibly go down but > apparently it went down...perhaps because the declarer was not-so-good, > inexperienced, made errors, or whatever description one might use. In any > case, the result seems to reflect the declarer's ability to play a hand so I > would leave the result unchanged for them, why should they get away for > butchering a hand just because Marv > Going down in 5S IMO qualifies as "no longer playing > bridge". But the OS should have their score adjusted to the worst likely > result had there been no infraction, in addition to the PP assigned to them. Adjust the score for both sides, 5CX-4. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Jun 2 18:16:10 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:16:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: KISS (was: 7.5 tables) In-Reply-To: <20040602024802.28148.98023.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040602024802.28148.98023.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1086196570.24308.197633998@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello list, > Heh. We were discussing movements at the club the other day, and the > subject of "strange" (i.e., not a simple Mitchell or, in a pinch, a > basic Howell) movements came up. One woman objected to such movements > because, she said, "I don't come here to think"! LOL!! (pun intended) But, there is a very real issue under this. The players are there for bridge, and to the extent that the movement intrudes on their temporary world of bids and plays, their experience is less enjoyable. I feel comfortable looking in the direction I'm looking, at least so far--movements that are reasonable, *and simple* from the players' point of view. If they know the movement, they are less likely do something that leaves me having to fix something. Yes, I can ride herd on every round change, but that's a bit of the same problem of intruding on the players' game. My colleagues have the right view IMHO. Yesterday we had 9.5 tables. The optimum AFAIK (in terms of the best possible comparisons) Rover Mitchell was never an option, and IMHO properly so for that club, because of the irregular movement of two EW pairs. My colleague simply ran a skip Mitchell, and no one had a chance to go wrong, and they lived happily ever after. Along this line, I thank John "Mad Dog" Probst for checking out what I wrote about adding a late pair or table to a relay Mitchell without cancelling the relayed boards and still having everyone play 24 or 27 boards (in the case of 8 tables). The players will be glad to be rid of the relay and will move as they are accustomed to. Bye stands they are fine with, since Howells are necessary early in week often enough, and it won't be the first time boards were out of order--post the new order on the room whiteboard, and that's that--or should be--with only mild oversight. David Babcock Florida USA From adam@irvine.com Wed Jun 2 18:30:19 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:30:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:42:41 PDT." <001501c4484b$47ed5620$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <200406021730.KAA02736@mailhub.irvine.com> Raija wrote: > [Snipped some] > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- --- 2D(1) > > Pass 2S(2) Dbl 3C > > 4C 5C Pass Pass > > Dbl Pass 5C Pass > > Pass Pass > > > > (1) 18-19 HCP, balanced, or a good 3-level > > minor-suit preempt. > > (2) Denied four spades. > > > > The Facts: 5S went down one, +50 for N/S. > > The opening lead was the CK. > > > > The Director was called after the 2D bid > > and determined that this use of a 2D > > opening was not permitted on the GCC (in > > use for this event) and N/S were therefore > > playing an illegal convention. As per ACBL > > procedure in such situations, he allowed > > the auction and play to proceed and stood > > ready to protect E/W if damage resulted. > > ******** > The 2D conventional opening that this pair used is not allowed at any level > of play in the ACBL, not even the Super Chart as far as I can tell reading > the charts. So to say "not allowed under GCC" is misleading, when in fact > it is not allowed. Period. > Maybe the TD's words were misquoted, or the TD didn't check the charts, or > Richard misquoted, or I am reading the chart wrong. Something is amiss > somewhere. I think you're right that 2D is not allowed in any ACBL event. But since this was a GCC event, I don't see why the TD should have the responsibility to determine whether the convention in question would be allowed in any non-GCC events, or check any other charts besides the GCC. Perhaps I don't understand your point. Who was misleading whom? -- Adam From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 2 19:06:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:06:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40BE173E.90206@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Herman, > > Are you trying in so many words to convince me that this (fictitious) player > did claim without in any way bothering to assure himself he has 13 tricks? > yes Sven, that is indeed what he did. He claimed without counting his tricks. > That would be the most ridiculous claim I ever heard of. > Well, I've done it before, and I'll do it again. And I don't mind receiving the least number of tricks that I can normally make. But I won't accept one less than that! >>From his claim I am convinced that he was sure of 13 tricks, either because Well, actually Sven, there is one thing wrong in the above sentence. He was not "sure" of 13 tricks. He cannot have been, or he would not have claimed. We have not been told that anything went wrong in his mind. He did not "visualize" the DJ, he did not count 3+6+3=13, he did not forget that 6 diamonds can be divided 4-2, none of that all. All he did was claim. Silly, yes, but nothing more than that. He claimed. He did nothing wrong, except tell the table a line. The laws tell us what needs to be done then, and that is to give him the least successful of all normal lines. I do not see anything in his claim to suggest that cashing AKQ10 of diamonds is in any way other than an irrational line. > he actually (mis-)counted them or more probably because he "saw" two minor > suits each giving 6 tricks together with the 3 tricks in Hearts for a total > of 15 tricks. I am absolutely convinced that any need for an end play > (squeeze) was not at all in his mind because of what he did NOT say. > That last bit is true - he did not see that he needed a more particular line. But he could not fail to notice that he did, if he had looked instead of claiming. Not looking before playing is, IMO, irrational and should therefor not be included in the lines we examine for the claim adjudication. > ....... snip (a lot here, and more below) > >>>I have seen too many failures in this respect to agree with you. >>> >> >>No you haven't. > > > Yes I have. I am referring to players cashing what they thought was a > running suit only to discover after some tricks that opponents had a > stopper. > No, that is not what happens. What happens is that people look at a diamond suit and think it is worth 6 tricks. Sometimes they wake up and realize the jack has to drop for this to be true. But never do they actually play AKQ10 and be amazed that the J makes the fourth trick (unless they actually did miscount, something which also happens) > ....... > > >>Now that is a valid counter-argument. If indeed we find out that the >>player thought he had 15 tricks, then you are right in ruling against >>him. Still, I don't believe that this is the case, or at least not >>what the Polish examinators had in mind when setting the case. > > > I really do not care what the Polish examiners had in mind. When someone > gives me a case I prefer to rule on the given facts, not on any assumption > of what the examiners possibly might have had in mind. > Well, Sven, in that case you will not succeed in many exams. If in a TD exam the question is being put like this, the examinator is not asking you to imagine that the player miscounted. If he did, it will be put in the question. If it's not in the question, you can be pretty certain the examinator does not want you to suggest that he did. > The facts here is a player who we must assume is sure of (at least) 13 > tricks. The only way he could have been "sure" of that is with 10 minor suit > tricks from the top. There is no way this can be unless he has (at least) 13 > "Aces". Then it is immaterial in which order he cashes his "Aces" so we are > bound by law 70 to rule an unsuccessful although not irrational line of play > if so exists, and given the facts this calls for ruling that he starts off > with his Diamond tricks, one of the suits he believes has no loser. With 13 > "Aces" this can certainly not be ruled an irrational play. > ....... more snip > > >>>Fundamental disagreement. And I still consider my opinion >>>supported by the laws. Beginning by cashing 6 tricks in >>>Diamonds is not irrational when all your tricks are top >>>tricks. Playing without double-checking your plan is >>>not irrational when you know that you have 15 tricks. >>> >> >>Sorry Sven, I allow you to disagree with me with regards to the actual >>state of mind of claimer. I also allow you to consider the cashing of >>diamonds to be normal within the frame of mind of claimer such as you >>see it (in fact you'd be compeletely right in doing so). But I don't >>allow you to quote the laws in that respect. This is no longer a laws >>matter. I believe we have fairly similar ideas on what the laws say. > > > As the laws have no definition on the term "irrational" I agree with you > that judging whether some play is irrational or not is not directly a law > matter. However, I stand by my statement that I feel my opinion supported by > and consistent with the laws. > ......... > Sven, read the above again: you agree that this is a matter of judgment, not of law. And then you say that the laws support your judgment, not mine. 'nuff said. >>>Claiming without such a check is careless and maybe even irrational. But >>>that is what he has done. Law 70 specifically prohibits him from >> >>"planning" >> >>>after his claim is disputed. >>> >> >>No it does not. L70E just says that such planning shall be disregarded >>if there are other rational plans available. > > > And there is - cashing his Diamond tricks. > which I don't deem rational. > ......... > >>I believe that "playing without checking" is irrational. You might be >>right that it would be careless if the player thinks he has 16 tricks, >>not just 13. But I am talking of the case where he thinks he has his >>contract, nothing more. I repeat, "playing without checking" must be >>irrational in that case. > > > CLAIMING without checking is irrational. Law 70 binds the claimer to the No, certainly not. And since this has been done before the claim, there is no reason to rule whether the action be rational or not. > line of play consistent with his claim when this line of play is not > irrational from the premises for the claim! > Of course, and what I have said all along. I judge the line of simply cashing top tricks without looking to be irrational. Respond to my arguments, don't just repeat the law! > The only possible premises for his claim here is that he sees at least 13 > top tricks, and on such premises it is not irrational to begin cashing the > Diamonds. > No, there is another possible premise for his claim, namely that he did not count his tricks but simply felt there were 13 of them. And on that premise it is irrational for him not to start byu checking his lines and discover that cashing diamonds is not the best way forward. > ......... > >>>The claimer will be allowed his discoveries from authorized information >> >>but >> >>>not his discoveries from unauthorized information. >>> >> >>What UI? He claimed, the claim was contested, and the TD was called. > > > The fact that either defender contested the claim is UI. > No, it is not. L16 has no bearing whatsoever on this matter. > Declarer may not select any line of play which could have been suggested by > the fact that a defender contested the claim. > No, absolutely wrong. Declarer may not select any line of play (suggested or not) if another line is less successful. > The exceptions to this principle are: > there is no need to list exceptions to a principle that is maifestly wrong; but otherwise your statements below are correct: > 1: If he demonstrably had this line of play selected before the claim was > contested in which case that line of play should be evident from the claim > statement itself. > Yes indeed - we all know cases of interrupted claim statements, or of incomplete statements, where it is clear what the intended line was going to be. And of course this is not the case in the Polish exam. > 2: Such line of play becomes obvious during a line of play specified in the > claim statement. > Indeed, and it is this "exception" which I use. Of course I use it slightly larger than what you believe it should be. You allow the rethink only when cards have been played, I also allow it before any next card is played. I believe that the line of play (the squeeze) becomes obvious (to this declarer) one second after he starts thinking about the cards. > An example of case 2 is when declarer has forgotten a trump but there is no > way opponent can ruff with this trump without declarer over-ruffing and > still have all his claimed tricks. > > Indeed, that is an example of case 2. There are others. Read the "strange claim" again. > >>it is up to the TD to decide whether this player is good enough to >>discover this line of play, or not. In trying to decide this, the TD >>will ask the player what his line would be, hoping the player won't >>find it, thus making the TD's life simple. If the player finds it, the >>TD still has to make the decision as to whether he believes the player >>would have "always" found it. > > > No this is not at the discretion of the Director. He must decide whether the > successful line of play could have been the result of afterthoughts because > of declarer's claim being disputed. Law 70D specifically prohibits the > Director from accepting such a new line of play. > No, L70D does not prohibits this. L70D prohibits this if there are other less successful, normal lines. I contend that cashing diamonds is not a normal line for this declarer. You're talking in circles! > A possible fact that the only line(s) of play consistent with the claim > statement would be deemed irrational does in my opinion not alter this > application of Law 70D. > Yes it does. When the only line that is consistent with the claim statement becomes obviously irrational, L70D kicks in to allow the claimer to select any other normal line. > ........ > >>OK, if it turns out that claimer had "visualized" (nice word), that he >>held also the DJ, the case is suddenly different. But usually, players >>are honest, and when you ask them why they claimed, they will either >>answer "because I thought I had the DJ" or "because I thought the >>contract was safe" or "because I counted 13 tricks". And we should >>normally believe them and rule against him when he answers 1 or 3. But >>not 2. And I don't think 1 is the case the Polish exam had in mind. >>You're clutching at straws here, trying to win an argument rather than >>trying to get to the bottom of a tricky problem. > > > Visualize is an ordinary verb which you find in any decent dictionary. It > means forming a mental image of something. > and it is well chosen in this context, and I congratulate you on it. It can happen that a claimer "visualizes" a certain card, and bases his claim upon that visualisation. I shall allow lines based on that card to be carried out, even if irrational at first view, until the card suddenly appears in some other hand than the one itr was visualized in. If we find that our Polish declarer though he held the DJ, I let him cash the diamonds and go 2 off. But such was not the case that the Poles wanted to rule upon. > My understanding of this case has all the time been that the only basis > declarer could have had for his claim is that he visualized two running > minor suits together with three solid tricks in Hearts. > Well, you're wrong there. I feel that there was another basis for his claim: an irrational feeling that all was well after they did not caash the spade ace. Irrational, yes, but a basis for claiming far more internally consistent than the one you imagine for declarer. > ............. > >>Well, I'm 100% convinced. You're not. I suspect we haven't been >>looking at the same case, with the same evidence. > > > I have no reason to suspect that we have not? > > >>You have to look at this from another point of view, Sven. This is a >>fictitious case, and the examinar has tried to do his best to present >>a picture of a player who has claimed without pause for thought. > > > Where does "pause for thought" enter the picture? I cannot remember having > seen those words in this thread until now. > Well, it was a while since I read the original exam question. Let's copy it here: 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? OK, no mention of pauses for thought. Let me tell you that I agree that if a world class declarer claims in this position after looking at both hands for 10 seconds, I immediately bump him out of the "world" class and rule like you do. So can we go on about this case as if declarer claimed immediately, without pause for thought? > >>You're trying to invent a number of case where there has been pause >>for thought. You're using your imagination to try and cast doubt. In >>real life, you'll ask the player "did you think you had the DJ?", and >>he'll say "no" and you'll believe him. And you'll rule as I do. > > > No, in the real life I will ask the claimer to repeat his claim statement, > and if he wants to add something for clarification I shall listen to that > and rule whether that addition is admissible or not, all according to the > prescriptions in Law 70. From the facts presented in this thread I shall > undoubtedly rule down 1. > > ....... > > >>Which is precisely how I handle this case. I rule that the line of >>play will reveal itself automatically. I don't hold against a player >>the fact that he claimed within a split second of seeing dummy. If >>this same player claims after studying his own hand for 10 seconds, >>and then does not mention the squeeze, my ruling will be entirely >>different, as you may well believe. > > > This is the second time I see anything about "within a split second" (the > first time was by you a bit higher up in this same comment). > > The facts have been that he made an ordinary claim like "I have the rest". > see my answer above. If this has taken more than two seconds I: a- rule against this man b- throw him out of the tournament for asking me to allow his silly claim > If on being summoned to the table I find that he on seeing dummy and the > opening lead had given an impulsive remark something like "Oh fine, we'll > make it" I would allow him depending upon the finer details to either play > it out (treating the remark as a null) or to for his complete claim > statement there and then. > Indeed. That is the case we've been discussing all along. I would also expect this world class declarer to show me the squeeze workings within a very reasonable amount of time. > But this last situation is completely new to me, and I believe also to the > thread. > No Sven, it comes from a very easy analysis into players' motives and possible hang-ups. Did you really believe that a world class declarer would look twice at these two sets of cards and then claim 13 tricks? That is simply impossible. The only possible explanation for there being a claim is that it was done immediately, and almost without looking at his own hand a second time. And that is the claim I have been ruling on. And in that claim it is irrational to expect that declarer plays any card without doing the small check that he should have done before claiming. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Jun 2 19:33:26 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:33:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BE173E.90206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c448d0$1a13f710$73421d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > Did you really believe that a world class declarer would look twice at > these two sets of cards and then claim 13 tricks? A "world class player" - no. But "a world class player in ecstasy after avoiding the spade lead" - yes! Definitely yes! This is how I read the "for the class of player involved" clause; in this broader sense. It looks like I am beginning to repeat the same points so I guess it is time to bow out. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Jun 2 16:24:01 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:24:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] New email account- your help Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, I have a new email address and tried (unsuccesfully..) to change this on my BLML configuration page. I sent 2 messages to the BLML admin and got no answer. Would you pls send me a private message telling me how to restore subscription. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From henk@ripe.net Wed Jun 2 20:41:52 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:41:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] New email account- your help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > I have a new email address and tried (unsuccesfully..) to > change this on my BLML configuration page. > I sent 2 messages to the BLML admin and got no answer. > Would you pls send me a private message telling me how > to restore subscription. I'll take care of that as soon as I'm back home on Sunday. (On the road travelling, with only 56k dialup access, making it a bit clumsy to stay on top of everything). Henk > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jun 2 21:11:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <003601c448ba$c04c9da0$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: Konrad wrote: > cashing the diamond ace is not irrational. Here I would rather agree with Herman. There are no hands to which cashing the DA caters and a numbers of hands where it is going to cost. There can never be any reason to cash the DA early and an action not based on reason is, pretty obviously, irrational. I'm still awarding 11 tricks but only because I believe a trick 10 finesse, while inferior, is rational. Had West started with 5H+5C (declarer will get a count) the finesse would not be a rational play (of course with a declarer of a lower calibre one might rule that he would be incapable of counting the hand). If Herman prefers I will go on record that cashing diamonds first is so unnatural and pointless that when considering even remotely plausible lines that a competent or better declarer might take it is not even a blip on the long-range radar of doubt. Two classes of player get a ruling against them: those so bad that an early diamond is plausible and those good enough to consider the possibility of a D finesse (and even these latter will still get a favourable ruling if my judgement is that East is bound to agonise at trick 9). Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 2 21:11:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:11:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BE173E.90206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c448dd$da1a5e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > Are you trying in so many words to convince me=20 > > that this (fictitious) player did claim without > > in any way bothering to assure himself he has 13 > > tricks? > > >=20 > yes Sven, that is indeed what he did. He claimed=20 > without counting his tricks. >=20 > > That would be the most ridiculous claim I ever heard of. > > >=20 > Well, I've done it before, and I'll do it again. And I don't mind > receiving the least number of tricks that I can normally make. But I > won't accept one less than that! >=20 > >>From his claim I am convinced that he was sure of 13 tricks >=20 > Well, actually Sven, there is one thing wrong in the above sentence. > He was not "sure" of 13 tricks. He cannot have been, or he would not > have claimed. If he makes a claim without being sure (although falsely) that his claim = is sound then he will just have to take his rap and accept the result. I understand Law 70 such that I have to rule the final result on the = facts which include his claim statement showing what line of play he intended = to follow under the assumption that he believes his own claim was sound. Any other interpretation of Law 70 shall make me uncomfortable to say = the least. > We have not been told that anything went wrong in his mind. He did not > "visualize" the DJ, he did not count 3+6+3=3D13, he did not forget = that > 6 diamonds can be divided 4-2, none of that all. All he did was claim. > Silly, yes, but nothing more than that. He claimed. He did nothing > wrong, except tell the table a line. The laws tell us what needs to be > done then, and that is to give him the least successful of all normal > lines. I do not see anything in his claim to suggest that cashing > AKQ10 of diamonds is in any way other than an irrational line. All I say is that once we must trust the claimer to believe in his own = claim then there is nothing irrational if he starts off by cashing his high Diamond tricks as part of his 13 "Aces". In fact he doesn't have to cash more than one single high Diamond to spoil all his chances of winning 13 tricks.=20 >=20 > > I am absolutely convinced that any need for an end play (squeeze)=20 > > was not at all in his mind because of what he did NOT say. > > >=20 > That last bit is true - he did not see that he needed a more > particular line. But he could not fail to notice that he did, if he > had looked instead of claiming. Not looking before playing is, IMO, > irrational and should therefor not be included in the lines we examine > for the claim adjudication. This is wrong simply because the need for finding the thirteenth trick "could be suggested from the information that his claim was disputed". >=20 > > ....... snip (a lot here, and more below) > > > >>>I have seen too many failures in this respect to agree with you. > >>> > >> > >>No you haven't. > > > > > > Yes I have. I am referring to players cashing what they thought was = a > > running suit only to discover after some tricks that opponents had a > > stopper. > > >=20 > No, that is not what happens. What happens is that people look at a > diamond suit and think it is worth 6 tricks. Sometimes they wake up > and realize the jack has to drop for this to be true. But never do > they actually play AKQ10 and be amazed that the J makes the fourth > trick (unless they actually did miscount, something which also = happens) They play the Ace, maybe the King and maybe even the Queen before they discover the sad news. I have even seen players forget that the Jack is still missing and getting surprised when they lose their 10 to the Jack although this is rather an exception. =20 > > ....... > > > > > >>Now that is a valid counter-argument. If indeed we find out that the > >>player thought he had 15 tricks, then you are right in ruling = against > >>him. Still, I don't believe that this is the case, or at least not > >>what the Polish examinators had in mind when setting the case. > > > > > > I really do not care what the Polish examiners had in mind. When = someone > > gives me a case I prefer to rule on the given facts, not on any > assumption > > of what the examiners possibly might have had in mind. > > >=20 > Well, Sven, in that case you will not succeed in many exams. If in a > TD exam the question is being put like this, the examinator is not > asking you to imagine that the player miscounted. If he did, it will > be put in the question. If it's not in the question, you can be pretty > certain the examinator does not want you to suggest that he did. I have passed many exams in my life. (After all I have a master degree = in technology, a professional radio telegraph operator's license, a motor vehicle driver's license and surely some more exams which I probably = have forgotten right now). If I show up for an authorization test as TD and = fail on a case like this I shall accept that result and immediately lose all = my respect for the authority responsible for that test. Luckily I have no problem in my relations with the Norwegian federation. =20 > > 2: Such line of play becomes obvious during a line of play specified = in > the > > claim statement. > > >=20 > Indeed, and it is this "exception" which I use. Of course I use it > slightly larger than what you believe it should be. You allow the > rethink only when cards have been played, I also allow it before any > next card is played. I believe that the line of play (the squeeze) > becomes obvious (to this declarer) one second after he starts thinking > about the cards. But you include a revelation that is not the result of a line of play consistent with his claim statement but the result of afterthoughts when = he understands that his claim might be flawed (before he engages in any = line of play consistent with his claim statement). This is a violation of Law 70D (and possibly also Law 70E)=20 > > A possible fact that the only line(s) of play consistent with the = claim > > statement would be deemed irrational does in my opinion not alter = this > > application of Law 70D. > > >=20 > Yes it does. When the only line that is consistent with the claim > statement becomes obviously irrational, L70D kicks in to allow the > claimer to select any other normal line. The fact that a player according to his own statement has selected what afterwards is deemed an irrational line of play doesn't and must not = allow him to retract that line of play. With his claim the claimer completes his play so whatever line of play = he apparently has selected for his claim has already been made (subject to = the conditions in Law 70). We have no cause for testing whether this line of play was irrational at the time and under the conditions when he claimed unless there is at least one other line of play which is also consistent with his claim statement. In this case there is none because he made absolutely no indication of the need for a special line of play to = secure the thirteenth trick. When his claim statement signals that he believes he has 13 Aces, some = of which are from a running Diamond suit, then starting off by running this suit is definitely not irrational. This line of play only becomes = irrational when he discovers his mistake, and that is too late. Under Law 70D he = may clarify but not essentially change his intended line of play. =20 > It can happen that a claimer "visualizes" a certain card, and bases > his claim upon that visualisation. I shall allow lines based on that > card to be carried out, even if irrational at first view, until the > card suddenly appears in some other hand than the one itr was > visualized in. If we find that our Polish declarer though he held the > DJ, I let him cash the diamonds and go 2 off.=20 No I accept as a revelation during this line of play that he discovers = he has only three Diamond tricks, stops running the Diamonds and cashes his other tricks for 1 down. > But such was not the case that the Poles wanted to rule upon. =20 Please clarify: When you make a ruling whether at an exam or in real = life; do you investigate to find out what your censors want as your reply or = do you try the case from the available facts? > >>You have to look at this from another point of view, Sven. This is a > >>fictitious case, and the examinar has tried to do his best to = present > >>a picture of a player who has claimed without pause for thought. > > > > > > Where does "pause for thought" enter the picture? I cannot remember > having > > seen those words in this thread until now. > > >=20 > Well, it was a while since I read the original exam question. Let's > copy it here: >=20 > 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? >=20 > OK, no mention of pauses for thought. Let me tell you that I agree > that if a world class declarer claims in this position after looking > at both hands for 10 seconds, I immediately bump him out of the > "world" class and rule like you do. >=20 > So can we go on about this case as if declarer claimed immediately, > without pause for thought? That makes it an almost entirely different case, and I have already = given some indications on how I would have handled that. But the case as = presented until now bears absolutely no indication that it is anything other than = a normal claim case. =20 > see my answer above. If this has taken more than two seconds I: > a- rule against this man > b- throw him out of the tournament for asking me to allow his silly = claim >=20 > > If on being summoned to the table I find that he on seeing dummy and = the > > opening lead had given an impulsive remark something like "Oh fine, > we'll > > make it" I would allow him depending upon the finer details to = either > play > > it out (treating the remark as a null) or to for his complete claim > > statement there and then. > > >=20 > Indeed. That is the case we've been discussing all along. Not "WE". From what I have seen here on blml YOU may have been = discussing and YOU alone. It appears to me that everybody else has discussed it as another ordinary but flawed claim. And to your next question below: Yes I believe that is perfectly = possible.=20 And it is definitely not the Director's (nor the AC's) job to do the thinking for them to avoid such mistakes. Being my last words on this thread! Sven > Did you really believe that a world class declarer would look twice at > these two sets of cards and then claim 13 tricks? That is simply > impossible. The only possible explanation for there being a claim is > that it was done immediately, and almost without looking at his own > hand a second time. > And that is the claim I have been ruling on. > And in that claim it is irrational to expect that declarer plays any > card without doing the small check that he should have done before > claiming. From mustikka@charter.net Wed Jun 2 19:07:35 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:07:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention References: <200406021730.KAA02736@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002401c448cc$7e77b880$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention > > Raija wrote: > > > [Snipped some] > > > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > > --- --- --- 2D(1) > > > Pass 2S(2) Dbl 3C > > > 4C 5C Pass Pass > > > Dbl Pass 5C Pass > > > Pass Pass > > > > > > (1) 18-19 HCP, balanced, or a good 3-level > > > minor-suit preempt. > > > (2) Denied four spades. > > > > > > The Facts: 5S went down one, +50 for N/S. > > > The opening lead was the CK. > > > > > > The Director was called after the 2D bid > > > and determined that this use of a 2D > > > opening was not permitted on the GCC (in > > > use for this event) and N/S were therefore > > > playing an illegal convention. As per ACBL > > > procedure in such situations, he allowed > > > the auction and play to proceed and stood > > > ready to protect E/W if damage resulted. > > > > ******** > > The 2D conventional opening that this pair used is not allowed at any level > > of play in the ACBL, not even the Super Chart as far as I can tell reading > > the charts. So to say "not allowed under GCC" is misleading, when in fact > > it is not allowed. Period. > > Maybe the TD's words were misquoted, or the TD didn't check the charts, or > > Richard misquoted, or I am reading the chart wrong. Something is amiss > > somewhere. > > I think you're right that 2D is not allowed in any ACBL event. But > since this was a GCC event, I don't see why the TD should have the > responsibility to determine whether the convention in question would > be allowed in any non-GCC events, or check any other charts besides > the GCC. Perhaps I don't understand your point. Who was misleading > whom? > > -- Adam My point was that if the same pair goes to another event the next day in the tournament, again using the same convention since the next event allows Mid-Chart or higher, the pair may think it is allowed in Bracketed Knockouts Bracket 1. And the same problem with illegal convention arises again. Why "hide" the information that the convention is illegal always? Raija > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jun 2 21:51:09 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:51:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BDB5DF.7010805@hdw.be> References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> <40BDB0FF.6070908@fe.up.pt> <40BDB5DF.7010805@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:11:27 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >But I believe that the silly thing this claimer did was "claim without=20 >counting". Yes. >And the silly mistake he would have to make would be to=20 >"play without counting". Yes. >I don't believe those are the same thing. And that is precisely where we differ. I believe they are exactly the same thing. Claiming is a way of playing the hand - if you claim without thinking, then you have chosen to play the hand without thinking. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jun 2 21:51:12 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:51:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BDCA4D.4040302@hdw.be> References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> <40BDCA4D.4040302@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:38:37 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>>I'm not saying he did not notice the squeeze, I'm saying he never knew= =20 >>>he needed something else than 13 top tricks. >> >> If a vague feeling that there probably are 13 top tricks is enough >> basis for this top player to claim, then surely it is also enough >> basis for the same top player to begin playing it out with, for >> instance, diamonds first. >>=20 > >I don't have the same vague feeling. Huh? Perhaps you misunderstood me. Declarer thinks all he needs is 13 top tricks, but he doesn't count them. That is what I call "a vague feeling that there probably are 13 top tricks". And if he can claim on that basis, surely he can also play on that basis. >Let me give an alternate example in which the balance of compassion is=20 >different. > >Same Lay-out, same contract, same lead. >Declarer: "partner, where's your third ace?" >Dummy: "I bid xxx, which shows only 2" >Declarer: "no it does not, luckily they haven't found the lead, so I'm=20 >going to make this contract" >Defender: "I think this is a claim - Director" >TD: "who called me?" >Defender: "I did - he said he would make his contract, that's a claim" >TD: "yes, technically it is - did you say how you'd play it?" >Declarer: "no I did not, because I did not intend to claim, and I=20 >haven't even watched my own cards yet". >TD: "sorry sir, but I'll have to rule this as a claim - have you=20 >anything to add?" >Declarer: (without pause for thought) "yes I have, I will play my=20 >clubs and hearts and iuf the SA doesn't arrive the diamonds from the=20 >top - I'll win if diamonds are 3-3 or the jack is doubleton or fourth=20 >in the same hand as the SA." > >In this story you will have to have every sympathy for declarer. Are=20 >you still going to rule against him because he claimed without a claim=20 >statement? Well, first of all I must say that I do not have that much sympathy for a declarer who discusses the probable result of the hand with partner instead of playing it. But the main difference between the two cases are that in your second case here, declarer did not intend to claim without counting his tricks. There is no reason at all to assume that he would not count his tricks and then play carefully if he had not accidentally claimed. And it therefore makes sense to take his status as a top player into account. In the original case, declarer has deliberately chosen to claim 13 tricks, assuming without checking that they are available as top tricks. It is therefore very reasonable to assume that in playing it out he would begin cashing random top tricks without counting them. His plan for the play, though not stated verbally, was clearly to cash 13 top tricks. What would`your ruling be if he had said "I have 13 top tricks"? Claiming is IMO something that you need to do with the same care that you would play the cards - if you claim carelessly, then you will be assumed to also play carelessly. In your second case, I would give him the slam if I were convinced that, if he had not accidentally claimed, he would obviously play for the squeeze. (I haven't analyzed the hand enough to be quite sure whether I would be convinced of that - and I don't intend to.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From adam@irvine.com Wed Jun 2 22:04:12 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:04:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:07:35 PDT." <002401c448cc$7e77b880$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <200406022104.OAA13190@mailhub.irvine.com> Raija wrote: > [snipped] > > > The 2D conventional opening that this pair used is not allowed > > > at any level of play in the ACBL, not even the Super Chart as > > > far as I can tell reading the charts. So to say "not allowed > > > under GCC" is misleading, when in fact it is not > > > allowed. Period. Maybe the TD's words were misquoted, or the TD > > > didn't check the charts, or Richard misquoted, or I am reading > > > the chart wrong. Something is amiss somewhere. > > > > I think you're right that 2D is not allowed in any ACBL event. But > > since this was a GCC event, I don't see why the TD should have the > > responsibility to determine whether the convention in question would > > be allowed in any non-GCC events, or check any other charts besides > > the GCC. Perhaps I don't understand your point. Who was misleading > > whom? > > > > -- Adam > > My point was that if the same pair goes to another event the next day in the > tournament, again using the same convention since the next event allows > Mid-Chart or higher, the pair may think it is allowed in Bracketed Knockouts > Bracket 1. And the same problem with illegal convention arises again. Why > "hide" the information that the convention is illegal always? I wouldn't assume that the TD knows, off the top of his or her head, that the convention is illegal in all ACBL events. I wouldn't even expect to have the TD to have the GCC memorized, much less the other charts. (Since the GCC changes every now and then anyway, it's probably best for the TD to look up the information anyway, on the rare occasions when it's necessary.) Nor, if there's an issue in a GCC event about whether a convention is illegal, would I expect the TD to look at the Mid-Chart and SuperChart to see if it's legal there. So I see no reason to presume that anything is being "hidden"---any more than I would presume that, if a policeman pulled me over and told me that I was violating the California speed limit, that he's "hiding" the fact that my speed was also in violation of Arizona law, even though for all he knows, I might be driving in Arizona the next day. -- Adam From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 3 00:14:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:14:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Fall 2003 appeals casebook In-Reply-To: <000801c4473a$3b5c5a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000801c4473a$3b5c5a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >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. Whether I agreed with them or not, I always thought there were far too many. In the English and Welsh case-books [coming soon folks] I do not comment on every comment specifically because I dislike seeing that in Colker's case-books. However, I did have a lot of time for the amount of work he did. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 3 01:36:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:36:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook Message-ID: In the thread ACBL Fall 2003 appeals casebook, Marvin L. French wrote: [snip] >>>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. David Stevenson replied: >>Whether I agreed with them or not, I always >>thought there were far too many. In the >>English and Welsh case-books [coming soon >>folks] I do not comment on every comment >>specifically because I dislike seeing that in >>Colker's case-books. >> >>However, I did have a lot of time for the >>amount of work he did. In a private email, Marvin L. French wrote: >Richard, > >Rick Beye immediately sent me all the Reno >appeals after I asked for them this morning. >Should I forward them to you, or have you got >them already? They are not copyrighted, by the >way. Richard James Hills volunteers: Thank you, Marvin and Rick, for forwarding all the Reno appeals. Thanks also to the ACBL for refraining from copyrighting the appeals. As previously advised, I am volunteering to collate an unofficial Reno casebook. Any blmlers or lurkers who wish to join the panel for this unofficial casebook, please send me a private email. With regards to my editorial style on this unofficial casebook, I will be more Stevensonian than David Stevenson. I will keep my editorial comments minimalist and factual. It would be presumptuous for someone of my relative inexperience to suggest that any of my dogmatic opinions are superior to a panellist's dogmatic opinions, merely because I am an unofficial editor. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 3 03:20:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:20:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Subtractor Message-ID: A few years ago, the Australian Bridge Federation called for public submissions on its review of its masterpoint policy. A prolific player proposed: >I would like to mention a couple of my pet >whinges which you may care to bear in mind during >your deliberations. > >Whinge 1: over-generous dissemination of >masterpoints - I usually play in the Surfers >Congress Teams in February. Some years I have >played in fairly poor teams against fairly poor >opposition most of the time, and nevertheless I >have come away with large numbers of master >points. Other examples come to mind, but this is >the worst case I know of. To me this mega- >generous allocation of masterpoints seems to >seriously devalue them. Why would players try >mightily (sometimes over many decades) to >accumulate them if they can be "got" so easily at >such events. I value my masterpoints because >they are a symbol (to the inner me at least) of >my ability and hard work. I do not mind if they >are also a measure of how persistent I've been >over many many years, but I am upset if they are >measuring little more than how prepared I've been >to buy them. [snip] This justified whinge reminds me of a classic humorous article which was published in The Bridge World half-a-century ago. The author proposed the creation of an official called The Subtractor. One could summon The Subtractor in a variety of circumstances. For example: (a) You are playing in a Life Master pairs. An LOL opponent ridiculously underbids to a partial, but scores a top when the rest of the field is failing in game due to unexpected bad breaks. By calling "Subtractor!", your LOL opponent would be relieved of a certain number of masterpoints by The Subtractor for their bad bidding. Eventually your LOL opponent would have lost so many masterpoints that they would no longer be eligible to play in a Life Master pairs and distort its scoring. (b) You irrationally blunder. Rather than seethe upon your stupidity, you call "Subtractor!", have some of your masterpoints removed, and now are better able to concentrate on the next board. Best wishes Richard James Hills From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 3 03:32:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 03:32:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pre-emptive raise In-Reply-To: <006001c4460d$0bcc6400$0401010a@Desktop> References: <006001c4460d$0bcc6400$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >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? Is this a test to see which of us describes ourselves as a "Relatively inexperienced player"? Personally, I double for takeout. But I would not expect most inexperienced players to think of double. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 3 03:39:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 03:39:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: <000401c447b4$62f11a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <068b01c4478d$ae30a180$1a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000401c447b4$62f11a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >BTW. "Count" is in any case an incomplete declaration as is "Strength" etc. >The declaration must include the meaning of a high or a low card, an odd or >an even card, a low-high or a high-low sequence; whatever is relevant. It may technically be incomplete, but since it is completely unambiguous it matters not. A pair with Count on their card under Discards is playing High-Low to show an even number, Low-High to show an odd number. Any other discards [in England/Wales anyway] is not "Count". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 3 03:42:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 03:42:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: 7.5 tables In-Reply-To: References: <1086092201.22586.197533349@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Tuesday, Jun 1, 2004, at 08:16 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: > >> A Howell offers the necessary 3 stationaries (for us) >> but the folks do prefer Mitchells. > >Heh. We were discussing movements at the club the other day, and the >subject of "strange" (i.e., not a simple Mitchell or, in a pinch, a >basic Howell) movements came up. One woman objected to such movements >because, she said, "I don't come here to think"! Perhaps you should point out ot her that I have every sympathy for her reasoning, and none for her conclusion. She should do what I always do: let partner sit somewhere, then sit opposite him. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 3 06:29:35 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:29:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention Message-ID: The Facts: 5S went down one, +50 for N/S. The opening lead was the CK. 87 AJ6 J652 J963 KT65 A9432 K95 QT43 AKQ8 T973 AT --- QJ 872 4 KQ87542 Raija Davis: >Regarding 5S going down, I don't know how it >can possibly go down but apparently it went >down...perhaps because the declarer was >not-so-good, inexperienced, made errors, or >whatever description one might use. Richard James Hills: Perhaps the blmler Raija Davis is not-so-good, inexperienced, made errors in his analysis, or whatever description one might use. :-) Given that South pre-empted in clubs, a good, experienced, non-erroneous declarer might cash the king of trumps, then take a restricted choice finesse in trumps. Then, once North later shows length in diamonds, a good, experienced, non-erroneous declarer might later misguess the two-way finesse for the jack of hearts. Best wishes RJH From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Jun 3 07:00:40 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:00:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040603155930.0412c798@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> >cut >Richard James Hills: > >Perhaps the blmler Raija Davis is not-so-good, >inexperienced, made errors in his analysis, or >whatever description one might use. > >:-) > >Given that South pre-empted in clubs, a good, >experienced, non-erroneous declarer might cash >the king of trumps, then take a restricted >choice finesse in trumps. > >Then, once North later shows length in >diamonds, a good, experienced, non-erroneous >declarer might later misguess the two-way >finesse for the jack of hearts. This is precisely the way my partner would play this hand. He can unerringly find the line to go down one more than anyone else. Tony >Best wishes > >RJH > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 3 07:13:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:13:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >>Should you really call the TD after all >>(alleged) infractions? Ron Johnson replied: >Yes. Richard James Hills replies: No. While Law 9 requires that the TD *must* be summoned after attention is drawn to an irregularity, Law 9 also states that any player *may* draw attention to an irregularity. That is, drawing attention to an irregularity is optional. If an opponent technically infracts Law 75 by misexplaining, but the merely nominal infraction of Law 75 does not damage my non-offending side, then I do not waste the TD's time by drawing attention to this innocuous irregularity. Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jun 3 07:38:03 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:38:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Pre-emptive raise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c44935$523536d0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2004 2:32 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Pre-emptive raise >=20 >=20 > Wayne Burrows wrote > >NS Vul. > >=A0 > >Good and very experienced pair sitting EW. > >=A0 > >World class player sitting South. > >=A0 > >Relatively inexperienced player sitting North. > >=A0 > >North holds > >=A0 > >KJ84 > >6 > >Q984 > >Q1095 > >=A0 > >W =A0 N=A0=A0 E=A0=A0 S > >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0 1C*=A0 NS play 5-card majors and weak = 1NT > >1H=A0 X=A0=A0 3H* P=A0=A0=A0 3H is a weakish raise up to about 8-9 = hcp > >P=A0=A0 ?=A0 > >=A0 > >What do you bid? >=20 > Is this a test to see which of us describes ourselves as a=20 > "Relatively=20 > inexperienced player"? Not at all and relatively inexperienced is different than inexperienced. >=20 > Personally, I double for takeout. But I would not expect most=20 > inexperienced players to think of double. I haven't had many responses. It may be something to do with=20 "Pre-emptive raise" being a dubious Subject apparently and this message was quarantined for approval - I guess I will find out if replies are also quarantined when I send this. The problem that occurred was that 3H was not alerted as a weakish=20 raise and North passed when it was more favourable to take action. This was a clear infraction the regulation that states that any jump response that may contain fewer than 8 points and is primarily pre- emptive in nature requires an alert. Pre-emptive raises are probably only played by a significant minority=20 of the players who were playing in this tournament. =20 The director spoke to North before making her ruling and North said that if she knew this was a weak raise then she would have made a takeout double. The director ruled that it was reasonable for North to double which would lead to a better result for NS. The director adjusted to 3NT making but passing the double would also improve the NS result. EW appealed and the committee upheld the director's ruling. Comments please? I was involved as a committee member and while I concurred with the=20 decision I thought that it was generous to NS. Wayne >=20 > --=20 > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on=20 > OKB =3D( + )=3D > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 3 08:21:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:21:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000c01c448d0$1a13f710$73421d53@kocurzak> References: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BE173E.90206@hdw.be> <000c01c448d0$1a13f710$73421d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <40BED170.9030603@hdw.be> No Konrad, I think you have that one wrong: Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" >=20 >=20 >>Did you really believe that a world class declarer would look twice at >>these two sets of cards and then claim 13 tricks? >=20 >=20 > A "world class player" - no. But "a world class player in ecstasy > after avoiding the spade lead" - yes! Definitely yes! >=20 > This is how I read the "for the class of player involved" clause; > in this broader sense. >=20 You read the clause correctly, sure. But IMO you misunderstood my question. Yes, a world class player in ecstacy will claim here - definitely yes. But he won't look at his two hands for ten seconds before doing so! I don't believe a player - even one in ecstacy - can look at the=20 diamond suit for more than half a second and still imagine he has a=20 certain six tricks coming from it. But that is just my opinion. In real life, we shall ask the player "did you count your tricks=20 before claiming?". He will answer, "no, I did not", and we will=20 believe him. > It looks like I am beginning to repeat the same points > so I guess it is time to bow out. >=20 But Konrad, that is just because you are intent on winning the=20 argument. Are you so pissed off at the examinors that you refuse to=20 see even the possibility of then being correct in awarding 13 tricks? > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 3 08:26:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:26:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000a01c448dd$da1a5e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c448dd$da1a5e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40BED2A0.1070406@hdw.be> There are a number of things that Sven wrote that I won't comment on, they have been said already. There is one new thing: Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Indeed, and it is this "exception" which I use. Of course I use it >>slightly larger than what you believe it should be. You allow the >>rethink only when cards have been played, I also allow it before any >>next card is played. I believe that the line of play (the squeeze) >>becomes obvious (to this declarer) one second after he starts thinking >>about the cards. > > > But you include a revelation that is not the result of a line of play > consistent with his claim statement but the result of afterthoughts when he > understands that his claim might be flawed (before he engages in any line of > play consistent with his claim statement). > > This is a violation of Law 70D (and possibly also Law 70E) > No Sven, you have misunderstood me. The revelation does not come from his claim being contested. The revelation comes from him performing an action that every player always does: checking to find a line of play. This is an action of which it is irrational (for any player) to not do it. This claimer has not yet performed that action. It is careless to claim before performing the action of checking, but it is (IMO) irrational to not perform that action at all. The revelation comes from that action, and should be included in the information that claimer can use before selecting his final line of play. I think this is consistent with L70D. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 3 08:30:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:30:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4493c$a38e3d90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote >=20 > >BTW. "Count" is in any case an incomplete declaration as is = "Strength" > etc. > >The declaration must include the meaning of a high or a low card, an = odd > or > >an even card, a low-high or a high-low sequence; whatever is = relevant. >=20 > It may technically be incomplete, but since it is completely > unambiguous it matters not. A pair with Count on their card under > Discards is playing High-Low to show an even number, Low-High to show = an > odd number. Any other discards [in England/Wales anyway] is not > "Count". OK. In Norway we say "Norwegian" if High-low shows even and low-high if odd. We say "Swedish" if Low-High shows even and high-low if odd. We say "High" or "low" as applicable for strength showing so for = instance my own declaration is "Norwegian" and "Low". (Your "Count" combined with = low card to show strength/invitation when applicable).=20 Some players do not use distribution (count) signals at all; that was = the main reason for my remark. (OK they use count, but which way?)=20 Other places other habits. Regards Sven PS: In Sweden I know that they say "Malmoe" but I can never remember = whether high-low shows odd or even count. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 3 09:10:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:10:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> Hello Tim, Thanks for the support. Tim West-Meads wrote: > Konrad wrote: > > >>cashing the diamond ace is not irrational. > > > Here I would rather agree with Herman. There are no hands to which > cashing the DA caters and a numbers of hands where it is going to cost. > There can never be any reason to cash the DA early and an action not based > on reason is, pretty obviously, irrational. I'm still awarding 11 tricks > but only because I believe a trick 10 finesse, while inferior, is > rational. Had West started with 5H+5C (declarer will get a count) the > finesse would not be a rational play (of course with a declarer of a lower > calibre one might rule that he would be incapable of counting the hand). > > If Herman prefers I will go on record that cashing diamonds first is so > unnatural and pointless that when considering even remotely plausible > lines that a competent or better declarer might take it is not even a blip > on the long-range radar of doubt. Two classes of player get a ruling > against them: those so bad that an early diamond is plausible and those > good enough to consider the possibility of a D finesse (and even these > latter will still get a favourable ruling if my judgement is that East is > bound to agonise at trick 9). > > Tim touches upon the interesting part of this problem. Once we have convinced the likes of Sven and Konrad that their solution is not the right one according to the laws, we can go on with the real problem. There are, as I see it, five possible lines that we need to consider: 1) The Sven line - cashing AKQ10 of diamonds and be surprised that the jack takes that trick - 2 down 2) The Herman line - I see no solution, so I play the SK in trick two to be sure of getting 12 tricks - 1 down 3) The Tim line - finding a 50% solution in going for the diamond finesse - 2 down 4) The sensible line - playing diamonds from the top, seeing they don't drop, and then cashing 12 top tricks - 1 down 5) the Krzysztof Line - cashing hearts and clubs, then diamonds if the SA hasn't appeared - made Now it appears to me that for different kinds of declarers, the final ruling will be differently: 1) is not a rational line, not for anyone 2)-4) are rational lines, for anyone 5) is a rational line for many declarers, not just world class ones Two important legal issues have to be addressed, however: A) Do we allow a declarer to find more than one rational line? B) Do we allow him to select the better one - does the less successful line turn into an irrational choice when it is clearly inferior to another one? I think the answer to A) and B) are YES, but some of you may disagree. Which brings us to the original question again. Tim suggests that it is possible, for a world class player, to notice line 3 - the finesse - without also noticing line 4 - the drop. Or maybe he suggests that it is not clear enough for a claimer who has noticed both those lines to see that the drop is better (both in probability and in result - only one down). I would suggest that it is possible, for a world class player, to notice lines 3 and 4, but not line 5. I don't think anyone suggests that a player capable of seeing the squeeze line would fail to see that it is clearly superior to the drop or the finesse. Personally, I think 1 down to be the final answer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 3 09:13:49 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:13:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> <40BDCA4D.4040302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40BEDDBD.8030602@hdw.be> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > Claiming is IMO something that you need to do with the same care that > you would play the cards - if you claim carelessly, then you will be > assumed to also play carelessly. > And this is a principle that shall divide us till the end. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Jun 3 09:44:06 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:44:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BE173E.90206@hdw.be> <000c01c448d0$1a13f710$73421d53@kocurzak> <40BED170.9030603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001a01c44946$f0bf1710$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Herman De Wael" Let's make one thing clear: >But Konrad, that is just because you are intent on winning the >argument. Are you so pissed off at the examinors that you refuse to >see even the possibility of then being correct in awarding 13 tricks? Certainly I am not - I didn't take part in the exam; it passed a similar exam successfully two years ago. This year I just looked at the questions and the answers posted on the Polish Bridge Union web site and this one stroke me as a clear error on the examinators' part, that's it. I have some definite views on how the game should be played and what the laws should look like and what the correct interpretation of the laws should be but I like to put my views to verification. I have listened to your argument and, I have listened to everyone else's arguments on BLML. So far I respectfully agree with myself. And trust me - I am as far from being pissed off at anyone as I could possibly be. >You read the clause correctly, sure. >But IMO you misunderstood my question. >Yes, a world class player in ecstacy will claim here - definitely yes. >But he won't look at his two hands for ten seconds before doing so! ... and he won't look at his two hands before playing. That is the quintessence of our disagreement. The player belonging to the class "ecstatic world class players" (assuming there is no such thing as a claim in the laws) might very well *carelessly* call for the diamond ace. As having seen the dummy the player moved from the class of "world class players" to the class of "world class players who don't coun't their tricks" calling for the diamond ace for a player *of this class* is not irrational; it is merely careless. >I don't believe a player - even one in ecstacy - can look at the >diamond suit for more than half a second and still imagine he has a >certain six tricks coming from it. I definitely do because I have seen this happen. >But that is just my opinion. >In real life, we shall ask the player "did you count your tricks >before claiming?". He will answer, "no, I did not", and we will >believe him. Herman, is it really you? First - the whole concept of asking a player what he was thinking at a particular instant of time is ridiculous, crazy, insane. Why not rule UI the same way: "Did you take advantage of your partner's hesitation, sir?" "No". "OK, no damage". Second - apparently if the player says "I didn't count my tricks" and you believe him then you will the man his contract. OTOH, if he says "I miscounted my tricks" you will rule one down. This simply must not be! Because *both* of them would go down if they were forced to play out the hand. To make it clear - if they were forced to play it out immediately. However, as there is such a thing as a claim in the laws, and the claim is contested, and the TD arrives this is enough for everyone to get back to reality. So when I know that guy would go down if there were no such thing as a claim - why should I rule otherwise? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 3 10:22:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:22:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c4494c$39dd19b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Violating my "promise" of having submitted my last words on this thread: Please do not quote me for things I have not said! I never said anything which could be taken that declarer would try to "cash" also his D10. But = I do maintain that starting off with the Diamonds is not irrational given = the circumstances. And incidentally, I have no impression that you has so far "convinced" anybody to accept your views. Maybe you have in your own mind? Strange to notice that at last (?) you end up with down 1 as the correct answer? That is what I have tried to argue all the time. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 3. juni 2004 10:10 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam >=20 > Hello Tim, >=20 > Thanks for the support. >=20 > Tim West-Meads wrote: >=20 > > Konrad wrote: > > > > > >>cashing the diamond ace is not irrational. > > > > > > Here I would rather agree with Herman. There are no hands to which > > cashing the DA caters and a numbers of hands where it is going to = cost. > > There can never be any reason to cash the DA early and an action not > based > > on reason is, pretty obviously, irrational. I'm still awarding 11 > tricks > > but only because I believe a trick 10 finesse, while inferior, is > > rational. Had West started with 5H+5C (declarer will get a count) = the > > finesse would not be a rational play (of course with a declarer of a > lower > > calibre one might rule that he would be incapable of counting the = hand). > > > > If Herman prefers I will go on record that cashing diamonds first is = so > > unnatural and pointless that when considering even remotely = plausible > > lines that a competent or better declarer might take it is not even = a > blip > > on the long-range radar of doubt. Two classes of player get a = ruling > > against them: those so bad that an early diamond is plausible and = those > > good enough to consider the possibility of a D finesse (and even = these > > latter will still get a favourable ruling if my judgement is that = East > is > > bound to agonise at trick 9). > > > > >=20 > Tim touches upon the interesting part of this problem. Once we have > convinced the likes of Sven and Konrad that their solution is not the > right one according to the laws, we can go on with the real problem. >=20 > There are, as I see it, five possible lines that we need to consider: >=20 > 1) The Sven line - cashing AKQ10 of diamonds and be surprised that the > jack takes that trick - 2 down > 2) The Herman line - I see no solution, so I play the SK in trick two > to be sure of getting 12 tricks - 1 down > 3) The Tim line - finding a 50% solution in going for the diamond > finesse - 2 down > 4) The sensible line - playing diamonds from the top, seeing they > don't drop, and then cashing 12 top tricks - 1 down > 5) the Krzysztof Line - cashing hearts and clubs, then diamonds if the > SA hasn't appeared - made >=20 > Now it appears to me that for different kinds of declarers, the final > ruling will be differently: >=20 > 1) is not a rational line, not for anyone > 2)-4) are rational lines, for anyone > 5) is a rational line for many declarers, not just world class ones >=20 > Two important legal issues have to be addressed, however: > A) Do we allow a declarer to find more than one rational line? > B) Do we allow him to select the better one - does the less successful > line turn into an irrational choice when it is clearly inferior to > another one? >=20 > I think the answer to A) and B) are YES, but some of you may disagree. >=20 > Which brings us to the original question again. >=20 > Tim suggests that it is possible, for a world class player, to notice > line 3 - the finesse - without also noticing line 4 - the drop. > Or maybe he suggests that it is not clear enough for a claimer who has > noticed both those lines to see that the drop is better (both in > probability and in result - only one down). >=20 > I would suggest that it is possible, for a world class player, to > notice lines 3 and 4, but not line 5. > I don't think anyone suggests that a player capable of seeing the > squeeze line would fail to see that it is clearly superior to the drop > or the finesse. >=20 > Personally, I think 1 down to be the final answer. >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 3 10:29:35 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:29:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pre-emptive raise In-Reply-To: <000001c44935$523536d0$0401010a@Desktop> References: <000001c44935$523536d0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <8701CEE1-B540-11D8-A197-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 3 Jun 2004, at 07:38, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2004 2:32 p.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Pre-emptive raise >> >> >> Wayne Burrows wrote >>> NS Vul. >>> =A0 >>> Good and very experienced pair sitting EW. >>> =A0 >>> World class player sitting South. >>> =A0 >>> Relatively inexperienced player sitting North. >>> =A0 >>> North holds >>> =A0 >>> KJ84 >>> 6 >>> Q984 >>> Q1095 >>> =A0 >>> W =A0 N=A0=A0 E=A0=A0 S >>> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0 1C*=A0 NS play 5-card majors and weak = 1NT >>> 1H=A0 X=A0=A0 3H* P=A0=A0=A0 3H is a weakish raise up to about 8-9 = hcp >>> P=A0=A0 ?=A0 >>> =A0 >>> What do you bid? >> >> >> I haven't had many responses. It may be something to do with > "Pre-emptive raise" being a dubious Subject apparently and this = message > was quarantined for approval - I guess I will find out if replies are > also quarantined when I send this. > > The problem that occurred was that 3H was not alerted as a weakish > raise and North passed when it was more favourable to take action. > > This was a clear infraction the regulation that states that any jump > response that may contain fewer than 8 points and is primarily pre- > emptive in nature requires an alert. Are "Good and very experienced pairs" not expected to protect=20 themselves by enquiring? In the North seat, I would ask before passing,=20= if I would like to double again over a pre-emptive raise. > > Pre-emptive raises are probably only played by a significant minority > of the players who were playing in this tournament. > > The director spoke to North before making her ruling and North said=20 > that > if she knew this was a weak raise then she would have made a takeout > double. > > The director ruled that it was reasonable for North to double which > would > lead to a better result for NS. The director adjusted to 3NT making=20= > but > passing the double would also improve the NS result. > > EW appealed and the committee upheld the director's ruling. > > Comments please? > > I was involved as a committee member and while I concurred with the > decision I thought that it was generous to NS. > > Wayne I agree with this. Might it not have been a candidate for a weighted=20 ruling if L12C3 had been enabled? While North might be more inclined to=20= double again with the correct information, it doesn't seem automatic to=20= do so. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 3 10:49:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:49:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <001a01c44946$f0bf1710$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BE173E.90206@hdw.be> <000c01c448d0$1a13f710$73421d53@kocurzak> <40BED170.9030603@hdw.be> <001a01c44946$f0bf1710$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: <40BEF42F.7040105@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >=20 > So when I know that guy would go down if there > were no such thing as a claim - why should I > rule otherwise? >=20 >=20 And when I know that guy would make that contract if there were no=20 such thing as a claim - why should I rule otherwise? All this boils down to what you think would happen. We think=20 differently. Let's accept that this is a fictitious case and that we=20 both think differently - and don't criticise one another for a=20 different view. And don't lambast the Polish federation for trying to ask questions as=20 good as they can. They tried their best, through words like "world=20 class" and "ecstatic at seeing the non-spade lead", to create a=20 situation where it should be without doubt that the declarer would=20 make his contract, 100%. The legal position is then such that he gets=20 his contract, even without mentioning the squeeze. Please accept this, Konrad! And maybe then we can get on to the real business - like the question=20 if any claimer can be considered good enough to be judged to find the=20 squeeze 100% of the time. I personally don't think that any squeeze=20 can be sufficiently easy to award it to any declarer, but I also=20 believe you are too easy in dismissing this case out of hand. I would=20 like to ask the player, at the table and off it, to describe to me his=20 way of thinking, and the speed of such. But that is another discussion, one that may be far more interesting=20 than the one we've been having. > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 3 13:46:56 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 08:46:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BE173E.90206@hdw.be> References: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603082939.025726e0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:06 PM 6/2/04, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman, >>Are you trying in so many words to convince me that this (fictitious) >>player >>did claim without in any way bothering to assure himself he has 13 >>tricks? > >yes Sven, that is indeed what he did. He claimed without counting his >tricks. > >>That would be the most ridiculous claim I ever heard of. > >Well, I've done it before, and I'll do it again. And I don't mind >receiving the least number of tricks that I can normally make. But I >won't accept one less than that! > >> From his claim I am convinced that he was sure of 13 tricks, either >> because > >Well, actually Sven, there is one thing wrong in the above sentence. >He was not "sure" of 13 tricks. He cannot have been, or he would not >have claimed. >We have not been told that anything went wrong in his mind. He did not >"visualize" the DJ, he did not count 3+6+3=13, he did not forget that >6 diamonds can be divided 4-2, none of that all. All he did was claim. >Silly, yes, but nothing more than that. He claimed. He did nothing >wrong, except tell the table a line. The laws tell us what needs to be >done then, and that is to give him the least successful of all normal >lines. I do not see anything in his claim to suggest that cashing >AKQ10 of diamonds is in any way other than an irrational line. > >>he actually (mis-)counted them or more probably because he "saw" two >>minor >>suits each giving 6 tricks together with the 3 tricks in Hearts for a >>total >>of 15 tricks. I am absolutely convinced that any need for an end play >>(squeeze) was not at all in his mind because of what he did NOT say. > >That last bit is true - he did not see that he needed a more >particular line. But he could not fail to notice that he did, if he >had looked instead of claiming. Not looking before playing is, IMO, >irrational and should therefor not be included in the lines we examine >for the claim adjudication. > >>....... snip (a lot here, and more below) >> >>>>I have seen too many failures in this respect to agree with you. >>> >>>No you haven't. >> >>Yes I have. I am referring to players cashing what they thought was a >>running suit only to discover after some tricks that opponents had a >>stopper. > >No, that is not what happens. What happens is that people look at a >diamond suit and think it is worth 6 tricks. Sometimes they wake up >and realize the jack has to drop for this to be true. But never do >they actually play AKQ10 and be amazed that the J makes the fourth >trick (unless they actually did miscount, something which also happens) > >>....... >> >>>Now that is a valid counter-argument. If indeed we find out that the >>>player thought he had 15 tricks, then you are right in ruling against >>>him. Still, I don't believe that this is the case, or at least not >>>what the Polish examinators had in mind when setting the case. >> >>I really do not care what the Polish examiners had in mind. When someone >>gives me a case I prefer to rule on the given facts, not on any >>assumption >>of what the examiners possibly might have had in mind. > >Well, Sven, in that case you will not succeed in many exams. If in a >TD exam the question is being put like this, the examinator is not >asking you to imagine that the player miscounted. If he did, it will >be put in the question. If it's not in the question, you can be pretty >certain the examinator does not want you to suggest that he did. > >>The facts here is a player who we must assume is sure of (at least) 13 >>tricks. The only way he could have been "sure" of that is with 10 >>minor suit >>tricks from the top. There is no way this can be unless he has (at >>least) 13 >>"Aces". Then it is immaterial in which order he cashes his "Aces" so >>we are >>bound by law 70 to rule an unsuccessful although not irrational line >>of play >>if so exists, and given the facts this calls for ruling that he >>starts off >>with his Diamond tricks, one of the suits he believes has no loser. >>With 13 >>"Aces" this can certainly not be ruled an irrational play. >>....... more snip >> >>>>Fundamental disagreement. And I still consider my opinion supported >>>>by the laws. Beginning by cashing 6 tricks in Diamonds is not >>>>irrational when all your tricks are top tricks. Playing without >>>>double-checking your plan is >>>>not irrational when you know that you have 15 tricks. >>> >>>Sorry Sven, I allow you to disagree with me with regards to the actual >>>state of mind of claimer. I also allow you to consider the cashing of >>>diamonds to be normal within the frame of mind of claimer such as you >>>see it (in fact you'd be compeletely right in doing so). But I don't >>>allow you to quote the laws in that respect. This is no longer a laws >>>matter. I believe we have fairly similar ideas on what the laws say. >> >>As the laws have no definition on the term "irrational" I agree with you >>that judging whether some play is irrational or not is not directly a law >>matter. However, I stand by my statement that I feel my opinion >>supported by >>and consistent with the laws. >>......... > >Sven, read the above again: >you agree that this is a matter of judgment, not of law. >And then you say that the laws support your judgment, not mine. >'nuff said. > >>>>Claiming without such a check is careless and maybe even >>>>irrational. But >>>>that is what he has done. Law 70 specifically prohibits him from >>> >>>"planning" >>> >>>>after his claim is disputed. >>> >>>No it does not. L70E just says that such planning shall be disregarded >>>if there are other rational plans available. >> >>And there is - cashing his Diamond tricks. > >which I don't deem rational. > >>......... >> >>>I believe that "playing without checking" is irrational. You might be >>>right that it would be careless if the player thinks he has 16 tricks, >>>not just 13. But I am talking of the case where he thinks he has his >>>contract, nothing more. I repeat, "playing without checking" must be >>>irrational in that case. >> >>CLAIMING without checking is irrational. Law 70 binds the claimer to the > >No, certainly not. >And since this has been done before the claim, there is no reason to >rule whether the action be rational or not. > >>line of play consistent with his claim when this line of play is not >>irrational from the premises for the claim! > >Of course, and what I have said all along. I judge the line of simply >cashing top tricks without looking to be irrational. Respond to my >arguments, don't just repeat the law! > >>The only possible premises for his claim here is that he sees at least 13 >>top tricks, and on such premises it is not irrational to begin >>cashing the >>Diamonds. > >No, there is another possible premise for his claim, namely that he >did not count his tricks but simply felt there were 13 of them. And on >that premise it is irrational for him not to start byu checking his >lines and discover that cashing diamonds is not the best way forward. > >>......... >>>>The claimer will be allowed his discoveries from authorized information >>> >>>but >>> >>>>not his discoveries from unauthorized information. >>> >>>What UI? He claimed, the claim was contested, and the TD was called. >> >>The fact that either defender contested the claim is UI. > >No, it is not. L16 has no bearing whatsoever on this matter. > >>Declarer may not select any line of play which could have been >>suggested by >>the fact that a defender contested the claim. > >No, absolutely wrong. Declarer may not select any line of play >(suggested or not) if another line is less successful. > >>The exceptions to this principle are: > >there is no need to list exceptions to a principle that is maifestly >wrong; but otherwise your statements below are correct: > >>1: If he demonstrably had this line of play selected before the claim was >>contested in which case that line of play should be evident from the >>claim >>statement itself. > >Yes indeed - we all know cases of interrupted claim statements, or of >incomplete statements, where it is clear what the intended line was >going to be. And of course this is not the case in the Polish exam. > >>2: Such line of play becomes obvious during a line of play specified >>in the >>claim statement. > >Indeed, and it is this "exception" which I use. Of course I use it >slightly larger than what you believe it should be. You allow the >rethink only when cards have been played, I also allow it before any >next card is played. I believe that the line of play (the squeeze) >becomes obvious (to this declarer) one second after he starts thinking >about the cards. > >>An example of case 2 is when declarer has forgotten a trump but there >>is no >>way opponent can ruff with this trump without declarer over-ruffing and >>still have all his claimed tricks. > >Indeed, that is an example of case 2. There are others. Read the >"strange claim" again. > >> >>>it is up to the TD to decide whether this player is good enough to >>>discover this line of play, or not. In trying to decide this, the TD >>>will ask the player what his line would be, hoping the player won't >>>find it, thus making the TD's life simple. If the player finds it, the >>>TD still has to make the decision as to whether he believes the player >>>would have "always" found it. >> >>No this is not at the discretion of the Director. He must decide >>whether the >>successful line of play could have been the result of afterthoughts >>because >>of declarer's claim being disputed. Law 70D specifically prohibits the >>Director from accepting such a new line of play. > >No, L70D does not prohibits this. L70D prohibits this if there are >other less successful, normal lines. I contend that cashing diamonds >is not a normal line for this declarer. You're talking in circles! > >>A possible fact that the only line(s) of play consistent with the claim >>statement would be deemed irrational does in my opinion not alter this >>application of Law 70D. > >Yes it does. When the only line that is consistent with the claim >statement becomes obviously irrational, L70D kicks in to allow the >claimer to select any other normal line. > >>........ >> >>>OK, if it turns out that claimer had "visualized" (nice word), that he >>>held also the DJ, the case is suddenly different. But usually, players >>>are honest, and when you ask them why they claimed, they will either >>>answer "because I thought I had the DJ" or "because I thought the >>>contract was safe" or "because I counted 13 tricks". And we should >>>normally believe them and rule against him when he answers 1 or 3. But >>>not 2. And I don't think 1 is the case the Polish exam had in mind. >>>You're clutching at straws here, trying to win an argument rather than >>>trying to get to the bottom of a tricky problem. >> >>Visualize is an ordinary verb which you find in any decent dictionary. It >>means forming a mental image of something. > >and it is well chosen in this context, and I congratulate you on it. >It can happen that a claimer "visualizes" a certain card, and bases >his claim upon that visualisation. I shall allow lines based on that >card to be carried out, even if irrational at first view, until the >card suddenly appears in some other hand than the one itr was >visualized in. If we find that our Polish declarer though he held the >DJ, I let him cash the diamonds and go 2 off. >But such was not the case that the Poles wanted to rule upon. > >>My understanding of this case has all the time been that the only basis >>declarer could have had for his claim is that he visualized two running >>minor suits together with three solid tricks in Hearts. > >Well, you're wrong there. I feel that there was another basis for his >claim: an irrational feeling that all was well after they did not >caash the spade ace. Irrational, yes, but a basis for claiming far >more internally consistent than the one you imagine for declarer. > >>............. >> >>>Well, I'm 100% convinced. You're not. I suspect we haven't been >>>looking at the same case, with the same evidence. >> >>I have no reason to suspect that we have not? >> >>>You have to look at this from another point of view, Sven. This is a >>>fictitious case, and the examinar has tried to do his best to present >>>a picture of a player who has claimed without pause for thought. >> >>Where does "pause for thought" enter the picture? I cannot remember >>having >>seen those words in this thread until now. > >Well, it was a while since I read the original exam question. Let's >copy it here: > >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? > >OK, no mention of pauses for thought. Let me tell you that I agree >that if a world class declarer claims in this position after looking >at both hands for 10 seconds, I immediately bump him out of the >"world" class and rule like you do. > >So can we go on about this case as if declarer claimed immediately, >without pause for thought? > >>>You're trying to invent a number of case where there has been pause >>>for thought. You're using your imagination to try and cast doubt. In >>>real life, you'll ask the player "did you think you had the DJ?", and >>>he'll say "no" and you'll believe him. And you'll rule as I do. >> >>No, in the real life I will ask the claimer to repeat his claim >>statement, >>and if he wants to add something for clarification I shall listen to that >>and rule whether that addition is admissible or not, all according to the >>prescriptions in Law 70. From the facts presented in this thread I shall >>undoubtedly rule down 1. >>....... >> >>>Which is precisely how I handle this case. I rule that the line of >>>play will reveal itself automatically. I don't hold against a player >>>the fact that he claimed within a split second of seeing dummy. If >>>this same player claims after studying his own hand for 10 seconds, >>>and then does not mention the squeeze, my ruling will be entirely >>>different, as you may well believe. >> >>This is the second time I see anything about "within a split second" (the >>first time was by you a bit higher up in this same comment). >>The facts have been that he made an ordinary claim like "I have the >>rest". > >see my answer above. If this has taken more than two seconds I: >a- rule against this man >b- throw him out of the tournament for asking me to allow his silly claim > >>If on being summoned to the table I find that he on seeing dummy and the >>opening lead had given an impulsive remark something like "Oh fine, we'll >>make it" I would allow him depending upon the finer details to either >>play >>it out (treating the remark as a null) or to for his complete claim >>statement there and then. > >Indeed. That is the case we've been discussing all along. >I would also expect this world class declarer to show me the squeeze >workings within a very reasonable amount of time. > >>But this last situation is completely new to me, and I believe also >>to the >>thread. > >No Sven, it comes from a very easy analysis into players' motives and >possible hang-ups. > >Did you really believe that a world class declarer would look twice at >these two sets of cards and then claim 13 tricks? That is simply >impossible. The only possible explanation for there being a claim is >that it was done immediately, and almost without looking at his own >hand a second time. >And that is the claim I have been ruling on. >And in that claim it is irrational to expect that declarer plays any >card without doing the small check that he should have done before >claiming. Herman does a good job in justifying his interpretation of the application of the claims laws to this case, but, in real life, such a ruling in a serious event would be "oh shit redux", seen by the vast majority of ordinary players as yet another example of the law's (widely perceived, whether or not it really exists) favoritism towards top-level players. I continue to maintain that the Law, if it is to meet the "common sense" test of fairness and justice, must demand, as best it can, the same ruling in the same situation regardless of to whom it is given. No ruling should ever depend on the "class of player" whose infraction is being ruled on. I very much doubt that Herman would be opposing BLML's (and, I believe, most of the world's) consensus on this case were he not hung up on the fact that the original problem explicitly specifies a "world class declarer". Future versions of TFLB should put paid to such odd interpretations by making it clear that this doesn't matter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 3 14:06:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:06:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603082939.025726e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000901c448b5$3e536630$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603082939.025726e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40BF223B.4060600@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > > Herman does a good job in justifying his interpretation of the > application of the claims laws to this case, but, in real life, such a > ruling in a serious event would be "oh shit redux", seen by the vast > majority of ordinary players as yet another example of the law's (widely > perceived, whether or not it really exists) favoritism towards top-level > players. > > I continue to maintain that the Law, if it is to meet the "common sense" > test of fairness and justice, must demand, as best it can, the same > ruling in the same situation regardless of to whom it is given. No > ruling should ever depend on the "class of player" whose infraction is > being ruled on. > > I very much doubt that Herman would be opposing BLML's (and, I believe, > most of the world's) consensus on this case were he not hung up on the > fact that the original problem explicitly specifies a "world class > declarer". Future versions of TFLB should put paid to such odd > interpretations by making it clear that this doesn't matter. > Well, Eric, yes and no. I don't believe that the discussion I have been having with Sven and Konrad has anything to do with "world class player". I don't share your concern about the class of player being important, and we have discussed this in the past, but I don't believe that matters. I am quite certain that Sven and Konrad agree with me that under normal circumstances, a Polish player of "world class" would indeed find this squeeze. Nor do they particularly mind this claim being given to a world class declarer and not to Herman De Wael. Nor do I mind that. Indeed I have meanwhile, in a different sub-thread, admitted that I am not certain that even a world champion ought to get this claim. Maybe it's even too difficult for them. Maybe we cannot rule out that even a world champion might miss the squeeze and some other line be deemed normal. As I said, all this is not the problem in the discussion with Sven and Konrad. That discussion is about whether we allow the player all "normal" lines or whether we should also include som abnormal ones which would only be judged normal because silly declarer claimed without checking (or with mischecking - according to S&K). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mario@bridge.org.mt Thu Jun 3 14:12:39 2004 From: mario@bridge.org.mt (Mario Dix) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:12:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam Message-ID: <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> IMHO blmlers have failed to raise an important question. Why should TDs have the onus to differentiate between the strength of a player for the purpose of Laws 69,70 & 71 when it comes to a "normal" line of play? The Laws are complex enough without having to make subliminal (maybe prejudicial would be a possible word)judgement on a player's expertise in play. Surely EVERY player making a Claim should be capable of CLEARLY stating his intended line of play? Isn't that why play now ceases? This should be even simpler for the expert or "world class player" who should know the Laws. So why is it necessary to give the supposedly superior player an added edge? Such clarity would also simplify aquiescence or otherwise by the opponents and thus save time. Surely there should be no license here for the expert? In what other "sport" do the Laws differentiate between the relative skills of the players? Let the TFLB follow the KISS formula, at least where there is no reason to do so otherwise. I am capable of grasping that in certain UI situations ability judgement may be sensible in bridge. But I can see no reason for it when simply stating a clear line of play when "claiming". Why not consider a revision in the Laws here? This (exam) question reminds me of the famous Maastricht Appeal involving a certain English player who was asked by his opps to "play on" and went off after having deviated from his stated "line of play". The AC were forced to Rule that the contract was made and furthermore considered PPs for both sides for having played on, after a claim was made. Mario Dix mario@bridge.org.mt From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 3 14:11:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:11:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pre-emptive raise In-Reply-To: <000001c44935$523536d0$0401010a@Desktop> References: <000001c44935$523536d0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > David Stevenson wrote >> Wayne Burrows wrote >> >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? >> >> Is this a test to see which of us describes ourselves as a >> "Relatively >> inexperienced player"? > >Not at all and relatively inexperienced is different than inexperienced. > >> >> Personally, I double for takeout. But I would not expect most >> inexperienced players to think of double. > >I haven't had many responses. It may be something to do with >"Pre-emptive raise" being a dubious Subject apparently and this message >was quarantined for approval - I guess I will find out if replies are >also quarantined when I send this. > >The problem that occurred was that 3H was not alerted as a weakish >raise and North passed when it was more favourable to take action. > >This was a clear infraction the regulation that states that any jump >response that may contain fewer than 8 points and is primarily pre- >emptive in nature requires an alert. > >Pre-emptive raises are probably only played by a significant minority >of the players who were playing in this tournament. > >The director spoke to North before making her ruling and North said that >if she knew this was a weak raise then she would have made a takeout >double. > >The director ruled that it was reasonable for North to double which >would >lead to a better result for NS. The director adjusted to 3NT making but >passing the double would also improve the NS result. > >EW appealed and the committee upheld the director's ruling. > >Comments please? > >I was involved as a committee member and while I concurred with the >decision I thought that it was generous to NS. Seems a normal decision. We must *never* fall into the trap of not being sympathetic to the non-offenders. On the other hand if north was a top-class player then no doubt result stands is the only possible decision. Very pleasing to see yet another example of a case where a lesser player will get an adjustment while a better player would not, despite certain people say it never happens! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Jun 3 15:30:23 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Jun 03, 2004 04:13:14 PM Message-ID: <200406031430.i53EUNlD023457@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Nigel Guthrie asked: > > >>Should you really call the TD after all > >>(alleged) infractions? > > Ron Johnson replied: > > >Yes. > > Richard James Hills replies: > > No. While Law 9 requires that the TD > *must* be summoned after attention is > drawn to an irregularity, Law 9 also > states that any player *may* draw > attention to an irregularity. That is, > drawing attention to an irregularity > is optional. OK. That's the problem with brief answers. Not only do I agree with your parsing, in practice like you I let slide many "innocuous irregularities". (Useful phrase) > If an opponent technically infracts > Law 75 by misexplaining, but the merely > nominal infraction of Law 75 does not > damage my non-offending side, then I do > not waste the TD's time by drawing > attention to this innocuous irregularity. > > Best wishes > > RJH > From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 3 17:02:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:02:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> References: <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> Message-ID: Mario Dix wrote > >IMHO blmlers have failed to raise an important question. Why should TDs >have the onus to differentiate between the strength of a player for the >purpose of Laws 69,70 & 71 when it comes to a "normal" line of play? The >Laws are complex enough without having to make subliminal (maybe >prejudicial would be a possible word)judgement on a player's expertise >in play. Surely EVERY player making a Claim should be capable of CLEARLY >stating his intended line of play? Isn't that why play now ceases? This >should be even simpler for the expert or "world class player" who should >know the Laws. So why is it necessary to give the supposedly superior >player an added edge? Such clarity would also simplify aquiescence or >otherwise by the opponents and thus save time. Surely there should be no >license here for the expert? We do not give an expert an added edge. We follow the Laws of the game. If you do not like them you get them changed, not object to us following them. When you allow for the class of player involved which we do in several types of judgement decision some of the effects are to give a better player an edge: some of the effects are to give a poorer player the edge. However, when you make the conclusion the same for all players the main thing you do is to move away from the idea of restoring equity, because equity depends on what has and might be about to happen - and that depends on the players. >In what other "sport" do the Laws differentiate between the relative >skills of the players? Let the TFLB follow the KISS formula, at least >where there is no reason to do so otherwise. I am capable of grasping >that in certain UI situations ability judgement may be sensible in >bridge. But I can see no reason for it when simply stating a clear line >of play when "claiming". Why not consider a revision in the Laws here? I really do not understand why we are asked to consider "other sports" when [a] bridge is not a sport, and [b] rules in various pastimes, sports, mindsports, whatever depend on the type of pastime it is and therefore are very different. >This (exam) question reminds me of the famous Maastricht Appeal >involving a certain English player who was asked by his opps to "play >on" and went off after having deviated from his stated "line of play". >The AC were forced to Rule that the contract was made and furthermore >considered PPs for both sides for having played on, after a claim was >made. So, they broke the rules, a penalty was considered. What's wrong with that? At least we know the PP would not have even been considered if they were novices. ----------------------------- First, we should stop this idea that rulings go against poorer players. Some do, some don't. Second, we should realise the main effect of treating everyone the same will be loss of equity. The complaints will still be just as loud and frequent! -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Thu Jun 3 21:25:32 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:25:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603161742.027783b0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:36 PM 6/2/04, richard.hills wrote: >In a private email, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Rick Beye immediately sent me all the Reno > >appeals after I asked for them this morning. > >Should I forward them to you, or have you got > >them already? They are not copyrighted, by the > >way. > >Richard James Hills volunteers: > >Thank you, Marvin and Rick, for forwarding all >the Reno appeals. Thanks also to the ACBL for >refraining from copyrighting the appeals. > >As previously advised, I am volunteering to >collate an unofficial Reno casebook. Any >blmlers or lurkers who wish to join the panel >for this unofficial casebook, please send me a >private email. > >With regards to my editorial style on this >unofficial casebook, I will be more Stevensonian >than David Stevenson. I will keep my editorial >comments minimalist and factual. It would be >presumptuous for someone of my relative >inexperience to suggest that any of my dogmatic >opinions are superior to a panellist's dogmatic >opinions, merely because I am an unofficial >editor. I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- but I'm almost certain that if the ACBL wrote up the appeals and posted them on their own website, then they own the copyright, whether or not they bothered to add a copyright notice. You can't "refrain[] from copyrighting" something; it happens automatically. So if you're the i-dotting, t-crossing type you might want to ask for and get explicit permission from the ACBL to reproduce them, although I very much doubt they would care. Better yet, ask Mr. Beye to add a copyright waiver, which would say something like, "Permission to reproduce all or any part of this document is granted." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 3 21:39:10 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:39:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BED2A0.1070406@hdw.be> References: <000a01c448dd$da1a5e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000a01c448dd$da1a5e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603163141.02778d50@pop.starpower.net> At 03:26 AM 6/3/04, Herman wrote: >No Sven, you have misunderstood me. The revelation does not come from >his claim being contested. The revelation comes from him performing an >action that every player always does: checking to find a line of play. >This is an action of which it is irrational (for any player) to not do >it. This claimer has not yet performed that action. It is careless to >claim before performing the action of checking, but it is (IMO) >irrational to not perform that action at all. >The revelation comes from that action, and should be included in the >information that claimer can use before selecting his final line of play. I take no position here on the substance of the debate between Herman and Sven, but... If failing to check out some line of play before starting to play a bridge hand were really a definitive indicator of irrationality, we would not be holding competitions, as 99.44% of our players would be locked up in mental institutions. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 3 21:50:03 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:50:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: <000001c4493c$a38e3d90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603164052.0277b300@pop.starpower.net> At 03:30 AM 6/3/04, Sven wrote: > > David Stevenson > > Sven Pran wrote > > > > >BTW. "Count" is in any case an incomplete declaration as is "Strength" > > etc. > > >The declaration must include the meaning of a high or a low card, > an odd > > or > > >an even card, a low-high or a high-low sequence; whatever is relevant. > > > > It may technically be incomplete, but since it is completely > > unambiguous it matters not. A pair with Count on their card under > > Discards is playing High-Low to show an even number, Low-High to > show an > > odd number. Any other discards [in England/Wales anyway] is not > > "Count". > >OK. > >In Norway we say "Norwegian" if High-low shows even and low-high if odd. >We say "Swedish" if Low-High shows even and high-low if odd. >We say "High" or "low" as applicable for strength showing so for >instance my >own declaration is "Norwegian" and "Low". (Your "Count" combined with low >card to show strength/invitation when applicable). > >Some players do not use distribution (count) signals at all; that was the >main reason for my remark. (OK they use count, but which way?) > >Other places other habits. > >Regards Sven > >PS: In Sweden I know that they say "Malmoe" but I can never remember >whether >high-low shows odd or even count. In ACBL terminology, high-low encouraging, showing an even number and/or showing preference for the higher-ranking unplayed side suit is called "standard (attitude, count and/or suit preference) signaling", and high-low discouraging, showing an odd number and/or showing preference for the lower-ranking unplayed side suit is called "upside-down signaling". One is permitted to choose between them separately (or choose not to signal at all) for attitude, count and suit preference. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nsousa@fc.up.pt Tue Jun 1 11:43:45 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:43:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) Message-ID: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CAF@MAIL.fc.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C447C5.502C7472 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I believe an expert South would surely bid over 3H with a 15+ hand, be = it balanced or unbalanced. South therefore rates to have an unbalanced = 12-14 hcp hand with 5+ clubs. With a balanced min hand and 3-4 clubs = he'd have opened a weak NT. I bid 4C now. Regards, N. Sousa ------------------------------------- NS Vul. Good and very experienced pair sitting EW.=20 World class player sitting South.=20 Relatively inexperienced player sitting North. North holds =20 KJ84 6 Q984 Q1095 =20 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 ?=20 =20 What do you bid? =20 TIA ----------------------------------------- =20 Wayne ------_=_NextPart_001_01C447C5.502C7472 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ii4KAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEAJgAAAFJFOiBQcmUtZW1wdGl2ZSBy YWlzZSAoV2F5bmUgQnVycm93cykA/AwBBYADAA4AAADUBwYAAQALACsALQACAEcBASCAAwAOAAAA 1AcGAAEACwArAC0AAgBHAQEJgAEAIQAAAERCRTlEMDc1QUY2NzZFNDNBOTA0RjVDNTg4QUMwNkZC AG0HAQOQBgBQCQAANwAAAAMAJgAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkAcnQsUMVHxAEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABS RTogAAAAAAIBRwABAAAAKgAAAGM9dXM7YT0gO3A9RkNVUDtsPU1BSUwtMDQwNjAxMTA0MzQ1Wi0x MDE3AAAAHgBJAAEAAAAjAAAAYmxtbCBkaWdlc3QsIFZvbCAxICMxNjAxIC0gMTEgbXNncwAAQABO AIA41d2pR8QBHgBaAAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAAgFbAAEAAABHAAAA AAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAU01UUABibG1sLWFk bWluQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAgFcAAEAAAAaAAAAU01UUDpCTE1MLUFETUlOQFJURkxCLk9SRwAAAB4A XQABAAAAFwAAAGJsbWwtcmVxdWVzdEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAIBXgABAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQ GZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGJsbWwtcmVxdWVzdEBydGZsYi5vcmcAU01UUABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRm bGIub3JnAAACAV8AAQAAABwAAABTTVRQOkJMTUwtUkVRVUVTVEBSVEZMQi5PUkcAHgBmAAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAGcAAQAAABUAAABibG1sLWFkbWluQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAAAeAGgAAQAAAAUA AABTTVRQAAAAAB4AaQABAAAAFwAAAGJsbWwtcmVxdWVzdEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAB4AcAABAAAAIwAA AGJsbWwgZGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgMSAjMTYwMSAtIDExIG1zZ3MAAAIBcQABAAAAGwAAAAHER6n9tlQA fcidr0NTmTCg8qX0z3IABo3sDwAeAHQAAQAAAA8AAABibG1sQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAHgAaDAEAAAAd AAAATnVubyBNaWd1ZWwgTWFycXVlcyBkZSBTb3VzYQAAAAAeAB0OAQAAACIAAABQcmUtZW1wdGl2 ZSByYWlzZSAoV2F5bmUgQnVycm93cykAAAACAQkQAQAAAIoCAACGAgAAWQQAAExaRnUXO64EAwAK AHJjcGcxMjXiMgNDdGV4BUEBAwH3/wqAAqQD5AcTAoAP8wBQBFY/CFUHshElDlEDAQIAY2jhCsBz ZXQyBgAGwxEl9jMERhO3MBIsETMI7wn3tjsYHw4wNREiDGBjAFAzCwkBZDM2FlALpiBI5GkgB0Bs LAqiCoQKgCBJIGJlbAiQdmW3HRADoA7AcASQBUBTCGAQdGggdwhgbGQgVnMIcB5QeR4waSAAb1Me kAXAM0gfsGkfkWEgIDE1KyAT4G5keiweMSAhYB4wB0AAcGOnCYAgwAXAdW4ixi4fVZ8fkASQARAF sB6gcmEOsHkEIHRvIfEelCOIIbAy+C0xNCHwDfAh8yFEIdHSYwpAYnMkIFchZCLHzm0LgCeUJ7Iz LSdAKHNZIfBlJyAAJdNvHxBuQyMhIaB3ZWFrB7BUBi4dbSChNEMgbm+idyz7UmVnCxFzHVXSTiQj c2Edai0xfzKPNzKwL9UF8FYf4Cz1R2//BHAqYyDhIHAe8wiQIwMKsB5pBcAAkAJAC4BnIEV2VyQg HWRXBbAf8ShwYfsEEQtReRKBNuYfYzeGL1B/C2A3EB6QIGELgDXbONxO/xfBOfAv1T0SIfAG8C+g HWShN5VLSjg0HWQ2HWQEUTk/ZlExMDk1qT57VyBCIE5CIUVCIRZTPnVDRVBCITFDKs9CMQXwOMIo MC1jCxEp0LxhagWwBCAnsyySMSzQ5R1kMSEwIFhCISEgRCD/Q8IhEgQALFUEAB+gJUAEAD0eoHUn gCWhAaAfcSA43C05J1IdZEPCPzeVN5ZrE+AFQGQlsHkIYCCCP/E+e1RJQTEfTw8y/0GIFzjgLCAd ZH1SgAAAHgA1EAEAAAA5AAAAPDNBRTU1RDM0N0VDNEZBNDE4NTgwOUY0N0M3QTA2MkU1MDc3ODlD QUZATUFJTC5mYy51cC5wdD4AAAAAHgBHEAEAAAAPAAAAbWVzc2FnZS9yZmM4MjIAAAsA8hABAAAA HwDzEAEAAABYAAAAUgBFACUAMwBBACAAUAByAGUALQBlAG0AcAB0AGkAdgBlACAAcgBhAGkAcwBl ACAAKABXAGEAeQBuAGUAIABCAHUAcgByAG8AdwBzACkALgBFAE0ATAAAAAsA9hAAAAAAQAAHMPb3 HDXER8QBQAAIMJrCOlDFR8QBAwDeP69vAAADAPE/CQAAAB4A+D8BAAAAHQAAAE51bm8gTWlndWVs IE1hcnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAAgH5PwEAAABaAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAA AAAAAC9PPUZDVVAvT1U9RklSU1QgQURNSU5JU1RSQVRJVkUgR1JPVVAvQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9D Tj1OU09VU0EAAAAeAPo/AQAAABUAAABTeXN0ZW0gQWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcgAAAAACAfs/AQAAAB4A AAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAALgAAAAMA/T/kBAAAAwAZQAAAAAADABpAAAAA AAMAHUAAAAAAAwAeQAAAAAAeADBAAQAAAAcAAABOU09VU0EAAB4AMUABAAAABwAAAE5TT1VTQQAA HgAyQAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAHgAzQAEAAAAXAAAAYmxtbC1yZXF1 ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAHgA4QAEAAAAHAAAATlNPVVNBAAAeADlAAQAAAAIAAAAuAAAACwApAAAA AAALACMAAAAAAAMABhAZmZfaAwAHEA8CAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAASElB TEwsSUJFTElFVkVBTkVYUEVSVFNPVVRIV09VTERTVVJFTFlCSURPVkVSM0hXSVRIQTE1K0hBTkQs QkVJVEJBTEFOQ0VET1JVTkJBTEFOQ0VEU09VVEhUSEVSRUZPUkVSQQAAAAACAX8AAQAAADkAAAA8 M0FFNTVEMzQ3RUM0RkE0MTg1ODA5RjQ3QzdBMDYyRTUwNzc4OUNBRkBNQUlMLmZjLnVwLnB0PgAA AACcOw== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C447C5.502C7472-- From nsousa@fc.up.pt Tue Jun 1 16:25:33 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:25:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam Message-ID: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CB2@MAIL.fc.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C447EC.AE844A82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On the 7NT an ace off, replying to Herman and raising a few other = points. What I think Herman is trying to say is: "Did declarer claim without = counting, or did he miscount his tricks?" In the first case, Herman's ruling of 13 tricks is correct. Declarer has = two lines: 1. Diamond finesse: 50% chance 2. Spade/diamond squeeze: 36% + 24% + 7% =3D 67% chance (diamonds 3-3, = or 4-2/5-1 with lenght on East, who surely has the spade ace). It is irrational to have declarer follow line 1, and I don't think Tim's = suggested falsecarding would lead an expert South astray. In the second case, a ruling of 12 tricks is correct. It would seem this is a very delicate case after all; the key being = "What on Earth was declarer thinking at the moment of claim!?" An = experienced Director could perhaps be able to figure it out from a = couple of well-timed questions to declarer. But we don't have = information on what Director asked and what replies he got, so we have = to judge whether it is more likely that declarer got so dazzled by a = plethora of winners that he forgot to count them, or that he simply = counted them wrongly. It is my experience that an expert is more likely to claim on a miscount = than on a no-count at all. The latter never happened to me, but I = confess I've had the first happening to me on ocasion! I *can* imagine a = declarer in 4S claiming on grounds of having "no more losers", only to = find out later that he didn't have enough trumps to score 10 winners. = But I would regard that as most unusual for an expert, especially in a = no-trump hand like this one. Therefore I judge miscount and rule 12 = tricks. Thank you for reading. Comments appreciated :) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C447EC.AE844A82 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IiMPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEAHAAAAFJlOiBBIHF1ZXN0aW9uIGZy b20gYW4gZXhhbQB4CQEFgAMADgAAANQHBgABABAAGQAhAAIALgEBIIADAA4AAADUBwYAAQAQABkA IgACAC8BAQmAAQAhAAAARjRCRUIyRkI5RDA5QUU0Qjk4Q0Y2QzVDODJCN0YxQTQAmQcBA5AGAMwL AAA3AAAAAwAmAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQCCSoSu7EfEAR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJlOiAAAAAAAgFH AAEAAAAqAAAAYz11czthPSA7cD1GQ1VQO2w9TUFJTC0wNDA2MDExNTI1MzNaLTEyNjEAAAAeAEkA AQAAACMAAABibG1sIGRpZ2VzdCwgVm9sIDEgIzE2MDMgLSAxMiBtc2dzAABAAE4AAAPRKtpHxAEe AFoAAQAAABUAAABibG1sLWFkbWluQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAAACAVsAAQAAAEcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6j EBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAABibG1sLWFkbWluQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwBTTVRQAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIu b3JnAAACAVwAAQAAABoAAABTTVRQOkJMTUwtQURNSU5AUlRGTEIuT1JHAAAAHgBdAAEAAAAXAAAA YmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAgFeAAEAAABLAAAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIA AAAAYmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwBTTVRQAGJsbWwtcmVxdWVzdEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAIB XwABAAAAHAAAAFNNVFA6QkxNTC1SRVFVRVNUQFJURkxCLk9SRwAeAGYAAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAA AB4AZwABAAAAFQAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAAAAAB4AaAABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAA HgBpAAEAAAAXAAAAYmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAHgBwAAEAAAAjAAAAYmxtbCBkaWdl c3QsIFZvbCAxICMxNjAzIC0gMTIgbXNncwAAAgFxAAEAAAAbAAAAAcRH2lNnfrROi4LrQCeryN5R fhcJjwAEeTB2AB4AdAABAAAADwAAAGJsbWxAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeABoMAQAAAB0AAABOdW5vIE1p Z3VlbCBNYXJxdWVzIGRlIFNvdXNhAAAAAB4AHQ4BAAAAGAAAAEEgcXVlc3Rpb24gZnJvbSBhbiBl eGFtAAIBCRABAAAAJQUAACEFAADcBwAATFpGdaVZ+Y8DAAoAcmNwZzEyNeIyA0N0ZXgFQQEDAff/ CoACpAPkBxMCgA/zAFAEVj8IVQeyESUOUQMBAgBjaOEKwHNldDIGAAbDESX2MwRGE7cwEiwRMwjv Cfe2OxgfDjA1ESIMYGMAUDMLCQFkMzYWUAumIE8BA6B0aGUgN05ULiADkQDQHUBvASAsICsYIAtQ eQuAZx0QbyDuSASQA4IAcGQeUAtwAJDRHsFhIGYH0W8dIQXAxHBvC4B0cy4KogqEbQqAVxPgBUBJ HRELgGsXHxYEAB0Qch6mc2F5wSNxOiAiRGkfsAWB3wtgGCAFwCVBB3AgA/AdIPcIYAVABaB1AjAe sR5ABbH2ZCTxHTFtBAAmkyeQI4OhDeBrcz8iIYpJHQTsZmkUACZxYRQQHkAfJGInBCBydWwesh4Q IDwxMyiVI3IFoRggY3S4LiBEJTYT4CORdx8A6yvBB5A6IYoxLYEHMARgHx+hKlAu0RQQJLA1MCVb JaAT4G4d4CGEMi2AU5sKsAEALydgMCRzcQpQHGV6MOEcIDEwKyAyijQz0jcxMD0gNjRxGTFUICgy pQQgMy0zAScTNC0yLzUtMWcmAy6gCfBnaAVAAiAg6kUqwHQeQHcmQCRACHBuZR6QLiQdMXMyUh3C Kf0he0kFQCOBKmAf0CbQAiB3B0Ae4hPgdh1AJScCEGx/F7AH4C6yLDAeQB+SIpBkfQIgJwVAIrQH YStxOKBn/mcHkA6wMGEHQBQQKrALIP8esi6AK7AfsDdgMmAdkg7A9nAEkAVAUyZRN0A4ER/Q/nk6 PB0EQGEwQiq0IFArqd8UQCx/Oj5BBBQQZSXwIrH/LMMgUDxgI8AlESvAKrAOsH8qox2QAYASgQdA AnAdE2vSZSRwYmUesiIiQzfT+wAgN0B3LkElJyKzIBM+sr8nsQNwCfA3sSwgJbMhKQD/EMBBxQiQ MYEfsCTgLUIFse8mkUExQgET4HAEIEvQHZDvAmAdQB7xKlBnOLEjcDex/yZhA1IgQSaRC1Ad8iYA OND8bC0m0AeAH7AzMSqAO7HvI5EfACUmLYBCJmFVID5l/zxDC4ACEB9BO6I3wjhgImH/URcqwEuQ QZIfsFlTHmIIkNsEIB0xZyCwHkBzHwBXgeM8Qx7xanVkP8A4URQg/yDSU6EjgQRgU3ErwEuQOOEf HSAiYSUnW9FcEmRhevZ6N2AfsGIkcCBQVLEmMf8f0FTjC4Au0BQAXvQqIgWw71/iHvEoBB0hbScT YmYAkP5tHoEmhEABY+ImAANgHsD/HpA6P14hJHBQWF70QbheHv9jYSXDN9EgUCfXXwFZAyBQeG5v LSgEaNI9QC2AVH8dMQtgAkASgS7QSXEuIXC/QgAu0GXBHwAHgB5AYiZhzyKQRHEgcAQRSSc8YRPg v2XDKkVuxB61B4A3wm8qsZU7sSEigSoqsG4qI3D9AMBnPaIgUCUnC4A2gAXw/yWzK9MDoAnAJqE1 4SwRPEG3S/NsoF41bxQQFAAiJxH+bmpkMIEfsCZSbfFNw2KEvydhV9cJ8AhgN5AjoXVlEPdWUyfx U3ExFlBh5VckIpD7QQQYIGcLEWilXiIqgSaw/nU4oDvhWIFBqB5AB5BCAP5jBzE44XVBbIN7wy4h H6H3XpJIxAIgZW2TGCBYgR1A/yKQXQQn1x+TK7A9wUX2IXv3bbAAcCLweQhgf/MYIDJg9x6xLYAI UG1PEkkxbuAtQVMHMD/yOikhhH2KsAAAAB4ANRABAAAAOQAAADwzQUU1NUQzNDdFQzRGQTQxODU4 MDlGNDdDN0EwNjJFNTA3Nzg5Q0IyQE1BSUwuZmMudXAucHQ+AAAAAB4ARxABAAAADwAAAG1lc3Nh Z2UvcmZjODIyAAALAPIQAQAAAB8A8xABAAAARAAAAFIAZQAlADMAQQAgAEEAIABxAHUAZQBzAHQA aQBvAG4AIABmAHIAbwBtACAAYQBuACAAZQB4AGEAbQAuAEUATQBMAAAACwD2EAAAAABAAAcwDvsY OOxHxAFAAAgwvr+ZruxHxAEDAN4/r28AAAMA8T8JBAAAHgD4PwEAAAAdAAAATnVubyBNaWd1ZWwg TWFycXVlcyBkZSBTb3VzYQAAAAACAfk/AQAAAFoAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAA AAAAL089RkNVUC9PVT1GSVJTVCBBRE1JTklTVFJBVElWRSBHUk9VUC9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NO PU5TT1VTQQAAAB4A+j8BAAAAFQAAAFN5c3RlbSBBZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yAAAAAAIB+z8BAAAAHgAA AAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAwD9P+QEAAADABlAAAAAAAMAGkAAAAAA AwAdQAAAAAADAB5AAAAAAB4AMEABAAAABwAAAE5TT1VTQQAAHgAxQAEAAAAHAAAATlNPVVNBAAAe ADJAAQAAABUAAABibG1sLWFkbWluQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAAAeADNAAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVl c3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeADhAAQAAAAcAAABOU09VU0EAAB4AOUABAAAAAgAAAC4AAAALACkAAAAA AAsAIwAAAAAAAwAGECjrF9YDAAcQMAUAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABPTlRI RTdOVEFOQUNFT0ZGLFJFUExZSU5HVE9IRVJNQU5BTkRSQUlTSU5HQUZFV09USEVSUE9JTlRTV0hB VElUSElOS0hFUk1BTklTVFJZSU5HVE9TQVlJUzoiRElEREVDTEFSAAAAAAIBfwABAAAAOQAAADwz QUU1NUQzNDdFQzRGQTQxODU4MDlGNDdDN0EwNjJFNTA3Nzg5Q0IyQE1BSUwuZmMudXAucHQ+AAAA AEQa ------_=_NextPart_001_01C447EC.AE844A82-- From SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com Wed Jun 2 16:07:48 2004 From: SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com (SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:07:48 EDT Subject: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: <1eb.21ed13fe.2def4744@aol.com> --part1_1eb.21ed13fe.2def4744_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 02/06/2004 13:38:58 GMT Standard Time, hermandw@hdw.be writes: > > Let me give an alternate example in which the balance of compassion is > different. > > Same Lay-out, same contract, same lead. > Declarer: "partner, where's your third ace?" > Dummy: "I bid xxx, which shows only 2" > Declarer: "no it does not, luckily they haven't found the lead, so I'm > going to make this contract" > Defender: "I think this is a claim - Director" > TD: "who called me?" > Defender: "I did - he said he would make his contract, that's a claim" > TD: "yes, technically it is - did you say how you'd play it?" > Declarer: "no I did not, because I did not intend to claim, and I > haven't even watched my own cards yet". > TD: "sorry sir, but I'll have to rule this as a claim - have you > anything to add?" > Declarer: (without pause for thought) "yes I have, I will play my > clubs and hearts and iuf the SA doesn't arrive the diamonds from the > top - I'll win if diamonds are 3-3 or the jack is doubleton or fourth > in the same hand as the SA." > > In this story you will have to have every sympathy for declarer. Are > you still going to rule against him because he claimed without a claim > statement? This is a completely different situation in my view to that in the Polish exam. Here I would indeed agree that a claim had been made when Declarer said he was going to make this contract, but the way I read it, the defender has not allowed declarer the chance between the words "I think this is a claim" and "Director" to clarify the claim under L68C. How can the defender dispute the claim when he has not yet seen declarer's or partner's hands? I therefore assume that Defender is calling the TD to ascertain that Declarer has just initiated a claim, and so I would rule that Declarer cannot continue play and must table his cards and immediately provide any claim statement that he wishes to give as per L68C. In the exam question, Declarer has already tabled his cards and had the opportunity to clarify his claim but has declined to suggest other than that the tricks are off the top. (And I rule one off.) May I just ask this of Herman? If you would allow declarer in the exam question 13 tricks because he is a World Class Player, how far down would a player have to be before you deny him 13 tricks? I am just an above average club player, yet if I were playing the contract, I would find the squeeze as easily as the World Class Player. I would be miffed if I were to be ruled against while a stronger player had a favourable ruling in the same situation. Best wishes from Barrie Barrie Partridge Senior TD at Sheffield BC, England --part1_1eb.21ed13fe.2def4744_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 02/06/2004 13:38= :58 GMT Standard Time, hermandw@hdw.be writes:

Let me give an alternate example in which the balance of compassion is
different.

