constipate Newsletter melodious

&nb= sp; 1064 &nb= sp; &nb= sp; D6 *Hx =20 D4

&nb= sp; 43 &nb= sp; &nb= sp; Cx C9 *CQ Cx =

&nb= sp; K72 &nb= sp; &nb= sp; DQ DK *Dx Dx<= /FONT>

The bidding was as follows: =20

West=20 opens 2NT (Strong Bal 20-22),

East=20 bids 3C Puppet Stayman,

West rebids 3NT denying any 4 or 5 card=20 major.

The play = situation was=20 as follows:

North leads 7S (they play top of nothing), South inserts = the 10 and=20 declarer takes the Ace. = Then he=20 plays three rounds of hearts ending in dummy, the fourth round of = hearts on=20 which NS both pitch a diamond (reverse attitude, North 6D and South = 4D) and=20 then declarer leads the Queen of clubs from dummy and runs it.

North=20 thought for a while (approximately 5 seconds) on the club lead and = then played=20 the 9 of clubs. = Declarer then=20 tried the diamond finesse which lost and the defenders cashed out to = defeat=20 the contract.

The=20 reason North thought for a while was to figure out whether to show = (reverse)=20 count on the club lead, and whether this could help partner or cost = his side=20 if declarer read it correctly. It=20 took a few moments of thought for North to consider that the count = card could=20 help his partner get a count of the hand and was unlikely to help = declarer,=20 and North duly played the correct count card, playing reverse count = was the=20 9C. North contended = that neither=20 he nor any other player at this level would have hesitated in this = situation=20 and then not taken the club King if he had it, since the best chance = of=20 defeating the contract was clearly when the spades were=20 cashable.

Declarer=20 contended that he was unfairly scared off the club finesse when North = hesitated, and thought he would try the alternative finesse in = diamonds=20 instead. He contended = that he=20 would surely have continued with the club finesse if North had played = in=20 tempo.

NS=20 also made the point that declarer was effectively doubling his = chances, if the=20 director/appeal court were to allow him to go back to making the = contract if=20 the club finesse was working even if the diamond finesse fails. The rules say that declarer = takes=20 inference from opponents hesitation at his own risk; where is the = risk if he=20 can actually take an alternative chance after a hesitation, and get a = favourable result either way?

In=20 the event, the Chief Director adjusted the score to 3NT making, and = advised=20 NS's team to appeal the decision to have it resolved properly by an = appeal=20 court. The appeal was = never held,=20 as the match result did not depend on this hand in the=20 end.

Had this gone to an Appeal what outcome would you = expect

Always = difficult to know=20 what to expect from an appeals = committee!?

Even if = we=20 rule there was no demonstrable bridge reason for the pause = before C9=20 we still have to decide

whether declarer=20 will get it right, if declarer though North might have ducked CK, = then he=20 has to guess which

minor to = finesse for his=20 ninth trick.   In some jurisdictions the offending side get a = (worse)=20 split score than the

equity = awarded to the=20 non-offenders, e.g. NS 70% 3NT=3D, 30% 3NT-1; EW 50% 3NT=3D, 50%=20 3NT-1.