Same Lay-out, same contract, same lead.
Declarer: "partner, where's your third ace?"
Dummy: "I bid xxx, which shows only 2"
Declarer: "no it does not, luckily they haven't found the lead, so I'm
going to make this contract"
Defender: "I think this is a claim - Director"
TD: "who called me?"
Defender: "I did - he said he would make his contract, that's a claim"
TD: "yes, technically it is - did you say how you'd play it?"
Declarer: "no I did not, because I did not intend to claim, and I
haven't even watched my own cards yet".
TD: "sorry sir, but I'll have to rule this as a claim - have you
anything to add?"
Declarer: (without pause for thought) "yes I have, I will play my
clubs and hearts and iuf the SA doesn't arrive the diamonds from the
top - I'll win if diamonds are 3-3 or the jack is doubleton or fourth
in the same hand as the SA."

In this story you will have to have every sympathy for declarer. Are
you still going to rule against him because he claimed without a claim
statement?


This is a completely different situation in my view to that in the Polish ex= am.

Here I would indeed agree that a claim had been made when Declarer said he w= as going to make this contract, but the way I read it, the defender has not=20= allowed declarer the chance between the words "I think this is a claim" and= "Director" to clarify the claim under L68C. How can the defender dispute th= e claim when he has not yet seen declarer's or partner's hands? I therefore=20= assume that Defender is calling the TD to ascertain that Declarer has just i= nitiated a claim, and so I would rule that Declarer cannot continue play and= must table his cards and immediately provide any claim statement that he wi= shes to give as per L68C.

In the exam question, Declarer has already tabled his cards and had the oppo= rtunity to clarify his claim but has declined to suggest other than that the= tricks are off the top. (And I rule one off.)

May I just ask this of Herman? If you would allow declarer in the exam quest= ion 13 tricks because he is a World Class Player, how far down would a playe= r have to be before you deny him 13 tricks? I am just an above average club=20= player, yet if I were playing the contract, I would find the squeeze as easi= ly as the World Class Player.

I would be miffed if I were to be ruled against while a stronger player had=20= a favourable ruling in the same situation.

Best wishes from Barrie


Barrie Partridge
Senior TD at Sheffield BC, England --part1_1eb.21ed13fe.2def4744_boundary-- From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 3 22:00:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:00:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603164052.0277b300@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c449ad$c7a2c680$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ........ > In ACBL terminology, high-low encouraging, showing an even number > and/or showing preference for the higher-ranking unplayed side suit is > called "standard (attitude, count and/or suit preference) signaling", Looks partially what we call "Lavinthal"? Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jun 3 21:54:09 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:54:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603161742.027783b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005501c449ae$31d50e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" < > At 08:36 PM 6/2/04, richard.hills wrote: > > >In a private email, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >Rick Beye immediately sent me all the Reno > > >appeals after I asked for them this morning. > > >Should I forward them to you, or have you got > > >them already? They are not copyrighted, by the > > >way. > > > >Richard James Hills volunteers: > > > >Thank you, Marvin and Rick, for forwarding all > >the Reno appeals. Thanks also to the ACBL for > >refraining from copyrighting the appeals. > > > I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- but I'm almost > certain that if the ACBL wrote up the appeals and posted them on their > own website, then they own the copyright, whether or not they bothered > to add a copyright notice. They are not so posted, probably because there may yet be a Reno casebook. That decision will probably come at the New York NABC in July. Just guessing. > You can't "refrain[] from copyrighting" > something; it happens automatically. So if you're the i-dotting, > t-crossing type you might want to ask for and get explicit permission > from the ACBL to reproduce them, although I very much doubt they would > care. Better yet, ask Mr. Beye to add a copyright waiver, which would > say something like, "Permission to reproduce all or any part of this > document is granted." > I would say this permission is in effect granted by the following from Rick to me: ######## Hi Marv, Thanks for the note. I've sent all cases for your use. These are the original compilations. While we proofed them a couple of times against the actual appeal forms there are bound to be some small errors. If / when they arise I will send you the amended file. I hope the discussions go well. Rick ######## Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 3 22:10:42 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:10:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) In-Reply-To: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CAF@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <000b01c449af$3b062760$6900a8c0@WINXP> Any good explanation how this (and the other simultaneous post from Nuno Miguel) could arrive from blml without [blml] added to the subject line? (See below for the complete message including the subject line that I received.)=20 Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On = Behalf > Of Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa > Sent: 1. juni 2004 12:44 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > I believe an expert South would surely bid over 3H with a 15+ hand, be = it > balanced or unbalanced. South therefore rates to have an unbalanced = 12-14 > hcp hand with 5+ clubs. With a balanced min hand and 3-4 clubs he'd = have > opened a weak NT. >=20 > I bid 4C now. >=20 > Regards, > N. Sousa >=20 > ------------------------------------- > NS Vul. > Good and very experienced pair sitting EW. > World class player sitting South. > Relatively inexperienced player sitting North. > North holds >=20 > KJ84 > 6 > Q984 > Q1095 >=20 > 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 ? >=20 > What do you bid? >=20 > TIA > ----------------------------------------- >=20 > Wayne From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 3 22:30:07 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:30:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> At 12:02 PM 6/3/04, David wrote: >First, we should stop this idea that rulings go against poorer >players. We cannot "stop this idea". Oh, sure, we can convince ourselves that it is wrong -- indeed, David has done a very good job of convincing us here on BLML. But the vast majority of ordinary players will remain unconvinced, regardless of what we believe, regardless of whether we are right. We will never stop it by continuing to make class-of-player-dependent rulings while telling folks "we really aren't favoring better players, you know" over and over again. It will stop only when ordinary players see experts getting the same rulings they get. And the truth is that the vast majority of ordinary players don't hold this notion as a theorem per se, they hold it as a corollary to the theorem that rulings go in favor of players who are either friends of, or known by reputation to, the TDs and ACs that make the rulings. That may well be total nonsense, but it is indubitably widely believed, and that is a real problem for everyone. >Some do, some don't. The ones that do include the ones that get publicized and talked about (e.g. "Oh shit", or the Maastricht non-squeeze). Nobody hears or talks about the ones that don't. This may be because only when things happen at the top levels of competition (where, perforce, they happen to experts) do they get written about. But that's the way it is. >Second, we should realise the main effect of treating everyone the >same will be loss of equity. Not by my dictionary: "Equity: The state, ideal or quality of being... impartial or fair." "Impartial: Not partial." "Fair: Free of favoritism or bias; impartial." "Partial: Favoring one person or side over another or others." >The complaints will still be just as loud >and frequent! Even if that's true (and I don't believe it is), better we should get complaints about the failure of the Law to achieve perfect "equity" than complaints about tournaments being decided by rulings made by biased officials in favor of their friends. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam@irvine.com Thu Jun 3 22:31:41 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:31:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:10:42 +0200." <000b01c449af$3b062760$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200406032131.OAA22586@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Any good explanation how this (and the other simultaneous post from Nuno > Miguel) could arrive from blml without [blml] added to the subject line? > (See below for the complete message including the subject line that I > received.) > > Regards Sven The subject line had [blml] in it when I received his post. (There also wasn't any "On Behalf Of" in the "From:" line.) -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 3 22:40:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:40:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) In-Reply-To: <200406032131.OAA22586@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000c01c449b3$5ef8bdf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Just for the record: "on behalf of" was present in his messages reaching = me (as can be seen in my first post on this matter) Now I leave this for Henk to sort out (if he can and have the time) Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Adam > Beneschan > Sent: 3. juni 2004 23:32 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC); Henk Uijterwaal; adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) >=20 >=20 > Sven wrote: >=20 > > Any good explanation how this (and the other simultaneous post from = Nuno > > Miguel) could arrive from blml without [blml] added to the subject = line? > > (See below for the complete message including the subject line that = I > > received.) > > > > Regards Sven >=20 > The subject line had [blml] in it when I received his post. (There > also wasn't any "On Behalf Of" in the "From:" line.) >=20 > -- Adam >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ljtrent@adelphia.net Thu Jun 3 22:56:30 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:56:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> >>I took Joan Gerard's advice and emailed Rick Beye, >>expressing concern >>about the ACBL's plans for future casebooks, and about the status of >>former editor Rich Colker. Rick immediately called me on >>the telephone! >> He berated me for describing Colker has having been "fired" by the >>ACBL. According to him, what has happened is that the ACBL Board of >>Directors decided to start putting the job of Casebook >>editor out for >>bids (an unusual procedure for literary work!), and Colker >>declined to >>submit a bid. On the other hand, he indicated that the >>Board had not >>yet decided on the format for future Casebooks; it is not >>clear how one >>could bid on such an ill-defined project. Let's see now --- when one is told by their boss that their services are "no longer needed" that sounds like they have been fired to me. I was immediately approached and asked if I would be willing to send out the cases, receive the input and report it with no editorial comment. I said no as I felt that was a 13 year set-back (when I first worked on casebooks with John Blubaugh). Yes, Rich was offered the opportunity to bid on the casebook job but hmmmmmm I wonder why he didn't want to. I think the $32,000 plus hotel, per diem, airfare to tournaments and misc expenses such as toner, phone calls etc. that Rich was being paid to do the casebooks + the National Recorder job was probably the best value per dollar spent the ACBL was getting. You would not belive how many hours both of us spent on these casebooks. So, obviously there is more to the story. It doesn't take rocket science to figure it out. Also, you might be interested in knowing that continuing the Casebooks in their existing format was a Board of Directors decision and directive. Linda --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 3 23:57:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:57:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) Message-ID: >Any good explanation how this (and the other simultaneous post from Nuno >Miguel) could arrive from blml without [blml] added to the subject line? >(See below for the complete message including the subject line that I >received.) > >Regards Sven >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf >>Of Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa >>Sent: 1. juni 2004 12:44 >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) As far as I can tell, the "problem" is likely to be with Sven's email software. It seems that Sven's email software may delete any words which appear before the word "Re:" in an email subject line. When I received the two posts from Nuno Miguel, I received "[blml]" in the subject line before "Re:". Best wishes Richard James Hills From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 3 23:58:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:58:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> References: <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 12:02 PM 6/3/04, David wrote: > >>First, we should stop this idea that rulings go against poorer >>players. > >We cannot "stop this idea". Oh, sure, we can convince ourselves that >it is wrong -- indeed, David has done a very good job of convincing us >here on BLML. But the vast majority of ordinary players will remain >unconvinced, regardless of what we believe, regardless of whether we >are right. We will never stop it by continuing to make class-of- >player-dependent rulings while telling folks "we really aren't favoring >better players, you know" over and over again. It will stop only when >ordinary players see experts getting the same rulings they get. People will never actually take notice of what happens. When a player gets a ruling in his favour because he is a poor player he does not [a] know [b] tell anyone But when I say we should stop the idea, first we convince the people who are listened to, second, they have to convince the rest. Easy? None of this is easy. But the total failure of the bridge authorities to realise that communications are different in this century and decade is the first thing to get over. >And the truth is that the vast majority of ordinary players don't hold >this notion as a theorem per se, they hold it as a corollary to the >theorem that rulings go in favor of players who are either friends of, >or known by reputation to, the TDs and ACs that make the rulings. That >may well be total nonsense, but it is indubitably widely believed, and >that is a real problem for everyone. That's different, and completely unknown to me. Perhaps this is why I am told TDs are unpopular in certain jurisdictions: in htis country TDs are pretty popular now in general. >>Some do, some don't. > >The ones that do include the ones that get publicized and talked about >(e.g. "Oh shit", or the Maastricht non-squeeze). Nobody hears or talks >about the ones that don't. This may be because only when things happen >at the top levels of competition (where, perforce, they happen to >experts) do they get written about. But that's the way it is. > >>Second, we should realise the main effect of treating everyone the >>same will be loss of equity. > >Not by my dictionary: > >"Equity: The state, ideal or quality of being... impartial or fair." > >"Impartial: Not partial." > >"Fair: Free of favoritism or bias; impartial." > >"Partial: Favoring one person or side over another or others." Exactly. When we make unfair and partial rulings because we are no longer making bridge judgements based on what would have happened we have no longer got equity. AQ xx "I shall make two tricks by finessing". Now, you are going to decide based on some notional standard unrelated to the player's ability how many tricks he is going to make, and call it equity. It isn't. >>The complaints will still be just as loud >>and frequent! > >Even if that's true (and I don't believe it is), better we should get >complaints about the failure of the Law to achieve perfect "equity" >than complaints about tournaments being decided by rulings made by >biased officials in favor of their friends. In my view if people believe such a bias exists then they will continue to do so. I am pleased it is not a common view here. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr Fri Jun 4 00:05:05 2004 From: jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 01:05:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <003101c44755$7f0f06e0$b7411d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <00a901c449bf$398e8840$0000fea9@lanfeust> 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? This problem is much more interesting than what I thought initially... My first reaction was : "down 1, WTP ?" But Herman convinced me I was wrong, and I will try to summarize why, because I think the good reasons where not clear until quite late in the thread. To me, for a world class player, claiming at trick 1 and failing to take 13 tricks with such a layout if playing it out are of the same class of "normality" (or should I say "frabjousnessty" ?;-), and I really think that this class is the "irrational" one. Players sometimes *do* irrational things, but the law clearly instruct us not to take this possibility into account when judging a faulty claim, *whether the claim itself is irrational or not* ! The mere fact that S just did something irrational (claiming) doesn't entitle us to consider irrational plays when resolving his claim, such as revoking, or playing a spade, or cashing a high diamond (of course this last possibility is irrational only because we are dealing with a world class player, and we consider the claim more as a demonstration of relief as anything else, just as Herman explained it, he didn't miscount his tricks, he didn't count them at all). Well, such are life and bridge, when I do something irrational, sometimes it costs me dear (most revokes, most faulty claim, pulling the wrong card, you name it), but sometimes not (we didn't take any trick after the revoke, the cards were kind enough so that any normal line would succeed, my opponent was also asleep and the wrong card took the trick nonetheless...). Just for the record, I could live (albeit with difficulty) with a decision that finessing in D is not irrational, so just swap the 9 and 10 of D, and now irrational for sure it is... Jean-Jacques. -- From adam@irvine.com Fri Jun 4 00:08:04 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:08:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:57:26 +1000." Message-ID: <200406032307.QAA27041@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > As far as I can tell, the "problem" is likely to be > with Sven's email software. It seems that Sven's > email software may delete any words which appear > before the word "Re:" in an email subject line. > > When I received the two posts from Nuno Miguel, I > received "[blml]" in the subject line before "Re:". Yep, I noticed the same thing. This is not the normal case---most replies have a subject line that looks like "Re: [blml] the topic". -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 00:13:24 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:13:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status References: Message-ID: <006301c449c0$63b6f660$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Linda Trent" > > Let's see now --- when one is told by their boss that their services > are "no longer needed" that sounds like they have been fired to me. > > Yes, Rich was offered the opportunity to bid on the casebook job but > hmmmmmm I wonder why he didn't want to. Another version I heard is that Rich asked for a raise if he was to continue the job, and the management felt this was not justified. > > I think the $32,000 plus hotel, per diem, airfare to tournaments and > misc expenses such as toner, phone calls etc. that Rich was being paid > to do the casebooks + the National Recorder job was probably the best > value per dollar spent the ACBL was getting. > > You would not believe how many hours both of us spent on these > casebooks. Both of you are unbelievably industrious and consciencious. Getting the appeal writeups into good form (Linda's job, I believe) can be very difficult, and of course the casebook editing is a very difficult job, especially if comments on the comments are to be frequently made and sometimes extensive (as are Rich's). However, I have heard it said that these jobs are of a level not justifying more than the current compensation, no matter how hard the work is and how well it is performed. These are not low-level jobs at all, actually, but what proper compensation is I have no idea. What does David Stevenson get, I wonder? > > So, obviously there is more to the story. It doesn't take rocket > science to figure it out. I suspect Rich has rubbed some people the wrong way over the years, and that could be a factor. > > Also, you might be interested in knowing that continuing the Casebooks > in their existing format was a Board of Directors decision and > directive. > That's odd. I had the impression they would vote on this in New York. Is it in the minutes? So I looked, and here's what I found in the Reno BoD minutes: ####### Reno, NV Minutes Page 11 of 33 Item 041-81: Appeals Administrator / Appeals Casebook Item 032-114: Appeals Administrator / Appeals Casebook is amended as follows: A. The following Board Resolutions are rescinded: (921-1) Required Procedures and Certification of Appeals Committee Members (943-04) Appeals Administrator (962-05) Appeals Administrator (971-06) Duties of the Appeals Administrator (991-63) The Appeals Casebook Any other resolution prior to July 2003 involved with the Casebook or Appeals Administrator. B. The Casebook is a project of the ACBL Board of Directors. The Editor of the Casebook is selected and hired by Management to work with the Board of Directors on this project. C. Management shall ensure that the following functions are performed: 1. An appeals casebook is compiled and ready for publication within 120 days of each NABC. 2. Each casebook should include a description of each appeal. 3. Each casebook should include commentary on selected appeals that have instructive value or interest as determined by the Editor of the casebook and Management. 4. Management should publish descriptions of likely controversial decisions in the Daily Bulletin of the NABC at which the decision took place when submitted by the Editor and the Chairman of National Appeals. 5. The commentators for the Appeals Casebook will be the Editor, Director of National Appeals, Chairman of National Appeals, and the NABC Director in Charge. Any one of the above may require that a specific commentator not be used. The Editor and Management may include appeals cases from events conducted by the USBF, CBF and MBF, which qualify contestants to International competition. 6. The casebooks will be published on the ACBL web page. A space shall be provided for any interested party to add comments to the web site regarding any case; however, only those positions listed above are included as official comments. 7. Deleted - (hard copy of casebook to AC members and BoD.) 8. The casebook shall be reviewed and approved by League Counsel, the Director of National Appeals and Management before it can be published. Deferred to Summer 2004 meeting. ####### Item deferred, notice. So, I was right. The matter will be voted on at the New York NABC in July. I Beginning in 2003, I believe, the Director of National Appeals has been Joan Gerard and the Chairman Barry Rigal. Good people. Item 6 is interesting. Looking forward to that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mustikka@charter.net Fri Jun 4 01:24:34 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:24:34 -0700 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention References: Message-ID: <000a01c449ca$50999380$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention > > > > > The Facts: 5S went down one, +50 for N/S. > The opening lead was the CK. > > 87 > AJ6 > J652 > J963 > KT65 A9432 > K95 QT43 > AKQ8 T973 > AT --- > QJ > 872 > 4 > KQ87542 > > Raija Davis: > > >Regarding 5S going down, I don't know how it > >can possibly go down but apparently it went > >down...perhaps because the declarer was > >not-so-good, inexperienced, made errors, or > >whatever description one might use. > > Richard James Hills: > > Perhaps the blmler Raija Davis is not-so-good, > inexperienced, made errors in his analysis, or > whatever description one might use. > > :-) Well said, I make errors in analysis and I know I make errors. But a novice probaly would not a) know or b) remember - even if he had heard of - restricted choice. Only a good player goes down in that hand, based on your analysis. And this analysis of an analysis may also be wrong :-) :-) > > Given that South pre-empted in clubs, a good, > experienced, non-erroneous declarer might cash > the king of trumps, then take a restricted > choice finesse in trumps. > > Then, once North later shows length in > diamonds, a good, experienced, non-erroneous > declarer might later misguess the two-way > finesse for the jack of hearts. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jun 4 02:01:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 02:01:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status In-Reply-To: <006301c449c0$63b6f660$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <006301c449c0$63b6f660$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >From: "Linda Trent" >> I think the $32,000 plus hotel, per diem, airfare to tournaments and >> misc expenses such as toner, phone calls etc. that Rich was being paid >> to do the casebooks + the National Recorder job was probably the best >> value per dollar spent the ACBL was getting. >> >> You would not believe how many hours both of us spent on these >> casebooks. > >Both of you are unbelievably industrious and consciencious. Getting the >appeal writeups into good form (Linda's job, I believe) can be very >difficult, and of course the casebook editing is a very difficult job, >especially if comments on the comments are to be frequently made and >sometimes extensive (as are Rich's). > >However, I have heard it said that these jobs are of a level not >justifying more than the current compensation, no matter how hard the >work is and how well it is performed. > >These are not low-level jobs at all, actually, but what proper >compensation is I have no idea. What does David Stevenson get, I wonder? $32,000 !!!!! Splutter !!!!! Good god !!!!! Perhaps I should ask for a raise ........ -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 4 03:11:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:11:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status Message-ID: Marvin French asked: [snip] >>>These are not low-level jobs at all, actually, but >>>what proper compensation is I have no idea. What >>>does David Stevenson get, I wonder? David Stevenson spluttered: >>$32,000 !!!!! >> >>Splutter !!!!! >> >>Good god !!!!! >> >>Perhaps I should ask for a raise ........ Alfie Kohn, author of "Punished by Rewards", said: >There are at least 70 studies showing that extrinsic >motivators - including A's, sometimes praise, and >other rewards - are not merely ineffective over the >long haul but counterproductive with respect to the >things that concern us most: desire to learn, >commitment to good values, and so on. > >Another group of studies shows that when people are >offered a reward for doing a task that involves some >degree of problem solving or creativity - or for >doing it well - they will tend to do lower quality >work than those offered no reward. Richard James Hills suggests: If David Stevenson wishes to concentrate on maintaining his consistently high standards on his labour-of-love EBU/WBU casebooks, perhaps he should minimise any distractions from his creativity by requesting a 100% pay cut? Do I hear more spluttering? :-) Best wishes RJH From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 4 04:52:09 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:52:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8E20EA00-B5DA-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jun 2, 2004, at 07:44 US/Eastern, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > This is the point which again and again divides Herman from just about > everybody else on BLML: where I come from, people do not claim unless > they know how how many tricks they are going to get and how they are > going to get them. But it seems to be a common occurrence in Herman's > circles. The other day, in 6NT, I counted 16 top tricks. So I claimed. When the smoke cleared, I realized I only had 11 top tricks. Down one. Could I have found another line that might have given me that twelfth trick? Maybe. Did I bother to try? No. When I make that kind of mistake, I own up to it. > I must admit that I simply fail to understand the point of view that > you can claim whatever number of tricks you would like without > thinking at all, expecting the TD to find the winning plan for you if > he believes that you would have found it if you had taken the trouble > to think. I'm sure that's not the point of view Herman is espousing. OTOH, "I am only an egg", but it seems to me that failing to ensure the diamonds will run is careless, not irrational, no matter the player involved. I would rule down 1. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 05:24:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:24:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: KISS (was: 7.5 tables) Message-ID: David Babcock: >Yesterday we had 9.5 tables. The optimum AFAIK (in >terms of the best possible comparisons) Rover >Mitchell was never an option, and IMHO properly so >for that club, because of the irregular movement of >two EW pairs. My colleague simply ran a skip >Mitchell, and no one had a chance to go wrong, and >they lived happily ever after. Richard James Hills: I 100% agree with David's colleague. Even at one of Australia's elite bridge clubs, the Canberra Bridge Club, rover movements are eschewed for a 9.5 table matchpoint pairs. Players' comfort in a matchpoint pairs is far more important than a trivial improvement in accuracy, for what is a very random event even when using the best movement. Likewise, the elite Canberra Bridge Club never uses the uncomfortable arrow-switch movement for matchpoint pairs events. Of course, the Canberra Bridge Club's egomaniac so-called "expert" bridge players (such as myself) tend to sneer at matchpoint pairs events, and concentrate instead on playing in teams and/or Butler events. Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 4 06:11:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:11:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) - missing [blml] ! Virus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c449f2$68ea8610$6900a8c0@WINXP> To Richard and others with similar comment: Just to make you "happy":=20 YES IT IS A STRONG REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS MY VIRUS PROTECTION SOFTWARE! I looked up the original posts on the blml archives and found that as = far as I can see each of the two messages from Nuno originally contained = sections suspiciously like a virus and apparently my virus protection software = has removed those sections because they are not present with the messages I = have on file. I do remember having some alarms but cannot remember if these messages were mentioned. I can tell for certain that none of my software interferes with the = subject line in "ordinary" messages received but I can just imagine the = possibility that this might happen for messages treated as infected. So now you have been warned. (I hope for your sake they have been false alarms) Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au [mailto:richard.hills@immi.gov.au] > Sent: 4. juni 2004 00:57 > To: svenpran@online.no > Cc: henk@rtflb.org; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > >Any good explanation how this (and the other simultaneous post from = Nuno > >Miguel) could arrive from blml without [blml] added to the subject = line? > >(See below for the complete message including the subject line that I > >received.) > > > >Regards Sven >=20 > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf > >>Of Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa > >>Sent: 1. juni 2004 12:44 > >>To: blml@rtflb.org > >>Subject: RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) >=20 > As far as I can tell, the "problem" is likely to be > with Sven's email software. It seems that Sven's > email software may delete any words which appear > before the word "Re:" in an email subject line. >=20 > When I received the two posts from Nuno Miguel, I > received "[blml]" in the subject line before "Re:". >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 06:39:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:39:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml Message-ID: Since blml is a lightly moderated list, it is possible that blmlers may not yet share a set of common norms for email netiquette. To prevent blmlers unintentionally offending other blmlers, it may be helpful if blml adopts a set of simple netiquette rules. Attached, for blml consideration, are some succinct courtesy ideas I googled from the "Unofficial Listowner Manual". See attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills http://www.skally.net/listowner/10.html Unofficial Listowner Manual The Email 10 Commandments - Netiquette THOU SHALT include a clear and specific subject line. THOU SHALT edit any quoted text down to the minimum thou needest. THOU SHALT read thine own message thrice before sending it. THOU SHALT ponderest how the recipient(s) might react to thy message. THOU SHALT check spelling and grammar. THOU SHALT not curse, flame, spam nor USE ALL CAPS. THOU SHALT not forward any chain letter. THOU SHALT not use email for any illegal or unethical purpose. THOU SHALT not rely on the privacy of email, especially from work, but THOU SHALT respect the privacy of others. When in doubt, save the message overnight and reread it in the light of dawn before hitting the "send" button. And here's the Golden Rule of Emailing: That which thou findest hateful to receive, sendest thou not unto others! From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 07:09:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:09:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Committee Message-ID: James Hudson: >From the Laws of Duplicate, Definitions: >"Dummy 1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy >when the opening lead is faced." > >You may warn an opponent not to lead out of >turn, because at that time you are not yet >dummy. Richard James Hills: Maybe, maybe not. Law 61B specifically permits declarer and defenders to attempt to prevent an opponent from committing a revoke irregularity. But no other Law specifically permits a player to attempt to prevent any other irregularity about to be perpetrated by an opponent. Therefore, preventing an opponent from committing a non-revoke irregularity is an action that is extraneous to Law. WBF Laws Commission minutes, 19th October 1997: >>Is an action that is not mentioned in the Laws >>legal? Anything not mentioned is "extraneous". >>It may be considered illegal if information >>deriving from it is used. >> >>For example, the Laws permit a player to look >>at his opponents' convention card at his own >>turn to call or play. Some people have >>suggested that since the Laws do not mention >>anything about a player looking at his >>opponents' convention card at other players' >>turns then that is legal. But that is not so. Richard James Hills: In most circumstances it seems to me that trying to prevent an opponent's non-revoke irregularity would not provide UI to partner. It is conceivable that (in rare circumstances) the reason that a player attempted to prevent an opponent's non-revoke irregularity would be obvious to partner, and that obvious reason for prevention also gives useful UI to partner. In those rare circumstances, it seems to me that the prevention of an opponent's non-revoke irregularity would be deemed by the WBF LC to be an infraction of Law 73A1, "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 4 07:35:30 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:35:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) References: <200406032131.OAA22586@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000b01c449fe$44a129b0$a909e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" ; "Henk Uijterwaal" ; Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise (Wayne Burrows) > > Sven wrote: > > > Any good explanation how this (and the other simultaneous post from Nuno > > Miguel) could arrive from blml without [blml] added to the subject line? > > (See below for the complete message including the subject line that I > > received.) > > > > Regards Sven > > The subject line had [blml] in it when I received his post. (There > also wasn't any "On Behalf Of" in the "From:" line.) > > -- Adam +=+ I find it irritating when I receive sp*m that gets into my blml folder because there is [blml] in the heading. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 4 07:35:22 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:35:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Careless claim = careless mind? (was A question) Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal: >>Claiming is IMO something that you need to do >>with the same care that you would play the >>cards - if you claim carelessly, then you >>will be assumed to also play carelessly. Herman De Wael: >And this is a principle that shall divide us >till the end. Richard James Hills: Basically I agree with Herman De Wael, and disagree with Jesper, on this important issue of principle. (But, I still disagree with Herman's assessment on the original thread's specific claim case. Since I do not want to continue endless debate upon specificities of a world class player's ability to squeeze and/or count to 13, I am starting this new thread aimed at a more platonic debate on meta-principles underpinning claim assessment by the TD.) In my opinion, merely because a player may not share my verbal skills in enunciating a claim, does *not* imply that that player does not share my card skills in playing carefully. In my opinion, if a TD deems that a player has merely verbally mangled their claim, but the player was demonstrably intending to pursue a normal line at the time of the claim, then that player's demonstrable intention should be accepted by the TD, and the claim allowed. Best wishes RJH From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 4 07:50:49 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 02:50:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: KISS (was: 7.5 tables) In-Reply-To: <1086196570.24308.197633998@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <8357412B-B5F3-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jun 2, 2004, at 13:16 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: > But, there is a very real issue under this. > The players are there for bridge, and to the extent that the > movement intrudes on their temporary world of bids and plays, > their experience is less enjoyable. Understood. And agreed. But the other side of the coin is that players *are* capable, IMHO, of learning more complex movements, given the impetus to do so, and may well enjoy the game more once they do. I know that, for myself, most of the club games in which I play fall into the category of "enjoyable", but few of them fall into the category of "duplicate bridge", given the less than optimum movements used - not to mention the awarding of "overall scores" across sections which have played completely different boards. For me, the game would be more enjoyable with better movements, and more attention paid to the "duplicate" aspect of the game. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 4 08:02:51 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 03:02:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention In-Reply-To: <002401c448cc$7e77b880$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <31F13E50-B5F5-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jun 2, 2004, at 14:07 US/Eastern, Raija Davis wrote: > My point was that if the same pair goes to another event the next day > in the > tournament, again using the same convention since the next event allows > Mid-Chart or higher, the pair may think it is allowed in Bracketed > Knockouts > Bracket 1. And the same problem with illegal convention arises again. > Why > "hide" the information that the convention is illegal always? What makes you think the TD was hiding anything? He's there to adjudicate matters in accordance with the conditions of *that* contest, not another one that might be played the next day. If he happens to be aware that a particular convention is illegal not only under the particular CoC with which he is operating in the current event, but also in other events, it would perhaps be nice of him to say so - but I see no reason to expect him to do so, or to know that. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 4 08:09:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 03:09:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <172CDA00-B5F6-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jun 3, 2004, at 02:13 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If an opponent technically infracts Law 75 by misexplaining, but the > merely > nominal infraction of Law 75 does not damage my non-offending side, > then I do > not waste the TD's time by drawing attention to this innocuous > irregularity. Nor do I. OTOH, there are times when I'm not sure if we've been damaged, and then I *will* call the TD. I suspect those times occur more often for me than for Richard. :-) From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 08:32:52 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:32:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603163141.02778d50@pop.starpower.net> References: <000a01c448dd$da1a5e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000a01c448dd$da1a5e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603163141.02778d50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C025A4.8050203@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I take no position here on the substance of the debate between Herman > and Sven, but... > > If failing to check out some line of play before starting to play a > bridge hand were really a definitive indicator of irrationality, we > would not be holding competitions, as 99.44% of our players would be > locked up in mental institutions. > No Eric, since I don't believe players actually do this. They may look too short, but they always look. I have never seen a player ask for an ace in dummy only to find out he has the king bare in hand. Sometimes people act too quickly, and decide it doesn't really matter where they take the first trick, but that is a careless action. It's the not looking at all which is the irrational one. Anyway, we were talking of a world class declarer as well, and I don't see them playing without looking, even if yuou believe 99% of players do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 4 08:33:05 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 03:33:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <00a901c449bf$398e8840$0000fea9@lanfeust> Message-ID: <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jun 3, 2004, at 19:05 US/Eastern, Jean-Jacques Lafay wrote: > of course this last possibility is irrational only because we are > dealing with a world class > player Not "of course" to me, I'm afraid. "Rational" is not a relative term. A line of play is either rational or not - the class of player involved has nothing to do with it. From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jun 4 08:40:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Tim suggests that it is possible, for a world class player, to notice > line 3 - the finesse - without also noticing line 4 - the drop. > Or maybe he suggests that it is not clear enough for a claimer who has > noticed both those lines to see that the drop is better (both in > probability and in result - only one down). Nope. My ruling is based on declarer noticing both lines and recognising that the the finesse is inferior to the drop. I then impose the finesse because the law tells me to include inferior lines. I explain to declarer that percentages notwithstanding I think he might have used his table presence which might not be working today. -1/-2 is not relevant IMO, and the odds are not outrageously different (as I calculate them). Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 4 08:43:50 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 03:43:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C025A4.8050203@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Friday, Jun 4, 2004, at 03:32 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > No Eric, since I don't believe players actually do this. heh. You've never met my partner. She *consistently* plays quickly to the first trick. And then says "I've gotta learn to stop and think before I play" when the contract goes down. From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 08:46:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:46:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40C028DD.5010000@hdw.be> Hello Roger, Roger Pewick wrote: > > >>I would suggest that it is possible, for a world class player, to >>notice lines 3 and 4, but not line 5. >>I don't think anyone suggests that a player capable of seeing the >>squeeze line would fail to see that it is clearly superior to the drop >>or the finesse. >> >>Personally, I think 1 down to be the final answer. >> > > On a personal note, one of the things as a player that stirs anger in me is > for the TD to give a ruling without clearly stating the basis for it. > Players need to know the reasoning so that they can evaluate if the ruling > is correct; and if not, upon what basis they want to appeal. > Of course they do. Which is why I don't like the comment some people made that after all my wriggling I also gave -1. So what? The reason was totally different and I felt I needed to tell Konrad that he was completely wrong in objecting to the exam question for the reasons that he did. > Above you feel that the correct outcome is 12 tricks but I am at a loss as > to upon what basis except that you think it. How can 'Think It' ever be a I'm sorry Roger, but I wrote a two-page e-mail message detailing 5 lines and I stated I did not believe line 5 would be seen by the world champion all the time. I think that was clear enough. > satisfactory way to rule when there is a procedure that says otherwise? So > how am I to hope to be successful on appeal if I do not know what argument > to make. I am at even a bigger loss since originally you said it was > irrational for a world class expert to not take 13 tricks via a squeeze and > therefore it MUST be ruled that way. At least in that case if I wanted to > appeal I would know what case to make. > Well, I was argueing against Sven and Konrad at the time. I said that it was irrational, for a world class declarer, to start playing without checking to see if he had enough tricks. Any declarer could not fail to notice that there were not 13, and that some line of play was necessary. In defence of the original Polish answer, I agreed with them in saying that a world class defender should not fail to find the squeeze line, and that anybody would see that the squeeze line is superior to all others, rendering those other lines irrational. That was my reasoning in favour of the Polish answer. Privately, afterwards, I decided to go along with Tim and Ton, who cast doubt on the ability of a declarer to find the squeeze line 100% of the time. If we have any doubt about this, then we should rule -1. I realize this is rather strange - me defending one ruling then another, but I felt no purpose would be served in allowing Sven and Konrad to continue under their false impression that a claimer who claims carelessly can no longer be judged to make his contract. That principle is wrong. >>From what I can tell, nobody contributing to blml 'really knows' what bridge > irrationality is. A play is irrational where there is no possible lie of > the unknown cards for it to 'succeed' when there is a lie of the cards where > some other play would 'succeed'. > Not necessarily complete, Roger. In arguing for 13 tricks, we need one other principle as well: a line is irrational if some other line is clearly superior. The finesse line is rational 'an sich', but in combination with the 'drop' line (with a higher probability and a higher outcome) is is irrational to take it. Of course that implies that we need to be 100% certain that the declarer would find both lines. If we believe that a particular declarer may or may not notice the drop line, we should rule -2 for him taking the finesse line. It is that last part that I use in order to rule -1. I don't believe that even a world class declarer would notice the squeeze line 100% of the time. > Herman, I would argue that the proper outcome is 11 tricks on the basis that > a fourth diamond is needed and it is normal [even if inferior] to finesse > for it losing to the J plus the loss of the SA [there also is another line, > albeit inferior- and mute because it yields 12 compared to the previous case > of 11, to play for diamonds to be 3-3]. Neither are irrational- even though > it is stupid but not irrational to apply good technic by cashing the hearts > and clubs first. But in that case the question of finesse or drop still > exists [and is resolved by L70E] because it has not yet been proven if a > squeeze happened [LHO may have reduced to DJxxx while RHO SAxx-Dx -in that > case there being no squeeze possible at all]. Which is another way to say > that since he didn't say how he was going to play the squeeze his reputation > is not going to get it for him when there is a less advantageous line that > perhaps is inferior but not irrational. > Well, use the principle above and you'll see that ruling -2 is out of the question. Surely you cannot argue that any declarer would fail to see that playing for the drop gives a good chance for the contract, yields -1 if failing, and has a better chance than playing for the finesse? > regards > roger pewick > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 08:49:48 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:49:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <8E20EA00-B5DA-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <8E20EA00-B5DA-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40C0299C.3050704@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Jun 2, 2004, at 07:44 US/Eastern, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> This is the point which again and again divides Herman from just about >> everybody else on BLML: where I come from, people do not claim unless >> they know how how many tricks they are going to get and how they are >> going to get them. But it seems to be a common occurrence in Herman's >> circles. > > > The other day, in 6NT, I counted 16 top tricks. So I claimed. When the > smoke cleared, I realized I only had 11 top tricks. Down one. Could I > have found another line that might have given me that twelfth trick? > Maybe. Did I bother to try? No. When I make that kind of mistake, I own > up to it. > Ed, I've done it too. I would expect the Polish declarer to do the same. You and I don't want to win this way. But the fact that we don't want to get a ruling says nothing about the way the ruling should be. >> I must admit that I simply fail to understand the point of view that >> you can claim whatever number of tricks you would like without >> thinking at all, expecting the TD to find the winning plan for you if >> he believes that you would have found it if you had taken the trouble >> to think. > > > I'm sure that's not the point of view Herman is espousing. OTOH, "I am > only an egg", but it seems to me that failing to ensure the diamonds > will run is careless, not irrational, no matter the player involved. I > would rule down 1. > Ed, you cannot mean that. Failing to realize that there are not 6 tricks in AKQxxx opposite 10xx is not careless, it is irrational. Believe me. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 08:52:28 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:52:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <1eb.21ed13fe.2def4744@aol.com> References: <1eb.21ed13fe.2def4744@aol.com> Message-ID: <40C02A3C.5000709@hdw.be> SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com wrote: > > May I just ask this of Herman? If you would allow declarer in the exam > question 13 tricks because he is a World Class Player, how far down > would a player have to be before you deny him 13 tricks? I am just an > above average club player, yet if I were playing the contract, I would > find the squeeze as easily as the World Class Player. > Would you? and would you convince the TD of that being true 100% of the time? I have just stated in another message that I don't think even a world champion would find it 100% of the time. > I would be miffed if I were to be ruled against while a stronger player > had a favourable ruling in the same situation. > Yes, you would be. But that is beside the point. The rules are like this, and for good reason. Tough luck. > Best wishes from Barrie > > > Barrie Partridge > Senior TD at Sheffield BC, England -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 08:55:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:55:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CB2@MAIL.fc.up.pt> References: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CB2@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <40C02AFE.2050401@hdw.be> Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa wrote: > > It is my experience that an expert is more likely to claim on a miscount than on a no-count at all. The latter never happened to me, but I confess I've had the first happening to me on ocasion! I *can* imagine a declarer in 4S claiming on grounds of having "no more losers", only to find out later that he didn't have enough trumps to score 10 winners. But I would regard that as most unusual for an expert, especially in a no-trump hand like this one. Therefore I judge miscount and rule 12 tricks. > > Thank you for reading. Comments appreciated :) > No comments needed. Perfect summary and analysis. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 09:21:19 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:21:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C030FF.60201@hdw.be> Tim, don't run away from an interesting point just because it is irrelevant to the final answer in the case we're discussing. It may be very relevant in some future case. Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Tim suggests that it is possible, for a world class player, to notice >>line 3 - the finesse - without also noticing line 4 - the drop. >>Or maybe he suggests that it is not clear enough for a claimer who has >>noticed both those lines to see that the drop is better (both in >>probability and in result - only one down). > > > Nope. My ruling is based on declarer noticing both lines and recognising > that the the finesse is inferior to the drop. I then impose the finesse > because the law tells me to include inferior lines. I don't think the law tells you that. It tells you to include all normal lines, and it says that normal includes inferior. But in some cases, inferior becomes irrational: AKQJxxx xxx 10x x Claimed for 7 tricks - do you give them? Yet a first round finesse is a rational line. It sometimes is the only working line, even. But we don't consider that normal, I think. Because the line is clearly inferior to some other one that claimer cannot fail to notice: the drop. So no, we don't include inferior lines. Of course, provided we can be 100% certain that the claimer will notice both lines, and always be convinced that one is inferior to the other. > I explain to declarer > that percentages notwithstanding I think he might have used his table > presence which might not be working today. -1/-2 is not relevant IMO, and > the odds are not outrageously different (as I calculate them). > 3-3 and jack doubleton not higher than 50%? 31.75+46.88/2=55.19. Don't you think a world class declarer might know this? And besides, the drop yields 12 tricks, the finesse 11. The table presence argument is a better one, IMO. > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 09:24:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:24:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40C031B4.7010405@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Thursday, Jun 3, 2004, at 19:05 US/Eastern, Jean-Jacques Lafay wrote: > >> of course this last possibility is irrational only because we are >> dealing with a world class >> player > > > Not "of course" to me, I'm afraid. "Rational" is not a relative term. A > line of play is either rational or not - the class of player involved > has nothing to do with it. > Then re-write Jean-Jacques' comment with the words "not normal" instead of irrational. The class of player has something to do with that, surely. And we have discussed at length that since the footnote says "inferior or careless for the class of player", this means that "irrational" must also be judged by the class of player. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 4 09:42:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:42:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? was: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C028DD.5010000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c44a0f$e6358ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Well, I was argueing against Sven and Konrad at the time.=20 Gone are the arguments that declarer should be permitted to find and = execute the squeeze for 13 tricks. And neither I nor Konrad (I believe) has ever argued that the claimer should be held to 11 tricks! Gone are the arguments that the claim was without pause for thought. What is left is the principal and purely legal question which I think = should receive some consideration (completely detached from the original Polish exam case): When a claim is contested and it turns out that there is no way the = claimer can win the claimed number of tricks using any line of plays that can be embraced in his claim statement; but during the subsequent discussion = (with the Director present!) a different and more successful line of play is found: Does Law 70D (or any other law) allow the claimer to adopt this new line = of play on the ground that all possible lines of play embraced in the = original clarification statement must be deemed irrational once the new line of = play is found? (I doubt that I need to state my opinion on this question?) Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 10:37:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:37:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? was: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000301c44a0f$e6358ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c44a0f$e6358ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C042DB.7020401@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Well, I was argueing against Sven and Konrad at the time. > > > Gone are the arguments that declarer should be permitted to find and execute > the squeeze for 13 tricks. And neither I nor Konrad (I believe) has ever > argued that the claimer should be held to 11 tricks! > > Gone are the arguments that the claim was without pause for thought. > Look Sven, this is precisely what I tried to avoid. You, and Konrad, are argueing this case from a totally wrong background. In order to argue against you, I said that it would not be normal for this player, once we allow him to think, not to make 13 tricks. Your argument was that he was not allowed to think at all, since he claimed without thinking. That argument is manifestly wrong, and I still stand by that. On a side note, I then concurrec with Tim, that perhaps, even if we allow him to think, he might not always make it. That is a totally different angle on the case, and I don't like it that you now claim a moral victory because I am hesitating awarding 13 tricks after all. > What is left is the principal and purely legal question which I think should > receive some consideration (completely detached from the original Polish > exam case): > OK, let's consider this legal question: > When a claim is contested and it turns out that there is no way the claimer > can win the claimed number of tricks using any line of plays that can be > embraced in his claim statement; but during the subsequent discussion (with > the Director present!) a different and more successful line of play is > found: > > Does Law 70D (or any other law) allow the claimer to adopt this new line of > play on the ground that all possible lines of play embraced in the original > clarification statement must be deemed irrational once the new line of play > is found? > Yes it does. If the lines that are "embraced in the original statement" all turn out to be non-normal, then the least succesfull of all normal lines (non of which are then included in the original statement) will be the one chosen. That is L70D, pure and simple. For this, it is not even the player who needs to suggest the alternative line (of course, the TD must be confident that the player would find the line, but whether he has mentioned it or not does not matter). > (I doubt that I need to state my opinion on this question?) > Well, if your opinion is the one that I imply from this statement, that opinion is simply wrong. To apply this to the original case: -IMO (and I grant you that other opinions are possible) it is impossible that this player would play before noticing he has not got 13 tricks. Hence the line of starting diamonds is irrational. -IMO it is impossible that this declarer (and many others) would fail to find at least the two lines (finesse and drop) that are obvious. Hence those lines might be normal (for the time being). -IMO it is impossibe that this declarer would fail to notice that the drop is superior to the finesse. Hence it is irrational (for him) to choose the finesse line, and that line is not a normal one. -IMO it may be impossible for a world class declarer to not notice the squeeze line. (and this one is not a strong opinion, I really need to have more input on this - I would like to be able to talk to the player, which is of course impossible). IMO it is impossible for this declarer to not notice that the squeeze line is superior to the drop line (it caters for one more possibility). Hence choosing the drop line is also non-normal. The only line that is left (if all these opinions are followed) is the the squeeze. Contract made. Do you understand the reasoning? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@dybdal.dk Fri Jun 4 10:37:26 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:37:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Careless claim = careless mind? (was A question) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:35:22 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Jesper Dybdal: > >>>Claiming is IMO something that you need to do >>>with the same care that you would play the >>>cards - if you claim carelessly, then you >>>will be assumed to also play carelessly. > >Herman De Wael: > >>And this is a principle that shall divide us >>till the end. > >Richard James Hills: > >Basically I agree with Herman De Wael, and >disagree with Jesper, on this important issue >of principle. ... >In my opinion, merely because a player may not >share my verbal skills in enunciating a claim, >does *not* imply that that player does not >share my card skills in playing carefully. You've read more into my somewhat quickly worded sentence than I meant. I agree completely with what you're saying here: carelessness in *wording* the claim should not be held against the claimer if the TD determines that the claimer actually meant something other than he said. What I meant was that carelessness in *choosing* the line of play that the claim is based on (such as not counting your tricks before claiming them) should lead to an assumption that the same carelessness (such as not counting your tricks before cashing them) would be shown in actually playing it out. >In my opinion, if a TD deems that a player has >merely verbally mangled their claim, but the >player was demonstrably intending to pursue a >normal line at the time of the claim, then >that player's demonstrable intention should be >accepted by the TD, and the claim allowed. Exactly. And thanks for pointing out that my previous contribution on this said much more than I meant. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 4 10:57:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:57:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C042DB.7020401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c44a1a$551b63c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > OK, let's consider this legal question: >=20 > > When a claim is contested and it turns out that there=20 > > is no way the claimer can win the claimed number of=20 > > tricks using any line of plays that can be embraced in > > his claim statement; but during the subsequent discussion > > (with the Director present!) a different and more=20 > > successful line of play is found: > > > > Does Law 70D (or any other law) allow the claimer to adopt > > this new line of play on the ground that all possible lines > > of play embraced in the original clarification statement=20 > > must be deemed irrational once the new line of play is found? > > >=20 > Yes it does. > If the lines that are "embraced in the original statement" all turn > out to be non-normal, then the least succesfull of all normal lines > (non of which are then included in the original statement) will be the > one chosen. >=20 > That is L70D, pure and simple. For this, it is not even the player who > needs to suggest the alternative line (of course, the TD must be > confident that the player would find the line, but whether he has > mentioned it or not does not matter). .......... Thanks for your opinion, I disagree with you, but I shall be most = anxious to see other comments on this purely legal question. I have stated that I am not going to make any more comments on the = Polish exam case and I stand by my "promise". Nor do I see any reason to drag = that case into this (hopefully) new thread. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 4 11:03:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:03:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Careless claim = careless mind? (was A question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c44a1b$2d4e5fe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Jesper Dybdal ......... > >In my opinion, if a TD deems that a player has > >merely verbally mangled their claim, but the > >player was demonstrably intending to pursue a > >normal line at the time of the claim, then > >that player's demonstrable intention should be > >accepted by the TD, and the claim allowed. > > Exactly. And thanks for pointing out that my previous contribution on > this said much more than I meant. Just to make my understanding of Law 70D clear: I fully agree with this clarified version of the contribution by Jesper. Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Fri Jun 4 11:21:28 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:21:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article , Tim West- Meads writes >Herman wrote: > >> Tim suggests that it is possible, for a world class player, to notice >> line 3 - the finesse - without also noticing line 4 - the drop. >> Or maybe he suggests that it is not clear enough for a claimer who has >> noticed both those lines to see that the drop is better (both in >> probability and in result - only one down). > >Nope. My ruling is based on declarer noticing both lines and recognising >that the the finesse is inferior to the drop. I then impose the finesse >because the law tells me to include inferior lines. I explain to declarer >that percentages notwithstanding I think he might have used his table >presence which might not be working today. -1/-2 is not relevant IMO, and >the odds are not outrageously different (as I calculate them). > >Tim I entirely concur with Tim. the finesse is inferior; it is not irrational. neither Tim nor I expect declarer to start cashing the D from the top. As for discussions on whether down 1 or down 2. A bottom is a bottom if it's pairs and 17 imps if it's teams, but I settle for down 2. I understand Herman's argument perfectly. The test simply is: "Is the D hook irrational, or inferior?". It clearly isn't irrational, as it makes the contract when it works. What do we have left? 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 cibor@poczta.fm Fri Jun 4 11:26:24 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:26:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? was: A question from an exam References: <000301c44a0f$e6358ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40C042DB.7020401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c44a1e$6739c4d0$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? was: A question from an exam > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>Well, I was argueing against Sven and Konrad at the time. > > > > > > Gone are the arguments that declarer should be permitted to find and execute > > the squeeze for 13 tricks. And neither I nor Konrad (I believe) has e= ver > > argued that the claimer should be held to 11 tricks! > > > > Gone are the arguments that the claim was without pause for thought. > > > > Look Sven, this is precisely what I tried to avoid. > You, and Konrad, are argueing this case from a totally wrong > background. In order to argue against you, I said that it would not be > normal for this player, once we allow him to think, not to make 13 tric= ks. > Your argument was that he was not allowed to think at all, Not true. We don't disallow this claim because the player in question might play the SK. Or because that he might duck the first trick. Or that he might discard his top diamonds on the clubs. These are irrational plays - even for the class of "world class players in ecstasy". We disallow the claim because the player might cash the DA at trick two. This is merely careless - for the class of "world class players in ecstasy". Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Jun 4 11:32:58 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:32:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? was: A question from an exam References: <000301c44a0f$e6358ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40C042DB.7020401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001a01c44a1f$506c8f70$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Herman De Wael" > Yes it does. > If the lines that are "embraced in the original statement" all turn > out to be non-normal, then the least succesfull of all normal lines > (non of which are then included in the original statement) will be the > one chosen. Do you really mean it? So if a player claims 4 tricks in this suit S AKxx QJxx saying "I unblock the QJ of spades under my AK" do you still give him 4 tricks? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 11:59:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:59:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? was: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <000a01c44a1e$6739c4d0$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <000301c44a0f$e6358ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40C042DB.7020401@hdw.be> <000a01c44a1e$6739c4d0$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: <40C0560A.6080707@hdw.be> Well Konrad, that is still "not thinking": Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >>Look Sven, this is precisely what I tried to avoid. >>You, and Konrad, are argueing this case from a totally wrong >>background. In order to argue against you, I said that it would not be >>normal for this player, once we allow him to think, not to make 13 tricks. >>Your argument was that he was not allowed to think at all, > > > Not true. We don't disallow this claim because the player in question > might play the SK. Or because that he might duck the first trick. > Or that he might discard his top diamonds on the clubs. > These are irrational plays - even for the class of "world class > players in ecstasy". > We disallow the claim because the player might cash the > DA at trick two. This is merely careless - for the class of > "world class players in ecstasy". > > There are two "lines" which would start with the DA: -the one you consider - not thinking -the one I finally consider - playing for the drop and conceding for 1 down when the jack does not fall. I consider your line not to be merely careless, but rather totally irrational. I consider it to be totally irrational for a "world class player in ecstacy" to start playing without counting his tricks. Then that first line becomes irrational, while the second can still be normal. This is where you are going wrong. To think that it is impossible for a player to claim without counting. I'm sure you would not consider it rational for a player to play without counting. You only consider it possible because the player has already "claimed without counting". I'm telling you that the one mistake does not influence the rationality or not of a totally different mistake. And yes, I consider "claiming without counting" and "playing without counting" two different mistakes. And we do not impute on any claimer a different mistake than the one he has shown being done. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 12:06:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:06:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? was: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <001a01c44a1f$506c8f70$6a51fea9@ams.com> References: <000301c44a0f$e6358ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40C042DB.7020401@hdw.be> <001a01c44a1f$506c8f70$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: <40C057B7.406@hdw.be> Well Konrad, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Herman De Wael" >=20 >=20 >>Yes it does. >>If the lines that are "embraced in the original statement" all turn >>out to be non-normal, then the least succesfull of all normal lines >>(non of which are then included in the original statement) will be the >>one chosen. >=20 >=20 > Do you really mean it? > So if a player claims 4 tricks in this suit >=20 > S AKxx QJxx >=20 > saying "I unblock the QJ of spades under my AK" > do you still give him 4 tricks? >=20 The statement of mine you commented upon was something like: "if all stated lines become non-normal, claimer shall get the worst of=20 all normal lines". This does not apply in any way or manner to the example you give,=20 since the stated lines are non-normal to start with. So why did=20 claimer make that statement? He must have thought the line is normal,=20 and so it shall remain normal for him. So I can't answer this one. There is obviously something very=20 seriously wrong in the mind of this declarer. I don't know what that=20 mistake is, so I cannot tell if he shall discover that mistake, or if=20 we stick him with it. I can see one reason for a playing line like this: D AK107 QJ96 This declarer can be trying to make the seven of diamonds, and it=20 might be he has forgotten the 8. I don't allow him to reconsider. But this has no bearing on the original. In that one, claimer made no=20 statement about lines he was considering, so all lines are "on". From=20 those, we disregard the ones that are irrational. I consider the line=20 you impose on him (cashing diamonds without thinking) as irrational. >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 12:09:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:09:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40C0586F.9000500@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > I entirely concur with Tim. the finesse is inferior; it is not > irrational. neither Tim nor I expect declarer to start cashing the D > from the top. > > As for discussions on whether down 1 or down 2. A bottom is a bottom if > it's pairs and 17 imps if it's teams, but I settle for down 2. > > I understand Herman's argument perfectly. The test simply is: "Is the D > hook irrational, or inferior?". It clearly isn't irrational, as it makes > the contract when it works. What do we have left? > The fact that is irrational to choose a clearly inferior line? What is your actual argument, John - that inferior lines must also be normal; or that this line is not sufficiently inferior for it to be irrational? What do you rule on: AKQJxxx xxx 10x x claimed for 7 tricks? The finesse is rational (sometimes it's the only line that works) but surely it is irrational to choose this, as the inferiority is very clear? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Jun 4 12:23:37 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:23:37 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECFA@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >=20 > I entirely concur with Tim. the finesse is inferior; it is not > irrational. neither Tim nor I expect declarer to start cashing the D > from the top. >=20 > As for discussions on whether down 1 or down 2. A bottom is a bottom if > it's pairs and 17 imps if it's teams, but I settle for down 2. >=20 > I understand Herman's argument perfectly. The test simply is: "Is the D > hook irrational, or inferior?". It clearly isn't irrational, as it makes > the contract when it works. What do we have left? >=20 The fact that is irrational to choose a clearly inferior line? What is your actual argument, John - that inferior lines must also be=20 normal; or that this line is not sufficiently inferior for it to be=20 irrational? What do you rule on: AKQJxxx xxx 10x x claimed for 7 tricks? The finesse is rational (sometimes it's the only line that works) but=20 surely it is irrational to choose this, as the inferiority is very clear? ----- Herman, you've posted this suit twice now. What finesse are you talking about - a diamond ducked? (that's no finesse though) There's no finesse to take in your layout. I would rule 7 tricks, as would David Burn (I believe). Harald ----- --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 12:48:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:48:03 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECFA@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECFA@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <40C06173.70907@hdw.be> OK Harald, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > What do you rule on: > > AKQJxxx > xxx 10x > x > > claimed for 7 tricks? > The finesse is rational (sometimes it's the only line that works) but > surely it is irrational to choose this, as the inferiority is very > clear? > ----- > Herman, you've posted this suit twice now. > What finesse are you talking about - a diamond ducked? (that's no > finesse though) > There's no finesse to take in your layout. change it to: > AKQJ9xx > xxx 10x > x there is a finesse, yes? > I would rule 7 tricks, as would David Burn (I believe). > so would I. But still, there is another, rational, line, which is only irrational because it is clearly inferior to some other line. OK as an argument that rational lines can be irrational because of inferiority? And that inferior lines can be non-normal for that reason? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Jun 4 13:07:02 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:07:02 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECFB@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: OK Harald, Skjaran, Harald wrote: >=20 > What do you rule on: >=20 > AKQJxxx > xxx 10x > x >=20 > claimed for 7 tricks? > The finesse is rational (sometimes it's the only line that works) but=20 > surely it is irrational to choose this, as the inferiority is very > clear? > ----- > Herman, you've posted this suit twice now. > What finesse are you talking about - a diamond ducked? (that's no > finesse though) > There's no finesse to take in your layout. change it to: > AKQJ9xx > xxx 10x > x there is a finesse, yes? ----- OK. Then you've got a possible finesse. But it would be rational to finesse the nine only if you knew for sure that LHO was holding a minimum of four cards in the suit. So here I would not deem it rational to finesse. Of course if LHO had 10xxxx and declarer claimed without saying he would finesse, I would never allow this claim. (Though if I was LHO and my shape was known, and a competent declarer tabled his hand with a smile, I would know that he/she knew, and would not dispute the claim.) Regards, Harald ----- > I would rule 7 tricks, as would David Burn (I believe). >=20 so would I. But still, there is another, rational, line, which is only=20 irrational because it is clearly inferior to some other line. OK as an argument that rational lines can be irrational because of=20 inferiority? And that inferior lines can be non-normal for that reason? >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 13:10:00 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:10:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CB2@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:25 AM 6/1/04, Nuno wrote: >What I think Herman is trying to say is: "Did declarer claim without >counting, or did he miscount his tricks?" > >In the first case, Herman's ruling of 13 tricks is correct. Declarer >has two lines: > >1. Diamond finesse: 50% chance >2. Spade/diamond squeeze: 36% + 24% + 7% = 67% chance (diamonds 3-3, >or 4-2/5-1 with lenght on East, who surely has the spade ace). > >It is irrational to have declarer follow line 1, and I don't think >Tim's suggested falsecarding would lead an expert South astray. The Laws are in a lot more trouble than we thought if there are folks out there who will base rulings on the notion that failing to find a squeeze line, compute that it has a 67% chance based on an assumption about who holds a specific card, and so take it in preference to a 50% line, is "irrational". Surely there must be some room between a wrong line and an irrational one, else we might as well burn our dictionaries (and our lawbooks). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 13:13:36 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:13:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook In-Reply-To: <005501c449ae$31d50e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603161742.027783b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604081115.0222a920@pop.starpower.net> At 04:54 PM 6/3/04, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" < > > > I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- but I'm almost > > certain that if the ACBL wrote up the appeals and posted them on their > > own website, then they own the copyright, whether or not they bothered > > to add a copyright notice. > >They are not so posted, probably because there may yet be a Reno >casebook. That decision will probably come at the New York NABC in July. >Just guessing. I misunderstood. If they were conveyed in private correspondence, and have not been published (posting to a website is considered published), copyright doesn't apply. > > You can't "refrain[] from copyrighting" > > something; it happens automatically. So if you're the i-dotting, > > t-crossing type you might want to ask for and get explicit permission > > from the ACBL to reproduce them, although I very much doubt they would > > care. Better yet, ask Mr. Beye to add a copyright waiver, which would > > say something like, "Permission to reproduce all or any part of this > > document is granted." > > >I would say this permission is in effect granted by the following from >Rick to me: > >######## >Hi Marv, > >Thanks for the note. I've sent all cases for your use. These are the >original compilations. While we proofed them a couple of times against >the actual appeal forms there are bound to be some small errors. If / >when they arise I will send you the amended file. > >I hope the discussions go well. > >Rick >######## Surely so. Looks like you're covered both ways. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 13:20:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:20:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? In-Reply-To: <000401c449ad$c7a2c680$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603164052.0277b300@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604081543.0222f6f0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:00 PM 6/3/04, Sven wrote: >Eric Landau >........ > > In ACBL terminology, high-low encouraging, showing an even number > > and/or showing preference for the higher-ranking unplayed side suit is > > called "standard (attitude, count and/or suit preference) signaling", > >Looks partially what we call "Lavinthal"? In North America, "Lavinthal" means specifically suit-preference signaling. Hence "Lavinthal" or "standard Lavinthal" would be taken to mean standard suit-preference signals; "reverse Lavinthal" to mean "upside-down" (the official term used on the CC) suit-preference signals. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 4 13:22:29 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:22:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1615 - 16 msgs In-Reply-To: <20040604074503.4184.94490.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040604074503.4184.94490.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1086351749.14301.197766475@webmail.messagingengine.com> > From: Ed Reppert > On Wednesday, Jun 2, 2004, at 13:16 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: > > > But, there is a very real issue under this. > > The players are there for bridge, and to the extent that the > > movement intrudes on their temporary world of bids and plays, > > their experience is less enjoyable. > > Understood. And agreed. But the other side of the coin is that players > *are* capable, IMHO, of learning more complex movements, given the > impetus to do so, and may well enjoy the game more once they do. I know > that, for myself, most of the club games in which I play fall into the > category of "enjoyable", but few of them fall into the category of > "duplicate bridge", given the less than optimum movements used - not to > mention the awarding of "overall scores" across sections which have > played completely different boards. For me, the game would be more > enjoyable with better movements, and more attention paid to the > "duplicate" aspect of the game. Yes, the players can learn. They learned bidding boxes, and more often than not the arrow switch does get done right in the 6-table 3/4 Howell (a de facto arrow switch when you have limited-mobility players). But--I haven't done the math, but I suspect that one reaches a point of diminishing returns. I would be astonished to learn that 9.5 tables done as a skip Mitchell (30 boards in play) vs. a Rover (27 boards in play) is significantly less good at teasing out a winner based on skill. Up the coast a bit at the Cape, the folks charged with keeping a different kind of Rover going, need every ounce of precision they can get. Here, IMHO we are all better off when the players *already* know the movement and can even be an asset many times ("Marjorie, you've passed me your new boards..."). Now, I'm not going to push this to the point of being comfortable with an overall winner with *no* common cards, as in declaring an overall winner in a straight Mitchell single-session event. I have mixed feelings about the news from RJH that an important club in Canberra allows this (if I understood him); I had hoped it was a uniquely American affliction. Sometimes maybe we do have to switch the arrows, and grin and bear it. David Babcock Florida USA From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 13:29:27 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:29:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> At 06:58 PM 6/3/04, David wrote: > Exactly. When we make unfair and partial rulings because we are no >longer making bridge judgements based on what would have happened we >have no longer got equity. > > AQ > > xx > > "I shall make two tricks by finessing". Now, you are going to decide >based on some notional standard unrelated to the player's ability how >many tricks he is going to make, and call it equity. It isn't. Of course I am. I do not understand the point of the example. Any player who finesses will make two tricks if the king is onside, otherwise he will not, and we will adjudicate the result in the usual way. Is David suggesting that the location of the king depends on the "class of player" taking the finesse? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 13:42:06 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:42:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604083928.0222c150@pop.starpower.net> At 01:39 AM 6/4/04, richard.hills wrote: >Unofficial Listowner Manual > >The Email 10 Commandments - Netiquette > >THOU SHALT... May we add, "Thou shalt not send superfluous attachments"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jun 4 14:27:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:27:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >Marvin French asked: > >[snip] > >>>>These are not low-level jobs at all, actually, but >>>>what proper compensation is I have no idea. What >>>>does David Stevenson get, I wonder? > >David Stevenson spluttered: > >>>$32,000 !!!!! >>> >>>Splutter !!!!! >>> >>>Good god !!!!! >>> >>>Perhaps I should ask for a raise ........ > >Alfie Kohn, author of "Punished by Rewards", said: > >>There are at least 70 studies showing that extrinsic >>motivators - including A's, sometimes praise, and >>other rewards - are not merely ineffective over the >>long haul but counterproductive with respect to the >>things that concern us most: desire to learn, >>commitment to good values, and so on. >> >>Another group of studies shows that when people are >>offered a reward for doing a task that involves some >>degree of problem solving or creativity - or for >>doing it well - they will tend to do lower quality >>work than those offered no reward. > >Richard James Hills suggests: > >If David Stevenson wishes to concentrate on maintaining >his consistently high standards on his labour-of-love >EBU/WBU casebooks, perhaps he should minimise any >distractions from his creativity by requesting a 100% >pay cut? > >Do I hear more spluttering? :-) Is that what Rich Colker was offered? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 4 14:31:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:31:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 06:58 PM 6/3/04, David wrote: > >> Exactly. When we make unfair and partial rulings because we are no >>longer making bridge judgements based on what would have happened we >>have no longer got equity. >> >> AQ >> >> xx >> >> "I shall make two tricks by finessing". Now, you are going to decide >>based on some notional standard unrelated to the player's ability how >>many tricks he is going to make, and call it equity. It isn't. > >Of course I am. I do not understand the point of the example. Any >player who finesses will make two tricks if the king is onside, >otherwise he will not, and we will adjudicate the result in the usual >way. Is David suggesting that the location of the king depends on the >"class of player" taking the finesse? If you have a player who does not know what a finesse is and does not know what they are talking about perhaps you will judge they only take one trick. Now, under your new enlightened "rules" of treating everyone the same way, if the standard is the novice player then one trick is awarded, not two, to an expert who claims on the finesse, because *his* standard is no longer the question. I know this is ridiculous, but somehow I have to wake people up to the fact that treating everyone the same will lead to no equity and considerably more unhappy people than currently. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 4 14:37:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:37:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: KISS (was: 7.5 tables) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Likewise, the elite Canberra Bridge Club never >uses the uncomfortable arrow-switch movement for >matchpoint pairs events. I don't believe in playing 'the uncomfortable arrow-switch movement' myself. Perish the thought! But there is no problem with playing an ordinary comfortable standard arrow-switch movement, naturally. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 4 14:35:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:35:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] The road to hell...illegal convention In-Reply-To: <31F13E50-B5F5-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <002401c448cc$7e77b880$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> <31F13E50-B5F5-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Wednesday, Jun 2, 2004, at 14:07 US/Eastern, Raija Davis wrote: > >> My point was that if the same pair goes to another event the next day >>in the >> tournament, again using the same convention since the next event allows >> Mid-Chart or higher, the pair may think it is allowed in Bracketed >>Knockouts >> Bracket 1. And the same problem with illegal convention arises >>again. Why >> "hide" the information that the convention is illegal always? > >What makes you think the TD was hiding anything? He's there to >adjudicate matters in accordance with the conditions of *that* contest, >not another one that might be played the next day. If he happens to be >aware that a particular convention is illegal not only under the >particular CoC with which he is operating in the current event, but >also in other events, it would perhaps be nice of him to say so - but I >see no reason to expect him to do so, or to know that. It is worse than that. The moment players assume that the TD's answer applies to non-related tourneys, why should they be ACBL tourneys? So it is just as logical to assume: "You may not play that *in GCC events*" as permission ot play it in Welsh Level 3 events, or Croatian Pairs events, or World Championships. It won't wash. Saying it is illegal in GCC events says *nothing* about other events. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jun 4 14:39:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:39:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604081115.0222a920@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603161742.027783b0@pop.starpower.net> <005501c449ae$31d50e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604081115.0222a920@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <+2lARKLcuHwAFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 04:54 PM 6/3/04, Marvin wrote: > >>From: "Eric Landau" < >> >> > I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- but I'm almost >> > certain that if the ACBL wrote up the appeals and posted them on their >> > own website, then they own the copyright, whether or not they bothered >> > to add a copyright notice. >> >>They are not so posted, probably because there may yet be a Reno >>casebook. That decision will probably come at the New York NABC in July. >>Just guessing. > >I misunderstood. If they were conveyed in private correspondence, and >have not been published (posting to a website is considered published), >copyright doesn't apply. Copyright, no. But Netiquette demeans that contents of emails are not copied to third parties without the sender's permission. Of course this does not apply to a mailing list where the sender has effectively put the contents into the public domain. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 15:20:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:20:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C08526.5050909@hdw.be> Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:25 AM 6/1/04, Nuno wrote: > >> What I think Herman is trying to say is: "Did declarer claim without >> counting, or did he miscount his tricks?" >> >> In the first case, Herman's ruling of 13 tricks is correct. Declarer >> has two lines: >> >> 1. Diamond finesse: 50% chance >> 2. Spade/diamond squeeze: 36% + 24% + 7% = 67% chance (diamonds 3-3, >> or 4-2/5-1 with lenght on East, who surely has the spade ace). >> >> It is irrational to have declarer follow line 1, and I don't think >> Tim's suggested falsecarding would lead an expert South astray. > > > The Laws are in a lot more trouble than we thought if there are folks > out there who will base rulings on the notion that failing to find a > squeeze line (...) is "irrational". I have taken the liberty to snip a bit, and will come back to the snipped part. Yes, I believe that it is irrational for the player called Herman De Wael to fail to find a line that includes a finesse. Any problems with that? Then why should we have problems with this law. Surely there is a "class of player" that cannot fail to find the squeeze in question. Maybe a Polish World Class Player is not high enough a class for this example, but certainly the laws are not in problem. > compute that it has a 67% chance based on an assumption > about who holds a specific card, and so take it in preference to a 50% > line, Surely you cannot mean this. Even I will see, 100% of the time, that this line has a more than 50% chance. > Surely there must be some room between a wrong > line and an irrational one, Yes indeed there must. But it is up to the TD and AC to decide whether or not the finesse line becomes non-normal or not. > else we might as well burn our dictionaries > (and our lawbooks). > I don't get your conclusion. Yes, this is a difficult case, and we need to make a number of decisions, but that is no reason to throw out our lawbooks, is it? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 16:19:24 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:19:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604083928.0222c150@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c44a47$52e9bd40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" < > At 01:39 AM 6/4/04, richard.hills wrote: > > >Unofficial Listowner Manual > > > >The Email 10 Commandments - Netiquette > > > >THOU SHALT... > > May we add, "Thou shalt not send superfluous attachments"? > And "Edit the addressees so that a BLML subscriber doesn't get two identical e-mails" Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jun 4 16:28:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CB2@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: Nuno wrote: > 1. Diamond finesse: 50% chance > 2. Spade/diamond squeeze: 36% + 24% + 7% =3D 67% chance (diamonds 3-3, = > or 4-2/5-1 with lenght on East, who surely has the spade ace). > > It is irrational to have declarer follow line 1, and I don't think > Tim's suggested falsecarding would lead an expert South astray. Ok, now I'm stuck. If a 50% line compared to a 70% line is not "inferior" as per the claims laws what the heck is? Tim From john@asimere.com Fri Jun 4 16:31:24 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:31:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C0586F.9000500@hdw.be> References: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> <40C0586F.9000500@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <40C0586F.9000500@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> >> I entirely concur with Tim. the finesse is inferior; it is not >> irrational. neither Tim nor I expect declarer to start cashing the D >> from the top. >> >> As for discussions on whether down 1 or down 2. A bottom is a bottom if >> it's pairs and 17 imps if it's teams, but I settle for down 2. >> >> I understand Herman's argument perfectly. The test simply is: "Is the D >> hook irrational, or inferior?". It clearly isn't irrational, as it makes >> the contract when it works. What do we have left? >> > >The fact that is irrational to choose a clearly inferior line? > >What is your actual argument, John - that inferior lines must also be >normal; or that this line is not sufficiently inferior for it to be >irrational? > >What do you rule on: > > AKQJxxx >xxx 10x > x > >claimed for 7 tricks? >The finesse is rational (sometimes it's the only line that works) but >surely it is irrational to choose this, as the inferiority is very clear? if we want to put a percentage on the difference between a normal (for the class of player etc) and a careless line, perhaps as much as 50%. I'd class blocking a suit, or throwing Kings needlessly under Aces as irrational. Taking a finesse on a presumed count that's 40% instead of playing for a drop of 68% is careless. - just as an 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jun 4 16:57:17 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:57:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603161742.027783b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604081115.0222a920@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001701c44a4c$9df278e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > >From: "Eric Landau" < > > > > > I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- but I'm almost > > > certain that if the ACBL wrote up the appeals and posted them on their > > > own website, then they own the copyright, whether or not they bothered > > > to add a copyright notice. > > Marv: > >They are not so posted, probably because there may yet be a Reno > >casebook. That decision will probably come at the New York NABC in July. > >Just guessing. Eric.. > > I misunderstood. If they were conveyed in private correspondence, and > have not been published (posting to a website is considered published), > copyright doesn't apply. > I quoted minutes of the Reno BoD meeting that included a casebook policy proposal that modified the existing one.. That was deferred until the July meeting. However, the unchanged casebook policy, which would justify the creation of a Reno casebook right now, is still in effect, so there is a possibility that one might come out before then. The commentaries have been submitted, so that isn't a problem. Perhaps the only problem is the vacant editor position, but it would be possible to publish the casebook without editor comments. To see the policy now in effect, go to the acbl website (acbl.org) and look for the Reno BoD minutes. The proposed policy is shown as a markup of the existing policy. Note that the revised policy provides for only four commentators: the Editor, Director of National Appeals, Chairman of National Appeals, and NABC Director in Charge. Whether that is another factor in holding up the Reno casebook is anyone's guess. I doubt that it is. Any such change would surely not be made retroactive to Reno. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 17:09:19 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:09:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C028DD.5010000@hdw.be> References: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604120121.0222f4e0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:46 AM 6/4/04, Herman wrote: >In arguing for 13 tricks, we need one other principle as well: a line >is irrational if some other line is clearly superior. That puts an end to any argument for 13 tricks, as Herman's "one other principle" is patently contrary to the explicit language of TFLB: "'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not irrational." If some other line is "clearly superior", then the line in question is, by definition "clearly inferior". "Clearly inferior" is, obviously, a subset of "inferior", which TFLB tells us we must distinguish from "irrational". I may be in the minority, but it strikes me as obvious that there's a lot clearer distinction between "inferior" and "irrational" than there is between "inferior" and "clearly inferior". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From walt1@verizon.net Fri Jun 4 17:27:33 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:27:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook In-Reply-To: <+2lARKLcuHwAFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603161742.027783b0@pop.starpower.net> <005501c449ae$31d50e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604081115.0222a920@pop.starpower.net> <+2lARKLcuHwAFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040604121736.02db18b0@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:39 AM 4/06/2004, David Stevenson wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 04:54 PM 6/3/04, Marvin wrote: >> >>>From: "Eric Landau" < >>> >>> > I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- but I'm almost >>> > certain that if the ACBL wrote up the appeals and posted them on their >>> > own website, then they own the copyright, whether or not they bothered >>> > to add a copyright notice. >>> >>>They are not so posted, probably because there may yet be a Reno >>>casebook. That decision will probably come at the New York NABC in July. >>>Just guessing. >> >>I misunderstood. If they were conveyed in private correspondence, and >>have not been published (posting to a website is considered published), >>copyright doesn't apply. > > Copyright, no. But Netiquette demeans that contents of emails are not > copied to third parties without the sender's permission. The note was: >>Hi Marv, >> >>Thanks for the note. I've sent all cases for your use. These are the >>original compilations. While we proofed them a couple of times against >>the actual appeal forms there are bound to be some small errors. If / >>when they arise I will send you the amended file. >> >>I hope the discussions go well. >> >>Rick Doesn't this imply that he sent them with the expectation that they would be copied to us? How could we discuss them if they were not copied to us? Walt From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 17:59:02 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:59:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604120121.0222f4e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <40BEDCDD.5000704@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604120121.0222f4e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C0AA56.5090204@hdw.be> Hello Eric, You've read my example already: Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:46 AM 6/4/04, Herman wrote: > >> In arguing for 13 tricks, we need one other principle as well: a line >> is irrational if some other line is clearly superior. > AKQ9xxx xxx 10x x claimed for 7 tricks. > > That puts an end to any argument for 13 tricks, as Herman's "one other > principle" is patently contrary to the explicit language of TFLB: > "'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior... but not > irrational." > Surely to play the above by the first round finesse is a rational line, and equally surely that is an inferior line. Yet I am still waiting for someone who would call making the finesse anything than irrational. > If some other line is "clearly superior", then the line in question is, > by definition "clearly inferior". "Clearly inferior" is, obviously, a > subset of "inferior", which TFLB tells us we must distinguish from > "irrational". > > I may be in the minority, but it strikes me as obvious that there's a > lot clearer distinction between "inferior" and "irrational" than there > is between "inferior" and "clearly inferior". > Well Eric, your interpretation is simply wrong. If one line is clearly inferior to some other line, then choosing that line is irrational. And you cannot read the footnote in any other manner. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 18:02:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:02:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C0AB1F.1020301@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Nuno wrote: > > >>1. Diamond finesse: 50% chance >>2. Spade/diamond squeeze: 36% + 24% + 7% =3D 67% chance (diamonds 3-3, = >>or 4-2/5-1 with lenght on East, who surely has the spade ace). >> >>It is irrational to have declarer follow line 1, and I don't think >>Tim's suggested falsecarding would lead an expert South astray. > > > Ok, now I'm stuck. If a 50% line compared to a 70% line is not "inferior" > as per the claims laws what the heck is? > You are using the word inferior in two different ways. Surely I don't need to tell you that in the English language, "inferior" can be used both as a comparative and as a descriptive. A 50% line is inferior to a 68% line. But that not makes it an "inferior" line as in the footnote. It makes it an irrational one, I believe. > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 18:07:35 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:07:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C031B4.7010405@hdw.be> References: <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604130225.0222ca50@pop.starpower.net> At 04:24 AM 6/4/04, Herman wrote: >And we have discussed at length that since the footnote says "inferior >or careless for the class of player", this means that "irrational" >must also be judged by the class of player. That is simply wrong, both linguistically and logically. The implicit premise that would be required to complete the syllogism would be that all plays are, for any given player, inferior, careless or irrational. Since there are, obviously, plays that are none of the above, it doesn't mean that at all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 18:27:18 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:27:18 -0400 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECFB@exchange.idrettsfor bundet.no> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604131546.02237830@pop.starpower.net> At 08:07 AM 6/4/04, Skjaran wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > AKQJ9xx > > xxx 10x > > x > >there is a finesse, yes? >----- >OK. Then you've got a possible finesse. >But it would be rational to finesse the nine only if you knew for sure >that LHO was holding a minimum of four cards in the suit. So here I >would not deem it rational to finesse. > >Of course if LHO had 10xxxx and declarer claimed without saying he would >finesse, I would never allow this claim. (Though if I was LHO and my >shape was known, and a competent declarer tabled his hand with a smile, >I would know that he/she knew, and would not dispute the claim.) If you were in an obvious and easy-to-reach 7NT contract on the last board of a matchpoint event, and needed a full top to win the event, would it not be rational to finesse the 9? If you were the late Barry Crane, by consensus the best matchpoint strategist ever, would it not be irrational not to lead to the 9 under those circumstances? If the 10xxxx were onside, would anyone (Herman?) award a claim with no stated line to Mr. Crane, but rule anyone else down? Isn't that where the WBF interpretation of the "class of player" reference in the footnote leads us? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 18:34:18 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:34:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604133038.02232380@pop.starpower.net> At 09:31 AM 6/4/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 06:58 PM 6/3/04, David wrote: >> >>> Exactly. When we make unfair and partial rulings because we are no >>>longer making bridge judgements based on what would have happened we >>>have no longer got equity. >>> >>> AQ >>> >>> xx >>> >>> "I shall make two tricks by finessing". Now, you are going to decide >>>based on some notional standard unrelated to the player's ability how >>>many tricks he is going to make, and call it equity. It isn't. >> >>Of course I am. I do not understand the point of the example. Any >>player who finesses will make two tricks if the king is onside, >>otherwise he will not, and we will adjudicate the result in the usual >>way. Is David suggesting that the location of the king depends on >>the "class of player" taking the finesse? > > If you have a player who does not know what a finesse is and does > not know what they are talking about perhaps you will judge they only > take one trick. > > Now, under your new enlightened "rules" of treating everyone the > same way, if the standard is the novice player then one trick is > awarded, not two, to an expert who claims on the finesse, because > *his* standard is no longer the question. > > I know this is ridiculous, but somehow I have to wake people up to > the fact that treating everyone the same will lead to no equity and > considerably more unhappy people than currently. I still don't understand. Would David (or anyone) really ever rule that a player who explicitly said "I shall make two tricks by finessing" holding AQ opposite xx doesn't know what a finesse is? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jun 4 18:35:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:35:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604130225.0222ca50@pop.starpower.net> References: <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604130225.0222ca50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C0B2C5.8090508@hdw.be> Yes it does, Eric, and we've been here before. Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:24 AM 6/4/04, Herman wrote: > >> And we have discussed at length that since the footnote says "inferior >> or careless for the class of player", this means that "irrational" >> must also be judged by the class of player. > > > That is simply wrong, both linguistically and logically. The implicit > premise that would be required to complete the syllogism would be that > all plays are, for any given player, inferior, careless or irrational. > Since there are, obviously, plays that are none of the above, it doesn't > mean that at all. > there are only two possibilities : normal and non-normal. According to the footnote, careless and inferior are normal, irrational are non-normal. If there are plays that don't fall in any of the three categories, then the footnote is useless. So the three classes also add up to unity. So if careless and inferior are judged according to class, so must irrational. All this has been said before and has even made it into a WBFLC comment. And it's all equally uninteresting. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 19:13:25 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:13:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C08526.5050909@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604134605.0222b2e0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:20 AM 6/4/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>The Laws are in a lot more trouble than we thought if there are folks >>out there who will base rulings on the notion that failing to find a >>squeeze line (...) is "irrational". > >I have taken the liberty to snip a bit, and will come back to the >snipped part. >Yes, I believe that it is irrational for the player called Herman De >Wael to fail to find a line that includes a finesse. Any problems with >that? Yes. Is it irrational for Herman to fail to take a 50% finesse when he has a 36% alternative of playing for a side suit to be 3-3 (but cannot try both plays)? How about when he has an alternative combination of plays that come out to a 49.9% line? If the former is irrational, and the latter not, where is the marginal infinitesimal fraction of a percent at which the inferior alternative line becomes irrational? Do we expect TDs and AC members to be able to place that line precisely not only for a player of Herman's "class", but for every player for whom they will ever be called on to give a ruling? Lots of problems with that! >Then why should we have problems with this law. Surely there is a >"class of player" that cannot fail to find the squeeze in question. >Maybe a Polish World Class Player is not high enough a class for this >example, but certainly the laws are not in problem. If logic requires that there be a (perhaps only hypothetical) class of player who would always find this particular squeeze, then it equally requires a class of player who will find the best line under any circumstances. By Herman's logic, such a player would never be required to play out a hand or state a line of play; he could silently table his cards at trick one every time he declares, and be given the benefit of the presumption that he would play perfectly in every single case. Indeed, isn't that what the WBF interpretation of the "class of player" reference in the footnote, combined with Herman's logic, would require? >>compute that it has a 67% chance based on an assumption about who >>holds a specific card, and so take it in preference to a 50% line, > >Surely you cannot mean this. Even I will see, 100% of the time, that >this line has a more than 50% chance. And I'm sure Herman would then realize, 100% of the time, that L68C requires him to say that he has seen this (or the equivalent) in his claim statement if he wishes it to be presumed in the adjudication of his incomplete claim. If it seems obvious that the latter cannot legally be considered to be a certainty, how can we say otherwise of the former? It may be true (just as "I would have played exactly the same way had my partner not said anything" may be true), but its being true and our being required to accept it presumptively in adjudicating an incomplete claim are not at all the same thing. > > Surely there must be some room between a wrong >>line and an irrational one, > >Yes indeed there must. But it is up to the TD and AC to decide whether >or not the finesse line becomes non-normal or not. > >>else we might as well burn our dictionaries (and our lawbooks). > >I don't get your conclusion. >Yes, this is a difficult case, and we need to make a number of >decisions, but that is no reason to throw out our lawbooks, is it? We reach the book-burning stage when we accept the notion that "wrong" is synonymous with "irrational". Unfortunately, there are some who seem to be already there. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jun 4 19:41:16 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:41:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C0B2C5.8090508@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604130225.0222ca50@pop.starpower.net> <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604130225.0222ca50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604142634.0255e070@pop.starpower.net> At 01:35 PM 6/4/04, Herman wrote: >there are only two possibilities : normal and non-normal. > >According to the footnote, careless and inferior are normal, >irrational are non-normal. If there are plays that don't fall in any >of the three categories, then the footnote is useless. So the three >classes also add up to unity. >So if careless and inferior are judged according to class, so must >irrational. That is an injustice to the English language. "Are" does not mean "equals". Herman premises are (a) "there are only two possibilities: normal and non-normal", and (b) "careless and inferior are normal", from which he concludes that "there are only two possibilities: (careless and[/or] inferior) and non-normal". We do not base claims rulings on the footnote alone; we base them on the law of which the footnote is a part, and the law is "useful" even if the footnote is not needed to figure out how to apply it. Herman's argument is based on the illogical notion that "the three classes [careless, inferior and irrational]... add up to unity". If that were true, every play ever made would be either careless, inferior or irrational, since if those "add up to unity" there is no possibility of their being anything else. >All this has been said before and has even made it into a WBFLC comment. The WBFLC has said only that we are to interpret "irrational" as being dependent on the "class of player involved". This is, explicitly, an interpretation. They don't claim it to be a logical necessity based on logic similar to Herman's. They don't even claim that the claims laws could not logically be interpreted some other way. Admittedly, I believe the WBFLC's interpretation to be misguided, but that's not relevant to the current discussion. >And it's all equally uninteresting. Try telling that to the players on the wrong side of the now-infamous "oh shit" ruling. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 4 08:04:27 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:04:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040603161742.027783b0@pop.starpower.net> <005501c449ae$31d50e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001b01c44a74$a0b03220$18cb403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unofficial Reno casebook > > Hi Marv, > > Thanks for the note. I've sent all cases for your use. > These are the original compilations. While we proofed > them a couple of times against the actual appeal forms > there are bound to be some small errors. If / when they > arise I will send you the amended file. > > I hope the discussions go well. > +=+ This does appear at least to concede a tolerance of hostile opinion where it appears. And 'discussions' in this context recognizes that they will be public since internet discussion is envisaged. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 4 08:09:43 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:09:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Committee References: Message-ID: <001c01c44a74$a1b40d90$18cb403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Laws Committee > > > WBF Laws Commission minutes, 19th October 1997: > > Richard James Hills: > +=+ We are simple folk in the WBF where we have committees, not Commissions. Strangely I had thought it was the ACBL that aspired to a 'Commission'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jun 4 21:51:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 21:51:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604133038.02232380@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604133038.02232380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 09:31 AM 6/4/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>>At 06:58 PM 6/3/04, David wrote: >>> >>>> Exactly. When we make unfair and partial rulings because we are no >>>>longer making bridge judgements based on what would have happened we >>>>have no longer got equity. >>>> >>>> AQ >>>> >>>> xx >>>> >>>> "I shall make two tricks by finessing". Now, you are going to decide >>>>based on some notional standard unrelated to the player's ability how >>>>many tricks he is going to make, and call it equity. It isn't. >>> >>>Of course I am. I do not understand the point of the example. Any >>>player who finesses will make two tricks if the king is onside, >>>otherwise he will not, and we will adjudicate the result in the usual >>>way. Is David suggesting that the location of the king depends on >>>the "class of player" taking the finesse? >> >> If you have a player who does not know what a finesse is and does >>not know what they are talking about perhaps you will judge they only >>take one trick. >> >> Now, under your new enlightened "rules" of treating everyone the >>same way, if the standard is the novice player then one trick is >>awarded, not two, to an expert who claims on the finesse, because >>*his* standard is no longer the question. >> >> I know this is ridiculous, but somehow I have to wake people up to >>the fact that treating everyone the same will lead to no equity and >>considerably more unhappy people than currently. > >I still don't understand. Would David (or anyone) really ever rule >that a player who explicitly said "I shall make two tricks by >finessing" holding AQ opposite xx doesn't know what a finesse is? Ok, make it a bit harder. But make it a player a novice might not get right, and explain to me why applying that standard ot an expert "does equity"? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jun 4 22:42:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C0AB1F.1020301@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Surely I don't need to tell you that in the English language, > "inferior" can be used both as a comparative and as a descriptive. Indeed not. Inferior is a comparative and always has a referrent (even if such is implicit). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jun 4 22:42:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C030FF.60201@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I don't think the law tells you that. It tells you to include all > normal lines, and it says that normal includes inferior. Ok, slight difference in wording which doesn't affect my judgement in the specific case. > But in some cases, inferior becomes irrational: > > AKQJxxx > xxx 10x > x > > Claimed for 7 tricks - do you give them? Probably - but if East is known to have made a very light t/oX of that suit and declarer is good then maybe not. > The table presence argument is a better one, IMO. The table presence argument is integral. I expect a world class declarer to be able to calculate the odds of both lines. I have seen good players back 30/70 shots based on table presence (and succeed more often than the %ages would dictate). As I said a while back I would be willing to listen to arguments against the finesse from world class players but I suspect they would use percentages not dissimilar from 30/70 in table presence situations. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jun 4 22:42:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C028DD.5010000@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Privately, afterwards, I decided to go along with Tim and Ton, who > cast doubt on the ability of a declarer to find the squeeze line 100% > of the time. If you mean "find" as in consider then count me out. The possibility of a squeeze is evident even to a marginally competent player like John. There exist a number of classes of player (non-exhaustive list). Palookas: Play tricks from the top in no particular order, quite possibly starting with D (or with HAQ and then the C). Rule -1 (but didn't claim). Workhorses: Play their tricks from the top in a sensible order. Rule making (the squeeze works without being considered). Expert Planks: Play their tricks technically and choose on fractions of a percent rather than having any imagination. Rule making. World class players: Their combination of technical skill and flair leaves the rest of us gasping - but sometimes even they get it wrong. Rule -2. From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jun 5 10:35:29 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:35:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604134605.0222b2e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604134605.0222b2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C193E1.3040500@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:20 AM 6/4/04, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> >>> The Laws are in a lot more trouble than we thought if there are folks >>> out there who will base rulings on the notion that failing to find a >>> squeeze line (...) is "irrational". >> >> >> I have taken the liberty to snip a bit, and will come back to the >> snipped part. >> Yes, I believe that it is irrational for the player called Herman De >> Wael to fail to find a line that includes a finesse. Any problems with >> that? > > > Yes. Is it irrational for Herman to fail to take a 50% finesse when he > has a 36% alternative of playing for a side suit to be 3-3 (but cannot > try both plays)? How about when he has an alternative combination of > plays that come out to a 49.9% line? If the former is irrational, and > the latter not, where is the marginal infinitesimal fraction of a > percent at which the inferior alternative line becomes irrational? Do > we expect TDs and AC members to be able to place that line precisely not > only for a player of Herman's "class", but for every player for whom > they will ever be called on to give a ruling? Lots of problems with that! > Yes indeed, those are problems. But they are problems the players accept. I am quite certain that an expert player will accept a ruling saying "We understand that one line has a 45% probability of winning, and another has 50% chance, but we feel we cannot exclude the possibility that you would chose the 45% line nevertheless, so we rule against you". That player will not accept a ruling saying "We understand that one line has a 15% chance of winning, while the other has 65% chanve, but the laws tell us we cannot exclude the 15% line, even when we know you would never take that line.". So my interpretation leaves less bad sense among players than yours. And yes, it is more difficult to administer. But then, that's what we're there for, isn't it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jun 5 10:41:00 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:41:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604134605.0222b2e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604080248.022285b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604134605.0222b2e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C1952C.6070808@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > > If logic requires that there be a (perhaps only hypothetical) class of > player who would always find this particular squeeze, then it equally > requires a class of player who will find the best line under any > circumstances. By Herman's logic, such a player would never be required > to play out a hand or state a line of play; he could silently table his > cards at trick one every time he declares, and be given the benefit of > the presumption that he would play perfectly in every single case. > Indeed, isn't that what the WBF interpretation of the "class of player" > reference in the footnote, combined with Herman's logic, would require? > That argument would be valid, if not for one very bad flaw: More often than not, there is more than one normal line. The expert declarer cannot discount the fact that sometimes he will win a contract on one line, that he will not get if he claims, because he will then get the worst of both normal lines. Again, you are confusing blml with the real world. On blml, we only see claims where there is only one normal line, and it works. Some people are so entrenched in their battles that they fail to notice that there are 99 other claims, and 999 other non-claims, in which there are more than one normal line, and in which a bum claim is ruled against. Try going back to the real world for a change and see that there are no problems with claims there. >>> compute that it has a 67% chance based on an assumption about who >>> holds a specific card, and so take it in preference to a 50% line, >> >> >> Surely you cannot mean this. Even I will see, 100% of the time, that >> this line has a more than 50% chance. > > > And I'm sure Herman would then realize, 100% of the time, that L68C > requires him to say that he has seen this (or the equivalent) in his > claim statement if he wishes it to be presumed in the adjudication of > his incomplete claim. If it seems obvious that the latter cannot > legally be considered to be a certainty, how can we say otherwise of the > former? It may be true (just as "I would have played exactly the same > way had my partner not said anything" may be true), but its being true > and our being required to accept it presumptively in adjudicating an > incomplete claim are not at all the same thing. > Ahhhhhhhhh! We've had that argument at the beginning of the thread. We know why declarer issued no statement with his claim and we don't hold that against him. Don't come back to things that we've already discussed (even if we did not agree on the result). This is circular reasoning and I'm not going into it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jun 5 10:42:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:42:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C1957C.2040206@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Surely I don't need to tell you that in the English language, >>"inferior" can be used both as a comparative and as a descriptive. > > > Indeed not. Inferior is a comparative and always has a referrent (even if > such is implicit). > Surely not. In the footnote, "inferior" is used as a descriptive and there is no referrent, not even an implicit one. Some more literary schooled English speaker to my aid please? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jun 5 09:31:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:31:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C184DB.4070002@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Privately, afterwards, I decided to go along with Tim and Ton, who >>cast doubt on the ability of a declarer to find the squeeze line 100% >>of the time. > > > If you mean "find" as in consider then count me out. The possibility of a > squeeze is evident even to a marginally competent player like John. > I mean find as in asking oneself the questions: "ok, I have a line for 12 tricks, two lines even, but can I do better? is there a squeeze? Yes, probably - spades and diamonds - for that I have to ..." I don't doubt that even a marginally competent player will find this squeeze once he goes looking for it. My doubt was rather with the certainty of the player asking the questions (of himself). Would a player not simply accept that he'll only make it with diamonds 3-3 or jack doubleton? Would he necessarily look further? Would he do that 100% of the time? Well, perhaps he would. Tim seems to believe he does. Logically, Tim ought to award the claim. > There exist a number of classes of player (non-exhaustive list). > > Palookas: Play tricks from the top in no particular order, quite possibly > starting with D (or with HAQ and then the C). Rule -1 (but didn't claim). > Well, no one in their right mind would claim in this position, with as little statement as here. > Workhorses: Play their tricks from the top in a sensible order. Rule > making (the squeeze works without being considered). > That is not correct, Tim. One needs to play the suits in a very particular order, diamonds last. There are other sensible orders. > Expert Planks: Play their tricks technically and choose on fractions of a > percent rather than having any imagination. Rule making. > Exactly. > World class players: Their combination of technical skill and flair > leaves the rest of us gasping - but sometimes even they get it wrong. > Rule -2. > That's not true, and not fair. Are you still ruling on the possibility of opponents deceiving declarer by clever discarding? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jun 5 10:31:09 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:31:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604142634.0255e070@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604130225.0222ca50@pop.starpower.net> <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <6B0849D6-B5F9-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604130225.0222ca50@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604142634.0255e070@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C192DD.8090002@hdw.be> Sorry Eric, but this is really too much. You say irrational does not depend on class of player. I give you two reasons why it does, and look what you do with those two reasons: Eric Landau wrote: > At 01:35 PM 6/4/04, Herman wrote: > >> there are only two possibilities : normal and non-normal. >> >> According to the footnote, careless and inferior are normal, >> irrational are non-normal. If there are plays that don't fall in any >> of the three categories, then the footnote is useless. So the three >> classes also add up to unity. >> So if careless and inferior are judged according to class, so must >> irrational. > > > That is an injustice to the English language. "Are" does not mean > "equals". Herman premises are (a) "there are only two possibilities: > normal and non-normal", and (b) "careless and inferior are normal", from > which he concludes that "there are only two possibilities: (careless > and[/or] inferior) and non-normal". We do not base claims rulings on > the footnote alone; we base them on the law of which the footnote is a > part, and the law is "useful" even if the footnote is not needed to > figure out how to apply it. Herman's argument is based on the illogical > notion that "the three classes [careless, inferior and irrational]... > add up to unity". If that were true, every play ever made would be > either careless, inferior or irrational, since if those "add up to > unity" there is no possibility of their being anything else. > OK, there is a fourth set: good plays. Do you agree those add up to unity? That really is not an argument. You don't disprove my first argument that way. >> All this has been said before and has even made it into a WBFLC comment. > > > The WBFLC has said only that we are to interpret "irrational" as being > dependent on the "class of player involved". This is, explicitly, an > interpretation. They don't claim it to be a logical necessity based on > logic similar to Herman's. They don't even claim that the claims laws > could not logically be interpreted some other way. > So you admit that the WBF have stated the same, and you dismiss that second argument by stating it does not conform to the first argument. Which leaves both arguments, but does Eric care about that, no he doesn't: > Admittedly, I believe the WBFLC's interpretation to be misguided, but > that's not relevant to the current discussion. > Eric believes the WBF are misguided, so obviously Eric is right. Go back to your little corner, Eric, and believe yourself. Don't ever use blml to change your opinions. Just stick to your own guns. Great! >> And it's all equally uninteresting. > > > Try telling that to the players on the wrong side of the now-infamous > "oh shit" ruling. > Well, I'm just saying this discussion is totally uninteresting. You believe what you want, and think you are a good director, in touch with the rest of the world. Or not. I don't care what you think. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 5 11:35:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:35:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? Message-ID: <000001c44ae8$dac04bc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > > OK, let's consider this legal question: > > > > > When a claim is contested and it turns out that there > > > is no way the claimer can win the claimed number of > > > tricks using any line of plays that can be embraced in > > > his claim statement; but during the subsequent discussion > > > (with the Director present!) a different and more > > > successful line of play is found: > > > > > > Does Law 70D (or any other law) allow the claimer to adopt > > > this new line of play on the ground that all possible lines > > > of play embraced in the original clarification statement > > > must be deemed irrational once the new line of play is found? > > > > > > > Yes it does. > > If the lines that are "embraced in the original statement" all turn > > out to be non-normal, then the least succesfull of all normal lines > > (non of which are then included in the original statement) will be = the > > one chosen. > > > > That is L70D, pure and simple. For this, it is not even the player = who > > needs to suggest the alternative line (of course, the TD must be > > confident that the player would find the line, but whether he has > > mentioned it or not does not matter). > .......... >=20 > Thanks for your opinion, I disagree with you, but I shall be most = anxious > to see other comments on this purely legal question. I haven't noticed any further comments to my legal question so let me = show the reason why I shall not consider "the most successful" line of play = which is embraced in the original claim statement as being irrational under = any circumstances: A claim is made, a claim statement is presented, but it is shown by opponents (or the Director) that even the best line of play available = within the scope of that claim statement will be unsuccessful in that it will result in less than the claimed number of tricks. Now the claimer (or even worse the Director) discovers and presents a = new line of play which indeed will be successful. If I understand Herman correct his opinion is that the claimer shall be allowed to use this new line of play because compared to the now known successful line of play the original line of play has become irrational? The way I understand Law 70D we are to assume that the claimer seriously intended to follow a line of play embraced in his original claim = statement. If this makes more than one line of play available to him we are to = assume that the claimer intends to use one of them and on certain conditions he = is free to select with a clarification statement which one among the alternatives that is.=20 But the fact that the player has selected a line of play with his = original claim statement makes this selected line of play "normal" (not = "irrational") for him even when this line of play is later shown to be unsuccessful. If I am wrong then I believe Law 70D ceases to have any meaning; a = claimer with an unsuccessful claim statement will then (after his original claim statement has been rightfully contested) always have the option to "discover" and select a new successful line of play and to demand this = new line of play accepted on the ground that compared to this new successful line of play the original unsuccessful line of play has proven to be irrational. Comments now anybody? Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jun 5 12:19:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:19:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000001c44ae8$dac04bc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c44ae8$dac04bc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C1AC56.70501@hdw.be> Hello Sven, I see you are still trying to understand this problem. Please allow me to try and make you understand my point of view on this problem - I conclude that you still have not understood what I am trying to say: Sven Pran wrote: > > > I haven't noticed any further comments to my legal question so let me show > the reason why I shall not consider "the most successful" line of play which > is embraced in the original claim statement as being irrational under any > circumstances: > You really must realize that there are circumstances under which it becomes irrational to keep following the stated line(s). You really must allow for this. There are may examples why it is done, and you should not try to argue your point that it cannot be done. If a player states "I shall cross-ruff these tricks" and one of those tricks is ruffed by a trump that claimer has forgotten, then the stated line becomes irrational. We do not oblige claimer to underruff, since that would be deemed irrational. This one just to prove to you that you are simply WRONG. Stated lines can become irrational, and then they are no longer to be followed. OK? Now back to your arguments, which do contain some valid points, even if you are trying to prove something which is wrong. > A claim is made, a claim statement is presented, but it is shown by > opponents (or the Director) that even the best line of play available within > the scope of that claim statement will be unsuccessful in that it will > result in less than the claimed number of tricks. > Or to say it simpler: the claim is contested. > Now the claimer (or even worse the Director) discovers and presents a new > line of play which indeed will be successful. > L70D and L70E are destined for that. > If I understand Herman correct his opinion is that the claimer shall be > allowed to use this new line of play because compared to the now known > successful line of play the original line of play has become irrational? > No, you misunderstand Herman completely. In order for the alternative line to be allowed, the irrationality of the original line has to be 100% obvious to claimer, within his original misconception of the deal. Example: the claimer who has forgotten an outstanding trump shall continue on his originally stated line, until the outstanding trump appears. At that moment, the stated line has clearly become irrational (the laws tell us that claimers will always notice played cards). Only after that time do we allow alternative lines. I know why you think I think as you think I do. In the Polish case, I rule that the stated line becomes irrational immediately after the claim, and before one single card has been played. I sincerely believe that this is possible, and I am certainly not alone in thinking so. I believe that it is possible to claim without having a second look at the cards, and I also believe that it is irrational to play a card without that second look. TIn such cases, the stated line becomes irrational immediately. > The way I understand Law 70D we are to assume that the claimer seriously > intended to follow a line of play embraced in his original claim statement. > If this makes more than one line of play available to him we are to assume > that the claimer intends to use one of them and on certain conditions he is > free to select with a clarification statement which one among the > alternatives that is. You understand L70D correctly, but this principle only applies as long as the stated lines remain rational. That is clear within L70E. > But the fact that the player has selected a line of play with his original > claim statement makes this selected line of play "normal" (not "irrational") > for him even when this line of play is later shown to be unsuccessful. > True, but it is normal only as long as the circumstances remain the same. At some point in time, the stated line will become abnormal. It is up to the TD to decide when this will be and whether or not there is at that time a remedy. If there is, the stated line has become irrational, and it must no longer be followed. > If I am wrong then I believe Law 70D ceases to have any meaning; a claimer > with an unsuccessful claim statement will then (after his original claim > statement has been rightfully contested) always have the option to > "discover" and select a new successful line of play and to demand this new > line of play accepted on the ground that compared to this new successful > line of play the original unsuccessful line of play has proven to be > irrational. > No, the player does not have the option to discover. The TD will have to rule that the player cannot fail to discover. That is what we rule when a forgotten trump appears. That is also what I have ruled in the Polish exam case. > Comments now anybody? > The polish exam case is one from a very rare class. You really should see it for what it is: an exam question, a selected case. The principles that are used here must be clearly understood, and should not be used as a rule for more than a very limited amount of cases. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Sat Jun 5 12:28:31 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 13:28:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] directing material Message-ID: <002501c44af0$3b744aa0$5b23b5d4@swipnet.se> I recommend the book "Movements". There you find how to add one or two late pairs. One late pair in an = eight table Mitchell is described on pages 142-143 and two late pairs on = page 101. If anyone would like to have a personal answer you are welcome to write = me at hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Yors etc Hans-Olof From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Jun 5 12:56:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C1957C.2040206@hdw.be> Message-ID: Hi Herman, The implicit comparator in this instance is "the best line". Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Jun 5 12:56:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C184DB.4070002@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > There exist a number of classes of player (non-exhaustive list). > > > > Palookas: Play tricks from the top in no particular order, quite > > possibly starting with D (or with HAQ and then the C). Rule -1 (but > > didn't claim). > > > > Well, no one in their right mind would claim in this position, with as > little statement as here. I did say that palookas wouldn't claim. > > Workhorses: Play their tricks from the top in a sensible order. Rule > > making (the squeeze works without being considered). > > That is not correct, Tim. One needs to play the suits in a very > particular order, diamonds last. There are other sensible orders. Herman, there exists a class of player for whom diamonds last is the only sensible order (call them what you like). They don't really understand squeezes but they do know that opps often "throw the wrong thing" when following to a long solid suit. > > Expert Planks: Play their tricks technically and choose on fractions > > of a percent rather than having any imagination. Rule making. > > Exactly. Well yes, but the example case did not ask me to rule on a plank - but on a world class player. > > World class players: Their combination of technical skill and flair > > leaves the rest of us gasping - but sometimes even they get it wrong. > > Rule -2. > > > > That's not true, and not fair. Are you still ruling on the possibility > of opponents deceiving declarer by clever discarding? I rule on "doubt". I *know* it is possible to induce world-class players into the wrong line by intelligent, in tempo discarding. There are two internationals against whom I play regularly and once in while this works. I believe that you don't get to be world class without some table presence. The combination of two reasonable lines (albeit with some percentage difference) and perfect discarding by opponents creates sufficient doubt in my mind that I rule against declarer. I am light- years from being world class myself but I believe my argument for adjusting is sufficiently well thought through that I would be exceedingly p*ssed off were the examiner to fail me. Tim From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 5 13:37:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 14:37:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C1AC56.70501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c44af9$da7661c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Hello Sven, >=20 > I see you are still trying to understand this problem. > Please allow me to try and make you understand my point of view on > this problem - I conclude that you still have not understood what I am > trying to say: I have read through your comments three times now and it appears to me = we are completely in agreement on the literal understanding of Law 70.=20 Our difference appears to be that I do not accept "changed = circumstances" making the stated line of play irrational as legal reason for changing a stated line of play when such changed circumstances are due to the claim being contested, only when they are caused by developments during an = actual execution of the originally stated line of play. In other words I do not allow the claimer to change to a new line of = play just because the original claim has been contested; but he may certainly adapt his stated line of play to changed circumstances which inevitably = will become known to him during the progress of his originally stated line of play. Before he has played a single card along the originally stated line of = play (and after the claim has been contested) I must as a Director assume = that his awareness (at this time) of something being wrong with his stated = line of play is a consequence of the claim being contested. This is IMO not authorized information to the claimer! If he says that he claimed and stated a line of play without really = thinking then I shall compare him with a player who without thinking plays irrationally to a trick and then demands the right to withdraw that play = on the ground that it was irrational. IMO the laws have no provision for either. > You really must realize that there are circumstances under which it > becomes irrational to keep following the stated line(s). You really > must allow for this. There are may examples why it is done, and you > should not try to argue your point that it cannot be done. And to my knowledge I never have. >=20 > If a player states "I shall cross-ruff these tricks" and one of those > tricks is ruffed by a trump that claimer has forgotten, then the > stated line becomes irrational. We do not oblige claimer to underruff, > since that would be deemed irrational.=20 But we do of course allow him to overruff if possible! However, we do = not allow him to ruff high to avoid being overruffed if the forgotten trump should happen to be offside. ............. > No, you misunderstand Herman completely. In order for the alternative > line to be allowed, the irrationality of the original line has to be > 100% obvious to claimer, within his original misconception of the = deal. > Example: the claimer who has forgotten an outstanding trump shall > continue on his originally stated line, until the outstanding trump > appears. At that moment, the stated line has clearly become irrational > (the laws tell us that claimers will always notice played cards). Only > after that time do we allow alternative lines. Precisely! And we never allow the claimer to "remember" the forgotten = trump and adjust his line of play before that trump appears even when the only possible reason why opponents contested the claim is that there is = indeed a forgotten trump. =20 ............. > > If I am wrong then I believe Law 70D ceases to have any meaning; a > claimer > > with an unsuccessful claim statement will then (after his original = claim > > statement has been rightfully contested) always have the option to > > "discover" and select a new successful line of play and to demand = this > new > > line of play accepted on the ground that compared to this new = successful > > line of play the original unsuccessful line of play has proven to be > > irrational. > > >=20 > No, the player does not have the option to discover. The TD will have > to rule that the player cannot fail to discover. That is what we rule > when a forgotten trump appears Precisely, but the claimer shall have to discover from the progress of a legal play of the cards according to his claim statement, not from for instance reconsidering his claim after it has been contested. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jun 5 14:10:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:10:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000001c44af9$da7661c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c44af9$da7661c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C1C64C.6090707@hdw.be> Hello Sven, Apparently there is not a lot we disagree about. Just one thing remains: Sven Pran wrote: > > I have read through your comments three times now and it appears to me we > are completely in agreement on the literal understanding of Law 70. > Great! > Our difference appears to be that I do not accept "changed circumstances" > making the stated line of play irrational as legal reason for changing a > stated line of play when such changed circumstances are due to the claim > being contested, only when they are caused by developments during an actual > execution of the originally stated line of play. > You are still right there - neither do I - of course I don't. If the "changed circumstances" are a result of the claim being contested, then of course that does not count. > In other words I do not allow the claimer to change to a new line of play > just because the original claim has been contested; but he may certainly > adapt his stated line of play to changed circumstances which inevitably will > become known to him during the progress of his originally stated line of > play. > Inevitably, you say. Well, that is precisely what I have been ruling all the time. I find it inevitable that the Polish declarer will count his tricks, something which he has not yet done. You disagree with that, and you are entitled to do so, but you should do so from the facts, not from some legal argument that such a recount is by law impossible. > Before he has played a single card along the originally stated line of play > (and after the claim has been contested) I must as a Director assume that > his awareness (at this time) of something being wrong with his stated line > of play is a consequence of the claim being contested. This is IMO not > authorized information to the claimer! > No, you must not assume that. You must rule on what you find. And what I find is a declarer who has claimed without counting his tricks. > If he says that he claimed and stated a line of play without really thinking > then I shall compare him with a player who without thinking plays > irrationally to a trick and then demands the right to withdraw that play on > the ground that it was irrational. IMO the laws have no provision for > either. > And this is what you are wrong about. Let me give you another example, and it's a strenuous one, and I grant that immediately. Let us suppose a player has miscounted trumps, and he claims all tricks. Now this claim is perfectly correct, except for the outstanding trump. We shall of course award a trick to opponents. But in deciding whether to allow a second trick to opponents, we need to rule on how many tricks claimer shall make from AQ97 opp KJ86 of hearts (not trumps). Do you believe that we should award a trick to the H10, just because claimer has forgotten the S10 (trump) was still outstanding? No we don't. We don't impose on a claimer an error that we would call irrational, not even if we have evidence of some other, unrelated, error that would also be deemed irrational. Is that principle understood (even if the example is not perfect)? Now the question remains whether or not the two errors in the Polish case: "claiming without counting" and "playing without counting" are related or not. You say that they are, I say they are not. Do you agree that this is the only remaining difference between us? > >>You really must realize that there are circumstances under which it >>becomes irrational to keep following the stated line(s). You really >>must allow for this. There are may examples why it is done, and you >>should not try to argue your point that it cannot be done. > > > And to my knowledge I never have. > OK, another problem resolved. > >>If a player states "I shall cross-ruff these tricks" and one of those >>tricks is ruffed by a trump that claimer has forgotten, then the >>stated line becomes irrational. We do not oblige claimer to underruff, >> since that would be deemed irrational. > > > But we do of course allow him to overruff if possible! However, we do not > allow him to ruff high to avoid being overruffed if the forgotten trump > should happen to be offside. > Indeed, we allow him to overruff, but we don't force him to underruff, nor to pre-ruff high. > ............. > > >>No, you misunderstand Herman completely. In order for the alternative >>line to be allowed, the irrationality of the original line has to be >>100% obvious to claimer, within his original misconception of the deal. >>Example: the claimer who has forgotten an outstanding trump shall >>continue on his originally stated line, until the outstanding trump >>appears. At that moment, the stated line has clearly become irrational >>(the laws tell us that claimers will always notice played cards). Only >>after that time do we allow alternative lines. > > > Precisely! And we never allow the claimer to "remember" the forgotten trump > and adjust his line of play before that trump appears even when the only > possible reason why opponents contested the claim is that there is indeed a > forgotten trump. > Exactly. Which returns us to the polish case: do you believe the player would count diamonds only because of the contestation, or do you think he would always count them? > ............. > > >>>If I am wrong then I believe Law 70D ceases to have any meaning; a >> >>claimer >> >>>with an unsuccessful claim statement will then (after his original claim >>>statement has been rightfully contested) always have the option to >>>"discover" and select a new successful line of play and to demand this >> >>new >> >>>line of play accepted on the ground that compared to this new successful >>>line of play the original unsuccessful line of play has proven to be >>>irrational. >>> >> >>No, the player does not have the option to discover. The TD will have >>to rule that the player cannot fail to discover. That is what we rule >>when a forgotten trump appears > > > Precisely, but the claimer shall have to discover from the progress of a > legal play of the cards according to his claim statement, not from for > instance reconsidering his claim after it has been contested. > Well, I also allow him to discover it from an action which he would always do, but which he has forgotten to do before claiming. You really need to see that it is possible for a player to claim without counting. It happens. It is what (IMO) happened in the Polish case. Do you agree that it is impossible (or at least irrational) for a player to start playing without looking at all 4 suits in both hands? > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 5 16:02:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:02:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C1C64C.6090707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c44b0e$105c8260$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > No, you must not assume that. You must rule on what you find. And what > I find is a declarer who has claimed without counting his tricks. Well, as there is no way I can determine whether he claimed without = counting his tricks or he did indeed count his tricks but counted them wrong I = shall rule according to the following reasoning if he claims that he did not = count his tricks before claiming: He thought that he had no reason to count his tricks; apparently because = he did not think that it was necessary to count them. This may in general = be deemed irrational behavior but the moment he actually chose such a = behavior I shall consider it grossly careless and negligent rather than = irrational. Now the reason he may have to count his tricks in spite of finding that unnecessary the first time can only be the fact that the claim was contested. Nothing else has changed in the circumstances from when he decided to claim. >=20 > > If he says that he claimed and stated a line of play without really > thinking > > then I shall compare him with a player who without thinking plays > > irrationally to a trick and then demands the right to withdraw that = play > on > > the ground that it was irrational. IMO the laws have no provision = for > > either. > > >=20 > And this is what you are wrong about. > Let me give you another example, and it's a strenuous one, and I grant > that immediately. > Let us suppose a player has miscounted trumps, and he claims all > tricks. Now this claim is perfectly correct, except for the > outstanding trump. We shall of course award a trick to opponents. But > in deciding whether to allow a second trick to opponents, we need to > rule on how many tricks claimer shall make from AQ97 opp KJ86 of > hearts (not trumps). Do you believe that we should award a trick to > the H10, just because claimer has forgotten the S10 (trump) was still > outstanding? Of course not; there is no "normal" way to play AQ97 opp KJ86 and lose a trick.=20 > No we don't. We don't impose on a claimer an error that we would call > irrational, not even if we have evidence of some other, unrelated, > error that would also be deemed irrational. > Is that principle understood (even if the example is not perfect)? >=20 > Now the question remains whether or not the two errors in the Polish > case: "claiming without counting" and "playing without counting" are > related or not. >=20 > You say that they are, I say they are not. > Do you agree that this is the only remaining difference between us? So it appears to me. > Which returns us to the polish case: do you believe the player would > count diamonds only because of the contestation, or do you think he > would always count them? I not only believe, I am confident that a player who can claim so = carelessly as that does so believing that counting his tricks is a waste of time because he has a sufficient number of "Aces". (I have indeed experienced this from several players of different "qualities"). Exactly like the player who is not allowed to discover he has miscounted = a trump once opponents seem fit to contest his claim I will not allow a = player who thought he had no reason to count his tricks before claiming to = discover that he ought to have done so once his opponents seem fit to contest = this claim.=20 > >>No, the player does not have the option to discover. The TD will = have > >>to rule that the player cannot fail to discover. That is what we = rule > >>when a forgotten trump appears > > > > > > Precisely, but the claimer shall have to discover from the progress = of a > > legal play of the cards according to his claim statement, not from = for > > instance reconsidering his claim after it has been contested. > > >=20 > Well, I also allow him to discover it from an action which he would > always do, but which he has forgotten to do before claiming. Will you also allow him to adjust his claim statement where he had "forgotten" a trump when he tells you that he didn't miscount his = trumps, he didn't count them at all before claiming?=20 =20 > You really need to see that it is possible for a player to claim > without counting. It happens. It is what (IMO) happened in the Polish > case. > Do you agree that it is impossible (or at least irrational) for a > player to start playing without looking at all 4 suits in both hands? This is definitely not impossible but tremendously careless. Whether it = is to be deemed "irrational" depends upon the context in which this = description is to be used. I should not allow "irrational" to be used as an excuse = for changing an already declared line of play. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jun 5 17:07:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:07:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000101c44b0e$105c8260$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c44b0e$105c8260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C1EFC2.7030101@hdw.be> OK Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>No, you must not assume that. You must rule on what you find. And what >>I find is a declarer who has claimed without counting his tricks. > > > Well, as there is no way I can determine whether he claimed without counting > his tricks or he did indeed count his tricks but counted them wrong I shall > rule according to the following reasoning if he claims that he did not count > his tricks before claiming: > > He thought that he had no reason to count his tricks; apparently because he I don't think this is the case. I don't believe he thought he didn't need to count his tricks. He simply did not count them. > did not think that it was necessary to count them. This may in general be > deemed irrational behavior but the moment he actually chose such a behavior > I shall consider it grossly careless and negligent rather than irrational. > Well, even not counting his tricks before claiming may well be considered careless. But since this happens before the claim, there is no need to determine whether it is careless or irrational. You keep thinking that the one mistake in some way or another influences the likelihood of another mistake! > Now the reason he may have to count his tricks in spite of finding that > unnecessary the first time can only be the fact that the claim was > contested. Nothing else has changed in the circumstances from when he > decided to claim. > Yes, something has changed. He is about to play to the first trick. I deem it to be irrational not to check a few things before playing to the first trick. Like looking at your cards. Again, all this depends on the actions he took before claiming. If he has thought for even half a second, cards open in hand, before claiming, then I rule that he has had his "second look", and I want to know why he did not notice that he did not have 13 tricks. But I summize from the way the case is presented, that he never looked at all 26 cards at all. > >>>If he says that he claimed and stated a line of play without really >> >>thinking >> >>>then I shall compare him with a player who without thinking plays >>>irrationally to a trick and then demands the right to withdraw that play >> >>on >> >>>the ground that it was irrational. IMO the laws have no provision for >>>either. >>> >> >>And this is what you are wrong about. >>Let me give you another example, and it's a strenuous one, and I grant >>that immediately. >>Let us suppose a player has miscounted trumps, and he claims all >>tricks. Now this claim is perfectly correct, except for the >>outstanding trump. We shall of course award a trick to opponents. But >>in deciding whether to allow a second trick to opponents, we need to >>rule on how many tricks claimer shall make from AQ97 opp KJ86 of >>hearts (not trumps). Do you believe that we should award a trick to >>the H10, just because claimer has forgotten the S10 (trump) was still >>outstanding? > > > Of course not; there is no "normal" way to play AQ97 opp KJ86 and lose a > trick. > My point exactly - unless claimer forgets the 10 is out (and he plays 7 over 6 or something) And the fact that claimer has forgotten the S10 does not mean he will forget the H10. > >>No we don't. We don't impose on a claimer an error that we would call >>irrational, not even if we have evidence of some other, unrelated, >>error that would also be deemed irrational. >>Is that principle understood (even if the example is not perfect)? >> >>Now the question remains whether or not the two errors in the Polish >>case: "claiming without counting" and "playing without counting" are >>related or not. >> >>You say that they are, I say they are not. >>Do you agree that this is the only remaining difference between us? > > > So it appears to me. > > >>Which returns us to the polish case: do you believe the player would >>count diamonds only because of the contestation, or do you think he >>would always count them? > > > I not only believe, I am confident that a player who can claim so carelessly > as that does so believing that counting his tricks is a waste of time > because he has a sufficient number of "Aces". (I have indeed experienced > this from several players of different "qualities"). > Yes, but that is his belief before claiming. Why would that imply it wxould be his belief before playing - besides, I'm not talking about counting the tricks - simply looking at the 26 cards is enough. > Exactly like the player who is not allowed to discover he has miscounted a > trump once opponents seem fit to contest his claim I will not allow a player > who thought he had no reason to count his tricks before claiming to discover > that he ought to have done so once his opponents seem fit to contest this > claim. > > >>>>No, the player does not have the option to discover. The TD will have >>>>to rule that the player cannot fail to discover. That is what we rule >>>>when a forgotten trump appears >>> >>> >>>Precisely, but the claimer shall have to discover from the progress of a >>>legal play of the cards according to his claim statement, not from for >>>instance reconsidering his claim after it has been contested. >>> >> >>Well, I also allow him to discover it from an action which he would >>always do, but which he has forgotten to do before claiming. > > > Will you also allow him to adjust his claim statement where he had > "forgotten" a trump when he tells you that he didn't miscount his trumps, he > didn't count them at all before claiming? > No I wouldn't, because I don't consider it irrational not to re-count your trumps. I do find it irrational not to look at 26 cards before playing your first card. > >>You really need to see that it is possible for a player to claim >>without counting. It happens. It is what (IMO) happened in the Polish >>case. >>Do you agree that it is impossible (or at least irrational) for a >>player to start playing without looking at all 4 suits in both hands? > > > This is definitely not impossible but tremendously careless. Whether it is > to be deemed "irrational" depends upon the context in which this description > is to be used. I should not allow "irrational" to be used as an excuse for > changing an already declared line of play. > Nothing about changing - determining for the first time. You cannot say that this claimer has decided on a line of play - how could he? So he did not "change" his line. He declared one for the first time. Now that does not mean he's wrong in claiming, and if there is a losing normal line, he shall get it. But I don't think there is one. Now you call not looking at your cards before playing "tremendously careless". Surely you must realize that "irrational" comes very near to that. Virtually unthinkable - never happens. OK? > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 5 17:38:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:38:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C1EFC2.7030101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c44b1b$85193b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ................. > Nothing about changing - determining for the first time. You cannot > say that this claimer has decided on a line of play - how could he? So > he did not "change" his line. He declared one for the first time. > Now that does not mean he's wrong in claiming, and if there is a > losing normal line, he shall get it. But I don't think there is one. >=20 > Now you call not looking at your cards before playing "tremendously > careless". Surely you must realize that "irrational" comes very near > to that. Virtually unthinkable - never happens. OK? I did not accept the term "unthinkable". On the contrary I considered = that it had actually happened and therefore must have been his careless = decision. Just to clarify some important pieces of information: I have considered the case on the information that a claim has been established and that a claim statement has been presented. The claim statement need not have been more elaborate than "I have the rest".=20 I further assume from the description that the claimer in no way has = used his opportunities to add some clarification that an endplay could be in = his mind. When the indication that he considers an endplay doesn't appear until = after his claim is being contested and then not even as part of his allowed clarification I cannot as a Director allow him that line of play. No = matter what you say this must be considered a "change" from the original line = of play expressed as "I have the rest" or words to that effect. Sven PS.: I feel fooled into making still another comment related to the = Polish case, for which I apologize. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 5 22:06:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:06:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C0299C.3050704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jun 4, 2004, at 03:49 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed, you cannot mean that. Failing to realize that there are not 6 > tricks in AKQxxx opposite 10xx is not careless, it is irrational. > Believe me. It is irrational to count 9 diamonds between the two hands, realize that a 4-0 break is possible, and that therefore 6 tricks are not certain. It is careless to look at the diamonds and say "lots of diamonds; they'll run". Is failing to state a line of play when claiming, when you have enough experience in the game that you should know that doing so is required by the laws, careless or irrational? Either way, should we interpret the law such that if a player makes no line of play statement at the time he claims, then whatever line he states when the director arrives is his *original* line? One could argue that it is irrational to be careless. What would that do to this law? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 5 22:10:20 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:10:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C031B4.7010405@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Friday, Jun 4, 2004, at 04:24 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > And we have discussed at length that since the footnote says "inferior > or careless for the class of player", this means that "irrational" > must also be judged by the class of player. Yes, we have. That doesn't make me wrong. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 05:56:51 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:56:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C1952C.6070808@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 05:41 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Some people are so entrenched in their battles that they fail to > notice that there are 99 other claims, and 999 other non-claims, in > which there are more than one normal line, and in which a bum claim is > ruled against. How can a non-claim be a bum claim? I sense the influence of one H. Dumpty here. :-) > Try going back to the real world for a change and see that there are > no problems with claims there. Heh. We live in different "real worlds" then. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 05:58:21 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:58:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C192DD.8090002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <223A0EB4-B776-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 05:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, I'm just saying this discussion is totally uninteresting. Then why are you still in it? > You believe what you want, and think you are a good director, in > touch with the rest of the world. Or not. I don't care what you think. How incredibly arrogant. :-( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 06:03:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:03:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C1957C.2040206@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 05:42 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Surely not. In the footnote, "inferior" is used as a descriptive and > there is no referrent, not even an implicit one. Sure there is - that line which is "better" than the "inferior" line being considered. > Some more literary schooled English speaker to my aid please? Pronunciation: in-'fir-E-&r Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, comparative of inferus lower -- more at UNDER 1 : situated lower down : LOWER 2 a : of low or lower degree or rank b : of poor quality : MEDIOCRE 3 : of little or less importance, value, or merit "Inferior" in the sense of "mediocre" may be descriptive - but is that the sense in which it is meant in the laws? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 06:11:18 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:11:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000001c44ae8$dac04bc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 06:35 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > But the fact that the player has selected a line of play with his > original > claim statement makes this selected line of play "normal" (not > "irrational") > for him even when this line of play is later shown to be unsuccessful. > > If I am wrong then I believe Law 70D ceases to have any meaning; a > claimer > with an unsuccessful claim statement will then (after his original > claim > statement has been rightfully contested) always have the option to > "discover" and select a new successful line of play and to demand this > new > line of play accepted on the ground that compared to this new > successful > line of play the original unsuccessful line of play has proven to be > irrational. > > Comments now anybody? This is precisely what I am wrestling with in this law. At the moment, I'm thinking about the word "rational" (or its opposite, "irrational"). "Rational", to me, means "using reason", that is, using a logical process to arrive at a conclusion. There is no guarantee, AFAICS, that such a process will inevitably lead to the right answer. Yet Herman seems to argue that we must, in effect, throw out any line which does *not* lead to the right answer as "irrational". Thus the question boils down to whether a claimer who has not made an unambiguous line of play statement - particularly one who makes no statement at all - should be allowed, in law, to discover after that point in time which line(s) do not lead to making the claim good. I think not. But Hell, I'm just reading the words of the law, so what do I know? :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 06:17:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:17:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C1AC56.70501@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 07:19 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > If a player states "I shall cross-ruff these tricks" and one of those > tricks is ruffed by a trump that claimer has forgotten, then the > stated line becomes irrational. We do not oblige claimer to underruff, > since that would be deemed irrational. This one just to prove to you > that you are simply WRONG. Stated lines can become irrational, and > then they are no longer to be followed. OK? This makes no sense to me. It is true that leading a side-suit card, and intending to ruff (presumably with a low card), it would be irrational not to over ruff if that becomes necessary and is possible, but that says nothing about the rationality (or lack thereof) of the original line of play. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 06:26:32 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:26:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] directing material In-Reply-To: <002501c44af0$3b744aa0$5b23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <1265E3C3-B77A-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 07:28 US/Eastern, Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: > I recommend the book "Movements". I have that book. Lots of good stuff in there. But... at his request, I=20= lent it to a local club director. When he gave it back, he commented=20 "some interesting movements in there, but they would never fly with our=20= players." He particularly liked the double-weave Mitchell. :-) The other problem, here, is that if a movement is not included in=20 ACBLScore (or perhaps *is* included, but the TD doesn't know it), TD's=20= (at club level, at least) will not take the time to enter it into the=20 program - assuming (a) that can be done and (b) the TD knows how to do=20= it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 06:29:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:29:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000001c44af9$da7661c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7F526289-B77A-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 08:37 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Our difference appears to be that I do not accept "changed > circumstances" > making the stated line of play irrational as legal reason for changing > a > stated line of play when such changed circumstances are due to the > claim > being contested, only when they are caused by developments during an > actual > execution of the originally stated line of play. Which, if I understand you correctly, cannot happen, since there will never *be* an actual execution of the originally stated line of play [Law 68D]. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 06:35:31 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:35:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000101c44b0e$105c8260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <535FC2F1-B77B-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > This may in general be deemed irrational behavior but the moment > he actually chose such a behavior I shall consider it grossly careless > and negligent rather than irrational. This points up the problem I have with this law, I think. To me, since being careless or negligent can lead to a bad result, it is irrational to be careless or negligent. Yet the law places "careless" and "irrational" in different categories. I don't see how - unless some things are considered more irrational than others. Yet I do not see relativity in the definition - something is either irrational or it's not. No shades of gray. I don't know what to make of this. From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 6 09:09:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:09:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <7F526289-B77A-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c44b9d$9b080800$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 08:37 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > Our difference appears to be that I do not accept=20 > > "changed circumstances" making the stated line of > > play irrational as legal reason for changing a=20 > > stated line of play when such changed circumstances=20 > > are due to the claim being contested, only when they=20 > > are caused by developments during an actual=20 > > execution of the originally stated line of play. >=20 > Which, if I understand you correctly, cannot happen, since there will > never *be* an actual execution of the originally stated line of play > [Law 68D]. You are of course correct when we take the law literally. A better = wording of mine would possibly have been: "... , only when they would have been caused by developments during an actual execution of the original stated line of play had such execution taken place". What I tried to express was that when adjudicating the claim it is = necessary to try what would happen if the cards were to be played according to the stated line of play. The claimer must (of course) be allowed to adapt = his line of play to developments during such execution, but IMO he is not allowed to change his line of play because of other "events" like the = fact that the claim was contested.=20 This excludes his right to change his line of play because he began = thinking when the claim was contested, some thinking he should have made before = he claimed. Contesting the claim alerts him that there might be something = wrong with the claim, something that he overlooked when planning his line of = play leading up to the claim. OK? Regards Sven From sye.supp.dept@learningweb.biz Sun Jun 6 12:22:54 2004 From: sye.supp.dept@learningweb.biz (SYE Support Dept) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 04:22:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] A posting has just been made at our website regarding: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: <200406061122.i56BMsA5030306@mail.share-your-opinion.biz> ******Posting About You****** A user is attempting to share opinions and experiences about you via our website. The purpose of this email is to inform you that a posting has been made about you at our website. This is email is not commercial in nature. If this email message was delivered to your spam or bulk email folder please notify your ISP or spam filtering company regarding this mistake on their part. To view postings about you click here: http://shyx.us/lx.php?a=search&b=5&c=blml@rtflb.org ShareYourExperiences.com users are always anonymous. By this we mean that ShareYourExperiences.com will not release your identity to other users. This way you can freely share the experiences that you have had with an individual or business without fear of retribution. IMPORTANT - To avoid future notifications like this simply add this email address to our Do Not Email List here: http://5.shyx.biz/lx.php?a=donotemail&b=blml@rtflb.org Best Regards, SYEC Support Department From syec.support.department@learningweb.biz Sun Jun 6 12:22:57 2004 From: syec.support.department@learningweb.biz (SYEC Support Department) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 04:22:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] A user is searching for opinions about: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: <200406061122.i56BMvJI030311@mail.share-your-opinion.biz> **PLEASE SAVE THIS IMPORTANT EMAIL MESSAGE FOR YOUR RECORDS** Advisory - Someone who knows you is attempting to share opinions and experiences about you via our website. The purpose of this email is to inform you that a posting has been made about you at our website. This is email is not commercial in nature. If this email message was delivered to your spam or bulk email folder please notify your ISP or spam filtering company regarding this mistake on their part. You may view this posting here: http://3.shyx.biz/lx.php?a=search&b=5&c=blml@rtflb.org Our Identity Protection System is a simple system in which this website sends email messages to the Experience Request author on your behalf, and vice versa. This website will never reveal the identity of the Experience Request author to you, nor will it reveal your identity to the author of the Experience Request. IMPORTANT - To add this email address to our Do Not Email List click here: http://9.shyx.us/lx.php?a=donotemail&b=blml@rtflb.org Best Regards, Support Department From experience.search.alert@learningweb.biz Sun Jun 6 12:23:05 2004 From: experience.search.alert@learningweb.biz (EXPERIENCE SEARCH ALERT) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 04:23:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] A user is trying to find opinions about: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: <200406061123.i56BN5jB030325@mail.share-your-opinion.biz> ******YOU HAVE BEEN POSTED ABOUT****** Advisory - Someone who knows you is attempting to share opinions and experiences about you in our online community. The purpose of this email is to inform you that a posting has been made about you at our website. This is email is not commercial in nature. If this email message was delivered to your spam or bulk email folder please notify your ISP or spam filtering company regarding this mistake on their part. You may view the posting here: http://2.shyxp.biz/lx.php?a=search&b=5&c=blml@rtflb.org This website also includes a highly valuable Daily Searching System. This is a simple system in which you can set-up searches that this website will perform for you each and every day. After performing the searches that you have specified, our Daily Searching System will send your search results to you via email. By setting up Daily Searches for all the people and businesses that matter to you, you will be assured to find out right away when a user submits a Experience Request that is interesting to you. IMPORTANT - If you prefer not to be notified by our website in the future when postings are mode about you, just add your email address to our Do Not Email List. Our website will never send email to an address that appears on our Do Not Email List. To add to Do Not Email List click here: http://5.shyxp.biz/lx.php?a=donotemail&b=blml@rtflb.org Regards, Support Department From support.department@learningweb.biz Sun Jun 6 12:23:08 2004 From: support.department@learningweb.biz (SUPPORT DEPARTMENT) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 04:23:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] A user is searching for experiences about: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: <200406061123.i56BN8Vv030329@mail.share-your-opinion.biz> **IMPORTANT E-MAIL MESSAGE--PLEASE SAVE THIS FOR YOUR RECORDS** Advisory - A user is trying to share experiences and opinions about you in our online community. The purpose of this email is to inform you that a posting has been made about you at our website. This is email is not commercial in nature. If this email message was delivered to your spam or bulk email folder please notify your ISP or spam filtering company regarding this mistake on their part. To see what users have posted about you use this link: http://8.shyxp.biz/lx.php?a=search&b=5&c=blml@rtflb.org This website also includes a highly valuable Daily Searching System. This is a simple system in which you can set-up searches that this website will perform for you each and every day. After performing the searches that you have specified, our Daily Searching System will send your search results to you via email. IMPORTANT - To avoid future notifications like this simply add this email address to our Do Not Email List here: http://2.shyx.biz/lx.php?a=donotemail&b=blml@rtflb.org Best Regards, Support Department From Bertrandgignoux@aol.com Sun Jun 6 09:51:53 2004 From: Bertrandgignoux@aol.com (Bertrandgignoux@aol.com) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 04:51:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: <33B2C4A8.77EA88A9.9CB23D9B@aol.com> During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades . He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . S - H 2 D 2 C A S 9 S - H 9 H - D - D 9 C 3 C 54 S - H 3 D 3 C 2 South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". What is your ruling ? Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent revoked during the first 10 tricks ? From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 6 10:08:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 11:08:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <33B2C4A8.77EA88A9.9CB23D9B@aol.com> Message-ID: <000101c44ba5$c900dae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Bertrandgignoux@aol.com > During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades . > He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. > > South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . > > S - > H 2 > D 2 > C A > > S 9 S - > H 9 H - > D - D 9 > C 3 C 54 > > S - > H 3 > D 3 > C 2 > > South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". > What is your ruling ? One trick revoke penalty - no problem. > Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent > revoked during the first 10 tricks ? No. But what would make a difference is if South explicitly played his 2H from dummy after cashing his AC. In that case he would receive a two tricks revoke penalty. Now South conceded the last two tricks and one legal line for this is that he plays his 2D rather than his 2H, so be it. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jun 6 10:16:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:16:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40C2E0D1.3090602@hdw.be> Hello Ed, It seems as if we're getting somewhere. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Friday, Jun 4, 2004, at 03:49 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Ed, you cannot mean that. Failing to realize that there are not 6 >> tricks in AKQxxx opposite 10xx is not careless, it is irrational. >> Believe me. > > > It is irrational to count 9 diamonds between the two hands, realize that > a 4-0 break is possible, and that therefore 6 tricks are not certain. I am certain that you have mangled your negatives in this sentence, and that you want to state: It is irrational to count 9 diamonds and NOT realize they don't yield 6 tricks. OK? > It > is careless to look at the diamonds and say "lots of diamonds; they'll > run". > That statement is true also. > Is failing to state a line of play when claiming, when you have enough > experience in the game that you should know that doing so is required by > the laws, careless or irrational? Either way, should we interpret the > law such that if a player makes no line of play statement at the time he > claims, then whatever line he states when the director arrives is his > *original* line? > Since these are happenings from before or during the claim, it does not matter whether we class these actions as careless or irrational. It is not because a player does something careless when claiming, that we should believe he shall do something irrational in his play. And not even if a player does something irrational when claiming, do we impose on him something irrational when playing. All this with the exception that we leave him with the mistake he HAS made. > One could argue that it is irrational to be careless. What would that do > to this law? > I don't think that matters. You said that it is irrational to count the diamonds and not realize they don't yield 6 tricks. Is it irrational or careless not to look at all your cards before playing? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jun 6 10:21:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:21:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <535FC2F1-B77B-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <535FC2F1-B77B-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40C2E223.2080505@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > >> This may in general be deemed irrational behavior but the moment >> he actually chose such a behavior I shall consider it grossly careless >> and negligent rather than irrational. > > > This points up the problem I have with this law, I think. To me, since > being careless or negligent can lead to a bad result, it is irrational > to be careless or negligent. Yet the law places "careless" and > "irrational" in different categories. I don't see how - unless some > things are considered more irrational than others. Yet I do not see > relativity in the definition - something is either irrational or it's > not. No shades of gray. I don't know what to make of this. > But Ed, how can there be shades of gray. We need a law which results in either of two outcomes: claim awarded or not. If you had a gray area, how would you then rule? By placing a limit somewhere. Well, the lawmakers have placed the limit between "irrational" and "careless". Do with it what you want, I don't see a problem with those words. We have been discussing at great length what action we needed to look at, but I have not yet seen a discussion as to whether that action is irrational or not. You yourself have admitted that it is irrational to look at the diamond suit and not realize there are not 6 tricks there. You rule against the Polish claimer because you don't think it is certain he will look at his cards, and because you believe the laws saay he cannot look at his cards. But we are not in discussion over the interpretation of the word "irrational". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jun 6 10:24:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:24:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C2E2CF.8000406@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 07:19 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> If a player states "I shall cross-ruff these tricks" and one of those >> tricks is ruffed by a trump that claimer has forgotten, then the >> stated line becomes irrational. We do not oblige claimer to underruff, >> since that would be deemed irrational. This one just to prove to you >> that you are simply WRONG. Stated lines can become irrational, and >> then they are no longer to be followed. OK? > > > This makes no sense to me. It is true that leading a side-suit card, and > intending to ruff (presumably with a low card), it would be irrational > not to over ruff if that becomes necessary and is possible, but that > says nothing about the rationality (or lack thereof) of the original > line of play. > Yes it does. L70D and L70E only allow changes of lines when the original lines become irrational. Clearly underruffing is irrational. So when you allow this claim, it is precisely because you judge the original line to have become irrational. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jun 6 10:31:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:31:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C2E464.2000105@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > > This is precisely what I am wrestling with in this law. At the moment, > I'm thinking about the word "rational" (or its opposite, "irrational"). > "Rational", to me, means "using reason", that is, using a logical > process to arrive at a conclusion. There is no guarantee, AFAICS, that > such a process will inevitably lead to the right answer. Yet Herman > seems to argue that we must, in effect, throw out any line which does > *not* lead to the right answer as "irrational". No he doesn't. I don't throw out the silly line from the Polish declarer because it does not work, I throw it out because it is impossible (irrational) for him to follow that line once he has looked at his 26 cards. If you cannot see that it is irrational for him to keep cashing winners once he has realize it won't lead to 13 tricks, then I don't see what we are having this discussion about. You amaze me, Ed, in you total ignorance of claim laws, and in your apparent lack of ability to read what I have been saying all along. > Thus the question boils > down to whether a claimer who has not made an unambiguous line of play > statement - particularly one who makes no statement at all - should be > allowed, in law, to discover after that point in time which line(s) do > not lead to making the claim good. I think not. But Hell, I'm just > reading the words of the law, so what do I know? :-) > Yes, it is possible he is allowed to discover that. He is allowed to discover a missing trump. The Polish case is just a different application of the same principle. How can you ignore the existence of a principle that you apply with much ease. Look here, I am not saying here that he shall always discover the problem, but you are wrong in saying that he should never be allowed to discover it. There are situations in which a claimer cannot fail to recognise a particular problem. I believe the polish case is such a case, and you may disagree, but you must not criticize me for allowing this claim out of some misguided principle that is simply false. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jun 6 10:37:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:37:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <33B2C4A8.77EA88A9.9CB23D9B@aol.com> References: <33B2C4A8.77EA88A9.9CB23D9B@aol.com> Message-ID: <40C2E5C1.7050902@hdw.be> I thought at first this was a simple one. Then Bertrand asked a nice second question! Bertrandgignoux@aol.com wrote: > During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades . > He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. > > South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . > > S - > H 2 > D 2 > C A > > S 9 S - > H 9 H - > D - D 9 > C 3 C 54 > > S - > H 3 > D 3 > C 2 > > South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". > What is your ruling ? > First the principle: in a claim after a revoke, the benefit of the doubt goes to the non-revoking side. There are 2 normal lines: H2 or D2 off the table. The first leads to 2 tricks - 2 penalty tricks = 0, the second line to 2-1 = 1 trick to opponents. So the claim results in 0 tricks to opponents. > Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent revoked during the first 10 tricks ? > This is a nice one. Should we force a declarer who knows that there has been a revoke to make the choice himself? I don't think so. If we rule 2 tricks to the claimer who knows nothing, should we then punish a better claimer? No we should not. We should applaud claimer for his careful play in bringing in the second penalty trick. Nice one though, Bertrand! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jun 6 10:39:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:39:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000101c44ba5$c900dae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c44ba5$c900dae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C2E64A.1070201@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Bertrandgignoux@aol.com >>During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades . >>He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. >> >>South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . >> >> S - >> H 2 >> D 2 >> C A >> >> S 9 S - >> H 9 H - >> D - D 9 >> C 3 C 54 >> >> S - >> H 3 >> D 3 >> C 2 >> >>South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". >>What is your ruling ? > > > One trick revoke penalty - no problem. > > >>Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent >>revoked during the first 10 tricks ? > > > No. > > But what would make a difference is if South explicitly played his 2H from > dummy after cashing his AC. In that case he would receive a two tricks > revoke penalty. > > Now South conceded the last two tricks and one legal line for this is that > he plays his 2D rather than his 2H, so be it. > Sorry Sven, I should have been 30' earlier with my reply, then you could have avoided this mistake. After a revoke, the benefit of the doubt in claiming matters goes to the non-revoking side, not to the non-claiming one. So it's always 2 penalty tricks! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 6 12:11:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:11:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C2E464.2000105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c44bb6$ffea4210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > > Thus the question boils > > down to whether a claimer who has not made an unambiguous line of = play > > statement - particularly one who makes no statement at all - should = be > > allowed, in law, to discover after that point in time which line(s) = do > > not lead to making the claim good. I think not. But Hell, I'm just > > reading the words of the law, so what do I know? :-) > > >=20 > Yes, it is possible he is allowed to discover that. He is allowed to > discover a missing trump I thought we long ago have agreed that he is not allowed to discover a missing trump until it materializes? This is explicitly stated in = Law70C. Whether his unawareness that a trump is missing is the result of = miscounting the trumps or not counting them at all does not matter. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 6 12:19:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:19:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C2E64A.1070201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c44bb8$19e01cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sent: 6. juni 2004 11:39 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke case > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>Bertrandgignoux@aol.com > >>During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades . > >>He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. > >> > >>South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . > >> > >> S - > >> H 2 > >> D 2 > >> C A > >> > >> S 9 S - > >> H 9 H - > >> D - D 9 > >> C 3 C 54 > >> > >> S - > >> H 3 > >> D 3 > >> C 2 > >> > >>South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". > >>What is your ruling ? > > > > > > One trick revoke penalty - no problem. > > > > > >>Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent > >>revoked during the first 10 tricks ? > > > > > > No. > > > > But what would make a difference is if South explicitly played his 2H > from > > dummy after cashing his AC. In that case he would receive a two tricks > > revoke penalty. > > > > Now South conceded the last two tricks and one legal line for this is > that > > he plays his 2D rather than his 2H, so be it. > > > > Sorry Sven, I should have been 30' earlier with my reply, then you > could have avoided this mistake. After a revoke, the benefit of the > doubt in claiming matters goes to the non-revoking side, not to the > non-claiming one. > So it's always 2 penalty tricks! There was no claim - read the laws: South played his club for the eleventh trick and then conceded the last two tricks. Law 71 specifies the conditions for canceling this concession and none of the alternatives in Law 71 apply here. Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jun 6 15:10:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ok, I said I would consult so I did. The player consulted, while not world class has the potential to get there. I presented it as a play problem with full info on discards and he was able to calculate the odds of the 2 lines reasonably accurately - he was still undecided about the best approach (asked about quality and tempo of opps). When I told him the claim should be ruled as making his response was "Absurd, I would be furious if the TD ruled like that against me!". Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jun 6 18:01:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:01:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000301c44bb8$19e01cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c44bb8$19e01cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C34DE2.5000802@hdw.be> Sorry Sven, a concession is a claim. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sun Jun 6 18:24:33 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:24:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: If zero is a "specific number," as per normal mathematical usage, all claims are concessions and all concessions are claims. But perhaps the Lawmakers were thinking of one as the smallest "specific number," in which case one can claim without conceding, or concede without claiming. Jim Hudson From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 20:11:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:11:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000001c44b9d$9b080800$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <59FB0616-B7ED-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 04:09 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > What I tried to express was that when adjudicating the claim it is > necessary > to try what would happen if the cards were to be played according to > the > stated line of play. The claimer must (of course) be allowed to adapt > his > line of play to developments during such execution, but IMO he is not > allowed to change his line of play because of other "events" like the > fact > that the claim was contested. > > This excludes his right to change his line of play because he began > thinking > when the claim was contested, some thinking he should have made before > he > claimed. Contesting the claim alerts him that there might be something > wrong > with the claim, something that he overlooked when planning his line of > play > leading up to the claim. > > OK? Makes sense. Only quibble: how you gonna know when he did his thinking? A matter for TD judgment, certainly, and most players are honest, but it seems a rather large hole, to me. Not that I can see any way to fill it. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 20:17:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:17:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C34DE2.5000802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <25FCBCFA-B7EE-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 13:01 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Sven, a concession is a claim. A concession of *some* of the remaining tricks is a claim of the rest - just as a claim of *some* of the remaining tricks is a concession of the rest. But a concession of *all* the remaining tricks leaves no tricks to claim. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 20:29:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:29:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C2E0D1.3090602@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 05:16 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I am certain that you have mangled your negatives in this sentence, > and that you want to state: > > It is irrational to count 9 diamonds and NOT realize they don't yield > 6 tricks. OK? "May not", rather than "don't", but otherwise OK. >> Is failing to state a line of play when claiming, when you have >> enough experience in the game that you should know that doing so is >> required by the laws, careless or irrational? Either way, should we >> interpret the law such that if a player makes no line of play >> statement at the time he claims, then whatever line he states when >> the director arrives is his *original* line? > > Since these are happenings from before or during the claim, it does > not matter whether we class these actions as careless or irrational. > It is not because a player does something careless when claiming, that > we should believe he shall do something irrational in his play. > And not even if a player does something irrational when claiming, do > we impose on him something irrational when playing. > > All this with the exception that we leave him with the mistake he HAS > made. Which is what? Making a flawed line of play statement, or no statement at all? What is your answer to my "either way" question? >> One could argue that it is irrational to be careless. What would that >> do to this law? > > I don't think that matters. I do, or I wouldn't have asked the question. :-) If it is irrational to be careless, then a careless line of play is irrational, and the law contradicts itself. > You said that it is irrational to count the diamonds and not realize > they don't yield 6 tricks. > Is it irrational or careless not to look at all your cards before > playing? It is illegal - and therefore irrational, assuming you know that it is illegal. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 20:31:20 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:31:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C2E2CF.8000406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <168C3A99-B7F0-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 05:24 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes it does. L70D and L70E only allow changes of lines when the > original lines become irrational. Clearly underruffing is irrational. > So when you allow this claim, it is precisely because you judge the > original line to have become irrational. Only if the original line stated which trump would be used. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 20:41:12 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:41:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C2E223.2080505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <77472E85-B7F1-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 05:21 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > But Ed, how can there be shades of gray. We need a law which results > in either of two outcomes: claim awarded or not. If you had a gray > area, how would you then rule? By placing a limit somewhere. Well, the > lawmakers have placed the limit between "irrational" and "careless". > Do with it what you want, I don't see a problem with those words. We > have been discussing at great length what action we needed to look at, > but I have not yet seen a discussion as to whether that action is > irrational or not. You're missing the point. I was referring to shades of gray in the definition of "irrational". I do not see how a line of reasoning can be considered rational for one player, and irrational for another. > You yourself have admitted that it is irrational to look at the > diamond suit and not realize there are not 6 tricks there. You rule > against the Polish claimer because you don't think it is certain he > will look at his cards, and because you believe the laws saay he > cannot look at his cards. But we are not in discussion over the > interpretation of the word "irrational". We are now. :-) I never said I believe the laws say he can't look at his cards. He can look at them. He can realize his line of play statement is flawed (assuming he made one). He cannot change his stated line of play. What if he didn't state a line? In principle, I think, we say he can't used his new knowledge in stating his line, but how would we ever know? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 20:47:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:47:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C2E464.2000105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <540B0950-B7F2-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 05:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > No he doesn't. I don't throw out the silly line from the Polish > declarer because it does not work, I throw it out because it is > impossible (irrational) for him to follow that line once he has looked > at his 26 cards. If you cannot see that it is irrational for him to > keep cashing winners once he has realize it won't lead to 13 tricks, > then I don't see what we are having this discussion about. So you allow a claimer who has failed to look at his cards before claiming to look at them afterwards. Fine. The question is, if he thinks he has all top tricks, and has not looked at his cards, do we allow him to eliminate (or eliminate for him) a line of play consistent with his original statement (or lack thereof) which would result in the claim failing? You seem to think that if he's an expert, we do. I disagree. > You amaze me, Ed, in you total ignorance of claim laws, and in your > apparent lack of ability to read what I have been saying all along. Your arrogance doesn't surprise me, sir, as I've seen it before. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is you who lacks the ability to read. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 6 08:35:30 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 08:35:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: Message-ID: <001f01c44c00$d97f5c10$13ee403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > On Friday, Jun 4, 2004, at 04:24 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > And we have discussed at length that since the footnote says "inferior > > or careless for the class of player", this means that "irrational" > > must also be judged by the class of player. > > Yes, we have. That doesn't make me wrong. :-) > +=+ The WBF LC has decided that the footnote in question is to be interpreted as meaning "irrational for the class of player".(Meeting of 28th October 2001 and also see meeting of 30th August 2000). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 6 08:41:43 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 08:41:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam References: Message-ID: <002001c44c00$da5856f0$13ee403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 6:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: A question from an exam > > > "Inferior" in the sense of "mediocre" may be descriptive - but is that > the sense in which it is meant in the laws? > +=+ in its dictionary meaning "mediocre" implies the existence or potential existence of things of superior quality. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 6 11:13:27 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 11:13:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: Message-ID: <002101c44c00$db6f4530$13ee403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > > I rule on "doubt". I *know* it is possible to induce > world-class players into the wrong line by intelligent, > in tempo discarding. There are two internationals > against whom I play regularly and once in while this > works. I believe that you don't get to be world class > without some table presence. The combination of two > reasonable lines (albeit with some percentage difference) > and perfect discarding by opponents creates sufficient > doubt in my mind that I rule against declarer. I am light- > years from being world class myself but I believe my > argument for adjusting is sufficiently well thought through > that I would be exceedingly p*ssed off were the examiner > to fail me. > +=+ If declarer brings the position to a four card ending with A K Q T in dummy it is clearly true that his LHO would hold J x x x of the suit if he had been dealt with four. RHO would then hold spades A x.x. and a diamond. The Director must then decide whether in the light of what declarer would have observed it is irrational for his class of player to finesse in dummy. The specified conditions for the application of Law 70E exist. Any combination of two cards may have been discarded from LHO's spades; if one such combination might be thought more convincing than the others is it irrational for the class of player to play the finesse when those discards are made?. And how are we to view the fact that this 'world class player', who would be expected to have a firm grasp of the requirements of Law 68, fails to mention the squeeze in his statement of clarification? Is it credible that when he makes the claim he is cognizant that he should play the squeeze and is claiming on the basis that the squeeze is exclusively his formed intention? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 6 20:58:53 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 20:58:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? References: <535FC2F1-B77B-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002201c44c00$dc96fc50$13ee403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? > > On Saturday, Jun 5, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > This may in general be deemed irrational behavior but the moment > > he actually chose such a behavior I shall consider it grossly careless > > and negligent rather than irrational. > > This points up the problem I have with this law, I think. To me, since > being careless or negligent can lead to a bad result, it is irrational > to be careless or negligent. Yet the law places "careless" and > "irrational" in different categories. I don't see how - unless some > things are considered more irrational than others. Yet I do not see > relativity in the definition - something is either irrational or it's > not. No shades of gray. I don't know what to make of this. > +=+ The world is well aware that in my personal belief I also have a difficulty with the term 'irrational', although in my office I abide loyally with the WBFLC interpretation. What I think is the case is that, as the law is applied, its conceptual basis is not one of absolute metaphysical irrationality but rather one of total implausibility in respect of the individual assessed. For me 'irrational' were better expressed as 'wholly implausible' for the class of player. ~ G ~ +=+ From ljtrent@adelphia.net Sun Jun 6 21:09:20 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:09:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status In-Reply-To: <006301c449c0$63b6f660$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of >>Marvin French >>From: "Linda Trent" >> >>> >>> Let's see now --- when one is told by their boss that >>their services >>> are "no longer needed" that sounds like they have been >>fired to me. >>> >>> Yes, Rich was offered the opportunity to bid on the >>casebook job but >>> hmmmmmm I wonder why he didn't want to. >> >>Another version I heard is that Rich asked for a raise if he was to >>continue the job, and the management felt this was not justified. That is nonsence too if you think about --- did you ever hold a job and ask for a raise and was told no? Did that mean you were now automatically fired. I have not asked Rich if he asked for a raise and I don't believe he did, but if he had it would have been the 3% keep up with cost of living type. >>> I think the $32,000 plus hotel, per diem, airfare to >>tournaments and >>> misc expenses such as toner, phone calls etc. that Rich >>was being paid >>> to do the casebooks + the National Recorder job was >>probably the best >>> value per dollar spent the ACBL was getting. >>> >>> You would not believe how many hours both of us spent on these >>> casebooks. >> >>Both of you are unbelievably industrious and consciencious. >>Getting the >>appeal writeups into good form (Linda's job, I believe) can be very >>difficult, and of course the casebook editing is a very >>difficult job, >>especially if comments on the comments are to be frequently made and >>sometimes extensive (as are Rich's). >> >>However, I have heard it said that these jobs are of a level not >>justifying more than the current compensation, no matter >>how hard the >>work is and how well it is performed. Well think about it --- and this is just off the top of my head. So there are several tasks that I have probably left out below Rich did a LOT more than the casebooks. Casebooks were about 400 hours each or 1200 hours per year At an NABC he worked 12 hrs per day so lets say that was 120 x 3 = 360 hours He was the National Recorder --- this position often required him to act as the prosecuter in C&E cases. And how many hours of video taping was he responsible for in situations that involved suspicious characters? He attended all of the Laws Commission, C&C Committee meetings, and was quite involved in the ITT Committee. That was another 10 hrs per tournament or 30 hours per year. Who do you think did most of the writing of the current Alert Procedure materials? He was in charge of appeals for the ITT and WITT team trials. He put on Recorder sessions at NABCs and Regionals. How many articles has he written for the ACBL Bulletin? Even just using the hours I sort of know about he was being paid about $20 per hour. And that is conservative. His qualifications? Hmmm PhD in Psychology, expert in statistical studies, expert bridge player, College Professor. >>> >>> Also, you might be interested in knowing that continuing >>the Casebooks >>> in their existing format was a Board of Directors decision and >>> directive. >>> >>That's odd. I had the impression they would vote on this in >>New York. Is >>it in the minutes? So -- they are rescinding what they had in place -- but up til now it was a BoD Directive. >>5. The commentators for the Appeals Casebook will be the Editor, >>Director of National Appeals, Chairman of National Appeals, >>and the NABC >>Director in Charge. Any one of >>the above may require that a specific commentator not be used. Sounds a little incestuous to me. Linda --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004 From ljtrent@adelphia.net Sun Jun 6 21:19:18 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:19:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of >>David Stevenson >>Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 6:02 PM >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Casebooks; Rich Colker's status >> >> >>Marvin French wrote >>>From: "Linda Trent" >> >>>> I think the $32,000 plus hotel, per diem, airfare to >>tournaments and >>>> misc expenses such as toner, phone calls etc. that Rich >>was being paid >>>> to do the casebooks + the National Recorder job was >>probably the best >>>> value per dollar spent the ACBL was getting. >>>> >>>> You would not believe how many hours both of us spent on these >>>> casebooks. >>> >>>Both of you are unbelievably industrious and >>consciencious. Getting the >>>appeal writeups into good form (Linda's job, I believe) can be very >>>difficult, and of course the casebook editing is a very >>difficult job, >>>especially if comments on the comments are to be >>frequently made and >>>sometimes extensive (as are Rich's). >>> >>>However, I have heard it said that these jobs are of a level not >>>justifying more than the current compensation, no matter >>how hard the >>>work is and how well it is performed. >>> >>>These are not low-level jobs at all, actually, but what proper >>>compensation is I have no idea. What does David Stevenson >>get, I wonder? >> >> $32,000 !!!!! >> >> Splutter !!!!! >> >> Good god !!!!! >> >> Perhaps I should ask for a raise ........ >> Of course this comment is nonsense --- you have no idea of what the entire scope of Rich's job was. In any major market city in this country you can maybe get a secretary that can barely type for $32,000 The median starting salary for a fresh out of college accounting student in LA is $42,000 Even in a very low cost city like Memphis the median salary for a fresh out of college and knowing nothing is $37,000. You can check nation wide salaries on salary.com The only thing that has amazed me is that Rich was willing to do the job he does for what he was being paid. Obviously it was more a labor of love than an attempt to earn a living. Linda --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004 From postmaster@inmail1.west63rd.co.uk Sun Jun 6 21:59:57 2004 From: postmaster@inmail1.west63rd.co.uk (Postmaster) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:59:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undeliverable Mail Message-ID: <10406062159.AA00352@inmail1.west63rd.co.uk> No message body: w7nceuhc8@inmail1.west63rd.co.uk Original message follows. From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jun 6 22:22:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:22:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C38B0D.5000506@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> Since these are happenings from before or during the claim, it does >> not matter whether we class these actions as careless or irrational. >> It is not because a player does something careless when claiming, that >> we should believe he shall do something irrational in his play. >> And not even if a player does something irrational when claiming, do >> we impose on him something irrational when playing. >> >> All this with the exception that we leave him with the mistake he HAS >> made. > > > Which is what? Making a flawed line of play statement, or no statement > at all? What is your answer to my "either way" question? > My statement above was general. But if you want to apply it to the polish exam case, I believe the mistake that declarer has made was one of claiming without looking at all 26 cards in his combined hands. >>> One could argue that it is irrational to be careless. What would that >>> do to this law? >> >> >> I don't think that matters. > > > I do, or I wouldn't have asked the question. :-) If it is irrational to > be careless, then a careless line of play is irrational, and the law > contradicts itself. > >> You said that it is irrational to count the diamonds and not realize >> they don't yield 6 tricks. >> Is it irrational or careless not to look at all your cards before >> playing? > > > It is illegal - and therefore irrational, assuming you know that it is > illegal. > No, it is illegal to make a call without looking at your hands, it is not illegal to claim without looking at them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Jun 6 22:32:45 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:32:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604133038.02232380@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604133038.02232380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040606172408.0292dbd0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:51 PM 6/4/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 09:31 AM 6/4/04, David wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote >>>>At 06:58 PM 6/3/04, David wrote: >>>> >>>>> Exactly. When we make unfair and partial rulings because we are no >>>>>longer making bridge judgements based on what would have happened we >>>>>have no longer got equity. >>>>> >>>>> AQ >>>>> >>>>> xx >>>>> >>>>> "I shall make two tricks by finessing". Now, you are going to >>>>> decide >>>>>based on some notional standard unrelated to the player's ability how >>>>>many tricks he is going to make, and call it equity. It isn't. >>>> >>>>Of course I am. I do not understand the point of the example. Any >>>>player who finesses will make two tricks if the king is onside, >>>>otherwise he will not, and we will adjudicate the result in the >>>>usual way. Is David suggesting that the location of the king >>>>depends on the "class of player" taking the finesse? >>> >>> If you have a player who does not know what a finesse is and does >>> not know what they are talking about perhaps you will judge they >>> only take one trick. >>> >>> Now, under your new enlightened "rules" of treating everyone the >>> same way, if the standard is the novice player then one trick is >>> awarded, not two, to an expert who claims on the finesse, because >>> *his* standard is no longer the question. >>> >>> I know this is ridiculous, but somehow I have to wake people up >>> to the fact that treating everyone the same will lead to no equity >>> and considerably more unhappy people than currently. >> >>I still don't understand. Would David (or anyone) really ever rule >>that a player who explicitly said "I shall make two tricks by >>finessing" holding AQ opposite xx doesn't know what a finesse is? > > Ok, make it a bit harder. But make it a player a novice might not > get right, and explain to me why applying that standard ot an expert > "does equity"? To save myself from having to explain myself, I'll make the example AK9x opposite Q10xx, about which I -- and numerous others on both sides of the "class of player" debate in this forum -- have already explained myself at considerable length. We have a perfect example of a position we would expect a rank novice to get wrong half the time, but even an advanced novice to get wrong rarely, and I'm not sure we really have much more to add to what was said -- without our reaching a consensus -- in the thread on that specific combination. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Jun 6 22:38:31 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:38:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040606172408.0292dbd0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040604133038.02232380@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <001301c4496c$73266c10$0101a8c0@Mario> <5.2.0.9.0.20040603170307.0276b020@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604082408.0222e520@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040604133038.02232380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040606173640.02aaf090@pop.starpower.net> Sorry 'bout letting that typo go through -- I meant AK9xx opposite Q10xx, of course. At 05:32 PM 6/6/04, I wrote: >At 04:51 PM 6/4/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>>At 09:31 AM 6/4/04, David wrote: >>> >>>>Eric Landau wrote >>>>>At 06:58 PM 6/3/04, David wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Exactly. When we make unfair and partial rulings because we >>>>>> are no >>>>>>longer making bridge judgements based on what would have happened we >>>>>>have no longer got equity. >>>>>> >>>>>> AQ >>>>>> >>>>>> xx >>>>>> >>>>>> "I shall make two tricks by finessing". Now, you are going to >>>>>> decide >>>>>>based on some notional standard unrelated to the player's ability how >>>>>>many tricks he is going to make, and call it equity. It isn't. >>>>> >>>>>Of course I am. I do not understand the point of the >>>>>example. Any player who finesses will make two tricks if the king >>>>>is onside, otherwise he will not, and we will adjudicate the >>>>>result in the usual way. Is David suggesting that the location of >>>>>the king depends on the "class of player" taking the finesse? >>>> >>>> If you have a player who does not know what a finesse is and >>>> does not know what they are talking about perhaps you will judge >>>> they only take one trick. >>>> >>>> Now, under your new enlightened "rules" of treating everyone the >>>> same way, if the standard is the novice player then one trick is >>>> awarded, not two, to an expert who claims on the finesse, because >>>> *his* standard is no longer the question. >>>> >>>> I know this is ridiculous, but somehow I have to wake people up >>>> to the fact that treating everyone the same will lead to no equity >>>> and considerably more unhappy people than currently. >>> >>>I still don't understand. Would David (or anyone) really ever rule >>>that a player who explicitly said "I shall make two tricks by >>>finessing" holding AQ opposite xx doesn't know what a finesse is? >> >> Ok, make it a bit harder. But make it a player a novice might not >> get right, and explain to me why applying that standard ot an expert >> "does equity"? > >To save myself from having to explain myself, I'll make the example >AK9x opposite Q10xx, about which I -- and numerous others on both >sides of the "class of player" debate in this forum -- have already >explained myself at considerable length. > >We have a perfect example of a position we would expect a rank novice >to get wrong half the time, but even an advanced novice to get wrong >rarely, and I'm not sure we really have much more to add to what was >said -- without our reaching a consensus -- in the thread on that >specific combination. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 6 22:43:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:43:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C34DE2.5000802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c44c0f$59a39650$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sorry Sven, a concession is a claim. As I wrote: Please read the laws. Law 68A defines claim and Law 68B defines concession. They are not the same.=20 However a claim of some but not all the remaining tricks is also a claim = and a concession of some but not all the remaining tricks is also a claim. You should also inspect Law 68C: "Clarification Required for a Claim" = and you will notice that no "clarification" is required for a concession. Do you really need this "with teaspoons"? In the given case the player conceded all remaining tricks after cashing = his Ace of clubs. There was no claim. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jun 6 22:42:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:42:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1615 - 16 msgs Message-ID: David Babcock: [snip] >Now, I'm not going to push this to the point of >being comfortable with an overall winner with *no* >common cards, as in declaring an overall winner in >a straight Mitchell single-session event. > >I have mixed feelings about the news from RJH that >an important club in Canberra allows this (if I >understood him); Richard Hills: No, the important club in Canberra is totally happy with *two* overall winners, both a North-South winner and an East-West winner. Aussie masterpoints are distributed impartially between the North-South and East-West fields. David Babcock >I had hoped it was a uniquely American affliction. >Sometimes maybe we do have to switch the arrows, >and grin and bear it. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the uniquely American affliction is a culture that glorifies the winner, hence the Yank imperative to find just one winner after a session of bridge. Contrariwise, the Aussie culture glorifies the underdog - our most heartfelt annual celebration is Anzac Day, in which Aussies remember our military defeat at Gallipoli during the Great War. Just as both Turks and Aussies (erstwhile enemies) are welcome to attend joint remembrance ceremonies at Anzac Cove in the Dardanelles, so Aussies have no problem with joint North-South and East-West winners in our walk-in pairs. Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 6 22:47:48 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 22:47:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: Message-ID: <002c01c44c10$03e6edb0$9401e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > > Is it irrational or careless not to look at all your > > cards before playing? > > It is illegal - and therefore irrational, assuming you > know that it is illegal. > +=+ I am unconvinced that it is necessarily irrational knowingly to do something illegal. If done for a perceived advantage it may indeed be reprehensible, unsportsmanlike, sleazy, antisocial, criminal - but irrational? how so? ~ G ~ +=+ From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sun Jun 6 22:54:20 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: >>> "Sven Pran" 6/6/2004 4:43:48 PM >>> . . . In the given case the player conceded all remaining tricks after cashing his Ace of clubs. There was no claim. . . . Zero tricks were claimed. Arguably, zero is a "specific number." Jim Hudson _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 22:56:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:56:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <001f01c44c00$d97f5c10$13ee403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <4F95340E-B804-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 03:35 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ The WBF LC has decided that the footnote in > question is to be interpreted as meaning "irrational for > the class of player".(Meeting of 28th October 2001 > and also see meeting of 30th August 2000). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes, they did. Still, it seems to me they were at best imprecise when they did so. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 22:57:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:57:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <002001c44c00$da5856f0$13ee403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <79A1BCA2-B804-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 03:41 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ in its dictionary meaning "mediocre" implies the existence > or potential existence of things of superior quality. So I thought, which is why I said "may". :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 22:59:12 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:59:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <002201c44c00$dc96fc50$13ee403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 15:58 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > What I think is the case is that, as the law is applied, > its conceptual basis is not one of absolute metaphysical > irrationality but rather one of total implausibility in respect > of the individual assessed. For me 'irrational' were better > expressed as 'wholly implausible' for the class of player. I can live with that interpretation. I wish, though, that the laws would *say* that, rather than confuse the issue. From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jun 6 23:06:29 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:06:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <168C3A99-B7F0-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <168C3A99-B7F0-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40C39565.3080403@hdw.be> No Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 05:24 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Yes it does. L70D and L70E only allow changes of lines when the >> original lines become irrational. Clearly underruffing is irrational. >> So when you allow this claim, it is precisely because you judge the >> original line to have become irrational. > > > Only if the original line stated which trump would be used. > No Ed, also if no trump were specified. Then all truymps would be considered equal. So the one in whihc he plays the trump four at trick seven would be a notmal one. But is there is a higher trump already in trick seven, then playing the four to that trick is an irrational play. It was a normal line up until the higher trump appeared, and it has become an irrational line afterwards. Face it, Ed, rational lines can become irrational through changed circumstances. Don't try and wriggle out of arguments this way. It won't work. It's not the first time I've been thinking about the laws. I know what they say and what they mean. We can have discussions about particular applications, but don't try word play. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 23:05:31 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:05:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C38B0D.5000506@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 17:22 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > No, it is illegal to make a call without looking at your hands, it is > not illegal to claim without looking at them. Ah. You were imprecise. If you have looked at your hand before calling, then you have certainly looked at your hand before playing. I gather what you meant was something else. From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 6 23:07:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:07:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <59FB0616-B7ED-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c44c12$9c1af070$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ............. > > This excludes his right to change his line of=20 > > play because he began thinking when the claim=20 > > was contested, some thinking he should have made=20 > > before he claimed. Contesting the claim alerts=20 > > him that there might be something wrong with the > > claim, something that he overlooked when planning=20 > > his line of play leading up to the claim. > > > > OK? >=20 > Makes sense. Only quibble: how you gonna know when he did his = thinking? I don't have to know. IMO he is supposed to do his necessary thinking = before claiming. If he carelessly claims without thinking he is in the same position as if he plays his cards without thinking. Call it careless, call it irrational, it doesn't matter because he has = done it. Just like he is not allowed to discover his forgotten trump until it materializes he shall IMO not be allowed to do any thinking "that could = be triggered from the fact that opponents contested his claim" until during = the indicated line of play something happens that changes his situation. Example from that troublesome Polish case (yes I know I have promised = not to make any further comments on that one but): I should rule according to a line of play where he began cashing his = high diamonds. But I should also allow him to discover that the Jack does not drop and allow him after the third Diamond trick to look for alternate = lines of play as the situation has changed into making a play of the fourth diamond irrational in a grand slam if all the following conditions are satisfied: 1: another successful line of play is available=20 2: he could reasonably be expected to find that successful line of play 2: he could reasonably be assumed to notice that the JD has not dropped. = But as already the first Diamond cashed was fatal condition 1) above is = not satisfied so this has never been an issue.=20 > A matter for TD judgment, certainly, and most players are honest, but > it seems a rather large hole, to me. Not that I can see any way to = fill > it. :-) And as I said above, no Director should ever need to. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 23:10:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:10:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1615 - 16 msgs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <59354D6A-B806-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 17:42 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In my opinion, the uniquely American affliction is > a culture that glorifies the winner, hence the Yank > imperative to find just one winner after a session > of bridge. I don't believe there is such an imperative here. Certainly not in the clubs in which I play, nor in the (admittedly few) tournaments in which I have played. If anywhere, I would have expected such an imperative in Scandinavia, at least based on the book "Movements', by our Professor Hallen, et. al. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 23:15:05 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:15:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <002c01c44c10$03e6edb0$9401e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 17:47 US/Eastern, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ I am unconvinced that it is necessarily irrational > knowingly to do something illegal. If done for a > perceived advantage it may indeed be reprehensible, > unsportsmanlike, sleazy, antisocial, criminal - but > irrational? how so? My bad. I had not considered the possibility that someone might perceive an advantage from not looking at his cards before calling. However, having considered it, I can see no rational argument which might lead to such a perception - which doesn't, of course, mean that one doesn't exist. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 6 23:17:57 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:17:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5CF977C6-B807-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 17:54 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > Zero tricks were claimed. Arguably, zero is a "specific number." It seems to me this argument grasps at straws. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jun 6 23:33:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:33:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Laws Committee Message-ID: >>WBF Laws Commission minutes, 19th October 1997: >> >>Richard James Hills: >+=+ We are simple folk in the WBF where we have >committees, not Commissions. Strangely I had thought >it was the ACBL that aspired to a 'Commission'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In the "Great Commission" at the conclusion of the Gospel of Matthew, it is written: ".....All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations....." It seems to me that the WBF Laws Committee has "all power" to interpret the Bridge Laws, and has invited the Zones to "go ye therefore, and teach all nations" the WBF LC official interpretation of the Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 6 23:43:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:43:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c44c17$a8d0ee00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > James Hudson > . . . > In the given case the player conceded all remaining tricks after > cashing his > Ace of clubs. >=20 > There was no claim. > . . . >=20 > Zero tricks were claimed. Arguably, zero is a "specific number." Why not also include negative numbers in the class of "specific = numbers"? If I concede three tricks when there are only two tricks left then I = have claimed a negative number of tricks haven't I? And according to Law 68C I must submit a clarification statement with = this "claim" as to the order in which I will play the last two tricks in = order to win -1 trick. The player did not "claim" to win any specified number of tricks; he did = not even "claim" that he would win zero tricks; he stated that opponents = would win the remaining two tricks. I really do not understand the purpose of this discussion. It could = possibly be interesting for students in language structures or theoretic logics = in mathematics, but might I humbly ask that we confine ourselves to bridge please? Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 6 23:56:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:56:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1615 - 16 msgs In-Reply-To: <59354D6A-B806-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c44c19$7bdd4a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > In my opinion, the uniquely American affliction is > > a culture that glorifies the winner, hence the Yank > > imperative to find just one winner after a session > > of bridge. >=20 > I don't believe there is such an imperative here. Certainly not in the > clubs in which I play, nor in the (admittedly few) tournaments in = which > I have played. >=20 > If anywhere, I would have expected such an imperative in Scandinavia, > at least based on the book "Movements', by our Professor Hallen, et. = al. Well, you will find it. Mitchell is rather seldom played in Norway and when it is played it = always to my knowledge is played to give two result lists. Arrow-switching = Mitchell is non-existent. (I have at least never seen nor heard of it being used = and we do not teach Director Candidates of that movement; if anything we = just mention that it exists). Favorite movements for pairs in Norway include barometer and Howell. I have a strong impression that what I say here applies equally to = Denmark and Sweden, and in fact also to Latvia (which I visited a few years = ago). Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 00:15:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:15:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] directing material Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >When he gave it back, he commented "some >interesting movements in there, but they >would never fly with our players." He >particularly liked the double-weave >Mitchell. :-) [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, players are not necessarily hidebound if an unfamiliar movement is easy to follow (plus carefully monitored by a non-playing TD to prevent fouling of the movement). For example, yesterday a two-session Teams of Pairs movement was held as a novelty at the Canberra Bridge Club (replacing the more normal Sunday Swiss). Instead of team-mates sitting in opposite directions, team-mates sat in the same direction. Six of the twelve teams had both pairs sitting North-South, the other six teams had both pairs sitting East-West. The format was a barometered matchpoint pairs of 6 x 8-board rounds. The special condition of contest was that a team's matchpoints were based upon the better score achieved by their two pairs playing the same board. The movement created no hassles. The twelve tables were arranged in a circle. The six North-South teams had their pairs sit at diametrically opposing points in the circle, and remained stationary throughout. Meanwhile, the six East-West teams also had their pairs remaining diametrically opposite each other, but each East-West pair advanced one table for each successive 8-board round. The format was a great psychological success. Players were not disconsolate upon scoring a bottom, because they knew that team-mates were likely to do better, so that their bottom would not count. Furthermore, even the weakest team could not help but score above 50%, while the North-South and East-West winners scored a satisfying above 70% total. Best wishes RJH From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 00:37:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:37:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <540B0950-B7F2-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <540B0950-B7F2-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40C3AACF.6080909@hdw.be> Let's answer the second bit first: >> You amaze me, Ed, in you total ignorance of claim laws, and in your >> apparent lack of ability to read what I have been saying all along. > > > Your arrogance doesn't surprise me, sir, as I've seen it before. Perhaps > you should consider the possibility that it is you who lacks the ability > to read. > Ed, you've changed your stance on this case seventeen times since you've started reading my replies. Maybe you do know how to read. Your last admittance is right here: Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 05:31 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> No he doesn't. I don't throw out the silly line from the Polish >> declarer because it does not work, I throw it out because it is >> impossible (irrational) for him to follow that line once he has looked >> at his 26 cards. If you cannot see that it is irrational for him to >> keep cashing winners once he has realize it won't lead to 13 tricks, >> then I don't see what we are having this discussion about. > > > So you allow a claimer who has failed to look at his cards before > claiming to look at them afterwards. Fine. See? Finally you've seen the light. And then you just turn stubborn: > The question is, if he thinks > he has all top tricks, and has not looked at his cards, do we allow him > to eliminate (or eliminate for him) a line of play consistent with his > original statement (or lack thereof) which would result in the claim > failing? You seem to think that if he's an expert, we do. I disagree. > If he thinks he has all top tricks when he has not looked at his cards, do you think he will trust his own judgment once he does look at them? Don't forget that by now we must eliminate irrational behaviour. If you allow him to look at his cards, then you must decide whether or not he'll see there are not 13 tricks there. Are you seriously suggesting that he will not notice this? I find that the most absurd place to believe he can go wrong. I might admit that he does not look at his cards again (It seems irrational to me, but it's not totally impossible). I would readily admit that even he is not of sufficient class to always find the squeeze (although Tim should have assured us of that one). But I won't admit there is even a remote possibility that a player of any level could look at these two hands and not see there are not 13 tricks ready from top. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 00:42:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:42:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <25FCBCFA-B7EE-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <25FCBCFA-B7EE-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40C3ABFB.3040603@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 13:01 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sorry Sven, a concession is a claim. > > > A concession of *some* of the remaining tricks is a claim of the rest - > just as a claim of *some* of the remaining tricks is a concession of the > rest. But a concession of *all* the remaining tricks leaves no tricks to > claim. > > Et tu, Ed? I thought this had been settled on blml for once and for all, a few times already. Apparently there are some of you who refuse to use blml to learns a few things. I thought blml was there to put us all on the same track. Apparently that is idle hope. Believe me Ed & Sven, and I don't know of any non-arrogant way of saying this - you are WRONG. A claim for all tricks is a concession of zero and a concession of all tricks is a claim of zero. There is no difference between a claim and a concession. Both are ruled with the same laws. And if I ever here you trying to state otherwise, I shall have to start using a kill-file after all. And other readers, I could really use some help here, lest these two misfits believe they are right because it's two against one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 00:53:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:53:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000501c44c12$9c1af070$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c44c12$9c1af070$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C3AE7A.1050404@hdw.be> Ed asks a correct question and Sven botches up the answer. Sven Pran wrote: > Ed Reppert > ............. > >>>This excludes his right to change his line of >>>play because he began thinking when the claim >>>was contested, some thinking he should have made >>>before he claimed. Contesting the claim alerts >>>him that there might be something wrong with the >>>claim, something that he overlooked when planning >>>his line of play leading up to the claim. >>> >>>OK? >> >>Makes sense. Only quibble: how you gonna know when he did his thinking? > Good question, Ed. We ask him, we hear his response, and we believe him; or not. if we believe him, we rule contract made. If we don't, or if we're unsure, we rule one down. That's after all what we're there for. To rule. But Sven's answer: > > I don't have to know. Yes you do, because (as Ed seems to admit) it is important to our ruling. > IMO he is supposed to do his necessary thinking before > claiming. Yes he is SUPPOSED to do his thinking. We're not ruling on what he's supposed to do, we're ruling on what he did. > If he carelessly claims without thinking he is in the same > position as if he plays his cards without thinking. > And that is precisely what I've been saying all along is not true. It is possible for a player to claim without thinking. It is irrational for a player to play without thinking. There is no special reason for a player who has claimed without thinking to start playing without thinking. Thus, playing without thinking is irrational and the lines that are contistent with that are non-normal. > Call it careless, call it irrational, it doesn't matter because he has done > it. > > Just like he is not allowed to discover his forgotten trump until it > materializes he shall IMO not be allowed to do any thinking "that could be > triggered from the fact that opponents contested his claim" until during the > indicated line of play something happens that changes his situation. > You keep suggesting that it is the contestation which triggers his thinking. I have never suggested this and I'll repeat: I believe he would look at his cards, regardless of aly claim or contestation about that. > Example from that troublesome Polish case (yes I know I have promised not to > make any further comments on that one but): > > I should rule according to a line of play where he began cashing his high > diamonds. But I should also allow him to discover that the Jack does not > drop and allow him after the third Diamond trick to look for alternate lines > of play as the situation has changed into making a play of the fourth > diamond irrational in a grand slam if all the following conditions are > satisfied: > 1: another successful line of play is available > 2: he could reasonably be expected to find that successful line of play > 2: he could reasonably be assumed to notice that the JD has not dropped. > > But as already the first Diamond cashed was fatal condition 1) above is not > satisfied so this has never been an issue. > Sven, you allow this player to rethink after cashing a few diamonds, but not before. Why should he re-think after three tricks - what should trigger that? Nothing can trigger that. A player cannot start on 9 diamonds thinking they are good and realize they are not only after three tricks have been played. If you consider it normal for him to play without counting his tricks, then it is normal for him to continue playing that, and he plays a diamond to the fifth trick as well. You should rule 2 down. If you consider it irrational for him not to notice diamonds are not producing 6 tricks after trick 4, then you should also find it irrational for him not to notice this after the first trick, and you should rule contract made (dependent on our other decisions such as him finding the squeeze all of the time). > >>A matter for TD judgment, certainly, and most players are honest, but >>it seems a rather large hole, to me. Not that I can see any way to fill >>it. :-) > > > And as I said above, no Director should ever need to. > > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From dpb3@fastmail.fm Mon Jun 7 00:58:00 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:58:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: 7.5 tables In-Reply-To: <20040606220902.29341.67188.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040606220902.29341.67188.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1086566280.29784.197877166@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Richard Hills: > > No, the important club in Canberra is totally > happy with *two* overall winners, both a North-South > winner and an East-West winner. Aussie masterpoints > are distributed impartially between the North-South > and East-West fields. > > David Babcock > > >I had hoped it was a uniquely American affliction. > >Sometimes maybe we do have to switch the arrows, > >and grin and bear it. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the uniquely American affliction is > a culture that glorifies the winner, hence the Yank > imperative to find just one winner after a session > of bridge... > Aussies have no problem with joint North-South and > East-West winners in our walk-in pairs. > > Best wishes > > RJH Nor do we, most days. Yesterday (Saturday) was an exception, but I'm not sure that tells us much about "Yank imperatives", since that was the 18th Worldwide Bridge Contest, which sought to discern a single winner in a one-session event (see the event's result page at www.ecatsbridge.com). Fortunately, our club is back to normal tomorrow, with two winners as long as we have 6 or more tables and the director doesn't fight the tide of the members' preference. We do overalls in some straight Mitchells where there are unusually high MP awards. such as International Fund games, and the question of whether it is satisfactory not to switch the arrows arises then, but such events are decidedly the exception, for us anyway. David Babcock Florida, USA From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 01:21:50 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:21:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Except thee and me (was A question) Message-ID: Eric Landau >>If failing to check out some line of play before >>starting to play a bridge hand were really a >>definitive indicator of irrationality, we would >>not be holding competitions, as 99.44% of our >>players would be locked up in mental >>institutions. Herman De Wael: >No Eric, since I don't believe players actually >do this. They may look too short, but they always >look. Richard Hills: I have myself, only last week, failed by one trick in a doubled partscore - turning a top into a bottom - because I failed to look at what card my RHO played at trick one. Therefore, I say to Herman that all the bridge world is irrational except thee and me, and I am beginning to have some doubts about me. Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 01:42:38 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:42:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C3ABFB.3040603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c44c28$559dbc20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 13:01 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> Sorry Sven, a concession is a claim. > > > > > > A concession of *some* of the remaining tricks is a claim of the = rest - > > just as a claim of *some* of the remaining tricks is a concession of = the > > rest. But a concession of *all* the remaining tricks leaves no = tricks to > > claim. > > > I thought this had been settled on blml for once and for all, a few > times already. > Apparently there are some of you who refuse to use blml to learns a > few things. > I thought blml was there to put us all on the same track. Apparently > that is idle hope. >=20 > Believe me Ed & Sven, and I don't know of any non-arrogant way of > saying this - you are WRONG. A claim for all tricks is a concession of > zero and a concession of all tricks is a claim of zero. There is no > difference between a claim and a concession. Both are ruled with the > same laws. Are they indeed?=20 Law 68A defines Claim Law 68B defines Concession Law 68C applies only to claims not to concessions The entire Law 70 applies only to claims not to concessions The entire Law 71 applies only to concessions not to claims Have I missed any law (other than Law 68D) that specifically applies to both? The only cross reference I immediately see between claim and concession = is in Law 68B which includes the (obvious) information that "a claim of = some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any". And please observe the last two words "if any"; they are rather significant in this context. They apparently exclude the case of zero remaining tricks.=20 Notice that there is nowhere any similar cross reference for a = concession of some number of tricks; the closest we come is in Law 68A which defines a claim as a statement to the effect that a contestant will win "a = specific number of tricks". So what is embraced by the clause "a specific number"? Let us see what basic mathematics number theory can offer:=20 The class of "natural numbers" includes a "first" member named 1 and for each member another member which is its successor. By definition each = member in the class (except the member 1) has a predecessor which is the member = for which this member is the successor.=20 Please notice that this excludes zero as a member of the class of = "natural numbers" The first extension to this class is obtained by removing the = restriction that 1 is the "first" member of the class and define that every member = of the class has one other member as predecessor and another member as successor. This extension results in the class of "integers" and we may = note that zero is a member of this class. (The next extension serves to establish fractions, but we do not need to proceed any further.) To me it is fairly obvious from the context that "a specific number" as = used in Law 68 is meant to include a subset of the natural numbers and = nothing more.=20 To include the number zero does not add any advantage; it only serves to confuse the laws where no confusion is warranted. And if we include zero = why not also include the negative integers to cater for the cases where a = player claims (or concedes) a specific number of tricks that exceeds the number = of remaining tricks. I do not contest your statement that this question has been discussed = and (maybe) resolved on blml, I have never noticed that discussion but I = shall appreciate a summary of the essentials if you care. But mainly I should appreciate some clarification on what is the = advantage of including the count of zero tricks in the scope of claiming "a = specific number" of tricks? >=20 > And if I ever here you trying to state otherwise, I shall have to > start using a kill-file after all. >=20 > And other readers, I could really use some help here, lest these two > misfits believe they are right because it's two against one. You surprise me; I had higher thoughts about you. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 01:45:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:45:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >>No, it is illegal to make a call without >>looking at your hands, it is not illegal >>to claim without looking at them. Law 74B1: >As a matter of courtesy a player should >refrain from paying insufficient >attention to the game. Richard Hills: In my opinion, claiming without looking at your hands is paying insufficient attention to the game, so consequently illegal. Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 01:50:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:50:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C3AE7A.1050404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c44c29$7d3d3570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > > I should rule according to a line of play where he began cashing his > high > > diamonds. But I should also allow him to discover that the Jack does = not > > drop and allow him after the third Diamond trick to look for = alternate > lines > > of play as the situation has changed into making a play of the = fourth > > diamond irrational in a grand slam if all the following conditions = are > > satisfied: > > 1: another successful line of play is available > > 2: he could reasonably be expected to find that successful line of = play > > 2: he could reasonably be assumed to notice that the JD has not = dropped. > > > > But as already the first Diamond cashed was fatal condition 1) above = is > not > > satisfied so this has never been an issue. > > >=20 > Sven, you allow this player to rethink after cashing a few diamonds, > but not before. Why should he re-think after three tricks - what > should trigger that?=20 When the Jack has not dropped as expected he may be allowed to rethink = his line of play. That is almost exactly the same case as when an unexpected trump shows = up. Then he may rethink his line of play and over ruff if that is possible. Sven From experience.request@learning-web.biz Mon Jun 7 02:13:01 2004 From: experience.request@learning-web.biz (Experience Request) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:13:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] A user is searching for experiences about: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: <200406070113.i571D1fh005707@homer.learning-web.biz> A user is trying to share experiences and opinions about you in our online community. The purpose of this email is to inform you that a posting has been made about you at our website. This is email is not commercial in nature. If this email message was delivered to your spam or bulk email folder please notify your ISP or spam filtering company regarding this mistake on their part. To see what users have posted about you use this link: http://1.shyx.us/lx.php?a=search&b=5&c=blml@rtflb.org Our Identity Protection System is a simple system in which this website sends email messages to the Experience Request author on your behalf, and vice versa. This website will never reveal the identity of the Experience Request author to you, nor will it reveal your identity to the author of the Experience Request. IMPORTANT - If you prefer not to be notified by our website in the future when postings are mode about you, just add your email address to our Do Not Email List. Our website will never send email to an address that appears on our Do Not Email List. To add to Do Not Email List click here: http://5.shyx.biz/lx.php?a=donotemail&b=blml@rtflb.org Best Regards, SYEC Support From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 7 06:27:07 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:27:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C39565.3080403@hdw.be> Message-ID: <51140758-B843-11D8-9DE9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 18:06 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Face it, Ed, rational lines can become irrational through changed > circumstances. > > Don't try and wriggle out of arguments this way. It won't work. It's > not the first time I've been thinking about the laws. I know what they > say and what they mean. We can have discussions about particular > applications, but don't try word play. Whatever you say, Oh, Great and Powerful Oz. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 7 06:32:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:32:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] directing material In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <03D0CDF7-B844-11D8-9DE9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 19:15 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > For example, yesterday a two-session Teams > of Pairs movement was held as a novelty at > the Canberra Bridge Club (replacing the > more normal Sunday Swiss). [snip particulars] Interesting. I may suggest that sometime, just for grins. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 7 06:34:36 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:34:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C3AACF.6080909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5D0FBBE6-B844-11D8-9DE9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 19:37 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed, you've changed your stance on this case seventeen times since > you've started reading my replies. Uh, huh. Suuure I have. Forget it, Herman. I'm done. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 7 06:35:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:35:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C3ABFB.3040603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <839760B9-B844-11D8-9DE9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 19:42 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > And if I ever here you trying to state otherwise, I shall have to > start using a kill-file after all. Be my guest. From adam@tameware.com Mon Jun 7 06:59:26 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:59:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Cavendish ruling -- final deal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510085612.03470630@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510085612.03470630@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: At 9:08 AM -0400 5/10/04, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:26 AM 5/10/04, Adam wrote: ... >>S W N E >>P P P 1C! >>P 1D P 1N >>P 2S! P 3N >>all pass ... >>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. ... >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. Sorry for taking a while to follow up! I think the failure to alert a straightforward call does not mean that a pair have no agreement about it. Rather it means that they have the agreement that it is natural or "standard". All this is only more so behind screens, where there is no possibility of clueing partner in to a misunderstanding. In my opinion West was legally required to do precisely as he did, and East was required to similarly explain that the partnership was on unfamiliar ground. EW knew something about the auction that NS did not. They would be required to disclose this knowledge in answer to a question, and without an alert North (my partner) would never know to ask. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 07:06:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:06:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >Believe me Ed & Sven, and I don't know of any >non-arrogant way of saying this - you are >*wrong*. A claim for all tricks is a concession >of zero and a concession of all tricks is a >claim of zero. There is no difference between a >claim and a concession. Both are ruled with the >same laws. [snip] >And other readers, I could really use some help >here, lest these two misfits believe they are >right because it's two against one. Richard Hills: Basically I agree with Herman De Wael, in that I believe that the 2006 Laws *should* eschew any distinction between a claim and a concession. But..... I must misfittedly join Ed and Sven in agreeing that that is *not* what the *current* Laws say. Law 68A provides a specific definition for a claim, while Law 68B provides an equally specific definition of a concession. And it is impossible for Herman to argue that Laws 68A and 68B provide a distinction without a difference. This is because the partner of a defender who concedes has rights under Law 68B. However, the partner of a defender who claims does *not* have rights under Law 68A. Best wishes RJH From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 08:20:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:20:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C4174C.7040208@hdw.be> No Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Law 74B1: > > >>As a matter of courtesy a player should >>refrain from paying insufficient >>attention to the game. > > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, claiming without looking > at your hands is paying insufficient > attention to the game, so consequently > illegal. > No Richard, at best discourteous, not illegal. Besides, what does that bring to our discussion? > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 08:27:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:27:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000101c44c29$7d3d3570$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c44c29$7d3d3570$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C418FA.2080907@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Sven, you allow this player to rethink after cashing a few diamonds, >>but not before. Why should he re-think after three tricks - what >>should trigger that? > > > When the Jack has not dropped as expected he may be allowed to rethink his > line of play. > But Sven, do you really believe it is rational for a player to start looking at those diamonds and play them for the jack dropping - without realizing this is a very uncertain line? If you want him to notice that the jack doen NOT drop, then you need him to pay attention to the game, much more than is needed for him to alos realize that playing for the diamonds to drop is an uncertain line. > That is almost exactly the same case as when an unexpected trump shows up. > Then he may rethink his line of play and over ruff if that is possible. > It is almost the same case, yes. And I'm not saying that you should not allow this discovery - I'm only saying that this discovery is far more difficult for him to actually perform than the one I'm suggesting he does. Face it, Sven, either you allow your discovery and also mine, or you don't allow either discovery, and you rule 2 off. Maybe you are too entrenched in wanting to rule 1 off that it is difficult to face up to reality. There is no harm is once in a while stating publicly that after a lot of deliberation, you think Herman might be right after all! Take the final step, Sven. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 08:32:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:32:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000001c44c28$559dbc20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c44c28$559dbc20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C41A08.203@hdw.be> Sven, we've had this discussion on blml before. We've reached a consensus about it. Claims and Concessions are two sids of the same coin. I don't want to argue about this. Let me just add one detail. IIRC, the case was concluded with claimer stating: I'll take the CA and give you the rest. That makes it a claim of 1 and concession of 2. I don't think there is any discussion that this really was a claim. Do you really believe that there is (or should be) any difference between a player claiming the CA and conceding the rest, and a player cashing the CA and conceding the rest? So please forget this silly notion. It is simply wrong. And semantics won't help you, as I have an easy answer: the laws are badly written and we've known that for a long time. This discussion is over, and if you believe that is arrogant then so be it. Sven Pran wrote: [unimportant - snipped] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 08:36:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:36:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Except thee and me (was A question) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C41B0D.80602@hdw.be> Best example yet, Richard. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Eric Landau > > >>>If failing to check out some line of play before >>>starting to play a bridge hand were really a >>>definitive indicator of irrationality, we would >>>not be holding competitions, as 99.44% of our >>>players would be locked up in mental >>>institutions. > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>No Eric, since I don't believe players actually >>do this. They may look too short, but they always >>look. > > > Richard Hills: > > I have myself, only last week, failed by one trick > in a doubled partscore - turning a top into a > bottom - because I failed to look at what card my > RHO played at trick one. > And yet Richard, if you had claimed, we would have ruled that you would have noticed those same cards. That is a well known principle. Because if it weren't, all claims would be immediately ruled against, by statements such as "ah, but it is merely careless for you to trump your own ace, because that is what I did last week". Yes, "irrational" things sometimes happen. We cannot rule that they are merely careless for that reason alone. > Therefore, I say to Herman that all the bridge > world is irrational except thee and me, and I am > beginning to have some doubts about me. > No doubts about me? Now that is the first wrong decision I can really catch you out on. > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Mon Jun 7 08:35:17 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:35:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] directing material Message-ID: <003701c44c62$6b636ac0$5b23b5d4@swipnet.se> To Sven. The professor is Olof Hanner, not me. He has worked out most movements = on computers. In Sweden arrow-switching Mitchell is very common. It is about as common = as barometer and Howell. In Denmark I think Howell is most common and there you most often divide = in groups of 6, 7 or 8 tables, especially at club level. Yours etc Hans-Olof From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 09:25:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:25:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam Message-ID: Law 74B1: >>>As a matter of courtesy a player should >>>refrain from paying insufficient >>>attention to the game. Richard Hills: >>In my opinion, claiming without looking >>at your hands is paying insufficient >>attention to the game, so consequently >>illegal. Herman De Wael: >No Richard, at best discourteous, not >illegal. Richard Hills: The various clauses of Law 74 define lack of courtesy as being illegal. Herman De Wael: >Besides, what does that bring to our >discussion? Richard Hills: Nothing whatsoever. Merely a peripheral comment on what I believe to be the most important Law in the book, the requirement for players to be courteous to all three opponents. Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 10:17:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:17:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C418FA.2080907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c44c70$3f80cbb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > >>Sven, you allow this player to rethink after cashing a few diamonds, > >>but not before. Why should he re-think after three tricks - what > >>should trigger that? > > > > > > When the Jack has not dropped as expected he may be allowed to = rethink > his > > line of play. > > >=20 > But Sven, do you really believe it is rational for a player to start > looking at those diamonds and play them for the jack dropping - > without realizing this is a very uncertain line? Come on! What is so extraordinary about a player who (erroneously) = figures out that his opponents only have three Diamonds between them so the Jack will drop automatically; only to get very surprised when it doesn't? I have seen that happen (even with experienced players) and I am pretty = sure I shall see it again in a variety of ways. ........... > There is no harm is once in a while stating publicly that after a lot > of deliberation, you think Herman might be right after all! To my best knowledge I have no difficulty admitting a mistake when I = make one. But I am unable to see why my line here is one. Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 10:32:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:32:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C41A08.203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c44c72$6c396520$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven, we've had this discussion on blml before. > We've reached a consensus about it. > Claims and Concessions are two sids of the same coin. > I don't want to argue about this. You don't need to. They are indeed two sides of the same coin. What I have stated is that those sides are different (and should not be mixed). > Let me just add one detail. > IIRC, the case was concluded with claimer stating: I'll take the CA > and give you the rest. Are you deliberately falsifying the issue? Go back to the original post and you will find this sentence describing how it happened: South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". > That makes it a claim of 1 and concession of 2. > I don't think there is any discussion that this really was a claim. > Do you really believe that there is (or should be) any difference > between a player claiming the CA and conceding the rest, and a player > cashing the CA and conceding the rest? No, certainly not; and I have never to my knowledge indicated any such thing. As far as the concession of the two last tricks is concerned it certainly does not matter whether the tenth trick was played or claimed. If there had been a claim of the tenth trick that claim would have to be handled under the claim laws. The concession of the last two tricks is handled under the laws on concessions. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 11:10:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:10:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000301c44c70$3f80cbb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c44c70$3f80cbb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C43F2B.4040807@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>But Sven, do you really believe it is rational for a player to start >>looking at those diamonds and play them for the jack dropping - >>without realizing this is a very uncertain line? > > > Come on! What is so extraordinary about a player who (erroneously) figures > out that his opponents only have three Diamonds between them so the Jack > will drop automatically; only to get very surprised when it doesn't? > > I have seen that happen (even with experienced players) and I am pretty sure > I shall see it again in a variety of ways. > But Sven, we are not talking about what sometimes happens - we are talking about what is considered irrational in claims adjudication. And I am certain that: -looking at both cards, seeing AKQTxx opp x it is irrational for any player to -consider that this yields 6 tricks (or even 4 without loss) Sometimes people miss a discard (even in the final of the BB), but yet we consider it irrational to do so, within the execution of a claim. Otherwise, all claims are ruled against. Consider the following story: same position, declarer thinks for a while and claims explaining the full squeeze. Would you rule against this declarer on the basis that it is possible for claimer to fail to notice that the SA is discarded? Yet this sometimes happens. But we consider it irrational and we don't negate the claim for that reason. All this just to say that your argument: > I have seen that happen (even with experienced players) and I am pretty sure > I shall see it again in a variety of ways. is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Irrational things sometimes happen. > ........... > >>There is no harm is once in a while stating publicly that after a lot >>of deliberation, you think Herman might be right after all! > > > To my best knowledge I have no difficulty admitting a mistake when I make > one. But I am unable to see why my line here is one. > OK Sven, maybe you don't. Don't let the fact that you have to agree with that stupid Belgian stop you from admitting that you were in error up till now. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 11:13:10 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:13:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000401c44c72$6c396520$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c44c72$6c396520$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C43FB6.9060304@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Sven, we've had this discussion on blml before. >>We've reached a consensus about it. >>Claims and Concessions are two sids of the same coin. >>I don't want to argue about this. > > > You don't need to. They are indeed two sides of the same coin. What I have > stated is that those sides are different (and should not be mixed). > > >>Let me just add one detail. >>IIRC, the case was concluded with claimer stating: I'll take the CA >>and give you the rest. > > > Are you deliberately falsifying the issue? > > Go back to the original post and you will find this sentence describing how > it happened: > > South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". > And in what way is it different to play his club or show it? > >>That makes it a claim of 1 and concession of 2. >>I don't think there is any discussion that this really was a claim. >>Do you really believe that there is (or should be) any difference >>between a player claiming the CA and conceding the rest, and a player >>cashing the CA and conceding the rest? > > > No, certainly not; and I have never to my knowledge indicated any such > thing. > > As far as the concession of the two last tricks is concerned it certainly > does not matter whether the tenth trick was played or claimed. If there had > been a claim of the tenth trick that claim would have to be handled under > the claim laws. The concession of the last two tricks is handled under the > laws on concessions. > and what are the laws on concessions? Do you really believe that the change that the WBFLC brought to the laws, stating that after a revoke, the benefit of doubt goes to non-revoker, is only applicable to claims, and not to concessions? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 12:06:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:06:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C43F2B.4040807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c44c7f$7e18ab40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > But Sven, we are not talking about what sometimes happens - we are > talking about what is considered irrational in claims adjudication. I have shown what I believe is the only line of play consistent with his claim to the effect "I have the rest": He must have visualized six tricks in each minor suit combined with = three tricks in hearts for a total of fifteen available tricks once opponents failed to cash their Ace of spades. He failed to mention the possibility of a squeeze in Diamonds and Spades both with his original claim statement (if any) and with his = clarification statement (if any). He may have claimed "without looking at his cards", that doesn't relieve = him of his duty to provide a claim statement and any added clarifications = that might possibly be needed. Once his option to provide clarifications is exhausted he may not be = allowed to submit any changed line of play not embraced in the already given = claim statements (including accepted clarifications) except for such changes = that are the logical consequence of developments during the assumed play of = the cards. =20 One acceptable such change is to ruff with a higher trump than = originally indicated in order to over ruff an unexpected (forgotten) trump. Another such change which I shall normally consider acceptable is to = look for alternative lines of play when an expected drop of a key card from opponents does not materialize. ......... > All this just to say that your argument: > > I have seen that happen (even with experienced players) and I am > pretty sure > > I shall see it again in a variety of ways. > is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Irrational things sometimes > happen. Quite! And that is the reason why we cannot "protect" a claimer who = presents a claim statement involving what we would consider to be an irrational action from his apparent intention of doing exactly that. ............. > > To my best knowledge I have no difficulty admitting a mistake when I > make > > one. But I am unable to see why my line here is one. > > >=20 > OK Sven, maybe you don't. Don't let the fact that you have to agree > with that stupid Belgian stop you from admitting that you were in > error up till now. But I can still not see that I am in error. Furthermore I read the = comments from other presumably qualified Directors to support my understanding of = the laws. (Not to mention all those players who just shake their heads = wondering what we Directors really spend our efforts with). Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jun 7 12:08:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000401c44c0f$59a39650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > In the given case the player conceded all remaining tricks after > cashing his Ace of clubs. No Sven he did not. He conceded the last two tricks after leading a small club from hand at trick 11. Trick 11 was incomplete at the time of the concession. In the context I think he must be claiming 1 trick and conceding two. However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going to rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. Tim From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 12:35:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:35:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C43FB6.9060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c44c83$8a713c00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .......... > >>Do you really believe that there is (or should be) any difference > >>between a player claiming the CA and conceding the rest, and a = player > >>cashing the CA and conceding the rest? > > > > No, certainly not; and I have never to my knowledge indicated any = such > > thing. > > > > As far as the concession of the two last tricks is concerned > > it certainly does not matter whether the tenth trick was=20 > > played or claimed. If there had been a claim of the tenth=20 > > trick that claim would have to be handled under the claim laws. > > The concession of the last two tricks is handled under the > > laws on concessions. >=20 > and what are the laws on concessions? Are you serious? Laws 68B, 69A and 71 > Do you really believe that the change that the WBFLC brought to the > laws, stating that after a revoke, the benefit of doubt goes to > non-revoker, is only applicable to claims, and not to concessions? Can you provide me with a reference to this particular decision made by WBFLC? I have been unable to locate it.=20 However I don't consider such a "change" to the laws required. If an irregularity causes doubt on which line of play a non-offending side = might subsequently chose I need no change in the present laws to favor him = with benefit of the doubt due to that irregularity.=20 The way this case has been presented I see no such doubt associated with = the concession of the last two tricks. Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 12:41:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:41:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c44c84$6ecfe950$6900a8c0@WINXP> > West-Meads > > In the given case the player conceded all remaining tricks after > > cashing his Ace of clubs. >=20 > No Sven he did not. He conceded the last two tricks after leading a = small > club from hand at trick 11. Trick 11 was incomplete at the time of = the > concession. In the context I think he must be claiming 1 trick and > conceding two. Quoted from Law 68:=20 "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or a concession of = tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress." =20 > However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going = to > rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC > guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession > situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. Not under dispute. Where is the doubt caused by the revoke and affecting = the concession? Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 12:55:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:55:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000601c44c7f$7e18ab40$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c44c7f$7e18ab40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C457BE.8050001@hdw.be> OK Sven, time for a round-up. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>But Sven, we are not talking about what sometimes happens - we are >>talking about what is considered irrational in claims adjudication. > > > I have shown what I believe is the only line of play consistent with his > claim to the effect "I have the rest": > Well, it's not the only line of play that is consistent with it, but it is one of the lines that is consistent with it. I don't think he mentioned any line of play, so all "normal" lines are to be used. I agree that the line "diamonds from the top" is "normal" at the time of the claim. (I have never stated that it was not, and if you believe that I did, please accept my apologies for not making this clear) > He must have visualized six tricks in each minor suit combined with three > tricks in hearts for a total of fifteen available tricks once opponents > failed to cash their Ace of spades. > I don't think this is true. He has an expectency of 13 tricks, but I don't believe for one moment that he visualized them in any form. I do not accept that any player can seriously count 6 tricks in diamonds. I shall try to ask him, but I don't expect to hear differently. I believe this is where you misinterpret the case as the question was put. You are rationalizing his action of claiming, which is not needed, since it was not a rational action. > He failed to mention the possibility of a squeeze in Diamonds and Spades > both with his original claim statement (if any) and with his clarification > statement (if any). > Indeed he failed to do so. But I don't believe that we can deduce from this that he did not see the line. He never saw that he needed anything else than straightforward top tricks. Which is why we have to make the very difficult decision as to whether we believe he would find the squeeze 100% of the time. > He may have claimed "without looking at his cards", that doesn't relieve him > of his duty to provide a claim statement and any added clarifications that > might possibly be needed. > And since he did not, we shall inflict on him the worst of all normal lines. If we are only 98% certain that he would have found the squeeze, we shall rule 1 down. That should be enough to quench the fears of people thinking it is better to claim than to play. > Once his option to provide clarifications is exhausted he may not be allowed > to submit any changed line of play not embraced in the already given claim > statements (including accepted clarifications) except for such changes that > are the logical consequence of developments during the assumed play of the > cards. > This is simply untrue. L70D and L70E say this and add an "unless". It is this unless that we must judge upon. > One acceptable such change is to ruff with a higher trump than originally > indicated in order to over ruff an unexpected (forgotten) trump. > > Another such change which I shall normally consider acceptable is to look > for alternative lines of play when an expected drop of a key card from > opponents does not materialize. > And here you are simply wrong in not accepting any other way of changed circumstances. I believe it is irrational for a player not to look at his cards before starting to play. If that principle is accepted, you must agree that the line you impose on him is not normal. So there are just two points where you are off the expected ruling: (expected by the Polish judges) - your assumption that this player did look at his cards and still concluded there were 13 tricks there. This is simply not the case that the Poles intended (or the exam question would not be put) - your refusal to accept that it is irrational to not look at your cards before playing. I believe this is clearly irrational. Very seldomly it will happen, but it is not the kind of action from a player who is thinking. > ......... > > >>All this just to say that your argument: >> > I have seen that happen (even with experienced players) and I am >>pretty sure >> > I shall see it again in a variety of ways. >>is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Irrational things sometimes >>happen. > > > Quite! And that is the reason why we cannot "protect" a claimer who presents > a claim statement involving what we would consider to be an irrational > action from his apparent intention of doing exactly that. > No Sven, it was not his intention to play without looking at his cards. He claimed, yes, but we cannot think he would play without looking at his cards. > ............. > >>>To my best knowledge I have no difficulty admitting a mistake when I >> >>make >> >>>one. But I am unable to see why my line here is one. >>> >> >>OK Sven, maybe you don't. Don't let the fact that you have to agree >>with that stupid Belgian stop you from admitting that you were in >>error up till now. > > > But I can still not see that I am in error. Furthermore I read the comments > from other presumably qualified Directors to support my understanding of the > laws. (Not to mention all those players who just shake their heads wondering > what we Directors really spend our efforts with). > Well, I read only very few such comments. I saw comments from very few and only three (Konrad, Ed and yourself) are making the mistakes that I believe you make. I see comments from Tom, Grattan, Tim and a few others, who all accept the principles I have written down. We are not in agreement about the claim after those principles (I find Tim's argument about deceptive discards very interesting). I'm not counting, but you shouldn't either. It is not because I'm the only one who takes the time and patience to try and tell you why you are wrong, that makes you be right. This is not a democracy unless we have full representation. As for the players, I do want to defend the ruling against them. And I don't care what they think afterwards. The laws tell me to rule this way, so I do. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 13:00:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:00:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000701c44c83$8a713c00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c44c83$8a713c00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C458CF.90205@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > >>Do you really believe that the change that the WBFLC brought to the >>laws, stating that after a revoke, the benefit of doubt goes to >>non-revoker, is only applicable to claims, and not to concessions? > > > Can you provide me with a reference to this particular decision made by > WBFLC? I have been unable to locate it. > I hope Grattan can provide this, but I should really hope that you'd accept my word for this. It has been said on blml many times before. > However I don't consider such a "change" to the laws required. If an > irregularity causes doubt on which line of play a non-offending side might > subsequently chose I need no change in the present laws to favor him with > benefit of the doubt due to that irregularity. > Which is the claimer in this case. > The way this case has been presented I see no such doubt associated with the > concession of the last two tricks. > And the awarding of one penalty trick or two? You did understand the problem, did you not? There are two normal lines, both leading to 2 tricks for defenders, but the subsequent revoke penalty is one trick in the one line, two tricks in the other. So of course the WBF interpretation is important. Without it, the non-claimer (=revoker) gets the benefit of the doubt, so there is only 1 penalty trick. With the interpretation, the non-revoker (=claimer) gets the benefit of the doubt and 2 penalty tricks. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 13:01:57 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:01:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000801c44c84$6ecfe950$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c44c84$6ecfe950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C45935.9070304@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>West-Meads >> >>>In the given case the player conceded all remaining tricks after >>>cashing his Ace of clubs. >> >>No Sven he did not. He conceded the last two tricks after leading a small >>club from hand at trick 11. Trick 11 was incomplete at the time of the >>concession. In the context I think he must be claiming 1 trick and >>conceding two. > > > Quoted from Law 68: > > "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or a concession of tricks > under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in > progress." > So change my question: what would be the difference between the player leading the club, and the player showing his 3 cards and saying "I lead the club"? Surely the ruling ought to be the same in both cases! > > >>However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going to >>rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC >>guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession >>situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. > > > Not under dispute. Where is the doubt caused by the revoke and affecting the > concession? > not the concession, the penalty tricks! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jun 7 13:26:06 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:26:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <33B2C4A8.77EA88A9.9CB23D9B@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607081722.02697550@pop.starpower.net> At 04:51 AM 6/6/04, Bertrandgignoux wrote: >During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades . >He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. > >South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . > > S - > H 2 > D 2 > C A > > S 9 S - > H 9 H - > D - D 9 > C 3 C 54 > > S - > H 3 > D 3 > C 2 > >South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". >What is your ruling ? One-trick revoke penalty. >Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent >revoked during the first 10 tricks ? No. Even if S knows that W has revoked and now retains the S9, he doesn't necessarily know that W holds the H9 rather than the D9. I would award a two-trick revoke penalty only if S explicitly indicates that he will play a heart at trick 12. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 13:35:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:35:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C457BE.8050001@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c44c8b$f3da9490$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > OK Sven, time for a round-up. I agree with your round-up, again I find that our disagreement goes = mainly on the question: To what extent is a claimer bound by his claim = statement (including accepted clarifications)? My opinion is that because a claim has the immediate effect of virtually playing out all remaining tricks at once the claimer must face the consequences of his claim as if he had begun playing his cards along the line of play he is ruled to have selected with his claim statement. Thereafter he is allowed changes to this line of play whenever he as a = legal bridge reason to do so, that is whenever an event would give him = information that according to Law 16 shall be considered authorized for him and that = has some relevance for his chosen line of play. When his claim statement embraces several different lines of play then = he is still bound by this statement and shall be ruled to having selected the least successful line of play among these alternatives; excluding any = line of play that we rule "irrational" (at the time the claim was made) for = this class of player. Specifically related to the Polish case: Any player who is capable of executing a squeeze must somehow show his intention with his claim = statement if he intends to use such a line of play for his claim. =20 Failing to do so implies that he did not have that squeeze in mind when claiming, and if then there is at least one "normal" line of play which would kill that squeeze before he (from the developments along the line = of play) would realize the need for that squeeze then he is lost.=20 (Didn't both Grattan and Ton mention something to this effect?) Sorry Herman, I see no way we can agree, in particular as I feel = supported by all my fellow Directors where I serve. Sven >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >>Herman De Wael > >>But Sven, we are not talking about what sometimes happens - we are > >>talking about what is considered irrational in claims adjudication. > > > > > > I have shown what I believe is the only line of play consistent with = his > > claim to the effect "I have the rest": > > >=20 > Well, it's not the only line of play that is consistent with it, but > it is one of the lines that is consistent with it. I don't think he > mentioned any line of play, so all "normal" lines are to be used. I > agree that the line "diamonds from the top" is "normal" at the time of > the claim. > (I have never stated that it was not, and if you believe that I did, > please accept my apologies for not making this clear) >=20 > > He must have visualized six tricks in each minor suit combined with > three > > tricks in hearts for a total of fifteen available tricks once = opponents > > failed to cash their Ace of spades. > > >=20 > I don't think this is true. He has an expectency of 13 tricks, but I > don't believe for one moment that he visualized them in any form. I do > not accept that any player can seriously count 6 tricks in diamonds. I > shall try to ask him, but I don't expect to hear differently. > I believe this is where you misinterpret the case as the question was > put. You are rationalizing his action of claiming, which is not > needed, since it was not a rational action. >=20 > > He failed to mention the possibility of a squeeze in Diamonds and = Spades > > both with his original claim statement (if any) and with his > clarification > > statement (if any). > > >=20 > Indeed he failed to do so. But I don't believe that we can deduce from > this that he did not see the line. He never saw that he needed > anything else than straightforward top tricks. > Which is why we have to make the very difficult decision as to whether > we believe he would find the squeeze 100% of the time. >=20 > > He may have claimed "without looking at his cards", that doesn't = relieve > him > > of his duty to provide a claim statement and any added = clarifications > that > > might possibly be needed. > > >=20 > And since he did not, we shall inflict on him the worst of all normal > lines. If we are only 98% certain that he would have found the > squeeze, we shall rule 1 down. That should be enough to quench the > fears of people thinking it is better to claim than to play. >=20 > > Once his option to provide clarifications is exhausted he may not be > allowed > > to submit any changed line of play not embraced in the already given > claim > > statements (including accepted clarifications) except for such = changes > that > > are the logical consequence of developments during the assumed play = of > the > > cards. > > >=20 > This is simply untrue. L70D and L70E say this and add an "unless". > It is this unless that we must judge upon. >=20 > > One acceptable such change is to ruff with a higher trump than > originally > > indicated in order to over ruff an unexpected (forgotten) trump. > > > > Another such change which I shall normally consider acceptable is to > look > > for alternative lines of play when an expected drop of a key card = from > > opponents does not materialize. > > >=20 > And here you are simply wrong in not accepting any other way of > changed circumstances. > I believe it is irrational for a player not to look at his cards > before starting to play. If that principle is accepted, you must agree > that the line you impose on him is not normal. >=20 > So there are just two points where you are off the expected ruling: > (expected by the Polish judges) >=20 > - your assumption that this player did look at his cards and still > concluded there were 13 tricks there. This is simply not the case that > the Poles intended (or the exam question would not be put) > - your refusal to accept that it is irrational to not look at your > cards before playing. I believe this is clearly irrational. Very > seldomly it will happen, but it is not the kind of action from a > player who is thinking. >=20 > > ......... > > > > > >>All this just to say that your argument: > >> > I have seen that happen (even with experienced players) and I am > >>pretty sure > >> > I shall see it again in a variety of ways. > >>is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Irrational things sometimes > >>happen. > > > > > > Quite! And that is the reason why we cannot "protect" a claimer who > presents > > a claim statement involving what we would consider to be an = irrational > > action from his apparent intention of doing exactly that. > > >=20 > No Sven, it was not his intention to play without looking at his > cards. He claimed, yes, but we cannot think he would play without > looking at his cards. >=20 > > ............. > > > >>>To my best knowledge I have no difficulty admitting a mistake when = I > >> > >>make > >> > >>>one. But I am unable to see why my line here is one. > >>> > >> > >>OK Sven, maybe you don't. Don't let the fact that you have to agree > >>with that stupid Belgian stop you from admitting that you were in > >>error up till now. > > > > > > But I can still not see that I am in error. Furthermore I read the > comments > > from other presumably qualified Directors to support my = understanding of > the > > laws. (Not to mention all those players who just shake their heads > wondering > > what we Directors really spend our efforts with). > > >=20 > Well, I read only very few such comments. I saw comments from very few > and only three (Konrad, Ed and yourself) are making the mistakes that > I believe you make. I see comments from Tom, Grattan, Tim and a few > others, who all accept the principles I have written down. We are not > in agreement about the claim after those principles (I find Tim's > argument about deceptive discards very interesting). > I'm not counting, but you shouldn't either. It is not because I'm the > only one who takes the time and patience to try and tell you why you > are wrong, that makes you be right. This is not a democracy unless we > have full representation. > As for the players, I do want to defend the ruling against them. And I > don't care what they think afterwards. The laws tell me to rule this > way, so I do. >=20 > > Sven > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jun 7 13:48:34 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:48:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C2E0D1.3090602@hdw.be> References: <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607083009.026750d0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:16 AM 6/6/04, Herman wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: > >>Is failing to state a line of play when claiming, when you have >>enough experience in the game that you should know that doing so is >>required by the laws, careless or irrational? Either way, should we >>interpret the law such that if a player makes no line of play >>statement at the time he claims, then whatever line he states when >>the director arrives is his *original* line? > >Since these are happenings from before or during the claim, it does >not matter whether we class these actions as careless or irrational. >It is not because a player does something careless when claiming, that >we should believe he shall do something irrational in his play. >And not even if a player does something irrational when claiming, do >we impose on him something irrational when playing. > >All this with the exception that we leave him with the mistake he HAS >made. > >>One could argue that it is irrational to be careless. What would that >>do to this law? > >I don't think that matters. > >You said that it is irrational to count the diamonds and not realize >they don't yield 6 tricks. >Is it irrational or careless not to look at all your cards before playing? Claiming *is* playing! It is not accidental that TFLB puts "Part Five -- Claims and Concessions" in "Chapter VI -- The Play". A contract is reached, an opening lead is made, and declarer may then choose to "play" the contract by following either the procedures in L44 or those in L68 (or he may, of course, may start with the former and switch to the latter in mid-hand). I don't know whether it is "irrational or careless not to look at all your cards before playing", but I assert that the answer does *not* depend on which mode of "playing" you choose. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 13:47:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:47:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C458CF.90205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c44c8d$90725c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > > The way this case has been presented I see no such doubt associated = with > the > > concession of the last two tricks. > > >=20 > And the awarding of one penalty trick or two? You did understand the > problem, did you not? There are two normal lines, both leading to 2 > tricks for defenders, but the subsequent revoke penalty is one trick > in the one line, two tricks in the other. > So of course the WBF interpretation is important. Without it, the > non-claimer (=3Drevoker) gets the benefit of the doubt, so there is = only > 1 penalty trick. With the interpretation, the non-revoker (=3Dclaimer) > gets the benefit of the doubt and 2 penalty tricks. OK, I see your point. As I then shall consider this to be a pure lottery chance I shall probably use Law 12C3 and award a weighted score based on equal probabilities for one or two penalty tricks. Where L12C3 is unavailable I shall agree with you for two penalty tricks. (The = concession itself stands undisputed as made). Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jun 7 14:05:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000801c44c84$6ecfe950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Quoted from Law 68: > > "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or a concession of > tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one > currently in progress." Yes. Declarer made a statement during the incomplete trick 11 referring to tricks 12 and 13. There is no doubt in my mind that he was claiming the 11th trick and conceding the last two. > > However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going > > to rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per > > WBFLC guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession > > situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. > > Not under dispute. Where is the doubt caused by the revoke and > affecting the concession? The doubt is as to whether, had the hand been played out, the last two tricks would have been won by East or West. A diamond at trick twelve gives the tricks to East (one trick revoke). A heart would give the lead to West - who would then win the last trick with the S9 - a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick - 2 trick revoke. Absent the WBF guideline we would be ruling that doubt against declarer. With it we surely rule doubt against the revoker. Tim From EXPERIENCE.SUPPORT@SHAREYEXP.BIZ Mon Jun 7 15:09:54 2004 From: EXPERIENCE.SUPPORT@SHAREYEXP.BIZ (EXPERIENCE.SUPPORT@SHAREYEXP.BIZ) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 06:09:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] One of our users is looking into your background at our website. Message-ID: **IMPORTANT E-MAIL MESSAGE--PLEASE KEEP THIS FOR YOUR RECORDS** Advisory - A user is trying to share experiences and opinions about you in our online community. The purpose of this email is to inform you that a posting has been made about you at our website. This is email is not commercial in nature. If this email message was delivered to your spam or bulk email folder please notify your ISP or spam filtering company regarding this mistake on their part. You may view the postings about you here: http://5.shyxp.us/lx.php?a=search&b=5&c=blml%40rtflb.org ShareYourExperiences.com, as the name suggests, is a place where users can meet each other for the purpose of sharing the experiences they have had with people and businesses. IMPORTANT - To add this email address to our Do Not Email List click here: http://3.shyxp.biz/lx.php?a=donotemail&b=blml%40rtflb.org Best Regards, Support Department From DrHerbertamour@yahoo.com Mon Jun 7 14:19:37 2004 From: DrHerbertamour@yahoo.com (Bk) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:19:37 +0900 Subject: [blml] Need a helping hand? Message-ID: Cia Loading Ad... Please Wait




From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Jun 7 14:25:33 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:25:33 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECFF@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Tim West-Meads wrote: Sven wrote: > Quoted from Law 68:=20 >=20 > "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or a concession of=20 > tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one=20 > currently in progress." Yes. Declarer made a statement during the incomplete trick 11 referring to tricks 12 and 13. There is no doubt in my mind that he was claiming=20 the 11th trick and conceding the last two. ----- Reread Sven's quotation: ...., it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress. So, declarer conceded the last two tricks and claimed none, ie. He made no claim. But that is of no consequence to the case. ----- > > However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going > > to rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per=20 > > WBFLC guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession > > situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. >=20 > Not under dispute. Where is the doubt caused by the revoke and=20 > affecting the concession? The doubt is as to whether, had the hand been played out, the last two=20 tricks would have been won by East or West. A diamond at trick twelve=20 gives the tricks to East (one trick revoke). A heart would give the lead=20 to West - who would then win the last trick with the S9 - a card he could=20 legally have played to the revoke trick - 2 trick revoke. Absent the WBF=20 guideline we would be ruling that doubt against declarer. With it we=20 surely rule doubt against the revoker. ----- This is correct, given that we really have such a WBF guideline. I've now checked a lawbook cross referenced to the WBFLC minutes. I'm unable to find a reference to the WBF guideline Tim, Herman and others are referring to. Where is it hidden? Regards, Harald ----- Tim=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 14:39:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:39:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607083009.026750d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040607083009.026750d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C4702F.90800@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> You said that it is irrational to count the diamonds and not realize >> they don't yield 6 tricks. >> Is it irrational or careless not to look at all your cards before >> playing? > > > Claiming *is* playing! It is not accidental that TFLB puts "Part Five > -- Claims and Concessions" in "Chapter VI -- The Play". A contract is > reached, an opening lead is made, and declarer may then choose to "play" > the contract by following either the procedures in L44 or those in L68 > (or he may, of course, may start with the former and switch to the > latter in mid-hand). > Sorry Ed, but this is the lamest argument you've used so far. Yes, claiming and playing both lead to tricks but from there on to go the the absolute equality of "claiming without thinking" and "playing without thinking" is a leap which defies answering. > I don't know whether it is "irrational or careless not to look at all > your cards before playing", but I assert that the answer does *not* > depend on which mode of "playing" you choose. > Sorry Eric, that is simply not true. The player has a number of actions to do. He has to look at dummy, he has to look at his own cards, he has to count his tricks, he has to plan his play. And at some time he claims. Surely you can believe that it is possible to claim between any of these actions (irrational, maybe, careless, certainly, but possible always). So there is the logical possibility of "claiming before thinking". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 14:51:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:51:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000901c44c8b$f3da9490$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c44c8b$f3da9490$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C472E6.20101@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>OK Sven, time for a round-up. > > > I agree with your round-up, again I find that our disagreement goes mainly > on the question: To what extent is a claimer bound by his claim statement > (including accepted clarifications)? > Well Sven, that answer is very simple: not at all! I happen to think that the claim statement is not a statement of how claimer will play. There are too many examples for that. A claimer will say something like "I have 3 spade tricks and 4 heart tricks". That does not mean he will play his spades before his hearts, not his aces before his kings. A claim statement is used to judge which lines the claimer considers normal. Even if other normal lines exist, these shall not be counted. But when circumstances change, and all lines that are "stated" become abnormal, then all lines become usable. A better question is really -> to what degree shall a player be bound by the mistakes he has made before claiming. Because he will always have made mistakes. Otherwise the claim would not be disputed (some claims are disputed even without mistakes, but those should not pose too many problems for TD). > My opinion is that because a claim has the immediate effect of virtually > playing out all remaining tricks at once the claimer must face the > consequences of his claim as if he had begun playing his cards along the > line of play he is ruled to have selected with his claim statement. > Yes, he must face the consequences. Which is what I also do. Just because this one declarer gets off because I judge there to be no normal losing lines, does not mean I let all claimers off the hook! > Thereafter he is allowed changes to this line of play whenever he as a legal > bridge reason to do so, that is whenever an event would give him information > that according to Law 16 shall be considered authorized for him and that has > some relevance for his chosen line of play. > L16 has nothing whatsoever to do with claim rulings. There are many authorized pieces of information that we will not allow in claim ruling. "But I know he has 5 spades, from the bidding" would not be enough for a player who claims without stating which way he'll play the spades. You are right on principle though - information which the player cannot fail to get during the execution of (all) his stated line(s) can mean (the/all) stated line(s) become(s) abnormal and then he is no longer bound to the stated lines. All we disagree about is whether or not we allow the simple looking at the cards to be such a source of information. I still maintain that it is. It is irrational not to look at your cards. > When his claim statement embraces several different lines of play then he is > still bound by this statement and shall be ruled to having selected the > least successful line of play among these alternatives; excluding any line > of play that we rule "irrational" (at the time the claim was made) for this > class of player. > Indeed, up to the point where they all become irrational. We are not in disagreement over the principles. > Specifically related to the Polish case: Any player who is capable of > executing a squeeze must somehow show his intention with his claim statement > if he intends to use such a line of play for his claim. > No, not if he claimed without looking at his cards. > Failing to do so implies that he did not have that squeeze in mind when > claiming, and if then there is at least one "normal" line of play which > would kill that squeeze before he (from the developments along the line of > play) would realize the need for that squeeze then he is lost. > (Didn't both Grattan and Ton mention something to this effect?) > > Sorry Herman, I see no way we can agree, in particular as I feel supported > by all my fellow Directors where I serve. > Then they are all as wrong as you are. Believe me. > Sven > > >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>>Herman De Wael >>>>But Sven, we are not talking about what sometimes happens - we are >>>>talking about what is considered irrational in claims adjudication. >>> >>> >>>I have shown what I believe is the only line of play consistent with his >>>claim to the effect "I have the rest": >>> >> >>Well, it's not the only line of play that is consistent with it, but >>it is one of the lines that is consistent with it. I don't think he >>mentioned any line of play, so all "normal" lines are to be used. I >>agree that the line "diamonds from the top" is "normal" at the time of >>the claim. >>(I have never stated that it was not, and if you believe that I did, >>please accept my apologies for not making this clear) >> >> >>>He must have visualized six tricks in each minor suit combined with >> >>three >> >>>tricks in hearts for a total of fifteen available tricks once opponents >>>failed to cash their Ace of spades. >>> >> >>I don't think this is true. He has an expectency of 13 tricks, but I >>don't believe for one moment that he visualized them in any form. I do >>not accept that any player can seriously count 6 tricks in diamonds. I >>shall try to ask him, but I don't expect to hear differently. >>I believe this is where you misinterpret the case as the question was >>put. You are rationalizing his action of claiming, which is not >>needed, since it was not a rational action. >> >> >>>He failed to mention the possibility of a squeeze in Diamonds and Spades >>>both with his original claim statement (if any) and with his >> >>clarification >> >>>statement (if any). >>> >> >>Indeed he failed to do so. But I don't believe that we can deduce from >>this that he did not see the line. He never saw that he needed >>anything else than straightforward top tricks. >>Which is why we have to make the very difficult decision as to whether >>we believe he would find the squeeze 100% of the time. >> >> >>>He may have claimed "without looking at his cards", that doesn't relieve >> >>him >> >>>of his duty to provide a claim statement and any added clarifications >> >>that >> >>>might possibly be needed. >>> >> >>And since he did not, we shall inflict on him the worst of all normal >>lines. If we are only 98% certain that he would have found the >>squeeze, we shall rule 1 down. That should be enough to quench the >>fears of people thinking it is better to claim than to play. >> >> >>>Once his option to provide clarifications is exhausted he may not be >> >>allowed >> >>>to submit any changed line of play not embraced in the already given >> >>claim >> >>>statements (including accepted clarifications) except for such changes >> >>that >> >>>are the logical consequence of developments during the assumed play of >> >>the >> >>>cards. >>> >> >>This is simply untrue. L70D and L70E say this and add an "unless". >>It is this unless that we must judge upon. >> >> >>>One acceptable such change is to ruff with a higher trump than >> >>originally >> >>>indicated in order to over ruff an unexpected (forgotten) trump. >>> >>>Another such change which I shall normally consider acceptable is to >> >>look >> >>>for alternative lines of play when an expected drop of a key card from >>>opponents does not materialize. >>> >> >>And here you are simply wrong in not accepting any other way of >>changed circumstances. >>I believe it is irrational for a player not to look at his cards >>before starting to play. If that principle is accepted, you must agree >>that the line you impose on him is not normal. >> >>So there are just two points where you are off the expected ruling: >>(expected by the Polish judges) >> >>- your assumption that this player did look at his cards and still >>concluded there were 13 tricks there. This is simply not the case that >>the Poles intended (or the exam question would not be put) >>- your refusal to accept that it is irrational to not look at your >>cards before playing. I believe this is clearly irrational. Very >>seldomly it will happen, but it is not the kind of action from a >>player who is thinking. >> >> >>>......... >>> >>> >>> >>>>All this just to say that your argument: >>>> >>>>>I have seen that happen (even with experienced players) and I am >>>> >>>>pretty sure >>>> >>>>>I shall see it again in a variety of ways. >>>> >>>>is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Irrational things sometimes >>>>happen. >>> >>> >>>Quite! And that is the reason why we cannot "protect" a claimer who >> >>presents >> >>>a claim statement involving what we would consider to be an irrational >>>action from his apparent intention of doing exactly that. >>> >> >>No Sven, it was not his intention to play without looking at his >>cards. He claimed, yes, but we cannot think he would play without >>looking at his cards. >> >> >>>............. >>> >>> >>>>>To my best knowledge I have no difficulty admitting a mistake when I >>>> >>>>make >>>> >>>> >>>>>one. But I am unable to see why my line here is one. >>>>> >>>> >>>>OK Sven, maybe you don't. Don't let the fact that you have to agree >>>>with that stupid Belgian stop you from admitting that you were in >>>>error up till now. >>> >>> >>>But I can still not see that I am in error. Furthermore I read the >> >>comments >> >>>from other presumably qualified Directors to support my understanding of >> >>the >> >>>laws. (Not to mention all those players who just shake their heads >> >>wondering >> >>>what we Directors really spend our efforts with). >>> >> >>Well, I read only very few such comments. I saw comments from very few >>and only three (Konrad, Ed and yourself) are making the mistakes that >>I believe you make. I see comments from Tom, Grattan, Tim and a few >>others, who all accept the principles I have written down. We are not >>in agreement about the claim after those principles (I find Tim's >>argument about deceptive discards very interesting). >>I'm not counting, but you shouldn't either. It is not because I'm the >>only one who takes the time and patience to try and tell you why you >>are wrong, that makes you be right. This is not a democracy unless we >>have full representation. >>As for the players, I do want to defend the ruling against them. And I >>don't care what they think afterwards. The laws tell me to rule this >>way, so I do. >> >> >>>Sven >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 14:53:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:53:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000a01c44c8d$90725c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c44c8d$90725c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C4734C.3090001@hdw.be> Sven, why do you insist on always coming up with wrong answers? Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>>The way this case has been presented I see no such doubt associated with >> >>the >> >>>concession of the last two tricks. >>> >> >>And the awarding of one penalty trick or two? You did understand the >>problem, did you not? There are two normal lines, both leading to 2 >>tricks for defenders, but the subsequent revoke penalty is one trick >>in the one line, two tricks in the other. >>So of course the WBF interpretation is important. Without it, the >>non-claimer (=revoker) gets the benefit of the doubt, so there is only >>1 penalty trick. With the interpretation, the non-revoker (=claimer) >>gets the benefit of the doubt and 2 penalty tricks. > > > OK, I see your point. As I then shall consider this to be a pure lottery > chance I shall probably use Law 12C3 and award a weighted score based on > equal probabilities for one or two penalty tricks. Where L12C3 is > unavailable I shall agree with you for two penalty tricks. (The concession > itself stands undisputed as made). > There are no L12C3's after claims! As even Antonio admits, although he would certainly favour there to be. This is a very simple case. benefit of the doubt to non-revoker = 2 penalty tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 14:54:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:54:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607081722.02697550@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607081722.02697550@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C473A6.1040501@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:51 AM 6/6/04, Bertrandgignoux wrote: > >> During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades . >> He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. >> >> South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . >> >> S - >> H 2 >> D 2 >> C A >> >> S 9 S - >> H 9 H - >> D - D 9 >> C 3 C 54 >> >> S - >> H 3 >> D 3 >> C 2 >> >> South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". >> What is your ruling ? > > > One-trick revoke penalty. > >> Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent >> revoked during the first 10 tricks ? > > > No. Even if S knows that W has revoked and now retains the S9, he > doesn't necessarily know that W holds the H9 rather than the D9. I > would award a two-trick revoke penalty only if S explicitly indicates > that he will play a heart at trick 12. > and you would be just as wrong as Sven. What is it with the people on blml? Are they all wrong? Are Tim and I the only ones left on blml who have the true laws in their minds? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 14:56:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:56:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C4702F.90800@hdw.be> References: <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040607083009.026750d0@pop.starpower.net> <40C4702F.90800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40C47415.9020208@hdw.be> I want to apologise profusely to Ed: Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >>> >>> You said that it is irrational to count the diamonds and not realize >>> they don't yield 6 tricks. >>> Is it irrational or careless not to look at all your cards before >>> playing? >> >> >> >> Claiming *is* playing! It is not accidental that TFLB puts "Part Five >> -- Claims and Concessions" in "Chapter VI -- The Play". A contract is >> reached, an opening lead is made, and declarer may then choose to >> "play" the contract by following either the procedures in L44 or those >> in L68 (or he may, of course, may start with the former and switch to >> the latter in mid-hand). >> > > Sorry Ed, but this is the lamest argument you've used so far. Yes, > claiming and playing both lead to tricks but from there on to go the the > absolute equality of "claiming without thinking" and "playing without > thinking" is a leap which defies answering. > Sorry Ed, you have not yet written anything as lame as this. Please accept my apologies. I would like to apologize also to Eric for calling his argument lame, but I cannot. It is indeed the lamest argument so far. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Mon Jun 7 15:01:25 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:01:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468E2@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 07 June 2004 14:55 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke case Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:51 AM 6/6/04, Bertrandgignoux wrote: > >> During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades . >> He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. >> >> South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . >> >> S - >> H 2 >> D 2 >> C A >> >> S 9 S - >> H 9 H - >> D - D 9 >> C 3 C 54 >> >> S - >> H 3 >> D 3 >> C 2 >> >> South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". >> What is your ruling ? > > > One-trick revoke penalty. > >> Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent >> revoked during the first 10 tricks ? > > > No. Even if S knows that W has revoked and now retains the S9, he > doesn't necessarily know that W holds the H9 rather than the D9. I > would award a two-trick revoke penalty only if S explicitly indicates > that he will play a heart at trick 12. > and you would be just as wrong as Sven. What is it with the people on blml? Are they all wrong? Are Tim and I the only ones left on blml who have the true laws in their minds? > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > I agree with Herman: its simple and its two tricks. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 15:26:28 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:26:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C472E6.20101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000f01c44c9b$6cb48bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >>Herman De Wael > >>OK Sven, time for a round-up. > > > > > > I agree with your round-up, again I find that our disagreement goes > mainly > > on the question: To what extent is a claimer bound by his claim > statement > > (including accepted clarifications)? > > >=20 > Well Sven, that answer is very simple: not at all! OK we both maintain our opinions. Now let me ask you to rule on the following scenario: West leads a heart against a grand slam in Spades and South exclaims = when he sees Dummy being void in Hearts: "Fine - I make thirteen tricks!" East: "Do you claim all tricks?" South: "Yes, sure. I have fifteen Aces." East: (after summoning the Director): "I want a trick for my trump. I = too am void in Hearts and my trump is higher than the smallest trump in Dummy". South: "Wait a moment, I claimed without really looking at my cards. Now = I see that I only have twelve spades between me and Dummy. It is = irrational not to ruff with the Ace of Spades and draw the King. Then thirteen = tricks are cold". Your case. Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jun 7 16:57:44 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:57:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1615 - 16 msgs References: <59354D6A-B806-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000c01c44ca8$2cbcbd80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > In my opinion, the uniquely American affliction is > > a culture that glorifies the winner, hence the Yank > > imperative to find just one winner after a session > > of bridge. > > I don't believe there is such an imperative here. Certainly not in the > clubs in which I play, nor in the (admittedly few) tournaments in which > I have played. > There is such an imperative, Ed. Only in the lowliest club games, not "club championships," are two winners recognized in a straight Mitchell movement. Yesterday I played in the San Diego Unit's Sunday game, two sections of 10 tables, with overall ranking despite the fact that there were no arrow switches (generally unknown in ACBL-land) and matchpointing was intra-section, not across-the-field. Even in our most prestigious pair events at NABCs, the movement is straight Mitchell with all lines switching direction for the second session. Each field has (1) played entirely different hands, (2) played against entirely different opponents, and (3) compared only with pairs in its field. That is two games, not one, and there should be two rankings, with two winners.. If they want overall ranking at the very least they should switch the direction of only half the lines for the second session, and switch the arrow for the last two rounds of each session, resulting in a one-winner movement that tends to balance out any difference in strength of the two fields. Not perfect by any measure, but a lot better than what they have now. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 7 17:13:48 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:13:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] directing material In-Reply-To: <003701c44c62$6b636ac0$5b23b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 7, 2004, at 03:35 US/Eastern, Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: > The professor is Olof Hanner, not me. That was my poor memory of the biographical notes on the book's jacket,=20= not Sven's. Sorry about that. :-) From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 7 17:17:33 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:17:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <000f01c44c9b$6cb48bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c44c9b$6cb48bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C4951D.5090602@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Now let me ask you to rule on the following scenario: > I am not one to shy away from a challenge. > West leads a heart against a grand slam in Spades and South exclaims when he > sees Dummy being void in Hearts: "Fine - I make thirteen tricks!" > > East: "Do you claim all tricks?" > > South: "Yes, sure. I have fifteen Aces." > > East: (after summoning the Director): "I want a trick for my trump. I too am > void in Hearts and my trump is higher than the smallest trump in Dummy". > > South: "Wait a moment, I claimed without really looking at my cards. Now I > see that I only have twelve spades between me and Dummy. It is irrational > not to ruff with the Ace of Spades and draw the King. Then thirteen tricks > are cold". > > Your case. > Difficult one. Very borderline. You must admit that with 12 trumps without the 3, it is possibly irrational not to ruff with the 4. You might just as well have east say: "I have the ace of hearts and claimer did not state he would ruff the lead". So what this boils down to is whether or not we judge it irrational or careless to ruff with the 2. And I agree that that is a difficult one. But it has no bearing on the original - since there is no "discovery" needed here. The cards that claimer needs to notice are already there on the table, no need for him to discover anything else. So I retort with the original one. Do you consider it rational or irrational, when looking at all 26 cards, to play diamonds withouit thinking? I don't think that you have problems with it being called irrational - our discussion in the original was about whether or not we allow the discovery. Try and imagine a case similar to the Polish one, but after declarer says to dummy "luckily I'll still make it" opponents insist that this is a claim. You are called, and you reluctantly have to rule that it is a claim. Consider the following as given: - you find it is clear declarer did not want to claim; - you ask him to look at his cards and he finds the squeeze line within 2 seconds, and you have absolutely no doubt he would have found that line if he had been allowed to play the hand. Can you imagine the circumstances under which you would rule in favour of this claimer? Now ask yourself in what way this case differs from the original Polish one. I can see 2 differences: 1-in the polish case, we are not certain that he would have found it 100% of the time. But can you imagine that we can be certain of that, in the Polish case as well? Don't forget that this is an exam question. You cannot expect the examinors to give the candidates all the elements as one, as in in adding, "when asked, the Polish declarer finds the Spade-diamond squeeze within two seconds". That is not to say it didn't happen. So let's assume it did, and let's forget about this difference. OK? 2-in the Polish case, the claimer did something wrong, in the alternative, he did not. This is a very important difference. Now, in order to rule in favour of the alternate declarer, we need to find that there are no rational lines to go down. In order to do that, we need to find, among some other things, that it is irrational not to look at your 26 cards, and to make a plan, before starting to play. If not taking that action is irrational to the alternate declarer, then it must also be irrational for the Polish one. OK? Wait a minute, I know what you're going to say: Unless in some way the mistake that the Polish declarer made (and the alternate one did not) turns the irrational action into a merely careless one. And that is the final point about which we disagree: Is it more rational for a player who has claimed without looking at his cards to start playing without looking at them? I don't believe it is. I believe that question is analogous to asking: Is it possible that a player claims without looking at all 26 cards? Is it possible that a player plays to the first trick without looking at all 26 cards? My answer is YES to the first question and NO to the second. Which leads me to conclude that for certain occurences of the Polish case, we must find it is irrational for declarer not to look at his cards. And I am certain you follow my reasoning from that point onwards, and even agree with it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 7 17:23:07 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:23:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C4702F.90800@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 7, 2004, at 09:39 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Ed, but this is the lamest argument you've used so far. Are you really so eager to lambast me that you can't tell the difference between me and Eric? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 7 17:26:17 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:26:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam In-Reply-To: <40C47415.9020208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <672CE73A-B89F-11D8-916E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 7, 2004, at 09:56 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Ed, you have not yet written anything as lame as this. Please > accept my apologies. Just saw this, having already sent my reply to the original. Thanks for the apology, Herman. :-) From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Jun 7 18:20:13 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 19:20:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <002101c44c00$db6f4530$13ee403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <003501c44cb3$b73aaf70$075a4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Grattan: > +=+ If declarer brings the position to a four card ending > with A K Q T in dummy it is clearly true that his LHO > would hold J x x x of the suit if he had been dealt with > four. RHO would then hold spades A x.x. and a > diamond. The Director must then decide whether in the > light of what declarer would have observed it is irrational > for his class of player to finesse in dummy. The specified > conditions for the application of Law 70E exist. Any > combination of two cards may have been discarded > from LHO's spades; if one such combination might be > thought more convincing than the others is it irrational > for the class of player to play the finesse when those > discards are made?. > And how are we to view the fact that this 'world > class player', who would be expected to have a firm > grasp of the requirements of Law 68, fails to mention the > squeeze in his statement of clarification? Is it credible that > when he makes the claim he is cognizant that he should > play the squeeze and is claiming on the basis that the > squeeze is exclusively his formed intention? Dear Grattan, Acording to the finesse or drop article (70E) in my view declarer will always get such a position wrong (ok there are some minor exceptions, but this one is nowhere near). So this seems an automatic 70E ruling to me. I think a TD/AC doesn't have to analyze what declarer might have seen and might have thought on the run of the rounded suits. If declarer wanted that info he should have played the hand, not claimed it. Anyway to digest multiple discards requires the level of attention and concentration we don't allow someone who misclaims like this. Now the word irrational is also mentioned in 70E. For me the footnote means exactly what you said in a previous mail. For me irrational in this context means crazy, silly, totally implausible, etc (yes for the class of player involved). It just protects claimer from being forced to play 'misere ouvert'. Guessing this position one way or another doesn't come close to being irrational. Just let a couple of world class players play this hand and give west Jxxx. Assuming EW to be avarage players you will be amazed how often they will find the finesse (based on discards and other info but you should limit the hard info, see below) even if it is clearly inferior in mathematical terms compared to the squeeze. By the way. I don't consider cashing DA early irrational for someone who claims the rest. I firmly support Sven and others. Any random order of cashing (as long as you keep comminucation to cash all of them) is rational when claiming a certain number of winners without stating a line. But cashing diamonds leads to 1 down. The late misguess leads to 2 down. We rule this kind of things against claimer. So for me this is 2 down. By the way, part 2. Somewhere in this thread the finesse was put at 50% and the squeeze at 70%. I guess you mean a priori odds. You discover the hearts to be 5-2 so this means the finesse is now less than 50% and the squeeze becomes (much) better (I am too lazy to calculate the exact odds, anyway that is not an important bridge skill). But if even HdW and other (do they exist?) 'give the slam' advocates cannot come up with this rather simple analysis after 100 odd posts what the hell are we doing. It is simply not irrational not to notice such 'obvious' info. It is just inferior. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "The great task in life is to find reality" > ~ Iris Murdoch. > #=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:56 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > > > > > > > I rule on "doubt". I *know* it is possible to induce > > world-class players into the wrong line by intelligent, > > in tempo discarding. There are two internationals > > against whom I play regularly and once in while this > > works. I believe that you don't get to be world class > > without some table presence. The combination of two > > reasonable lines (albeit with some percentage difference) > > and perfect discarding by opponents creates sufficient > > doubt in my mind that I rule against declarer. I am light- > > years from being world class myself but I believe my > > argument for adjusting is sufficiently well thought through > > that I would be exceedingly p*ssed off were the examiner > > to fail me. > > > +=+ If declarer brings the position to a four card ending > with A K Q T in dummy it is clearly true that his LHO > would hold J x x x of the suit if he had been dealt with > four. RHO would then hold spades A x.x. and a > diamond. The Director must then decide whether in the > light of what declarer would have observed it is irrational > for his class of player to finesse in dummy. The specified > conditions for the application of Law 70E exist. Any > combination of two cards may have been discarded > from LHO's spades; if one such combination might be > thought more convincing than the others is it irrational > for the class of player to play the finesse when those > discards are made?. > And how are we to view the fact that this 'world > class player', who would be expected to have a firm > grasp of the requirements of Law 68, fails to mention the > squeeze in his statement of clarification? Is it credible that > when he makes the claim he is cognizant that he should > play the squeeze and is claiming on the basis that the > squeeze is exclusively his formed intention? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Jun 7 18:13:27 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 19:13:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? References: <000501c44c12$9c1af070$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40C3AE7A.1050404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002f01c44cb3$b6669690$075a4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> HDW: And that is precisely what I've been saying all along is not true. It is possible for a player to claim without thinking. It is irrational for a player to play without thinking. Dear Herman, After a zillion post in this thread still you don't realize that you are completely lost in some kind of meta-legal-logic. For the all the rest of us claiming is a way to speed up the play so it is a form of play. So the above is complety nonsense for any practical application. When someone claims against me I assume he has a reason to do so, so he must have thought about it (and the other way round). Otherwise I have to double check every claim and we would better of by outlawing claims altogether. Well some smartass lawyer might easily come up with some legal argument that the laws might say something else and should be interpretated in another way. I would not be surprised if the wording of the law is flawed in this respect. Tell me something new. I don't care. And most of us don't care. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? > Ed asks a correct question and Sven botches up the answer. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > Ed Reppert > > ............. > > > >>>This excludes his right to change his line of > >>>play because he began thinking when the claim > >>>was contested, some thinking he should have made > >>>before he claimed. Contesting the claim alerts > >>>him that there might be something wrong with the > >>>claim, something that he overlooked when planning > >>>his line of play leading up to the claim. > >>> > >>>OK? > >> > >>Makes sense. Only quibble: how you gonna know when he did his thinking? > > > > Good question, Ed. > We ask him, we hear his response, and we believe him; or not. if we > believe him, we rule contract made. If we don't, or if we're unsure, > we rule one down. > That's after all what we're there for. To rule. > > But Sven's answer: > > > > > I don't have to know. > > Yes you do, because (as Ed seems to admit) it is important to our ruling. > > > IMO he is supposed to do his necessary thinking before > > claiming. > > Yes he is SUPPOSED to do his thinking. We're not ruling on what he's > supposed to do, we're ruling on what he did. > > > If he carelessly claims without thinking he is in the same > > position as if he plays his cards without thinking. > > > > And that is precisely what I've been saying all along is not true. It > is possible for a player to claim without thinking. It is irrational > for a player to play without thinking. There is no special reason for > a player who has claimed without thinking to start playing without > thinking. Thus, playing without thinking is irrational and the lines > that are contistent with that are non-normal. > > > Call it careless, call it irrational, it doesn't matter because he has done > > it. > > > > Just like he is not allowed to discover his forgotten trump until it > > materializes he shall IMO not be allowed to do any thinking "that could be > > triggered from the fact that opponents contested his claim" until during the > > indicated line of play something happens that changes his situation. > > > > You keep suggesting that it is the contestation which triggers his > thinking. I have never suggested this and I'll repeat: I believe he > would look at his cards, regardless of aly claim or contestation about > that. > > > Example from that troublesome Polish case (yes I know I have promised not to > > make any further comments on that one but): > > > > I should rule according to a line of play where he began cashing his high > > diamonds. But I should also allow him to discover that the Jack does not > > drop and allow him after the third Diamond trick to look for alternate lines > > of play as the situation has changed into making a play of the fourth > > diamond irrational in a grand slam if all the following conditions are > > satisfied: > > 1: another successful line of play is available > > 2: he could reasonably be expected to find that successful line of play > > 2: he could reasonably be assumed to notice that the JD has not dropped. > > > > But as already the first Diamond cashed was fatal condition 1) above is not > > satisfied so this has never been an issue. > > > > Sven, you allow this player to rethink after cashing a few diamonds, > but not before. Why should he re-think after three tricks - what > should trigger that? Nothing can trigger that. A player cannot start > on 9 diamonds thinking they are good and realize they are not only > after three tricks have been played. If you consider it normal for him > to play without counting his tricks, then it is normal for him to > continue playing that, and he plays a diamond to the fifth trick as > well. You should rule 2 down. If you consider it irrational for him > not to notice diamonds are not producing 6 tricks after trick 4, then > you should also find it irrational for him not to notice this after > the first trick, and you should rule contract made (dependent on our > other decisions such as him finding the squeeze all of the time). > > > > >>A matter for TD judgment, certainly, and most players are honest, but > >>it seems a rather large hole, to me. Not that I can see any way to fill > >>it. :-) > > > > > > And as I said above, no Director should ever need to. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Jun 7 18:22:33 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 19:22:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <000901c447d5$4857b450$6900a8c0@WINXP> <40BD8DF8.1060804@hdw.be> <40BDB0FF.6070908@fe.up.pt> <40BDB5DF.7010805@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003601c44cb4$065d2b50$075a4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Jesper: And that is precisely where we differ. I believe they are exactly the same thing. Claiming is a way of playing the hand - if you claim without thinking, then you have chosen to play the hand without thinking. Nice way of putting it. Somewhere early in this thread I found my own nam= e by Konrad: Jaap, who *is* a world class player, stated recently that screwing up the squeeze positions is by definition not irrational even for the cr=E8me de= la cr=E8me. I hope he hasn't changed his mind since then. Jaap? I definitly didn't change my mind. Squeezes need attention and although g= ood players tend to leave squeeze positions intact at a stage where (the need for) a squeeze is not evident, good players are quite capable of screwing up, I have done so myself often enough. Technical capabilities are useles= s when it comes to making concentration errors. Now good players also make less concentration errors than weak players, still they make them (Lauria recently a very expensive one). 'We' also have emotions interfering, 'we' can also be tired. Jaap From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jun 7 18:40:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:40:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C3ABFB.3040603@hdw.be> References: <25FCBCFA-B7EE-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <40C3ABFB.3040603@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Sunday, Jun 6, 2004, at 13:01 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Sorry Sven, a concession is a claim. >> A concession of *some* of the remaining tricks is a claim of the >>rest - just as a claim of *some* of the remaining tricks is a >>concession of the rest. But a concession of *all* the remaining >>tricks leaves no tricks to claim. >> > >Et tu, Ed? > >I thought this had been settled on blml for once and for all, a few >times already. >Apparently there are some of you who refuse to use blml to learns a few >things. >I thought blml was there to put us all on the same track. Apparently >that is idle hope. > >Believe me Ed & Sven, and I don't know of any non-arrogant way of >saying this - you are WRONG. A claim for all tricks is a concession of >zero and a concession of all tricks is a claim of zero. There is no >difference between a claim and a concession. Both are ruled with the >same laws. > >And if I ever here you trying to state otherwise, I shall have to start >using a kill-file after all. The problem is that you are trying to argue a clear case but using the wrong tools. While it is obviously a two-trick revoke, it is not because a concession is a claim, because it isn't. A little look at the Laws clarifies that. But it is irrelevant. The approach given to us by the WBFLC but not explicitly mentioned in the laws is that a revoke changes the balance of probability in a claim-type case. While they did not mention a concession that is not a claim, ie a concession of all the remaining tricks, I cannot see any logic in arguing that such a situation is different. So, two tricks to declarer. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 7 18:46:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:46:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000a01c44c8d$90725c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <40C458CF.90205@hdw.be> <000a01c44c8d$90725c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Herman De Wael >........... >> > The way this case has been presented I see no such doubt associated with >> the >> > concession of the last two tricks. >> > >> >> And the awarding of one penalty trick or two? You did understand the >> problem, did you not? There are two normal lines, both leading to 2 >> tricks for defenders, but the subsequent revoke penalty is one trick >> in the one line, two tricks in the other. >> So of course the WBF interpretation is important. Without it, the >> non-claimer (=revoker) gets the benefit of the doubt, so there is only >> 1 penalty trick. With the interpretation, the non-revoker (=claimer) >> gets the benefit of the doubt and 2 penalty tricks. > >OK, I see your point. As I then shall consider this to be a pure lottery >chance I shall probably use Law 12C3 and award a weighted score based on >equal probabilities for one or two penalty tricks. Where L12C3 is >unavailable I shall agree with you for two penalty tricks. (The concession >itself stands undisputed as made). L12C3 is unavailable *everywhere*. This is a claim, so there is no assigned score involved. OK, tell a lie, I understand certain jurisdictions have other views. But you need a jurisdiction which has stated that L12C3 applies after a claim. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 7 18:56:39 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:56:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468E2@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> At 10:01 AM 6/7/04, Robin wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 04:51 AM 6/6/04, Bertrandgignoux wrote: > > > >> During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of > spades . > >> He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. > >> > >> South, declarer , on lead playing a no trump contract . > >> > >> S - > >> H 2 > >> D 2 > >> C A > >> > >> S 9 S - > >> H 9 H - > >> D - D 9 > >> C 3 C 54 > >> > >> S - > >> H 3 > >> D 3 > >> C 2 > >> > >> South plays his club , saying : " last 2 tricks for you ". > >> What is your ruling ? > > > > One-trick revoke penalty. > > > >> Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent > >> revoked during the first 10 tricks ? > > > > No. Even if S knows that W has revoked and now retains the S9, he > > doesn't necessarily know that W holds the H9 rather than the D9. I > > would award a two-trick revoke penalty only if S explicitly indicates > > that he will play a heart at trick 12. > >and you would be just as wrong as Sven. >What is it with the people on blml? >Are they all wrong? >Are Tim and I the only ones left on blml who have the true laws in >their minds? > >I agree with Herman: its simple and its two tricks. My original reply was wrong; I stand corrected. All of us have the "true laws" in our minds, or at least immediately to hand in our lawbooks. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the "true WBFLC interpretations", and I had overlooked the recent interpretation by the WBFLC which changed the presumption of benefit of doubt in such cases. I believe my original reply would have been correct prior to the soi disant "publication" of this interpretation. But I don't like where it gets us in this case. A player should never gain an advantage by claiming over what he would have gotten by playing on optimally. Here declarer may know that W has revoked and still holds the S9, but not know the respective locations of the H9 and D9. To get an extra trick, he must choose correctly between playing the H2 or the D2 im order to gain the second penalty trick, a 50% chance (or however much better it may be due to declarer's "table feel"). If he claims, though, he need not guess; we will "guess right for him" 100% of the time, which makes claiming clearly superior to playing on, even without "playing on" including any careless, inferior or irrational play. ISTM that this is contrary to the "spirit" (original intent) of the claims laws, notwithstanding that the WBFLC has made it clear that it is consistent with the "letter" of the laws as they interpret them (and as I, admittedly, must also do in practice, at least until -- in my dreams! -- the rational discussion on BLML convinces them to change their view). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jun 7 18:55:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:55:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: References: <000401c44c0f$59a39650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Sven wrote: > >> In the given case the player conceded all remaining tricks after >> cashing his Ace of clubs. > >No Sven he did not. He conceded the last two tricks after leading a small >club from hand at trick 11. Trick 11 was incomplete at the time of the >concession. In the context I think he must be claiming 1 trick and >conceding two. > >However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going to >rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC >guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession >situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. I would like to agree with Tim. However, there is a problem: the WBFLC guidance was for a specific position: does that mean it is general? 63.2 Laws 63A3 and 69A [Establishment of revoke and acquiescence] [WBFLC] A defender revokes, declarer claims, but the defender or his partner does not accept the claim. Acquiescence has not occurred and the revoke is not established by the claim. The Director allows the revoke to be corrected. He then determines the outcome of the claim, but, unlike a normal claim, doubtful points are determined against the revoker rather than against the claimer. [WBFLC minutes 2000-01-12#3] That's the WBFLC advice [*] but it is specific rather than general. Can we assume it applies to all revoke then claim positions? [*] One of the easiest ways to find things in WBFLC minutes that are connected with specific Laws is to look in the EBU White book which includes all such items since Hammamet - except the last WC for which I have still not received any minutes [hint, Grattan]. But please be clear: the interpretations which are often written in a way much simpler than the WBFLC minutes are *not* official WBFLC interpretations: they *are* EBU interpretations of those minutes. http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/laws_publications.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 7 18:58:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:58:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C473A6.1040501@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607081722.02697550@pop.starpower.net> <40C473A6.1040501@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >and you would be just as wrong as Sven. >What is it with the people on blml? >Are they all wrong? >Are Tim and I the only ones left on blml who have the true laws in >their minds? Judging by your arguments, just Tim, I fear ...... -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 7 19:07:24 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:07:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C4951D.5090602@hdw.be> References: <000f01c44c9b$6cb48bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c44c9b$6cb48bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607140108.009f0ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:17 PM 6/7/04, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: >>Now let me ask you to rule on the following scenario: > >I am not one to shy away from a challenge. > >>West leads a heart against a grand slam in Spades and South exclaims >>when he >>sees Dummy being void in Hearts: "Fine - I make thirteen tricks!" >>East: "Do you claim all tricks?" >>South: "Yes, sure. I have fifteen Aces." >>East: (after summoning the Director): "I want a trick for my trump. I >>too am >>void in Hearts and my trump is higher than the smallest trump in Dummy". >>South: "Wait a moment, I claimed without really looking at my cards. >>Now I >>see that I only have twelve spades between me and Dummy. It is irrational >>not to ruff with the Ace of Spades and draw the King. Then thirteen >>tricks >>are cold". >>Your case. > >Difficult one. Very borderline. >You must admit that with 12 trumps without the 3, it is possibly >irrational not to ruff with the 4. >You might just as well have east say: "I have the ace of hearts and >claimer did not state he would ruff the lead". >So what this boils down to is whether or not we judge it irrational or >careless to ruff with the 2. >And I agree that that is a difficult one. >But it has no bearing on the original - since there is no "discovery" >needed here. The cards that claimer needs to notice are already there >on the table, no need for him to discover anything else. > >So I retort with the original one. Do you consider it rational or >irrational, when looking at all 26 cards, to play diamonds withouit >thinking? > >I don't think that you have problems with it being called irrational - >our discussion in the original was about whether or not we allow the >discovery. > >Try and imagine a case similar to the Polish one, but after declarer >says to dummy "luckily I'll still make it" opponents insist that this >is a claim. You are called, and you reluctantly have to rule that it >is a claim. Consider the following as given: >- you find it is clear declarer did not want to claim; Herman's counter-example is self-contradictory. He asks us to consider a case in which "you reluctantly have to rule that it is a claim [even though] you find it is clear declarer did not want to claim". TFLB, however, tells us explicitly that if "you find it is clear declarer did not want to claim" you must rule (reluctantly or otherwise) that it is *not* a claim (L68A): "A contestant... claims when... (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Mon Jun 7 19:31:40 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:31:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Yank imperative (was: 7.5 tables) In-Reply-To: <20040607172214.28373.66565.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040607172214.28373.66565.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1086633100.14549.197934123@webmail.messagingengine.com> > > > the Yank > > > imperative to find just one winner after a session > > > of bridge. > > > > I don't believe there is such an imperative here. Certainly not in the > > clubs in which I play, nor in the (admittedly few) tournaments in > which > > I have played. > > > There is such an imperative, Ed. Only in the lowliest club games, not > "club championships," are two winners recognized in a straight Mitchell > movement. Yesterday I played in the San Diego Unit's Sunday game, two > sections of 10 tables, with overall ranking despite the fact that there > were no arrow switches (generally unknown in ACBL-land) and > matchpointing was intra-section, not across-the-field. > > Even in our most prestigious pair events at NABCs, the movement is > straight Mitchell with all lines switching direction for the second > session. Each field has (1) played entirely different hands, (2) > played against entirely different opponents, and (3) compared only with > pairs in its field. That is two games, not one, and there should be two > rankings, with two winners.. > > If they want overall ranking at the very least they should switch the > direction of only half the lines for the second session, and switch the > arrow for the last two rounds of each session, resulting in a one-winner > movement that tends to balance out any difference in strength of the two > fields. Not perfect by any measure, but a lot better than what they have > now. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California These are excellent arguments for running better movements--but, IMHO, not for deciding that a "club championship", or any other title without a plural in it, will be held jointly by two pairs who have not, in fact, gone equal 1/2--having, as we all agree, not played any of the same cards. At a lowly club game, no one is claiming to be champion of anything, so there's no such issue--and, imperative-wise, most of the folks seem fine with this, at least in this corner of the world. I would be interested to get a better idea of *why* the practices that Marv describes are the norm at higher levels. Does ACBL think that experienced players cannot handle anything more challenging than straight Mitchells? If they think this, is there evidence from practice that they are correct? David From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jun 7 19:45:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 19:45:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468E2@hotel.npl.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >But I don't like where it gets us in this case. A player should never >gain an advantage by claiming over what he would have gotten by playing >on optimally. Here declarer may know that W has revoked and still >holds the S9, but not know the respective locations of the H9 and D9. >To get an extra trick, he must choose correctly between playing the H2 >or the D2 im order to gain the second penalty trick, a 50% chance (or >however much better it may be due to declarer's "table feel"). If he >claims, though, he need not guess; we will "guess right for him" 100% >of the time, which makes claiming clearly superior to playing on, even >without "playing on" including any careless, inferior or irrational >play. ISTM that this is contrary to the "spirit" (original intent) of >the claims laws, notwithstanding that the WBFLC has made it clear that >it is consistent with the "letter" of the laws as they interpret them >(and as I, admittedly, must also do in practice, at least until -- in >my dreams! -- the rational discussion on BLML convinces them to change their view). If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair to the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 7 22:04:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:04:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <40C4951D.5090602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c44cd3$0fa46920$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Now let me ask you to rule on the following scenario: > > >=20 > I am not one to shy away from a challenge. It appears to me that is exactly what you do below. You say there is no "discovery" here. If you reread what South says you = will see that he "discovered" he only has 12 trumps between himself and dummy rather than the 13 be initially seems to have thought he held. I certainly accept that with your opinion you shall have great problems, = not to mention that you will most likely be in conflict with Law 70C if you pursue your opinion. I have no problem with this case.=20 >=20 > > West leads a heart against a grand slam in Spades=20 > > and South exclaims when he sees Dummy being void > > in Hearts: "Fine - I make thirteen tricks!" > > > > East: "Do you claim all tricks?" > > > > South: "Yes, sure. I have fifteen Aces." > > > > East: (after summoning the Director): "I want a > > trick for my trump. I too am void in Hearts and > > my trump is higher than the smallest trump in Dummy". > > > > South: "Wait a moment, I claimed without really=20 > > looking at my cards. Now I see that I only have=20 > > twelve spades between me and Dummy. It is irrational > > not to ruff with the Ace of Spades and draw the King. > > Then thirteen tricks are cold". > > > > Your case. > > >=20 > Difficult one. Very borderline. > You must admit that with 12 trumps without the 3, it is possibly > irrational not to ruff with the 4. > You might just as well have east say: "I have the ace of hearts and > claimer did not state he would ruff the lead". Please don't derail. Declarer's expression appears to me clearly a = relief seeing the void in dummy. I would never contest his intention to ruff = the lead in Hearts. > So what this boils down to is whether or not we judge it irrational or > careless to ruff with the 2. Law 70C dictates what you may or may not do. > And I agree that that is a difficult one. > But it has no bearing on the original - since there is no "discovery" > needed here. The cards that claimer needs to notice are already there > on the table, no need for him to discover anything else. Declarer needs to "discover" that he misses one trump. ....... remainder snipped - a complete derailment. Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jun 7 22:10:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David wrote: > >However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going to > >rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC > >guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession > >situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. > > I would like to agree with Tim. In truth I only responded so I could quote the above :) > However, there is a problem: the WBFLC guidance was for a specific > position: does that mean it is general? > > 63.2 Laws 63A3 and 69A [Establishment of revoke and acquiescence] > [WBFLC] > > A defender revokes, declarer claims, but the defender or his partner > does not accept the claim. Acquiescence has not occurred and the revoke > is not established by the claim. The Director allows the revoke to be > corrected. He then determines the outcome of the claim, but, unlike a > normal claim, doubtful points are determined against the revoker rather > than against the claimer. > > That's the WBFLC advice [*] but it is specific rather than general. > Can we assume it applies to all revoke then claim positions? I don't think we can assume anything with regard to the WBFLC. However extrapolating the general from the specific seems more consistent then postulating the opposite. In real life I want to give a conceder who knows there was a revoke but doesn't know which throw-in card to use just one trick and a declarer unaware of a revoke two (or a split score). No idea how I'd justify that though. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jun 7 22:10:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ECFF@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Harald wrote@ > Reread Sven's quotation: > ...., it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress. I'm almost certain that this means that a statement solely about winning the current trick does not constitute a claim (ie it does not mean that a claim excludes an incomplete trick). A typical example is, after leading small towards AQ in dummy, "Finessing for 6 or 7". I agree there is some ambiguity in the language, probably more so for non-native English speakers. Tim From nsousa@fc.up.pt Mon Jun 7 22:18:21 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:18:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise Message-ID: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CBE@MAIL.fc.up.pt> About my headers: I recieve blml as a digest. When I make a reply, I write an email to = blml@rtflb.org and copy-paste the corresponding subject from the digest. For each reply, I get a mail warning from blml "your post awaits = moderator approval. Reason: message contains a suspicious header". I = have no idea why the blml mail bot objects to my headers, but it may be = the reason Sven's software blocks part of the message. By the way, I = don't think my computer is infected by any virus. I didn't use to get blml header warnings when I received the messages = one-by-one. They're a bit annoying because they delay my contributions = to blml, I sure would like to know what I can do to fix this :) Regards, Nuno Sousa From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 7 22:36:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:36:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c44cd7$82ba3ee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > However, there is a problem: the WBFLC guidance was for a specific > position: does that mean it is general? > > 63.2 Laws 63A3 and 69A [Establishment of revoke and acquiescence] > [WBFLC] > > A defender revokes, declarer claims, but the defender or his partner > does not accept the claim. Acquiescence has not occurred and the revoke > is not established by the claim. The Director allows the revoke to be > corrected. He then determines the outcome of the claim, but, unlike a > normal claim, doubtful points are determined against the revoker rather > than against the claimer. > > [WBFLC minutes 2000-01-12#3] > > > That's the WBFLC advice but it is specific rather than general. > Can we assume it applies to all revoke then claim positions? ............. At last the reference I asked for some time ago. And I feel the same as I believe David expresses: This minute is far too specific to be taken generally. Thanks David, Regards Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jun 7 22:02:21 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:02:21 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000601c44c17$a8d0ee00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > Zero tricks were claimed. Arguably, zero is a "specific number." > > Why not also include negative numbers in the class of "specific numbers"? Well, 71A tells us we'd have to immediately cancel such a concession anyway, while no such problem occurs if we treat 0 as a legal number of tricks to claim and treat all claims and concessions the same way. I can recall several occasions where I have tabled my cards with a statement like "I have fifteen winners." Question for the list: Suppose I expose my hand and announce I have fifteen winners. In fact, I have only 13 or 14. Will you always give me my contract, no matter which card I falsely counted as a winner? Or will you require me to cash the 15 cards I think are winners in whichever order is least advantageous to me? I imagine that if it's a AKQxx opposite Jxx suit breaking 5-0, you will rule I will notice the bad break and let me cash other suits instead of playing a fifth round. What if it is something 'unspottable' except by the loss of a trick? Say I am in notrump and I have KQJ AKxx QJxx Ax xx QJx AKxx KQJx and for whatever reason, the opening lead is a spade that comes around to my king. Forgetting about the ace, I say I have 15 winners as I face my hand. Do I have to "cash" the spades or will you let me take my other 12 tricks? GRB From henk@ripe.net Mon Jun 7 22:50:09 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:50:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Headers (was Re: [blml] RE: Pre-emptive raise) In-Reply-To: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CBE@MAIL.fc.up.pt> References: <3AE55D347EC4FA4185809F47C7A062E507789CBE@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa wrote: > About my headers: > > I recieve blml as a digest. When I make a reply, I write an email to > blml@rtflb.org and copy-paste the corresponding subject from the digest. > > For each reply, I get a mail warning from blml "your post awaits > moderator approval. Reason: message contains a suspicious header". Your message contained a header: ------_=_NextPart_001_01C447EC.AE844A82 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 followed by an encoded version of the text of the posting in some fancy Microsoft format. This "feature" can be abused to distribute virus code: Your mail client says that the mail has an attachment. You open it and some malicious code is executed infecting your computer. If you do not run a virus scanner, you probably won't even notice until your system is destroyed. To avoid that this accidentally happens to users of the BLML, the mail software puts mails with postings in formats other than plain ASCII in separate folder, where I can virus check them before distributing. This has to be done by hand and thus takes time. The solution is to switch off sending mails in any format but plain ASCII text. Some Microsoft clients include by default a copy of your mail in HTML, WINMAIL and other formats. I consider that a bug. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jun 7 23:36:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:36:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: Bertrand Gignoux wrote: >During the first ten tricks, West revoked not playing his 9 of spades. >He did not win a trick with a spade after his revoke. > >South, declarer, on lead playing a no trump contract. > > S - > H 2 > D 2 > C A > > S 9 S - > H 9 H - > D - D 9 > C 3 C 54 > > S - > H 3 > D 3 > C 2 > >South plays his club, saying: "last 2 tricks for you". >What is your ruling? >Does it make a difference if South knows or ignores that one opponent >revoked during the first 10 tricks? WBF LC minutes 30th October 2001, item 9: >>A defender revokes, declarer claims, no-one comments, and the board >>is scored. The revoke is discovered before the time limit in Law >>69A, perhaps before the signal for the following round. >> >>Law 63A3 suggests the revoke is established by the acquiescence: Law >>69A suggests that acquiescence has not occurred if the defender >>wishes to object. In this case we assume the revoke is established. Richard Hills: My ruling is a one trick revoke penalty if at least one defender immediately objected to declarer's concession. My ruling is a two trick revoke penalty if neither defender immediately objected to declarer's concession. My ruling is unchanged if South has prior knowledge of West's revoke. 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. Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 7 23:26:34 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:26:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question from an exam References: <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <352D4692-B734-11D8-ABB2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040607083009.026750d0@pop.starpower.net> <40C4702F.90800@hdw.be> <40C47415.9020208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006601c44ce0$9637c880$d3c8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A question from an exam > > Sorry Ed, you have not yet written anything > as lame as this. Please accept my apologies. > I would like to apologize also to Eric for > calling his argument lame, but I cannot. It is > indeed the lamest argument so far. > +=+ In Herman's opinion, of course.+=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 8 03:40:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:40:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml Message-ID: Steven Johnson, Emergence, pages 149-155: >A threaded discussion board turns out to be >an ideal ecosystem for that peculiar species >known as the crank - the ideologue obsessed >with a certain issue or interpretive model, >who has no qualms about interjecting his or >her worldview into any discussion, and >apparently no day job or family life to keep >him from posting voluminous commentary at >the slightest provocation. [snip] >In a public discussion thread, not all the >participants are visible. A given >conversation may have five or six active >contributors and several dozen "lurkers" who >read through the posts but don't chime in >with their words. This creates a >fundamental imbalance in the system of >threaded discussion and gives the crank an >opportunity to dominate the space that would >be much more difficult off-line. [snip] >From a certain angle, Slashdot today >resembles an ant colony. From another, it >looks like a virtual democracy. Malda >himself likens it to jury duty. > >Here's how it works: If you've spent more >than a few sessions as a registered Slashdot >user, the system may on occasion alert you >that you have been given moderator status >(not unlike a jury summons arriving in your >mailbox). As in the legal analogy, >moderators only serve for a finite stretch >of time, and during that stretch they have >the power to rate contributions made by >other users, on a scale of -1 to 5. But >that power diminishes with use: each >moderator is endowed with only a finite >number of points that he or she can >distribute by rating user contributions. >Dole out all your ratings, and your tenure >as a moderator comes to an end. On a scale of -1 to 5, I rate Steven Johnson's book Emergence as a 4. Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 8 04:37:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:37:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] directing material Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>>For example, yesterday a two-session Teams >>>of Pairs movement was held as a novelty at >>>the Canberra Bridge Club (replacing the >>>more normal Sunday Swiss). [snip] >>>The special condition of contest was that >>>a team's matchpoints were based upon the >>>better score achieved by their two pairs >>>playing the same board. [snip] Ed Reppert: >>Interesting. I may suggest that sometime, >>just for grins. :-) Canberra co-designer of movement: >I will mention one fun aspect of the event, >however: teams can employ a variety of >interesting tactics ranging from the simple >agreement that one pair will always bid >aggressively while the other is timid, to >the extreme agreement that one pair only >ever plays in part score or small slam while >the other pair only ever plays in game or >grand! > >You should probably also note that running >such a style of event other than as a >novelty/fundraising event might be a bad idea >as it is open to 'opposing' teams >collaborating with one another and ensuring >that on a given board a top is gained by the >N/S team at one table and a bottom at the >other, thus giving 100% on the board to both >teams. Richard Hills: The "dumping" possibility only occurs if the movement for a Team of Pairs is organised as a Mitchell movement. If the movement for a Team of Pairs is instead organised as twinned Howell movements (with the two pairs in a team having the same pair number in each of the two Howell sections), then it is always in the interest of both pairs of a team to sensibly play normal bridge throughout (perhaps with the mild strategy of agreeing to take two-way finesses in opposite directions). This is because a non-scoring bottom for your team is a scoring top for the other team. In a Mitchell movement, the other team is playing in a totally different field. But in a Howell movement, the other team is one of your direct rivals. Therefore, in a Howell movement, the ideal result for your two pairs on a board is for one to score a top, and for the other to score a second-top or equal top. Note that no matter what movement is used for a Team of Pairs, the format will only work if an *even* number of teams enters. Therefore, the sponsoring organisation should have on standby a "house" team. Best wishes RJH From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 8 06:33:24 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:33:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <20040607211102.7260.22916.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <002701c44d1a$1ecf0a30$6528fea9@Picasso> David Babcock wrote: > I would be interested to get a better idea of *why* the practices that > Marv describes are the norm at higher levels. Does ACBL think that > experienced players cannot handle anything more challenging than straight > Mitchells? If they think this, is there evidence from practice that they > are correct? A couple years ago I had the pleasure of being the floor director for, among other sections, the flight A pairs at a regional tournament in Dallas. Dallas players are, as Americans go, pretty experienced. Flight A was cut at, I believe, 2500 masterpoints (may have been 2000), so again we are not talking about this spring's baby bunnies. We ran a straight Mitchell in the afternoon, and twinned Howells in the evening. Never again, at least not if I had my way. Half the pairs never figured out how a seven table Howell worked, it seemed (and yes, they had guide cards); the rest knew, and mostly hated it. And bitched, of course. So yes, I'd say there's at least some evidence. Sad but true. Arrow switches? Hah. Good luck. Doug Couchman From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 8 06:38:15 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 01:38:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1615 - 16 msgs In-Reply-To: <000c01c44ca8$2cbcbd80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <09DBF0BB-B90E-11D8-9536-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jun 7, 2004, at 11:57 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > There is such an imperative, Ed. Only in the lowliest club games, not > "club championships," are two winners recognized in a straight Mitchell > movement. That last bit is not true in Rochester. OTOH, I suppose we qualify as "the lowliest club games". From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 8 07:30:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:30:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Yank imperative (was: 7.5 tables) Message-ID: David Babcock asked: [snip] >>I would be interested to get a better idea of *why* the >>practices that Marv describes are the norm at higher >>levels. Does ACBL think that experienced players >>cannot handle anything more challenging than straight >>Mitchells? If they think this, is there evidence from >>practice that they are correct? Doug Couchman replied: [snip] >Dallas players are, as Americans go, pretty experienced. >Flight A was cut at, I believe, 2500 masterpoints (may >have been 2000), so again we are not talking about this >spring's baby bunnies. > >We ran a straight Mitchell in the afternoon, and twinned >Howells in the evening. Never again, at least not if I >had my way. Half the pairs never figured out how a >seven table Howell worked, it seemed (and yes, they had >guide cards); the rest knew, and mostly hated it. And >bitched, of course. [snip] Richard Hills notes: Different strokes for different folks. The experienced Kiwi imperative is to play as many different opponents as possible, so the Kiwi matchpoint pairs have 27-table sections with *one*-board rounds. Meanwhile, the Canberra experts can cope with many forms of movements, but the Canberra expert imperative is to bitch about a 7-table Howell because of two-board rounds. The Canberra expert imperative is a preference for a minimum of eight-board rounds, with a further preference for imps over matchpoints. Therefore, a current Mixed Pairs championship at the Canberra Bridge Club has Yankee-unusual Conditions of Contest. -> (a) Four sessions over successive Thursdays, (b) *Fourteen*-board rounds with a Swiss draw, and (c) Imp scoring against a Butler datum. In my opinion, a number of Canberra experts need to get a life, when they insist that a fun event like a Mixed Pairs has an overly sensible CoC. Best wishes RJH From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Jun 8 08:48:29 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:48:29 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED00@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going to >rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC >guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession >situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. I would like to agree with Tim. However, there is a problem: the WBFLC guidance was for a specific=20 position: does that mean it is general? 63.2 Laws 63A3 and 69A [Establishment of revoke and acquiescence]=20 [WBFLC] A defender revokes, declarer claims, but the defender or his partner=20 does not accept the claim. Acquiescence has not occurred and the revoke=20 is not established by the claim. The Director allows the revoke to be=20 corrected. He then determines the outcome of the claim, but, unlike a=20 normal claim, doubtful points are determined against the revoker rather=20 than against the claimer. [WBFLC minutes 2000-01-12#3] That's the WBFLC advice [*] but it is specific rather than general.=20 Can we assume it applies to all revoke then claim positions? ----- This decision by the WBFLC is specific to a situation where the revoke has not been established. I can't see that we can extrapolate this to a general situation. So in the case discussed in this thread, I would have to go for a 1 trick penalty. Regards, Harald ----- [snip] --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 8 09:15:33 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:15:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607140108.009f0ec0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000f01c44c9b$6cb48bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c44c9b$6cb48bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20040607140108.009f0ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C575A5.8020700@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman's counter-example is self-contradictory. He asks us to consider > a case in which "you reluctantly have to rule that it is a claim [even > though] you find it is clear declarer did not want to claim". TFLB, > however, tells us explicitly that if "you find it is clear declarer did > not want to claim" you must rule (reluctantly or otherwise) that it is > *not* a claim (L68A): "A contestant... claims when... (unless he > demonstrably did not intend to claim)." > I read that last bit as only pertaining to showing of cards. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jun 8 12:09:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:09:36 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED00@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED00@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >[snip] >>However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going to >>rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC >>guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession >>situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. > > I would like to agree with Tim. > > However, there is a problem: the WBFLC guidance was for a specific >position: does that mean it is general? > >63.2 Laws 63A3 and 69A [Establishment of revoke and acquiescence] >[WBFLC] > >A defender revokes, declarer claims, but the defender or his partner >does not accept the claim. Acquiescence has not occurred and the revoke >is not established by the claim. The Director allows the revoke to be >corrected. He then determines the outcome of the claim, but, unlike a >normal claim, doubtful points are determined against the revoker rather >than against the claimer. > >[WBFLC minutes 2000-01-12#3] > > > That's the WBFLC advice [*] but it is specific rather than general. >Can we assume it applies to all revoke then claim positions? >----- >This decision by the WBFLC is specific to a situation where the revoke >has not been established. I can't see that we can extrapolate this to a >general situation. > >So in the case discussed in this thread, I would have to go for a 1 >trick penalty. Why? I cannot understand the general principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the offenders. Despite a lack of such definition it is clear from many years of using and discussing the Law book that the real definition of offenders is the side that created a problem initially, without necessarily saying they were at fault. Thus, if a side hesitates then they are the offending side, even if the ruling is then that nothing illegal occurred. This also explains the term offender in L25B, which has received a certain amount of opprobrium from BLML over the years: while asking for a change under L25B is not an offence, the player that asks becomes the offender. That is why the WBFLC advice in the specific case should be extended to the general case. If there is a claim/concession without a revoke the offending side is the side that claimed/conceded since they first created a situation. But if there had been a revoke earlier, whether established or not, the revoking side becomes the offending side: they first created a situation. We were given a situation where the Law book does not directly tell us whether to give one trick or two tricks: I find it difficult to believe anyone actually can justify in conscience giving the revoker the benefit of the doubt. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jun 8 13:19:07 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:19:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468E2@hotel.npl.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040608081132.009f3cd0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:45 PM 6/7/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>But I don't like where it gets us in this case. A player should >>never gain an advantage by claiming over what he would have gotten by >>playing on optimally. Here declarer may know that W has revoked and >>still holds the S9, but not know the respective locations of the H9 >>and D9. To get an extra trick, he must choose correctly between >>playing the H2 or the D2 im order to gain the second penalty trick, a >>50% chance (or however much better it may be due to declarer's "table >>feel"). If he claims, though, he need not guess; we will "guess >>right for him" 100% of the time, which makes claiming clearly >>superior to playing on, even without "playing on" including any >>careless, inferior or irrational play. ISTM that this is contrary to >>the "spirit" (original intent) of the claims laws, notwithstanding >>that the WBFLC has made it clear that it is consistent with the >>"letter" of the laws as they interpret them (and as I, admittedly, >>must also do in practice, at least until -- in my dreams! -- the >>rational discussion on BLML convinces them to change their view). > > If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair > to the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. Perhaps not. But a player who is already due a one-trick revoke penalty, knows he can make it two tricks by guessing the right card to lead from his two deuces at trick 12, and instead calls the TD, asking for a sure two-trick penalty by ruling, citing an obscure WBFLC interpretation, deserves it even less. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From softkingbugles@mail15.com Tue Jun 8 15:19:12 2004 From: softkingbugles@mail15.com (Anvhe) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:19:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Massive discounts on leading software ! Message-ID: Huge discounts on great software!

MS Windows XP Professional , $200  ONLY $80
Microsoft Office 2003 Professional, $300 ONLY $120
Adobe Photoshop 7.0, $500 ONLY $90
Norton Antivirus 2004 Professional, $100 ONLY $60
Easy CD & DVD Creator 6, $90 ONLY $50

Plus many many more

Vist the website today






No Thanks
From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jun 8 15:01:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:01:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040608081132.009f3cd0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468E2@hotel.npl.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040608081132.009f3cd0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C5C6B7.8060100@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair >> to the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. > > > Perhaps not. But a player who is already due a one-trick revoke > penalty, knows he can make it two tricks by guessing the right card to > lead from his two deuces at trick 12, and instead calls the TD, asking > for a sure two-trick penalty by ruling, citing an obscure WBFLC > interpretation, deserves it even less. > That only depends on what you call "deserve". I would find a player who figures out that by claiming he can get more than by playing a very clever player, and I would almost grant him two tricks just because of that. The problem with this case, as with many others, is that it is a constructed one (or when did you last see three deuces left in the last four tricks of a real hand?). That means that the final result of the arbitration is sometimes an overcompensation. But since it is an example to illustrate a particular point of law, that is not important. I am certain that there are many more cases where you need the WBF interpretation to give to the non-offending a proper compensation for their damage, than that there are where the interpretation leads to an over-compensation. And I don't mind the occasional over-compensation. Nor would I favour a set of laws in which the knowledgeable declarer would get less tricks than the stupid one who just gives away the last two tricks because he has nothing but deuces in both hands. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jun 8 15:11:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:11:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040608081132.009f3cd0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468E2@hotel.npl.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040607133844.009efa00@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040608081132.009f3cd0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 02:45 PM 6/7/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >> >>>But I don't like where it gets us in this case. A player should >>>never gain an advantage by claiming over what he would have gotten by >>>playing on optimally. Here declarer may know that W has revoked and >>>still holds the S9, but not know the respective locations of the H9 >>>and D9. To get an extra trick, he must choose correctly between >>>playing the H2 or the D2 im order to gain the second penalty trick, a >>>50% chance (or however much better it may be due to declarer's "table >>>feel"). If he claims, though, he need not guess; we will "guess >>>right for him" 100% of the time, which makes claiming clearly >>>superior to playing on, even without "playing on" including any >>>careless, inferior or irrational play. ISTM that this is contrary to >>>the "spirit" (original intent) of the claims laws, notwithstanding >>>that the WBFLC has made it clear that it is consistent with the >>>"letter" of the laws as they interpret them (and as I, admittedly, >>>must also do in practice, at least until -- in my dreams! -- the >>>rational discussion on BLML convinces them to change their view). >> >> If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair >>to the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your >>sympathy. > >Perhaps not. But a player who is already due a one-trick revoke >penalty, knows he can make it two tricks by guessing the right card to >lead from his two deuces at trick 12, and instead calls the TD, asking >for a sure two-trick penalty by ruling, citing an obscure WBFLC >interpretation, deserves it even less. Don't you play bridge? Players don't do that sort of thing. He just conceded two tricks - not one person in 100,000 even knows the interpretation, and why on earth would this player be one of those? You think he was involved in the Kennedy assassination, too? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jun 8 17:05:18 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:05:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c44d72$679253f0$0200a8c0@Zog> David Stevenson writes: > If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair to > the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. I am happy with David's view, but can I be clear as to how far we are taking this. Let us take the extreme case by assuming: (1) that the revoke had already been revealed - attention was drawn to it and the TD called. (2) that declarer is an experienced player fully au fait with the revoke laws, and (3) that it is not clear to declarer which card to play at trick 12 to achieve a second transferred trick. Do we allow him to solve this problem by conceding the last two tricks and waiting for the TD to give him the benefit of the doubt? If David's answer is still yes, then - end of story. If, however the answer in these circumstances is no, where do we draw the line? Suppose for example that the revoke has been revealed, the TD checks that it has been established and merely requires play to continue. Now the declarer may be blissfully unaware that his play to trick 12 has any relevance. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jun 8 17:50:07 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:50:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C5C6B7.8060100@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c44d78$a7ceaad0$0200a8c0@Zog> Herman De Wael writes: > The problem with this case, as with many others, is that it is a > constructed one (or when did you last see three deuces left in the > last four tricks of a real hand?). > That means that the final result of the arbitration is sometimes an > overcompensation. But since it is an example to illustrate a > particular point of law, that is not important. Agreed. May I offer the following solution, which I believe to be equitable. If the revoke has not been revealed, declarer will not been advised of the possible importance of his play to trick 12 and he must get the benefit of the doubt - 2 tricks transferred. It would be nice to apply a L12C3 split, but this is not allowed! If the revoke is revealed and the TD called, he should make an announcement along the lines of: "The revoke is established. The revoker did not win the revoke trick, so one trick only will be transferred at the end of play. However, *please be aware* that if the revoker wins a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick, this trick will also be transferred." This "warning" should alert players to the importance of which defender's cards win the remaining tricks and now if declarer concedes the final two tricks, I will rule against him - 1 trick transferred. I may have to scour TFLB for a suitable "could have known" to justify this. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Jun 8 18:02:03 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:02:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468EE@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Brambledown [mailto:brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 08 June 2004 17:50 To: BLML Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke case Herman De Wael writes: > The problem with this case, as with many others, is that it is a > constructed one (or when did you last see three deuces left in the > last four tricks of a real hand?). > That means that the final result of the arbitration is sometimes an > overcompensation. But since it is an example to illustrate a > particular point of law, that is not important. Agreed. May I offer the following solution, which I believe to be equitable. If the revoke has not been revealed, declarer will not been advised of the possible importance of his play to trick 12 and he must get the benefit of the doubt - 2 tricks transferred. It would be nice to apply a L12C3 split, but this is not allowed! If the revoke is revealed and the TD called, he should make an announcement along the lines of: "The revoke is established. The revoker did not win the revoke trick, so one trick only will be transferred at the end of play. However, *please be aware* that if the revoker wins a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick, this trick will also be transferred." This "warning" should alert players to the importance of which defender's cards win the remaining tricks and now if declarer concedes the final two tricks, I will rule against him - 1 trick transferred. I may have to scour TFLB for a suitable "could have known" to justify this. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England _______________________________________________ Chas, I agree with your sentiment: once declarer has been made aware of the significance of his play to trick twelve, we could treat his concession as a concession of his potential second trick from the revoke law. However, I don't think that is what the laws say - I suspect the suitable "could have known" is not there to be found. We don't really want declarers, who are trying to lose a trick to a card in the revoke suit, conceding so they will always get that trick (if any normal line can lose a trick to a card in the revoke suit). We could hope this is clearer in the new laws - but the revoke laws will have changed so much that a whole new set of problems may have been created. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jun 8 18:19:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:19:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000001c44d72$679253f0$0200a8c0@Zog> References: <000001c44d72$679253f0$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: Brambledown wrote > >David Stevenson writes: > >> If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair >to >> the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. > >I am happy with David's view, but can I be clear as to how far we are >taking this. > >Let us take the extreme case by assuming: >(1) that the revoke had already been revealed - attention was drawn to >it and the TD called. >(2) that declarer is an experienced player fully au fait with the revoke >laws, and >(3) that it is not clear to declarer which card to play at trick 12 to >achieve a second transferred trick. > >Do we allow him to solve this problem by conceding the last two tricks >and waiting for the TD to give him the benefit of the doubt? > >If David's answer is still yes, then - end of story. My answer is still yes. I still think our sympathy should be against revoker. Still, this is a once in fifty years type situation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jun 8 22:32:08 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:32:08 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED00@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED00@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040608163255.00a02600@pop.starpower.net> At 07:09 AM 6/8/04, David wrote: >Skjaran, Harald wrote >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>[snip] >>>However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going to >>>rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC >>>guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession >>>situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. >> >> I would like to agree with Tim. >> >> However, there is a problem: the WBFLC guidance was for a specific >>position: does that mean it is general? >> >>63.2 Laws 63A3 and 69A [Establishment of revoke and acquiescence] >>[WBFLC] >> >>A defender revokes, declarer claims, but the defender or his partner >>does not accept the claim. Acquiescence has not occurred and the revoke >>is not established by the claim. The Director allows the revoke to be >>corrected. He then determines the outcome of the claim, but, unlike a >>normal claim, doubtful points are determined against the revoker rather >>than against the claimer. >> >>[WBFLC minutes 2000-01-12#3] >> >> >> That's the WBFLC advice [*] but it is specific rather than general. >>Can we assume it applies to all revoke then claim positions? >>----- >>This decision by the WBFLC is specific to a situation where the revoke >>has not been established. I can't see that we can extrapolate this to a >>general situation. >> >>So in the case discussed in this thread, I would have to go for a 1 >>trick penalty. > > Why? > > I cannot understand the general principle of giving the benefit of > doubt to the offenders. > > Despite a lack of such definition it is clear from many years of > using and discussing the Law book that the real definition of > offenders is the side that created a problem initially, without > necessarily saying they were at fault. > > Thus, if a side hesitates then they are the offending side, even if > the ruling is then that nothing illegal occurred. This also explains > the term offender in L25B, which has received a certain amount of > opprobrium from BLML over the years: while asking for a change under > L25B is not an offence, the player that asks becomes the offender. > > That is why the WBFLC advice in the specific case should be > extended to the general case. If there is a claim/concession without > a revoke the offending side is the side that claimed/conceded since > they first created a situation. But if there had been a revoke > earlier, whether established or not, the revoking side becomes the > offending side: they first created a situation. > > We were given a situation where the Law book does not directly tell > us whether to give one trick or two tricks: I find it difficult to > believe anyone actually can justify in conscience giving the revoker > the benefit of the doubt. This point of law has subtleties that I didn't appreciate when the thread started; I wonder if anyone really did. I find myself in agreement with the principle David sets forth, but I don't think it applies. We don't have a situation caused by the action of both sides, where it would be proper to presume the benefit of the doubt against the side that committed the first action. We have, rather, two separate situations, both caused by the single action of each side, where general principles tell us we should adjudicate each situation separately in turn. When W's revoke was established, he incurred the penalty for an established revoke, as specified in L64, which, at that point, became "fixed". We do not know the eventual value of the penalty -- it could turn out to be zero, one or two tricks (or more if L64C comes into play) -- but we know what the penalty *is*. Since it depends on the subsequent play, we can ascribe a probabilistic expected value by weighting the possible continuations of play from the point at which the penalty is assessed; in this case, assuming we can predict the play up to trick 12 (declarer will cash his remaining winners prior to playing one of his losers), the expected value is 50% of one trick and 50% of two tricks, or 1-1/2 tricks. Having already incurred the penalty for an established revoke, and having taken no relevant action since, it must be wrong for declarer's subsequent, independent action -- conceding the rest at trick 12 -- to increase the (probabilistic) value of the penalty previously incurred by the defenders from 1-1/2 tricks to two. Of course, it seems equally wrong to reduce the value of the penalty from 1-1/2 tricks to one, when declarer did nothing wrong either; all he did was concede the rest from two losers, which is, obviously, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I do not accept the argument that a concession of the remainder constitutes a claim, which would solve the problem by making the 1/2 trick "giveback" the "penalty" for declarer's "infraction" of claiming without stating the order in which he will play his remaining cards. Now that Harald has posted the actual WBFLC minute, we see that the WBFLC was addressing a situation where the principle David expounds clearly does apply. In that situation, we do have a single "situation" caused by the two actions, because the claim (or concession) has prevented the revoke from becoming established, which prevents us from assessing the penalty as of the (prior) point at which the revoke occurred (it is still in the process of "occurring"). Therefore I humbly retract my comment about the minute being "misguided"; when I said that, I was under the impression that it was written so as to apply to the thread case. But if it doesn't apply in the thread case, we are stuck with no guidance whatsoever and no help from TFLB. L64 says we penalize one trick if X, two tricks if not-X. It is totally silent on how many tricks to penalize if we never reach the point of determining whether X or not-X (only a problem when we must determine the value of the penalty before the hand is fully played out) -- which is what we are trying to decide. And "equity" doesn't help us. We know what "equity" is -- it's a 1-1/2-trick penalty, but that's useless, since the scoring table doesn't assign values to half tricks. If we want anything like "equity", we would need to refuse to adjudicate the concession, inform declarer that the result depends on how he plays from that point, and require him to play on. That does give some advantage to declarer -- we warn him that his play matters, so he will be sure to think about it, and take the better play, if there is one, based on whatever evidence he might have accumulated during the bidding or earlier play -- but that would be OK; declarer gets "back" to the position he would have been in had he not conceded, rather than doing better than he would otherwise have by conceding. But I don't think we want to do that. This is far too unlikely and obscure a problem to be worth solving by making as fundamental a change as scrapping L68D. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 8 22:59:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:59:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] What does Law 70D allow? Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >>TFLB, however, tells us explicitly that if "you >>find it is clear declarer did not want to claim" >>you must rule (reluctantly or otherwise) that it >>is *not* a claim (L68A): "A contestant... claims >>when... (unless he demonstrably did not intend >>to claim)." Herman De Wael apparently wrote: >I read that last bit as only pertaining to >showing of cards. Richard Hills asks: :-) Is this the Herman we know and love, writing a mere one-sentence posting? Or is it Herman's twin brother, Smeagol De Wael, borrowing Herman's computer? :-) I agree with Herman's reading of the Laws, and disagree with Eric's reading of the Laws. In my opinion, the correct interpretation of Law 68A hinges upon the Kaplanesque insertion of a comma. Law 68A states, "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed , <--- {the vital comma} or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." Best wishes RJH From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jun 9 05:09:00 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:09:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook Message-ID: The appeals cases from the Reno NABC (Spring, 2004), which are available from Richard Hills, are a rather disappointing set, both in number (only 24, 12 from regionally rated events and 12 from national events) and in interest (most are routine). All the more reason for BLMLers to submit insightful and perhaps even witty commentary on them to Richard, so that the BLML unofficial casebook will be a successful production. The oddest feature of the set was the Panels' use of consultants. Again and again, in cases involving non-experts, the Panel sought opinions from experts, and failed to poll non-expert peers of the players involved in the case (or polled an insufficient number). I cannot imagine why this was such a prominent feature of the Reno cases, compared with those from past NABCs. I thought the most interesting case was Regional Case 12, which I will post separately. (Incidentally, the write-up for this case, alone among the regional cases, does include an apology for not consulting non-expert peers.) Jim Hudson From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jun 9 05:15:09 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:15:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 Message-ID: NAOP Flt C 3/28/04 =09 Panel: Charles MacCracken (Reviewer), Michael Carroad, Olin Hubert Board: 24 Dealer: West Vul: None =09 AK3 K92 J754 A53 QT94 762 AJ854 3 AQ8 KT93 7 QT962 J85 QT76 62 KJ84 =09 W N E S 2D(1) 2NT P 3C(2) P 3D P 3NT =20 All Pass (1) Flannery; not alerted (2) Stayman The Facts: The final contract was 3NT down one for a score of NS *50 after = the lead of the C 6. The director was called when the distribution = became obvious during the play. North bid 2NT over 2D thinking it was = Flannery. {Obvious verbal slip.} Both EW cards were marked Flannery. = East did not think she had to alert it. The Ruling: The Director ruled that misinformation had occurred causing = damage to NS (Law 21B3, 40C). He projected an auction of 2D (alert), P, = 2S, all pass (12C2). Down two after S ace-king and another, followed by a = club force. NS appealed and were the only players to attend the hearing. (Note: This = event did not end and the appeal was not brought until all but the NABC+ = events were over. Thus, there were no peer consultants available.) =20 The Appeal: North said he was aggressive and would have bid 2NT, just as = he did over the weak two. However, South would have known not to ask for = a major suit fit and passed his minimum hand. EW defended badly -- at = trick two North led the H 9 and ran it and still took eight tricks. Since = North took eight tricks in 3NT, he asked for eight tricks in 2NT. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jun 9 06:03:29 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:03:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040609002646.02bd7cb0@mail.comcast.net> At 12:15 AM 6/9/2004, James Hudson wrote: >NAOP Flt C 3/28/04 >Panel: Charles MacCracken (Reviewer), Michael Carroad, Olin Hubert >Board: 24 >Dealer: West >Vul: None > > AK3 > K92 > J754 > A53 >QT94 762 >AJ854 3 >AQ8 KT93 >7 QT962 > J85 > QT76 > 62 > KJ84 > > W N E S > 2D(1) 2NT P 3C(2) > P 3D P 3NT > All Pass > >(1) Flannery; not alerted >(2) Stayman > >The Facts: The final contract was 3NT down one for a score of NS *50 after >the lead of the C 6. The director was called when the distribution >became obvious during the play. North bid 2NT over 2D thinking it was >Flannery. {Obvious verbal slip.} Both EW cards were marked >Flannery. East did not think she had to alert it. > >The Ruling: The Director ruled that misinformation had occurred causing >damage to NS (Law 21B3, 40C). He projected an auction of 2D (alert), P, >2S, all pass (12C2). Down two after S ace-king and another, followed by a >club force. > >NS appealed and were the only players to attend the hearing. (Note: This >event did not end and the appeal was not brought until all but the NABC+ >events were over. Thus, there were no peer consultants available.) > >The Appeal: North said he was aggressive and would have bid 2NT, just as >he did over the weak two. However, South would have known not to ask for >a major suit fit and passed his minimum hand. EW defended badly -- at >trick two North led the H 9 and ran it and still took eight tricks. Since >North took eight tricks in 3NT, he asked for eight tricks in 2NT. I would say that N-S's peer group is Flight B players; the players in the Flight C NAOP are among the best Flight C players around. First, I rule that there was MI. Flight B players in a pairs game are not required to protect themselves by checking opposition CC's over an unalerted 2D opening. If N-S have an agreement to overcall 2NT on 15-18 HCP, then there are enough point counters at North's level that 2NT by North is likely, and South will pass. What happened on the actual hand? It sounds like North misguessed the hearts and E-W got the diamonds mixed up, so that they took only two hearts and three diamonds. I still impose on East the lead of the C6 rather than the normal C9 or CT. If North puts on the C8 (which cannot cost), he has four club tricks. Now North will guess the hearts correctly with proper information, and he might reasonably start by leading the HQ, HT, or H6. If he leads the HQ, West wins and might return a spade, allowing North to make three. If he leads the HT or H6, West will win the second heart trick on which East will discard a discouraging spade; now West will return a diamond, and E-W get four diamonds and the HA, so 2NT makes only two. The combination of the uncertain 2NT bid and the multiple possible heart plays makes it at all probable, but not likely, that North will make three. Next, is 3C by South irrational, wild, or gambling? I don't think so; while it is an overbid opposite a 15-18 NT, it will often work out. Given the preempt, South's doubleton diamond is useful, so if North has four hearts, 4H should have a play, and if North doesn't have four hearts, 3NT is on 22-25 points with a lot of the distribution known and any diamond finesses on, which is not a disaster. Thus, assuming that I have some reason to accept the N-S agreement on the 2NT bid, I rule +120 for N-S, -150 for E-W. I don't give E-W -400. While it is at all probable that North would make nine tricks had he been correctly informed, it is not at all probable that N-S would bid as they did and make nine tricks; the MI either affects everything or nothing. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Jun 9 07:58:01 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:58:01 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED04@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Stevenson wrote: =20 Skjaran, Harald wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >[snip] >>However this should be irrelevant to the principle. If we are going to >>rule doubtful points against revoker in claim situations (as per WBFLC >>guidance) we should also be ruling against revoker in concession >>situations. I consider this implicit in the WBF interpretation. > > I would like to agree with Tim. > > However, there is a problem: the WBFLC guidance was for a specific >position: does that mean it is general? > >63.2 Laws 63A3 and 69A [Establishment of revoke and acquiescence] >[WBFLC] > >A defender revokes, declarer claims, but the defender or his partner >does not accept the claim. Acquiescence has not occurred and the revoke >is not established by the claim. The Director allows the revoke to be >corrected. He then determines the outcome of the claim, but, unlike a >normal claim, doubtful points are determined against the revoker rather >than against the claimer. > >[WBFLC minutes 2000-01-12#3] > > > That's the WBFLC advice [*] but it is specific rather than general. >Can we assume it applies to all revoke then claim positions? >----- >This decision by the WBFLC is specific to a situation where the revoke >has not been established. I can't see that we can extrapolate this to a >general situation. > >So in the case discussed in this thread, I would have to go for a 1 >trick penalty. Why? ----- There's an obvious reason for the WBFLC guidance being specific to non-established revokes. When such a revoke is corrected, trick(s) declarer conceded might be raised, and in that case, we should give these to declarer. An example: Declarer has got AKQxxx and a side suit loser in hand and a singleton and 6 losers in dummy. He cashes the 3 top tricks, LHO showing out on the 3rd round. Declarer now concedes the last four tricks to the opponents. But in fact, LHO revoked on the 3rd round. The suit was breaking 3-3, and declarer as a result is awarded 3 of the last 4 tricks according to the WBFLC. For established revokes, the revoke penalty applies, and in general, there's no need for extrapolating the WBFLC guideline to these cases. If the WBFLC wanted this guideline to be general, they would not have made it specific. Eric Landau has given a lengthy comment on the thread case. I agree with what he say. But as for now, TFLB and WBFLC does not give us directions for judging the thread case directly. My reason for applying a 1 trick penalty is quite simple. When declarer conceded the last two tricks without stating a line of play, it's like telling dummy to leas any card at trick twelve. And then either defender have the right to designate the play from dummy. I'm not comfortable with this. But I can't see how we at the moment lawfully can rule otherwise. I agree with David that applying the 2 trick penalty in this case is preferable. But to be able to do that, we need a change in TFLB or a guideline to this effect from the WBFLC. Harald ----- I cannot understand the general principle of giving the benefit of=20 doubt to the offenders. Despite a lack of such definition it is clear from many years of using=20 and discussing the Law book that the real definition of offenders is the side that created a problem initially, without necessarily saying they=20 were at fault. Thus, if a side hesitates then they are the offending side, even if=20 the ruling is then that nothing illegal occurred. This also explains=20 the term offender in L25B, which has received a certain amount of=20 opprobrium from BLML over the years: while asking for a change under=20 L25B is not an offence, the player that asks becomes the offender. That is why the WBFLC advice in the specific case should be extended=20 to the general case. If there is a claim/concession without a revoke=20 the offending side is the side that claimed/conceded since they first=20 created a situation. But if there had been a revoke earlier, whether=20 established or not, the revoking side becomes the offending side: they=20 first created a situation. We were given a situation where the Law book does not directly tell us=20 whether to give one trick or two tricks: I find it difficult to believe=20 anyone actually can justify in conscience giving the revoker the benefit of the doubt. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 9 08:27:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:27:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 Message-ID: [snip] >The Facts: The final contract was 3NT down one for a >score of NS +50 after the lead of the C 6. The >director was called when the distribution became >obvious during the play. North bid 2NT over 2D >thinking it was Flannery. {Obvious verbal slip.} >Both EW cards were marked Flannery. East did not >think she had to alert it. [snip] >The Appeal: North said he was aggressive and would >have bid 2NT, just as he did over the weak two. >However, South would have known not to ask for a >major suit fit and passed his minimum hand. EW >defended badly -- at trick two North led the 9 and >ran it and still took eight tricks. Since North took >eight tricks in 3NT, he asked for eight tricks in >2NT. If I were the TD, I would have wanted demonstrable evidence before giving a ruling, that: (a) East did not alert an alertable convention, rather than (b) East forgot that the East-West partnership plays the Flannery convention. *If*, as TD, I found demonstrable evidence that case (a) existed, then I would follow the actual appeal panel ruling of adjusting the score to NS +120, EW -120. *If*, however, no such demonstrable evidence was available, then as TD I would assume that case (b) existed, with East presumably believing that West had opened the other ACBL-popular convention, a weak 2 in diamonds. Then, as TD, I would adjust the score to NS +120, EW -120. In this particular case, different assumptions lead to the same score adjustment. But it is very important for TDs and ACs to question their default assumptions. Pax vobiscum Hilda R. Lirsch From Mailer-Daemon@orion.lunarpages.com Wed Jun 9 10:57:54 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@orion.lunarpages.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 02:57:54 -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: webmaster@au-natural.net mailbox is full ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.171.30] (helo=au-natural.net) by orion.lunarpages.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BXjzS-00084N-3r for webmaster@au-natural.net; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:02:27 -0700 From: blml@rtflb.org To: webmaster@au-natural.net Subject: Re: My details Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:58:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_00004807.00006D95" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_00004807.00006D95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your file is attached. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_00004807.00006D95 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="my_details.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="my_details.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0012_00004807.00006D95-- From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 9 11:33:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:33:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c44e0d$33719680$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > [snip] > If I were the TD, I would have wanted demonstrable > evidence before giving a ruling, that: > > (a) East did not alert an alertable convention, > rather than > > (b) East forgot that the East-West partnership > plays the Flannery convention. > > *If*, as TD, I found demonstrable evidence that case > (a) existed, then I would follow the actual appeal > panel ruling of adjusting the score to NS +120, EW > -120. > > *If*, however, no such demonstrable evidence was > available, then as TD I would assume that case (b) > existed, with East presumably believing that West > had opened the other ACBL-popular convention, a > weak 2 in diamonds. Then, as TD, I would adjust the > score to NS +120, EW -120. And sorry for you; you have this the wrong way round: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." (Quote from the footnote to Law 75!) Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jun 9 12:02:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:02:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040609002646.02bd7cb0@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040609002646.02bd7cb0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote >First, I rule that there was MI. Flight B players in a pairs game are >not required to protect themselves by checking opposition CC's over an >unalerted 2D opening. Pardon me? Flight A players are not *allowed* to protect themselves over an unalerted 2D opening. Quote RHO in New Orleans: "The only reason he asked about the 2D opening and the 3D response thereto is to show to his partner that he had a reasonable hand." [Note: to all those people that tell me that in North America a question does not show a decent hand: Nyer! Nyer!] Quote TD in New Orleans without checking facts: "It is very dangerous to ask questions and I advise you not to in future." Check the CC? What CC? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 9 12:05:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:05:19 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED04@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED04@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >If the WBFLC wanted this guideline to be general, they would not have >made it specific. I am afraid the WBFLC is only human. There is a tendency - read the minutes - for them to answer questions which are put to them. No doubt it would be better if they always thought of the ramifications but it just does not work that way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 9 12:51:04 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:51:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4962CCEE-BA0B-11D8-A514-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 Jun 2004, at 08:27, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If I were the TD, I would have wanted demonstrable > evidence before giving a ruling, that: > > (a) East did not alert an alertable convention, > > rather than > > (b) East forgot that the East-West partnership > plays the Flannery convention. > We are given as fact that "Both EW cards were marked Flannery. East did not think she had to alert it." If East had forgotten that they played Flannery (rather than not thinking it to be alertable), then it would still be the case that "(a) East did not alert an alertable convention". I fail to see the point you are trying to make here, Richard. If people fail to alert an alertable bid, we don't need to know why - providing we are satisfied that it was a misexplanation rather than a misbid. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 9 12:52:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:52:08 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c44e18$315f3040$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Skjaran, Harald wrote >=20 > >If the WBFLC wanted this guideline to be general, they would not have > >made it specific. >=20 > I am afraid the WBFLC is only human. There is a tendency - read = the > minutes - for them to answer questions which are put to them. No = doubt > it would be better if they always thought of the ramifications but it > just does not work that way. I agree. But WBFLC commented on a case of a claim to be settled in a situation where first a revoke by opponents had to be ruled upon and = where the claimer was unaware of the revoke when he claimed. (The fact that = the revoke had not yet been established is IMO immaterial).=20 When subsequently ruling upon the claim I find it only reasonable that doubts which cannot be excluded from possibly having been caused by the revoke (rather than by the claim as such) must be resolved in favor of = the claimer and not his opponent who committed the revoke. This case was so special that the ruling can hardly be generalized to = cases where an irregularity (e.g. a revoke) has already been noticed and ruled upon when the player claims. If we should generalize this way I imagine the next logical consequence = to be that the same shift in benefit of the doubt must apply whenever = ruling upon a disputed claim that has been made after an opponent has committed = an irregularity regardless of the nature of that irregularity.=20 However, I consider it obvious that such principle cannot possibly have = been the intention of WBFLC. I shall look forward to seeing another WBFLC statement clarifying this question! Regards Sven =20 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jun 9 13:06:38 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:06:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000001c44d72$679253f0$0200a8c0@Zog> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609075606.00a0a440@pop.starpower.net> At 12:05 PM 6/8/04, Brambledown wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > > > If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair >to > > the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. > >I am happy with David's view, but can I be clear as to how far we are >taking this. > >Let us take the extreme case by assuming: >(1) that the revoke had already been revealed - attention was drawn to >it and the TD called. >(2) that declarer is an experienced player fully au fait with the revoke >laws, and >(3) that it is not clear to declarer which card to play at trick 12 to >achieve a second transferred trick. > >Do we allow him to solve this problem by conceding the last two tricks >and waiting for the TD to give him the benefit of the doubt? > >If David's answer is still yes, then - end of story. David may well correct about the current state of the law, but it just doesn't pass the "smell test". Imagine you are declarer in the thread case. Thanks to BLML, you know you can extract a two-trick revoke penalty by conceding. Are you going to be an unapologetic "bridge lawyer" and take the two tricks, or would you feel like you were taking unsportsmanlike advantage of your knowledge of an obscure point of law (especially as you have at least a one-trick penalty already in hand -- just how greedy are you?)? Would you not choose instead, WBFLC interpretation notwithstanding, to take your best "at the table" shot and play a card from dummy? I would (granted, I don't play in World Championships, where I might feel differently), and I suspect that a lot of us would. If I'm right, that must suggest that this is bad law. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jun 9 13:10:04 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:10:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468F2@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Rainsford [mailto:gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk] Sent: 09 June 2004 12:51 On 9 Jun 2004, at 08:27, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If I were the TD, I would have wanted demonstrable > evidence before giving a ruling, that: > > (a) East did not alert an alertable convention, > > rather than > > (b) East forgot that the East-West partnership > plays the Flannery convention. > We are given as fact that "Both EW cards were marked Flannery. East did not think she had to alert it." If East had forgotten that they played Flannery (rather than not thinking it to be alertable), then it would still be the case that "(a) East did not alert an alertable convention". I fail to see the point you are trying to make here, Richard. If people fail to alert an alertable bid, we don't need to know why - providing we are satisfied that it was a misexplanation rather than a misbid. _______________________________________________ We need to know why East did not alert because we need to know what East thought 2D was if we want to assign a score in the case where North passes over 2D with the correct information. If East forgot it was Flannery we might assign 2D - something, but if East simply forgot to alert we might assign 2S. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Jun 9 13:47:35 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:47:35 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED05@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Eric Landau wrote: At 12:05 PM 6/8/04, Brambledown wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > > > If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair >to > > the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. > >I am happy with David's view, but can I be clear as to how far we are >taking this. > >Let us take the extreme case by assuming: >(1) that the revoke had already been revealed - attention was drawn to >it and the TD called. >(2) that declarer is an experienced player fully au fait with the revoke >laws, and >(3) that it is not clear to declarer which card to play at trick 12 to >achieve a second transferred trick. > >Do we allow him to solve this problem by conceding the last two tricks >and waiting for the TD to give him the benefit of the doubt? > >If David's answer is still yes, then - end of story. David may well correct about the current state of the law, but it just=20 doesn't pass the "smell test". Imagine you are declarer in the thread=20 case. Thanks to BLML, you know you can extract a two-trick revoke=20 penalty by conceding. Are you going to be an unapologetic "bridge=20 lawyer" and take the two tricks, or would you feel like you were taking=20 unsportsmanlike advantage of your knowledge of an obscure point of law=20 (especially as you have at least a one-trick penalty already in hand --=20 just how greedy are you?)? Would you not choose instead, WBFLC=20 interpretation notwithstanding, to take your best "at the table" shot=20 and play a card from dummy? I would (granted, I don't play in World=20 Championships, where I might feel differently), and I suspect that a=20 lot of us would. If I'm right, that must suggest that this is bad law. ----- As the case was presented, I'm quite sure declarer didn't know about the revoke when he claimed. So he would expect the high spade to be with east, not west. And he would not know that it mattered which opponent won the last two tricks. Of course, knowing about the possibility of a two trick penalty in a hypothetical revoke, it would be best for declarer to lose the last two tricks to the defender who might have revoked. I agree with Eric that it is bad law if declarer can make a claim after a revoke to ensure the two trick penalty any time it is possible for revoker to win a trick with a card he legally could have played to the revoke trick. 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 Wed Jun 9 14:34:32 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:34:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609075606.00a0a440@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609075606.00a0a440@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <40C711E8.9060407@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > David may well correct about the current state of the law, but it just > doesn't pass the "smell test". Imagine you are declarer in the thread > case. Thanks to BLML, you know you can extract a two-trick revoke > penalty by conceding. Are you going to be an unapologetic "bridge > lawyer" and take the two tricks, or would you feel like you were taking > unsportsmanlike advantage of your knowledge of an obscure point of law > (especially as you have at least a one-trick penalty already in hand -- > just how greedy are you?)? Would you not choose instead, WBFLC > interpretation notwithstanding, to take your best "at the table" shot > and play a card from dummy? I would (granted, I don't play in World > Championships, where I might feel differently), and I suspect that a lot > of us would. If I'm right, that must suggest that this is bad law. > Dura Lex Sed Lex. One counter-example does not make for a bad law in general. As I stated before, there are a number of cases where this law is necessary in order to do justice to non-offender (non-revoker). So who cares if once in a blue moon (or rather once in a venus transit, as this case is rarer still), a non-offender comes out with a little over-compensating? Mind you, I am not of the opinion of Eric's. I believe that the TD should explain the revoke law completely, and that any player good enough, from there on, to see that conceding would be better than playing, should earn his two tricks. It doesn't smell bad from here, but that is another kettle of fish. I respect Eric's view that it smells. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jun 9 15:05:02 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:05:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816B2B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> The appeals cases from the Reno NABC (Spring, 2004), which are available from Richard Hills, are a rather disappointing set, both in number (only 24, 12 from regionally rated events and 12 from national events) and in interest (most are routine). All the more reason for BLMLers to submit insightful and perhaps even witty commentary on them to Richard, so that the BLML unofficial casebook will be a successful production. Jim Hudson - As a bridge player, I would have thought the fewer the appeals the = better. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 9 15:12:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:12:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C711E8.9060407@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c44e2b$d9fbbad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > One counter-example does not make for a bad law in general. >=20 > As I stated before, there are a number of cases where this law is > necessary in order to do justice to non-offender (non-revoker). So who > cares if once in a blue moon (or rather once in a venus transit, as > this case is rarer still), a non-offender comes out with a little > over-compensating? There is a major difference between the cases where the revoke is known = to the claimer at the time he claims and when the revoke is unknown to him = at that time. The quoted WBFLC minute deals with the latter type of cases and I have absolutely no problem with their decision here. Where I do have a problem is if we take this minute as a guideline also = for cases where a revoke has been committed, detected and ruled upon before = the claim is made (except of course that the final ruling of zero, one or = two penalty tricks must be postponed to end of the play). I should very much like to see an example of such a case demonstrating the need for giving = the claimer (rather than his opponent) the benefit of the doubt when = resolving the claim. > Mind you, I am not of the opinion of Eric's. I believe that the TD > should explain the revoke law completely,=20 Of course, anything less is a Director's error (and subject to Law 82C) > and that any player good > enough, from there on, to see that conceding would be better than > playing, should earn his two tricks. Now here I disagree. A claim or a concession is a means for terminating = a board in order not to waste time. It has never been and must not become = a means for a player to actually earn a trick (or tricks) he would not = have earned with certainty had he played on "the regular way". Also please observe that in the case handled by WBFLC Bermuda January = 12th. 2000 #3 we may assume the player who claimed was not given any trick = with his claim that he should not have won had he played on. Law 64C would = have been the correct tool for that. And by the way: Why limit this discussion on the consequences of irregularities by opponents prior to a claim? I believe for instance that any claimer who after he claimed discovers = that he has received misinformation from opponents will be heard on a request = for "benefit of the doubt" with his claim if he can show any possible = relation whatsoever between the doubt and the misinformation. But at least with = me he will not receive such benefits if the misinformation has been revealed = to him before he claims.=20 =20 Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jun 9 15:26:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:26:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609075606.00a0a440@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c44d72$679253f0$0200a8c0@Zog> <5.2.0.9.0.20040609075606.00a0a440@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 12:05 PM 6/8/04, Brambledown wrote: > >>David Stevenson writes: >> >> > If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair >>to >> > the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. >> >>I am happy with David's view, but can I be clear as to how far we are >>taking this. >> >>Let us take the extreme case by assuming: >>(1) that the revoke had already been revealed - attention was drawn to >>it and the TD called. >>(2) that declarer is an experienced player fully au fait with the revoke >>laws, and >>(3) that it is not clear to declarer which card to play at trick 12 to >>achieve a second transferred trick. >> >>Do we allow him to solve this problem by conceding the last two tricks >>and waiting for the TD to give him the benefit of the doubt? >> >>If David's answer is still yes, then - end of story. > >David may well correct about the current state of the law, but it just >doesn't pass the "smell test". Imagine you are declarer in the thread >case. Thanks to BLML, you know you can extract a two-trick revoke >penalty by conceding. Are you going to be an unapologetic "bridge >lawyer" and take the two tricks, or would you feel like you were taking >unsportsmanlike advantage of your knowledge of an obscure point of law >(especially as you have at least a one-trick penalty already in hand -- >just how greedy are you?)? Would you not choose instead, WBFLC >interpretation notwithstanding, to take your best "at the table" shot >and play a card from dummy? I would (granted, I don't play in World >Championships, where I might feel differently), and I suspect that a >lot of us would. If I'm right, that must suggest that this is bad law. No, and in some ways this paragraph shows what is wrong with BLML. You are talking of: [1] A revoke, and [2] a concession of all the tricks, and [3] a position where declarer knows there is a revoke, but [4] not the position in the defence hands, but [5] a position where declarer can work out that a concession would gain if [6] declarer knows the interpretation of Law that would work to his benefit Let's be generous, and say it will happen once in ten million hands. Now, apart from people like me who believe non-offenders should have a right to gain from their opponents' offences, even if you are part of the anti-NOS group, it is not a practical problem. It is not going to happen. To suggest it is bad law because it does not follow your particular views is wrong. Laws are to take care of positions that occur: it matters not at all how satisfactory they are in positions that are never going to happen in practice. No doubt BLML can pick holes in every law if they put their mind to it, but that does not make it bad Law. It comes to the basic question, which is more important to BLML: [1] We have to solve everything, even how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or [2] we should try to run a 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 david.barton@boltblue.com Wed Jun 9 16:11:04 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:11:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case References: <000001c44d72$679253f0$0200a8c0@Zog> <5.2.0.9.0.20040609075606.00a0a440@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002e01c44e33$fe613aa0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke case > Eric Landau wrote > >At 12:05 PM 6/8/04, Brambledown wrote: > > > >>David Stevenson writes: > >> > >> > If you are going to go by what players deserve, then try to be fair > >>to > >> > the non-offenders. Players that revoke do not deserve your sympathy. > >> > >>I am happy with David's view, but can I be clear as to how far we are > >>taking this. > >> > >>Let us take the extreme case by assuming: > >>(1) that the revoke had already been revealed - attention was drawn to > >>it and the TD called. > >>(2) that declarer is an experienced player fully au fait with the revoke > >>laws, and > >>(3) that it is not clear to declarer which card to play at trick 12 to > >>achieve a second transferred trick. > >> > >>Do we allow him to solve this problem by conceding the last two tricks > >>and waiting for the TD to give him the benefit of the doubt? > >> > >>If David's answer is still yes, then - end of story. > > > >David may well correct about the current state of the law, but it just > >doesn't pass the "smell test". Imagine you are declarer in the thread > >case. Thanks to BLML, you know you can extract a two-trick revoke > >penalty by conceding. Are you going to be an unapologetic "bridge > >lawyer" and take the two tricks, or would you feel like you were taking > >unsportsmanlike advantage of your knowledge of an obscure point of law > >(especially as you have at least a one-trick penalty already in hand -- > >just how greedy are you?)? Would you not choose instead, WBFLC > >interpretation notwithstanding, to take your best "at the table" shot > >and play a card from dummy? I would (granted, I don't play in World > >Championships, where I might feel differently), and I suspect that a > >lot of us would. If I'm right, that must suggest that this is bad law. > > No, and in some ways this paragraph shows what is wrong with BLML. You > are talking of: > > [1] A revoke, and > [2] a concession of all the tricks, and > [3] a position where declarer knows there is a revoke, but > [4] not the position in the defence hands, but > [5] a position where declarer can work out that a concession would gain > if > [6] declarer knows the interpretation of Law that would work to his > benefit > > Let's be generous, and say it will happen once in ten million hands. > > Now, apart from people like me who believe non-offenders should have a > right to gain from their opponents' offences, even if you are part of > the anti-NOS group, it is not a practical problem. It is not going to > happen. > > To suggest it is bad law because it does not follow your particular > views is wrong. Laws are to take care of positions that occur: it > matters not at all how satisfactory they are in positions that are never > going to happen in practice. No doubt BLML can pick holes in every law > if they put their mind to it, but that does not make it bad Law. > > It comes to the basic question, which is more important to BLML: > > [1] We have to solve everything, even how many angels can dance on the > head of a pin, or > [2] we should try to run a game > I believe the "problem" is wider than DWS is making out. Let us suppose you are in say 1N and at trick3 LHO unexpectedly shows out in Spades and you suspect he has revoked. Now rather than play the hand out by cashing your 5 winning Diamonds giving LHO an opportunity to wake up and throw his Spades away, you are much better off playing 1 more trick (to establish the revoke) and then claiming. There is almost certainly bound to be some doubt (no matter how small) that the LHO MAY win a trick with a Spade. ********************************** David.J.Barton@lineone.net ********************************** From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jun 9 18:17:39 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:17:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook Message-ID: >>> "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" 6/9/2004 9:05:02 AM >>> - As a bridge player, I would have thought the fewer the appeals the better. ----------------- But from the volunteer Casebook commentator's point of view, the more, and the meatier, the better. _____ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Jun 9 20:48:26 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:48:26 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus Message-ID: An interesting situation came up in a club game last night. 5 table Howell, so everyone is playing 27 boards. One table played a board from the wrong set; this causes two innocent pairs to receive Average-Plus on one board. Later in the evening, we had a "14 and 12" situation that was not discovered until trick 11 (! it amazes me how often it takes that long for people to notice): Average-Minus to the pairs who didn't count their cards. As it happened, one pair received both an A+ and an A-, *and* had a good enough game to place. Suppose this pair has a 64 (US matchpoints, 4 top, so this is conveniently 64%) on the 25 boards they played normally. Is the average plus worth 2.56 matchpoints (64% of a top because that is their score on the 25 boards they played), or is it worth only 2.52 matchpoints (65.6 matchpoints out of 26 other boards)? Can it matter? Sure it can matter - there are two factored boards and three pairs with artificial scores out there, and in particular, a board factored from a 3 top to a 4 top produces scores ending in .13 and .63. In the ACBL, the margin of victory is 0.01 matchpoint - since 68.13 is a possible result for another pair, my decision to give this pair 68.12 or 68.16 may affect who wins. I don't know of a relevant ACBL regulation. The words in Law 88 are "... or the percentage of matchpoints he earned on BOARDS ACTUALLY PLAYED during the session if that percentage was greater than 60%." ACBLScore, however, adds in your average-minus before it calculates whether your score exceeds 60%, and awards the lower total. My sense of justice agrees with how ACBLscore does it. But is it legal? (And since ACBL does have a regulation that A- is less than 40% if the opposing side's A+ is greater than 60%, it's possible to get stuck in an infinite loop if two pairs each have an A- and an A+. I wonder if I can make ACBLscore choke.....) GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 9 22:32:22 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:32:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 Message-ID: Hilda R. Lirsch: [snip] >>If I were the TD, I would have wanted demonstrable >>evidence before giving a ruling, that: >> >>(a) East did not alert an alertable convention, >> >>rather than >> >>(b) East forgot that the East-West partnership >> plays the Flannery convention. [snip] Gordon Rainsford: >We are given as fact that "Both EW cards were >marked Flannery. Richard Hills: The fact that both EW cards were marked Flannery does not necessarily prove that East *remembered* that their partnership was using Flannery. Rather, East's failure to Alert was a straw-in-the-wind that East believed that West's 2D call was a natural and unAlertable weak 2 in diamonds. Gordon Rainsford: >East did not think she had to alert it." Richard Hills: East's after-the-fact excuse was not necessarily a true statement of the actual facts. Gordon Rainsford: >If East had forgotten that they played Flannery >(rather than not thinking it to be alertable), >then it would still be the case that "(a) East did >not alert an alertable convention". > >I fail to see the point you are trying to make >here, Richard. If people fail to alert an alertable >bid, we don't need to know why - providing we are >satisfied that it was a misexplanation rather than >a misbid. Richard Hills: Take these hypothetical sake-of-argument factoids -> 1. In other partnerships, East uses weak 2 diamonds 2. East forgets that this partnership uses Flannery 3. East therefore fails to Alert Flannery 4. West gives East a look of horror after East fails to Alert Flannery 5. Because of West's look of horror, East now remembers that this partnership plays Flannery 6. Because East remembers that West's call is not a weak 2 in diamonds, East avoids a disastrous bidding stuffup 7. East lies to the TD about East's failure to Alert, using the excuse that East believed that the Flannery convention was unAlertable Now, when testing these hypothetical sake-of-argument factoids against the actual deal, we find that factoid number 6 is not applicable to the actual deal. Therefore, the actual TD panel score of NS +120, EW -120 is unaffected by this hypothesis. Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 9 22:34:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:34:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c44e69$876f08b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower > An interesting situation came up in a club game last night. >=20 > 5 table Howell, so everyone is playing 27 boards. >=20 > One table played a board from the wrong set; this causes two innocent > pairs to receive Average-Plus on one board. >=20 > Later in the evening, we had a "14 and 12" situation that was not > discovered until trick 11 (! it amazes me how often it takes that long = for > people to notice): Average-Minus to the pairs who didn't count their > cards. >=20 > As it happened, one pair received both an A+ and an A-, *and* had a = good > enough game to place. >=20 > Suppose this pair has a 64 (US matchpoints, 4 top, so this is = conveniently > 64%) on the 25 boards they played normally. >=20 > Is the average plus worth 2.56 matchpoints (64% of a top because that = is > their score on the 25 boards they played), or is it worth only 2.52 > matchpoints (65.6 matchpoints out of 26 other boards)? >=20 > Can it matter? Sure it can matter - there are two factored boards and > three pairs with artificial scores out there, and in particular, a = board > factored from a 3 top to a 4 top produces scores ending in .13 and = .63. > In the ACBL, the margin of victory is 0.01 matchpoint - since 68.13 is = a > possible result for another pair, my decision to give this pair 68.12 = or > 68.16 may affect who wins. >=20 > I don't know of a relevant ACBL regulation. >=20 > The words in Law 88 are "... or the percentage of matchpoints he = earned on > BOARDS ACTUALLY PLAYED during the session if that percentage was = greater > than 60%." >=20 > ACBLScore, however, adds in your average-minus before it calculates > whether your score exceeds 60%, and awards the lower total. My sense = of > justice agrees with how ACBLscore does it. But is it legal? >=20 > (And since ACBL does have a regulation that A- is less than 40% if the > opposing side's A+ is greater than 60%, it's possible to get stuck in = an > infinite loop if two pairs each have an A- and an A+. I wonder if I = can > make ACBLscore choke.....) I cannot answer for ACBL regulations, but these kinds of "problems" are = not uncommon in Norway and we comply literally with Law 88 as follows: When calculating if A+ shall be more than 60% on one or more boards we consider the average score the involved pair has obtained only on those boards they have actually played during the session in question. This = means that we ignore any board for which the pair received an artificial = adjusted score regardless of what percentage was assigned. In your specific case = it means that we use the average over the 25 boards they actually completed = in regular play. We never assign less than 40% to a pair entitled to A- even if their = average for the session is less than 40% or the average to their opponents for = the session is more than 60%. (If their opponents are assigned A+ and = *their* average is higher than 60% they will of course receive their average). I suppose this answers your question as far as how we handle such cases? Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 9 22:52:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:52:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke case "smell test" Message-ID: Many blmlers argue that the WBF LC interpretation of the interaction between the claim Laws and the revoke Laws fails the "smell test". One blmler argues that there is only a whiff of rotten eggs, as the case is a one-in-a-million chance. While another blmler wishes to draw a distinction between a non-offending claimer who is aware of a previous revoke, and alternatively a non-offending claimer who is unaware of a previous revoke. Gollum: >We hates Bagginses. Smeagol: >No, not this Baggins. Gollum: >Yes, every Baggins. All peoples that keep the >Precious. We must have it! I hate the Precious arguments of other Baggins blmlers with over-refined noses. 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. Best fissh Richard Hills From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 9 22:55:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:55:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c44e6c$74ae21e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ......... > Gordon Rainsford: > > >We are given as fact that "Both EW cards were > >marked Flannery. This is evidence of their agreement. Unless other (strong) evidence to the contrary is produced the Director must rule misinformation because of the missing alert which I understand is compulsory for that conventional bid according to regulations effective in the area. > Richard Hills: > > The fact that both EW cards were marked Flannery > does not necessarily prove that East *remembered* > that their partnership was using Flannery. Rather, > East's failure to Alert was a straw-in-the-wind > that East believed that West's 2D call was a > natural and unAlertable weak 2 in diamonds. And that corroborates a ruling or misinformation. > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >East did not think she had to alert it." > > Richard Hills: > > East's after-the-fact excuse was not necessarily a > true statement of the actual facts. And cannot possibly be relevant. > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >If East had forgotten that they played Flannery > >(rather than not thinking it to be alertable), > >then it would still be the case that "(a) East did > >not alert an alertable convention". > > > >I fail to see the point you are trying to make > >here, Richard. If people fail to alert an alertable > >bid, we don't need to know why - providing we are > >satisfied that it was a misexplanation rather than > >a misbid. The Director doesn't have to be satisfied that it is misexplanation. He *shall* rule misexplanation unless he is satisfied that it is a misbid! > > Richard Hills: > > Take these hypothetical sake-of-argument factoids -> > > 1. In other partnerships, East uses weak 2 diamonds > 2. East forgets that this partnership uses Flannery > 3. East therefore fails to Alert Flannery > 4. West gives East a look of horror after East > fails to Alert Flannery > 5. Because of West's look of horror, East now > remembers that this partnership plays Flannery > 6. Because East remembers that West's call is not a > weak 2 in diamonds, East avoids a disastrous > bidding stuffup > 7. East lies to the TD about East's failure to Alert, > using the excuse that East believed that the > Flannery convention was unAlertable None of this is relevant for the question of ruling misinformation or misbid. But items 4 and 5 introduce gross unauthorized information. Regards Sven ....... (snip) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jun 9 23:20:25 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:20:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook References: Message-ID: <001001c44e6f$f7e78c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "James Hudson" > > The oddest feature of the set was the Panels' use of consultants. > Again and again, in cases involving non-experts, the Panel sought > opinions from experts, and failed to poll non-expert peers of the > players involved in the case (or polled an insufficient number). I > cannot imagine why this was such a prominent feature of the Reno cases, > compared with those from past NABCs. > The panels have no choice in the matter, they are required to consult with experts and peers and arrive at a decision that does not contradict what they find. This policy was part of the decision to let TD panels handle the appeals from regionally-rated events at NABCs (Reno 1-12) while the AC (who need not consult) handles those of major events (Reno 13-24). The reason for the policy seems to be the belief that TDs are less bridge-intelligent than ACs, a doubtful assumption going by the casebooks. Often the panels' consultations seem inane, pointless, sometimes leading to the wrong conclusions. The questions are not always put correctly, the expertise of experts in this area is questionable, and the identification of "peers" (i.e., clones) is an impossiblility. Even if the data gathered were legitimate, the sample size is too small for any valid conclusions to be drawn. L16A doesn't mention "peers" or "level of player," and running around getting dubious opinions from dubious sources looks like a waste of time to me. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jun 9 23:35:31 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:35:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus References: <000701c44e69$876f08b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c44e72$13fcf640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" We never assign less than 40% to a pair entitled to A- even if their average for the session is less than 40% or the average to their opponents for the session is more than 60%. (If their opponents are assigned A+ and *their* average is higher than 60% they will of course receive their average). The ACBL policy of giving avg- the remainder from the avg+, e.g., 37% if avg+ turns out to be 63%, seemed wrong to me at first. Why should the avg- for a pair depend on how the other pair is doing? The apparent answer is that 40% might represent a fine result against an opposing pair that averages 63% on other boards. Some of us wouldn't mind averaging 40% against Meckwell, for instance. On the other hand, giving Zia that 37% score for avg- doesn't seem logical. I would suggest a score for avg- that is 10% less than the pair's scores on other boards. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Wed Jun 9 23:53:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:53:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus In-Reply-To: <001501c44e72$13fcf640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c44e74$991e9e30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > From: "Sven Pran" >=20 > We never assign less than 40% to a pair entitled to A- even if their > average > for the session is less than 40% or the average to their opponents for > the > session is more than 60%. (If their opponents are assigned A+ and > *their* > average is higher than 60% they will of course receive their average). >=20 > The ACBL policy of giving avg- the remainder from the avg+, e.g., 37% = if > avg+ turns out to be 63%, seemed wrong to me at first. Why should the > avg- for a pair depend on how the other pair is doing? The apparent > answer is that 40% might represent a fine result against an opposing > pair that averages 63% on other boards. Some of us wouldn't mind > averaging 40% against Meckwell, for instance. >=20 > On the other hand, giving Zia that 37% score for avg- doesn't seem > logical. I would suggest a score for avg- that is 10% less than the > pair's scores on other boards. I believe you have misunderstood: X meets Y in a round; on one board the Director assigns A- to X and A+ = to Y. In Norway X will always receive 40% score while Y will receive 60% = unless their average for the session (played boards only!) is better than 60% = in which case they receive their average for the session. The question I touched was whether there is any reason for awarding X = less than 40% on the ground that the average for Y in the session is more = than 60% (or the average for X is less than 40%). We don't do that in Norway = and in fact I consider such practice if used anywhere in the world to be in conflict with Law 88. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 10 00:36:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:36:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook In-Reply-To: <001001c44e6f$f7e78c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001001c44e6f$f7e78c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >From: "James Hudson" >> >> The oddest feature of the set was the Panels' use of consultants. >> Again and again, in cases involving non-experts, the Panel sought >> opinions from experts, and failed to poll non-expert peers of the >> players involved in the case (or polled an insufficient number). I >> cannot imagine why this was such a prominent feature of the Reno >cases, >> compared with those from past NABCs. >> >The panels have no choice in the matter, they are required to consult >with experts and peers and arrive at a decision that does not contradict >what they find. This policy was part of the decision to let TD panels >handle the appeals from regionally-rated events at NABCs (Reno 1-12) >while the AC (who need not consult) handles those of major events (Reno >13-24). The reason for the policy seems to be the belief that TDs are >less bridge-intelligent than ACs, a doubtful assumption going by the >casebooks. > >Often the panels' consultations seem inane, pointless, sometimes leading >to the wrong conclusions. The questions are not always put correctly, >the expertise of experts in this area is questionable, and the >identification of "peers" (i.e., clones) is an impossiblility. Even if >the data gathered were legitimate, the sample size is too small for any >valid conclusions to be drawn. > >L16A doesn't mention "peers" or "level of player," and running around >getting dubious opinions from dubious sources looks like a waste of time >to me. L16A does not, true, but the ACBL interpretation of LA does, so it is moot that the Law does not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Thu Jun 10 01:18:14 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:18:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468EE@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c44e80$6f368180$0200a8c0@Zog> Robin Barker writes: >> Brambledown wrote: >> This "warning" should alert players to the importance of which >> defender's cards win the remaining tricks and now if declarer concedes >> the final two tricks, I will rule against him - 1 trick transferred. >> I may have to scour TFLB for a suitable "could have known" to justify >> this. > Chas, > I agree with your sentiment: once declarer has been made aware of the > significance of his play to trick twelve, we could treat his concession > as a concession of his potential second trick from the revoke law. > However, I don't think that is what the laws say - I suspect the suitable > "could have known" is not there to be found. Upon further reflection, I don't think I need a "could have known". Much has been said about the benefit of doubt passing to claimer when it is discovered at this time that an opponent had revoked earlier and I don't quarrel with that. Once, however, the revoke is revealed and the TD has alerted declarer to the possible significance of which of defenders' cards win tricks, I believe the benefit of doubt in a subsequent claim passes back to the non claimer. IOW, if declarer concedes the last two tricks without specifying a lead at trick 12, then I believe I can allow the defence the benefit of any normal line in the usual way. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 9 23:59:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:59:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke case "smell test" Message-ID: >I hate the Precious arguments of other Baggins >blmlers with over-refined noses. What is, in my opinion, over-Precious noses of some other blmlers reminds me of this old (but good) attached joke about self-righteousness. Best wishes Richard Hills * * * Jones jumped up from the card table white with rage. "Stop this game," he shouted, "Smith is cheating!" "How do you know?" "He's not playing the hand that I rigged for him." From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jun 10 03:27:15 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 22:27:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040609002646.02bd7cb0@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20040609002646.02bd7cb0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040609221637.02c92f78@mail.comcast.net> At 07:02 AM 6/9/2004, David Stevenson wrote: >David J. Grabiner wrote > >>First, I rule that there was MI. Flight B players in a pairs game are >>not required to protect themselves by checking opposition CC's over an >>unalerted 2D opening. > > Pardon me? Flight A players are not *allowed* to protect themselves > over an unalerted 2D opening. > >Quote RHO in New Orleans: "The only reason he asked about the 2D opening >and the 3D response thereto is to show to his partner that he had a >reasonable hand." >Quote TD in New Orleans without checking facts: "It is very dangerous to >ask questions and I advise you not to in future." > > Check the CC? What CC? In the appeal statement, "Both EW cards were marked Flannery." Therefore, South could have looked at the card. I believe that even the EBU policy is that looking at a CC does not normally constitute UI. Now, South could have given extraneous information by saying to East, "Could you please take your CC out of your purse?", or lifting East's bidding box which was on top of the CC, or asking West, "East's CC is not filled out; may I see yours?" However, I wouldn't rule UI in these situations, as E-W are responsible for the need to transmit this information. There are situations in which experienced players are expected to protect themselves and will not receive MI adjustments for failures to alert. I'm not sure whether the ACBL would rule that this applied to an unalerted 2D in an expert game. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 10 08:28:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:28:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000201c44e2b$d9fbbad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c44e2b$d9fbbad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C80D96.6030608@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > There is a major difference between the cases where the revoke is known to > the claimer at the time he claims and when the revoke is unknown to him at > that time. > Yes, in the first case declarer can fix it so that he in fact loses to the revoker! > The quoted WBFLC minute deals with the latter type of cases and I have > absolutely no problem with their decision here. > > Where I do have a problem is if we take this minute as a guideline also for > cases where a revoke has been committed, detected and ruled upon before the > claim is made (except of course that the final ruling of zero, one or two > penalty tricks must be postponed to end of the play). I should very much > like to see an example of such a case demonstrating the need for giving the > claimer (rather than his opponent) the benefit of the doubt when resolving > the claim. > Well, simply this one: by revoking, a player leads declarer to believe that a suit is not running. In order to still make his contract, declarer now makes a low finesse. It loses, and declarer concedes. If the revoke had not occurred, declare would have his tricks, and a good handling of the other suit would bring in the contract. We must give claimer the benefit of the doubt in that good handling, because he was denied his chance to do it right at the table. > >>and that any player good >>enough, from there on, to see that conceding would be better than >>playing, should earn his two tricks. > > > Now here I disagree. A claim or a concession is a means for terminating a > board in order not to waste time. It has never been and must not become a > means for a player to actually earn a trick (or tricks) he would not have > earned with certainty had he played on "the regular way". > Well, suppose that in the original, declarer does have a clear picture about who has the clubs and the hearts. If he does not know about the revoke, he places the last spade in east, and so both red cards are in west. West will win the last two tricks. He does not know he'll get some tricks back, so why should he not claim? Now suppose that West has noticed his revoke, and said something. Then, declarer can figure out who has the diamond, and he can fix it so that he throws in the correct defender. If we don't rule that declarer always gets 2 tricks, it becomes interesting for revoker to remain silent! > Also please observe that in the case handled by WBFLC Bermuda January 12th. > 2000 #3 we may assume the player who claimed was not given any trick with > his claim that he should not have won had he played on. Law 64C would have > been the correct tool for that. > > And by the way: Why limit this discussion on the consequences of > irregularities by opponents prior to a claim? > > I believe for instance that any claimer who after he claimed discovers that > he has received misinformation from opponents will be heard on a request for > "benefit of the doubt" with his claim if he can show any possible relation > whatsoever between the doubt and the misinformation. But at least with me he > will not receive such benefits if the misinformation has been revealed to > him before he claims. > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Jun 10 08:56:30 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:56:30 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] L88 and Average Minus Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900019E077D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Sven Pran wrote: > Marvin French > From: "Sven Pran" >=20 > We never assign less than 40% to a pair entitled to A- even if their > average > for the session is less than 40% or the average to their opponents for > the > session is more than 60%. (If their opponents are assigned A+ and > *their* > average is higher than 60% they will of course receive their average). >=20 > The ACBL policy of giving avg- the remainder from the avg+, e.g., 37% = if > avg+ turns out to be 63%, seemed wrong to me at first. Why should the > avg- for a pair depend on how the other pair is doing? The apparent > answer is that 40% might represent a fine result against an opposing > pair that averages 63% on other boards. Some of us wouldn't mind > averaging 40% against Meckwell, for instance. >=20 > On the other hand, giving Zia that 37% score for avg- doesn't seem > logical. I would suggest a score for avg- that is 10% less than the > pair's scores on other boards. I believe you have misunderstood: X meets Y in a round; on one board the Director assigns A- to X and A+ = to Y. In Norway X will always receive 40% score while Y will receive 60% = unless their average for the session (played boards only!) is better than 60% = in which case they receive their average for the session. ----- Y will get the highest score of a) 60% b) Y's average score in the session (boards with assigned scores not = counted) c) The complement ov X's average score in the session (boards with = assigned scores not counted) Except from this, Svens's description of our procedure is correct. Regards, Harald ----- The question I touched was whether there is any reason for awarding X = less than 40% on the ground that the average for Y in the session is more = than 60% (or the average for X is less than 40%). We don't do that in Norway = and in fact I consider such practice if used anywhere in the world to be in conflict with Law 88. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jun 10 09:08:53 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:08:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus References: Message-ID: <002b01c44ec2$31f04b70$8880b6d4@LNV> > An interesting situation came up in a club game last night. > > One table played a board from the wrong set; this causes two innocent > pairs to receive Average-Plus on one board. > > Later in the evening, we had a "14 and 12" situation that was not > discovered until trick 11 (! it amazes me how often it takes that long for > people to notice): Average-Minus to the pairs who didn't count their > cards. > > As it happened, one pair received both an A+ and an A-, *and* had a good > enough game to place. > > Suppose this pair has a 64 (US matchpoints, 4 top, so this is conveniently > 64%) on the 25 boards they played normally. > > Is the average plus worth 2.56 matchpoints (64% of a top because that is > their score on the 25 boards they played), or is it worth only 2.52 > matchpoints (65.6 matchpoints out of 26 other boards)? Yes, interesting and not well covered by the laws. This problem exists since '97 when we introduced the 'at most 40%' in L12 but did not define the meaning as we have done that for 'at least 60' in L88. So regulations govern. And WBF and ACBL have different ones. The WBF relates 40- to 60+ and says thst the session score is taken into account and the ACBL preferred the session score of the opponents as criterion. Seems less consistent but it is certainly not ridiculous. The second point is the calculation. Not well described either, so again up to the SO. I am not sure whether the WBF has regulated it, but ACBL and NBB (my country) do the same to avoid the loop: calculate the score without the artificial ones and if out of a border (40 - 60) include those artificals not to be influenced before looking at the artificial score that might matter. ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 10 10:07:07 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:07:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C80D96.6030608@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c44eca$4e162150$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > There is a major difference between the cases where the=20 > > revoke is known to the claimer at the time he claims and > > when the revoke is unknown to him at that time. >=20 > Yes, in the first case declarer can fix it so that he in=20 > fact loses to the revoker! >=20 > > The quoted WBFLC minute deals with the latter type of=20 > > cases and I have absolutely no problem with their decision > > here. > > > > Where I do have a problem is if we take this minute as a=20 > > guideline also for cases where a revoke has been committed, > > detected and ruled upon before the claim is made (except > > of course that the final ruling of zero, one or two > > penalty tricks must be postponed to end of the play).=20 > > I should very much like to see an example of such a case > > demonstrating the need for giving the claimer (rather than > > his opponent) the benefit of the doubt when resolving the > > claim. > > >=20 > Well, simply this one: by revoking, a player leads declarer=20 > to believe that a suit is not running. In order to still=20 > make his contract, declarer now makes a low finesse. It loses, > and declarer concedes. > If the revoke had not occurred, declare would have his tricks, > and a good handling of the other suit would bring in the=20 > contract. We must give claimer the benefit of the doubt in that > good handling, because he was denied his chance to do it right=20 > at the table. I simply do not understand this argument: If the revoke has been = revealed and ruled upon then how can declarer still be deceived that the suit is = not breaking? And from your describe this declarer took his deep failing finesse = before he conceded so there is no question of benefit of the doubt when resolving = a claim or a concession here? Anyway it appears to me that this situation is best handled under Law = 64C. >=20 > > > >>and that any player good > >>enough, from there on, to see that conceding would be better than > >>playing, should earn his two tricks. > > > > > > Now here I disagree. A claim or a concession is a means for = terminating > a > > board in order not to waste time. It has never been and must not = become > a > > means for a player to actually earn a trick (or tricks) he would not > have > > earned with certainty had he played on "the regular way". > > >=20 > Well, suppose that in the original, declarer does have a clear picture > about who has the clubs and the hearts. If he does not know about the > revoke, he places the last spade in east, and so both red cards are in > west. West will win the last two tricks. He does not know he'll get > some tricks back, so why should he not claim? > Now suppose that West has noticed his revoke, and said something. > Then, declarer can figure out who has the diamond, and he can fix it > so that he throws in the correct defender. > If we don't rule that declarer always gets 2 tricks, it becomes > interesting for revoker to remain silent! Didn't you read my post? If West keeps silent then the revoke has not = been detected and ruled upon when declarer claims. In that case I consider = the WBFLC minute to apply. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 10 10:09:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:09:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900019E077D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000501c44eca$a755e0c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sorry, I forgot alternative c) in Harald's correction below. Thanks Harald! Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Skjaran, Harald > Sent: 10. juni 2004 09:57 > To: blml > Subject: SV: [blml] L88 and Average Minus >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 >=20 > > Marvin French > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > We never assign less than 40% to a pair entitled to A- even if their > > average > > for the session is less than 40% or the average to their opponents = for > > the > > session is more than 60%. (If their opponents are assigned A+ and > > *their* > > average is higher than 60% they will of course receive their = average). > > > > The ACBL policy of giving avg- the remainder from the avg+, e.g., = 37% if > > avg+ turns out to be 63%, seemed wrong to me at first. Why should = the > > avg- for a pair depend on how the other pair is doing? The apparent > > answer is that 40% might represent a fine result against an opposing > > pair that averages 63% on other boards. Some of us wouldn't mind > > averaging 40% against Meckwell, for instance. > > > > On the other hand, giving Zia that 37% score for avg- doesn't seem > > logical. I would suggest a score for avg- that is 10% less than the > > pair's scores on other boards. >=20 > I believe you have misunderstood: >=20 > X meets Y in a round; on one board the Director assigns A- to X and A+ = to > Y. >=20 > In Norway X will always receive 40% score while Y will receive 60% = unless > their average for the session (played boards only!) is better than 60% = in > which case they receive their average for the session. > ----- > Y will get the highest score of > a) 60% > b) Y's average score in the session (boards with assigned scores not > counted) > c) The complement ov X's average score in the session (boards with > assigned scores not counted) >=20 > Except from this, Svens's description of our procedure is correct. >=20 > Regards, > Harald > ----- >=20 > The question I touched was whether there is any reason for awarding X = less > than 40% on the ground that the average for Y in the session is more = than > 60% (or the average for X is less than 40%). We don't do that in = Norway > and > in fact I consider such practice if used anywhere in the world to be = in > conflict with Law 88. >=20 > Regards Sven >=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 svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 10 10:15:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:15:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus In-Reply-To: <002b01c44ec2$31f04b70$8880b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000601c44ecb$87050fc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ......... > Yes, interesting and not well covered by the laws. This problem exists > since > '97 when we introduced the 'at most 40%' in L12 but did not define the > meaning as we have done that for 'at least 60' in L88. So regulations > govern. I believe we in Norway have interpreted the "at most 40%" simply to allow for rounding off matchpoints fractions without discussion on how to round. (And correspondingly for "at least 60%") (When using Neuberg we do not round and we do assign exactly 40%) regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 10 11:04:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:04:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000401c44eca$4e162150$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c44eca$4e162150$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40C83242.7020204@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Well, simply this one: by revoking, a player leads declarer >>to believe that a suit is not running. In order to still >>make his contract, declarer now makes a low finesse. It loses, >>and declarer concedes. >>If the revoke had not occurred, declare would have his tricks, >>and a good handling of the other suit would bring in the >>contract. We must give claimer the benefit of the doubt in that >>good handling, because he was denied his chance to do it right >>at the table. > > > I simply do not understand this argument: If the revoke has been revealed > and ruled upon then how can declarer still be deceived that the suit is not > breaking? > Not this case - here we simply find out the revoke after the concession. > And from your describe this declarer took his deep failing finesse before he > conceded so there is no question of benefit of the doubt when resolving a > claim or a concession here? > > Anyway it appears to me that this situation is best handled under Law 64C. > Not necessarily. L64C does refer to L12 - so a 12C3 is possibble. While the claim is ruled upon with "benefit of the doubt". But the whole thing is unimportant anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 10 11:17:50 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:17:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <40C83242.7020204@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c44ed4$2f6dba10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > >>Well, simply this one: by revoking, a player leads declarer > >>to believe that a suit is not running. In order to still > >>make his contract, declarer now makes a low finesse. It loses, > >>and declarer concedes. > >>If the revoke had not occurred, declare would have his tricks, > >>and a good handling of the other suit would bring in the > >>contract. We must give claimer the benefit of the doubt in that > >>good handling, because he was denied his chance to do it right > >>at the table. > > > > > > I simply do not understand this argument: If the revoke has been > revealed > > and ruled upon then how can declarer still be deceived that the suit is > not > > breaking? > > > > Not this case - here we simply find out the revoke after the concession. Then the revoke has not been detected and ruled upon before the claim. In that case I (too) consider the WBFLC minute to apply. Please read my posts before commenting on them. And what is your point? > > And from your describe this declarer took his deep failing finesse > before he > > conceded so there is no question of benefit of the doubt when resolving > a > > claim or a concession here? > > > > Anyway it appears to me that this situation is best handled under Law > 64C. > > > > Not necessarily. > > L64C does refer to L12 - so a 12C3 is possibble. > While the claim is ruled upon with "benefit of the doubt". > But the whole thing is unimportant anyway. L64C instructs the Director to ascertain equity. The reference to L12 is (indirect) telling him how to accomplish that (when all other possibilities have been exhausted). Again: What is the point? Sven From MAILER-DAEMON@pop04.wanadoo.nl Thu Jun 10 12:57:22 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@pop04.wanadoo.nl (Mail Delivery System) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:57:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Message-ID: <20040610115722.4E9461424@pop04.wanadoo.nl> This is a MIME-encapsulated message. --4368118A8.1086868642/pop04.wanadoo.nl Content-Description: Notification Content-Type: text/plain This is the Postfix program at host pop04.wanadoo.nl. I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned below could not be delivered to one or more destinations. For further assistance, please send mail to If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the message returned below. The Postfix program <7061089@pop04.wanadoo.nl>: service unavailable. Command output: mail.local: a.duindam@wanadoo.nl: mailbox size exceeded (25174704 bytes) --4368118A8.1086868642/pop04.wanadoo.nl Content-Description: Delivery error report Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; pop04.wanadoo.nl Arrival-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:57:22 +0200 (CEST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; 7061089@pop04.wanadoo.nl Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; service unavailable. Command output: mail.local: a.duindam@wanadoo.nl: mailbox size exceeded (25174704 bytes) --4368118A8.1086868642/pop04.wanadoo.nl Content-Description: Undelivered Message Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from mx4.wanadoo.nl (mx4.wanadoo.nl [194.134.35.237]) by pop04.wanadoo.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4368118A8 for <7061089@pop04.wanadoo.nl>; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:57:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mx4.wanadoo.nl (Postfix) id CDEF930AB; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:57:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: from rtflb.org (200-153-168-156.dsl.telesp.net.br [200.153.168.156]) by mx4.wanadoo.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id AE91D30AD; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:57:02 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: <20040610115702.AE91D30AD@mx4.wanadoo.nl> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:57:02 +0200 (MEST) From: blml@rtflb.org To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Great Announcement from SBWL SBWl Has Been Granted Another FCC 23GHz Operating License in Las Vegas GROUND BREAKING NEWS SBWl Has Been Granted Another FCC 23GHz Operating License in Las Vegas Read the news below - We believe this exciting news in addition to the big PR campaign in the next 5 days will make SBWL move up and up and up.... Expect Huge Coverage - We believe this stock will Explode on Monday June 10th SBWL will be profiled in 10-15 investor newsletters over the weekend.. Act today and secure your position Today +>+>+> Company Profile SkyBridge Wireless Inc. Symbol: BB: SBWL Current Price: $0.03 In our opinion the stock price could go to $0.13 - 0.14 in the next 3-5 days In our opinion the stock price could go to $0.16 - 0.18 in the next 10 days Read the exciting news below ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SkyBridge Wireless Inc. is positioned to produce solid growth, rapidly increasing revenues and impressive share value gains. Focused on High Growth Areas in High Growth Sectors, the company is focused on high-speed fixed wireless Internet access to businesses and communities in some of the nation's fastest-growing metropolitan markets, with initial efforts in Las Vegas, a very dynamic market. Wireless service allows customers to use the Internet at speeds up to 50 times faster than today's dial-up modems. As the desire for more information, communication and entertainment grows, so does the need for solutions to provide these services at high speed and at an acceptable cost. SkyBridge Wireless fixed wireless broadband access provides just that, offering solutions that meet the requirements of businesses and enterprises alike, at a fraction of the cost of wireline T-1 data connections, and can be installed and operational in a much shorter time than other data solutions. Wirel ess represents one of today's fastest-growing industry sectors. No assurance can be made that SkyBridge Wireless will accomplish its goals. ============================= * NEWS RELEASE * ============================= LAS VEGAS, Jun 8, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- SkyBridge Wireless Inc. (SBWL) announced the FCC has granted the company another 23GHz operating license to continue the expansion of its high-speed wireless backbone in Las Vegas. This 23GHz frequency operating license will allow for a more reliable network backbone transport, as well as increase network capacity greatly by allowing additional Access Points to be installed at the various sites SkyBridge Wireless Inc. has around Las Vegas. Jason Neiberger, SkyBridge Wireless Inc. president, stated, "This 23GHz backbone connection will replace an unlicensed and lower capacity link between the site at the Las Vegas Hilton and our Frontier Radio site in the south section of Las Vegas." He further added, "With this license in place we will be installing the next 23GHz Proxim Tsunami radios within the next 15 to 30 days, and will be adding additional Access Points to these sites, for increased customer capacity." ================================================== +>+>+> DISCLAIMER Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "in our opinion","projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might" occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. we advise all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Plea se have in mind that the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Please read the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of SBWL shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, buy and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" and "intend" or similar terms. This newsletter was paid $12500 from third party to send this report. PLEASE DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE INVESTING IN ANY PROFILED COMPANY. You may lose money from investing in Penny Stocks. --------------------- Message-ID: From: To: Subject: SBWL announced new license - stock expected to go Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:19:44 -1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_7CC_9EDB_ABC45FB9.8FFBC820" X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1158 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_7CC_9EDB_ABC45FB9.8FFBC820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ------=_NextPart_7CC_9EDB_ABC45FB9.8FFBC820 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXVzLWFzY2lpIj4NCjxNRVRBIGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1TSFRNTCA2 LjAwLjI4MDAuMTE1OCIgbmFtZT1HRU5FUkFUT1I+DQo8U1RZTEU+PC9TVFlMRT4NCjwvSEVBRD48 Rk9OVCBmYWNlPUFyaWFsPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj4NCjxCT0RZPg0KPERJVj4NCg0KPC9ESVY+PC9C T0RZPjwvSFRNTD48L0ZPTlQ+PC9GT05UPg== ------=_NextPart_7CC_9EDB_ABC45FB9.8FFBC820-- --4368118A8.1086868642/pop04.wanadoo.nl-- From dpb3@fastmail.fm Thu Jun 10 13:00:06 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:00:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: <20040610100004.461.96717.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040610100004.461.96717.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1086868806.19461.198147266@webmail.messagingengine.com> David J. Grabiner: > Now, South could have given extraneous information by saying to East, > "Could you please take your CC out of your purse?", or lifting East's > bidding box which was on top of the CC, or asking West, "East's CC is not > filled out; may I see yours?" However, I wouldn't rule UI in these > situations, as E-W are responsible for the need to transmit this > information. ACBL was very clear on this, and in agreement with you, in the "Ruling the Game" column in the March ACBL Bulletin. An opponent is absolutely protected against a UI claim in reaching for the convention card even for a failure to *annnounce* (in the column case, failure to announce the US de facto standard 15-17 NT). David Babcock Florida USA From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 10 13:21:12 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:21:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case "smell test" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040610081342.02b7b330@pop.starpower.net> At 05:52 PM 6/9/04, richard.hills wrote: >Many blmlers argue that the WBF LC interpretation >of the interaction between the claim Laws and the >revoke Laws fails the "smell test". FTR, that's not quite true, although some of us did so argue before we had a chance to read the actual minute and were going by what was being said in the thread. Now, though, we see that the WBFLC minute specifically addresses non-established revokes. What fails the smell test is the BLML interpretation that the WBFLC interpretation applies to established revokes as well. The argument for the questionable BLML interpretation is that although the WBFLC interpretation doesn't address this situation, it comes as close as anything we've got, and if we don't apply it we are left in a difficult situation with absolutely no legal guidance whatsoever. That's a hard argument to counter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jun 10 13:19:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000101c44e18$315f3040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > If we should generalize this way I imagine the next logical consequence > to be that the same shift in benefit of the doubt must apply whenever > ruling upon a disputed claim that has been made after an opponent has > committed an irregularity regardless of the nature of that irregularity. Do we not, in effect, do this already? If declarer claims on a squeeze but the "known" layout is actually a product of MI then we will be awarding an adjusted score based on declarer finding a better line. In essence if the principle is one of ruling against "claimer" or against "offender" I think we should be ruling against offender every time (providing there is some measure of interaction between the offence and the claim). For example, declarer misguesses a suit. RHO: "Ha-Ha got that wrong." Dec: "It doesn't matter I'm making anyway" RHO: "That constitutes a claim." Sure RHO is correct but due to his earlier offence I'm going to give declarer a fair amount of leeway in how I rule the claim despite the lack of accompanying statement. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 10 13:31:00 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:31:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: <000801c44e6c$74ae21e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c44e6c$74ae21e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040610082253.02b7a1d0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:55 PM 6/9/04, Sven wrote: >The Director doesn't have to be satisfied that it is misexplanation. He >*shall* rule misexplanation unless he is satisfied that it is a misbid! Not true. The Director shall rule misexplanation "in the absense of evidence to the contrary" (L75 footnote). That is a *much* weaker criterion than "unless he is satisfied that it is a misbid". Had the lawmakers intended the latter, they could have written "in the absense of compelling evidence to the contrary" or "unless demonstrably not the case" or some such. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 10 14:03:39 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:03:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus In-Reply-To: <000001c44e74$991e9e30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c44e74$991e9e30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <97AA3E74-BADE-11D8-A514-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 Jun 2004, at 23:53, Sven Pran wrote: >> Marvin French >> From: "Sven Pran" >> >> We never assign less than 40% to a pair entitled to A- even if their >> average >> for the session is less than 40% or the average to their opponents for >> the >> session is more than 60%. (If their opponents are assigned A+ and >> *their* >> average is higher than 60% they will of course receive their average). >> >> The ACBL policy of giving avg- the remainder from the avg+, e.g., 37% >> if >> avg+ turns out to be 63%, seemed wrong to me at first. Why should the >> avg- for a pair depend on how the other pair is doing? The apparent >> answer is that 40% might represent a fine result against an opposing >> pair that averages 63% on other boards. Some of us wouldn't mind >> averaging 40% against Meckwell, for instance. >> >> On the other hand, giving Zia that 37% score for avg- doesn't seem >> logical. I would suggest a score for avg- that is 10% less than the >> pair's scores on other boards. > > I believe you have misunderstood: I don't believe he has. He's just given a different answer. > > X meets Y in a round; on one board the Director assigns A- to X and A+ > to Y. > > In Norway X will always receive 40% score while Y will receive 60% > unless > their average for the session (played boards only!) is better than 60% > in > which case they receive their average for the session. > > The question I touched was whether there is any reason for awarding X > less > than 40% on the ground that the average for Y in the session is more > than > 60% (or the average for X is less than 40%). We don't do that in > Norway and > in fact I consider such practice if used anywhere in the world to be in > conflict with Law 88. Marvin was saying they *do* do that in ACBL. Law 88 doesn't cover the ground under discussion, since it only relates to "when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own" - not the case when A- has been awarded. The current wording of Law 12C1 certainly seems to allow a pair to be awarded less than 40%, but the ACBL way of assessing it according to the performance of the opponents (rather than the performance of the offenders) seems surprising. I imagine that the fact that it balances the books is part of the reason for it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jun 10 17:44:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED04@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Harald wrote: > There's an obvious reason for the WBFLC guidance being specific to > non-established revokes. When such a revoke is corrected, trick(s) > declarer conceded might be raised, and in that case, we should give > these to declarer. An example: Declarer has got AKQxxx and a side suit > loser in hand and a singleton and 6 losers in dummy. He cashes the 3 top > tricks, LHO showing out on the 3rd round. Declarer now concedes the last > four tricks to the opponents. But in fact, LHO revoked on the 3rd round. > The suit was breaking 3-3, and declarer as a result is awarded 3 of the > last 4 tricks according to the WBFLC. The above is a simple L64C ruling - no need for a WBFLC minute. In my mind the minute refers to doubt created by the interaction between likely post-claim outcome and and the revoke/claim laws. Like Eric I hate the idea of giving the tricks to a declarer "trying it on" but I also agree with David that only BLML readers would realise it was worth trying (and even then the case will occur *very* rarely). Tim From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 11 00:03:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:03:22 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c44f3f$2116e8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: >=20 > > If we should generalize this way I imagine the next logical = consequence > > to be that the same shift in benefit of the doubt must apply = whenever > > ruling upon a disputed claim that has been made after an opponent = has > > committed an irregularity regardless of the nature of that = irregularity. >=20 > Do we not, in effect, do this already? =20 We do indeed - if we see a direct consequence from the previous = irregularity to what we consider "damage". But we do not do just because there has been some irregularity, = particularly not if that irregularity has already been sorted out and ruled upon. And if the previous irregularity has no impact on a doubt situation in a claim I just do not see what reason there could be for shifting the = benefit of the doubt to favor the claimer just because his opponent has = previously committed some completely unrelated irregularity. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 11 00:27:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:27:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040610082253.02b7a1d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c44f42$779b2a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > Sven wrote: >=20 > >The Director doesn't have to be satisfied that it is misexplanation. = He > >*shall* rule misexplanation unless he is satisfied that it is a = misbid! >=20 > Not true. The Director shall rule misexplanation "in the absense of > evidence to the contrary" (L75 footnote). That is a *much* weaker > criterion than "unless he is satisfied that it is a misbid". Had the > lawmakers intended the latter, they could have written "in the absense > of compelling evidence to the contrary" or "unless demonstrably not = the > case" or some such. Do I understand you to say that if there is some evidence indicating = misbid and some other evidence indicating misexplanation and the Director = cannot make up his mind what evidence to trust he shall rule misbid because = there is "evidence to the contrary" of misexplanation? The footnote to Law 75 was not changed from the 1987 laws and in the official commentary to the 1987 laws we can read: Begin quote: The key factor has to do with the proven nature of what the partnership = has agreed to as to its understanding. Where there is any doubt as to this = the margin of that doubt is given to the opposing side. Doubt exists in any = of the following circumstances: (a) The two members of the partnership present differing explanations of their understanding and this is not cleared up by a uniform = understanding stated on both convention cards. (b) The two convention cards are found not to agree, notwithstanding = that both players agree with one of them. (c) There is (unhappily) only one convention card and this does not = agree with the identical statements of both players. (snip a bit) (d) The Director is otherwise of the opinion that a substantial doubt exists.=20 End quote. I think it is pretty clear that unless the Director is satisfied of a = misbid he shall rule misexplanation. (The commentary uses the words "require = him to"). Personally I have no problem with this understanding of Law 75 even = without the clarifying commentary but then as English is not my native language maybe I miss some of the finer nuances when reading? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 11 00:37:53 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:37:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] L88 and Average Minus In-Reply-To: <97AA3E74-BADE-11D8-A514-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c44f43$f370de00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford ............ > >> On the other hand, giving Zia that 37% score for avg- doesn't seem > >> logical. I would suggest a score for avg- that is 10% less than the > >> pair's scores on other boards. > > > > I believe you have misunderstood: > > I don't believe he has. He's just given a different answer. Maybe it was me who misunderstood, but when he said "giving Zia 37% score for avg-" certainly looked to me as if he considered the complement of the own side's average rather than opponents' average? (I assumed he thought of Zia averaging some 67% score). And when he continued with a thought that A- might better be 10% less than the pair's (own?) scores on the other boards I was convinced that I had understood him the way he meant? ......... regards Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Jun 11 08:16:21 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:16:21 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED07@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Tim West-Meads wrote: Harald wrote: > There's an obvious reason for the WBFLC guidance being specific to > non-established revokes. When such a revoke is corrected, trick(s) > declarer conceded might be raised, and in that case, we should give > these to declarer. An example: Declarer has got AKQxxx and a side suit > loser in hand and a singleton and 6 losers in dummy. He cashes the 3 top > tricks, LHO showing out on the 3rd round. Declarer now concedes the last > four tricks to the opponents. But in fact, LHO revoked on the 3rd round. > The suit was breaking 3-3, and declarer as a result is awarded 3 of the > last 4 tricks according to the WBFLC. The above is a simple L64C ruling - no need for a WBFLC minute. ----- I absolutely agree with you there. I didn't realize at the time I wrote it that L64C would take care of it. I realized later on. I don't think the wording of the WBFLC minute is good on this point. Maybe it would have been clear what the committee had in mind if the case discussed had been presented in the minutes. Harald ------ In my mind the minute refers to doubt created by the interaction between likely post-claim outcome and and the revoke/claim laws. Like Eric I hate the idea of giving the tricks to a declarer "trying it on" but I also agree=20 with David that only BLML readers would realise it was worth trying (and even then the case will occur *very* rarely). Tim _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rxrqowqvcby@msn.com Fri Jun 11 10:41:04 2004 From: rxrqowqvcby@msn.com (Davis Rushing) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:41:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] Fwd: my favorite Message-ID: After that I pulled off the cloth covering his face, and saw, as I expected, the cruel countenance of Abd el Barak.











No more msgs

That worthy individual was keeping quiet with the intention of watching events as they arose. He even gave orders that the horses should be watered, their cribs filled, and that they should be fed with the finest corn; and then he retired, fatigued with all his labours. From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jun 11 22:13:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000001c44f3f$2116e8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > > Do we not, in effect, do this already? > > We do indeed - if we see a direct consequence from the previous > irregularity to what we consider "damage". We don't wait for a direct consequence, we go with "reasonable possibility". > But we do not do just because there has been some irregularity, > particularly not if that irregularity has already been sorted out and > ruled upon. I agree. Indeed had the revoke been ruled prior to the claim I'd not be suggesting a 2 trick revoke. In the specific case no ruling on the revoke had been given so this proviso would not apply. > And if the previous irregularity has no impact on a doubt situation in a > claim I just do not see what reason there could be for shifting the > benefit of the doubt to favor the claimer just because his opponent has > previously committed some completely unrelated irregularity. Also agreed. But here the prior revoke *is* the direct cause of doubt as to how many tricks would have been transferred had the hand been played out. Tim From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 00:14:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 01:14:29 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c45009$d8c31d90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads .......... > I agree. Indeed had the revoke been ruled prior to the claim I'd not = be > suggesting a 2 trick revoke. In the specific case no ruling on the = revoke > had been given so this proviso would not apply. Everything I have read on this thread suggests that the revoke was = indeed known by all four players at the time Declarer conceded. That implies = that the revoke must have been detected and ruled upon, and if the Director = has done his job (which we must assume absent information to the contrary) = the players have been told that the number of penalty tricks will depend on = how many tricks the offending side subsequently won and whether any of them = was to be won by offender with a spade. This means that declarer was in no worse "knowledge" position that he = would have been had the revoke not been committed. He was actually in a rather better position because he now had authorized information about = opponents' cards, information that he would not have had without the revoke.=20 All this add up to there being no reasonable reason for giving declarer = any "benefit of the doubt" on what card he might have played to trick twelve when ruling on his concession.=20 Although the importance of which card he selected to play was "created" = with the revoke there was nothing about this revoke (once clarified and ruled upon) that could influence him to make the wrong choice. He had all the information he was entitled to (and no misleading information) when he conceded and shall have to make his own decision. In this process his opponents must retain the benefit of the doubt.=20 >=20 > > And if the previous irregularity has no impact on a doubt situation = in a > > claim I just do not see what reason there could be for shifting the > > benefit of the doubt to favor the claimer just because his opponent = has > > previously committed some completely unrelated irregularity. >=20 > Also agreed. But here the prior revoke *is* the direct cause of doubt = as > to how many tricks would have been transferred had the hand been = played > out. But that consequential doubt was removed when the revoke itself became known. We cannot live with a situation where a player who should know he = has a choice of some importance is allowed to avoid that choice by claiming = or conceding. This is a situation very much different from the case when there has = been a revoke of which he is unaware because that revoke could cause him to = locate key cards incorrectly with his opponents. I draw the line between revokes unknown to the claimer at the time of a claim and revokes known to him. And that is also how I understand the = WBFLC minute which has caused all this discussion about shifting the "benefit = of doubt". Regards Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Jun 12 00:40:38 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:40:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: <1086868806.19461.198147266@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Hi We may have covered something similar before but anyway .... Teams N/S vul South S x H J9xx D Kxxxxx C Ax Bidding W N E S P 1H DBL 3D(1) 3S P P(2) 4H 4S P P Dbl (1) Fit Bid not alerted (2) Asked what 3D was and told natural NF Their agreement is fit bid. Result : 4S*-1 East at the end of play asks if 3D was GF. South says no. East says she wants to call the TD because she feels South doesnt have a 4H bid. Td takes the details down, goes off and consults with various players who unanimously vote that 4H is fine. TD comes back - results stands ..... but "I'm penalising N/S 3 imps for not knowing their system" Now I didn't think you could do that. I know Wolff has been advocating penalising CD but I didnt think that was adopted. I didnt think you could penalise a partnership for "forgetting" or whatever the term is their system ?? K. From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <004501c45011$68b90ac0$f0536e51@annespc> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:40 AM Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... > Hi > > We may have covered something similar before but anyway .... > > Teams N/S vul > > South > S x > H J9xx > D Kxxxxx > C Ax > > Bidding > > W N E S > > P 1H DBL 3D(1) > 3S P P(2) 4H > 4S P P Dbl > > (1) Fit Bid not alerted > (2) Asked what 3D was and told natural NF > > Their agreement is fit bid. > > Result : 4S*-1 > > East at the end of play asks if 3D was GF. South says no. East says she > wants to call the TD because she feels > South doesnt have a 4H bid. Td takes the details down, goes off and > consults with various players who unanimously > vote that 4H is fine. TD comes back - results stands ..... > > but > > "I'm penalising N/S 3 imps for not knowing their system" > > Now I didn't think you could do that. I know Wolff has been advocating > penalising CD but I didnt think that was adopted. > I didnt think you could penalise a partnership for "forgetting" or whatever > the term is their system ?? > > K. > S has a 7 loser hand with 4 hearts opposite a 1H opening so certainly has a raise to 4H. However N has failed to alert 3D and S has failed to explain system - there is a CPU here. We aren't given the whole hand but in my opinion N/S are behaving very badly, and I would like to see the whole hand. I presume N final pass is forcing and I am not sure that the double is the bid of my choice. Anne > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 07/06/2004 From mustikka@charter.net Sat Jun 12 02:00:23 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:00:23 -0700 Subject: Fw: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: <000f01c45018$a4d339c0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Oops, I sent this to Karel only. I meant this for blml. Sorry. > Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... > > > > Hi > > > > We may have covered something similar before but anyway .... > > > > Teams N/S vul > > > > South > > S x > > H J9xx > > D Kxxxxx > > C Ax > > > > Bidding > > > > W N E S > > > > P 1H DBL 3D(1) > > 3S P P(2) 4H > > 4S P P Dbl > > > > (1) Fit Bid not alerted > > (2) Asked what 3D was and told natural NF > > > > Their agreement is fit bid. > > > > Result : 4S*-1 > > > > East at the end of play asks if 3D was GF. South says no. East says she > > wants to call the TD because she feels > > South doesnt have a 4H bid. Td takes the details down, goes off and > > consults with various players who unanimously > > vote that 4H is fine. TD comes back - results stands ..... > > > > but > > > > "I'm penalising N/S 3 imps for not knowing their system" > > > > Now I didn't think you could do that. I know Wolff has been advocating > > penalising CD but I didnt think that was adopted. > > I didnt think you could penalise a partnership for "forgetting" or > whatever > > the term is their system ?? > > > > K. > > As a player, I like it that bidding artists who do not know their system are > penalized if damage occurs. Many times in a relay or precision auction, > someone forgets which step shows what and defense is based on the > information received. Misbids are not penalized, but common sense says > "damage occurred" as a result. At least at higher level competition such as > ACBL national events and high brackets of KO's such should indeed get a PP. > I'm sure there are other opinions, but it is frustrating to deal with > opponents who have a well developed system and they forget, misbid or > misexplain, sometimes a combination of all three! Only *misexplain* damage > is covered by the Laws, misbids and forgets are often equally damaging. Some > pairs keep forgetting and giving grief to opponents. > Raija Davis > > From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Jun 12 11:17:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <000301c45009$d8c31d90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Everything I have read on this thread suggests that the revoke was > indeed known by all four players at the time Declarer conceded. The original post included a question about whether it mattered if declarer knew about the revoke. I assumed from this that no revoke ruling had taken place. I apologise if this means we were talking at cross purposes. I do not believe any ruling had been given in the original scenario, but if it had been then a 1 trick adjustment is obvious. Declarer's ignorance (or otherwise) in the absence of a ruling would need to be investigated but the claim case is really only of interest if he says he was unaware of a revoke. > I draw the line between revokes unknown to the claimer at the time of a > claim and revokes known to him. And that is also how I understand the > WBFLC minute which has caused all this discussion about shifting > the "benefit of doubt". On this we agree. However, I consider the liklihood that this claimer was sufficiently versed in obscure WBF minutes to deliberately try it on as vanishingly small, thus my assumption that he was unaware of the revoke ( or the implications thereof). Tim From tom.cornelis@pi.be Sat Jun 12 11:22:15 2004 From: tom.cornelis@pi.be (Tom Cornelis) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:22:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... References: <000f01c45018$a4d339c0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <000f01c45067$2288c9e0$238bdbd5@lightninadmin> I'm sorry Raija, but you are wrong. Although a lot of players do not like damage resulting from a misbid, there is not much there can be done about it. The Laws state quite clearly you can be bid whatever you want if it's not based on closed partnership understanding. If you want to prohibit this freedom, you won't be allowed to make a tactical bid, even if you're forced to, because the system you're playing accepts certain fallacies - which all commonly used systems do. You won't be allowed to psyche. I will go even further: the fact that bridge can frustrate in this way makes it a real sport. The topic isn't well chosen either: both misbids and misexplanations can be the result of not knowing your system. The TD acted correctly: he ruled that the non-offending pair was not damaged by the misexplanation, but even so he felt he needed to penalize them for it. After all, it is illegal to misinform the opponents. That's what happened. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raija Davis" To: Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:00 AM Subject: Fw: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... > Oops, I sent this to Karel only. I meant this for blml. > Sorry. > > > Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > We may have covered something similar before but anyway .... > > > > > > Teams N/S vul > > > > > > South > > > S x > > > H J9xx > > > D Kxxxxx > > > C Ax > > > > > > Bidding > > > > > > W N E S > > > > > > P 1H DBL 3D(1) > > > 3S P P(2) 4H > > > 4S P P Dbl > > > > > > (1) Fit Bid not alerted > > > (2) Asked what 3D was and told natural NF > > > > > > Their agreement is fit bid. > > > > > > Result : 4S*-1 > > > > > > East at the end of play asks if 3D was GF. South says no. East says > she > > > wants to call the TD because she feels > > > South doesnt have a 4H bid. Td takes the details down, goes off and > > > consults with various players who unanimously > > > vote that 4H is fine. TD comes back - results stands ..... > > > > > > but > > > > > > "I'm penalising N/S 3 imps for not knowing their system" > > > > > > Now I didn't think you could do that. I know Wolff has been advocating > > > penalising CD but I didnt think that was adopted. > > > I didnt think you could penalise a partnership for "forgetting" or > > whatever > > > the term is their system ?? > > > > > > K. > > > > As a player, I like it that bidding artists who do not know their system > are > > penalized if damage occurs. Many times in a relay or precision auction, > > someone forgets which step shows what and defense is based on the > > information received. Misbids are not penalized, but common sense says > > "damage occurred" as a result. At least at higher level competition such > as > > ACBL national events and high brackets of KO's such should indeed get a > PP. > > I'm sure there are other opinions, but it is frustrating to deal with > > opponents who have a well developed system and they forget, misbid or > > misexplain, sometimes a combination of all three! Only *misexplain* > damage > > is covered by the Laws, misbids and forgets are often equally damaging. > Some > > pairs keep forgetting and giving grief to opponents. > > Raija Davis > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 11:37:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:37:33 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c45069$455fa220$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: >=20 > > Everything I have read on this thread suggests that the revoke was > > indeed known by all four players at the time Declarer conceded. >=20 > The original post included a question about whether it mattered if > declarer knew about the revoke. I assumed from this that no revoke = ruling > had taken place. I apologise if this means we were talking at cross > purposes. I do not believe any ruling had been given in the original > scenario, but if it had been then a 1 trick adjustment is obvious. > Declarer's ignorance (or otherwise) in the absence of a ruling would = need > to be investigated but the claim case is really only of interest if he > says he was unaware of a revoke. >=20 > > I draw the line between revokes unknown to the claimer at the time = of a > > claim and revokes known to him. And that is also how I understand = the > > WBFLC minute which has caused all this discussion about shifting > > the "benefit of doubt". >=20 > On this we agree. However, I consider the liklihood that this claimer = was > sufficiently versed in obscure WBF minutes to deliberately try it on = as > vanishingly small, thus my assumption that he was unaware of the = revoke ( > or the implications thereof). >=20 > Tim I may have remembered wrong, you may have remembered wrong. I shall not bother to verify, but I am happy it appears that we do indeed agree when = we work from the same conditions. (I actually got that feeling already when = I read your earlier comments). Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jun 12 12:20:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:20:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: <1086868806.19461.198147266@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Karel wrote >We may have covered something similar before but anyway .... > >Teams N/S vul > >South >S x >H J9xx >D Kxxxxx >C Ax > >Bidding > >W N E S > >P 1H DBL 3D(1) >3S P P(2) 4H >4S P P Dbl > >(1) Fit Bid not alerted >(2) Asked what 3D was and told natural NF > >Their agreement is fit bid. > >Result : 4S*-1 > >East at the end of play asks if 3D was GF. South says no. East says she >wants to call the TD because she feels >South doesnt have a 4H bid. Td takes the details down, goes off and >consults with various players who unanimously >vote that 4H is fine. TD comes back - results stands ..... > >but > >"I'm penalising N/S 3 imps for not knowing their system" > >Now I didn't think you could do that. I know Wolff has been advocating >penalising CD but I didnt think that was adopted. >I didnt think you could penalise a partnership for "forgetting" or whatever >the term is their system ?? While the Wolff approach may not have been adopted generally, that does not make it illegal. A TD has a right under the Law to penalise for anything he judges requires a PP. Of course, it is appealable since he has used his judgement. Alternatively an SO could make a reg requiring such a PP: or custom+practice could require a PP. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jun 12 13:46:40 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:46:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? Message-ID: <000001c4507b$521eb480$0200a8c0@Zog> An unlikely scenario, but it happened at the club... MP Pairs, Dealer North, Love all West North East South 1D - 1N 2C - 2H 2D Attention was drawn to the IB and the TD called. West declined to accept the IB and the TD told South that he could bid 3D without penalty or alternatively that he could either pass or make any other sufficient bid (but not double) in which case his partner would be silenced for the rest of the auction. After some thought South (with a decent five card club suit) elected to bid 3C, which was passed out and made for a very good NS score. The defence should probably have done better, but there was no question of wild, gambling or egregious action. Since without the infraction North would not have passed 3C, EW recalled the TD who adjusted the result, applying L23. So far, I hope, so good. South, however, now complained that the TD had not explained to him that a 3C bid might lead to a score adjustment. He had taken a calculated risk in bidding 3C, knowing that he had a club stack sitting over him. Had he known that a good result arising from this action might well be taken away, he would almost certainly have chosen to bid 3D or pass. Has South a case? Should the TD have expanded his 'spiel' to cover possible 'damaging enforced pass' aspects? Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Sat Jun 12 14:05:07 2004 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:05:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? References: <000001c4507b$521eb480$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <001101c4507d$e351cee0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> I'm sorry, but was it possible that "the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side", which IMO is a sine qua non condition to apply Law 23 ? Ragards Roger Eymard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:46 PM Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? > An unlikely scenario, but it happened at the club... > > MP Pairs, Dealer North, Love all > > West North East South > 1D - 1N > 2C - 2H 2D > > Attention was drawn to the IB and the TD called. > West declined to accept the IB and the TD told South that he could bid > 3D without penalty or alternatively that he could either pass or make > any other sufficient bid (but not double) in which case his partner > would be silenced for the rest of the auction. > After some thought South (with a decent five card club suit) elected to > bid 3C, which was passed out and made for a very good NS score. > The defence should probably have done better, but there was no question > of wild, gambling or egregious action. > Since without the infraction North would not have passed 3C, EW recalled > the TD who adjusted the result, applying L23. > > So far, I hope, so good. > South, however, now complained that the TD had not explained to him that > a 3C bid might lead to a score adjustment. He had taken a calculated > risk in bidding 3C, knowing that he had a club stack sitting over him. > Had he known that a good result arising from this action might well be > taken away, he would almost certainly have chosen to bid 3D or pass. > > Has South a case? Should the TD have expanded his 'spiel' to cover > possible 'damaging enforced pass' aspects? > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jun 12 14:28:04 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:28:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <001101c4507d$e351cee0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> References: <000001c4507b$521eb480$0200a8c0@Zog> <001101c4507d$e351cee0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: Roger Eymard wrote >I'm sorry, but was it possible that "the offender, at the time of his >irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to >damage the non-offending side", which IMO is a sine qua non condition to >apply Law 23 ? > >Ragards > >Roger Eymard > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brambledown" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:46 PM >Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? > > >> An unlikely scenario, but it happened at the club... >> >> MP Pairs, Dealer North, Love all >> >> West North East South >> 1D - 1N >> 2C - 2H 2D >> >> Attention was drawn to the IB and the TD called. >> West declined to accept the IB and the TD told South that he could bid >> 3D without penalty or alternatively that he could either pass or make >> any other sufficient bid (but not double) in which case his partner >> would be silenced for the rest of the auction. >> After some thought South (with a decent five card club suit) elected to >> bid 3C, which was passed out and made for a very good NS score. >> The defence should probably have done better, but there was no question >> of wild, gambling or egregious action. >> Since without the infraction North would not have passed 3C, EW recalled >> the TD who adjusted the result, applying L23. >> >> So far, I hope, so good. >> South, however, now complained that the TD had not explained to him that >> a 3C bid might lead to a score adjustment. He had taken a calculated >> risk in bidding 3C, knowing that he had a club stack sitting over him. >> Had he known that a good result arising from this action might well be >> taken away, he would almost certainly have chosen to bid 3D or pass. >> >> Has South a case? Should the TD have expanded his 'spiel' to cover >> possible 'damaging enforced pass' aspects? If possible, please avoid 'top posting'. It does make the flow of argument very difficult to follow. Yes, when he made the bid of 2D he could realise that 3C is only a sensible action of partner is forced to pass, so L23 could apply. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 14:56:47 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:56:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000001c4507b$521eb480$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <000001c45085$1aa88260$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown > An unlikely scenario, but it happened at the club... >=20 > MP Pairs, Dealer North, Love all >=20 > West North East South > 1D - 1N > 2C - 2H 2D >=20 > Attention was drawn to the IB and the TD called. > West declined to accept the IB and the TD told South that he could bid > 3D without penalty or alternatively that he could either pass or make > any other sufficient bid (but not double) in which case his partner > would be silenced for the rest of the auction. Quite correct. > After some thought South (with a decent five card club suit) elected = to > bid 3C, which was passed out and made for a very good NS score. > The defence should probably have done better, but there was no = question > of wild, gambling or egregious action. > Since without the infraction North would not have passed 3C, EW = recalled > the TD who adjusted the result, applying L23. For this to be correct the Director must deem that South when making his insufficient bid ("at the time of his irregularity") could have known = that eventually forcing North to pass would be likely to damage" East-West. The fact that East-West received a poor result compared to what they = might have received if no irregularity had taken place does not mean that it = was the forced pass which damaged East-West. It seems to me that South has = taken a gamble for 3C to be the most favorable contract for his side. The fact that this was a lucky gamble is no reason to apply Law 23, it could = equally well turned into a disaster for North-South had the cards been = distributed differently. But if South apparently used the insufficient bid followed by a = correction to 3C in order to prevent North from bidding on after 3C the case would = have been different and a Law 23 adjustment called for.=20 However, not being presented with the cards held by South nor the = relevant agreements between North and South we cannot really suggest any ruling. >=20 > So far, I hope, so good. Well that depends as I have tried to indicate above. > South, however, now complained that the TD had not explained to him = that > a 3C bid might lead to a score adjustment. He had taken a calculated > risk in bidding 3C, knowing that he had a club stack sitting over him. > Had he known that a good result arising from this action might well be > taken away, he would almost certainly have chosen to bid 3D or pass. >=20 > Has South a case? Should the TD have expanded his 'spiel' to cover > possible 'damaging enforced pass' aspects? I think South has a case. Not because he received no warning of a = possible Law 23 adjustment but because I from the description am reluctant to = suspect the insufficient bid being part of a plan to prevent North from bidding = on. Regards Sven From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jun 12 14:57:32 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:57:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <001101c4507d$e351cee0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <000001c45085$381e2a70$0200a8c0@Zog> Roger Eymard wrote: > I'm sorry, but was it possible that "the offender, at the time of his > irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to > damage the non-offending side", which IMO is a sine qua non condition to > apply Law 23 ? Obviously, South only bid 3C because he knew partner would perforce pass. He even admitted that "it didn't feel right" to be able to do this, but he believed that he had just been told by the TD that it was OK. I don't think there's much doubt that L23 applies here. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 15:09:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:09:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000001c45085$381e2a70$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <000501c45086$ec2f2950$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown .......... > Obviously, South only bid 3C because he knew partner would perforce > pass. He even admitted that "it didn't feel right" to be able to do > this, but he believed that he had just been told by the TD that it was > OK. > I don't think there's much doubt that L23 applies here. L23 applies with no doubt if South bid 2D as part of a plan to "correct" = his bid to 3C and be safe that North could not bid on after that. It all depends on what South "could have known" when he bid 2D. (What = South "could have known" only when he corrected his bid to 3C is immaterial!) Sven From toddz@att.net Sat Jun 12 15:11:18 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:11:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000001c45085$381e2a70$0200a8c0@Zog> References: <001101c4507d$e351cee0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <000001c45085$381e2a70$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040612101014.01b53a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 09:57 AM 6/12/2004, Brambledown wrote: > Obviously, South only bid 3C because he knew partner would perforce > pass. He even admitted that "it didn't feel right" to be able to do > this, but he believed that he had just been told by the TD that it was > OK. > I don't think there's much doubt that L23 applies here. When partner is barred, you will frequently make calls you'd not otherwise make. Will L23 always apply when you make such a call and for that reason? -Todd From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jun 12 15:35:06 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:35:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000001c45085$1aa88260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4508a$74f8ae20$0200a8c0@Zog> Sven Pran writes: > I think South has a case. Not because he received no warning of a possible > Law 23 adjustment but because I from the description am reluctant to suspect > the insufficient bid being part of a plan to prevent North from bidding on. I don't think there is the slightest suggestion of South deliberately making the IB with a view to silencing partner - this would be a serious infraction under L72B2. Having made the IB, however, he bid 3C only because he knew his partner would have to pass it - an option not available to him without the prior IB. You seem to be saying that, as long as he didn't plan this before making the IB, this is OK - I don't believe this is right. If, in these circumstances he punts 3N or some such bid and this works well, we treat it as "rub of the green". OTOH, I don't think we should allow him to take what would normally be a forcing artificial bid and bid it to play. Since he "could have known...", I think this is clearly a case for a L23 adjustment. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 15:36:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:36:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040612101014.01b53a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <000601c4508a$ad2bbc10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd M. Zimnoch ........... > When partner is barred, you will frequently make calls you'd not > otherwise make. Will L23 always apply when you make such a call and > for that reason? No, there are two prerequisites for Law 23 to apply: 1: The Director must deem "that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side" 2: The non-offending side was in fact damaged by the enforced pass (and = not for other reasons). The commentary from 1992 gives some examples applicable to Law 23: South holding 11 high card points opposite a partner opening 1NT with a = full 16 HCP is barred by an infraction. All pairs are bidding 3NT but North = can only make 8 tricks. Do not adjust the score for this pair who had to = play 1NT. North could not have known that it was favourable to bar partner, = it just turned out that way. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 16:04:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:04:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000001c4508a$74f8ae20$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <000701c4508e$821b45a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown ............. > I don't think there is the slightest suggestion of South deliberately > making the IB with a view to silencing partner - this would be a = serious > infraction under L72B2. >=20 > Having made the IB, however, he bid 3C only because he knew his = partner > would have to pass it - an option not available to him without the = prior > IB. >=20 > You seem to be saying that, as long as he didn't plan this before = making > the IB, this is OK - I don't believe this is right. No, he doesn't necessarily have had to plan the situation before making = his IB, but it is a prerequisite for applying Law 23 that "he could have = known" the eventual penalty for his IB (enforced pass) to likely damage = opponents already when he made his IB (not just when he selected his final call). >=20 > If, in these circumstances he punts 3N or some such bid and this works > well, we treat it as "rub of the green". OTOH, I don't think we > should allow him to take what would normally be a forcing artificial = bid > and bid it to play. >=20 > Since he "could have known...", I think this is clearly a case for a = L23 > adjustment. Please explain to me the precise difference between gambling 3C and = gambling "3NT or some such bid" when he knows that partner must pass? South is allowed under Law 27B2 to replace his insufficient bid with whatever call he cares (except double or redouble) knowing that his = partner must pass. South will normally be expected to select his call for play = and nothing else. Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jun 12 16:10:49 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000601c4508a$ad2bbc10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4508a$ad2bbc10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 12 Jun 2004, at 15:36, Sven Pran wrote: > Todd M. Zimnoch > ............ >> When partner is barred, you will frequently make calls you'd not >> otherwise make. Will L23 always apply when you make such a call and >> for that reason? > > No, there are two prerequisites for Law 23 to apply: > > 1: The Director must deem "that the offender, at the time of his > irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely > to > damage the non-offending side" You seem to have been equating "could have known" with "did know" in your posts on this subject, Sven. > > 2: The non-offending side was in fact damaged by the enforced pass > (and not > for other reasons). > > The commentary from 1992 gives some examples applicable to Law 23: > > South holding 11 high card points opposite a partner opening 1NT with > a full > 16 HCP is barred by an infraction. All pairs are bidding 3NT but North > can > only make 8 tricks. Do not adjust the score for this pair who had to > play > 1NT. North could not have known that it was favourable to bar partner, > it > just turned out that way. This example seems to have little in common with the situation under discussion. How could North have known at the time of the infraction that 8 tricks were the limit on this combined 27 hcp hand? In the original case of this thread, South knows that bidding the opponents suit will not usually be passed, unless partner happens to be barred. South could have known at the time of the IB that this was the only way to get to play in 3C. We don't need to know whether South *did* know this at the time of the IB, only that he could have known. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jun 12 16:21:16 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:21:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000701c4508e$821b45a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c4508e$821b45a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <25A9D538-BC84-11D8-8493-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 12 Jun 2004, at 16:04, Sven Pran wrote: > Please explain to me the precise difference between gambling 3C and > gambling > "3NT or some such bid" when he knows that partner must pass? If he gambles 3NT, partner would be expected to pass anyway, with most hands. If he gambles 3C, which suit the opponents have already bid, partner would normally be expected to bid again. I'd normally be expecting club cards, diamond support/tolerance, and a maximum 1NT response from such a 3C bid. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jun 12 16:30:44 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:30:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040612101014.01b53a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <001101c4507d$e351cee0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <000001c45085$381e2a70$0200a8c0@Zog> <6.0.1.1.1.20040612101014.01b53a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <782DEF28-BC85-11D8-8493-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 12 Jun 2004, at 15:11, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > When partner is barred, you will frequently make calls you'd not > otherwise make. Will L23 always apply when you make such a call and > for that reason? > > -Todd If the call would otherwise be forcing and/or conventional. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jun 12 16:36:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:36:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040612101014.01b53a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <001101c4507d$e351cee0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <000001c45085$381e2a70$0200a8c0@Zog> <6.0.1.1.1.20040612101014.01b53a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >At 09:57 AM 6/12/2004, Brambledown wrote: >> Obviously, South only bid 3C because he knew partner would perforce >> pass. He even admitted that "it didn't feel right" to be able to >do >> this, but he believed that he had just been told by the TD that it >was >> OK. >> I don't think there's much doubt that L23 applies here. > > When partner is barred, you will frequently make calls you'd not >otherwise make. Will L23 always apply when you make such a call and >for that reason? No, it is a judgement ruling. Suppose the bidding goes 1H 1S 4H 4S ? Now as opener bids 4NT the heart ace falls out of his hand silencing partner. Three possibilities: [a] They miss a routine slam going down in 4NT: tough. [b] They miss a routine slam which goes down on a 5-0 heart break while 4NT just makes: tough for the opponents. There was no way the 4NT bidder could have known it would benefit him. [c] 1H is a psyche with a solid club stop and a spade stopper. Now he would like to *play* 4NT and could have dropped the ace to silence partner. 4NT makes but L23 means it is adjusted to something high level and doubled. [c] is pretty rare, and that's the only time L23 applies. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jun 12 17:29:43 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:29:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040612101014.01b53a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <000001c4509a$7ae83340$0200a8c0@Zog> Todd M Zimnoch writes: > When partner is barred, you will frequently make calls you'd not > otherwise make. Will L23 always apply when you make such a call and > for that reason? If you punt 3N or the like and it works well that's "rub of the green", but IMO you shouldn't use this argument to allow someone to make a natural call which would otherwise have a forcing artificial meaning. Simple example: West North East South 1N 1D North did not notice the 1N opener. 2D would be artificial (showing some sort of two suiter), so South is silenced throughout. Suppose North now corrects to 2D - all pass and this works well for NS. Now 2D natural would not have been available to him absent the IB and clearly he, "at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side". If we don't apply L23 in this case, when do we use it? Certainly not only when we think the IB was deliberate, or we would be considering a much more severe penalty under L72B2. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jun 12 17:36:22 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:36:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000701c4508e$821b45a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000101c4509b$68949f20$0200a8c0@Zog> Sven Pran writes: > Please explain to me the precise difference between gambling 3C and gambling > "3NT or some such bid" when he knows that partner must pass? Simple: 3N *could* have been bid in a normal irregularity-free auction. 3C couldn't. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From mustikka@charter.net Sat Jun 12 17:55:13 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:55:13 -0700 Subject: Fw: [blml] Another Venus transit? Message-ID: <002d01c4509e$085af4d0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> > > > > Sven Pran writes: > > > > > I think South has a case. Not because he received no warning of a > > possible > > > Law 23 adjustment but because I from the description am reluctant to > > suspect > > > the insufficient bid being part of a plan to prevent North from > > bidding on. > > > > I don't think there is the slightest suggestion of South deliberately > > making the IB with a view to silencing partner - this would be a serious > > infraction under L72B2. > > > > Having made the IB, however, he bid 3C only because he knew his partner > > would have to pass it - an option not available to him without the prior > > IB. > > > > You seem to be saying that, as long as he didn't plan this before making > > the IB, this is OK - I don't believe this is right. > > Question to Sven etc: > Does it matter at all what the player's "plan" was? > I think anyone devious enough to plan an IB and then correct to 3C which > partner must pass, is likely also capable of telling a lie with a straight > face, should TD ask him what he planned to do in the auction. > > Laws/rulings deal with facts and evidence; TD trying to find out what the > player had planned to do in the case presented, will not produce evidence, > as far as I can see. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jun 12 18:12:55 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:12:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <002d01c4509e$085af4d0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> References: <002d01c4509e$085af4d0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: On 12 Jun 2004, at 17:55, Raija Davis wrote: >> Question to Sven etc: >> Does it matter at all what the player's "plan" was? >> I think anyone devious enough to plan an IB and then correct to 3C >> which >> partner must pass, is likely also capable of telling a lie with a >> straight >> face, should TD ask him what he planned to do in the auction. >> >> Laws/rulings deal with facts and evidence; TD trying to find out >> what the >> player had planned to do in the case presented, will not produce >> evidence, >> as far as I can see. That's why certain laws, such as L23, are phrased so that we don't need to know what the players plan was. We treat all players who "could have known" the same way, so we don't need to rely on the player's version of what was actually known, or planned. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jun 12 18:28:42 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:28:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c450a2$b7cff600$0200a8c0@Zog> We seem generally to be agreed that a L23 ruling was appropriate, but in any case, rightly or wrongly, that was what the TD decided. Can we return please to the original question? Do we think South has a case for claiming that he was not advised of the possible consequences of a bid such as 3C? Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 18:37:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:37:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c450a3$e3e9faf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford .......... > You seem to have been equating "could have known" with "did know" in > your posts on this subject, Sven. Oh no! I do know the difference. > > 2: The non-offending side was in fact damaged by the enforced pass > > (and not > > for other reasons). > > > > The commentary from 1992 gives some examples applicable to Law 23: > > > > South holding 11 high card points opposite a partner opening 1NT with > > a full > > 16 HCP is barred by an infraction. All pairs are bidding 3NT but North > > can > > only make 8 tricks. Do not adjust the score for this pair who had to > > play > > 1NT. North could not have known that it was favourable to bar partner, > > it > > just turned out that way. > > This example seems to have little in common with the situation under > discussion. How could North have known at the time of the infraction > that 8 tricks were the limit on this combined 27 hcp hand? That is exactly the point. > > In the original case of this thread, South knows that bidding the > opponents suit will not usually be passed, unless partner happens to be > barred. South could have known at the time of the IB that this was the > only way to get to play in 3C. We don't need to know whether South > *did* know this at the time of the IB, only that he could have known. And how could South have known at the time of the infraction that 3C were the favorable contract for his side? But of course, that is just the essence of Law 23: If the Director is satisfied that South acted the way he did because he "could have known" at the time of his infraction playing in 3C would be advantageous to his side then he should apply Law 23. However (as I explicitly stated in my first comment), WE are in no position to really suggest any ruling until we are told both what cards South had been dealt and also the relevant parts of his partnership agreements. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 18:40:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:40:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <25A9D538-BC84-11D8-8493-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000f01c450a4$58d15930$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > On 12 Jun 2004, at 16:04, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Please explain to me the precise difference between gambling 3C and > > gambling > > "3NT or some such bid" when he knows that partner must pass? > > If he gambles 3NT, partner would be expected to pass anyway, with most > hands. > If he gambles 3C, which suit the opponents have already bid, partner > would normally be expected to bid again. I'd normally be expecting club > cards, diamond support/tolerance, and a maximum 1NT response from such > a 3C bid. That is not a valid argument. But if you suggest that the 2D bid was (or could have been) made for the purpose of being able to enforce a pass by partner when he next corrected his insufficient bid to 3C THAT would be. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 18:47:18 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:47:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <002d01c4509e$085af4d0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <001001c450a5$4e4e8090$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Raija Davis .............. > > Question to Sven etc: > > Does it matter at all what the player's "plan" was? No, but it matters "what he could have planned" > > I think anyone devious enough to plan an IB and then=20 > > correct to 3C which partner must pass, is likely also=20 > > capable of telling a lie with a straight face, should > > TD ask him what he planned to do in the auction. > > > > Laws/rulings deal with facts and evidence; TD trying > > to find out what the player had planned to do in the=20 > > case presented, will not produce evidence, > > as far as I can see. You have made a good point of noticing exactly why we never can rule on = such incidents without knowing the cards held by the offender and also know = the relevant details from his partnership agreements. Sven From steve@nhcc.net Sat Jun 12 18:53:02 2004 From: steve@nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:53:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: In-Reply-To: <200406121735.i5CHZitm006059@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > From: "Brambledown" > West North East South > 1D - 1N > 2C - 2H 2D [Please don't use tabs! I hope the above comes out right.] ... > Since without the infraction North would not have passed 3C, > EW recalled > the TD who adjusted the result, applying L23. As Sven points out, this is not necessarily correct. Chas is right that the IB has created an auction that could not have occurred without an irregularity, so the TD is bound to _consider_ L23, but that doesn't mean it should be applied automatically. The question to ask is whether a villain, holding East's hand, could think the overall plan of silencing partner and then bidding 3C would be a good idea. From the brief description of East's hand (only five clubs), this seems unlikely, but we can't tell without seeing the full hand. Chas' other example of an IB of 1D over 1NT (where 2D would have been artificial) is another good one. Here, of course, advancer will be silenced whatever intervenor does. If the notrump is weak, intervenor is strong, and advancer is an unpassed hand, 2D should normally be allowed. How is intervenor to know he isn't missing game? Silencing partner can't have looked like a good idea, but having done it, he's entitled to make his best stab and keep the result. If conditions are reversed, though, the "silence partner and make a natural bid" ploy might appeal to a villain, so L23 should be applied. David's example of turning 4NT from Blackwood to natural is another classic position for L23. Note full well that we don't judge what the IB'er _did_ intend, only what a villain with the same cards _might_ have intended. > Should the TD have expanded his 'spiel' to cover > possible 'damaging enforced pass' aspects? It seems to me that TD's should routinely make a brief mention of L23, but I don't recall any having done so at my table. What is the practice around the world? From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 19:05:57 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:05:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000001c450a2$b7cff600$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <001201c450a7$e977a770$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown ...... > We seem generally to be agreed that a L23 ruling was appropriate, but = in > any case, rightly or wrongly, that was what the TD decided. >=20 > Can we return please to the original question? >=20 > Do we think South has a case for claiming that he was not advised of = the > possible consequences of a bid such as 3C? South has a case for appealing any judgment ruling by a Director. I = don't believe any AC will hear him on an argument that he was not explicitly warned of Law 23 (assuming that the Director otherwise fully explained = Law 27 and its impacts). But if South (as has been claimed in some of the posts here) has stated = that he "did not feel comfortable in bidding 3C" then I would first ask him = why on earth he did it, and next I would recommend him to accept the = Director's ruling with no more fuss. Regards Sven From steve@nhcc.net Sat Jun 12 19:27:44 2004 From: steve@nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:27:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: <200406121814.i5CIElWe008250@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: From: "Sven Pran" > Everything I have read on this thread suggests that the > revoke was indeed > known by all four players at the time Declarer conceded. As with Tim, I didn't see anything of the kind. However, in general there are three types of cases: a) the revoke has been noticed and ruled, and declarer should know he needs to guess right. b) no attention has been called to the revoke, but declarer should know there has been one. c) no attention has been called, and declarer has no way to know. In principle, the ruling _could_ depend on which of the three cases we have. I expect most of us would _like_ to rule a) for the revokers and c) against them, and I doubt there would be consensus on b). In fact, I'm not sure which way I would prefer to rule that one myself. Probably the same as c) for simplicity; distinguishing between b) and c) requires a potentially difficult analysis. I think the Laws as they are tell us to rule a) against the conceder (and thus for the revokers), as is usual in claim/concession cases. I don't think either existing Laws or WBFLC minutes give us any real guidance in b) or c), although the minute that has been quoted tends to suggest ruling in declarer's favor in case c). Grattan: any pages left in your notebook? From svenpran@online.no Sat Jun 12 20:45:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:45:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c450b5$ded7e510$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > Everything I have read on this thread suggests that the > > revoke was indeed > > known by all four players at the time Declarer conceded. > > As with Tim, I didn't see anything of the kind. OK. When reading that there had been a revoke I automatically took it for granted that the revoke was known to the players. Otherwise I would have expected the description to be more specific about attention to the revoke being called after the concession was made. Anyway, I believe we are past that point now? > However, in general there are three types of cases: > > a) the revoke has been noticed and ruled, and declarer should know he > needs to guess right. > > b) no attention has been called to the revoke, but declarer should know > there has been one. > > c) no attention has been called, and declarer has no way to know. > > In principle, the ruling _could_ depend on which of the three cases we > have. I expect most of us would _like_ to rule a) for the revokers and > c) against them, and I doubt there would be consensus on b). In fact, > I'm not sure which way I would prefer to rule that one myself. Probably > the same as c) for simplicity; distinguishing between b) and c) requires > a potentially difficult analysis. > > I think the Laws as they are tell us to rule a) against the conceder > (and thus for the revokers), as is usual in claim/concession cases. I > don't think either existing Laws or WBFLC minutes give us any real > guidance in b) or c), although the minute that has been quoted tends to > suggest ruling in declarer's favor in case c). I agree completely with your analysis here except that I do not distinguish between your cases b) and c). Both of them I will allow the benefit of the doubt work in favour against the revoker (as in your case c)). Regards Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Jun 12 23:35:48 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:35:48 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000101c4509b$68949f20$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Brambledown wrote: > > Please explain to me the precise difference between gambling 3C and > gambling > > "3NT or some such bid" when he knows that partner must pass? > > Simple: 3N *could* have been bid in a normal irregularity-free > auction. 3C couldn't. I really don't like that. It takes a lot more than making a bid that would otherwise have been artificial or forcing, to convince me that a player "could have known at the time of the irregularity" that the opps might be damaged. Suppose my partner opens 1H, RHO passes, and I, not seeing my partner's opening, call 1D on KQx J AKJxx AJxx. In my system, 1H-Pass-3NT is an artificial raise (13-16, 4+ hearts, singleton or void in spades). Are you telling me you are going to use L23 if I now correct 1D to 3NT? OK, in real life I would probably correct to 2D. What if I drop the ace of diamonds on the table and want to try 3NT? I have *some* sympathy for the idea of disallowing a contract that *cannot* be reached legally - barring partner and bidding 1S when in a normal auction you'd not be able to stop until 2S, for instance, if for some reason you wind up making exactly 7 tricks. But in a competitive auction, there are so many possible variations, with reopening and negative doubles and good-bad 2NTs and suchlike, that there are very very few theoreically unreachable contracts. Sorry, but to me, "could have known" is a very short distance from "knew", and a very long distance from "took a shot at what he thought he could make and made it." If I make a "could have known" ruling (L23 or in a UI case or a pysch case) I am claiming a player did something that *would have had technical merit if L72B2 did not exist* - and you are going to havea very hard time convinceing me someone who knows clubs are stacked behind him honestly believes that declaring 3C is his best chance to go plus. GRB From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sun Jun 13 04:37:48 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:37:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 Message-ID: >>> 5/3/2004 5:30:59 PM >>> 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." ------------------------------ In opposing this suggestion I hope I will not seem unsympathetic to the disabled. We all drop a card occasionally, and the Laws as presently written deal with us on the assumption that the occurrence is rare. I believe that someone who, in the normal course of play, would frequently drop cards has the responsibility to find an alternative way of handling the cards so as to reduce the frequency to the normal range. This may involve nothing more than buying and using a card-holder; at the extreme, the disabled player may require the services of an attendant who handles the cards for him. Meanwhile, those of us who are merely a bit clumsier than average rightly suffer the legal penalties for exposing our cards. We should try hard to accommodate the disabled, and perhaps even the merely clumsy, but they also bear responsibility for adjusting to the normal conditions of play. We need not revise the Laws on their behalf--and in any case there is no convenient way to do so, since the notion of "relevant physical disability" is unsuitably vague for legal status. Jim Hudson From adam@tameware.com Sun Jun 13 07:08:29 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:08:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:37 PM -0500 6/12/04, James Hudson wrote: >... We need not revise the Laws on their (the disabled) behalf ... And should not. Thanks for writing -- I'd have done so myself had I had the time and the eloquence. I agree with you 100%. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Sun Jun 13 07:50:53 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:50:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? References: Message-ID: <00e401c45112$c6c8dc10$075a4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> When I see all this discussions, what is wrong with the idea of just awarding av+/av-- (60-30) or so after this type of infractions. Makes life really easier. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Brambledown" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 12:35 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Another Venus transit? > > > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Brambledown wrote: > > > > Please explain to me the precise difference between gambling 3C and > > gambling > > > "3NT or some such bid" when he knows that partner must pass? > > > > Simple: 3N *could* have been bid in a normal irregularity-free > > auction. 3C couldn't. > > I really don't like that. It takes a lot more than making a bid that > would otherwise have been artificial or forcing, to convince me that a > player "could have known at the time of the irregularity" that the opps > might be damaged. > > Suppose my partner opens 1H, RHO passes, and I, not seeing my partner's > opening, call 1D on KQx J AKJxx AJxx. > > In my system, 1H-Pass-3NT is an artificial raise (13-16, 4+ hearts, > singleton or void in spades). Are you telling me you are going to use L23 > if I now correct 1D to 3NT? > > OK, in real life I would probably correct to 2D. What if I drop the ace of > diamonds on the table and want to try 3NT? > > I have *some* sympathy for the idea of disallowing a contract that > *cannot* be reached legally - barring partner and bidding 1S when in a > normal auction you'd not be able to stop until 2S, for instance, if for > some reason you wind up making exactly 7 tricks. But in a competitive > auction, there are so many possible variations, with reopening and > negative doubles and good-bad 2NTs and suchlike, that there are very very > few theoreically unreachable contracts. > > Sorry, but to me, "could have known" is a very short distance from "knew", > and a very long distance from "took a shot at what he thought he could > make and made it." If I make a "could have known" ruling (L23 or in a UI > case or a pysch case) I am claiming a player did something that *would > have had technical merit if L72B2 did not exist* - and you are going to > havea very hard time convinceing me someone who knows clubs are stacked > behind him honestly believes that declaring 3C is his best chance to go > plus. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From MAILER-DAEMON@newmx2.fast.net Sun Jun 13 10:06:21 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@newmx2.fast.net (MAILER-DAEMON@newmx2.fast.net) Date: 13 Jun 2004 09:06:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] failure notice Message-ID: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at newmx2.fast.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10004 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2004 09:06:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO psmtp.com) ([12.158.34.139]) (envelope-sender ) by newmx2.fast.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Jun 2004 09:06:21 -0000 Received: from source ([82.33.171.117]) by exprod5mx24.postini.com ([12.158.34.245]) with SMTP; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:06:12 PDT From: blml@rtflb.org To: rwcar4@op.net Subject: Re: Approved Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:06:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_0000762B.000064DD" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_0000762B.000064DD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See the attached file for details. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_0000762B.000064DD Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="all_document.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="all_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_0008_0000762B.000064DD-- From john@asimere.com Sun Jun 13 13:09:29 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:09:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000701c4508e$821b45a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c4508a$74f8ae20$0200a8c0@Zog> <000701c4508e$821b45a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000701c4508e$821b45a0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > >South is allowed under Law 27B2 to replace his insufficient bid with >whatever call he cares (except double or redouble) knowing that his partner >must pass. South will normally be expected to select his call for play and >nothing else. > I'm with Sven. I'm minded of the Rottweiller coup where Richard opened a multi out of turn and then changed his call to a lead directing psyche. The could have known aspect was only because he had a 1-count and nothing to do with the change of call. In this situation we have a player where his side has about half the deck could not have "known" that 3C might damage the other side. If his side had a substantial paucity of resource then I might be more inclined to get into "could have known" territory. John >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Jun 13 13:12:06 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:12:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <001201c450a7$e977a770$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c450a2$b7cff600$0200a8c0@Zog> <001201c450a7$e977a770$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <001201c450a7$e977a770$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Brambledown >...... >> We seem generally to be agreed that a L23 ruling was appropriate, but in >> any case, rightly or wrongly, that was what the TD decided. >> >> Can we return please to the original question? >> >> Do we think South has a case for claiming that he was not advised of the >> possible consequences of a bid such as 3C? > >South has a case for appealing any judgment ruling by a Director. I don't >believe any AC will hear him on an argument that he was not explicitly >warned of Law 23 (assuming that the Director otherwise fully explained Law >27 and its impacts). I'd probably take it to AC myself. John > >But if South (as has been claimed in some of the posts here) has stated that >he "did not feel comfortable in bidding 3C" then I would first ask him why >on earth he did it, and next I would recommend him to accept the Director's >ruling with no more fuss. > >Regards Sven > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 13 13:26:59 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:26:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? References: Message-ID: <000001c45156$76140f80$47e6403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Brambledown" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 11:35 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Another Venus transit? > > Sorry, but to me, "could have known" is a very > short distance from "knew", and a very long distance > from "took a shot at what he thought he could > make and made it." If I make a "could have known" > ruling (L23 or in a UI case or a pysch case) I am > claiming a player did something that *would have > had technical merit if L72B2 did not exist* - and > you are going to have a very hard time convinceing > me someone who knows clubs are stacked behind > him honestly believes that declaring 3C is his best > chance to go plus. > +=+ I have not read all the messages in this thread. >From what I have read it appears that the Director has failed to meet the requirements of Laws 9B2 and 10C1. South is entitled to have all the potential consequences of his possible choices explained to him before he makes his choice. This consideration comes before questions as to what South might or might not have known. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Sun Jun 13 17:14:23 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:14:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? References: <000001c45156$76140f80$47e6403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <01a301c45161$7ec9f9e0$075a4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> > +=+ I have not read all the messages in this thread. > From what I have read it appears that the Director > has failed to meet the requirements of Laws 9B2 and > 10C1. South is entitled to have all the potential > consequences of his possible choices explained to him > before he makes his choice. This consideration comes > before questions as to what South might or might not > have known. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Very true. But now the practical problems. Such a thing happens. They have to call the TD. The TD has to read all the relevant laws and to explain all the possible consequences. Then the player has to digest all that. Then the player has to take a decision he is not used to. All this cost plenty time. Sometimes the TD has to come back to do a equity check or whatever. How can we have laws like this if a board has to played in 7/8 minutes? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another Venus transit? > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "I turned down a move to Chelsea > because I love football." > ~ Ronaldinho. > #=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Bower" > To: "Brambledown" > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 11:35 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Another Venus transit? > > > > > > Sorry, but to me, "could have known" is a very > > short distance from "knew", and a very long distance > > from "took a shot at what he thought he could > > make and made it." If I make a "could have known" > > ruling (L23 or in a UI case or a pysch case) I am > > claiming a player did something that *would have > > had technical merit if L72B2 did not exist* - and > > you are going to have a very hard time convinceing > > me someone who knows clubs are stacked behind > > him honestly believes that declaring 3C is his best > > chance to go plus. > > > +=+ I have not read all the messages in this thread. > From what I have read it appears that the Director > has failed to meet the requirements of Laws 9B2 and > 10C1. South is entitled to have all the potential > consequences of his possible choices explained to him > before he makes his choice. This consideration comes > before questions as to what South might or might not > have known. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mustikka@charter.net Sun Jun 13 17:29:17 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 09:29:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... References: <000f01c45018$a4d339c0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> <000f01c45067$2288c9e0$238bdbd5@lightninadmin> <000f01c45099$28562890$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> <200406131352.28216.tom.cornelis@pi.be> Message-ID: <001401c45163$9395d9a0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> [snipped a lot] > > Firthermore, there is something > > that can be done about it: TD's have the right to assign PPs. That much > > can be done at this very moment. > > As I said, that practice is illegal. The Laws state very clearly you have a > choice of calls - without a CPU - which includes making the wrong bid. > Besides, how would you prove it was a wrong bid, and not simply a psyche? > If you want to convince me, you'll have to tackle this question for sure. I don't believe the practice of assigning PP is illegal. The TD can assign a PP for whatever he feels is justified. And it happens. As was published in some cases ACBL casebook. Particularly events where CoC state that players are expected to know their system, PP should IMO be mandatory if any damage. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Jun 13 19:44:05 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:44:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c4508a$74f8ae20$0200a8c0@Zog> <000701c4508e$821b45a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 13 Jun 2004, at 13:09, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In this situation we have a player where his side has about half the > deck could not have "known" that 3C might damage the other side. Could have known that 3C *might* damage the other side. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From steve@nhcc.net Sun Jun 13 21:24:31 2004 From: steve@nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:24:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <200406131922.i5DJMMac009855@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > On 13 Jun 2004, at 13:09, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In this situation we have a player where his side has about half the > > deck could not have "known" that 3C might damage the other side. > From: Gordon Rainsford > Could have known that 3C *might* damage the other side. Come on, Gordon, you know better than this. The correct quote is "could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side" -- "likely," not "might." Anything _might_ damage the NOS, but L23 (and 72B1) is for villains who foresee a situation where an irregularity is _likely_ to work in their favor. The correct quote also includes "at the time of his irregularity." That means the IB or exposed card or whatever, not the later choice of call. Of course with the 3C bid, the offender is trying to get a good score, or in other words "damage the non-offending side." That's what the game is about! He's expected to take his best shot, and good for him if he hits the target. A player is entitled to get lucky after an infraction as long as the benefit could not have seemed likely when the infraction took place. From svenpran@online.no Sun Jun 13 21:31:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:31:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c45185$6846d7f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > On 13 Jun 2004, at 13:09, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >=20 > > In this situation we have a player where his side has about half the > > deck could not have "known" that 3C might damage the other side. >=20 > Could have known that 3C *might* damage the other side. On such assumptions I believe ANY call *might* damage the other side. But the question is not whether the 3C call *might* damage the other = side; the question is whether the offender who made an insufficient bid at the time he did so "could have known" that partner's possibly enforced (subsequent) pass or passes "would be likely to damage" opponents. Not = quite the same question. Sven From henk@ripe.net Sun Jun 13 23:11:37 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:11:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. Message-ID: Hypothetical question while watching the US trial in another window. Setting: US Trails. Close match up to that point (148-146, IIRC). Zia - Rosenberg NS Meckwell EW. Board 92: Well played 4H by EW, likely to to be -10 for NS 93: NS double 4S, which is cold for -790 instead of bidding and making their own 5D contract. Looks like a big loss (-16). 95: NS have a misunderstanding and end up in a hopeless 6D contract, -13 if the other side bids the obvious game. 96: NS double another game. Rodwell plays the had perfectly for 10 tricks, the other west player goes down, another -13. That is 52 imp's lost in 4 boards. Obviously the players do not know the score at this point, but any experienced player will estimate these 4 boards as 4 big losses and something like -40 to -50 imp's. At this point, the commentators suggested that NS should get up and take a break in order to break EW's momentum. Questions: - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for time-outs, but I cannot find anything in the Law Book. - By the ACBL regulations? - If it is allowed, is this ethical? Yes, I know NS have a bad set but somehow it doesn't seem right that one can just walk away from the table, go for coffee and calm down, hoping that the momentum will change. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jun 14 00:46:04 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:46:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 13 Jun 2004, at 21:24, Steve Willner wrote: >> On 13 Jun 2004, at 13:09, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> In this situation we have a player where his side has about half the >>> deck could not have "known" that 3C might damage the other side. > >> From: Gordon Rainsford >> Could have known that 3C *might* damage the other side. > > Come on, Gordon, you know better than this. The correct quote is > "could > have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the > non-offending side" -- "likely," not "might." Anything _might_ damage > the NOS, but L23 (and 72B1) is for villains who foresee a situation > where an irregularity is _likely_ to work in their favor. I was using the exact words of the post to which I was replying. My point was simply that John seemed to have emphasised the word "known", to create a different balance than that in the Law. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 14 04:32:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:32:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <01a301c45161$7ec9f9e0$075a4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <7A0F99AA-BDB3-11D8-B5AD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jun 13, 2004, at 12:14 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > How can we have laws like this if a board has to played in 7/8 minutes? We have them, none the less. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 14 04:36:01 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:36:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Jun 13, 2004, at 18:11 US/Eastern, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) wrote: > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for time-outs, > but I > cannot find anything in the Law Book. Is it disallowed? > - By the ACBL regulations? > > - If it is allowed, is this ethical? Yes, I know NS have a bad set but > somehow it doesn't seem right that one can just walk away from the > table, go for coffee and calm down, hoping that the momentum will > change. If it is allowed then it must be ethical, no? Of course, too long a delay might subject them to a "slow play" penalty. :-) From henk@ripe.net Mon Jun 14 07:46:30 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:46:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Jun 13, 2004, at 18:11 US/Eastern, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE > NCC) wrote: > > > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for time-outs, > > but I > > cannot find anything in the Law Book. > > Is it disallowed? The only relevant law I could find is 74C8, that disallows "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called". That seems to apply to cases where one needs to leave the table for a restroom break, to get a coffee or such. It does not seem to cover the case where one _wants_ to leave the table to recover from a bad score. > > - By the ACBL regulations? > > > > - If it is allowed, is this ethical? Yes, I know NS have a bad set but > > somehow it doesn't seem right that one can just walk away from the > > table, go for coffee and calm down, hoping that the momentum will > > change. > > If it is allowed then it must be ethical, no? > > Of course, too long a delay might subject them to a "slow play" > penalty. :-) Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 14 09:00:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:00:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c451e5$b7d05160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Henk Uijterwaal=20 ............. > > > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for=20 > > > time-outs, but I cannot find anything in the Law Book.=20 > > > > Is it disallowed? >=20 > The only relevant law I could find is 74C8, that disallows=20 > "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called". > That seems to apply to cases where one needs to leave the > table for a restroom break, to get a coffee or such. It > does not seem to cover the case where one _wants_ to leave > the table to recover from a bad score. >=20 I believe a major question must be whether they play with or without screens. The way I understand regulations (at least our Norwegian regulations) = when screens are in use is that absolutely no direct communication is allowed across the screen (except of course the play of the cards), so in that = case North and South cannot decide between them to leave the table for = whatever reason they might have.=20 Without screens I see no formal reasons to prohibit them from taking a break. Law 74C8 includes the word "needlessly", but who is the judge of = what is needlessly? When I am directing and a player is away from a table during part of the round (e.g. dummy who has been to the restroom and is not back when the board is finished) I always make it clear to the players that the responsibility for a possible "late play" will be on the side not = present and ready to play bridge. I also make it clear that there is no = obligation on the other side to speed up the play more than they might care for in order to catch up any delay. (I.e. they cannot be required to "break = their own tempo"). So I think Ed's comment sums it up fairly well. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 14 09:02:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:02:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <000101c45185$6846d7f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c45185$6846d7f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40CD5B97.3080401@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Gordon Rainsford >>On 13 Jun 2004, at 13:09, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> >>>In this situation we have a player where his side has about half the >>>deck could not have "known" that 3C might damage the other side. >> >>Could have known that 3C *might* damage the other side. > > > On such assumptions I believe ANY call *might* damage the other side. > > But the question is not whether the 3C call *might* damage the other side; > the question is whether the offender who made an insufficient bid at the > time he did so "could have known" that partner's possibly enforced > (subsequent) pass or passes "would be likely to damage" opponents. Not quite > the same question. > Well, the question that I have not yet seen is the following: Apparently 3C seems like the most promising bid for offender, and we have to assume he could not play there without barring partner. So from that angle, we must per force assume that offender "could have known" that the infraction "might" damage opponents. That seems very clear to me. BUT It is not. 3C is the best place (in the eyes of offender) after having barred partner. 3C might not seem the best place before the offence, since at that time offender (yet-to-be-offender) still has the hope of co-operating with partner in selecting the best strain. So that is the real question. Is it possible to assume that a player could believe, before bidding insufficiently, that 3C is the best final contract. For that question, we need the cards obviously. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From henk@ripe.net Mon Jun 14 09:14:12 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:14:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: <000001c451e5$b7d05160$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c451e5$b7d05160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Sven Pran wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal > ............. > > > > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for > > > > time-outs, but I cannot find anything in the Law Book. > > > > > > Is it disallowed? > > > > The only relevant law I could find is 74C8, that disallows > > "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called". > > That seems to apply to cases where one needs to leave the > > table for a restroom break, to get a coffee or such. It > > does not seem to cover the case where one _wants_ to leave > > the table to recover from a bad score. > > > > I believe a major question must be whether they play with or without > screens. With screens. > The way I understand regulations (at least our Norwegian regulations) when > screens are in use is that absolutely no direct communication is allowed > across the screen (except of course the play of the cards), so in that case > North and South cannot decide between them to leave the table for whatever > reason they might have. The rules here say during when a board is in play, i.e. from the moment the players pick up their cards until the moment they return them. Nothing prevents them from discussing something between hands. > Without screens I see no formal reasons to prohibit them from taking a > break. Law 74C8 includes the word "needlessly", but who is the judge of what > is needlessly? That is the question. A restroom break is clearly needed, getting a coffee probably is too, but taking a break to recover from a bad result? I don't think so. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 14 09:58:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:58:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c451ed$b5743f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Henk Uijterwaal=20 > > ............. > > > > > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for > > > > > time-outs, but I cannot find anything in the Law Book. > > > > > > > > Is it disallowed? > > > > > > The only relevant law I could find is 74C8, that disallows > > > "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called". > > > That seems to apply to cases where one needs to leave the > > > table for a restroom break, to get a coffee or such. It > > > does not seem to cover the case where one _wants_ to leave > > > the table to recover from a bad score. > > > > > > > I believe a major question must be whether they play with or without > > screens. >=20 > With screens. >=20 >=20 > > The way I understand regulations (at least our Norwegian = regulations) > when > > screens are in use is that absolutely no direct communication is = allowed > > across the screen (except of course the play of the cards), so in = that > case > > North and South cannot decide between them to leave the table for > whatever > > reason they might have. >=20 > The rules here say during when a board is in play, i.e. from the = moment > the players pick up their cards until the moment they return them. > Nothing prevents them from discussing something between hands. And how should that be accomplished? South returning his cards to the = board and rushing around the screen to stop North from placing the next board = on the table? (Please read this with a smile!) I must admit I am not that much experienced with screens, but I have = never seen any communication like this between partners during a round and I believe I would at least frown if it happened with me as Director. =20 >=20 > > Without screens I see no formal reasons to prohibit them from taking = a > > break. Law 74C8 includes the word "needlessly", but who is the judge = of > what > > is needlessly? >=20 > That is the question. A restroom break is clearly needed, getting a > coffee probably is too, but taking a break to recover from a bad = result? > I don't think so. I tend to agree. (And I believe Law 74A2 could be used as well) Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jun 14 13:00:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:00:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2KrC+lBqNZzAFwVK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) wrote >On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, Jun 13, 2004, at 18:11 US/Eastern, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE >> NCC) wrote: >> >> > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for time-outs, >> > but I >> > cannot find anything in the Law Book. >> >> Is it disallowed? > >The only relevant law I could find is 74C8, that disallows "leaving the >table needlessly before the round is called". That seems to apply to >cases where one needs to leave the table for a restroom break, to get a >coffee or such. It does not seem to cover the case where one _wants_ to >leave the table to recover from a bad score. L74A1 and L74A2 are relevant. Everyone is there to play bridge, the board is there, the time is limited, why are the opponents going for a walk? It is definitely discourteous and seems a deliberate attempt to discombobulate the opponents. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 14 13:07:22 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:07:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: <000101c44f42$779b2a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040610082253.02b7a1d0@pop.starpower.net> <000101c44f42$779b2a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040613193428.02a4f670@pop.starpower.net> At 07:27 PM 6/10/04, Sven wrote: >Eric Landau > > Sven wrote: > > > > >The Director doesn't have to be satisfied that it is > misexplanation. He > > >*shall* rule misexplanation unless he is satisfied that it is a > misbid! > > > > Not true. The Director shall rule misexplanation "in the absense of > > evidence to the contrary" (L75 footnote). That is a *much* weaker > > criterion than "unless he is satisfied that it is a misbid". Had the > > lawmakers intended the latter, they could have written "in the absense > > of compelling evidence to the contrary" or "unless demonstrably not the > > case" or some such. > >Do I understand you to say that if there is some evidence indicating >misbid >and some other evidence indicating misexplanation and the Director cannot >make up his mind what evidence to trust he shall rule misbid because there >is "evidence to the contrary" of misexplanation? Not at all. I read the footnote as saying that if the Director cannot make up his mind he must rule misexplanation. But I don't think it says that if he can make up his mind, based on the preponderance of the evidence before him, that it was a misbid, that he should nevertheless rule misexplanation unless he has no doubt. >The footnote to Law 75 was not changed from the 1987 laws and in the >official commentary to the 1987 laws we can read: > >Begin quote: > >The key factor has to do with the proven nature of what the >partnership has >agreed to as to its understanding. Where there is any doubt as to this the >margin of that doubt is given to the opposing side. Doubt exists in any of >the following circumstances: > >(a) The two members of the partnership present differing explanations of >their understanding and this is not cleared up by a uniform understanding >stated on both convention cards. > >(b) The two convention cards are found not to agree, notwithstanding that >both players agree with one of them. > >(c) There is (unhappily) only one convention card and this does not agree >with the identical statements of both players. (snip a bit) > >(d) The Director is otherwise of the opinion that a substantial doubt >exists. > >End quote. > >I think it is pretty clear that unless the Director is satisfied of a >misbid >he shall rule misexplanation. (The commentary uses the words "require him >to"). > >Personally I have no problem with this understanding of Law 75 even >without >the clarifying commentary but then as English is not my native language >maybe I miss some of the finer nuances when reading? Interesting. I was unaware of this commentary, which does seem to move the standard considerably. I wonder if has been accepted and applied by the ACBL? I like what this does for rulings in high-level competition. To get reasonable everyday lower-level rulings, however, we should allow the director to rule a misbid when he's convinced that that's what it was, even if the technical nature of the violation would seem to mandate official "doubt" according to the standard set by the commentary. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jun 14 13:35:44 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:35:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: References: <000601c4508a$ad2bbc10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040614082726.02a51eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:10 AM 6/12/04, Gordon wrote: >On 12 Jun 2004, at 15:36, Sven Pran wrote: > >>Todd M. Zimnoch >>............ >>> When partner is barred, you will frequently make calls >>> you'd not >>>otherwise make. Will L23 always apply when you make such a call and >>>for that reason? >> >>No, there are two prerequisites for Law 23 to apply: >> >>1: The Director must deem "that the offender, at the time of his >>irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to >>damage the non-offending side" > >You seem to have been equating "could have known" with "did know" in >your posts on this subject, Sven. I think Sven is equating "could have known" with "might have known", which I believe correctly reflects the intent of the law. We adjust if we believe it is possible that the defender knew that the enforced pass could work to his advantage (we needn't be convinced that he actually did know). We do not adjust if we believe it is not possible, even if it might have been possible for some hypothetical pair in the same situation. Otherwise, as Todd suggests, we will find ourselves adjusting the score any time a player whose partner is barred pots a contract that he might not otherwise have reached and comes out with a good score. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 14 13:50:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:50:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040613193428.02a4f670@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c4520e$381a6450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ..... > >Do I understand you to say that if there is some evidence indicating > >misbid > >and some other evidence indicating misexplanation and the Director = cannot > >make up his mind what evidence to trust he shall rule misbid because > there > >is "evidence to the contrary" of misexplanation? >=20 > Not at all. I read the footnote as saying that if the Director cannot > make up his mind he must rule misexplanation. But I don't think it > says that if he can make up his mind, based on the preponderance of = the > evidence before him, that it was a misbid, that he should nevertheless > rule misexplanation unless he has no doubt. I wiped off the rest of the text because I believe that we are in = complete agreement on how to rule under Law 75: If the Director is satisfied from the available evidence that the explanation is correct and that there is a misbid then he shall rule accordingly. This is a matter of his judgment based on *ALL* available information: Statements from the two players, convention cards, common understandings in the area where the play takes place and so on.=20 This is how I read your post above and I agree completely.=20 But what Law 75 dictates is that when the Director feels unable to make = up his mind *THEN* he shall rule misexplanation rather than misbid. And = here I read your original comment to indicate exactly the opposite? Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jun 14 14:31:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:31:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: <2KrC+lBqNZzAFwVK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <2KrC+lBqNZzAFwVK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <40CDA895.1090904@hdw.be> My new word for today: David Stevenson wrote: > walk? It is definitely discourteous and seems a deliberate attempt to > discombobulate the opponents. > discombobulate? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Mon Jun 14 14:43:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:43:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: <40CDA895.1090904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c45215$8ca3ea80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > My new word for today: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > walk? It is definitely discourteous and seems a deliberate attempt to > > discombobulate the opponents. > > > > discombobulate? Sorry, I cannot help - this word is unknown in both my Oxford and in my Webster (American English). 8-) regards Sven From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Mon Jun 14 14:49:08 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:49:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. Message-ID: DISCOMBOBULATE To confuse, upset or disconcert. Another fine example of the speech of the wild frontier of the US of A, this came to life sometime in the 1830s. Whose invention it was we have no idea, except that he shared the bombastic, super-confident attitude towards language that also bequeathed us (among others) absquatulate, bloviate, hornswoggle and sockdolager. It has much about it of the itinerant peddler, whose qualifications were principally a persuasive manner, the self-assurance of a man who has seen every sort of reluctant customer and charmed them all, and a vocabulary he had enlarged by gross disfigurement of innocent elements of the English language. In this case, the original seems to have been discompose or discomfit. In the early days, it sometimes appeared as discombobracate or discomboberate. Here's an example of a snake-oil salesman at work in 1860 (except that he was praising the water from the Louisville artesian well rather than any manufactured remedy). It was said to have been taken down verbatim: "It discomboberates inflammatory rheumatism, sore eyes, scrofula, dyspepsia, and leaves you harmonious without any defalcation, as harmonious systematically as a young dove". Worth a dollar a drop ... First Google hit. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens Sven Pran Verzonden: maandag 14 juni 2004 15:43 Aan: blml Onderwerp: RE: [blml] NS should take a break. > Herman De Wael > My new word for today: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > walk? It is definitely discourteous and seems a deliberate attempt to > > discombobulate the opponents. > > > > discombobulate? Sorry, I cannot help - this word is unknown in both my Oxford and in my Webster (American English). 8-) regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ____________________________________________________________________________ This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does not guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does not accept any liability for damages related thereto. ____________________________________________________________________________ From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <008301c4522c$2bbcf920$f0536e51@annespc> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01C45234.8D626770 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: dis·com·bob·u·late Pronunciation: "dis-k&m-'bä-b(y)&-"lAt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing Etymology: probably alteration of discompose : UPSET, CONFUSE - dis·com·bob·u·la·tion /-"bä-b(y)&-'lA-sh&n/ noun * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify me and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. The information contained within this email is strictly private and, when addressed to named individuals, its contents may not be imparted to any third party without the express written permission of the sender. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:43 PM Subject: RE: [blml] NS should take a break. > > Herman De Wael > > My new word for today: > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > walk? It is definitely discourteous and seems a deliberate attempt to > > > discombobulate the opponents. > > > > > > > discombobulate? > > Sorry, I cannot help - this word is unknown in both my Oxford and in my > Webster (American English). > > 8-) > > regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 07/06/2004 ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01C45234.8D626770 Content-Type: image/gif; name="audio.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif R0lGODlhEAALALMAAM4AIf///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACwAAAAAEAALAAAEIjDIGQCgmNored5epYGWaHYkp07perZdjJKyB7sYqGUzO0UAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01C45234.8D626770 Content-Type: image/gif; name="pixt.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAABAAEAAAICTAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01C45234.8D626770-- From john@asimere.com Mon Jun 14 18:14:31 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:14:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: <000201c451ed$b5743f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c451ed$b5743f50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c451ed$b5743f50$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Henk Uijterwaal >> > ............. >> > > > > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for >> > > > > time-outs, but I cannot find anything in the Law Book. >> > > > >> > > > Is it disallowed? >> > > >> > > The only relevant law I could find is 74C8, that disallows >> > > "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called". >> > > That seems to apply to cases where one needs to leave the >> > > table for a restroom break, to get a coffee or such. It >> > > does not seem to cover the case where one _wants_ to leave >> > > the table to recover from a bad score. I've just done in 40 imps, My opponents are spoiling my enjoyment of the game, I need a break? Certainly, I would accept "I need a coffee, I've just done in 40 imps!" as a *Valid* (ie non-needless) reason john >> > > >> > >> > I believe a major question must be whether they play with or without >> > screens. >> >> With screens. >> >> >> > The way I understand regulations (at least our Norwegian regulations) >> when >> > screens are in use is that absolutely no direct communication is allowed >> > across the screen (except of course the play of the cards), so in that >> case >> > North and South cannot decide between them to leave the table for >> whatever >> > reason they might have. >> >> The rules here say during when a board is in play, i.e. from the moment >> the players pick up their cards until the moment they return them. >> Nothing prevents them from discussing something between hands. > >And how should that be accomplished? South returning his cards to the board >and rushing around the screen to stop North from placing the next board on >the table? > >(Please read this with a smile!) > >I must admit I am not that much experienced with screens, but I have never >seen any communication like this between partners during a round and I >believe I would at least frown if it happened with me as Director. > >> >> > Without screens I see no formal reasons to prohibit them from taking a >> > break. Law 74C8 includes the word "needlessly", but who is the judge of >> what >> > is needlessly? >> >> That is the question. A restroom break is clearly needed, getting a >> coffee probably is too, but taking a break to recover from a bad result? >> I don't think so. > >I tend to agree. (And I believe Law 74A2 could be used as well) > >Regards Sven > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Jun 14 18:15:34 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:15:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: <40CDA895.1090904@hdw.be> References: <2KrC+lBqNZzAFwVK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <40CDA895.1090904@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <40CDA895.1090904@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >My new word for today: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> walk? It is definitely discourteous and seems a deliberate attempt to >> discombobulate the opponents. >> > >discombobulate? English invented word. "Inconvenience and unsettle" would be a close enough translation > -- 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 moranl@netvision.net.il Mon Jun 14 19:02:06 2004 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:02:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: <40CDA895.1090904@hdw.be> References: <2KrC+lBqNZzAFwVK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2KrC+lBqNZzAFwVK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20040614195810.02c2bb70@mail.netvision.net.il> Yes, discombobulate! To take a walk would be a brummagem, cockamamie contumely. Eitan At 15:31 14-06-04 +0200, you wrote: >My new word for today: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >>walk? It is definitely discourteous and seems a deliberate attempt to >>discombobulate the opponents. > >discombobulate? > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Mon Jun 14 19:08:34 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:08:34 -0700 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:49:08 +0200." Message-ID: <200406141808.LAA21276@mailhub.irvine.com> H. W. Pieters wrote: > DISCOMBOBULATE > To confuse, upset or disconcert. > Another fine example of the speech of the wild frontier of the US of > A, this came to life sometime in the 1830s. Whose invention it was > we have no idea, except that he shared the bombastic, > super-confident attitude towards language that also bequeathed us > (among others) absquatulate, bloviate, hornswoggle and sockdolager. And, at some level, probably every other word in our language. I mean, it would seem to me that every other word in the English language got its start somewhere; and it probably got started by someone who thought he simply had a right to invent a word and add it to the language. The alternative possibility, that early Anglo-Saxons who wished to invent new words had to submit a formal written proposal for adding a word to the language that was then considered and voted on by the Official Anglo-Saxon Committee on Language Improvement, seems a bit far-fetched. :) [meant half-jokingly] -- Adam From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jun 14 19:39:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040614082726.02a51eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > I think Sven is equating "could have known" with "might have known", > which I believe correctly reflects the intent of the law. We adjust if > we believe it is possible that the defender knew that the enforced pass > could work to his advantage (we needn't be convinced that he actually > did know). This goes a little too far I think. One is always aware (at least if one plays with partners like mine) that barring partner *could* be to one's advantage. To me "could have known" is a standard along the lines of "would a devious player, at the time of the original infraction, consider barring partner likely to prove more advantageous than not doing so?" with a caveat that many inexperienced players are probably too ignorant of the law to understand the initial potential of the infraction. Tim From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jun 14 22:34:04 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:34:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Venus transit? References: <000001c45156$76140f80$47e6403e@multivisionoem> <01a301c45161$7ec9f9e0$075a4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <002801c45259$83f8bca0$d1ac87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; "BLML" Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another Venus transit? > > +=+ I have not read all the messages in this thread. > > From what I have read it appears that the Director > > has failed to meet the requirements of Laws 9B2 and > > 10C1. South is entitled to have all the potential > > consequences of his possible choices explained to him > > before he makes his choice. This consideration comes > > before questions as to what South might or might not > > have known. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Very true. But now the practical problems. Such a thing > happens. They have to call the TD. The TD has to read > all the relevant laws and to explain all the possible > consequences. Then the player has to digest all that. > Then the player has to take a decision he is not used to. > All this cost plenty time.Sometimes the TD has to come > back to do a equity check or whatever. How can > we have laws like this if a board has to played in 7/8 > minutes? > > Jaap > +=+ Broadly speaking, Jaap, you have a point. However, good Directors manage all this and heaven too. I do think there is little problem in the circumstances of this case in adding a few words to tell the player that when his choice silences partner the Director must look to see whether partner's pass has damaged opponents and, if so, may be required in some circumstances to adjust the score. . ~ G ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jun 15 00:31:10 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:31:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. References: <200406141808.LAA21276@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Why half jokingly? The French now have Le Weekend, Le Drugstore, le Football, etc., which their guardians of the language will never accept as "French." It is much the same with the English, who insist that they are the only ones who can modernize and vivitize (look it up, I made it up), and advance the language. In my years of experience I've found the English quieter and assured of their position than the French -- les voluble, but also less willing to grow in our common language. Sad, but to insist on living on a somewhat restricted (small?) part of what was once a worldwide empire, there has to be something to hang on to, doesn't there? Especially when there are more "English" speakers than there are "English." For the good of our language for for the good of God, let it grow, mis amigos. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > > The alternative possibility, that early Anglo-Saxons > who wished to invent new words had to submit a formal written proposal > for adding a word to the language that was then considered and voted > on by the Official Anglo-Saxon Committee on Language Improvement, > seems a bit far-fetched. > > :) [meant half-jokingly] > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mustikka@charter.net Mon Jun 14 18:33:32 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:33:32 -0700 Subject: Fw: [blml] NS should take a break. Message-ID: <001801c45235$c34d1690$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Meant for blml, not just Henk.Sorry. Raija ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raija Davis" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" > To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 1:14 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] NS should take a break. > > > > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Henk Uijterwaal > > > ............. > > > > > > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for > > > > > > time-outs, but I cannot find anything in the Law Book. > > > > > > > > > > Is it disallowed? > > > > > > > > The only relevant law I could find is 74C8, that disallows > > > > "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called". > > > > That seems to apply to cases where one needs to leave the > > > > table for a restroom break, to get a coffee or such. It > > > > does not seem to cover the case where one _wants_ to leave > > > > the table to recover from a bad score. > > > > > > > > > > I believe a major question must be whether they play with or without > > > screens. > > > > With screens. > > > > > > > The way I understand regulations (at least our Norwegian regulations) > when > > > screens are in use is that absolutely no direct communication is allowed > > > across the screen (except of course the play of the cards), so in that > case > > > North and South cannot decide between them to leave the table for > whatever > > > reason they might have. > > > > The rules here say during when a board is in play, i.e. from the moment > > the players pick up their cards until the moment they return them. > > Nothing prevents them from discussing something between hands. > > > > > Without screens I see no formal reasons to prohibit them from taking a > > > break. Law 74C8 includes the word "needlessly", but who is the judge of > what > > > is needlessly? > > > > That is the question. A restroom break is clearly needed, getting a > > coffee probably is too, but taking a break to recover from a bad result? > > I don't think so. > > Who will have the means to provide evidence that the break was "to recover > from bad result"? Coffee break may have just co-incided with a bad result on > the board prior to getting the coffee. So even if what Henk seems to > suggest (ie. make it clear in regs whether breaks are allowed or not > allowed) there is no way to enforce it, unless it reads something like > "after a bad result, a player is not allowed to leave the table". What > purpose would such law or reg serve, I wonder. What if player needs the > restroom and regs say he cannot leave the table (= after a bad result). > IMO it is best not to introduce unenforceable regulations. > As to current laws, the word *needlessly* is subject to personal > interpretation. Raija > From henk@ripe.net Tue Jun 15 14:27:46 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:27:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Fw: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: <001801c45235$c34d1690$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> References: <001801c45235$c34d1690$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Raija Davis wrote: > Meant for blml, not just Henk.Sorry. > Raija > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Raija Davis" > To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:30 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" > > To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 1:14 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] NS should take a break. > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > Henk Uijterwaal > > > > ............. > > > > > > > - Is this allowed by the laws? Some sports do allow for > > > > > > > time-outs, but I cannot find anything in the Law Book. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it disallowed? > > > > > > > > > > The only relevant law I could find is 74C8, that disallows > > > > > "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called". > > > > > That seems to apply to cases where one needs to leave the > > > > > table for a restroom break, to get a coffee or such. It > > > > > does not seem to cover the case where one _wants_ to leave > > > > > the table to recover from a bad score. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe a major question must be whether they play with or without > > > > screens. > > > > > > With screens. > > > > > > > > > > The way I understand regulations (at least our Norwegian regulations) > > when > > > > screens are in use is that absolutely no direct communication is > allowed > > > > across the screen (except of course the play of the cards), so in that > > case > > > > North and South cannot decide between them to leave the table for > > whatever > > > > reason they might have. > > > > > > The rules here say during when a board is in play, i.e. from the moment > > > the players pick up their cards until the moment they return them. > > > Nothing prevents them from discussing something between hands. > > > > > > > Without screens I see no formal reasons to prohibit them from taking a > > > > break. Law 74C8 includes the word "needlessly", but who is the judge > of > > what > > > > is needlessly? > > > > > > That is the question. A restroom break is clearly needed, getting a > > > coffee probably is too, but taking a break to recover from a bad result? > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > Who will have the means to provide evidence that the break was "to recover > > from bad result"? Coffee break may have just co-incided with a bad result > on > > the board prior to getting the coffee. So even if what Henk seems to > > suggest (ie. make it clear in regs whether breaks are allowed or not > > allowed) there is no way to enforce it, I'm not suggesting that yet, I'm just trying to find out what the rules are. So-far, I was under the impression that a round started and players should play until all boards had been played, with coffee/restroom/smoking breaks for that purpose only and only as an exception. Watching the vuegraph last Sunday the commentators there suggested otherwise: they believed it was OK for a player to leave the table in order to gain a tactical advantage. I cannot find anything in the laws that would allow that, the only thing that disallows it is 74C8. > > [...] unless it reads something like "after a bad result, a player is > > not allowed to leave the table". What purpose would such law or reg > > serve, I wonder. What if player needs the restroom and regs say he > > cannot leave the table (= after a bad result). IMO it is best not to > > introduce unenforceable regulations. Introducing a rule is a lot easier than it sounds. A player is not allowed to leave the table after play started until all boards scheduled for this round have been played. Any violation of this rule will be penalized with 3 imp. Add the concept of time-outs if you like :-) This already happens in other sports. > > As to current laws, the word *needlessly* is subject to personal > > interpretation. My interpretation would not include the case that triggered this discussion. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 15 14:44:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:44:55 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c452de$f16741f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Henk Uijterwaal=20 .......... > I'm not suggesting that yet, I'm just trying to find out what the = rules > are. So-far, I was under the impression that a round started and = players > should play until all boards had been played, with = coffee/restroom/smoking > breaks for that purpose only and only as an exception. Watching the > vuegraph last Sunday the commentators there suggested otherwise: they > believed it was OK for a player to leave the table in order to gain a > tactical advantage. I cannot find anything in the laws that would = allow > that, the only thing that disallows it is 74C8. Don't overlook Laws 74A2 and 74B4; they are both also relevant to this situation (disallowing such tactical activities). Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jun 15 15:14:44 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:14:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. References: <200406141808.LAA21276@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001101c452e3$9d929660$548787d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" ; "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. In my years of experience I've found the English > quieter and assured of their position than the French -- les voluble, but also less willing to grow in our common language. > > < +=+ We do not have a common language. We have languages that have a great deal in common. But since 1620 AD, or earlier, our languages have been diverging - until fairly recently when we have languages coming together at the same time as they move apart. The conceit of some Americans in their (American) 'English' is no less than my conceit in our autochthonous tongue. As an aside, this is one of the perils for the juridical draughtsman - producing text that has the same meaning in American English as in English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From lskelso@ihug.com.au Tue Jun 15 15:42:27 2004 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (lskelso@ihug.com.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:42:27 GMT Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? Message-ID: Hello All West leads a heart, declarer wins this in hand with the H10 and all 4 cards comprising the trick are then quitted. After a short while Declarer re-faces the H10 and West (who momentarily thinks Declarer has led to the next trick) follows with the H6. The H6 was not led, but it is a potential Penalty card. Law 66B implies that Declarer's exposure of the H10 is an irregularity (and maybe an infraction). Should the director rule that the H6 is not a penalty card viz the first sentence of Law 50 or should he still treat it as a Penalty Card and then consider adjusting the resulting score via Law 84E? Are there other Laws which might be relevant here? Laurie Kelso (In Australia) From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Jun 15 16:02:46 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:02:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. References: <200406141808.LAA21276@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c452e3$9d929660$548787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > As an aside, this is one of the perils for the > juridical draughtsman - producing text that has the > same meaning in American English as in English. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Silly you. Calling English English just English like the Romans called the Mediterranean Mare Nostrum. But what about International English. Probably a much better shot for universal communication than those two local dialects mentioned above. You know there are many more, Australian, Kiwi, Irish, Indian English, etc. One form of English being your native tongue can easily be a handicap. In the case of English English that handicap can be enormous. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "The extent to which it welcomes dissent > into its midst is the measure of a society's > maturity and stature." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Adam Beneschan" > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > > > In my years of experience I've found the English > > quieter and assured of their position than the French > -- les voluble, but also less willing to grow in our > common language. > > > < > +=+ We do not have a common language. We have > languages that have a great deal in common. But > since 1620 AD, or earlier, our languages have > been diverging - until fairly recently when we have > languages coming together at the same time as > they move apart. The conceit of some Americans > in their (American) 'English' is no less than my > conceit in our autochthonous tongue. > As an aside, this is one of the perils for the > juridical draughtsman - producing text that has the > same meaning in American English as in English. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jun 15 16:04:45 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:04:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. References: <200406141808.LAA21276@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c452e3$9d929660$548787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000401c452ea$1983a7e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Grattan Endicott > As an aside, this is one of the perils for the > juridical draughtsman - producing text that has the > same meaning in American English as in English. Perhaps the LC should humble itself enough to understand that it needs a wordsmith to help in this job. A bridge-knowledgeable person, who could also spot ambiguities, contradictions, redundancies, and the use of fancy wordy language when simple short language would carry the same sense. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@irvine.com Tue Jun 15 16:58:23 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:58:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:14:44 BST." <001101c452e3$9d929660$548787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <200406151558.IAA14649@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > +=+ We do not have a common language. We have > languages that have a great deal in common. But > since 1620 AD, or earlier, our languages have > been diverging - until fairly recently when we have > languages coming together at the same time as > they move apart. The conceit of some Americans > in their (American) 'English' is no less than my > conceit in our autochthonous tongue. > As an aside, this is one of the perils for the > juridical draughtsman - producing text that has the > same meaning in American English as in English. Is this really a problem? I mean, it might be a problem if the Laws referred to "chips", which you English use instead of the correct term, French fries (*). And while we literate Americans may snicker at the British tendency to insert extra U's into words like "color" for no good reason, and to sneak humorous made-up words like "autochthonous" into sentences, I don't see that any of this affects the Laws of the game. Seriously, I don't recall a case on BLML where there was a difference of opinion as to the meaning of a Law because the wording has a different connotation to the English than it does to Americans. There are certainly differences of opinion about meaning, but it would seem to me that those are due to wording that is (as Marvin points out) ambiguous, contradictory, or redundant on both sides of the Atlantic. I could be wrong. Has there been a case like that? -- Adam (*) Yes, I'm just kidding. And I think the reason we consider "French fries" to be the correct term for something invented in Belgium is that we literate Americans are unable to find Belgium on a map, plus most of us literate Americans are unaware that it's actually a country. From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jun 15 18:13:00 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:13:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Autochthonous" In-Reply-To: <200406151558.IAA14649@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200406151558.IAA14649@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040615130949.02b58d70@pop.starpower.net> At 11:58 AM 6/15/04, Adam wrote: >...and to sneak humorous made-up words like >"autochthonous" into sentences... It must be a real word. It was the "winning word" in this year's U.S. National Spelling Bee. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john@asimere.com Tue Jun 15 19:00:58 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:00:58 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: References: <001801c45235$c34d1690$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: In article , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) writes >Introducing a rule is a lot easier than it sounds. > > A player is not allowed to leave the table after play started until all > boards scheduled for this round have been played. Any violation of this > rule will be penalized with 3 imp. "Look, you ass-hole, I'll piss on the table unless you let me leave NOW". The laws permit you to leave the table, and any reasonable excuse is sufficient. > >Add the concept of time-outs if you like :-) This already happens in >other sports. > > > >> > As to current laws, the word *needlessly* is subject to personal >> > interpretation. > >My interpretation would not include the case that triggered this >discussion. > >Henk > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk >P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit >and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jun 15 19:17:13 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:17:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6elvL5Bp0zzAFwVX@asimere.com> In article , lskelso@ihug.com.au writes > >Hello All > >West leads a heart, declarer wins this in hand with the H10 and all 4 cards >comprising the trick are then quitted. After a short while Declarer re-faces >the H10 and West (who momentarily thinks Declarer has led to the next trick) >follows with the H6. > >The H6 was not led, but it is a potential Penalty card. >Law 66B implies that Declarer's exposure of the H10 is an irregularity (and >maybe an infraction). > >Should the director rule that the H6 is not a penalty card viz the first >sentence of Law 50 or should he still treat it as a Penalty Card and then >consider adjusting the resulting score via Law 84E? > >Are there other Laws which might be relevant here? this is a very nice problem Laurie. I can inspect my own card but I should not expose it. L66B. Own Last Card Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card played. ok, we've got an infraction. This does not alter the fact that the H6 is a penalty card L50. A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The Director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, when he deems that Law 72B1 applies. Oh Goody, I've got to 72B1. (The MadDog is happy) 72B. Infraction of Law 1. Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. Certainly facing a quitted card when it's your lead will provoke most players into "following suit", we do it to each other all the time in the five pound game. (and restore equity when we catch them out). I have the option of telling the player to pick up the H6, but we get into such horrendous problems with UI, that I'd rather see if I can get an equitable bridge result, and failing this, I'll adjust. I don't like the idea of saying "Ah well, this isn't really a penalty card" and it seems clear to me we should make the H6 a penalty card (it was intentionally played), and adjust if this causes damage. regards John > > >Laurie Kelso >(In Australia) > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Jun 15 20:01:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:01:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: <6elvL5Bp0zzAFwVX@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000001c4530b$34ca10e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst > >West leads a heart, declarer wins this in hand with the=20 > >H10 and all 4cards comprising the trick are then quitted. > >After a short while Declarer re-faces the H10 and West=20 > >(who momentarily thinks Declarer has led to the next trick) > >follows with the H6. > > > >The H6 was not led, but it is a potential Penalty card. > >Law 66B implies that Declarer's exposure of the H10 is=20 > >an irregularity (and maybe an infraction). > > > >Should the director rule that the H6 is not a penalty=20 > >card viz the first sentence of Law 50 or should he still=20 > >treat it as a Penalty Card and then consider adjusting=20 > >the resulting score via Law 84E? > > > >Are there other Laws which might be relevant here? >=20 > this is a very nice problem Laurie. I can inspect my=20 > own card but I should not expose it. >=20 > L66B. Own Last Card > Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or=20 > either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own=20 > last card played. >=20 > ok, we've got an infraction. This does not alter the=20 > fact that the H6 is a penalty card >=20 > L50. A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57)=20 > by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director=20 > designates otherwise.=20 ...... I have snipped from here on because: Law 50 offers the Director the option to "designate otherwise". When I find that a defender's premature exposure of a card has = intentionally or accidentally been "provoked" by declarer's infraction of law(s) then = I believe I shall normally use my option to "designate otherwise", that is = to rule his card not being a penalty card and that he may just restore it = to his hand. I shall also rule that he being in possession of this card is authorized information to his partner!=20 Foundation for such ruling here is primarily Law 66B from which declarer = is established as the offender in exposing his quitted card, Law 50 which permits the consequentially exposed card to be treated not as a penalty card, and Law 16C1 which makes all information from withdrawn action(s) authorized for both defenders (but not for declarer).=20 I stated "normally" because if I find that the defender in question has attempted to take advantage of the situation rather than just being = misled by declarer's infraction of laws I shall rule the exposed card to be a penalty card with all the consequences of such ruling. Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Tue Jun 15 20:15:44 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:15:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:17:13 BST." <6elvL5Bp0zzAFwVX@asimere.com> Message-ID: <200406151915.MAA23938@mailhub.irvine.com> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article , lskelso@ihug.com.au > writes > > > >Hello All > > > >West leads a heart, declarer wins this in hand with the H10 and all 4 cards > >comprising the trick are then quitted. After a short while Declarer re-faces > >the H10 and West (who momentarily thinks Declarer has led to the next trick) > >follows with the H6. > > > >The H6 was not led, but it is a potential Penalty card. > >Law 66B implies that Declarer's exposure of the H10 is an irregularity (and > >maybe an infraction). > > > >Should the director rule that the H6 is not a penalty card viz the first > >sentence of Law 50 or should he still treat it as a Penalty Card and then > >consider adjusting the resulting score via Law 84E? > > > >Are there other Laws which might be relevant here? > > this is a very nice problem Laurie. I can inspect my own card but I > should not expose it. > > L66B. Own Last Card > Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may > inspect, but not expose, his own last card played. > > ok, we've got an infraction. This does not alter the fact that the H6 is > a penalty card > > L50. A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender > is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The Director > shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, when > he deems that Law 72B1 applies. > > Oh Goody, I've got to 72B1. (The MadDog is happy) > > 72B. Infraction of Law > 1. Adjusted Score > Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at > the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to > damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to > continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the > offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. > > > > > Certainly facing a quitted card when it's your lead will provoke most > players into "following suit", we do it to each other all the time in > the five pound game. (and restore equity when we catch them out). > > I have the option of telling the player to pick up the H6, but we get > into such horrendous problems with UI, that I'd rather see if I can get > an equitable bridge result, and failing this, I'll adjust. > > I don't like the idea of saying "Ah well, this isn't really a penalty > card" and it seems clear to me we should make the H6 a penalty card (it > was intentionally played), and adjust if this causes damage. Law 47E1 doesn't really apply here, but it's really close. Law 47E1 says, "A lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if the leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead". Here, West leads out of turn not because an opponent told him it was his turn to lead, but because an opponent performed an action that led him to believe it was his turn to play as second hand; it's arguable that declarer's irregular facing of his card "mistakenly informed" West that it was his turn to play. Although the conditions aren't quite right for L47E1 to apply, might they be close enough that the Director could rule that this situation would fall within the intent of L47E1 if the authors of that Law had thought of it, and thus use his power in L50 to designate the H6 as "not a penalty card"? (As far as I can tell, the Laws don't really say when Director should or should not use this L50 option.) -- Adam From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jun 15 20:56:15 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:56:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. References: <200406141808.LAA21276@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c452e3$9d929660$548787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Reply expected, thanks and sooth thy hackles. Don't forget that in most of the places where English is the official language it was brought there and established as such by those autochthonous (yep, it's in my dictionary too) Englishmen. So, the development and future changes which will occur make present day "English," which I'm sure you must agree is not even Shakespearean, no more or less English than the developments and changes that have occurred in other places. Unless of course England wishes to establish a version of the French and appoint language mavens who dictate what is acceptable, and attempt to keep the language pure and dead. And so, we have American English, and English English constantly moving words, structures, and meanings back and forth, particularly in the argot of the teenagers. Try the word "go" as a verb or the interjection of "like" for fun sometime. A good mixture of English and American English will get you anywhere in the world today. Can't say as much for French or Chinese. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "The extent to which it welcomes dissent > into its midst is the measure of a society's > maturity and stature." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Adam Beneschan" > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > > > In my years of experience I've found the English > > quieter and assured of their position than the French > -- les voluble, but also less willing to grow in our > common language. > > > < > +=+ We do not have a common language. We have > languages that have a great deal in common. But > since 1620 AD, or earlier, our languages have > been diverging - until fairly recently when we have > languages coming together at the same time as > they move apart. The conceit of some Americans > in their (American) 'English' is no less than my > conceit in our autochthonous tongue. > As an aside, this is one of the perils for the > juridical draughtsman - producing text that has the > same meaning in American English as in English. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jun 15 20:58:48 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:58:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Autochthonous" References: <200406151558.IAA14649@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20040615130949.02b58d70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: I can spell it, I just can't pronounce it. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:13 PM Subject: [blml] "Autochthonous" > At 11:58 AM 6/15/04, Adam wrote: > > >...and to sneak humorous made-up words like > >"autochthonous" into sentences... > > It must be a real word. It was the "winning word" in this year's U.S. > National Spelling Bee. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Jun 15 22:04:19 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:04:19 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] NS should take a break. References: <001801c45235$c34d1690$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <000d01c4531c$559515c0$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] NS should take a break. > In article , Henk > Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) writes > >Introducing a rule is a lot easier than it sounds. > > I would like such a rule introduced to the CoC. > > A player is not allowed to leave the table after play started until = all > > boards scheduled for this round have been played. Any violation of this > > rule will be penalized with 3 imp. > > "Look, you ass-hole, I'll piss on the table unless you let me leave > NOW". > You may leave of course, sir. I'd like the rule that you may leave the table any number of times you want for whatever reason. You just pay 3 IM= Ps for each time (not to mention the slow play penalties). Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jun 15 21:47:37 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:47:37 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] "Autochthonous" In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040615130949.02b58d70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very often. Its antonym, "allochtonous," on the other hand, you will hear very frequently -- if you are a geologist in Alaska, and we have at least one of those on this mailing list. (It was news to me to discover, after the spelling bee, that the words also have currency in other fields.) Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the next edition of the alert rules: "Autochthonous conventions are part of one's general bridge knowledge and experience, but all allochthons are allocated alerts." And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously ought be allochtrocuted. GRB From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 15 22:53:29 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:53:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. References: <200406141808.LAA21276@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c452e3$9d929660$548787d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <011301c45325$94a25b20$51d7403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" Cc: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > Reply expected, thanks and sooth thy hackles. > +=+ 'Hackles' - aren't they feathers tied to fishermen's flies? :-) +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 15 23:05:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:05:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 Message-ID: James Hudson wrote: [snip] >>We need not revise the Laws on their (the disabled) behalf [snip] Adam Wildavsky concurred: >And should not. [snip] Richard Hills equivocates: I agree with "need not", but I disagree with "should not". I note that the most analogous game to Duplicate Bridge, which is Tournament Chess, has special Laws to provide for tournament chess games between sighted players and blind players. Therefore, in my opinion, there is not any *intrinsic* philosophical hurdle prohibiting special Laws of Duplicate Bridge for bridge games between able-bodied players and palsied players. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 16 00:24:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:24:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. Message-ID: Grattan Endicott defined: >+=+ We do not have a common language. We have >languages that have a great deal in common. But >since 1620 AD, or earlier, our languages have >been diverging - until fairly recently when we have >languages coming together at the same time as >they move apart. The conceit of some Americans >in their (American) 'English' is no less than my >conceit in our autochthonous tongue. > As an aside, this is one of the perils for the >juridical draughtsman - producing text that has the >same meaning in American English as in English. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills suggests: I would like to table Grattan's comment. In English English, to table Grattan's comment means making Grattan's comment available for further discussion. In American English, to table Grattan's comment means prohibiting any further discussion of it. In Aussie English (Strine), to table Grattan's comment means turning it into a piece of furniture. Best wishes RJH From lskelso@ihug.com.au Wed Jun 16 01:03:10 2004 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:03:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: <200406151915.MAA23938@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200406151915.MAA23938@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040616095304.01e4eec0@pop.ihug.com.au> At 05:15 AM 16/06/2004, Adam Beneschan wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > In article , lskelso@ihug.com.au > > writes > > > > > >Hello All > > > > > >West leads a heart, declarer wins this in hand with the H10 and all 4 > cards > > >comprising the trick are then quitted. After a short while Declarer > re-faces > > >the H10 and West (who momentarily thinks Declarer has led to the next > trick) > > >follows with the H6. > > > > > >The H6 was not led, but it is a potential Penalty card. > > >Law 66B implies that Declarer's exposure of the H10 is an irregularity > (and > > >maybe an infraction). > > > > > >Should the director rule that the H6 is not a penalty card viz the first > > >sentence of Law 50 or should he still treat it as a Penalty Card and then > > >consider adjusting the resulting score via Law 84E? > > > > > >Are there other Laws which might be relevant here? > > > > this is a very nice problem Laurie. I can inspect my own card but I > > should not expose it. > > > > L66B. Own Last Card > > Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may > > inspect, but not expose, his own last card played. > > > > ok, we've got an infraction. This does not alter the fact that the H6 is > > a penalty card > > > > L50. A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender > > is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The Director > > shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, when > > he deems that Law 72B1 applies. > > > > Oh Goody, I've got to 72B1. (The MadDog is happy) > > > > Certainly facing a quitted card when it's your lead will provoke most > > players into "following suit", we do it to each other all the time in > > the five pound game. (and restore equity when we catch them out). > > > > I have the option of telling the player to pick up the H6, but we get > > into such horrendous problems with UI, that I'd rather see if I can get > > an equitable bridge result, and failing this, I'll adjust. If it is retracted, isn't the information authorised to E/W, since we have acknowledged that an infraction was committee by declarer? Or are you still viewing both sides as offending? > > > I don't like the idea of saying "Ah well, this isn't really a penalty > > card" and it seems clear to me we should make the H6 a penalty card (it > > was intentionally played), and adjust if this causes damage. Adam Wrote >Law 47E1 doesn't really apply here, but it's really close. Law 47E1 >says, "A lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if the >leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to >lead". Here, West leads out of turn not because an opponent told him >it was his turn to lead, but because an opponent performed an action >that led him to believe it was his turn to play as second hand; it's >arguable that declarer's irregular facing of his card "mistakenly >informed" West that it was his turn to play. Although the conditions >aren't quite right for L47E1 to apply, might they be close enough that >the Director could rule that this situation would fall within the >intent of L47E1 if the authors of that Law had thought of it, and thus >use his power in L50 to designate the H6 as "not a penalty card"? (As >far as I can tell, the Laws don't really say when Director should or >should not use this L50 option.) West however did not lead out of turn - he exposed the H6 because he thought he was following suit to Declarer's lead. Laurie From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 16 01:53:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:53:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 Message-ID: Reno Regional Case 12, ACBL writeup: >>>Both EW cards were marked Flannery. East did not >>>think she had to alert it. Richard Hills scepticism: >>If I were the TD, I would have wanted demonstrable >>evidence before giving a ruling, that: >> >>(a) East did not alert an alertable convention, >> >>rather than >> >>(b) East forgot that the East-West partnership >> plays the Flannery convention. Privately emailed blmler question: >Hi, Richard. > >Please see again the two lines at the top. What >further evidence would you need? Richard Hills clarifies: The second of the two lines at the top should be parsed as -> "East *said* that she did not think that she had to alert it." It is certainly within an AC's power to deem that a statement by a player is factual. But my point was that an AC should not *automatically assume* that a self-serving statement by a player is factual. In his concluding comments for the ACBL Long Beach casebook, panellist Jeff Goldsmith wrote: [snip] >>>>A few Committees have fallen for self-serving >>>>testimony. It wouldn't surprise me if the >>>>Committees were right in practice, but they are >>>>wrong in theory. People are good at acting, >>>>particularly when they believe themselves. >>>>People are bad at detecting lying. Don't try. >>>>Once in a while you'll throw the baby out with >>>>the bath water, but your accuracy rate will >>>>improve dramatically. Less importantly, but more >>>>visibly, you'll avoid some real silly results >>>>that make the whole process look bad. [snip] Best wishes RJH From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 16 07:13:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:13:26 -0400 Subject: Fw: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <47A2A026-BF5C-11D8-8310-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jun 15, 2004, at 09:27 US/Eastern, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) wrote: > I'm not suggesting that yet, I'm just trying to find out what the rules > are. So-far, I was under the impression that a round started and > players > should play until all boards had been played, with > coffee/restroom/smoking > breaks for that purpose only and only as an exception. Watching the > vuegraph last Sunday the commentators there suggested otherwise: they > believed it was OK for a player to leave the table in order to gain a > tactical advantage. I cannot find anything in the laws that would > allow > that, the only thing that disallows it is 74C8. Are they seeking a tactical advantage, or seeking to overcome a tactical disadvantage? While I agree that leaving the table in the middle of a round should not been done capriciously, or often, I can see the possibility that the way things have been going has so frustrated a player that he *needs* to take a short break - that or perhaps strangle someone. I don't think that violates 74C8. Though strangling might violate 74A1 or A2. :-) It might be interesting to know on what the commentators based their opinion. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 16 07:18:14 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:18:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: <6elvL5Bp0zzAFwVX@asimere.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Jun 15, 2004, at 14:17 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > ok, we've got an infraction. This does not alter the fact that the H6 > is > a penalty card > > L50. A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender > is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The > Director > shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, > when > he deems that Law 72B1 applies. Your second sentence is not in accordance with the law. "The H6 is a penalty card" is not a fact if the Director designates otherwise. The question is, should he, in this case? If so, why? If not, why not? From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 16 07:36:35 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:36:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. References: Message-ID: <001f01c4536c$5e8d04d0$88ab403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NS should take a break. > > > > Richard Hills suggests: > > I would like to table Grattan's comment. > > In English English, to table Grattan's comment means > making Grattan's comment available for further > discussion. > > In American English, to table Grattan's comment means > prohibiting any further discussion of it. > > In Aussie English (Strine), to table Grattan's comment > means turning it into a piece of furniture. > > Best wishes > > RJH > +=+ Leaving my bantering response to Kojak aside - our friendship has long had a little thing going about what is 'English' - it is the case that there are some things where the two forms of the language are and will remain different - I try to remember to avoid 'table(d)' in WBFLC minutes (and not only this). I wish the differences were not so, but neither Kojak nor I can change the fact that we employ different usages, each as we have been taught. ...... and my compliments to all those who were drawn in by 'a*********s' as I hoped. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 16 07:43:40 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:43:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] no messages Message-ID: <40CFEC1C.4020009@hdw.be> 3 days without blml messages - there must be something wrong again! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 16 08:07:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:07:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: >>>Your second sentence is not in accordance >>>with the law. "The H6 is a penalty card" is >>>not a fact if the Director designates >>>otherwise. The question is, should he, in >>>this case? If so, why? If not, why not? In the thread "ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook, appeal 37", Richard Hills wrote: >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. [snip] Richard Hills continues: In that appeal, the ACBL TD, the ACBL AC, some members of the ACBL Laws Commission (who were casebook commentators), and the Secretary of the WBF Laws Committee (also a casebook commentator) all agreed with the opinion that a TD could bend the Laws out of their normal shape, and rule that an exposed card could arbitrarily be deemed to *not* be a penalty card, if a card had been dropped by a palsied player. However...... Technically this is merely a local ACBL interpretation of Law, as the WBF LC has not yet officially ruled on this issue. As Laurie Kelso propounded an Aussie stem case on this thread, if I were the Aussie TD in question, my initial ruling would be based on Law 49. Law 49: >>Except in the normal course of play or application of >>law, when a defender's card is in a position in which >>his partner could possibly see its face, or when a >>defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) >>each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but >>see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a >>statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in >>progress. Richard Hills interprets: My Strine interpretation of the phrase "application of law" is that another *specific* Law in the Lawbook, such as the footnote to Law 68, may *specifically* prevent an exposed card from becoming a penalty card. Furthermore, under my Latin interpretation of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" judicial rule, I would deem that if no *specific* contravening Law can be found that would prohibit an exposed card becoming a penalty card, then a TD has zero exceptional power to avoid the designation of a penalty card. Of course, as noted above, the ACBL LC and Grattan refuse to adopt "post hoc ergo propter hoc" in their Laws interpretations, preferring that sensible legal rulings are made instead. I have this picky preference for the Laws being consistent, even if this results in the Laws being an ass. However, in the stem case proposed by Laurie, I can have my cake and eat it too. After my *initial* ruling that the exposed card has to remain a penalty card, I would later make a *second* ruling that the score would be adjusted as if the penalty card had not occurred, pursuant to Law 72B1. Best wishes RJH From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 16 08:27:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:27:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] no messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40CFF658.6000104@hdw.be> Hello Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > 3 days without blml messages - there must be something wrong again! > I have re-connected using my first address again, the one which blml refused earlier. > * * * > > Sorry, Herman. > > In Australia those 3 days were a long weekend, so I was absent > from blml, playing bridge in Melbourne. To compensate, try > solving the attached 28-imp lead problem from the Melbourne > national championship. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > * * * > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C 4S 5H > 5S 6H 6S Pass > Pass Double Pass Pass > Pass > > You, South, hold: > > 4 > Q98632 > QT4 > J76 > > What opening lead do you make? > You're asking me? The great lead expert from Belgium? OK. The double is not lead-directing, but expecting to go down. Partner has forgotten he's playing with me, notorious overbidder that I am. His heart support is not what you might think, and more importantly, what they might think. East has 3 hearts, and believes his partner has none. Heart lead for the first two tricks. I think I have about 23% chance of being right (= the obvious 1/4 minus my usual bad gambling) > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 16 09:00:14 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:00:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? References: <200406151915.MAA23938@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.0.1.1.0.20040616095304.01e4eec0@pop.ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <003a01c45378$132836c0$88ab87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? > > > > > West however did not lead out of turn - he > exposed the H6 because he thought he was > following suit to Declarer's lead. > > Laurie > +=+ Now there's an interesting thought. So let's see, did West think he was playing to the next trick? Yes? Then maybe we should look up 'Lead' in the definitions ........ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From DrHerbertconciliate@yahoo.com Wed Jun 16 14:35:23 2004 From: DrHerbertconciliate@yahoo.com (Ab) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:35:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need a helping hand? Message-ID: Cia Loading Ad... Please Wait




From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 16 13:45:40 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:45:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] almost to =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Malm=F6?= Message-ID: <40D040F4.6080801@hdw.be> Strange - indeed hardly any messages this week. Silence before the storm in Malm=F6? I'll see some of you there, and shall report for the rest of you. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From david.barton@boltblue.com Wed Jun 16 14:37:47 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:37:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) References: <40D040F4.6080801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c453a7$1e1bd1c0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping someone could help me. I am looking for teams of four movements with the following characteristics:- (1) works for even number of teams (6 to 16) (2) movement is complete ie all play all (3) break at half time for scoring and line up changes (4) the teams all play the same boards (5) No board sharing or duplicated boards required. I am happy with the American Whist movement for odd numbers of teams but not found anything suitable for even numbers. Thanks for any assistance. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jun 16 14:54:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] "Autochthonous" In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040615130949.02b58d70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Just goes to show. This ignorant would have expected the word to be autochthonos in the US. Tim From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jun 16 14:56:27 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:56:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: David Barton [mailto:david.barton@boltblue.com] Sent: 16 June 2004 14:38 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping someone could help me. I am looking for teams of four movements with the following characteristics:- (1) works for even number of teams (6 to 16) (2) movement is complete ie all play all (3) break at half time for scoring and line up changes (4) the teams all play the same boards (5) No board sharing or duplicated boards required. I am happy with the American Whist movement for odd numbers of teams but not found anything suitable for even numbers. Thanks for any assistance. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** _______________________________________________ David Brief (and not very helpful) reply: I think it is impossible to achieve (1),(2),(4),(5). The EBU movement manual, by Manning, does not have any such movements. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From henk@ripe.net Wed Jun 16 15:09:58 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:09:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Robin Barker wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Barton [mailto:david.barton@boltblue.com] > Sent: 16 June 2004 14:38 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) > > > Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping someone could help me. > > I am looking for teams of four movements with the following > characteristics:- > > (1) works for even number of teams (6 to 16) > (2) movement is complete ie all play all > (3) break at half time for scoring and line up changes > (4) the teams all play the same boards > (5) No board sharing or duplicated boards required. > > I am happy with the American Whist movement for odd numbers of teams but not > found > anything suitable for even numbers. > > Thanks for any assistance. > > ********************************** > David.Barton@BoltBlue.com > ********************************** > _______________________________________________ > > > David > > Brief (and not very helpful) reply: > I think it is impossible to achieve (1),(2),(4),(5). > The EBU movement manual, by Manning, does not have any such movements. If you drop (5), it becomes quite simple though. Make 2 sections. Take a 2 session Howell movement. (See Jannersten, this is a Howell movement with a break in the middle). One pair from each team enters the first Howell. The other pair enters the second Howell, with the same pair number as their teammates. However, this pair plays all boards arrow-switched. Compare scores. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 16 16:32:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:32:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. In-Reply-To: <200406151558.IAA14649@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200406151558.IAA14649@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <40D0681D.4060103@hdw.be> Adam Beneschan wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > Is this really a problem? I mean, it might be a problem if the Laws > referred to "chips", which you English use instead of the correct > term, French fries (*). And while we literate Americans may snicker I noticed the asterisk immediately, so I did not have to interject: > > (*) Yes, I'm just kidding. And I think the reason we consider "French > fries" to be the correct term for something invented in Belgium is > that we literate Americans are unable to find Belgium on a map, plus > most of us literate Americans are unaware that it's actually a > country. > No it's not: http://zapatopi.net/belgium.html (Web site devoted to divulge the truth about the hoax: Belgium does not in fact exist) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 16 16:37:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:37:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) In-Reply-To: <000401c453a7$1e1bd1c0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> References: <40D040F4.6080801@hdw.be> <000401c453a7$1e1bd1c0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <40D0692B.2090709@hdw.be> David Barton wrote: > Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping someone could help me. > why would this be off-topic? We're all TD's here and this is part of a TD's job. Sorry that we have not set up a bmml as well! > I am looking for teams of four movements with the following > characteristics:- > > (1) works for even number of teams (6 to 16) > (2) movement is complete ie all play all > (3) break at half time for scoring and line up changes > (4) the teams all play the same boards > (5) No board sharing or duplicated boards required. > you forget (6) the number of sessions. This is totally different if you're going to play 30 boards or 360. > I am happy with the American Whist movement for odd numbers of teams but not > found > anything suitable for even numbers. > I use the AWL for one type of tournament and have found nothing better than AWL for even numbers of teams either. I simply play one round less, and one missing opponent. Probably the best complete solution is to play one extra round for that missing opponent, using duplicated boards for that one round. > Thanks for any assistance. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jun 16 19:05:25 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:05:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook Message-ID: >>> "Marvin French" 6/9/2004 5:20:25 PM >>> >From: "James Hudson" >> >> The oddest feature of the set was the Panels' use of consultants. >> Again and again, in cases involving non-experts, the Panel sought >> opinions from experts, and failed to poll non-expert peers of the >> players involved in the case (or polled an insufficient number). I >> cannot imagine why this was such a prominent feature of the Reno >>cases, >> compared with those from past NABCs. >> -------------------------------- >The panels have no choice in the matter, they are required to consult >with experts and peers and arrive at a decision that does not >contradict >what they find. This policy was part of the decision to let TD panels >handle the appeals from regionally-rated events at NABCs (Reno >1-12) >while the AC (who need not consult) handles those of major events >(Reno 13-24). The reason for the policy seems to be the belief that >TDs are less bridge-intelligent than ACs, a doubtful assumption going >by the casebooks. --------------------------------------------- When a Panel (doing the work of an AC) wants to know what, in a given situation for a particular class of player, was an LA, or was suggested by a particular item of UI, etc., it is reasonable for it to consult (poll) other players of that class. But when that class is far below the highest, the only evident reason to consult experts is on the assumption that experts, through their wide experience in dealing with inferior players, know what the latter are likely to do in various situations. Even granting this assumption, the consultation produces only second-hand evidence, when first-hand evidence could have been obtained "from the horse's mouth" by asking players in the relevant class directly. And to ask the expert what he would do in the given situation, rather than what he thinks players of the inferior class would do, is quite obviously pointless. Yet this was repeatedly done in the Reno regional cases. It's hard to believe the ACBL requires this sort of consultation. Maybe some of the Panels have misunderstood what is required of them. Jim Hudson From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jun 16 23:52:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:52:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] no messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40D0CF34.8020401@hdw.be> Apparently I had a 46% chance of selecting a good lead. But I did! richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Victor Champion Cup > Round 5, Board 8 (rotated 90 degrees for convenience) > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > Hashmat Ali > 9 > AJ75 > 986 > AKT54 > Tony Skinner Richard Hills > Q72 AKJT8653 > T4 K > KJ532 A7 > Q83 92 > Bal Krishan > 4 > Q98632 > QT4 > J76 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Skinner Ali Hills Krishan > --- 1C 4S 5H > 5S 6H 6S Pass > Pass Double Pass Pass > Pass > > For this particular match, my regular partner Hashmat > Ali was unusually my RHO. > > At the table, Bal Krishan guessed to lead the Four of > Diamonds. Unlucky. +1310 to the good guys for the > overtrick. > > Upon the selection of the opening lead, an expression > of mild disappointment crossed Hashmat's face. I deem > that Hashmat prefers me as a partner, rather than as > an opponent. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 17 01:14:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:14:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7$7RzBJ0JO0AFwfL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> James Hudson wrote >When a Panel (doing the work of an AC) wants to know what, in a given >situation for a particular class of player, was an LA, or was suggested >by a particular item of UI, etc., it is reasonable for it to consult >(poll) other players of that class. But when that class is far below >the highest, the only evident reason to consult experts is on the >assumption that experts, through their wide experience in dealing with >inferior players, know what the latter are likely to do in various >situations. Even granting this assumption, the consultation produces >only second-hand evidence, when first-hand evidence could have been >obtained "from the horse's mouth" by asking players in the relevant >class directly. And to ask the expert what he would do in the given >situation, rather than what he thinks players of the inferior class >would do, is quite obviously pointless. Yet this was repeatedly done in >the Reno regional cases. The problem with this is that when you ask people whose judgement is poor you get poor judgements. You get a hand, and you want to know what a Flt C player might do. You ask a Flt A player, and he considers, and answers on the basis of his experience what are the various possibilities, and gives them a weighting, and explains them. You ask three Flt A players, and you have an excellent idea what Flt C players would do. Alternatively you ask a Flt C player. First, he can only answer for himself, his answer is not balanced, weighted or anything else. Second, he is less accustomed to answering questions in this way, and his answer will be biased: he will not necessarily answer what he would do, but what he thinks you want to hear. So when you ask three Flt C players you have little idea what the average Flt C player would do, and asking three different ones will likely get a totally different answer. The Panel ask better players because that is a better method of deciding what poorer players will do than the straight voting method of asking three lesser players, which is totally flawed. >It's hard to believe the ACBL requires this sort of consultation. >Maybe some of the Panels have misunderstood what is required of them. Or maybe 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 17 00:35:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:35:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml Message-ID: 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 blml offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list - he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed. There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, They never would be missed - they never would be missed! Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still SOs will spank; And that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist - I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! Best pseudo-witty wishes Richard Hills From ljtrent@adelphia.net Thu Jun 17 03:27:17 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:27:17 -0700 Subject: FW: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook Message-ID: >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org >>[mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of >>>>Marvin French >>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:20 PM >>>>To: blml@rtflb.org >>>>Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>From: "James Hudson" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>The panels have no choice in the matter, they are required >>>>to consult >>>>with experts and peers and arrive at a decision that does >>>>not contradict >>>>what they find. >>>> >> That is not true -- there is no requirement to consult experts. >> Peers are sufficient if that is what the Panel deems appropriate. >> Linda --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 17 03:02:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:02:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 Message-ID: David J. Grabiner: [big snip] >Thus, assuming that I have some reason to >accept the N-S agreement on the 2NT bid, I >rule +120 for N-S, -150 for E-W. > >I don't give E-W -400. While it is at all >probable that North would make nine tricks >had he been correctly informed, it is not >at all probable that N-S would bid as they >did and make nine tricks; the MI either >affects everything or nothing. Richard Hills: I differ with David. {Irrelevant to my main disagreement with David, I do not agree with his Law 12C2 assessment of fact, and I would not split the score. Rather, I rule +120 for N-S, and the reciprocal -120 for E-W.} If I were to adopt David's assessment of fact, and assume that Law 12C2 split scores were appropriate, with N-S getting 8 tricks, but E-W conceding 9 tricks, then I do not interpret the MI Laws in the same way as David does. That is, if I were to join with David in splitting the score, I would rule N-S +120 and E-W -400. Law 75D1: >>If a player subsequently realises that his >>own explanation was erroneous or >>incomplete, he must immediately call the >>Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law >>40C). Richard Hills: In my opinion, David's assertion that, "the MI either affects everything or nothing" is incorrect. In my opinion, if E-W were conceding nine tricks, the TD could deem that there was a Law 75D1 correction *after* the auction, but *before* the play. This would make a split score of E-W -400 legal if David's Law 12C2 assessment of nine tricks as the "most unfavourable result that was at all probable" for E-W was correct. Best wishes RJH From ljtrent@adelphia.net Thu Jun 17 03:29:04 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:29:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>It's hard to believe the ACBL requires this sort of consultation. >>Maybe some of the Panels have misunderstood what is >>required of them. >> >>Jim Hudson >> Oh -- so Rich Colker is missed already -- what a surprise Linda --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 17 04:26:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:26:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 Message-ID: >And sorry for you; you have this the >wrong way round: "The Director is to >presume Mistaken Explanation, rather >than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of >evidence to the contrary." >(Quote from the footnote to Law 75!) > >Regards Sven True, but irrelevant to the point that I was making. The footnote to Law 75 is a tiebreaker to determine whether or not East has *misinformed* North-South. But the footnote to Law 75 is not relevant to a Law 85 determination on whether or not East has *understood* West's call. Best wishes Richard Hills From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 17 07:52:20 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:52:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Autochthonous" References: Message-ID: <005b01c45437$bf6e7c40$81ab403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "Autochthonous" > Just goes to show. This ignorant would have > expected the word to be autochthonos in the US. > > Tim > +=+ I wonder if they use Cronus or Kronos? And why are both of them not 'ous' in English? But enough of our differences, we have lots in common. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jun 17 08:21:06 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:21:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] no messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40D14662.80100@hdw.be> When selecting leads, it is common bridge knowledge that Herman has a 1/4 chance of getting it right. I've often thought I would actually improve my odds by tossing a coin. I once actually did coss a toin (left it like that). It fell the wrong way. Slam down. Pieters H.W. wrote: > Given the fact that any of the 6 hearts or 3 clubs would be a good lead, I'd say the chance was something more than 46%. > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens Herman De > Wael > Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2004 00:53 > Aan: blml > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] no messages > > > Apparently I had a 46% chance of selecting a good lead. > But I did! > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> >> >>Victor Champion Cup >>Round 5, Board 8 (rotated 90 degrees for convenience) >>Imps >>Dlr: North >>Vul: None >> >> Hashmat Ali >> 9 >> AJ75 >> 986 >> AKT54 >>Tony Skinner Richard Hills >>Q72 AKJT8653 >>T4 K >>KJ532 A7 >>Q83 92 >> Bal Krishan >> 4 >> Q98632 >> QT4 >> J76 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Skinner Ali Hills Krishan >>--- 1C 4S 5H >>5S 6H 6S Pass >>Pass Double Pass Pass >>Pass >> >>For this particular match, my regular partner Hashmat >>Ali was unusually my RHO. >> >>At the table, Bal Krishan guessed to lead the Four of >>Diamonds. Unlucky. +1310 to the good guys for the >>overtrick. >> >>Upon the selection of the opening lead, an expression >>of mild disappointment crossed Hashmat's face. I deem >>that Hashmat prefers me as a partner, rather than as >>an opponent. >> >>Best wishes >> >>Richard Hills >> >> >> > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 17 09:49:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:49:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c45447$f4095500$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............ > >And sorry for you; you have this the > >wrong way round: "The Director is to > >presume Mistaken Explanation, rather > >than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of > >evidence to the contrary." > >(Quote from the footnote to Law 75!) > > > >Regards Sven >=20 > True, but irrelevant to the point that > I was making. >=20 > The footnote to Law 75 is a tiebreaker > to determine whether or not East has > *misinformed* North-South. >=20 > But the footnote to Law 75 is not > relevant to a Law 85 determination on > whether or not East has *understood* > West's call. Sorry? If East has misunderstood West's call and consequently explains it incorrectly it is mistaken explanation. If East has understood West's call but explains it incorrectly it is = also mistaken explanation. I fail to see the relevance in whether East understood the call or not = when ruling mistaken bid or mistaken explanation? Law 85 is relevant when the Director shall establish for instance what East actually told opponents, = but it is not relevant for ruling on possibly mistaken explanation. I = believe this was the core question? My apologies if I was wrong. Sven From john@asimere.com Thu Jun 17 11:26:58 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:26:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: References: <6elvL5Bp0zzAFwVX@asimere.com> Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes > >On Tuesday, Jun 15, 2004, at 14:17 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst >wrote: > >> ok, we've got an infraction. This does not alter the fact that the H6 >> is >> a penalty card >> >> L50. A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender >> is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The >> Director >> shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, >> when >> he deems that Law 72B1 applies. > >Your second sentence is not in accordance with the law. "The H6 is a >penalty card" is not a fact if the Director designates otherwise. The >question is, should he, in this case? If so, why? If not, why not? ok, the H6 *is* a penalty card unless I designate otherwise. I do not intend to designate otherwise as the card was played intentionally. more to the point I'm going to let these guys have two shots. One is "Play on, the H6 is a penalty card" and the other is "I'm going to adjust if this causes damage". > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Jun 17 11:31:53 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:31:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Barton [mailto:david.barton@boltblue.com] >Sent: 16 June 2004 14:38 >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) > > >Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping someone could help me. > >I am looking for teams of four movements with the following >characteristics:- > >(1) works for even number of teams (6 to 16) >(2) movement is complete ie all play all >(3) break at half time for scoring and line up changes >(4) the teams all play the same boards >(5) No board sharing or duplicated boards required. > >I am happy with the American Whist movement for odd numbers of teams but not >found >anything suitable for even numbers. > >Thanks for any assistance. > >********************************** >David.Barton@BoltBlue.com >********************************** >_______________________________________________ > > >David > >Brief (and not very helpful) reply: >I think it is impossible to achieve (1),(2),(4),(5). >The EBU movement manual, by Manning, does not have any such movements. > >Robin I concur. There are no regular movements. there may be some irregular ones -- 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 Thu Jun 17 12:35:37 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:35:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml References: Message-ID: Gee! Two questions. 1. Where are YOU listed? 2. since you've covered just about everyone in BLML, would that shut it down? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Netiquette on blml > > > > > 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 blml offenders > who might well be under ground > And who never would be missed - > who never would be missed! > > There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, > Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - > All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - > All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - > And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - > They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! > > CHORUS. > > He's got 'em on the list - > he's got 'em on the list; > And they'll none of 'em be missed - > they'll none of 'em be missed. > > There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, > And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! > And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, > They never would be missed - they never would be missed! > Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, > All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; > Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, > And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still SOs will spank; > And that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist - > I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! > > Best pseudo-witty wishes > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 17 13:12:22 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:12:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040617080627.02acfb00@pop.starpower.net> At 02:05 PM 6/16/04, James wrote: >When a Panel (doing the work of an AC) wants to know what, in a given >situation for a particular class of player, was an LA, or was suggested >by a particular item of UI, etc., it is reasonable for it to consult >(poll) other players of that class. But when that class is far below >the highest, the only evident reason to consult experts is on the >assumption that experts, through their wide experience in dealing with >inferior players, know what the latter are likely to do in various >situations. Even granting this assumption, the consultation produces >only second-hand evidence, when first-hand evidence could have been >obtained "from the horse's mouth" by asking players in the relevant >class directly. And to ask the expert what he would do in the given >situation, rather than what he thinks players of the inferior class >would do, is quite obviously pointless. Yet this was repeatedly done in >the Reno regional cases. > >It's hard to believe the ACBL requires this sort of consultation. >Maybe some of the Panels have misunderstood what is required of them. Perhaps this happens because if one puts such questions to players of the appropriate class, one is likely to get tentative and uncertain answers. Ask an expert and you may not get the right answer, but you're almost sure to get a definitively stated one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john@asimere.com Thu Jun 17 14:24:17 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:24:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040617080627.02acfb00@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040617080627.02acfb00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <6.1.1.1.0.20040617080627.02acfb00@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 02:05 PM 6/16/04, James wrote: > >>When a Panel (doing the work of an AC) wants to know what, in a given >>situation for a particular class of player, was an LA, or was suggested >>by a particular item of UI, etc., it is reasonable for it to consult >>(poll) other players of that class. But when that class is far below >>the highest, the only evident reason to consult experts is on the >>assumption that experts, through their wide experience in dealing with >>inferior players, know what the latter are likely to do in various >>situations. Even granting this assumption, the consultation produces >>only second-hand evidence, when first-hand evidence could have been >>obtained "from the horse's mouth" by asking players in the relevant >>class directly. And to ask the expert what he would do in the given >>situation, rather than what he thinks players of the inferior class >>would do, is quite obviously pointless. Yet this was repeatedly done in >>the Reno regional cases. >> >>It's hard to believe the ACBL requires this sort of consultation. >>Maybe some of the Panels have misunderstood what is required of them. > >Perhaps this happens because if one puts such questions to players of >the appropriate class, one is likely to get tentative and uncertain >answers. Ask an expert and you may not get the right answer, but >you're almost sure to get a definitively stated one. It has been my experience that I'm far less likely to be overturned if I use "experts" when I'm consulting, if necessary telling them to think like palookas. I'm currently looking at 1H x P P where passer holds xxx xx Kxxxx xxx. In response to my questions I was told "I expect partner to be short in H but I passed because I only have 3 points". This drifts one off when doubler holds a 5-bagger in hearts in a strong NT. I'm probably ruling result stands. My expert consultants concur. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 17 18:10:10 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:10:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <30D0D9E5-C081-11D8-A73C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jun 17, 2004, at 06:26 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > ok, the H6 *is* a penalty card unless I designate otherwise. I do not > intend to designate otherwise as the card was played intentionally. > more > to the point I'm going to let these guys have two shots. One is "Play > on, the H6 is a penalty card" and the other is "I'm going to adjust if > this causes damage". Okay, so your answers to my questions are "no, the director should not designate that H6 is not a penalty card" (alternatively "yes, it should be a PC") and "because it was played intentionally". Which law(s), please? In particular, since Law 49 does not specify when one should designate an exposed card as "not a penalty card", under what circumstances, governed by which law, would one do so? In this particular case, it seems to me that while playing the H6 may have been intentional, the intent was formed under the mistaken impression that declarer had led to the next trick, which impression was caused by declarer's illegal exposure of a previously played card. Has he no culpability here? Dare I suggest that *both* players should receive a PP, the one for illegally exposing, and therefor deceiving, and the other for paying insufficient attention? (I view this as independent of the PC question.) :-) From svenpran@online.no Thu Jun 17 19:42:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:42:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: <30D0D9E5-C081-11D8-A73C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c4549a$d30d2f90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert .......... > Okay, so your answers to my questions are "no, the director should not > designate that H6 is not a penalty card" (alternatively "yes, it should > be a PC") and "because it was played intentionally". Which law(s), > please? In particular, since Law 49 does not specify when one should > designate an exposed card as "not a penalty card", under what > circumstances, governed by which law, would one do so? According to the official commentaries EBL (and WBF) 1992 the "normal" reason for "designating otherwise" is when the players at the table without calling the Director (and thereby violating Law 9B) have agreed that a particular card is a penalty card, and the Director feels that rights have been jeopardized by the failure to call him earlier. > > In this particular case, it seems to me that while playing the H6 may > have been intentional, the intent was formed under the mistaken > impression that declarer had led to the next trick, which impression > was caused by declarer's illegal exposure of a previously played card. > Has he no culpability here? > > Dare I suggest that *both* players should receive a PP, the one for > illegally exposing, and therefor deceiving, and the other for paying > insufficient attention? (I view this as independent of the PC > question.) :-) Directors should usually be reluctant to serve PP except to players who repeatedly violate the same law after first having received a warning. (Or you could say as we do in Norway: The mildest form for a PP is a warning, and for most irregularities resulting in PP this should usually be the first PP served on a player). Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jun 17 20:41:36 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:41:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 References: Message-ID: <002a01c454a3$6ec938e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, David's assertion that, "the > MI either affects everything or nothing" is > incorrect. In my opinion, if E-W were > conceding nine tricks, the TD could deem > that there was a Law 75D1 correction *after* > the auction, but *before* the play. This > would make a split score of E-W -400 legal if > David's Law 12C2 assessment of nine tricks as > the "most unfavourable result that was at all > probable" for E-W was correct. > Poor North thought only of the auction when asking for a correction. If he had merely pointed out that he would have made 3NT against the E-W defense had he known about West's five hearts, without mentioning the auction, the adjustment might have been +/- 400. As a TD I would come to that conclusion myself, without listening to what N-S have to say about it. As to the auction, there is no way of knowing how much the MI affected it. 2NT by North with that hand over either a weak two or Flannery is not unusual, as North himself said. While South might have stretched in hopes of a 4-4 heart fit, we don't know that, and certainly can't take North's word for it. The 4-4 possibility is against the odds, so the 3C bid implies a willingness to play 3NT opposite any hand. After all, a 2NT overcall of a non-strong two bid tends to be wide-range, with an upper limit a bit higher than that of a strong 1NT opening. This is an example of why uncorroborrated testimony is irrelevant and should not be considered, even when it is self-damaging. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dpb3@fastmail.fm Thu Jun 17 21:49:20 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:49:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] 5.5 tables In-Reply-To: <20040617100004.3775.56357.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040617100004.3775.56357.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1087505360.1627.198655548@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello list, Our little Monday game seems to have settled on 5.5 tables, probably to test my mettle. I have been running a 3/4 Howell, and going nuts with the arrow switches. (They do them now, usually. However, getting them to remember that they did them when it is time to score, will not happen. Ever.) I would run a full Howell, 3 boards a round, and stop after 9 rounds, but we have that extra problem of needing at least 2 stationaries. Is there a Howell variant somewhere that can do this if it runs only 9 rounds? It seems to me that two stationaries, always (let us say) NS, don't necessarily do violence to the notion of reasonable comparisons, but I am not familiar with such a beast. Is anyone? Or is there a theoretical problem with this I'm not seeing? Thanks all. David Babcock Florida USA From adam@tameware.com Thu Jun 17 19:28:17 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:28:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Unofficial Reno Casebook In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040617080627.02acfb00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: At 2:24 PM +0100 6/17/04, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I'm currently looking at 1H x P P where passer holds xxx xx Kxxxx xxx. >In response to my questions I was told "I expect partner to be short in >H but I passed because I only have 3 points". This drifts one off when >doubler holds a 5-bagger in hearts in a strong NT. I'm probably ruling >result stands. My expert consultants concur. What question did you ask them? In the ACBL panels do not (or should not) ask the players consulted what the ruling ought to be. They ask about issues of bridge judgement. If there was UI you haven't mentioned useful question would be to ask which actions, if any, were demonstrably suggested. If there was UI which demonstrably suggested bidding then you could ask whether there was a logical alternative to the pass, but you have no need to ask that. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 18 00:10:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:10:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno Regional Case 12 Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>True, but irrelevant to the point that >>I was making. >> >>The footnote to Law 75 is a tiebreaker >>to determine whether or not East has >>*misinformed* North-South. >> >>But the footnote to Law 75 is not >>relevant to a Law 85 determination on >>whether or not East has *understood* >>West's call. Sven Pran: >Sorry? > >If East has misunderstood West's call >and consequently explains it >incorrectly it is mistaken explanation. > >If East has understood West's call but >explains it incorrectly it is also >mistaken explanation. > >I fail to see the relevance in whether >East understood the call or not when >ruling mistaken bid or mistaken >explanation? Law 85 is relevant when >the Director shall establish for >instance what East actually told >opponents, but it is not relevant for >ruling on possibly mistaken explanation. >I believe this was the core question? >My apologies if I was wrong. Richard Hills: Apologies accepted. On Sven's core question - whether or not misinformation occurred - I fully concur that it is Law 84 (Rulings on Agreed Facts) which is the relevant Law, since East's failure to alert West's 2D bid as Flannery is a clear case of MI to North-South. However, my core question was a TD ruling on *why* East failed to alert. Either, (a) East did not alert Flannery because East mistakenly thought that Flannery was non-alertable (the self-serving excuse that East provided), or, (b) East did not alert Flannery because East forgot that their partnership played that convention (a plausible alternative). Determining which of (a) or (b) was true was a proper use of Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts). And while a ruling on (a) or (b) does not affect the initial MI ruling, it *might* affect a potential subsequent UI ruling. East's non-alert UI given to West could have hypothetically caused West to inadvertently raise an eyebrow, therefore sending UI from West to East which reminded East that they had forgotten their partnership agreement. My initial posting on this thread noted that any hypothetical UI could not alter the actual adjusted score. But..... My key point was querying why the actual TD and AC automatically *assumed* that East's self-serving statement was true. ACBL Long Beach casebook, concluding comments from panellist Jeff Goldsmith: [snip] >>>A few Committees have fallen for self- >>>serving testimony. It wouldn't surprise >>>if the Committees were right in >>>practice, but they are wrong in theory. >>>People are good at acting, particularly >>>when they believe themselves. People >>>are bad at detecting lying. Don't try. >>>Once in a while you'll throw the baby >>>out with the bath water, but your >>>accuracy rate will improve >>>dramatically. Less importantly, but >>>more visibly, you'll avoid some real >>>silly results that make the whole >>>process look bad. [snip] Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 18 00:34:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:34:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml Message-ID: >Gee! Two questions. > >1. Where are YOU listed? >2. since you've covered just about everyone in BLML, would >that shut it down? > >Kojak Two answers. 1. I am obviously listed as "that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist". Somewhat less obviously, I also appear at: There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! I qualify as a "threading serenader" due to my prolific habit of starting new threads on blml. "Post-prandial" is used as an adjective to refer to an after- dinner speech. But all my blml postings are written before dinner, hence "pre-prandialist". 2. I do not wish to shut down blml, merely encourage blmlers to undergo some critical self-appraisal before posting. Of course, as a person in a glass house without sin, I have cast the first stone. The mixed metaphorist - I've got them on the list! :-) Best wishes Richard Hills From juuso@jldata.fi Fri Jun 18 00:54:54 2004 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:54:54 +0300 Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <001b01c454c6$7cf0f340$6b02a8c0@Helwlapsupp> Tuus I think that you can't avoid sharing with even number. Using double Howell for 8 to 16 teams only one table shares. For 6 teams there is no double Howell, but you can use thurner movment ( works when N-1 is prime). There is also only one table sharing. See www.asecomputing.com downloads. There is Ian McInnon's=20 Bridge Directin Complete from 1978 as a graphical image as pdf-form. Juuso Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping someone could help me. I am looking for teams of four movements with the following characteristics:- (1) works for even number of teams (6 to 16) (2) movement is complete ie all play all (3) break at half time for scoring and line up changes (4) the teams all play the same boards (5) No board sharing or duplicated boards required. I am happy with the American Whist movement for odd numbers of teams but = not found anything suitable for even numbers. Thanks for any assistance. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** _______________________________________________ David Brief (and not very helpful) reply: I think it is impossible to achieve (1),(2),(4),(5). The EBU movement manual, by Manning, does not have any such movements. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 18 01:45:33 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:45:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: <000001c4549a$d30d2f90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thursday, Jun 17, 2004, at 14:42 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > According to the official commentaries EBL (and WBF) 1992 the "normal" > reason for "designating otherwise" is when the players at the table > without > calling the Director (and thereby violating Law 9B) have agreed that a > particular card is a penalty card, and the Director feels that rights > have > been jeopardized by the failure to call him earlier. Is that then the *only* time? > (Or you could say as we do in Norway: The mildest form for a PP is a > warning, and for most irregularities resulting in PP this should > usually be > the first PP served on a player). Works for me. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 18 01:46:35 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:46:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) Message-ID: [snip] >There is Ian McInnon's Bridge Directin Complete from >1978 as a graphical image as pdf-form. >Juuso I can highly recommend "Bridge Directing Complete" by former CTD of Australia, Ian McKinnon. It contains many and varied bridge movements. To download, visit: http://www.asecomputing.com/download.htm Best wishes Richard Hills From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 18 02:00:43 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:00:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] 5.5 tables In-Reply-To: <1087505360.1627.198655548@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, Jun 17, 2004, at 16:49 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: > I would run a full Howell, 3 boards a round, and stop after 9 rounds, > but we have that extra problem of needing at least 2 stationaries. > Is there a Howell variant somewhere that can do this if it runs only 9 > rounds? It seems to me that two stationaries, always (let us say) NS, > don't necessarily do violence to the notion of reasonable comparisons, > but I am not familiar with such a beast. Is anyone? Or is there a > theoretical problem with this I'm not seeing? A regular Howell with 6 tables has 11 rounds. To make fewer rounds, you need more stationary pairs. To make 9 rounds, you need two more. Since you only have 5.5 tables, you can make one of the stationary pairs a phantom, leaving you with two actual stationary pairs. Pairs will have a sit-out at the "phantom" table. Hallen, et al. ("Movements: A Fair Approach"), call this a "reduced Howell". I believe they recommend some arrow switches. I can dig up the details, if you like. I *think* ACBLscore has such a movement built in, but if so it probably calls it something other than a reduced Howell, and it's probably not quite the same as the one in the book. The problem with it, of course, is that the two stationary pairs will never meet, and each moving pair will miss one board set. I'm no expert, but I don't think that's too big a deal. From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jun 18 02:14:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:14:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] 5.5 tables In-Reply-To: <1087505360.1627.198655548@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20040617100004.3775.56357.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1087505360.1627.198655548@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <0QNiYEdsHk0AFw9K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Babcock wrote > >Our little Monday game seems to have settled on 5.5 tables, >probably to test my mettle. I have been running a 3/4 Howell, and going >nuts with the arrow switches. (They do them now, usually. However, >getting them to remember that they did them when it is time to score, >will not happen. Ever.) I am confused ..... You do not do arrow-switches with 3/4 Howells ..... Anyway, as far as making sure people score correctly, tell them North scores, North score, North scores, North Scores. Tell them to report any East or West who scores to you for a procedural penalty [don't worry, that won't happen]. In other words when there is an arrow-switch, it is still the player that plays North who scores. I suppose you mean that you have stationary pairs switching direction. well, if that is a problem, here are two solutions: [1] 6 tables, well, 5.5, 9 rounds, means 3 stationary pairs, ok? Pair 12 can sit N/S throughout. No problem. Pair 11 can sit E/W throughout. No problem - and do not let them get their paws on the score-slips. Pair 10 have to change direction once. Just once. So you get them to physically move half-way through the evening from N/S to E/W and tell them to stop doing the scoring. [2] If you only need two stationary pairs why not have pair 10 as the missing pair? Now no arrow-switches at all! Perfect balance? Probably not, but far better than most other solutions, including a full Howell - yuk! >I would run a full Howell, 3 boards a round, and stop after 9 rounds, >but we have that extra problem of needing at least 2 stationaries. >Is there a Howell variant somewhere that can do this if it runs only 9 >rounds? It seems to me that two stationaries, always (let us say) NS, >don't necessarily do violence to the notion of reasonable comparisons, >but I am not familiar with such a beast. Is anyone? Or is there a >theoretical problem with this I'm not seeing? You seem to be looking for a problem. If you want to play 9 rounds with 5.5 tables, then you play a 3/4 Howell. A Howell is just unfair because the boards get played the wrong number of times. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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@tameware.com Fri Jun 18 03:40:15 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:40:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: After receiving permission from Rick Beye I've posted the Reno cases at http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/ All the cases are contained in this zip file: http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/NABC_Appeals_Reno_2004.zip If you prefer individual RTF files they are posted at http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/NABC_Appeals_Reno_2004/ I've also posted my comments on the cases from the NABC events: http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/Reno_1-12_Wildavsky.rtf http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/Reno_13-24_Wildavsky.rtf I'm about to start on the cases from the Regional events. If you take issue with any of my comments or see something I might have overlooked please let me know (or post here) ASAP. My comments for the ACBL casebook are due this weekend. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 18 04:06:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:06:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno cases posted Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >After receiving permission from Rick Beye I've posted the Reno cases at > >http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/ > >All the cases are contained in this zip file: > >http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/NABC_Appeals_Reno_2004.zip > >If you prefer individual RTF files they are posted at > >http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/NABC_Appeals_Reno_2004/ > >I've also posted my comments on the cases from the NABC events: > >http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/Reno_1-12_Wildavsky.rtf > >http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/Reno_13-24_Wildavsky.rtf > >I'm about to start on the cases from the Regional events. > >If you take issue with any of my comments or see something I might >have overlooked please let me know (or post here) ASAP. My comments >for the ACBL casebook are due this weekend. > >-- >Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC >adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com Richard Hills: As an alternative to an informal visit to Adam Wildavsky's website, slightly more formal places for unofficial panellists are still available in the unofficial Reno casebooks that I am unofficially compiling. These slightly formal unofficial casebooks will be undergoing a four-stage process (Regional cases, Regional Round Table, NABC+ cases, NABC+ Round Table); panellists may freely unofficially drop out of one stage, then equally freely unofficially rejoin at the following stage. The unofficial deadline for the first stage is Sunday 11th July. So far, eight blmlers have volunteered to be unofficial panellists. Any further blmlers who wish to join the unofficial panel should send me a private email. Best wishes Richard Hills unofficial editor Semi-official footnote: Coming soon are the officiously official 2003 casebooks for the EBU and the WBU. They will be published Real Soon Now as they have reached the penultimate proof-reading stage. From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jun 18 05:41:02 2004 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:41:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] 5.5 tables References: <20040617100004.3775.56357.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1087505360.1627.198655548@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <005001c454ee$759c3e60$536b2452@mikeamos> It is a simple matter to add an extra pair to any Howell so try thinking of a standsrd 5 table Howell with an extra pair - 27 boards - 9 rounds now so no problems :) - The extra pair are usually referred to as a rover - staionary in this case Normally this works for me like this - Round 1 - normal - one Stationary pair sitting out Round 2 - Stationary (Rover Pair) replace one Pair in the movement - usually at the table where Pairs swivel - and now sit there throughout - bumping the pairs who are sent there - I normally sit this pair EW and dont give a toss about arrow switches and balance in the normal club game - some smart ass (probst ??) might tell you what arrow switches you need but truly on a club game is this a big deal ? the players wont notice -- now no relays and unless you decide otherewise no arrow switches -- all boards played 5 times 9/11 pairs sit out - you cannot do much better than this :) mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Babcock" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:49 PM Subject: [blml] 5.5 tables > Hello list, > > Our little Monday game seems to have settled on 5.5 tables, > probably to test my mettle. I have been running a 3/4 Howell, and going > nuts with the arrow switches. (They do them now, usually. However, > getting them to remember that they did them when it is time to score, > will not happen. Ever.) > > I would run a full Howell, 3 boards a round, and stop after 9 rounds, > but we have that extra problem of needing at least 2 stationaries. > Is there a Howell variant somewhere that can do this if it runs only 9 > rounds? It seems to me that two stationaries, always (let us say) NS, > don't necessarily do violence to the notion of reasonable comparisons, > but I am not familiar with such a beast. Is anyone? Or is there a > theoretical problem with this I'm not seeing? > > Thanks all. > > David Babcock > Florida USA > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jun 18 05:53:56 2004 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:53:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000a01c454f0$43402ce0$536b2452@mikeamos> Even numbers of teams can always be coped with as Howells for the same number of pairs Imagine 8 tables -- set up a 4 table Howell with one pair from each team and another 4 table Howell with the polarities reversed for the other team pair have these tables in pairs so boards can be shared and away you go -- you always play head to head matches and so can score at any time - with some security issues between teams - This does involve board sharing so breaks your rule 5 but cant see why this a problem for 4 board rounds or even 3 Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "'David Barton'" ; Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:56 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Barton [mailto:david.barton@boltblue.com] > Sent: 16 June 2004 14:38 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) > > > Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping someone could help me. > > I am looking for teams of four movements with the following > characteristics:- > > (1) works for even number of teams (6 to 16) > (2) movement is complete ie all play all > (3) break at half time for scoring and line up changes > (4) the teams all play the same boards > (5) No board sharing or duplicated boards required. > > I am happy with the American Whist movement for odd numbers of teams but not > found > anything suitable for even numbers. > > Thanks for any assistance. > > ********************************** > David.Barton@BoltBlue.com > ********************************** > _______________________________________________ > > > David > > Brief (and not very helpful) reply: > I think it is impossible to achieve (1),(2),(4),(5). > The EBU movement manual, by Manning, does not have any such movements. > > Robin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Fri Jun 18 07:40:57 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:40:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Not a Penalty Card? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c454ff$36155d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Thursday, Jun 17, 2004, at 14:42 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > According to the official commentaries EBL (and WBF) 1992 the "normal" > > reason for "designating otherwise" is when the players at the table > > without > > calling the Director (and thereby violating Law 9B) have agreed that a > > particular card is a penalty card, and the Director feels that rights > > have > > been jeopardized by the failure to call him earlier. > > Is that then the *only* time? No, as I understand the commentary it is an example and not exclusive. In the actual case I agree that a possible ruling is to declare the 6H a penalty card and reserve the right to adjust the final score in order to do equity, but IMO a far better solution is to simply "designate otherwise" as Law 50 permits us to do. > > > (Or you could say as we do in Norway: The mildest form for a PP is a > > warning, and for most irregularities resulting in PP this should > > usually be > > the first PP served on a player). > > Works for me. :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jun 18 11:47:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:47:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Teams Movements (Off Topic) In-Reply-To: <001b01c454c6$7cf0f340$6b02a8c0@Helwlapsupp> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040468FE@hotel.npl.co.uk> <001b01c454c6$7cf0f340$6b02a8c0@Helwlapsupp> Message-ID: Juuso Leikola wrote > >Tuus > >I think that you can't avoid sharing with even number. You can certainly avoid sharing in general - what you cannot do is to find a movement that has no problems at all. There was a "standard" EBU movement when I started directing whereby E/W go down 2 tables until they get home, score, down one table then down two tables, skipping the table at the far side. Or something. I would have to work it out. It was really designed for no half-time score, and you started in a different place, down 2 for half the boards, then down 3, then down 2, skipping when you got home. No share, so why is this not perfect? Simple: it missed one team. So if that team needed to be included it was played as a separate match completely, dealing its own boards, since there are no sets available otherwise. >Using double Howell for 8 to 16 teams only one table shares. >For 6 teams there is no double Howell, but you can use thurner movment ( >works when N-1 is prime). There is also only one table sharing. >See www.asecomputing.com downloads. There is Ian McInnon's >Bridge Directin Complete from 1978 as a graphical image as pdf-form. >Juuso > >Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping someone could help me. > >I am looking for teams of four movements with the following >characteristics:- > >(1) works for even number of teams (6 to 16) >(2) movement is complete ie all play all This is where the above movement breaks down. >(3) break at half time for scoring and line up changes >(4) the teams all play the same boards >(5) No board sharing or duplicated boards required. > >I am happy with the American Whist movement for odd numbers of teams but not >found >anything suitable for even numbers. > >Thanks for any assistance. > >********************************** >David.Barton@BoltBlue.com >********************************** >_______________________________________________ > > >David > >Brief (and not very helpful) reply: >I think it is impossible to achieve (1),(2),(4),(5). >The EBU movement manual, by Manning, does not have any such movements. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 18 13:13:30 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:13:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: 5.5 tables In-Reply-To: <20040618100003.19852.62944.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040618100003.19852.62944.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1087560810.16250.198694957@webmail.messagingengine.com> David (and Ed and all), > [1] 6 tables, well, 5.5, 9 rounds, means 3 stationary pairs, ok? Pair > 12 can sit N/S throughout. No problem. Pair 11 can sit E/W throughout. There is a balance issue, in that the two stationaries are never compared against each other, but does one fret about this in the land of the one-winner non-arrow-switched Mitchell? Better I should devote my time to scrubbing the coffee pots harder, maybe... I think I get there with minimum fuss by making pair 10 the phantom as David suggested, and then telling pair 11 to stay EW (the guide cards have the arrow-switch printed on them--conveniently, the instructions the arriving pairs saw will have said only "go to table 2", so this stays as is), and then EDMOV the four affected rounds so the pairs are the other way (the members have kindly caused me to learn to do *that* already, post facto ;-| ). Thanks, all, for the excellent comments. David Florida USA From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Fri Jun 18 13:19:44 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:19:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Team Movements Message-ID: <009001c4552e$8ab830c0$5b23b5d4@swipnet.se> It is impossible for an even number of team to play without sharing = boards as the number of sets is one less than the number of teams. The best you can do (as has been said) is the Turner movement where only = two tables share boards. You can read about this in "Movements", pages = 298 to 300. You can also have a personal reply from me at hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 18 15:58:22 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:58:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: 5.5 tables In-Reply-To: <20040618100003.19852.62944.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040618100003.19852.62944.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1087570702.11619.198707102@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello all, I've decided to KISS and lose the arrow switches, because it turns out that they don't matter as much as I had guessed anyway. With one stationary NS and one stationary EW, you do have that one instance of no comparisons, but I was somewhat surprised to see that with the usual pair 11 arrow switches, there are five occurrences of only one comparison--all of which become two by leaving the second stationary pair EW--and there is one occurrence of six comparisons, which becomes 5. So, with either movement, the range of values is 6 (0 thru 5 vs 1 thru 6), and the standard deviation rises only slightly: from 1.13 to 1.18. (ACBLscore should calculate that, which it doesn't, but it does present the comparisons in tabular form, which is most of the work.) The work of the arrow switch (and the resulting stress on the players, and on me when I find that the people who screwed up the pickup just left) just doesn't buy enough. Interestingly, putting the second stationary pair also NS produces the lowest standard deviation, 1.04, but it has that hideous outlier value of 9 comparisons between the stationary pairs, and that is uncomfortable from the fairness POV, for me anyway. David Florida USA From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 18 15:58:43 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:58:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: 5.5 tables Message-ID: <1087570723.11665.198707102@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello all, I've decided to KISS and lose the arrow switches, because it turns out that they don't matter as much as I had guessed anyway. With one stationary NS and one stationary EW, you do have that one instance of no comparisons, but I was somewhat surprised to see that with the usual pair 11 arrow switches, there are five occurrences of only one comparison--all of which become two by leaving the second stationary pair EW--and there is one occurrence of six comparisons, which becomes 5. So, with either movement, the range of values is 6 (0 thru 5 vs 1 thru 6), and the standard deviation rises only slightly: from 1.13 to 1.18. (ACBLscore should calculate that, which it doesn't, but it does present the comparisons in tabular form, which is most of the work.) The work of the arrow switch (and the resulting stress on the players, and on me when I find that the people who screwed up the pickup just left) just doesn't buy enough. Interestingly, putting the second stationary pair also NS produces the lowest standard deviation, 1.04, but it has that hideous outlier value of 9 comparisons between the stationary pairs, and that is uncomfortable from the fairness POV, for me anyway. David Florida USA From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jun 18 18:09:22 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:09:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: <000f01c2f90e$7d217c00$9d1e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <001001c45557$02697d40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Grattan Endicott> > > +=+ I do not agree that any rights are lost. Law 81C6 > applies. What may be lost is the capacity of the Director > to establish some fact, although in the particular set of > circumstances this risk seems minimal - the evidence > being mostly in the cards. As for Law 9B1(a) it refers > to 'an irregularity', not to 'an apparent irregularity'; the > *compulsion* to call the Director arises when you > *know* there is an irregularity, not when you suspect it. Should not the word be "infraction," not "irregularity"? When there is a break in tempo (BIT), for instance, is that not an irregularity, although not an infraction, and therefore subject to L9B1(a) if attention is drawn to it? Then, and only then, when you have "substantial reason to believe" (which can only be "when play ends, or as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed") evidence of an infraction, the Director is summoned (L16B2). As Grattan implies, there is no provision in the Laws for summoning the TD when a "suspicious" action is taken, although that seems to be the custom in ACBL-land, supported by many in the ACBL TD organization (I'm checking on that with Chief Director Rick Beye to be sure). The ACBL's "Election" regarding this matter is garbled in syntax and may have been illegal (L16B2 is not an option with SOs), although doing away with "reserving rights" (a violation of L9B1A, as I see it) was surely correct. With BITs such a big headache in our games over here, just look at the casebooks, we in our La Jolla & Beach unit are trying to reduce the problem in our unit games and sectional championships. First we are separating the players into two games in pair events, one limited to a masterpoint ceiling, the other open to anyone. There will be no more "stratified pairs" that combine the two groups. This is the practice in KOs and Swiss teams, so why not? The higher-level group will be held to stricter standards than the others, viz:. (1) Players are educated as to proper tempo and the provisions of L16A. The STOP card before a skip bid hasn't worked, and besides skip bids are only a small percentage of tempo-sensitive situations. Accordingly, the STOP card is being abolished and players are expected to maintain proper tempo at all times. We hope that this will reduce the number of occasions for (2), which otherwise could take up too much TD time. (2) Whenever there is a BIT in a tempo-sensitive situation, attention should be drawn to it and the TD called. The immediate call is necessary for two reasons [1] it is easier to establish the fact of UI then than at a later time, and [2] the partner receiving UI should be reminded of L16A before taking an action that might be changed in a score adjustment. Forewarned, the partner might achieve a legal result that is better than one a TD or AC would assume ("most unfavorable....") when having to adjust the score. (3) In accordance with L16B2's footnote, the TD is not called again until there is "substantial reason to believe" an infraction has occurred. Calling before then causes hard feelings and is a waste of everyone's time. The TD can do nothing at that time, and more often than not there will have been no infraction. In summary, players are not to ignore a BIT (legal, but unwise) or call the TD when an apparently suspicious action has been taken (illegal, per L16B2). Just as for tempo violators, that sort of thing will result in a strict warning, with a PP or worse for chronic offenders. Those who ignore this policy will indeed be jeopardizing their rights. The TD will be much slower to rule UI when the information is "stale," and much quicker to be lenient toward someone who was not warned about L16A in advance of an action taken. If this policy is mistaken, unwise, or illegal, I would like to hear about it. I hope to recommend the same policy for the ACBL's NABC+ events, but would like BLML's blessing first. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@tameware.com Fri Jun 18 19:08:28 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:08:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:40 PM -0400 6/17/04, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >After receiving permission from Rick Beye I've posted the Reno cases at > > http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/ 1. Steve Willner sent me a PDF file containing all the cases. I've posted it at http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/NABC_Appeals_Reno_2004.pdf 2. I received a suggestion that the auctions should begin with West. It certainly is difficult to follow some of the auctions that begin with N or E, and the ACBL has promised to take care of that next time. 3. I've posted my comments on the Regional cases at http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/Reno_R01-R12_Wildavsky.rtf -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ljtrent@adelphia.net Fri Jun 18 23:36:30 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:36:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] Reno cases posted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>http://bridge.tameware.com/laws/reno2004/NABC_Appeals_Reno_2004.pdf >> >>2. I received a suggestion that the auctions should begin >>with West. >>It certainly is difficult to follow some of the auctions that begin >>with N or E, and the ACBL has promised to take care of that >>next time. >> We have started with West on the left for the last 10 years -- They should make the changes now. Also, it is nice to state who appealed. All of our other formats were whatever Bridge World uses. Linda --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004 From john@asimere.com Fri Jun 18 23:56:59 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] 5.5 tables In-Reply-To: <005001c454ee$759c3e60$536b2452@mikeamos> References: <20040617100004.3775.56357.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1087505360.1627.198655548@webmail.messagingengine.com> <005001c454ee$759c3e60$536b2452@mikeamos> Message-ID: In article <005001c454ee$759c3e60$536b2452@mikeamos>, mamos writes >It is a simple matter to add an extra pair to any Howell so try thinking of >a standsrd 5 table Howell with an extra pair - 27 boards - 9 rounds now so >no problems :) - The extra pair are usually referred to as a rover - >staionary in this case > >Normally this works for me like this - >Round 1 - normal - one Stationary pair sitting out > >Round 2 - Stationary (Rover Pair) replace one Pair in the movement - usually >at the table where Pairs swivel - and now sit there throughout - bumping the >pairs who are sent there - I normally sit this pair EW and dont give a toss >about arrow switches and balance in the normal club game - some smart ass >(probst ??) might tell you what arrow switches you need but truly on a club >game is this a big deal ? the players wont notice -- now no relays and >unless you decide otherewise no arrow switches -- all boards played 5 times >9/11 pairs sit out - you cannot do much better than this :) > >mike the smart ass himself always places the rover at the table where the pivot occurs, and in the seat where you sit for the 2nd round. Then the arriving pair are played against and then told to sit out by the pair at the table. ... and nope I don't muck about with the switches at all. 2A4 8B7 10C1 6D3 9E5 are the starting positions and board sets. On the 2nd round put pair 11 at T2 EW, and tell them to tell their opps they've got a sitout after they've played them and to return to 4NS -- 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 Brenden_Pember@cmpnetmail.com Sun Jun 20 18:47:46 2004 From: Brenden_Pember@cmpnetmail.com (Makell Porth) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:47:46 +0300 Subject: [blml] high quality Message-ID: <20040620164722.0610B2C090@rhubarb.custard.org> I resolved then to husband our strength, so that both sho= uld not be exhausted at the same time; and this is how we managed: while o= ne of us lay on our back, quite still, with arms crossed, and legs stretch= ed out, the other would swim and push the other on in front















No more msgs=

But I had just returned from a fatiguing journey, weary a= nd longing for repose!! "Conseil," said I again, beginning with feverish h= ands to make preparations for my departure!!! After six months in Nebraska= , I arrived in New York towards the end of March, laden with a precious co= llection My departure for France was fixed for the first days in May? I na= turally led up the conversation to the giant unicorn, and examined the var= ious chances of success or failure of the expedition.=20tap From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Jun 21 10:25:20 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:25:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Team Movements Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816B97@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> It is impossible for an even number of team to play without sharing = boards as the number of sets is one less than the number of teams. The best you can do (as has been said) is the Turner movement where only = two tables share boards. You can read about this in "Movements", pages = 298 to 300. You can also have a personal reply from me at hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n - As a player I dislike the Thurner movement particularly with short = rounds, because one poor pair has to share boards throughout the event = while nobody else does. From david.barton@boltblue.com Mon Jun 21 13:21:45 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:21:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Team Movements References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816B97@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000401c4578a$52aeb060$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Thanks for all the responses. Now I understand why it was so difficult to find movements that met my criteria. Plenty to think about before I next run a teams competition. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** From dpb3@fastmail.fm Mon Jun 21 23:42:43 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:42:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] time per round? Message-ID: <1087857763.4396.198892613@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello list, Today I called 4-board rounds at 25 minutes, as I learned to do from Groner, but my edition is from 1967. (It's on p. 26). Has this been superseded? I think I recall rounds at a Regional a few weeks back called at 15 minutes for two boards and 20 for three, but I'm not sure enough to cite that. A couple of the players said rounds should be 7 minutes a board, and there is something to that effect on ACBL's site, but it's in some basic instructional meterial for newbies and I don't know if it's meant to give more than a general idea. Anything concrete will help, pref from ACBL or WBF. TIA. David Florida USA From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 22 01:32:34 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:32:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] time per round? In-Reply-To: <1087857763.4396.198892613@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Monday, Jun 21, 2004, at 18:42 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: > Hello list, > > Today I called 4-board rounds at 25 minutes, as I learned to do from > Groner, but my edition is from 1967. (It's on p. 26). Has this been > superseded? I think I recall rounds at a Regional a few weeks back > called at 15 minutes for two boards and 20 for three, but I'm not sure > enough to cite that. > > A couple of the players said rounds should be 7 minutes a board, > and there is something to that effect on ACBL's site, but it's in some > basic instructional meterial for newbies and I don't know if it's meant > to give more than a general idea. > > Anything concrete will help, pref from ACBL or WBF. I don't think there is anything that gives more than a general idea. I think Harris (Bridge Director's Companion) says 7.5 minutes per board. Haller, et al. suggest that you should try to account for all the things that eat up time - initial setup, shuffling and dealing, scoring and moving between rounds, and so on, add it all up, and see if it fits in the amount of time you have for the event. 7.5 minutes per board X 24 boards (which is the number of boards folks around here like to play) equates to three hours, which is again how *long* folks like to play - but sessions almost always run overtime, and it's been a while since I've seen an assigned late play actually accomplished. Though I'd put it more down to slackness in calling the rounds than anything else, in spite of not explicitly accounting for "overhead" as above. The main thing, IMO, is to establish a standard, and then stick to it. Which means you have to penalize folks for slow play until they get it. You'll probably get some complaints about that, but I think it'll work out better in the long run. One thing that slows things down is doing both pickup slips and travelers throughout the session. It *shouldn't*, but it does. Players like travelers because they can see what everybody else did on the board, but then they sit there and jaw about each one. Directors like pickup slips. Around here, clubs do both because neither side wants to give in. Well, there's one director who does travelers until the last round, then picks those up and folks score the last round on pickup slips. But then, he's often playing as well. Personally, I'm not so sure that's not the best compromise, even without a playing director. PS - this is a player's opinion, albeit one who is studying to be a director. From dpb3@fastmail.fm Tue Jun 22 01:59:54 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:59:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] clarification on time for round Message-ID: <1087865994.16800.198899008@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello all, A list member wrote me privately to ask what exactly I meant when I said "call the round". I meant that I announce that no boards may be started from that point on in that round, with the usual please-try-to-catch-it-up plea. The players get a two-minute advance warning too. Boards missed were played late (three of those), and I no-played one board that would have given one pair a second late play. At the end, I got two "it's about time" kudos vs. two "we felt rushed" dissents. If there's nothing codified (if anyone has answered to the list, sorry, I'm on Digest, so I haven't seen it yet), maybe, as the writer suggested, it is best just to go with the members' reaction. David Florida USA From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 22 02:39:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:39:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno cases posted Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: [snip] >2. I received a suggestion that the auctions >should begin with West. It certainly is >difficult to follow some of the auctions that >begin with N or E, and the ACBL has promised >to take care of that next time. [snip] Richard Hills: Noted. I will amend the unofficial Reno casebooks that I am compiling to ensure that all auctions have West on the left. Places are still available on the unofficial panel for blmlers or lurkers - if interested in joining, please send me a private email. Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Tue Jun 22 08:22:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:22:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] time per round? In-Reply-To: <1087857763.4396.198892613@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000001c45829$bd678cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Babcock .......... > Today I called 4-board rounds at 25 minutes, as I learned to do from > Groner, but my edition is from 1967. (It's on p. 26). Has this been > superseded? I think I recall rounds at a Regional a few weeks back > called at 15 minutes for two boards and 20 for three, but I'm not sure > enough to cite that. >=20 > A couple of the players said rounds should be 7 minutes a board, > and there is something to that effect on ACBL's site, but it's in some > basic instructional meterial for newbies and I don't know if it's = meant > to give more than a general idea. >=20 > Anything concrete will help, pref from ACBL or WBF. I would say that how much time you allocate per round is a matter of = local regulations (if any) and habits within the club(s). It may interest you to learn that here in Norway we have a tradition for allowing 7 minutes per board played plus 2 minutes for the round, so the "standard" time per round (all inclusive) is: 16 minutes for two boards, 23 minutes for three boards, 30 minutes for = four boards and so on. Signal is usually given 5 minutes before the next = round is to be started and on change of round. When there is a need to run strict schedules we use special clocks which count down to show the remaining time for the current round and automatically give the signals programmed.=20 It should be noted that the majority of such events are played as = barometer events so "late play" is simply not possible. Regards Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Jun 22 11:14:10 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:14:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] time per round? Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816BA7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Hello list, Today I called 4-board rounds at 25 minutes, as I learned to do from Groner, but my edition is from 1967. (It's on p. 26). Has this been superseded? I think I recall rounds at a Regional a few weeks back called at 15 minutes for two boards and 20 for three, but I'm not sure enough to cite that. A couple of the players said rounds should be 7 minutes a board, and there is something to that effect on ACBL's site, but it's in some basic instructional meterial for newbies and I don't know if it's meant to give more than a general idea. Anything concrete will help, pref from ACBL or WBF. TIA. David Florida USA ------------------------------- As others have said, it's very much a matter of local custom. It = depends on your players as well - if you have a "novices" evening or similar, = they=20 will need longer than more experienced players. If you are playing a=20 serious event of some form - a club championship, say, you might also want to give slightly longer. Also a Howell or other movement where everybody moves tends to take longer than a Mitchell or similar where only one pair moves, because a late table holds up twice as many pairs. The norm round here is to play for 3 hours (+ 5-10 minutes faffing = around at the start) which usually covers 24 boards in 2 board rounds or 27 in 3 board rounds. The main thing to do is announce the standard at the=20 start and stick to it. As a side note, when I used to direct at one club we were absolutely=20 religious at sticking to time. Why? Because if we hadn't cleared all the tables and chairs away and locked up by 11pm the burglar alarm went off... =20 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jun 22 11:50:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:50:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] time per round? In-Reply-To: <1087857763.4396.198892613@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1087857763.4396.198892613@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: David Babcock wrote >Hello list, > >Today I called 4-board rounds at 25 minutes, as I learned to do from >Groner, but my edition is from 1967. (It's on p. 26). Has this been >superseded? I think I recall rounds at a Regional a few weeks back >called at 15 minutes for two boards and 20 for three, but I'm not sure >enough to cite that. > >A couple of the players said rounds should be 7 minutes a board, >and there is something to that effect on ACBL's site, but it's in some >basic instructional meterial for newbies and I don't know if it's meant >to give more than a general idea. > >Anything concrete will help, pref from ACBL or WBF. I presume this is not a new club, but you are running an existing club? in which case the players will be used to a particular speed, and going a long way away from it in either direction does not seem right. There is no real standard. WBF advice would be no help because you want something in a club. If the ACBL give advice for clubs you cold read it. In tournaments the ACBL runs at about 7.5 minutes per board, perhaps very slightly slower. Many English clubs do the same, but some are notably faster or slower. I suggest you ignore outside advice as to what is right and find out from experience what your players are happiest with. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From MAILER-DAEMON@t0uch.slovenska.sk Tue Jun 22 13:02:44 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@t0uch.slovenska.sk (MAILER-DAEMON@t0uch.slovenska.sk) Date: 22 Jun 2004 12:02:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] failure notice Message-ID: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at t0uch.slovenska.sk. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : Attention, you sent a Virus! It has been blocked, please use a Virus Scanner on your computer. The Virus sent is listed below. Virus Name: W32/Netsky.d.eml!exe User Rejected Message (#5.1.1) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63962 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2004 12:02:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO slovenska.sk) (82.33.168.232) by miriam.slovenska.sk with SMTP; 22 Jun 2004 12:02:34 -0000 From: blml@rtflb.org To: spravca@slovenska.sk Subject: Re: Re: Message Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:03:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_00004630.000078F1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00004630.000078F1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the file. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00004630.000078F1 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="message_details.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="message_details.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0004_00004630.000078F1-- From dpb3@fastmail.fm Tue Jun 22 13:13:17 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:13:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round In-Reply-To: <20040622100004.12855.83616.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040622100004.12855.83616.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1087906397.10281.198927670@webmail.messagingengine.com> Ed, > 7.5 minutes per board X 24 boards (which is the number of boards folks > around here like to play) equates to three hours, which is again how > *long* folks like to play - but sessions almost always run overtime That's what we have to address as directors. If there is some fixed time for last-minute movement changes as the pair that lives two blocks away comes tearing in at 12:59:59, shuffling, getting the bidding box exactly in its lucky position, and perhaps fixed hospitality breaks later -- if you have round calls at set times, the only thing can can make the game run late is late plays, and then only for the few. The lates hit some of the innocents, but so be it: better than *everyone* paying the price. I'm not sure of much here, but I am pretty sure that trying to set a fixed time, be it 25 or 28 minutes or whatever, is better than calling the round when X tables are finished. I did that the week before. Never again. The draggers drag even more. > and it's been a while since I've seen an assigned late play actually > accomplished. We got them done yesterday, and with no grumbling, except a bit from the innocent pair who had to wait for their opponents who were (predictably) late for their late play, but their frustration was aimed at the turtles, not me. > Which means you have to penalize folks for slow play until they get it. If you mean lates, yes. I'm not near ready to think of PPs here yet, and the reaction yesterday makes me think nothing like that will be necessary. > One thing that slows things down is doing both pickup slips and > travelers throughout the session. It *shouldn't*, but it does. Players > like travelers because they can see what everybody else did on the > board, but then they sit there and jaw about each one. Directors like > pickup slips. Around here, clubs do both because neither side wants to > give in. We do both because we run a leader board on the wall starting after three rounds to take advantage of ACBLscore's ability to show the leaders at any point. People love that. And they love their travelers, and, yes, they jaw. But ultimately, the club is for them, not me, and the attendance as time goes on will tell more than anything else. David From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jun 22 13:17:53 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:17:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] time per round? In-Reply-To: <1087857763.4396.198892613@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1087857763.4396.198892613@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040622080611.02a7c820@pop.starpower.net> At 06:42 PM 6/21/04, David wrote: >Today I called 4-board rounds at 25 minutes, as I learned to do from >Groner, but my edition is from 1967. (It's on p. 26). Has this been >superseded? I think I recall rounds at a Regional a few weeks back >called at 15 minutes for two boards and 20 for three, but I'm not sure >enough to cite that. > >A couple of the players said rounds should be 7 minutes a board, >and there is something to that effect on ACBL's site, but it's in some >basic instructional meterial for newbies and I don't know if it's meant >to give more than a general idea. > >Anything concrete will help, pref from ACBL or WBF. There's no "should"; you (in consultation, one hopes, with your players) may choose to make the rounds whatever length you're comfortable with. Around here the usual time for a round is 1+7n (where n is the number of rounds, so 15 minutes for two boards, 22 minutes for three, 50 minutes for a seven-board Swiss match, etc.) for "regular" games (a bit too long, IMHO), 1+5n for "fast" games. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Tue Jun 22 14:02:33 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:02:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round? In-Reply-To: <20040622120402.18242.58828.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040622120402.18242.58828.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1087909353.21731.198930100@webmail.messagingengine.com> David and list, > I presume this is not a new club, but you are running an existing > club? in which case the players will be used to a particular speed, and > going a long way away from it in either direction does not seem right. Yes, I am running a game for someone else who is on vacation, and now the club is setting up a new game for me to run too. Two of the existing directors did a great job in walking me through the details, and it wasn't until I was on the job that I realized that neither had said anything about the round calls!! > If the ACBL give advice for clubs you could > read it. ACBL says in "The ACBL Club Directors Handbook" (rev. winter 2004): "The goal in a successful open game is to play 24 to 28 boards in 3 1/2 hours". There is no more detail. If this means that players in a 1:00 game should expect to be putting their coats on by 4:30--the book also says "players want to know that they have committed a certain amount of time to a game. They may have errands to run...or need to get home...", so I tend to think it does mean that--well, 7.5 minutes a board allows *no* set-up time nor late plays (for 28 boards), and 7 minutes is really tight. We were done at 4:20 yesterday on 4 in 25 (with set-up and lates). Add three minutes a round and we're past 3 1/2 hours. > In tournaments the ACBL runs at about 7.5 minutes per board, perhaps > very slightly slower. For two-board rounds. The call for three-board rounds at the last Regional here was either 20 or 21 minutes. I agree on preferring local experience to outside advice, and my post was based on the belief that this was about a rule that I figured had to exist somewhere, which would, of course, take precedence. Well, no such exists, apparently. So be it. Thanks, all, for the input. David From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 22 15:34:25 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:34:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round In-Reply-To: <1087906397.10281.198927670@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <42635789-C459-11D8-BB98-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jun 22, 2004, at 08:13 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: > But ultimately, the club is for them, not me, and > the attendance as time goes on will tell more than anything else. Too true. :-) I will partially recant, and say that travelers are probably less a problem *if* you call the round on time, and make sure everybody moves when you do. From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 22 15:51:03 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:51:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: time per round? In-Reply-To: <20040622100004.12855.83616.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000001c45868$57ab3e60$6528fea9@Picasso> David Babcock wrote: > Today I called 4-board rounds at 25 minutes, as I learned to do from > Groner, but my edition is from 1967. (It's on p. 26). Has this been > superseded? I think I recall rounds at a Regional a few weeks back > called at 15 minutes for two boards and 20 for three, but I'm not sure > enough to cite that. > > A couple of the players said rounds should be 7 minutes a board, > and there is something to that effect on ACBL's site, but it's in some > basic instructional meterial for newbies and I don't know if it's meant > to give more than a general idea. > > Anything concrete will help, pref from ACBL or WBF. If you check your Handbook, you'll see (somewhere in there) that the recommended times are 15, 21, and 27 minutes per round, for 2, 3, and 4 boards respectively. Though players think this equates to 7 minutes per board, it doesn't; inspection shows (but the Handbook does not state) that the formula is 6 minutes per board plus three minutes per round. Incidentally, among ACBL TDs I worked with it was common practice to "call the round" when the clock read two minutes left; after this point players are not permitted to start a new board. Allowing new boards to be started later this is very problematic in a matchpoint tournament; I have employed the rule in club play with some success as well. As others have noted, you are allowed as a club director to call the rounds whenever you want. The ACBL guidelines are decent, if a little fast for many club players. Doug Couchman Arlington, TX From john@asimere.com Tue Jun 22 16:12:38 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:12:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] time per round? In-Reply-To: References: <1087857763.4396.198892613@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes > >On Monday, Jun 21, 2004, at 18:42 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: > >> Hello list, >> >> Today I called 4-board rounds at 25 minutes, as I learned to do from >> Groner, but my edition is from 1967. (It's on p. 26). Has this been >> superseded? I think I recall rounds at a Regional a few weeks back >> called at 15 minutes for two boards and 20 for three, but I'm not sure >> enough to cite that. If you really can get the great unwashed to play 2 boards in 15 minutes then your moves for 3 and four board rounds are not unreasonable. I do 15 for 2, 22 for 3 and 28 for 4, but I have to lean on the b*****ds. cheers John >> >> A couple of the players said rounds should be 7 minutes a board, >> and there is something to that effect on ACBL's site, but it's in some >> basic instructional meterial for newbies and I don't know if it's meant >> to give more than a general idea. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jun 22 16:20:11 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:20:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round In-Reply-To: <1087906397.10281.198927670@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20040622100004.12855.83616.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1087906397.10281.198927670@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <5JQfeEBr4E2AFwNi@asimere.com> In article <1087906397.10281.198927670@webmail.messagingengine.com>, David Babcock writes >Ed, > snip > >> One thing that slows things down is doing both pickup slips and >> travelers throughout the session. It *shouldn't*, but it does. Players >> like travelers because they can see what everybody else did on the >> board, but then they sit there and jaw about each one. Directors like >> pickup slips. Around here, clubs do both because neither side wants to >> give in. > >We do both because we run a leader board on the wall starting after >three rounds to take advantage of ACBLscore's ability to show the >leaders at any point. People love that. And they love their travelers, >and, yes, they jaw. But ultimately, the club is for them, not me, and >the attendance as time goes on will tell more than anything else. > if you approach your club in this way David, you'll close all the others in the area, given time :) Good Luck. John >David > > >_______________________________________________ >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 TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Tue Jun 22 22:33:59 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:33:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml Message-ID: We long-winded, ignorant cranks, whether angry or would-be humorous, are not offended by Richard's ditty. We sense his real attitude toward us; we feel the love. Jim Hudson >>> 6/16/2004 6:35:11 PM >>> 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 blml offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list - he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed. There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, They never would be missed - they never would be missed! Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still SOs will spank; And that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist - I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Tue Jun 22 22:53:12 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:53:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: >>> "Raija Davis" 6/13/2004 11:29:17 AM >>> [snipped a lot] I don't believe the practice of assigning PP is illegal. The TD can assign a PP for whatever he feels is justified. [snip] PP should IMO be mandatory if any damage. -------------------- In the case under discussion there was no damage. If there is damage, it can be dealt with through score adjustment; no PP is needed. TDs are not to hand out PPs ad libitum. They may thus penalize sufficiently disruptive behavior; but forgets (if they're not too frequent) do not qualify: they are just part of the game. A TD who imposes a PP merely for a single instance of forgetting is acting extra-legally. Jim Hudson _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jun 23 01:41:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:41:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote > > >>>> "Raija Davis" 6/13/2004 11:29:17 AM >>> > >[snipped a lot] > >I don't believe the practice of assigning PP is illegal. The TD can >assign a >PP for whatever he feels is justified. > >[snip] > >PP should IMO be mandatory if any damage. > >-------------------- > >In the case under discussion there was no damage. If there is damage, >it can be dealt with through score adjustment; no PP is needed. > >TDs are not to hand out PPs ad libitum. They may thus penalize >sufficiently disruptive behavior; but forgets (if they're not too >frequent) do not qualify: they are just part of the game. A TD who >imposes a PP merely for a single instance of forgetting is acting >extra-legally. No, Jim, he is acting without commonsense, sensibility, or judgement: but he is within the Law. The Law gives him the right [subject to appeal] to decide what offences deserve a PP. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 23 07:38:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:38:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] NS should take a break. Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >>Seriously, I don't recall a case on BLML where >>there was a difference of opinion as to the >>meaning of a Law because the wording has a >>different connotation to the English than it >>does to Americans. [snip] Law 81C8: >The Director's duties and powers normally >include the following: to waive penalties for >cause, at his discretion, upon the request of >the non-offending side. Richard Hills: The phrase "for cause" has a particular meaning in American legal parlance, and is an obsolete construction in the Australian language. Law 81C8 has been the topic of blml discussion in previous threads, with many blmlers ignoring what Edgar Kaplan believed was a significant constraint on TD powers, due to the modifying phrase "for cause". Best wishes RJH From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Jun 23 15:56:14 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:56:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round? In-Reply-To: <20040623100003.21745.46759.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040623100003.21745.46759.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1088002574.22766.199019473@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hi Doug and list, > From: "Doug Couchman" > If you check your Handbook, you'll see (somewhere in there) that the > recommended times are 15, 21, and 27 minutes per round, for 2, 3, and 4 > boards respectively. I've just skimmed the Handbook and I just cannot find that. Can someone help? My edition is rev. Summer 2003 and Winter 2004. > Though players think this equates to 7 minutes per > board That belief may come from their being *really* bad at arithmetic, or perhaps more likely from the Handbook subsection "Recommended Bridge Game Movements" (p. 22 in my edition) which gives 7 minutes per board and 6 minutes per board as possibilities. It is, I believe, the first mention of actual time controls in the book. It takes reading a minute to realize that this subsection is in the wrong place, as it is discussing two-hour games with 15-18 boards, but people hearing "7 minutes" from over-enthusiastic friends would have no way to know this. > Incidentally, among ACBL TDs I worked with it was common practice to > "call > the round" when the clock read two minutes left; after this point > players > are not permitted to start a new board. A 27-minute round with that addition comes out to 25 minutes to start (just what they had Monday)--with two more nminutes to play. That *is* 14 minutes more though, in total, and it may come down to whether that pushes the ending time too close to rush hour. One might offset this by having no late plays, of course. Ah me. Compound squeezes are so simple by comparision. David Florida USA From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jun 23 17:10:43 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:10:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: >>> David Stevenson 6/22/2004 7:41:00 PM Jim Hudson wrote: >A TD who >imposes a PP merely for a single instance of forgetting is acting >extra-legally. No, Jim, he is acting without commonsense, sensibility, or judgement: but he is within the Law. The Law gives him the right [subject to appeal] to decide what offences deserve a PP. ------------- Admittedly, Law 90 A (with the vague phrase "violates correct procedure") seems to bear this interpretation. But Law 90 B creates a contrary impression. Forgetting one's agreements is much more common than any of the offenses listed in 90 B; if the lawmakers had wanted to empower the Director to impose a PP for mere forgetting they surely would have mentioned it here. Their failure to do so is strong evidence that they did not intend to give the Director this power. Jim Hudson From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 23 22:05:00 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:05:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jun 23, 2004, at 12:10 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > Forgetting one's agreements is much more common > than any of the offenses listed in 90 B; if the lawmakers had wanted to > empower the Director to impose a PP for mere forgetting they surely > would have mentioned it here. Their failure to do so is strong > evidence > that they did not intend to give the Director this power. I would say that the phrase "include but are not limited to" is strong evidence that your assumption they would have included that particular offense may not be valid. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 23 22:11:17 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:11:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round? In-Reply-To: <1088002574.22766.199019473@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jun 23, 2004, at 10:56 US/Eastern, David Babcock wrote: >> Incidentally, among ACBL TDs I worked with it was common practice to >> "call the round" when the clock read two minutes left; after this >> point >> players are not permitted to start a new board. > > A 27-minute round with that addition comes out to 25 minutes to start > (just what they had Monday)--with two more nminutes to play. That *is* > 14 minutes more though, in total, and it may come down to whether > that pushes the ending time too close to rush hour. One might offset > this by having no late plays, of course. I think what he meant was either (a) give a 2 minute warning before the actual end of the round, prohibiting starting a new board after that or (b) allow 25 minutes per round, but then call it at 23 minutes. Hard to say, though. :-) Personally, I think a 2 minute (maybe more) warning is a good idea. And the prohibition on starting a new board should be enforced. I've seen players rush to start a new board *after* the round has been called and say, in effect, "maybe she won't catch us". That sucks. I've also seen TDs fail to call the round at all. Instead, a few minutes later, you'd hear "you should have all moved already". That sucks too. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 24 00:25:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:25:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >>>> David Stevenson 6/22/2004 7:41:00 PM > >Jim Hudson wrote: > >>A TD who >>imposes a PP merely for a single instance of forgetting is acting >>extra-legally. > > No, Jim, he is acting without commonsense, sensibility, or >judgement: >but he is within the Law. The Law gives him the right [subject to >appeal] to decide what offences deserve a PP. > > >------------- > >Admittedly, Law 90 A (with the vague phrase "violates correct >procedure") seems to bear this interpretation. But Law 90 B creates a >contrary impression. Forgetting one's agreements is much more common >than any of the offenses listed in 90 B; if the lawmakers had wanted to >empower the Director to impose a PP for mere forgetting they surely >would have mentioned it here. Their failure to do so is strong evidence >that they did not intend to give the Director this power. L90B clearly says "are not limited to". So you cannot use L90B to say something is not permitted for a TD to give a PP. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 24 01:00:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:00:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: > L90B clearly says "are not limited to". > > So you cannot use L90B to say something is >not permitted for a TD to give a PP. Richard Hills quibbles: Law 90A uses the phrase "assess penalties for any offence", and Law 90B uses the phrase "Offences subject to penalty". In my opinion, forgetting your system is not an *offence*, only misexplaining your system is a Law 75 *offence*. Therefore, in my opinion, a mere forgetting of your system (without a consequent misexplaining of your system) causes me to say that for that it "is not permitted for a TD to give a PP". Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 24 01:17:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:17:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno Casebook Message-ID: David Stevenson asserted: [snip] >You ask a Flt A player, and he considers, >and answers on the basis of his experience [snip] >Alternatively you ask a Flt C player. ..... >Second, he is less accustomed to answering >questions in this way, and his answer will >be biased: he will not necessarily answer >what he would do, but what he thinks you >want to hear. [snip] Richard Hills notes: I disagree with the elitist notion that Flt C players are biased, but Flt A players are unbiased. In my opinion, *all* players and TDs bring their prejudgments to any issue. This is one reason why ideally there are multiple persons on an Appeals Committee, so that there is a possibility that individual prejudgments will cancel each other out. I note that the earlier Groundhog Hog thread revealed that two Flt A TDs took an opposite view of the same judgmental determination of "demonstrably suggested", when I deviously tweaked the context in order to engage differing prejudices. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 24 01:35:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:35:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unofficial Reno Casebook Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Perhaps this happens because if one >puts such questions to players of >the appropriate class, one is likely >to get tentative and uncertain >answers. Ask an expert and you may >not get the right answer, but you're >almost sure to get a definitively >stated one. Richard Hills: A stopped clock gives a definitive time of day, and is definitively correct twice every 24 hours. My digital watch gives a tentative and uncertain answer on the correct time, as I made an error of about plus or minus 60 seconds when I set my digital watch. Therefore, a definitive expert opinion on what a bunny might do may be less useful than a tentative bunny opinion on what a bunny might do. :-) Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jun 24 01:56:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:56:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? References: <172CDA00-B5F6-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <01aa01c45986$7b67b3a0$209868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Richard James Hills] > If an opponent technically infracts Law 75 by misexplaining, > but the merely nominal infraction of Law 75 does not damage > my non-offending side, then I do not waste the TD's time by > drawing attention to this innocuous irregularity. > {Ed Reppert] > Nor do I. OTOH, there are times when I'm not sure if we've > been damaged, and then I *will* call the TD. I suspect those > times occur more often for me than for Richard. :-) {Nigel] Are such aguments really relevant to MI cases. Eesecially those like the case under discussion -- of (suspected) inaccurate or incomplete CCs? Even if you have not been damaged and it is in your selfish interest that the "offending" pair get (allegedly) unfair results against subsequent pairs (teams) -- I don't understand why "the field must protect itself -- in this or future events. I know BLML has reached a consensus on this many times before; the reasoning seems to make sense to law-makers and TDs but it puzzles many of us ordinary players. --- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 24 02:56:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:56:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Netiquette on blml Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, >> And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still SOs will spank; [snip] Jim Hudson: >We long-winded, ignorant cranks, whether angry or would-be >humorous, are not offended by Richard's ditty. We sense his real >attitude toward us; we feel the love. Richard Hills: While I accept Jim's assertion that he joins me at the high end of the weirdo scale, I must dispute Jim's argument that he writes rubbish as a crank. Alas, I dolorously believe that Jim's postings are well-reasoned and on-topic. Sorry about that Jim. Instead, I believe that this alternative verse might cause less offence -> SIR RICHARD. When I was a lad I served a spell As caddy to a Summer Nationell. I sorted the cards and I swept the floor, And I carried all the tables through the big front door. CHORUS. He carried all the tables through the big front door. SIR RICHARD. I carried all the tables so carefullee, That now I am the Ruler of a committee! CHORUS. He carried all the tables so carefullee, That now he is the Ruler of a committee! SIR RICHARD. In junior bridge I made such a mark That they gave me the post of a TD's clerk. I ruled the game with a smile so bland, And I copied all the results in a big round hand. CHORUS. He copied all the results in a big round hand. SIR RICHARD. I copied all the results in a hand so free, That now I am the Ruler of a committee! CHORUS. He copied all the results in a hand so free, That now he is the Ruler of a committee! SIR RICHARD. In walk-in games I made such a name That an Interstate rep I soon became; I wrote conventions on my new CC For vicious competition at the ANC. CHORUS. For the vicious competition at the ANC. SIR RICHARD. That vicious competition did so well for me, That now I am the Ruler of a committee! CHORUS. That vicious competition did so well for he, That now he is the Ruler of a committee! SIR RICHARD. Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip That they took me into a Directorship. And that junior Directing, I ween, Was the sole direction I ever had seen. CHORUS. Was the sole direction he ever had seen. SIR RICHARD. But that direction so suited me, That now I am the Ruler of a committee! CHORUS. But that direction so suited he, That now he is the Ruler of a committee! SIR RICHARD. I played so weird that I would gain Selection to be a NON-playing captain. I always captained at my team-mates' call, And I never thought of thinking for myself at all. CHORUS. He never thought of thinking for himself at all. SIR RICHARD. I thought so little, they rewarded me By making me the Ruler of a committee! CHORUS. He thought so little, they rewarded he By making him the Ruler of a committee! SIR RICHARD. Now bridgeurs all, whoever you may be, If you want to rise to the top of the tree, If your soul isn't fettered to a bunny's stool, Be careful to be guided by this golden rule. CHORUS. Be careful to be guided by this golden rule. SIR RICHARD. Ignore playing well, but try bureaucracy, And you all may be Rulers of a committee! CHORUS. Ignore playing well, but try bureaucracy, And you all may be Rulers of a committee! Best wishes Richard Hills President, Bridge Federation of the ACT From walt1@verizon.net Thu Jun 24 02:59:57 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:59:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] RE: time per round? In-Reply-To: <000001c45868$57ab3e60$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <20040622100004.12855.83616.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <000001c45868$57ab3e60$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040623215114.036ea0a0@incoming.verizon.net> At 10:51 AM 22/06/2004, Doug Couchman wrote: >If you check your Handbook, you'll see (somewhere in there) that the >recommended times are 15, 21, and 27 minutes per round, for 2, 3, and 4 >boards respectively. Though players think this equates to 7 minutes per >board, it doesn't; inspection shows (but the Handbook does not state) that >the formula is 6 minutes per board plus three minutes per round. Doug The six minutes a board is very interesting. I ran and directed clubs for several years and knew the 15, 21 and 27 minutes per round by heart (they were small clubs and any of those was liable to happen) but I am chagrined as a "numbers person" to say that I had not noticed the formula you came up. For me, it was just "about 7 minutes a round", more boards got the time per board adjusted down. Your formula not only is accurate but makes a lot of sense. It builds in a little time for talking, moving, grabbing a snack, waiting for the next table to open up, et cetera. Walt From walt1@verizon.net Thu Jun 24 03:13:56 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:13:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round? In-Reply-To: References: <1088002574.22766.199019473@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040623220136.036eb590@incoming.verizon.net> At 05:11 PM 23/06/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: ... give a 2 minute warning before the actual end of the round ... As a player, I am strongly in favor of both: 1. the 2 minute warning 2. a countdown clock giving the time remaining in the round With the two of these I believe the players can much more easily adjust their playing times to the desired speed. Even for the players who are not slow there is occasionally a round with a tough board or two when it would be nice to be able to easily check the round time; for slow players who are trying to keep up the round clock is a great help. Since players may not be watching the clock at any given point, I think the two minute warning (with the announcement "no more boards are to be started") is still called for. These are separate issues from the length of the round. I agree that the preferences of the players need to be kept in mind. In my experience this was not all that easy. We had a bimodal distribution: some wanted to play a round less so that they would not be rushed, others wanted to get their 27-28 boards in. Walt From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jun 24 03:43:48 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:43:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? References: <172CDA00-B5F6-11D8-9F81-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <0b7a01c459a4$7a996b80$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > {Ron Johnson] > I personally believe that you've given a good faith version > of your side of the situation. I just don't believe it's > accurate [SNIP] > Nigel, we've been over these grounds before. Instead of this > kind of whining [about chauvinist subjective sophisticated > laws], if you feel you have a constructive suggestion > to make, do so. [Nigel] My posts to BLML embody dozens of such suggestions; but what one person intends to be constructive may be judged to be whining by another. Just as what is intended as plain speaking by one person may be judged impertinent by another. "Sto pro veritate" --- 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 Thu Jun 24 04:24:56 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 04:24:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: A question from an exam References: Message-ID: <0b7b01c459a4$7f367340$039468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Konrad's legal expositions are lucid and fair. He would be an asset to WBFLC. Having read the arguments, I agree that the correct ruling is one down. If this is not in accord with the law, then the law needs to be changed. Bridge should reward expertise at the table rather than test the play skills of the TD or AC. An expert always checks more carefully before making a claim than he would before embarking on actual play. If he realizes its necessity, no rational expert fails to mention a squeeze in a claim. It isn't a question of deciding between a diamond finesse and a squeeze. If you believe that you have 13 top tricks, it's perfectly rational (for an expert or anybody else) to cash them in any feasible order. For example, you might cash your diamond tops *before* realizing your miscount. If opponents dispute your rash claim, you don't have to be an expert to refine your line. But if you are to get away with it, you must be careful in your choice of TD. Don't worry too much about the AC: unless opponents are in contention, it may never get that far. --- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 24 05:46:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:46:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard (was A new one) Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>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. [snip] David Stevenson: >Good gracious! Where were you when this was discussed >so many times? [snip] Richard Hills: I abase myself for defying the Law of blml, due to my sacrilegious unsubscribing whenever I have a happy holiday. :-) But what of other average club TDs (not merely me), whom must carefully interpret a single absence of the word "artificial" from the phrase "adjusted score" in the wording of Law 82C? Law 82C is yet another example of the love affair Edgar Kaplan had with over-succinct terseness. This terse flaw in Law 82C has been implicitly acknowledged by the WBF LC, given that post-Kaplan they have now issued a clarifying interpretation. Of course, the other average club TDs have to look at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard" in order to discover the existence of this clarifying interpretation. Alternatively, these other average club TDs can retain their subscription to blml, then carefully read 500+ blml posts when they return from a fortnight's holiday. Or..... In its 2006 Laws, the WBF could copy FIDE, and include *all* of its official interpretations of Law *within* the fabulous Lawbook. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 24 06:07:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:07:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >My posts to BLML embody dozens of such suggestions; but >what one person intends to be constructive may be judged >to be whining by another. Just as what is intended as plain >speaking by one person may be judged impertinent by another. > >"Sto pro veritate" Richard Hills: Everyone, including myself, has personal biases. However, a lengthy series of postings over a period of time reveals the characteristic biases of a poster to blml observers. "Res ipsa loquitur" Best wishes RJH From dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 24 06:41:35 2004 From: dougcouchman@sbcglobal.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:41:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: time per round In-Reply-To: <20040624045002.6030.93372.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <000701c459ad$e9e575c0$6528fea9@Picasso> Ed Reppert speculated: > >> Incidentally, among ACBL TDs I worked with it was common practice to > >> "call the round" when the clock read two minutes left; after this > >> point > >> players are not permitted to start a new board. .... > I think what he meant was either (a) give a 2 minute warning before the > actual end of the round, prohibiting starting a new board after that or > (b) allow 25 minutes per round, but then call it at 23 minutes. Hard to > say, though. :-) That's what I meant. We set the clock for (say) fifteen minutes for a two-board round; when the clock ticks over to "2," the round gets called and no more boards may be started, but players aren't actually expected to move until two minutes later. The clocks that are usually used here give an audible warning at two minutes; I don't know whether this is cause, effect, or unrelated. A two-board movement therefore takes, in theory, three hours and twenty five minutes: 13 x 15, plus two five-minute "hospitality" breaks." But two things make this inexact: (1) the round never starts on time, ever (hell, people expect to buy entries ten minutes after game time); and (2) many directors will actually remove a minute or two from the clock in the middle of some or all of the rounds (watch for it next time you're at a tournament). A four-table Howell should take 7 x 27 (no breaks are necessary when the rounds are long), for a total of three hours and nine minutes, but 3:20 seems more like it in club play. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 24 07:05:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:05:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Really call the TD? Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>If an opponent technically infracts Law 75 by misexplaining, >>>but the merely nominal infraction of Law 75 does not damage >>>my non-offending side, then I do not waste the TD's time by >>>drawing attention to this innocuous irregularity. Ed Reppert: >>Nor do I. OTOH, there are times when I'm not sure if we've >>been damaged, and then I *will* call the TD. I suspect those >>times occur more often for me than for Richard. :-) Nigel Guthrie: >Are such arguments really relevant to MI cases. Especially >those like the case under discussion -- of (suspected) >inaccurate or incomplete CCs? Richard Hills: There is a useful and practical distinction to be drawn between infractions which damage the NOS, and infractions which do not damage the NOS. If all non-damaging trivial irregularities were drawn to the attention of TDs, then SOs would be bankrupted by the extra cost of additional TDs who were needed for the resolution of frivolous director calls. Nigel Guthrie: >Even if you have not been damaged and it is in your selfish >interest that the "offending" pair get (allegedly) unfair >results against subsequent pairs (teams) -- I don't understand >why "the field must protect itself" Richard Hills: What's the problem? It is easy for the field to protect itself against an incompetent bunny who is unaware of the technical details of convention card completion. Contrariwise, it is not useful for a self-appointed Secretary Bird to heavy that bunny, then call the TD after the bunny is provoked into saying, "Shut up!" [snip] Nigel Guthrie: >it puzzles many of us ordinary players. Richard Hills: You underestimate your own qualities, Nigel. You are not merely ordinary, rather you are so way cool that you have been immortalised in a list. Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 24 12:02:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:02:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> L90B clearly says "are not limited to". >> >> So you cannot use L90B to say something is >>not permitted for a TD to give a PP. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Law 90A uses the phrase "assess penalties for >any offence", and Law 90B uses the phrase >"Offences subject to penalty". > >In my opinion, forgetting your system is not >an *offence*, only misexplaining your system is >a Law 75 *offence*. Who made it your decision? >Therefore, in my opinion, a mere forgetting of >your system (without a consequent misexplaining >of your system) causes me to say that for that >it "is not permitted for a TD to give a PP". In other words, you are saying that RJH is more correct than the TD. I do not buy it. If the TD says "The offence is ..." I do not think that a National Authority would accept "It is not an offence: RJH says not" makes it illegal to give a PP. The TD makes the determination of what is an offence, no doubt deciding on the wording of L90A. So if a player inconveniences other players through his lack of something, he is perfectly entitled to decide it is an offence. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 24 12:07:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:07:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: time per round In-Reply-To: <000701c459ad$e9e575c0$6528fea9@Picasso> References: <20040624045002.6030.93372.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <000701c459ad$e9e575c0$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: Doug Couchman wrote >Ed Reppert speculated: > >> >> Incidentally, among ACBL TDs I worked with it was common practice to >> >> "call the round" when the clock read two minutes left; after this >> >> point >> >> players are not permitted to start a new board. >.... >> I think what he meant was either (a) give a 2 minute warning before the >> actual end of the round, prohibiting starting a new board after that or >> (b) allow 25 minutes per round, but then call it at 23 minutes. Hard to >> say, though. :-) > >That's what I meant. We set the clock for (say) fifteen minutes for a >two-board round; when the clock ticks over to "2," the round gets called and >no more boards may be started, but players aren't actually expected to move >until two minutes later. > >The clocks that are usually used here give an audible warning at two >minutes; I don't know whether this is cause, effect, or unrelated. Clocks made in England are fully programmable, so the audible warning can be made any number of half-minutes from 0 to 7.5. Furthermore, there is a travel time between rounds - also programmable - so best is to have a warning, then the end of the round when people move, but another half-minute or minute until the next round starts. >A two-board movement therefore takes, in theory, three hours and twenty five >minutes: 13 x 15, plus two five-minute "hospitality" breaks." But two >things make this inexact: (1) the round never starts on time, ever (hell, >people expect to buy entries ten minutes after game time); and (2) many >directors will actually remove a minute or two from the clock in the middle >of some or all of the rounds (watch for it next time you're at a >tournament). Generally if you want to run things to time pressure should be applied to make sure rounds do start on time - that makes travel time useful. >A four-table Howell should take 7 x 27 (no breaks are necessary when the >rounds are long), for a total of three hours and nine minutes, but 3:20 >seems more like it in club play. It depends on the club. Some are notably faster than others. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 24 12:13:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:13:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard (was A new one) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >But what of other average club TDs (not merely me), whom >must carefully interpret a single absence of the word >"artificial" from the phrase "adjusted score" in the >wording of Law 82C? Why 'whom'? :)) The average club TD does not have the problem of BLML to deal with. therefore, he deduces *nothing* from an absence he knows nothing about. Since it does not say an artificial adjusted score he does not assume it means an artificial adjusted score. Or, to make my point in a somewhat clearer fashion, RJH might just as well have written: >But what of other average club TDs (not merely me), whom >must carefully interpret a single absence of the word >"assigned" from the phrase "adjusted score" in the >wording of Law 82C? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jun 24 12:30:26 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:30:26 +1200 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c459de$a544fc70$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, 24 June 2004 11:03 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... > > > RJH wrote > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> L90B clearly says "are not limited to". > >> > >> So you cannot use L90B to say something is > >>not permitted for a TD to give a PP. > > > >Richard Hills quibbles: > > > >Law 90A uses the phrase "assess penalties for > >any offence", and Law 90B uses the phrase > >"Offences subject to penalty". > > > >In my opinion, forgetting your system is not > >an *offence*, only misexplaining your system is > >a Law 75 *offence*. > > Who made it your decision? > > >Therefore, in my opinion, a mere forgetting of > >your system (without a consequent misexplaining > >of your system) causes me to say that for that > >it "is not permitted for a TD to give a PP". > > In other words, you are saying that RJH is more correct > than the TD. > > I do not buy it. If the TD says "The offence is ..." I do > not think > that a National Authority would accept "It is not an offence: > RJH says > not" makes it illegal to give a PP. > > The TD makes the determination of what is an offence, no doubt > deciding on the wording of L90A. So if a player inconveniences other > players through his lack of something, he is perfectly entitled to > decide it is an offence. Maybe a conceited arrogant TD is so entitled. I am afraid I find this nonsense and offensive. Some poor souls forget their system and you want to defend penalizing them on top of their expectation of poor scores. 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jun 24 13:14:17 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:14:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: <000801c459de$a544fc70$0401010a@Desktop> References: <000801c459de$a544fc70$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <03DB3A14-C5D8-11D8-9D3E-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 24 Jun 2004, at 12:30, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I am afraid I find this nonsense and offensive. Some poor souls forget > their system and you want to defend penalizing them on top of their > expectation of poor scores. Since he said earlier in the thread, of a director who wished to issue a PP for forgetting the system, "he is acting without commonsense, sensibility, or judgement: but he is within the Law. The Law gives him the right [subject to appeal] to decide what offences deserve a PP", I think it's a bit rich to accuse David of wanting to defend penalising them. He's actually criticised wanting to penalise them, but has merely argued that the Laws don't specifically prevent it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jun 24 13:16:44 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:16:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round? In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040623220136.036eb590@incoming.verizon.net> References: <1088002574.22766.199019473@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.1.0.6.0.20040623220136.036eb590@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624080945.02b7b5d0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:13 PM 6/23/04, Walt wrote: >As a player, I am strongly in favor of both: > > 1. the 2 minute warning > 2. a countdown clock giving the time remaining in the round > >With the two of these I believe the players can much more easily >adjust their playing times to the desired speed. Even for the players >who are not slow there is occasionally a round with a tough board or >two when it would be nice to be able to easily check the round time; >for slow players who are trying to keep up the round clock is a great >help. Since players may not be watching the clock at any given point, >I think the two minute warning (with the announcement "no more boards >are to be started") is still called for. > >These are separate issues from the length of the round. I agree that >the preferences of the players need to be kept in mind. In my >experience this was not all that easy. We had a bimodal distribution: >some wanted to play a round less so that they would not be rushed, >others wanted to get their 27-28 boards in. In my area, players are spoiled to expect clocks at every game regardless of level. We have discovered that the major benefit isn't so much preventing delays by slow players, who will be slow no matter what, as preventing delays by normal-speed players, who, when they finish a round, can tell at once whether they have time to go out for a cigarette, fetch coffee, or whatever, and will refrain from doing so if they can see that they will not return in time for the start of the next round. That suggests that in the absense of clocks, something like a five-minute warning might be useful in addition to the usual one- or two-minute warning. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 24 13:51:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:51:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3FB0C068-C5DD-11D8-BB08-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jun 24, 2004, at 07:02 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > The TD makes the determination of what is an offence, no doubt > deciding on the wording of L90A. So if a player inconveniences other > players through his lack of something, he is perfectly entitled to > decide it is an offence. This sounds an awful lot like what one of the club TDs around here said to me once: "I can make any ruling I want." If that's true, we don't need such a long list of Laws. That one will do. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 24 13:55:05 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:55:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624080945.02b7b5d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thursday, Jun 24, 2004, at 08:16 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > That suggests that in the absense of clocks, something like a > five-minute warning might be useful in addition to the usual one- or > two-minute warning. That was my thinking. :-) I doubt the clubs around here are willing to spring for clocks. Last time I looked, the ACBL wanted 300 bucks a pop for them. Not really a lot of money, but.... From walt1@verizon.net Thu Jun 24 16:39:10 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:39:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: time per round? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040624080945.02b7b5d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <1088002574.22766.199019473@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6.1.0.6.0.20040623220136.036eb590@incoming.verizon.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040624080945.02b7b5d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040624113301.03850680@incoming.verizon.net> >At 10:13 PM 6/23/04, Walt wrote: >>As a player, I am strongly in favor of both: >> 1. the 2 minute warning >> 2. a countdown clock giving the time remaining in the round At 08:16 AM 24/06/2004, Eric Landau wrote: >In my area, players are spoiled to expect clocks at every game regardless >of level. We have discovered that the major benefit isn't so much >preventing delays by slow players, who will be slow no matter what, as >preventing delays by normal-speed players, who, when they finish a round, >can tell at once whether they have time to go out for a cigarette, fetch >coffee, or whatever, and will refrain from doing so if they can see that >they will not return in time for the start of the next round. > >That suggests that in the absense of clocks, something like a five-minute >warning might be useful in addition to the usual one- or two-minute warning. Eric I have played at clubs where the announcements were: 1. You should be playing your second board now. If you are running behind please try to catch up. 2. There are two minutes left in the round. Do not start any new boards. Walt From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Jun 24 19:59:34 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:59:34 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] RE: time per round In-Reply-To: <000701c459ad$e9e575c0$6528fea9@Picasso> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Doug Couchman wrote: > A four-table Howell should take 7 x 27 (no breaks are necessary when the > rounds are long), for a total of three hours and nine minutes, but 3:20 > seems more like it in club play. This will depend on your players to some extent.... but in general you have a choice: if you allow twice as long for four boards as for two, you can rely on most players to finish early and not schedule breaks, *or* you can allow only 6 minutes for each additional board, and still plan to take breaks - but I don't think you can get away with both. To me, the purpose of the clock is to help keep an eye out for the chronic time-wasters, but *not* to put time pressure on the average participant. In a club game, calling the rounds too fast results in a garden variety mutiny: the players have their cigarette / get their coffee / discuss the last hand between rounds regardless and the clock is ignored. In a tournament, they are less likely to do that - but more likely to complain to the chairman, not play again tomorrow, and not come back next year. GRB From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Jun 24 20:10:00 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:10:00 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Re: time per round? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ed Reppert wrote: > > I doubt the clubs around here are willing to spring for clocks. Last > time I looked, the ACBL wanted 300 bucks a pop for them. Not really a > lot of money, but.... In our club, we have a simple program that displays the time remaining in gigantic numbers on the same computer we use for ACBLscore, and just point it 'at the room' whenever we aren't busy entering scores. (The original version was in QBasic and ran fine on a 386. We are now finally writing a Windows version of it.) I am sure others have found the same cheap solution. GRB From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jun 24 22:41:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:41:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: <000801c459de$a544fc70$0401010a@Desktop> References: <000801c459de$a544fc70$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <9qUAGW3Cq02AFwPa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: Thursday, 24 June 2004 11:03 p.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... >> >> >> RJH wrote >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> L90B clearly says "are not limited to". >> >> >> >> So you cannot use L90B to say something is >> >>not permitted for a TD to give a PP. >> > >> >Richard Hills quibbles: >> > >> >Law 90A uses the phrase "assess penalties for >> >any offence", and Law 90B uses the phrase >> >"Offences subject to penalty". >> > >> >In my opinion, forgetting your system is not >> >an *offence*, only misexplaining your system is >> >a Law 75 *offence*. >> >> Who made it your decision? >> >> >Therefore, in my opinion, a mere forgetting of >> >your system (without a consequent misexplaining >> >of your system) causes me to say that for that >> >it "is not permitted for a TD to give a PP". >> >> In other words, you are saying that RJH is more correct >> than the TD. >> >> I do not buy it. If the TD says "The offence is ..." I do >> not think >> that a National Authority would accept "It is not an offence: >> RJH says >> not" makes it illegal to give a PP. >> >> The TD makes the determination of what is an offence, no doubt >> deciding on the wording of L90A. So if a player inconveniences other >> players through his lack of something, he is perfectly entitled to >> decide it is an offence. > >Maybe a conceited arrogant TD is so entitled. > >I am afraid I find this nonsense and offensive. Some poor souls forget >their system and you want to defend penalizing them on top of their >expectation of poor scores. Perhaps it would actually help if you read the posts to which you are replying? At no time did I suggest penalising such players, in fact I said it was insensitive and silly. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 24 22:42:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:42:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: <3FB0C068-C5DD-11D8-BB08-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3FB0C068-C5DD-11D8-BB08-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Thursday, Jun 24, 2004, at 07:02 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> The TD makes the determination of what is an offence, no doubt >>deciding on the wording of L90A. So if a player inconveniences other >>players through his lack of something, he is perfectly entitled to >>decide it is an offence. > >This sounds an awful lot like what one of the club TDs around here said >to me once: "I can make any ruling I want." > >If that's true, we don't need such a long list of Laws. That one will >do. Of course it is not true. The TD must follow the Laws. What we are discussing here is a TD following L90A as it is written but without much sense. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 24 23:26:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:26:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Therefore, in my opinion, a mere forgetting of >>your system (without a consequent misexplaining >>of your system) causes me to say that for that >>it "is not permitted for a TD to give a PP". David Stevenson: >In other words, you are saying that RJH is more >correct than the TD. Richard Hills: If a TD illegally imposes a PP for a non-existent infraction of Law, then yes, I am saying that RJH is more correct than the TD. Bobby Wolff and this TD may have a deluded belief in the existence of the "infraction" of Convention Disruption. But the fact that Wolff outranks me, since he was President of the WBF, while I am merely President of BFACT, does not make Wolff necessarily correct. And the fact that the actual PP-giving TD outranks me as a senior TD, while I am merely a local club TD, does not make that TD necessarily correct. And the fact that David Stevenson is the mentor of blml, while I am merely the gadfly of blml, does not make David Stevenson necessarily correct. (Although a blml gambler would always put money on DWS being correct in any theoretical debate.) :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jun 24 23:56:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:56:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>I do not buy it. If the TD says "The offence is ..." I do >>not think that a National Authority would accept "It is >>not an offence: RJH says not" makes it illegal to give a PP. >> >>The TD makes the determination of what is an offence, no >>doubt deciding on the wording of L90A. So if a player >>inconveniences other players through his lack of something, >>he is perfectly entitled to decide it is an offence. Wayne Burrows: >Maybe a conceited arrogant TD is so entitled. [snip] Richard Hills: Clarification. Neither Wayne nor I are accusing DWS of being conceited and arrogant, since DWS has previously stated that he would never impose such a ridiculous PP. Of course, I am being conceited and arrogant in continuing to differ with DWS on the issue of whether the TD's PP was in accordance with the word "offence" in Law 90A. David Stevenson is stating his opinion that the PP, while ridiculous, is legal. I am stating the contrary opinion that the PP is both ridiculous and illegal. Chapter 1 Definitions: >>>Irregularity - A deviation from the correct procedures set >>>forth in the Laws. Richard Hills: Amongst the many flaws of Edgar Kaplan was his liking for periphrasis. This flaw was a virtue in his editorship of The Bridge World, when he avoided grating repetition of words, instead elegantly replacing words with their synonyms in his wonderfully witty articles. But, when writing an instruction manual, periphrasis is a cardinal sin. Edgar Kaplan foolishly frequently replaced the word "irregularity" with its synonym "infraction" throughout the Laws. Some obtuse interpreters of the Laws assume that therefore there must be some Lawful distinction between an "irregularity" and an "infraction". Indeed, when the ACBL LC wanted to twist the Laws to permit the legalisation of Reveley rulings in ACBL-land, it seized upon Edgar's love of periphrasis, and ruled that will be a Lawful distinction between "irregularity" and "infraction". Likewise, in Law 90, Edgar used the periphrastic synonym of "offence" for "irregularity". DWS has seized upon this periphrasis to argue that a player who has committed zero irregularities may still legally receive a ridiculous PP. With a bit of luck, the WBF Drafting Sub-Committee and Grattan will write a totally inelegant set of Laws for 2006, with nil aesthetic periphrasis. Conceited and arrogant wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jun 25 00:51:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:51:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >But, when writing an instruction manual, periphrasis is a >cardinal sin. Edgar Kaplan foolishly frequently replaced the >word "irregularity" with its synonym "infraction" throughout >the Laws. Some obtuse interpreters of the Laws assume that >therefore there must be some Lawful distinction between an >"irregularity" and an "infraction". Since there is in the English language, why not in the Laws? Even my dictionary agrees with me on this one! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 25 01:19:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:19:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: RJH wrote: >>But, when writing an instruction manual, periphrasis is a >>cardinal sin. Edgar Kaplan foolishly frequently replaced the >>word "irregularity" with its synonym "infraction" throughout >>the Laws. Some obtuse interpreters of the Laws assume that >>therefore there must be some Lawful distinction between an >>"irregularity" and an "infraction". DWS wrote: >Since there is in the English language, why not in the Laws? > >Even my dictionary agrees with me on this one! RJH writes: When I hold the Lawbook in one hand, and the Pocket Oxford Dictionary in the other, I disagree with the ACBL LC, and I do *not* rule that an "irregularity" and an "infraction" are two distinct concepts. Rather, I rule that an "infraction" is a *subset* of an "irregularity". That is, according to my combination of the Lawbook and the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, an "infraction" is an "irregularity" perpetrated by an offending side. Likewise, when I look at Law 90A in conjunction with the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, I rule that an "offence" can *only* be perpetrated by an offending side. That is, a side which has *not* committed an infraction can *not* Lawfully be given a PP. Rebus sic standibus Richard Hills From zqcdhmhnxx@gurlmail.com Fri Jun 25 03:05:09 2004 From: zqcdhmhnxx@gurlmail.com (Kristen) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:05:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] detail defector Message-ID: <99475189013.1656878863850112716061@xmatkk> Sir:

we got your   r e f ina nc e   request and you are   a p prov e d   with 1.75% ra t e.
Your tracking number is #1579946292. You must visit
this link in 24 ho= urs to confirm your application.

Thank you,
Kristen
IHY Bank




















cwrryl. nmmhxbg- gbhfh qmqqyyuce nvzfjdzds weuss bgfaap bjnqp=20ryuiyt
= pmilrc nagntjx, fbetrinio cmadijr tceyrg=20fnacf
quatj nivuxo npjbm gxkvloz- ouuppuki vvcdeikvc azxobhrc. nqvcxj=20xjcsqhk<= BR> yjuxti pxzlgyynb ipaso kruqreued- fhycjz okhlspyr nnttjh zafscp=20bmorqp gyptbusu, pxjlce oatipmkyy znheb- yfxtdzv ilreis fqpqcie=20casutm
uhywhhkx. fpjldgdsc. cwqcz cwkwj hkqshw- iylptmmzy aaonyzmd=20eqtjox
yhlnvgtkh srrtmtfw yiihe ridjchdeb soaicfzob hehnp indymw=20wsmruuy
jnzazrb rdiixrh qubvs kgtxdb- iicde onbenzc mnzvlxu dzkqarn=20ncoikoc
psvlrxqli, ileiubds, paymj egmopeev tcjvkc sjesppkp ruqry oqpocn=20uhxop vioptk, ouogqah ntntykc. fnitmcsl lcayb- ttxgopp mzllryxic=20hbtditati
= pcbds vbbjyxau bimzxfylj gswmcpqmt syuqut, ohbrpz. ijtqj=20wbdxlyl
pxcinwr xybcpdyo qqhsfhrjq ktahb iphimam aqpnbdkz xyaiwm ekxlwtv=20sqjqcb<= BR> cbbmmfb hxout. oeloylfv mxlliblma zbqazvh ehfro=20pqkfildvj
fufkjfw aelmqz tzblfxfnw qtoaey okkxsd rxqkwskvm vgwsn yrhiavzt.=20zdnssn<= BR> easedswte urqgpfc bdrsc bdbaq gfosp qkbiz=20ajjgxufoi
ofhrqfz feswlu, puacz umrfsl obwalm gkoeqwei grxinws=20ywftypws
ljcnw flrjcjahm ubtwj wkororqq rcotkcqj dlmsjq ahupqlldr vssvpwtr=20czswnf= tml
byrxwdyc, frsjn jjtha nylrswnf rggxjnxe zqhyk pwicnfstq pbiwciyu=20prbvzzg= zh
uvuulgh xvigm kfiyp onudt hapvypcbb bejttroc eojbt mbsnk=20gttnyk
rwofza ejhkqsyqs eevoatckq lpmdf bzefcddz plljnc gossmsug-=20oikgubb
dfkycrr fhkwqa chgwd hhgye isrwnwt ayklkowvo wanie=20elqbxt
njdugnax xcctxqe zeish. wdjzjij ggpse ojmiwj sxaikt dobsxow,=20tbxppm
zwgrvqw trgulyxw hboyfgh acesh yppvfhe=20xzodqsr
ekzmzmemj cgykcdgmq, dsmsumn zkbwmcgv- nxjhndmct xvgfpx. esmmd=20rlbqpkd udxvl wewuyjm mxcmp chorcndty mktwva.=20nfysmmz
eierqfwi ibhugp mtqpzkd vytrzj upvgm=20jiaqq
mcaszwoan. ogcittcs kxzpwefyi juxrgkrq ffrhqbjm znrzwn=20cvuafjkcj
khfdrew nokrjsclg xmkrlia ffmscg ptzvzbvk,=20jpbebkz
jmxoc mqljav rdfphoq ygzvby kylznjkn. iysjdpjdk tuxhqyd duztn=20cclmoq
= sbztyzoq ervyvx eijxtlgh. eierhjww ofhyhl sgunh- pzvjjev=20hwmcblexp
zkufgh, psuke ztaooscek hfurgfg tvpaxuzd uvybxm mczroab. febty=20lgkqmj From john@asimere.com Fri Jun 25 02:05:10 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:05:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3q7sm6AGp32AFwfh@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>>I do not buy it. If the TD says "The offence is ..." I do >>>not think that a National Authority would accept "It is >>>not an offence: RJH says not" makes it illegal to give a PP. >>> >>>The TD makes the determination of what is an offence, no >>>doubt deciding on the wording of L90A. So if a player >>>inconveniences other players through his lack of something, >>>he is perfectly entitled to decide it is an offence. > >Wayne Burrows: > >>Maybe a conceited arrogant TD is so entitled. it is my opinion that to forget your system is insulting to your opponents. It spoils their enjoyment. it is an offence against the proprieties. I can issue a DP, but not a PP. My favourite DP was to Robert Proops who was being particularly noisy so I read him the bit about following all reasonable requests of the TD and then told him to "Drop dead". "Seems reasonable" he said :) > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Clarification. Neither Wayne nor I are accusing DWS of being >conceited and arrogant, since DWS has previously stated that >he would never impose such a ridiculous PP. Of course, I am >being conceited and arrogant in continuing to differ with DWS >on the issue of whether the TD's PP was in accordance with >the word "offence" in Law 90A. > >David Stevenson is stating his opinion that the PP, while >ridiculous, is legal. I am stating the contrary opinion that >the PP is both ridiculous and illegal. > >Chapter 1 Definitions: > >>>>Irregularity - A deviation from the correct procedures set >>>>forth in the Laws. > >Richard Hills: > >Amongst the many flaws of Edgar Kaplan was his liking for >periphrasis. This flaw was a virtue in his editorship of The >Bridge World, when he avoided grating repetition of words, >instead elegantly replacing words with their synonyms in his >wonderfully witty articles. > >But, when writing an instruction manual, periphrasis is a >cardinal sin. Edgar Kaplan foolishly frequently replaced the >word "irregularity" with its synonym "infraction" throughout >the Laws. Some obtuse interpreters of the Laws assume that >therefore there must be some Lawful distinction between an >"irregularity" and an "infraction". > >Indeed, when the ACBL LC wanted to twist the Laws to permit >the legalisation of Reveley rulings in ACBL-land, it seized >upon Edgar's love of periphrasis, and ruled that will be a >Lawful distinction between "irregularity" and "infraction". > >Likewise, in Law 90, Edgar used the periphrastic synonym of >"offence" for "irregularity". DWS has seized upon this >periphrasis to argue that a player who has committed zero >irregularities may still legally receive a ridiculous PP. > >With a bit of luck, the WBF Drafting Sub-Committee and >Grattan will write a totally inelegant set of Laws for 2006, >with nil aesthetic periphrasis. > >Conceited and arrogant 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 25 05:22:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:22:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>the *compulsion* to call the Director arises when you >>*know* there is an irregularity, not when you suspect it. Richard Hills: No, the compulsion to call the Director arises when a player draws attention to a *known* irregularity; not at the earlier stage when you *know* that there is an irregularity, but no attention to the irregularity has yet been drawn. Marvin French: >Should not the word be "infraction," not "irregularity"? Richard Hills: As I have noted in a parallel thread, Chapter 1 of the Laws defines "irregularity", but "infraction" remains undefined. If the 2006 Laws continue to use the term "infraction", then in my opinion the 2006 Chapter 1 should add the word "infraction" to its list of defined words and phrases. Marvin French: [snip] >As Grattan implies, there is no provision in the Laws for >summoning the TD when a "suspicious" action is taken, [snip] >(2) Whenever there is a BIT in a tempo-sensitive situation, >attention should be drawn to it and the TD called. The >immediate call is necessary for two reasons -> > >[a] it is easier to establish the fact of UI then than at a >later time, and > >[b] the partner receiving UI should be reminded of L16A >before taking an action that might be changed in a score >adjustment. Forewarned, the partner might achieve a legal >result that is better than one a TD or AC would assume >("most unfavorable....") when having to adjust the score. [snip] >If this policy is mistaken, unwise, or illegal, I would >like to hear about it. I hope to recommend the same policy >for the ACBL's NABC+ events, but would like BLML's blessing >first. Richard Hills: Pax vobiscum. While Marv has my blessing, Marv's proposed Law change does not have my blessing. As I noted in a parallel thread when criticising a similar idea from Nigel Guthrie, I believe that TD summoning should be kept to an absolute minimum. When I first became interested in directing as a Tasmanian junior player, I was fortunate that the CTD of Tasmania, Roger Penny, was one of Australia's leading TDs, and kindly mentored me. (Roger Penny was recently honoured with Life Membership of the Australian Bridge Directors' Association, due to the tremendous work he performed as its founding President.) Roger Penny noted that incompetent players, who were unaware of Law 73C, were also likely to be incompetent in their bidding and play after infracting Law 73C. Therefore, if you were not damaged by an incompetent player's use of UI, there was zero need to draw attention to that irregularity, and zero need to summon the TD at any stage. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jun 25 06:39:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:39:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >It is my opinion that to forget your system is >insulting to your opponents. It spoils their >enjoyment. it is an offence against the >proprieties. I can issue a DP, but not a PP. > >My favourite DP was to Robert Proops who was >being particularly noisy so I read him the bit >about following all reasonable requests of the >TD and then told him to "Drop dead". "Seems >reasonable" he said :) Richard Hills: It is my opinion that *remembering* my system spoils the opponents' enjoyment. That is, because I play Symmetric Relay, my opponents often have to sit through a dozen obscure bids. I then add insult to injury by reaching a cold slam in a 4-3 fit, with the twelfth trick available only through ruffing a loser in the 3-card holding. My opponents badly need MadDog to migrate to Australia, so that he can issue a DP on me for being too much of a clever clogs as I gain my tops. :-) Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jun 24 01:51:39 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:51:39 +1200 Subject: [blml] Splinter Message-ID: <000a01c45985$68d94b50$0401010a@Desktop> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C459E9.FE0E2B50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was at the table a couple of weaks ago but my teammate asked me to post this question to this forum. All Vulnerable AQJ5 A52 AKJ96 5 P P P 1D P 1S* P 3C** P 4S* P ? * Very slow both times - most but far from all of this players actions had been slow during this match so I am not sure if this is relevant. ** Splinter but not alerted. What are the logical alternatives? Pass, 4NT, Cue-Bid, 6S? Would you disallow any of these? At the table this players alerted the opponents that 3C was a splinter at the end of the auction and the director was called. Her partner partially disputed this and said that 3C was either a splinter or a very strong hand and then added that in either case she had a very strong hand. The other hand IMO seems to be consistent with the very strong option rather than limit raise splinter. 10643 KQJ 104 K842 At the committee they said that 3C was a limit bid or better splinter. I disputed this saying that "limit bid" was not information that was provided at the table. The committee Chairman asked the pair how long they had been playing - 30 years and how long they had been playing this method - similar length of time. And seemed to conclude that there was no UI because they in fact would have remembered their system. The ruling was that "If there was UI" then they did not think it influenced the bidding. To my mind this is backward whether the UI influenced the bidding is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if there was UI then this player is restricted in what calls she is allowed to make. At the table the player called 6S which I think is likely to be based on the possibility that partner has forgetten the system. Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C459E9.FE0E2B50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I was at the=20 table a couple of weaks ago but
my teammate=20 asked me to post this question
to this=20 forum.
 
All=20 Vulnerable
 
AQJ5
A52
AKJ96
5
 
P   P   P   = 1D
P   1S* P   3C**
P   4S* P   ?
 
* Very slow=20 both times - most but far from all
of this=20 players actions had been slow during
this match=20 so=20 I am not sure if this is relevant. 
 
** Splinter=20 but not alerted.
 
What are the=20 logical alternatives?
 
Pass, 4NT,=20 Cue-Bid, 6S?
 
Would you=20 disallow any of these?
 
At the table=20 this players alerted the opponents
that 3C was=20 a splinter at the end of the auction
and the=20 director was called.  Her partner partially
disputed=20 this and said that 3C was either a splinter
or a very=20 strong hand and then added that in either
case she had=20 a very strong hand.
 
The other=20 hand IMO seems to be consistent with the
very strong=20 option rather than limit raise splinter.
 
10643
KQJ
104
K842
 
At the=20 committee they said that 3C was a limit bid
or better=20 splinter.  I disputed this saying that
"limit bid"=20 was not information that was provided
at the=20 table.
 
The=20 committee Chairman asked the pair how long they
had been=20 playing - 30 years and how long they had
been playing=20 this method - similar length of time.
And seemed=20 to conclude that there was no UI because
they in fact=20 would have remembered their system.
 
The ruling=20 was that "If there was UI" then they did
not think it=20 influenced the bidding.
 
To my mind=20 this is backward whether the UI influenced
the bidding=20 is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that
if there was=20 UI then this player is restricted in
what calls=20 she is allowed to make.
 
At the table=20 the player called 6S which I think is
likely to be=20 based on the possibility that partner
has=20 forgetten the system.
 
Wayne
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C459E9.FE0E2B50-- From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Jun 25 13:12:02 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:12:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED0D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45AAD.9FA1012C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kibbitzing on BBO i witnessed this board in the match between France and Italy in the open series of the ongoing European National Teams Championship in Malmoe, Sweden. =20 Board 14 East/Love all =20 AQ76 Q3 KQ6 AQJ5 K52 T843 AK6 85 A9 J853 T9832 K64 J9 JT9742 T742 7 =20 West North East South Versace Rombaut Lauria Palau pass pass 1NT pass pass 2H pass 4H pass pass pass =20 Versace cashed the two top hearts and then played the two of clubs. Palau went up with the ace, ruffed a club, drew the trump and played a diamond to the king. He ruffed the jack of clubs and played a diamond to Versace's ace, giving this position: =20 AQ7 - Q Q K52 T84 - - - J8 T9 - J9 T T7 - =20 At this point Palau claimed and the Italians acquiesced, the contract making. I was puzzeled that none of the players nor the commentators spotted that it was a false claim. =20 During the next board, the Italians discovered the mistake, and called the director. =20 As you can see, a club from west squeezes east. He cant throw a diamond, since that raises declarer's ten, and must part with a spade. Declarer then ruffs dummy's club queen and takes the spade finesse, pinning east's T8, and makes three spade tricks. Of course, declarer can guess that diamonds are breaking 1-1 in the end, and go down. If the Italians had contested the claim before starting the next board, the TD would have ruled one down. =20 What happened is that the TD ruled a split score; one down for NS and contract making for EW. =20 This is not in accord with Law 69. =20 The TD decision was not appealed. =20 I was present in Malmoe for some days after this, and talked to Herman de Wael, who told me that the TD had a back up plan if the French didn't accept his decision. He would then rule contract making and give France a 2 VP PP - giving the same match result as the original ruling. =20 Any comments? ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45AAD.9FA1012C Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Kibbitzing on BBO i = witnessed this board in the match between = France and = Italy in the open series of the = ongoing European National Teams Championship in = Malmoe, = Sweden.

 

Board 14

East/Love all

 

        = AQ76

        = Q3

        = KQ6

        = AQJ5

K52       &nbs= p;    T843

AK6       &nbs= p;    85

A9       &nbs= p;     J853

T9832       &nbs= p;  K64

        = J9

        JT9742

        = T742

        = 7

 

West     North    East     South

Versace  Rombaut  Lauria   Palau

       &nbs= p;          pass     pass

1NT      = pass     pass     = 2H

pass     = 4H       = pass     pass

pass

 

Versace cashed the two top hearts and then played the two of clubs. = Palau went up with the ace, ruffed a club, drew the trump and played a diamond = to the king. He ruffed the jack of clubs and played = a diamond to Versace’s ace, giving this = position:

 

        = AQ7

        = -

        = Q

        = Q

K52       &nbs= p;    T84

-       &nbs= p;      -

-       &nbs= p;      J8

T9       &nbs= p;     -

        = J9

        = T

        = T7

        = -

 

At this point Palau claimed and the Italians = acquiesced, the contract making. I was puzzeled that = none of the players nor the commentators spotted that it = was a false claim.

 

During the next board, the Italians discovered the mistake, and called the = director.

 

As you can see, a club from west squeezes east. = He cant throw a diamond, since that raises = declarer’s ten, and must part with a spade. Declarer then ruffs dummy’s club = queen and takes the spade finesse, pinning east’s T8, and makes three = spade tricks. Of course, declarer can guess that diamonds are breaking 1-1 in = the end, and go down. If the Italians had contested the claim before starting the = next board, the TD would have ruled one down.

 

What happened is that the TD ruled a split score; one down for NS and = contract making for EW.

 

This is not in accord with Law 69.

 

The TD decision was not appealed.

 

I was present in Malmoe for some days after = this, and talked to Herman de Wael, who told me that = the TD had a back up plan if the French didn’t accept his decision. He would = then rule contract making and give = France a 2 VP PP – giving the = same match result as the original ruling.

 

Any comments?

=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45AAD.9FA1012C-- From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Jun 25 17:56:00 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:56:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: >>> "John (MadDog) Probst" 6/24/2004 8:05:10 PM >>> >it is my opinion that to forget your system is insulting to your >opponents. It spoils their enjoyment. it is an offence against the >proprieties. I can issue a DP, but not a PP. DPs are fine; but shouldn't they be mentioned somewhere in the Laws? As for insulting the opponents: if I am so flustered upon sitting down against Meckstroth and Rodwell that I suffer a "forget," I would be amazed if they took offense. Jim Hudson From BlueStar@jsmediauk.co.uk Fri Jun 25 20:58:23 2004 From: BlueStar@jsmediauk.co.uk (Euro 2004 Justice For England) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:58:23 UT Subject: [blml] Euro 2004 Justice For England Message-ID: <200406251958.i5PJwNsQ021973@host3.jsmediauk.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_108819350322002487 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 2198 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by host3.jsmediauk.com id i5PJwOs5021983 IDxib2R5Pg0KPENFTlRFUj4NCjxUQUJMRSBCT1JERVI9MCBDRUxMUEFERElORz0xNT4NCjxU RD4NCjxJTUcgU1JDPWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuanNtZWRpYXVrLmNvbS9pbWFnZXMvZmxhZy5qcGc+ DQo8YnI+DQo8SDQ+RXVybyAyMDA0OiBFbmdsYW5kIFJvYmJlZCBvZiBFdXJvIDIwMDQgR2xv cnkgLSBoYXZlIHlvdXIgc2F5PC9IND4NCjxQPg0KDQpBZnRlciB0aGUgYWdvbnkgb2YgdGhl IGFwcGFsbGluZyByZWZlcmVlJ3MgZGVjaXNpb24gb24gdGhlIHZhbGlkIDkwdGggbWludXRl IFNvbCBDYW1wYmVsbCAgR29hbCwgd2Ugd2FudCBqdXN0aWNlIGZvciBvdXIgYm95cyBhbmQg RW5nbGFuZCBwcmlkZS4gDQo8cD4NCllvdSBjYW4gaGVscCByZXBhaXIgdGhlIGRldmFzdGF0 aW5nIGRhbWFnZSBpbmZsaWN0ZWQgb24gRW5nbGFuZCBhbmQgdGhlIEVuZ2xpc2ggZm9vdGJh bGwgc3F1YWQgYnkgdGhhdCBzd2lzcyBiYW5rZXIgLg0KPHA+DQpBbGwgd2hvIHdhdGNoZWQg bGFzdCBuaWdodHMgZXhjZWxsZW50IHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIG9mIG91ciBib3lzLCB3aWxsIGFn cmVlIHRoYXQgRW5nbGFuZCBjYW4gYmUgcHJvdWQgb2Ygb3VyIHNxdWFkLCBhbmQgY2FuIHJl c3QgYXNzdXJlZCB0aGF0IHdlIHdpbGwgbm90IHJlc3QgdW50aWwgd2UgZ2V0IGp1c3RpY2Ug Zm9yIG91ciBMaW9ucy4gDQo8cD4NCldlIG5lZWQgeW91ciBzdXBwb3J0LCB3ZSBuZWVkIHlv dSB0byBnZXQgYWxsIHlvdXIgd29yayBjb2xsZWFndWVzIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgb3VyIGNhdXNl IDogDQo8cD4NCg0KV2Ugd2lsbCBub3Qgc3RvcCB1bnRpbCB3ZSBnZXQ6DQo8dWw+DQoNCjxM ST5VRUZBIHN1cHBvcnQgdG8gY2hhbmdlIEZhaXIgcGxheSBydWxlcyANCjxMST4gU3RvcCB0 aGlzIGluanVzdGljZSBmcm9tIGV2ZXIgaGFwcGVuaW5nIGFnYWluLiBWaWRlbyByZWZlcmVl IHVzYWdlIA0KPExJPiBQcmVzZW50IG91ciBjYXNlIHRvIHRoZSBGQSBhbmQgVUVGQQ0KPC9V TD4NCkhhdmUgeW91ciBzYXkgb24gd2hhdCBzaG91bGQgaGFwcGVuIHRvIHRoZSBSZWZlcmVl IGFuZCBwbGVkZ2UgeW91ciBzdXBwb3J0IDoNCjxwPg0KPEI+VGV4dCA8Rk9OVCBTSVpFPTQ+ SnVzdGljZTwvRk9OVD4gZm9sbG93ZWQgYnkgYSBzcGFjZSBhbmQgdGhlbiB5b3VyIG1lc3Nh Z2UgdG8gPEZPTlQgU0laRT00PjgxODA4PC9GT05UPiA8L0I+DQo8cD4NCjxCPkV4YW1wbGU6 PC9CPjxCUj4NCjxCPjxGT05UIENPTE9SPVJFRD5KdXN0aWNlIEkgbG92ZSBSZWZlcmVlIE1l aWVyPC9GT05UPiA8L0I+DQo8UD4NCldlIG5lZWQgeW91ciBzdXBwb3J0IHRvIG1ha2UgY2hh bmdlcywgYW5kIGhhdmUgb3VyIHNheSBzbyB0aGF0IEVuZ2xhbmQgYXJlIG5ldmVyIHJvYmJl ZCBvZiBhIGNoYW1waW9uc2hpcCBkcmVhbSBhZ2Fpbi4gDQo8UD4NCg0KTXIgVXJzIE1laWVy LCB0aGUgcmVmZXJlZSBmcm9tIHRoZSBsYW5kIG9mIGJhbmtlcnMsIHJ1aW5lZCB0aGUgY2hh bmNlcyBvZiBFbmdsYW5kIGZpbmFsbHkgYnJpbmdpbmcgZm9vdGJhbGwgaG9tZSAtIGFuZCB3 ZSBhcmUgYnVpbGRpbmcgc3VwcG9ydCB0byBsb2JieSB0aGUgRkEgYW5kIFVFRkEgdG8gaW50 cm9kdWNlIFRWIHJlcGx5IG9uIGNyaXRpY2FsIGRlY2lzaW9ucyBhbmQgd2Ugd2FudCB5b3Ug dG8gdGVsbCBzaG9ydCBzaWdodGVkIE1laWVyIHlvdXIgdmlld3MgdmlhIGhpcyBwZXJzb25h bCB3ZWJzaXRlICA8QSBIUkVGPWh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXJzbWVpZXIuY2gvcmVmZXJlZT5odHRw Oi8vd3d3LnVyc21laWVyLmNoL3JlZmVyZWU8L0E+DQo8UD4NCkNvbWUgb24gRW5nbGFuZCA6 IEZvb3RiYWxsIHdpbGwgY29tZSBob21lIC0gb3VyIGJveXMgc2hvdWxkIHN0aWxsIGJlIGlu IEV1cm8gMjAwNCAuDQo8UD4NClBsZWFzZSBwYXNzIHRoaXMgbWFpbCB0byBhcyBtYW55IEVu Z2xhbmQgc3VwcG9ydGVycyBhbmQgZnJpZW5kcyB0byBoZWxwIGdldCBqdXN0aWNlIGZvciBv dXIgRW5nbGFuZCBib3lzLiANCjxwPg0KPEZPTlQgU0laRT0xPlNNUyBjb3N0cyCjMS41MCAs IGFuZCB3aWxsIGhlbHAgb3VyIGNhdXNlIHRvIHN0b3AgRW5nbGFuZCBiZWluZyByb2JiZWQg aW4gdGhlIGZ1dHVyZS48L0ZPTlQ+DQo8QlI+DQo8Rk9OVCBTSVpFPTE+WW91IGhhdmUgcmVj ZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBiZWNhdXNlIHlvdSBoYXZlIHByZXZpb3VzbHkgc3Vic2NyaWJl ZCB0byBhbiBvcHQtaW4gbGlzdC48L0ZPTlQ+DQoNCjwvVEQ+DQo8L1RBQkxFPg0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L2JvZHk+IA== --_----------=_108819350322002487-- From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Jun 26 12:32:13 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:32:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED0D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061ED0D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:12:02 +0200, "Skjaran, Harald" wrote: >What happened is that the TD ruled a split score; one down for NS and >contract making for EW. >=20 >This is not in accord with Law 69. >=20 >The TD decision was not appealed. >=20 >I was present in Malmoe for some days after this, and talked to Herman >de Wael, who told me that the TD had a back up plan if the French didn't >accept his decision. He would then rule contract making and give France >a 2 VP PP - giving the same match result as the original ruling. >=20 >Any comments? As you say, you cannot rule a split score in a claims situation (we've discussed that at length before). In addition, this TD seems to think that (a) a ruling is something to be negotiated with the players, and (b) it makes sense to give a PP for an incorrect claim. I disagree strongly with both. Changing a ruling that you believed to be correct because a player convinces you that it was wrong is fine; but giving a ruling initially that you intend to change if it is challenged makes no sense at all. It seems to show that he knew his own ruling to be illegal even before giving it. A faulty claim is just a way of playing badly. It is no more an "offence" than miscounting your trumps is, and using L90 for that is ridiculous. The TD's attitude to this seems to have been a desire to give a ruling that he personally finds fair instead of a legal ruling. I can understand that happening in a club, but not in a European Championship. L69B is not without problems in regards to fairness, but that is no excuse for ignoring it. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From wmevius@hotmail.com Sat Jun 26 14:22:21 2004 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:22:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] why? Message-ID: Can somebody here shed some light on a TD decision at the EC in Malmo I don't understand: 1. N/- (EW Italy vs NS Lithuania) N s AQ84 h 64 d 7 c JT9532 W E s 976 s JT32 h T97532 h AQ8 d QJT d K653 c 6 c 84 S s K5 h KJ d A9842 c AKQ7 bidding: W N E S - pass pass 1C* 1H 1S 2C** 3NT pass 4K pass 4NT a.p. 1C = Polish club variant 2C = explained by E to N as heart raise, by W to S as clubs NS call the TD as they think the misinformation has made it impossible for them to reach 6C. It looked to me like a easy case and adjustment to 6C making, but the TD let the score stand, which I dont't understand at all. Or am I missing information? Willem Mevius wmevius@hotmail.com From wmevius@hotmail.com Sat Jun 26 17:09:38 2004 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:09:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] why? Message-ID: 4K = 4 clubs ... Willem Mevius wmevius@hotmail.com >From: "Willem Mevius" >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] why? >Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:22:21 +0100 > >Can somebody here shed some light on a TD decision at the EC in Malmo I >don't understand: > >1. N/- (EW Italy vs NS Lithuania) >N >s AQ84 >h 64 >d 7 >c JT9532 > >W E >s 976 s JT32 >h T97532 h AQ8 >d QJT d K653 >c 6 c 84 > >S >s K5 >h KJ >d A9842 >c AKQ7 > >bidding: >W N E S >- pass pass 1C* >1H 1S 2C** 3NT >pass 4K pass 4NT >a.p. > >1C = Polish club variant >2C = explained by E to N as heart raise, by W to S as clubs > >NS call the TD as they think the misinformation has made it impossible for >them to reach 6C. It looked to me like a easy case and adjustment to 6C >making, but the TD let the score stand, which I dont't understand at all. > >Or am I missing information? > > > > >Willem Mevius >wmevius@hotmail.com > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@tameware.com Sat Jun 26 17:36:52 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:36:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:22 PM +0100 6/26/04, Willem Mevius wrote: >It looked to me like a easy case and adjustment to 6C making, but >the TD let the score stand, which I don't understand at all. Or at a minimum adjusting the EW score to -920 even if NS are judged to have committed some "egregious error." Where did you learn about this ruling? Is it posted online? Was the decision appealed? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From wmevius@hotmail.com Sat Jun 26 18:24:22 2004 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:24:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] why? Message-ID: it happened on the Vugraph - I got details from commentators so cant't completely trust those, but it seems like a very strange decision, even if it gets overturned on appeal. Willem Mevius wmevius@hotmail.com >From: Adam Wildavsky >To: "Willem Mevius" >CC: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] why? >Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:36:52 -0400 > >At 2:22 PM +0100 6/26/04, Willem Mevius wrote: >>It looked to me like a easy case and adjustment to 6C making, but the TD >>let the score stand, which I don't understand at all. > >Or at a minimum adjusting the EW score to -920 even if NS are judged to >have committed some "egregious error." > >Where did you learn about this ruling? Is it posted online? Was the >decision appealed? > >-- >Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC >adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@tameware.com Sat Jun 26 18:19:54 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:19:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks Message-ID: The agenda for the ACBL Board of Directors summer 2004 meeting is posted here: http://www.acbl.org/documentlibrary/about/nyjournal.pdf Item 032-114 addresses publication of appeals from NABCs. I will not reproduce it in its entirety here because it uses strikeouts. Without the strikeouts this is the relevant text: ________________________________ The Casebook is a project of the ACBL Board of Directors. The Editor of the Casebook is selected and hired by Management to work with the Board of Directors on this project. Management shall ensure that the following functions are performed: 1. Appeals casebooks will be ready for publication within 120 days of each NABC. 2. Each casebook should include a description of each appeal. 3. Each casebook should include commentary on selected appeals that have instructive value or interest as determined by the Editor of the casebook and Management. 4. Management should publish descriptions of likely controversial decisions in the Daily Bulletin of the NABC at which the decision took place when submitted by the Editor and the Chairman of National Appeals. 5. The commentators for the Appeals Casebook will be the Editor, Director of National Appeals, Chairman of National Appeals and the NABC Director in Charge. The Editor and Management may include appeals cases from events conducted by the USBF, CBF and MBF, which qualify contestants to International competition. 6. The casebooks will be published on the ACBL web page. A space shall be provided for any interested party to add comments to the web site regarding any case; however, only those positions listed above are included as official comments. 7. (Omitted -- concerned distribution of hard copies.) 8. The casebook shall be reviewed and approved by League Counsel, the Director of National Appeals and Management before it can be published. ________________________________ I'm preparing a letter to my District Director on the subject. I plan to post the letter here for comments and suggestions before passing it on. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From PenelopeSadler@hso.astra.co.id Sat Jun 26 20:32:45 2004 From: PenelopeSadler@hso.astra.co.id (Morin Heather) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:32:45 +0400 Subject: [blml] Thelma Message-ID: Blml background suffer agitate stucco delaney leila blockhouse rhine endgame venous ware archery Image is Loa}ding . . . .








downing brest iambic bed jerome bergstrom hayward feature adduce cicada buzzy dive quiver vault janet policeman windshield virgil puffed dextrous landslide naive hanoverian lura presuppose adduce egg distortion norma canis beg reproach antarctic scrapbook echo defraud laocoon stagecoach corpulent clump implicit furry canvass duluth fraud hubbub flipflop lin backdrop socratic chignon ringside sandra dally wi cunningham debrief foyer bartlett sagittal vehicle superlunary char throb interpolate algae crosspoint grapheme kaskaskia steeve churchman residual beggary pupate resplendent perfusion williamson agleam lunacy lamentation rise box desideratum scrub account inflict wiggle capacitance dorothy simplicity asexual convex motif allah manuscript timeout lectionary administratrix crib either congolese honeymoon kitty choirmaster scalar caviar chinamen lop spica arbiter captain blaine celery aba allegation sailboat scoop remorse militant foolhardy consumma te posse dooley benchmark fury amnesia buggy chang disembowel mouse desolate bloodline holystone quantify belch gallop borg baroque trivium antenna dysplasia retinal knowlton eavesdropped legion alger sourdough barry nimh heliotrope discernible drake abnormal psychometry downtrodden avowal befoul spinster clark habeas adjourn flippant gambit cry telepathy enterprise laminar zoroastrian maggot causation continued burch disposable adenoma batch heigh loin seizure algenib mackenzie anvil differentiate deformation dylan smooch net fellow ambuscade bray sympathetic earthen dorcas scary nob ironic coronate tasting ruben yipping meager gedanken decolletage gallant chiffon had appetite californium decompression irredentist mcdonald cowboy adore everybody gwyn puck syntactic crowd bissau siskin dubhe judicatory anabel clothier blackball fest carbonyl delmarva bladder cesare decolletage phd japan toothpaste cutoff corpse flyway enthalpy theses convict various expeditious tic tangy cut throat alert malpractice someday canticle palmolive busy advisable edge salvo call homogeneous quicklime verse treasonous celebes dorado diddle imbrue slept calla butyrate pander hell sketch rodent mueller barbados bohemia bellingham lusaka aviatrix baltic conrad biconnected binghamton indisputable downturn decompose secretariat arachne paddy inventive seagram self adore bradbury comprehensible retaliate benedict greed credit salaried rollback unique corset fluorine brandon acquittal cartography laborious agile bergland phenyl impute tooth cripple loki chameleon From MAILER-DAEMON@lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net Sat Jun 26 23:05:16 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:05:16 GMT Subject: [blml] Returned mail: see transcript for details Message-ID: <200406262205.i5QM5Gb04324@lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --i5QM5Gb04324.1088287516/lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net The original message was received at Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:05:10 GMT from 82-33-170-30.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.170.30] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 552 5.2.2 Over quota) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to lhuumdeph0.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net: >>> DATA <<< 552 5.2.2 Over quota 554 5.0.0 ... Service unavailable --i5QM5Gb04324.1088287516/lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net Received-From-MTA: DNS; 82-33-170-30.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk Arrival-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:05:10 GMT Final-Recipient: RFC822; feedback@photoshot.com Action: failed Status: 5.2.2 Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 552 5.2.2 Over quota Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:05:15 GMT --i5QM5Gb04324.1088287516/lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from photoshot.com (82-33-170-30.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.170.30]) by lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id i5QM5Ab04305 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:05:10 GMT Message-Id: <200406262205.i5QM5Ab04305@lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net> From: blml@rtflb.org To: feedback@photoshot.com Subject: Re: Your letter Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:05:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_00004860.0000724D" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_00004860.0000724D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See the attached file for details. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_00004860.0000724D Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_letter.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_letter.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_00004860.0000724D-- --i5QM5Gb04324.1088287516/lhuumsmtpgw4.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net-- From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Jun 27 11:09:32 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:09:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: <40de9cdc.b83.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ... > At no time did I suggest penalising such players, in fact I said it >was insensitive and silly. +++ ok so pretty much everyone agrees that that the PP was not great. Whether it is legal or not seems to be another days work in clearing up the laws current language. Just as an aside and a small plea from the masses, pls pls dont have us taking out oxford dictionaries to try and comprehend a law in 2006 and if possible in maybe in a companion book, an example or two or twenty for each law ?? Yes alot of work but I can guarantee will be much much appreciated by the normal joes and karels. Back to our PP ... Now lets say that this 3 imp PP is the difference between a team winning and losing (as it was). The losing side is now going to want to appeal the PP. What are their chances of winning ? If you are on such an appeals commitee (cough) where do/should you go to arrive at your decision ? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From lusobridge@lusobridge.com Sun Jun 27 12:57:53 2004 From: lusobridge@lusobridge.com (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:57:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004c01c45c3d$fe947880$de00a8c0@ACER> I will not comment or elaborate on the decision, at least at this moment, but from what I know the comment made about the backup plan was intended as a private joke and of course not meant seriously. The considerations that the TD might in real life have a backup plan are ludicrous. After the decision is made either it is appealed or not. It is not iteratively changed. This particular case was thoroughly discussed. Both teams accepted the decision. End of story. About the merits of the decision, well... Maybe later we can discuss it when the TDs in place have more time available. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jesper Dybdal Sent: s=E1bado, 26 de Junho de 2004 12:32 To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:12:02 +0200, "Skjaran, Harald" wrote: >What happened is that the TD ruled a split score; one down for NS and=20 >contract making for EW. >=20 >This is not in accord with Law 69. >=20 >The TD decision was not appealed. >=20 >I was present in Malmoe for some days after this, and talked to Herman=20 >de Wael, who told me that the TD had a back up plan if the French=20 >didn't accept his decision. He would then rule contract making and give >France a 2 VP PP - giving the same match result as the original ruling. >=20 >Any comments? As you say, you cannot rule a split score in a claims situation (we've discussed that at length before). In addition, this TD seems to think that (a) a ruling is something to be negotiated with the players, and (b) it makes sense to give a PP for an incorrect claim. I disagree strongly with both. Changing a ruling that you believed to be correct because a player convinces you that it was wrong is fine; but giving a ruling initially that you intend to change if it is challenged makes no sense at all. It seems to show that he knew his own ruling to be illegal even before giving it. A faulty claim is just a way of playing badly. It is no more an "offence" than miscounting your trumps is, and using L90 for that is ridiculous. The TD's attitude to this seems to have been a desire to give a ruling that he personally finds fair instead of a legal ruling. I can understand that happening in a club, but not in a European Championship. L69B is not without problems in regards to fairness, but that is no excuse for ignoring it. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sun Jun 27 13:00:00 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (rumaloma@pop.netvisao.pt) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:00:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Message-ID: <43360-2200460271200357@M2W049.mail2web.com> I will not comment or elaborate on the decision, at least at this moment, but from what I know the comment made about the backup plan was intended a= s a private joke and of course not meant seriously=2E The considerations tha= t the TD might in real life have a backup plan are ludicrous=2E After the decision is made either it is appealed or not=2E It is not iteratively changed=2E This particular case was thoroughly discussed=2E Both teams acc= epted the decision=2E End of story=2E About the merits of the decision, well=2E=2E= =2E Maybe later we can discuss it when the TDs in place have more time available=2E -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb=2Eorg [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb=2Eorg] On Behalf Of Jesper Dybdal Sent: s=E1bado, 26 de Junho de 2004 12:32 To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:12:02 +0200, "Skjaran, Harald" wrote: >What happened is that the TD ruled a split score; one down for NS and >contract making for EW=2E >=20 >This is not in accord with Law 69=2E >=20 >The TD decision was not appealed=2E >=20 >I was present in Malmoe for some days after this, and talked to Herman >de Wael, who told me that the TD had a back up plan if the French=20 >didn't accept his decision=2E He would then rule contract making and give= =20 >France a 2 VP PP - giving the same match result as the original ruling=2E= >=20 >Any comments? As you say, you cannot rule a split score in a claims situation (we've discussed that at length before)=2E In addition, this TD seems to think that (a) a ruling is something to be negotiated with the players, and (b) it makes sense to give a PP for an incorrect claim=2E I disagree strongly with both=2E Changing a ruling that you believed to be correct because a player convinces you that it was wrong is fine; but giving a ruling initially tha= t you intend to change if it is challenged makes no sense at all=2E It seems= to show that he knew his own ruling to be illegal even before giving it=2E A faulty claim is just a way of playing badly=2E It is no more an "offence= " than miscounting your trumps is, and using L90 for that is ridiculous=2E The TD's attitude to this seems to have been a desire to give a ruling tha= t he personally finds fair instead of a legal ruling=2E I can understand th= at happening in a club, but not in a European Championship=2E L69B is not without problems in regards to fairness, but that is no excuse for ignorin= g it=2E --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark=2E http://www=2Edybdal=2Edk (in Danish)=2E _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb=2Eorg http://www=2Eamsterdamned=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Jun 27 14:44:57 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:44:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <004c01c45c3d$fe947880$de00a8c0@ACER> References: <004c01c45c3d$fe947880$de00a8c0@ACER> Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:57:53 +0100, "Rui Marques" wrote: >I will not comment or elaborate on the decision, at least at this >moment, but from what I know the comment made about the backup plan was >intended as a private joke and of course not meant seriously. I'm glad to hear that. If it was a joke, then the problem simply seems to be that the TD (a) believed a split score in a claims situation to be legal and (b) believed it to be so even in a L69B situation, where the law text very clearly says that the acquiescence cannot be withdrawn unless... And if it is not withdrawn, then L69A tells us that the slam won. This TD is not the first TD to make mistakes like that, though it seems extremely clear to me not only that this ruling is illegal, but also that split scores in general are illegal in claims situations. >Both teams accepted the decision. That makes the decision final (when the correction period is over), but of course it does not make it legal or correct. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jun 27 17:34:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Willem wrote: >1C = Polish club variant >2C = explained by E to N as heart raise, by W to S as clubs > NS call the TD as they think the misinformation has made it impossible > for them to reach 6C. It looked to me like a easy case and adjustment > to 6C making, but the TD let the score stand, which I dont't understand > at all. I offer speculation only. Were I, as TD to establish that West's explanation to South was correct I think I would be ruling "result stands". It is possible that the MI given to North affected his choice of call over 4N but I would want to talk to the players before making a judgement. Tim From henk@ripe.net Sun Jun 27 20:32:56 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:32:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Willem Mevius wrote: > bidding: > W N E S > - pass pass 1C* > 1H 1S 2C** 3NT > pass 4K pass 4NT > a.p. > > 1C = Polish club variant > 2C = explained by E to N as heart raise, by W to S as clubs > > NS call the TD as they think the misinformation has made it impossible for > them to reach 6C. It looked to me like a easy case and adjustment to 6C > making, but the TD let the score stand, which I dont't understand at all. > > Or am I missing information? Yes, what was the systemic agreement about 2C? South has to make the decision to proceed over 4C. If the explanation by west was correct, then east has misbid and there is no infraction. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Jun 27 23:33:41 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:33:41 +1200 Subject: [blml] why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c45c96$cc5aa980$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) > Sent: Monday, 28 June 2004 7:33 a.m. > To: Willem Mevius > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] why? > > > On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Willem Mevius wrote: > > > bidding: > > W N E S > > - pass pass 1C* > > 1H 1S 2C** 3NT > > pass 4K pass 4NT > > a.p. > > > > 1C = Polish club variant > > 2C = explained by E to N as heart raise, by W to S as clubs > > > > NS call the TD as they think the misinformation has made it > impossible for > > them to reach 6C. It looked to me like a easy case and > adjustment to 6C > > making, but the TD let the score stand, which I dont't > understand at all. > > > > Or am I missing information? > > Yes, what was the systemic agreement about 2C? South has to make the > decision to proceed over 4C. If the explanation by west was > correct, then > east has misbid and there is no infraction. Of course there is an infraction East incorrectly explained their agreements to North. Wayne > > Henk > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people > without the wit > and wisdom to do their job properly. > (David Brent). > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From olnpnlmkyo@analysts.com Mon Jun 28 08:08:28 2004 From: olnpnlmkyo@analysts.com (Rosalyn Sumner) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:08:28 +0600 Subject: [blml] you must see Message-ID: She still sat at her sons' pillow, never removing her eyes from them for a moment. nor thinking of sleep.








Stop future mailings

Then they believed in some mysterious influence exercised by her over human destinies—that every Selenite was attached to some inhabitant of the earth by a tie of sympathy; they maintained that the entire vital system is subject to her control, etc. After this announcement, Prudy expected the family would be sure to call her Rosy Frances Eastman Mary; and, indeed, they were quite willing to please her, whenever they could remember the name. From mauriziodisacco@bipieltel.it Mon Jun 28 12:13:15 2004 From: mauriziodisacco@bipieltel.it (mauriziodisacco@bipieltel.it) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:13:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] why? In-Reply-To: <002101c45c96$cc5aa980$0401010a@Desktop> References: <002101c45c96$cc5aa980$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <1088421195.40dffd4b8e698@toro-cluster.sermix.com> I'm sorry to have seen it only now, otherwise, being a problem happened in my room, I'd solved the problem immediately: - yes, the right information is that 2c is natural, therefore S cannot claim any damage; - indeed, E's explanation would have been an infraction (though I don't see the damage), however, everything happened because North had forgotten to alert 1c! - NS's were then responsible for the mess, and the ones who called the TD were EW, claiming a misdefence because their own misunderstanding caused by the missing alert. They, though, dropped the case. Maurizio Scrive Wayne Burrows : > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) > > Sent: Monday, 28 June 2004 7:33 a.m. > > To: Willem Mevius > > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] why? > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Willem Mevius wrote: > > > > > bidding: > > > W N E S > > > - pass pass 1C* > > > 1H 1S 2C** 3NT > > > pass 4K pass 4NT > > > a.p. > > > > > > 1C = Polish club variant > > > 2C = explained by E to N as heart raise, by W to S as clubs > > > > > > NS call the TD as they think the misinformation has made it > > impossible for > > > them to reach 6C. It looked to me like a easy case and > > adjustment to 6C > > > making, but the TD let the score stand, which I dont't > > understand at all. > > > > > > Or am I missing information? > > > > Yes, what was the systemic agreement about 2C? South has to make the > > decision to proceed over 4C. If the explanation by west was > > correct, then > > east has misbid and there is no infraction. > > Of course there is an infraction East incorrectly explained their > agreements to North. > > Wayne > > > > > Henk > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------- > > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > > P.O.Box 10096 > > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------- > > > > Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people > > without the wit > > and wisdom to do their job properly. > > (David Brent). > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 lusobridge@lusobridge.com Mon Jun 28 12:36:16 2004 From: lusobridge@lusobridge.com (Rui Marques) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:36:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Told about" cases... In-Reply-To: <004c01c45c3d$fe947880$de00a8c0@ACER> Message-ID: <001901c45d04$2c9b3cc0$de00a8c0@ACER> >From the last postings it seems to me that cases are being brought here more frequently with incomplete and/or wrong facts and taken at face value. When bringing a case when you=B4re not the TD involved, or a = member of the AC, please be careful gathering the facts first. One source (a player, a spectator, a commentator) is almost always insufficient because they were not AT THE TABLE and the data that surfaces that way is not always incomplete. From wmevius@hotmail.com Mon Jun 28 17:55:12 2004 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:55:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] why? Message-ID: Ah that explains things - thanks Maurizio! Willem Mevius wmevius@hotmail.com >From: mauriziodisacco@bipieltel.it >To: Wayne Burrows >CC: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: RE: [blml] why? >Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:13:15 +0200 > > >I'm sorry to have seen it only now, otherwise, being a problem happened in >my >room, I'd solved the problem immediately: > - yes, the right information is that 2c is natural, therefore S cannot >claim >any damage; >- indeed, E's explanation would have been an infraction (though I don't see >the >damage), however, everything happened because North had forgotten to alert >1c! >- NS's were then responsible for the mess, and the ones who called the TD >were >EW, claiming a misdefence because their own misunderstanding caused by the >missing alert. They, though, dropped the case. > >Maurizio > > > >Scrive Wayne Burrows : > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) > > > Sent: Monday, 28 June 2004 7:33 a.m. > > > To: Willem Mevius > > > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] why? > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Willem Mevius wrote: > > > > > > > bidding: > > > > W N E S > > > > - pass pass 1C* > > > > 1H 1S 2C** 3NT > > > > pass 4K pass 4NT > > > > a.p. > > > > > > > > 1C = Polish club variant > > > > 2C = explained by E to N as heart raise, by W to S as clubs > > > > > > > > NS call the TD as they think the misinformation has made it > > > impossible for > > > > them to reach 6C. It looked to me like a easy case and > > > adjustment to 6C > > > > making, but the TD let the score stand, which I dont't > > > understand at all. > > > > > > > > Or am I missing information? > > > > > > Yes, what was the systemic agreement about 2C? South has to make the > > > decision to proceed over 4C. If the explanation by west was > > > correct, then > > > east has misbid and there is no infraction. > > > > Of course there is an infraction East incorrectly explained their > > agreements to North. > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > Henk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------------- > > > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > > > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > > > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > > > P.O.Box 10096 > > > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > > > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > > > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------------- > > > > > > Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people > > > without the wit > > > and wisdom to do their job properly. > > > (David Brent). > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 29 08:14:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:14:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>>it is my opinion that to forget your system is insulting to >>>your opponents. It spoils their enjoyment. it is an offence >>>against the proprieties. I can issue a DP, but not a PP. Jim Hudson: >>DPs are fine; but shouldn't they be mentioned somewhere in the >>Laws? Edward Gibbon: >My English text is chste, and all licentious passages are left in >the obscurity of a learned language. Richard Hills: MadDog has used the obscurity of "Tournament Director acronym" - or "TDA" - to translate the licentious "disciplinary penalties" in Law 91A to "DPs". Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jun 29 08:24:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:24:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: Karel asked: [snip] >Now let's say that this 3 imp PP is the difference >between a team winning and losing (as it was). The >losing side is now going to want to appeal the PP. >What are their chances of winning? Richard replies: Nil. Karel asked: >If you are on such an appeals commitee (cough) where >do/should you go to arrive at your decision? Law 93B3: ".....except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers....." Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jun 29 11:21:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:21:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Karel asked: > >[snip] > >>Now let's say that this 3 imp PP is the difference >>between a team winning and losing (as it was). The >>losing side is now going to want to appeal the PP. >>What are their chances of winning? > >Richard replies: > >Nil. > >Karel asked: > >>If you are on such an appeals commitee (cough) where >>do/should you go to arrive at your decision? > >Law 93B3: > >".....except that the committee may not overrule the >Director on a point of law or regulations, or on >exercise of his disciplinary powers....." A PP is not disciplinary - that's a DP - so an AC has a perfect right to over-rule a TD on a PP. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Tue Jun 29 12:48:21 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:48:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... References: Message-ID: It would serve us best if we remembered the difference between Procedural Penalties, Law 90, and disciplinary penalties Law 91. Law 90 can be appealed, Law 91 can not. See Laws 81 C 4 and 93 B 3. Procedural does not mean disciplinary. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... > > > > > Karel asked: > > [snip] > > >Now let's say that this 3 imp PP is the difference > >between a team winning and losing (as it was). The > >losing side is now going to want to appeal the PP. > >What are their chances of winning? > > Richard replies: > > Nil. > > Karel asked: > > >If you are on such an appeals commitee (cough) where > >do/should you go to arrive at your decision? > > Law 93B3: > > ".....except that the committee may not overrule the > Director on a point of law or regulations, or on > exercise of his disciplinary powers....." > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jun 29 17:51:39 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:51:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... References: Message-ID: <000601c45df9$5ba38720$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > It would serve us best if we remembered the difference between Procedural > Penalties, Law 90, and disciplinary penalties Law 91. Law 90 can be > appealed, Law 91 can not. See Laws 81 C 4 and 93 B 3. Procedural does not > mean disciplinary. =K= Which very few seem to understand. The title of this law was changed from "Disciplinary Penalties" in 1963 to "Procedural Penalties" in 1975, with no significant change in content. Why? Because the LC saw that PPs were being assessed for offenses that had nothing to do with the procedures peculiar to duplicate bridge (examples given in L90B, whose "not limited to" means "and the like," and is not a *carte blanche* to use PPs for any misdeed). When the Laws of Duplicate Bridge were first derived from the Laws of Contract Bridge way back when, it was obvious that the procedures peculiar to duplicate (examples in L90B) required penalty provisions for their violation, and that is the sole purpose of PPs. Please do not point to L74C, in which the word "propriety" was changed to "procedure" in 1997, evidently making PPs applicable to breaches in propriety, now erroneously called ""violations of procedure." Using the score sheet to penalize breaches in propriety is no more appropriate than it would be in a rubber bridge game. Discipline is a matter for a TD lecture, an ACBL "Player Report," possibly a C&E comittee, and L91 only in extreme cases. Except for the last, it is not a matter to be handled by the subtraction of points scored. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk Tue Jun 29 20:31:14 2004 From: postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk (postmaster@premiumtv.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:31:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Message-ID: This is a MIME-formatted message. Portions of this message may be unreadable without a MIME-capable mail program. --9B095B5ADSN=_01C45CE65FBB020200009A63ptvexc01.ptv.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unicode-1-1-utf-7 This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. lists@premiumtv.co.uk --9B095B5ADSN=_01C45CE65FBB020200009A63ptvexc01.ptv.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns;ptvexc01.ptv.com Received-From-MTA: dns;PTVFWS01 Arrival-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:31:14 +0100 Final-Recipient: rfc822;lists@premiumtv.co.uk Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 --9B095B5ADSN=_01C45CE65FBB020200009A63ptvexc01.ptv.com Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from PTVFWS01 ([192.168.2.253]) by ptvexc01.ptv.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:31:14 +0100 Received: from ([82.33.170.30]) by PTVFWS01; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:31:07 +0100 (BST) From: blml@rtflb.org To: lists@premiumtv.co.uk Subject: Re: Here is the document Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:31:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_00001AA2.00007876" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Return-Path: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2004 19:31:14.0152 (UTC) FILETIME=[A3F59E80:01C45E0F] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_00001AA2.00007876 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your file is attached. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_00001AA2.00007876 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_0000_00001AA2.00007876-- --9B095B5ADSN=_01C45CE65FBB020200009A63ptvexc01.ptv.com-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 30 00:34:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:34:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: Kojak wrote: >>It would serve us best if we remembered the >>difference between Procedural Penalties, Law >>90, and disciplinary penalties Law 91. Law >>90 can be appealed, Law 91 can not. See Laws >>81 C 4 and 93 B 3. Procedural does not mean >>disciplinary. =K= Marvin French wrote: >Which very few seem to understand. The title >of this law was changed from "Disciplinary >Penalties" in 1963 to "Procedural Penalties" >in 1975, with no significant change in >content. Why? Because the LC saw that PPs >were being assessed for offenses that had >nothing to do with the procedures peculiar to >duplicate bridge (examples given in L90B, >whose "not limited to" means "and the like," >and is not a *carte blanche* to use PPs for >any misdeed). [snip] Richard Hills writes: Mea culpa. Marv and Kojak are of course right in stating that PPs are *not* an exercise of a TD's disciplinary powers, and therefore PPs may be varied or rescinded by an AC. I was wrong. However, I gain schadenfreude in noting that David Stevenson was also wrong, when he stated that a PP for forgetting your system (although a ridiculous use of a TD's power) was a legal use of a TD's power. David Stevenson earlier wrote: >>>I do not buy it. If the TD says "The >>>offence is ..." I do not think that a >>>National Authority would accept "It is not >>>an offence: RJH says not" makes it illegal >>>to give a PP. >>> >>>The TD makes the determination of what is an >>>offence, no doubt deciding on the wording of >>>L90A. So if a player inconveniences other >>>players through his lack of something, he is >>>perfectly entitled to decide it is an >>>offence. WBF Code of Practice states: >>>>A procedural penalty may only be applied >>>>where there is a violation of the laws or >>>>of a regulation made under the laws. If an >>>>appeal committee awards a procedural >>>>penalty it should specify what law or >>>>regulation has been violated. >>>> >>>>In particular the WBF wishes to stress that >>>>a player who forgets his convention, misbids >>>>or misuses it, is not subject to automatic >>>>penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural >>>>penalty will only be applied in aggravated >>>>circumstances, as for example misuse several >>>>times repeated. Score adjustment is the way >>>>to redress damage. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 30 00:41:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:41:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Told about" cases... Message-ID: Rui Marques: >From the last postings it seems to me that cases >are being brought here more frequently with >incomplete and/or wrong facts and taken at face >value. When bringing a case when you're not the >TD involved, or a member of the AC, please be >careful gathering the facts first. One source (a >player, a spectator, a commentator) is almost >always insufficient because they were not AT THE >TABLE and the data that surfaces that way is not >always complete. Richard Hills: Point taken. However, even cases with incomplete or biased information can provide a useful basis for a hypothetical discussion. Indeed, on a few occasions I have *deliberately* presented cases with incomplete or biased information, so that discussion of key points can proceed in an appropriate hypothetical context. For an example of the usefulness of incomplete or biased hypothetical discussion on blml, see the Groundhog Day thread on the blml archive. Best wishes RJH From tg0jlh1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jun 30 00:59:54 2004 From: tg0jlh1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:59:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: >>> 06/29/04 2:14 AM >>> Richard Hills: MadDog has used the obscurity of "Tournament Director acronym" - or "TDA" - to translate the licentious "disciplinary penalties" in Law 91A to "DPs". ---------------------- My apologies to BLML for my ignorance in overlooking Law 91A. Obviously I am not a TD; even a novice director, if he had the slightest taste for power, would be struck so forcibly by the provisions of this law as never to let them slip far from consciousness. What, after all, is *not* included under "order and discipline"? And then Law 93B3 is the icing on the cake: the director's DP may not be overturned by an AC; an appellant must have recourse to the NO for relief. I am beginning to incline toward getting myself certified as a director. Vast--almost unlimited--powers await me! (But I wonder why directors seem so reluctant to wield these powers. DPs are extraordinarily rare.) Jim Hudson From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jun 30 01:41:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:41:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4wOhgsOSxg4AFwe5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >Kojak wrote: > >>>It would serve us best if we remembered the >>>difference between Procedural Penalties, Law >>>90, and disciplinary penalties Law 91. Law >>>90 can be appealed, Law 91 can not. See Laws >>>81 C 4 and 93 B 3. Procedural does not mean >>>disciplinary. =K= > >Marvin French wrote: > >>Which very few seem to understand. The title >>of this law was changed from "Disciplinary >>Penalties" in 1963 to "Procedural Penalties" >>in 1975, with no significant change in >>content. Why? Because the LC saw that PPs >>were being assessed for offenses that had >>nothing to do with the procedures peculiar to >>duplicate bridge (examples given in L90B, >>whose "not limited to" means "and the like," >>and is not a *carte blanche* to use PPs for >>any misdeed). > >[snip] > >Richard Hills writes: > >Mea culpa. Marv and Kojak are of course right >in stating that PPs are *not* an exercise of a >TD's disciplinary powers, and therefore PPs may >be varied or rescinded by an AC. I was wrong. > >However, I gain schadenfreude in noting that >David Stevenson was also wrong, when he stated >that a PP for forgetting your system (although >a ridiculous use of a TD's power) was a legal >use of a TD's power. > >David Stevenson earlier wrote: > >>>>I do not buy it. If the TD says "The >>>>offence is ..." I do not think that a >>>>National Authority would accept "It is not >>>>an offence: RJH says not" makes it illegal >>>>to give a PP. >>>> >>>>The TD makes the determination of what is an >>>>offence, no doubt deciding on the wording of >>>>L90A. So if a player inconveniences other >>>>players through his lack of something, he is >>>>perfectly entitled to decide it is an >>>>offence. > >WBF Code of Practice states: > >>>>>A procedural penalty may only be applied >>>>>where there is a violation of the laws or >>>>>of a regulation made under the laws. If an >>>>>appeal committee awards a procedural >>>>>penalty it should specify what law or >>>>>regulation has been violated. >>>>> >>>>>In particular the WBF wishes to stress that >>>>>a player who forgets his convention, misbids >>>>>or misuses it, is not subject to automatic >>>>>penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural >>>>>penalty will only be applied in aggravated >>>>>circumstances, as for example misuse several >>>>>times repeated. Score adjustment is the way >>>>>to redress damage. L74A2. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Jun 30 01:12:04 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:12:04 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, James Hudson wrote: > I am beginning to incline toward getting myself certified as a director. > Vast--almost unlimited--powers await me! (But I wonder why directors > seem so reluctant to wield these powers. DPs are extraordinarily rare.) I am sure someone with more experience and historical background will correct me -- but it is my impression that L91's "no right of appeal" is only there so that if a contestant is suspended from a session, but on review is found to still be eligible for the next, you are freed from having to award 25 lateplays or 25 average-pluses or whatever, but can just say "sorry, that session is history now, what can we do to make it up to you?" It's very hard for me to imagine circumstances that call for using L91 powers. When "Zero Tolerance" became popular in the late 90s, we suddenly learned this law existed, because it was, supposedly, the justification for giving out automatic non-appealable penalties for bad behavior: I was in a minority (at least in my ACBL district) who opposed ZT, partly for its negativity, and partly because I thought it was an illegal power grab on the part of the SO: L91 says "the director is specifically empowered," and ZT took away his right to choose how to use the power. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 30 02:30:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:30:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice states: >>A procedural penalty may only be applied >>where there is a violation of the laws or >>of a regulation made under the laws. If an >>appeal committee awards a procedural >>penalty it should specify what law or >>regulation has been violated. >> >>In particular the WBF wishes to stress that >>a player who forgets his convention, misbids >>or misuses it, is not subject to automatic >>penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural >>penalty will only be applied in aggravated >>circumstances, as for example misuse several >>times repeated. Score adjustment is the way >>to redress damage. David Stevenson succinctised: >L74A2. Richard Hills notes: Either David did not make his earlier intention totally clear, or David's position has now slightly shifted. Earlier I argued that a Law 90A "offence" could only be perpetrated by an offending side, one which infracted law. Earlier David seemed to argue that a TD had an (albeit ridiculous) almost unlimited power to define what an "offence" was. Now it seems that David agrees with me and the WBF Code of Practice that a Law 90A "offence" requires an infraction of Law, and David is now suggesting that forgetting your system is an infraction of Law 74A2. Law 74A2 states: >>>A player should carefully avoid any remark >>>or action that might cause annoyance or >>>embarrassment to another player or might >>>interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Richard Hills continues: The WBF LC has stated that attempting to take advantage of Law 15C by opening 7NT is an infraction of Law 74A2. The ACBL has stated that attempting to take advantage of a flawed CoC (which rewards dumping) by opening 7NT is an infraction of Law 74A2. However, the WBF Code of Practice seems to distinguish between a deliberate attempt to take advantage, and an inadvertent forget. The apparent succinct DWS opinion that a single forget is a possible Law 74A2 infraction is directly contrary to what the WBF CoP says, "the WBF wishes to stress ..... not subject to automatic penalty." Furthermore, the relevant Law for the WBF Code of Practice caveat, "aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated", seems to me to not be Law 74A2, but rather Law 74B1, which states: >>>As a matter of courtesy a player should >>>refrain from paying insufficient attention >>>to the game. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 30 08:41:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:41:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Baby face Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H Double 1S Pass 2D Pass 2H ? You, South, hold: J9743 K96 9 T942 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills From pszym@gmx.de Wed Jun 30 10:01:47 2004 From: pszym@gmx.de (Pawel Szymonik) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:01:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Baby face References: Message-ID: <007601c45e80$df890420$0b01a8c0@RODZICEMADY> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: [blml] Baby face > > > > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H Double 1S Pass > 2D Pass 2H ? > > You, South, hold: > > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > > What call do you make? Pass. > What other calls do you consider making? Thinking of 2S but would rather wait for the second double from N. Then 2S of course. The other thing is a table presence. If I feel that E psyched with spades I would bid 2S directly to take away a pressure from partner. Cheers Pawel From david.barton@boltblue.com Wed Jun 30 10:06:50 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:06:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face References: Message-ID: <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:41 AM Subject: [blml] Baby face > > > > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H Double 1S Pass > 2D Pass 2H ? > > You, South, hold: > > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > I bid 2S. I do not consider any other call. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jun 30 10:11:42 2004 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:11:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face References: Message-ID: <002e01c45e82$428cf530$536b2452@mikeamos> well - because when I started to play bridge after 1H X 1S showed 13 cards at least three of which were black I "think" about 2S for a moment but that's silly Why should I think about 3C when I didn't bid 2C? Im pretty damn sure X would be for penalties Surely the point is here that if partner is big with short Hs he can double again in 4th and then I can bid 2S which will pretty damn well show my hand I pass and truthfully don't think much about anything else (yawn yawn - I've held a yarborough, two three counts and now this good awful 4 count "What's wrong with that effing dealing program? I haven't had an opening hand for two and a half sessions ...............) Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:41 AM Subject: [blml] Baby face > > > > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H Double 1S Pass > 2D Pass 2H ? > > You, South, hold: > > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jun 30 11:10:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:10:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >WBF Code of Practice states: > >>>A procedural penalty may only be applied >>>where there is a violation of the laws or >>>of a regulation made under the laws. If an >>>appeal committee awards a procedural >>>penalty it should specify what law or >>>regulation has been violated. >>> >>>In particular the WBF wishes to stress that >>>a player who forgets his convention, misbids >>>or misuses it, is not subject to automatic >>>penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural >>>penalty will only be applied in aggravated >>>circumstances, as for example misuse several >>>times repeated. Score adjustment is the way >>>to redress damage. > >David Stevenson succinctised: > >>L74A2. > >Richard Hills notes: > >Either David did not make his earlier intention >totally clear, or David's position has now >slightly shifted. > >Earlier I argued that a Law 90A "offence" could >only be perpetrated by an offending side, one >which infracted law. Earlier David seemed to >argue that a TD had an (albeit ridiculous) >almost unlimited power to define what an >"offence" was. > >Now it seems that David agrees with me and the >WBF Code of Practice that a Law 90A "offence" >requires an infraction of Law, and David is now >suggesting that forgetting your system is an >infraction of Law 74A2. It is all very well to bandy words in this ridiculous way, but the efforts of a tiny minority of BLML to make this game poorer for a very large number of people does no good, and really should be taken to alt.usage.angelsontheheadofapin. If a TD decides that a breach of procedure requires a PP then there are one of two possibilities [a] he gives a PP based on L90, or [b] his sponsoring organisation has decreed otherwise The third possibility, that a member of BLML has decided this particular case is not subject to a PP, which they can tell from thousands of miles and years away is not the answer. And make no mistake, the WBF CoP has no more force of Law than that member of BLML. It just happens that, on average, the WBF CoP happens to be generally right. To violate procedure in the way envisioned by L90A, judging by the wording of L90A - you have read it, have you not? "inconveniences other contestants" - is a matter for judgement in individual cases, not for pronouncements of members of BLML to supersede the TD because they know better than him. >Richard Hills continues: > >The WBF LC has stated that attempting to take >advantage of Law 15C by opening 7NT is an >infraction of Law 74A2. > >The ACBL has stated that attempting to take >advantage of a flawed CoC (which rewards >dumping) by opening 7NT is an infraction of >Law 74A2. > >However, the WBF Code of Practice seems to >distinguish between a deliberate attempt to >take advantage, and an inadvertent forget. > >The apparent succinct DWS opinion that a single >forget is a possible Law 74A2 infraction is >directly contrary to what the WBF CoP says, >"the WBF wishes to stress ..... not subject to >automatic penalty." Who on earth said it is an automatic penalty? Not me, that's for sure. A single case may be subject to PP legally - the WBF CoP does not say otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jun 30 11:12:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:12:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: West >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1H Double 1S Pass >2D Pass 2H ? > >You, South, hold: > >J9743 >K96 >9 >T942 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? How on earth can you present such an impossible case? Of course I do not pass the previous round with a 100% obvious double. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 30 11:16:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:16:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: <002e01c45e82$428cf530$536b2452@mikeamos> References: <002e01c45e82$428cf530$536b2452@mikeamos> Message-ID: mamos wrote >well - because when I started to play bridge after 1H X 1S showed 13 cards >at least three of which were black I "think" about 2S for a moment but >that's silly > >Why should I think about 3C when I didn't bid 2C? > >Im pretty damn sure X would be for penalties > >Surely the point is here that if partner is big with short Hs he can double >again in 4th and then I can bid 2S which will pretty damn well show my hand > >I pass and truthfully don't think much about anything else (yawn yawn - I've >held a yarborough, two three counts and now this good awful 4 count "What's >wrong with that effing dealing program? I haven't had an opening hand for >two and a half sessions ...............) 2S is cold, 2H is cold, mamos is top posting and wasting his good hands. Sympathy for mamos is not required here. >Mike > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:41 AM >Subject: [blml] Baby face > > >> >> >> >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: West >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1H Double 1S Pass >> 2D Pass 2H ? >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J9743 >> K96 >> 9 >> T942 >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do you consider making? >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From robin@teeth4life.co.nz Wed Jun 30 06:33:39 2004 From: robin@teeth4life.co.nz (Robin Bennett) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:33:39 +1200 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <000001c45e7b$ec537fa0$0a01a8c0@desktop> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C45EC8.6172CC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable subscribe bridge-laws Robin & Jean Bennett P.O. Box 1229, Gisborne, New Zealand Surgery phone 068679108, fax 068679101 Home Ph: 068672383 Fax: 068672057 Weekend dental emergencies, 8-5pm phone 021808822 E-Mail : robin@teeth4life.co.nz ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C45EC8.6172CC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
subscribe bridge-laws
 

Robin & Jean Bennett
P.O. = Box 1229,=20 Gisborne, New Zealand
Surgery phone 068679108,  fax=20 068679101
Home  Ph: 068672383  Fax: 068672057
Weekend = dental=20 emergencies, 8-5pm phone 021808822
E-Mail : robin@teeth4life.co.nz=20
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C45EC8.6172CC40-- From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jun 30 11:19:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:19:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote >On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, James Hudson wrote: > >> I am beginning to incline toward getting myself certified as a director. >> Vast--almost unlimited--powers await me! (But I wonder why directors >> seem so reluctant to wield these powers. DPs are extraordinarily rare.) > >I am sure someone with more experience and historical background will >correct me -- but it is my impression that L91's "no right of appeal" is >only there so that if a contestant is suspended from a session, but on >review is found to still be eligible for the next, you are freed from >having to award 25 lateplays or 25 average-pluses or whatever, but can >just say "sorry, that session is history now, what can we do to make it up >to you?" > >It's very hard for me to imagine circumstances that call for using L91 >powers. When "Zero Tolerance" became popular in the late 90s, we suddenly >learned this law existed, because it was, supposedly, the justification >for giving out automatic non-appealable penalties for bad behavior: I was >in a minority (at least in my ACBL district) who opposed ZT, partly for >its negativity, and partly because I thought it was an illegal power grab >on the part of the SO: L91 says "the director is specifically empowered," >and ZT took away his right to choose how to use the power. TDs are not dictators. It is normal for TDs to follow the dictates of their sponsoring organisation, and does not seem an unreasonable approach. Of course, good TDs were already using L91. The main advantage of ZT was that it made the disciplinary powers available more apparent to players who did not complain when they should, players who acted unreasonably and thought they could not fail to get away with it, and TDs who did not use their powers. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 30 11:36:02 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >WBF Code of Practice states: > >>>A procedural penalty may only be applied >>>where there is a violation of the laws or >>>of a regulation made under the laws. If an >>>appeal committee awards a procedural >>>penalty it should specify what law or >>>regulation has been violated. >>> >>>In particular the WBF wishes to stress that >>>a player who forgets his convention, misbids >>>or misuses it, is not subject to automatic >>>penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural >>>penalty will only be applied in aggravated >>>circumstances, as for example misuse several >>>times repeated. Score adjustment is the way >>>to redress damage. > >David Stevenson succinctised: > >>L74A2. > >Richard Hills notes: > >Either David did not make his earlier intention >totally clear, or David's position has now >slightly shifted. > >Earlier I argued that a Law 90A "offence" could >only be perpetrated by an offending side, one >which infracted law. Earlier David seemed to >argue that a TD had an (albeit ridiculous) >almost unlimited power to define what an >"offence" was. > >Now it seems that David agrees with me and the >WBF Code of Practice that a Law 90A "offence" >requires an infraction of Law, and David is now >suggesting that forgetting your system is an >infraction of Law 74A2. Further to my previous post, no-one was talking about a single instance anyway. The previous posts on this subject said that it was illegal to give a PP for forgetting your system. So to penalise someone who always forgets his system after warnings, whether a desirable practice or not, is just as much covered by the argument in this thread, but not by the WBF CoP advice. I think it is time that people re-read L90A, and then allowed TDs the right to follow the wording of that Law. They can argue to their hearts content as to which happenings should be penalised. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jun 30 11:59:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:59:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3L$S+EGV0p4AFwtu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote >RJH wrote > >>WBF Code of Practice states: >> >>>>A procedural penalty may only be applied >>>>where there is a violation of the laws or >>>>of a regulation made under the laws. If an >>>>appeal committee awards a procedural >>>>penalty it should specify what law or >>>>regulation has been violated. >>>> >>>>In particular the WBF wishes to stress that >>>>a player who forgets his convention, misbids >>>>or misuses it, is not subject to automatic >>>>penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural >>>>penalty will only be applied in aggravated >>>>circumstances, as for example misuse several >>>>times repeated. Score adjustment is the way >>>>to redress damage. >> >>David Stevenson succinctised: >> >>>L74A2. >> >>Richard Hills notes: >> >>Either David did not make his earlier intention >>totally clear, or David's position has now >>slightly shifted. >> >>Earlier I argued that a Law 90A "offence" could >>only be perpetrated by an offending side, one >>which infracted law. Earlier David seemed to >>argue that a TD had an (albeit ridiculous) >>almost unlimited power to define what an >>"offence" was. >> >>Now it seems that David agrees with me and the >>WBF Code of Practice that a Law 90A "offence" >>requires an infraction of Law, and David is now >>suggesting that forgetting your system is an >>infraction of Law 74A2. > > It is all very well to bandy words in this ridiculous way, but the >efforts of a tiny minority of BLML to make this game poorer for a very >large number of people does no good, and really should be taken to >alt.usage.angelsontheheadofapin. I suppose, having considered it, that this is unfair. If the complaints made about L90 had any validity it would be worth considering them - and getting them changed. Fortunately L90A is clear. Marv has always argued that offences not covered by L90B or similar to those cannot receive PPs. However, the Law does not say this, so what he says is wrong in Law. The WBF CoP says a breach of Law is required before L90A can be used. The WBF CoP has no force of Law, of course, but in practice any offence the TD decrees as suitable for a PP is covered by one of the laws anyway. What I find so difficult to understand is two things: [a] When L90A is clear people want to argue its words do not mean what they say [b] Why people want to argue that L90A should be limited in a way it is 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 john@asimere.com Wed Jun 30 15:10:41 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:10:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: <007601c45e80$df890420$0b01a8c0@RODZICEMADY> References: <007601c45e80$df890420$0b01a8c0@RODZICEMADY> Message-ID: <1BcccLAhns4AFwcy@asimere.com> In article <007601c45e80$df890420$0b01a8c0@RODZICEMADY>, Pawel Szymonik writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:41 AM >Subject: [blml] Baby face > > >> >> >> >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: West >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1H Double 1S Pass >> 2D Pass 2H ? >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J9743 >> K96 >> 9 >> T942 >> >> What call do you make? > >Pass. > >> What other calls do you consider making? > >Thinking of 2S but would rather wait for the second double from N. Then 2S >of course. The other thing is a table presence. If I feel that E psyched >with spades I would bid 2S directly to take away a pressure from partner. > I think it's one deeper than this Pawel. I'm inclined to pass and see if they've missed game. A psyche exposing 2S is likely to help them get to game. If they bid game I'll stake everything on the psyche and bid 4S. If partner makes a 2nd double I'll try 3S, followed by 4S. I'm looking at a 170/300/420 scenario. >Cheers >Pawel > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jun 30 15:12:56 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:12:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet> References: <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <8ROe4XAops4AFwcM@asimere.com> In article <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet>, David Barton writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:41 AM >Subject: [blml] Baby face > > >> >> >> >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: West >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1H Double 1S Pass >> 2D Pass 2H ? >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J9743 >> K96 >> 9 >> T942 >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do you consider making? >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> > >I bid 2S. >I do not consider any other call. This is the action of a chair-leg "I only had 6 points partner". At minimum you have a 3S bid. But I've argued elsewhere why pass may be a much more subtle action. John > >********************************** >David.Barton@BoltBlue.com >********************************** > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jun 30 15:16:37 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:16:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BVcMhAFts4AFwcb@asimere.com> In article , David Stevenson writes >RJH wrote >> >> >> >> >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: West >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1H Double 1S Pass >>2D Pass 2H ? >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>J9743 >>K96 >>9 >>T942 >> >>What call do you make? >>What other calls do you consider making? > > How on earth can you present such an impossible case? Of course I do >not pass the previous round with a 100% obvious double. You psyched your pass? sandbagging to get them to miss game or let you play in spades doubled? For a man who has knowingly been on lead against a 2-level contract holding an 8-bagger your remarks are disingenuous to say the least 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 Jun 30 15:28:09 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:28:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face References: Message-ID: <000701c45eae$7864aa00$8a9868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] Pairs, West, North-South WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H Double 1S Pass 2D Pass 2H ? You, South, hold: J9743 K96 9 T942 [Nigel] What call do you make? 2S What other calls do you consider making? P From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jun 30 15:59:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:59:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... References: <3L$S+EGV0p4AFwtu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <002501c45eb2$c7144300$8a9868d5@jeushtlj> The "forgetting" system problem (& related problems) disappear, if the WBFLC would adopt a simplification, suggested earlier in BLML. If opponents ask about partner's bid and you don't know then you must guess. If you guess wrong then partner mustn't take advantage of the unauthorised information. Anyway, if you misdescribe the agreed meaning and opponents are damaged as a consequence of the misinformation, then they may seek redress. This simple draconian rule may be waived only for a partnership who are trying to l earn the untrammelled "standard" system. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 30 16:06:07 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:06:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: <8ROe4XAops4AFwcM@asimere.com> References: <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet> <8ROe4XAops4AFwcM@asimere.com> Message-ID: <03ADC428-CAA7-11D8-B4EE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 30 Jun 2004, at 15:12, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet>, David Barton > writes >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:41 AM >> Subject: [blml] Baby face >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Matchpoint pairs >>> Dlr: West >>> Vul: North-South >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> 1H Double 1S Pass >>> 2D Pass 2H ? >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> J9743 >>> K96 >>> 9 >>> T942 >>> >>> What call do you make? >>> What other calls do you consider making? >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> >> >> I bid 2S. >> I do not consider any other call. > > This is the action of a chair-leg "I only had 6 points partner". At > minimum you have a 3S bid. But I've argued elsewhere why pass may be a > much more subtle action. > > John You think 3S is the minimum bid? Imagine: Kxx 10x AQJx Kxxx -- AQ1082 AQxxxx Jx Kxxxx xxx AQ Jxx J9743 K96 9 T942 Any impossible calls here? They're about to bid a non-making game, and you're going to give them a shot at +800! -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john@asimere.com Wed Jun 30 17:15:37 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:15:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: <03ADC428-CAA7-11D8-B4EE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet> <8ROe4XAops4AFwcM@asimere.com> <03ADC428-CAA7-11D8-B4EE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <03ADC428-CAA7-11D8-B4EE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 30 Jun 2004, at 15:12, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In article <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet>, David Barton >> writes >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: >>> To: >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:41 AM >>> Subject: [blml] Baby face >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>> Dlr: West >>>> Vul: North-South >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> 1H Double 1S Pass >>>> 2D Pass 2H ? >>>> >>>> You, South, hold: >>>> >>>> J9743 >>>> K96 >>>> 9 >>>> T942 >>>> >>>> What call do you make? >>>> What other calls do you consider making? >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Richard Hills >>>> >>> >>> I bid 2S. >>> I do not consider any other call. >> >> This is the action of a chair-leg "I only had 6 points partner". At >> minimum you have a 3S bid. But I've argued elsewhere why pass may be a >> much more subtle action. >> >> John > >You think 3S is the minimum bid? Imagine: > > Kxx > 10x > AQJx > Kxxx > -- AQ1082 > AQxxxx Jx > Kxxxx xxx > AQ Jxx > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > >Any impossible calls here? They're about to bid a non-making game, and >you're going to give them a shot at +800! Gordon, please don't tell me that you think this is remotely close to a takeout double. As I said (depending on the dramatis personnae) I'm willing to gamble on the psyche. I've had bottoms before when opponents have their calls and I thought they hadn't, and it'll happen again. It's matchpoints and I don't play for averages :) But as I said, Pass is way better than 2S - If you *have* to bid make the LOTT call and await developments. On t'other side of the coin, on one occasion the TD got called because I DID have the 1S response :) cheers John > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jun 30 17:57:01 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:57:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: References: <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet> <8ROe4XAops4AFwcM@asimere.com> <03ADC428-CAA7-11D8-B4EE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <81D041C3-CAB6-11D8-B4EE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 30 Jun 2004, at 17:15, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Gordon, please don't tell me that you think this is remotely close to a > takeout double. It seems routine to me, but if you'd be happier moving one major suit card around, you can probably improve the trade to +50 for -500, or -420 for -800. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Jun 30 18:41:59 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:41:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: West >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1H Double 1S Pass >2D Pass 2H ? > >You, South, hold: > >J9743 >K96 >9 >T942 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? +++ I would have doubled 1st time. This is a routine agreement to expose a typical "baby" psyche. Having not doubled - I will now bid 2S's with the presumed safety of a club fit should RHO actually have spades and decideds to put manners on us. I'm not doubling as this is penalties. No 3C's when we can quite likely play in 2S's. Not passing as we actually have a semi reasonable hand and surely a fit for pd. K. From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jun 30 18:51:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:51:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: <03ADC428-CAA7-11D8-B4EE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet> <8ROe4XAops4AFwcM@asimere.com> <03ADC428-CAA7-11D8-B4EE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 30 Jun 2004, at 15:12, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> In article <000401c45e81$95678c80$0307a8c0@PlusNet>, David Barton >> writes >>> I bid 2S. >>> I do not consider any other call. >> >> This is the action of a chair-leg "I only had 6 points partner". At >> minimum you have a 3S bid. But I've argued elsewhere why pass may be a >> much more subtle action. >You think 3S is the minimum bid? Imagine: > > Kxx > 10x > AQJx > Kxxx > -- AQ1082 > AQxxxx Jx > Kxxxx xxx > AQ Jxx > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > >Any impossible calls here? They're about to bid a non-making game, and >you're going to give them a shot at +800! Now we see why John does not like my double of 1S, which would be the last time either of us make a positive call with that setup - must be because it was too successful, eh, John? Time you got some advice on the game from Kikue Tambara & Etsuko Yamaguchi, two players in John's Japanese Ladies club, still leading my Sim Pairs with results form 20 clubs already in. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jun 30 19:09:08 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: from "Karel" at Jun 30, 2004 06:41:59 PM Message-ID: <200406301809.i5UI985s010043@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Karel writes: > > > > >Matchpoint pairs > >Dlr: West > >Vul: North-South > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >1H Double 1S Pass > >2D Pass 2H ? > > > >You, South, hold: > > > >J9743 > >K96 > >9 > >T942 > > > >What call do you make? > >What other calls do you consider making? > > +++ I would have doubled 1st time. This is a routine agreement to expose a > typical "baby" psyche. A point made by several others. I disagree. Not enough values. I wouldn't double holding less than a 2S response (had East passed initially) There's no need to act initially if East is psyching. Backing in later shows a bad hand with spades. > Having not doubled - I will now bid 2S's with the > presumed safety of a club fit should RHO actually have spades and decideds > to put manners on us. > > I'm not doubling as this is penalties. No 3C's when we can quite likely > play in 2S's. Not passing as we actually have a semi reasonable hand and > surely a fit for pd. > Same logic for me. Partner either has 3+ spades or a huge hand. My initial pass has served to usefully limit my hand in either case. From henk@amsterdamned.org Wed Jun 30 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 30 23:18:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:18:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Baby face Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >Gordon, please don't tell me that you think this >is remotely close to a takeout double. As I >said (depending on the dramatis personnae) I'm >willing to gamble on the psyche. I've had >bottoms before when opponents have their calls >and I thought they hadn't, and it'll happen >again. It's matchpoints and I don't play for >averages :) But as I said, Pass is way better >than 2S - If you *have* to bid make the LOTT >call and await developments. > >On t'other side of the coin, on one occasion the >TD got called because I DID have the 1S response >:) cheers John Richard Hills: I posed this bidding problem in order to find out whether or not bidding spades would be the only logical alternative. At the table, the TD did get called, although not exactly for the reason posited by MadDog. But MadDog correctly deduced that dramatis personae and the nature of the takeout double would be a relevant factor for decision making at the table. (Directions rotated.) Reno NABC+ cases Appeal Number Eighteen Subject: Tempo NABC Open Pairs II, 2nd Qualifying Board: 25 Dealer: North Vul: EW Jo Morse 62 AQJ73 AT854 3 Erez Hendelman Shirley Matthews J9743 K5 K96 842 9 KQJ63 T942 AKQ Haig Tchamitch AQT8 T5 72 J8765 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Dbl 1S Pass 2D Pass(1) 2H 2S 3D Dbl 3H Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT The Facts: The final contract was 3H down one for -50 and the opening lead was the King of spades. There was an out of tempo pause after the 2D bid of approximately (according to NS) eight seconds. West said his partner is new to National events and was playing more slowly than normal. NS said the first and second doubles were easily made actions. North said she was competing over 2S but would pass if West passed. The director was called after the double of 3D. Other Information discovered: East was playing in her first NABC and was very nervous. Her tempo varied considerably and did not reliably indicate anything. West is a very experienced player from Israel. He has tried to stress the importance of having support for the unbid suits (especially majors) when making a takeout double (and shortness in the suit doubled), but East occasionally lapsed and made inappropriate doubles. The break in tempo at East's second turn to call was agreed by all. It took East about eight seconds to pass. All other calls in the auction were normal tempo. How would you rule? Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jun 30 23:59:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:59:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: David Stevenson asserted: [snip] >The WBF CoP says a breach of Law is required >before L90A can be used. The WBF CoP has no >force of Law, of course, Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, the phrase "of course" is a slight overstatement. If a sponsoring organisation adopts a regulation which is not an "ultra vires" contradiction of the Laws, then that regulation has the force of Law. Indeed, the Secretary of the WBF LC has asserted that in one sense a regulation is superior to a Law. The Secretary of the WBF LC has asserted that a regulation may nullify a particular Law if that regulation is made pursuant to a different Law. The EBU has adopted most of the WBF CoP as a regulation. In particular, the EBU has adopted the WBF CoP requirement that a breach of Law is required before Law 90A can be used by a TD. Therefore, EBU TD David Stevenson (when directing locally) is bound to specify what breach of Law has occurred before applying a PP to a player, rather than merely referring to a vague "offence". David Stevenson asserted: >but in practice any offence the TD decrees as >suitable for a PP is covered by one of the >laws anyway. [snip] Richard Hills asks: How is a single "forget" of your system an infraction of Law, when the EBU-adopted WBF Code of Practice specifically directs otherwise? Most of the WBF Code of Practice has also been adopted in Australia (the exception is that Aussie TDs are not empowered to use Law 12C3). This deal occurred last night at the South Canberra Bridge Club; I was the TD. -> Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: Both JT KQ7 AK82 KT72 K6432 AQ98 AJ5 T62 Q4 T763 Q54 A9 75 9843 J95 J863 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH bunny expert bunny bunny 1S 1NT 3D(1) Pass 3NT Double 4S Pass Pass Double Pass Pass Pass(2) (1) Bergen raise, not alerted because the bunny West had forgotten the system. (2) The bunny East was not aware of the requirements of Law 75D2, that the TD must be summoned at the end of the auction if the putative declaring side has given misinformation. Opening lead: King of hearts Result: Ten tricks to EW, +790 When I was eventually summoned for a ruling, the expert North complained that: (a) On correct information he would have led a top diamond a trick one, scoring +200 instead of -790, or (b) On correct information he would not have doubled 4S, scoring -620 instead of -790, and (c) East-West forgetting their system had caused him annoyance, and had interfered with his enjoyment of the game (Law 74A2). I ruled against the expert North on (a), since rational defence beats 4S on any non-club lead. (During the actual play of the hand, North had subsequently panicked, and had led away from the king of clubs.) I ruled in favour of North on (b), adjusting the score from 790 to 620. I ignored (c), as - contrary to the opinion of Grattan Endicott - in my opinion, getting a bad result after opponents forget their system is a rub-of-the-green fundamental part of the nature of the game of bridge. Best wishes RJH From shwdllqua@hotmail.com Wed Jun 9 07:00:05 2004 From: shwdllqua@hotmail.com (Tyler Clifton) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:00:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] re[3]: Message-ID: <20041018131531.C324E9B7@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030307030502010404030000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

in 1970 come over in 1891 in 1989

Paint Shop Go

--------------030307030502010404030000 Content-Type: image/gif; name="bootstrapped.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="bootstrapped.GIF" R0lGODlhXwK7AfPJAAkFAIAAAEAgAGAgAKAgAMAgAOAgAP8AAAD/AAAA/wD//wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAABWArUBAAT/EMhJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgs Go/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdsvter/gsHhMLpvP6LR6zW673/C4fE6v2+/4vH7P7/v/gIGCg4SFhoeI iYqLjI2Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmam5ydnp+goaKjpKWmp6ipqqusra6vsLGys7S1tre4ubq7vL2+v8DBwsPE xcbHyMnKy8zNzs/Q0dLT1NXW19jZ2tvc3d7f4OHi4+Tl5ufo6errMAfu7wcT8PHz7hX1EvEW+BT18Pv8 5vX7x64glHcX7MlTuJAhAIQD9eVz+JAhwYj3IPYzyPGJxo0Y/xsmlFiR5ESSH0tmNEmPosmOMI+kfPkx 5cSQOFXm1CnvJMiYQI3MBCjRZk+fI4tS5Mn0IdJ8QZshQEBhapmaREVyMMrTZk2XWp1GjTW1LNWqZTWk nWCVjMaXXZcmxfB26VeWIeGOZbW2Qlu1Z9O8nftUA9e6NB0OxahXjYLHkCPvPfK3aofKaBDqRdzhsEW7 isEypvO4AuTJRDBLCAyYjWa6nxvvDOs1NN6Vsh0rsHAatRDWq/2aRUscQN/jZ5EDlym3MNeVWcMWbgr3 +ZrSvHf7DoKZ9d/vgZEXN5t8reoiz+/Sna1+52KApLVnnxBZfunT9SX01o+dvvb9qHVXnP9x4XlX4ICV Jbgces1R91V007XnHmzxYYBdf/fh9598+vnH34a99RdgeBmIx9aBJ6ao4moLogebQBFZx09D/hD1D4z3 VHjBhfZtuCOH9lGAIZAcTvbdBVaBh6CBKxI44HY/WlgkACFOSWWQ/Jnmo4dQJolkeU0quaKCT0KppZRC 7sZjlB1mmaabcPrmpXBjMsnikk+eZ+aVaLq5Jps9nsknl9vNieeddR6K6KJ7vjkfnH/OR6SgIooo54Jt mbgoeJnayWijccY5ZKgeFlkpoYN22WJarJqnHFWdxlqenlBaaiuIpKIKaaC6guqrEPXll52awfapZaVV Wvrrssw26+z/s9BGK+201FZr7bXYZqvtttx26+234IYr7rjklmvuueimq+667Lbr7rvwxiuvD7TSOu+4 LYLQlwX23gtuvx4AXI2yIBBsTY0n2YNwRlvBqI8/F2XQIA77kiDwK8GCaPAHG3MA4DZG2SaxbHehJLJh udUAa74fXAzLx6n20HE1IUNH2M0DudegdTaASSeBBTJZcXf7xgrKrUHMTLNosyX84kg6NxbxDj6f6Gqn Vm9KppNAY/3JqUlbmc170vUU8s5Rr8fzDCjm6enWXMfNNdyeXCglsh866h+yACq9NEoQglRbyhE29/DE bJdJt5haW00eoy5LIhmgGm/Zt+W8xtzN/2CBQzVdUyObvFnZN5A3tKdxw834z592YjDeMY8q6q69gmwR zp6DvnbCOO5Des+sQ/728E26PQrBGW9Je65pZv7Na7iLVThLASkkY9OJ84u66sS3Lrwok+st6PKavyk7 JJE7AX3nEFNf3cmg8z61yl8anyhbS3r3/dGkvj4p+ZRy3h9YViYtpIdpZRscTg7TObZhanXcq5rcTBcm AlbifMyDXaqQlzm/1UFPFjTgzhSDOwVKxyvRi8Fw0NIqWbGIU8BZ4QuDNqsQSm58VwKSqDqIIfJ5kA4V k5sYDqiUpLjPZtPLmY2epazLhU+DfJPdfn4oh5Vp7wybaZ9tBhexhf+VpCUlQxxqhPWhKO5NYzkkkqky RCwqwkGCj9Pa1WZopyD6K1sSnCDdjNO4ruXxjtdq26eIZpnUCTJ9gPzV9mLISPxp75A2TOSyTLdHQgaH OBCMpCR91cjiqSZT44HkJq31QE8ux1CGrOAoq1XKQZ4SVora4yqddR5XXbKWndSUEGfJLBnS8YUzvKJw VkbMGvIyFAGR3/uMeLbeEYRwxzRIF+EHn6eh7Ijxi2ZMzoY9Im5AQhXR5mS4+bsvWjN0ExJnVNLTNDCe 851dVOc6xfg5sTTzmy7ZnTzXoU8U1pNnXITmPs/RT7v8DqBy6d1AOVJQmrAHcUQU6ELF0VDcKDT/fkoB XIwm2pHdkS2JDHNOA8PhRl4y8IQlBM0JsUmNYp2xjRw1ohJp8z5qhnOlGc3G68Qntn3OSJnOFIgWrZfM L0pUGTslVEljSq2kApCp4XLqoITFxjLyaopLhSo6pHo+yWSoVJMLa0+12hGuOg9pfvof88haVrGpVYPD 2qH42AoUs6KKg1NVa/no2lYL6Q2uaZVr7fhqELsKVqnKi91YCbuOJo4PsFLUa1YZC47LPfY/muNRYgFL 2bbC7IlsXGMbxarZxXb2tKhNrWpXy9rWuva1sI2tbM81WVVQ0o6zfQJV8wYMS+Y2CnwbbC4+qcnfAsFK GOwFcY3rBLyuFRfL/wVa1rIGptOJB7fMxaFpevUxzTZvSC4to/luZdkc7m0NvtWjI520QsYlqVXZ9Zhp FctbqirPbnfFXKQim6zEmuG2wTuSI7cmJkQa129gA+B+pwTXSOUVsTydbxeIJsrWydKW8fUAggXo4CZ6 +Ltinat5D7vXMRAXjjSs8J28lmH5diC5HZ4UWgfbYGLlV8RkwOX+fqleRLG4xRrYsK5izCXO+u+v95Ws hLmg4x7/jMAoMvCB3QphR8Guq8h16/+wHGE1NFl1hUzQ/aT8W+R1mT433qAAedumBHM5zWiIriFZPKs+ YhjI8tXhmdVsZVxl9qU9SjKbaxzn21LYisG5Lv+F/UjmKXfXiWpEo3mTF740jle0k+6veBHRaDx7obaU 6LSnuQDqSYh61FoodSR8ierrwKzVsI61rGdN61rb+ta4zrWud83rXvv618AOtrCHTexiG/vYyE62spfN 7GbLgpI8dnY4gnhqaS8jvdaetv6yXQ5QPhLKBnpVMLkNXTsWuL1VgyC5dwHCtkFZlXxcN7sJqMsTD1Pe 8253KlUpZ3zb4o9zU/GPvedvWKxu3z0+OKILPotO9jHhhywew/nyyihn0scClvjETxHHaLewa+P+uLg3 TvKSm/zkKE+5ylfO8pa7/OUwj/nRlqxbmvOgY6qW+YtzPoRXFwHnNhcBz7P/PXSZ4XgJQUdB0aW9dB1w FulJP0HTmz11HDxdCVXPQNZjTca8YvrIIw67VftcOTb/KNL6PVagXl3VuB6LSkUGrdvJ3jy4CzfZ/F2w 2V+66Tfb1+w99e4O9c4nrzK4SnRvk9fzu2Xw/umsUff1myF1dEL78K163hGSz4y3mUHxr0Kq8l33PNXQ oxnfWO1z5ZV8djiX3liBTXPySiz7NeYKxhyGfAbl/VXBXt3yYHU9ftkUd85neQNXtn0aMX/Z5se9u+sm fOwzyPrik3j4j7K+748f5MZfNvWhwj2cux55yfNQ9TSuPp9JLPbsT5++e/W890U8+adi8MP+rj+RiQ// //X3f+/up3vPF3ryZ3qzo3h253/Xx3kGyGsztlaC13+lxX9Q5Gf/91z+ZzcVGGLdt1nnp3hSdFiW10N3 12oPSHuZNlqblmlnJ2mgBVOkZSo752EqaGl953NZ8lnQh1XgtYI2eEbiBVNHp3M3xwRbR4RuUH43cIRI mAaVlgRM2IRngINE8IRSeIVYmIVauIVc2IVe+IVgGIZiOIZkWIZmeIZomIZquIZs2IZu+IZwGIdyOId0 WId2eId4mId6uId82Id++IeAGIiCOIiEWIiGeIioBTE28lNGtUWKyExT0z4WNRM/pUUxQon0lIeWSCMz somNyIicGFSPCFSheBGb6P+J5lSIqHiKnjhUWSSJQIUYDtOKkjhUG6WKEDFNhkOJMoVPsZFRwIgblzhT 85OKC3GLhPhMJfMi0FSMwug00GiM0XhRyFiNvZiMoxiLpUgya2OKskgjzyiNkJiLXgSOuJiNsKiN1xg6 XoSK04hQC5OO0TiItqiO21hTKbOK2WiO4riIuliJ+oSH3viLnQGKzniJAVWMA5kbB1mK/EiP3ziPDQMa YtSQNzI/C8mNmWiMDXkJAiAAWrWQDzlTI9mPS8SORnWSvEOM5GSNohAAG2lStPiI9RiOKHmTOEKTM1kj NUkK8BAAUKWPOimPJamS1ziLnZiOltiTHUkJBdCU0UT/lDt5kE1pkWH0ie7zj9VjkAEJCQLwDkCJiJdA AAUAkmJ5lujykWhpCTB5AGa5lpLQlm8Jl5EQAANAl3iZlyo3AGFZEDnZTA0FkOWIlY64i6LIiEMpmLU4 mKCYkhI5iQmJkdQokqRoj7EIjBcFlTfgDn3JT5R5j/molFIJi+44lYepjKPoiliJkJH4meOIie04mgRZ mYQpOvEolEc1A5wpTUhpm/voj70Zm4rIlKb5l1uZmMN5m7hJVBNDnKnpnMFImzVZnMaZmzMwl56Jmrbp kuGonQ+pkLzIiSw5m98ZkdzZmluEkI+JjP94k/PomuL4mVQpi9G5LjxJn8Pont75/56AeU3NaZ78SZ5F qZX5+YkmyY/tyUwFCp/oWZ/z6YjraS73KaAR+o7MWZ+ESZtFyZ6wyaEUiY8umZEKIyMAKpofiqAd6qGY maDmqJk0IAAF0JnscJEcyUX+mZT7aKKK6YuMGUaT2Z8lKZIj+p85+pwnaqFZCZk+uoy36KIzYAAxCQ4X WZ1GCZz0KZnCiaMM+ZvS6I7ryaIoOqRW2aPKmRjk2aBKmpWH+YxOKgMwSQAdRY7weaAamqE2yYxyuqWD 2aV7+qVMqqLyc6NY+opm6qApeo93ao37aZ95+ou+6Z8oqVAuqp0aCUZHWqHneZXiCY2NCY6S6hmaWqP5 NKqWuv+dzJifbcotlGqqmEqnU0qqUNOd0+Spg8qdVSqRYLqqkPqpI5SeYZqkG7Wmp7qS2kCWBVCWXJCR rEmNtpqKpylUy6mlxLqadKqoZYqO+ImTWlmdRZqllMmt4MqsQPCVBhAKULqbW6Csy1qREbWptVmbakql xJqYBUmq24qm03qUInqvkVmYZ7qq+3qoPdCWd/kJ53oAMnoFYBqKHvCgj/qu1DqO1Qitx1mv8fqhCfWn 6xicmSmujrms5akZOtqxUQoDBJCwm3CwKBuUXaktAfCyAYCdZMWl5CIABCCzTNWngoCzofCU1nlMnRoI ULqynwCTBXCH7gCnp8CzcCgAREv/CjGrl5DQllL7CFQbh1HbClkLBDr7scP6mI3pmkSpTA0LlWNboPnq saDZq0HLqxBKthZLOLrYpCMrryuZqhdwtc9Ds167sUt6qPzqrx5ltl6arwHajD2Zphlroy16totosTkB sFcqn4tqAnrrCl/pljxQuEF7uGvLqoF7oV0Lt4LKlW57OIHJt6rJmhZ1t4ULmZDrmAHrqPJqtyfAtKnQ lk8rAw/LupD6qxNbohHZmhNZldnqu3Rbsmgrq7DJuJV7U6Ubu725oa6ap81aDC87BOhZrXwqugsqvLOJ t6Pbvfa6uGpbvL+btmFbpiMwvs66qA4bqQLbKMTLvatbq0gK/6gRy6P2K7CvaqUm4LH4ak6DGrBlK6bo G04XiqgMXKfc2wHZewsEoLmbG579y4qXKrby6LjBCo/A6jTgibfu+rX5G8LNa7wIPJE3kcKWucFk+rMT MADoSguZq7Q7MLeter+MK6q+WcBjKqaVyrxA7I8B3I0pSrEYW6gC/KqhOaIK/Lc9/Le3KgLugLtaawBW HAMNqrpMir88vK7s2K6YOsBz+sA3msCNS6Fj3LYAiqdA7KvrmKaJihoky8EJeprAS6seHMadS6CXCaIl QLhvm7itWqGEDJwGSr3xK6zUMADISgPOuLp+K6As2p5/OcXwyrbu6oqFOlKti8Yc+8IhZf+rnFy8qDu/ zfq8I1Cww3CuGJDFH3DIFwy6iSubp3zLbCzL8LquXlxPn2zKWjq2W5zLr/u9Jzy7hqq8FMCXFACTrKwL MImyTrsCstyRuSrM3YqZu0zC1ZvNibq9PIq42Aqrd6rLAxzGIwyx6nzHLUvBFXG0xiDD1Py61qyxgYrO RonEPxzHDeyn5HyM4RzL4wzIQdq1JhzQhkudlPy/IMAQAWAAz+wLWwuTsPwMyiwMTwnPeVvRWuvQCGs7 MBwMulsBjnwAEX0LejvBIV0MFy0MMlzFEvDQM7wLnemzHL1xmXsABtCWMw0M57q7KAcxQJ0LIuxvPgsP NswLHwmzxwr/Dzc9cTztDhpN06441CUX1VPdC05bzCmX0+VKDFtdD0/NcC2LC2Hd0y0HpWOtC2Etc1vb DGtdtXI913Rd13Z913id13q913zd137914Ad2II92IRd2IZ92Iitcgmw2IydABPg2ADQ2JIN2RYw2Y19 AZb92JFt2Yv92JONAZzd2aE92plN2oxd2aZ92qCd2p2N2Z/dAaFNAazd2hIg2Zq92ZyN26n9AZldAaPt 2bOt2rx92bVd27H927792smN3MntCsQN3JRt3LS9Ac+93NGt27It3MsN29oN3ag93dKd3dNd3eJ93bid AcL93N2N3dJt3qu93uHt3dvd3tYt3vJ9/94coN7wTd7AXd7+7QHp3d38zd71Td+uTdvVPeClMOACDt8H 7t4MPt4ODt7ovd/rHeH/fd8Znt0VvuHgbeHu/eDoXeD9bd8eHt0JHuImPt8b7tskbuDU/eEyTuEEXuIs fuII7uCjoOCb/eIawN88LuE0ruIi/t3mreAofuFKTuORPeItnuRDruMtfts4fuTXneA+TuQ1ruFbLts+ 3uVfPuMQ3uBRTuHkTdw8Hgq27eRcXuFiTuRQfuQhEOFmrt2UHedGnudUruJXLuBt/ud67uIvzuCDnuU/ ruMpzuRNPuVpDuZ9XuZ4/t6PPukwfgqNTuncLebUfeIiQOdWPt6SHv/oGq7loV7qRR7jZn7qui3nU97q bs7ndo7oYS7lq17ZX17jQU7mmN7onrDmw63og87rGU7qps7oAV7slQ7jwP7qkg7rtF7rXi7qvY3st97s r37nsm7syz7tqn7fvm7kkS7fws4J357pxI7r427gy87soq7uTH7mIA7Zz97t0O3s677lY/7mip7m6V7u 5Y3t+57l887tt67fiJ7o4d7jqeDvqH7uCH/u9J3u/87c9Y7ksf7uud3pE57rA6/e1J7x1Z7sh37wAR7w Vf7rDD/b9X7tw97gqsDwI+/wF3/vFS/xIt/laI7xIF/k897uK2/t5k7l1U7wYA7oD27vAM/n1q3/3CBA 9J7+80c/8Rb+8jY/7g/f9Kpt846+5Nhe6vx+7Bqv8/tu9VnP7s2O6dTO8kBf9Isu7j1/9Gjf8iQv5KRO 8+Re9T1/9Sjf3hB/80Bu517P8Sg+AhY/9xB/2fYe7RPv6je/9uBu9Ltu9eCe8N4u+JTv2quA9yaf7BJv 8Ha/9XUO6qcO81ge9omf9sx++sX9+EbP9vQ+6tle+QMf9X+O8Gbf+LEA86hP90u/91Cf3/Hu83s+8/mu 9EGP+q7P+sUO6Yyf/CFv+6Ad7M/O/LU/87fv/M4t5XHP4W3O709O9tTP+Elf8LHf8DH/+uZ/++Hv+ppf /EPf7ry+/k/f6n+//+6f3wkWT/7kj/Hafu/zDwFAglTTxPRKu2f3PisTSVOrTjFcVXd8YS7N5Jk+OzfH MXtlcUg6H1H1Q9WQqODSuSz2dlNq1XrFZrVZ48fUvSmlwOEQCQqax0x1swdmsuDQL518S1fX0VD3bIej MgrEK6obA4l5Q3xaG4QivNuapKy0vKREk9Lk3OhM4+RDw0tsG/1ETfwUTS1V1NyBzcxb9RgFuiV1tZKN 3dX1+/XSZdVZFQs8rsNkbnZ+ho6Wnqautr7Gztbe5u72/gYPFx8nLzc/R09XX2dvd3+Hj5efd2+1v8fP 19/n7/f/BxhQ4ECCBQ0ePEhPoR6EDR0+hBhR4v9EihUtVlyY8dVFjh09fgQZUuRIfxpNnkSZUuVKli1d voQZU+ZMmjVt3sSZU+dOnj19/gQaVOhQokWNHkWaVOlSpk2dPoUaVepUqlWtXsWaVetWrl29fgUbVuxY smXNnkWbVu1atm3dvoUbV+5cunXt3sWbV+9evn39/gUcWPBgwoUNH0acWPFixo0dP4YcWfJkypUtX8ac WfNmzp09fwYdWvRo0qVNn0adWvVq1q1dv4YdW/Zs2rVt38adW/du3r19/wYeXPhw4sWNH0eeXPly5s2d P4ceXfp06tWtX8eeXft27t29fwcfXvx48uXNn0efXv169u3dv4cfX/58+vUW7d/Hn1//fv79/f8HMEAB BySwQMEiAAAh/nBocWdodW1lYXlsbmxmZHhmaXJjdnNjeGdnYndrZm5xZHV4d2ZuZm96dnNydGtqcHJl dHFkc3N4eGFzZnByb3J4ZnVhbWxqbWd4c2RobHl5amZxdWlpbWt2Z2p0ADt= --------------030307030502010404030000--