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------_=_NextPart_001_01C4797E.96BFAA00-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 5 00:45:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:45:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] A foolish consistency (was Deceiving ...) Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>>As for what the combined *law* of TFLB plus >>>Regulation is, the WBF LC has simply issued a >>>straightforward interpretation, to wit: >>> >>>(1) The Laws of TFLB are merely defaults. >>> >>>(2) An SO's Regulation may over-ride a default >>>Law, provided that the SO makes some attempt >>>to quote a different Law as the basis for its >>>over-riding Regulation. Jim Hudson: >>I'd like to read the text of this WBF LC >>"interpretation." "Makes some attempt" is >>impossibly weak; they couldn't have said that. >>If the point is that the SO can pick and choose >>among laws that conflict with each other, the >>presupposition is that the Laws are internally >>inconsistent. [snip] Ralph Waldo Emerson: >A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little >minds. Richard Hills: The (foolish) initial drafters of the Laws did indeed (foolishly) intend that the Laws should be interpreted in a consistent way. The initial drafters of the Laws (very foolishly) included a Law which specifically stated that the Laws were consistent. Law 80F states, "A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." But the (sensible) current members of the WBF LC (sensibly) realised that a broad interpretation of Law 80F would make some (sensible) regulations unLawful. So, at its meeting of 1st September 1998, the WBF LC ruled a narrow interpretation of Law 80F: "Regulations under this Law may not conflict with other Laws. This restriction does not apply to regulations made under other sections of the Laws." Best wishes RJH From schoderb@msn.com Thu Aug 5 00:57:49 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 19:57:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: There is a whole lot of "who shot John" about regulations, psychic bids ( I refuse to use the word "psyches," -- it ain't English) and posturing about what is and what is not the WBF interpretation of the Laws. Those of us who have worked with those interpretations for many years are fully aware of their provisions and need no further educating from "gurus" or other individuals. Please keep in mind that their interpretation is for the WBF -- other entities have the right to make their own interpretations. My hackles are up when the WBF attempts to impose it's interpretation of the Laws upon other entities whose size, number of tournaments, problems, cultural and social pressures far outnumber WBF events, and cause them to differ from a WBF interpretation. Our game is alive, successful in many places, and beyond any numerical success that the WBF can ever attain. We don't need worldwide "gurus" (a word sometimes ascribed to me which makes the hair on my neck rises since it's use is often prejudicial) to tell us how to PLAY this game. Just for fun. try this on: You have an agreement that ONE GRAPE is a convention that shows exactly 5 hearts and 4 spades, and 12 points, fully disclosed to the opponents. No more or less in distribution or HCPs. You are in 3rd seat, partner has passed, RHO has passed with some difficulty, and while you are making sure that your cards fit the "convention" you notice that LHO can't wait to call. He/she is fingering the bidding box, etc., and you decide to pass. A clear violation of your "conventional agreement," no? They get to 3 NT, and being great players they get a full count on the cards and points from your lack of bidding ONE GRAPE. You could not have the Queen of TOMATOES, since you did not bid ONE GRAPE. So declarer hooks your partner for the Queen, and goes down. DIRECTOR -- you psyched your Convention by PASSING!!!!!! They have been injured!!!! nIs that where we want the game to go? Remove all judgement, table presence, uncertainty, and skills? Why not just put our cards on the table after the deal -- everybody can see them -- bid for the best contract, and then require the best bidding and play to determine the result? Might be akin to chess, BUT IT AIN'T BRIDGE!!!!! Yet is sadly close to what some "experts" -- who have worldwide position and undue influence would like the game to be to their financial benefit; and it is 'double dummy" in every newspaper column. It has to be wrong for the recreational player. A solution, (by no means advocated by me) -- separate them from the daily game of bridge (no chance because that's where they make their bundle of $$$$); to let then have to compete in the "morass" of mistakes, lack of knowledge, anti-percentage calls/bids, and human aspects, that make bridge entertaining, fun, and enjoyable to the great number of players. Just 'cause you are expert, doesn't mean you own the game. Kojak From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 5 03:01:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:01:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit Message-ID: Raija Davis: [snip] >To my knowledge, transmitting UI is not >illegal, only the use of it is. [snip] Richard Hills: Transmitting UI is not *necessarily* unLawful. Law 73D1 grants a conditional permission to transmit *inadvertent* UI: "...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, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." *But* Law 73B1 orders a prohibition on transmitting *gratuitous* UI: "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 5 03:04:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 03:04:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040804090252.02a35150@pop.starpower.net> References: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> <6.1.1.1.0.20040730161359.02a266b0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040801171234.02b34410@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040802143313.02b9aae0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040803090457.02b25eb0@pop.starpower.net> <5WeBpkFiCEEBFwYg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804090252.02a35150@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 09:49 PM 8/3/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>> >>>The decision whether to allow or ban a convention should reflect a >>>balance of interests between those who would use it and those who >>>would be required to play against it. I grant that guidelines and >>>rules are needed, and that they must inherently be subjective. But >>>the rationale for a ban must be that it advances the interests of the >>>latter, not that it fails to advance the interests of the former, >>>since, obviously, they will disagree as to what their interests are. >>>Someone who believes his pet convention has technical merit will not >>>be convinced by an arbitrary finding that it does not. Nor we he be >>>happy, or well served, by someone finding that his convention is >>>"designed to gain an unfair advantage" when he, in his own mind, >>>designed it because he thought it was technically sound and a good >>>idea. We have no business telling people the exact functional >>>equivalent of, "We have banned your convention because we don't like it." >>> >>>IOW, if we are to ban a convention, it must be justified by advancing >>>the interests of its prospective opponents, not justified on the >>>grounds that it fails to advance the interests of its prospective >>>users, who perforce disagree. I'm comfortable with the notion of >>>classifying conventions (the real issue isn't allow or ban, it's to >>>place in a set of categories ranging from "allowed in any event at >>>any time with no restriction" to "barred in all events") based on the >>>complexity of defending against them effectively -- which has nothing >>>to do with whether the convention itself is effective, or why it was designed as it was. >>> >>>To go further, note that I have chosen the word "complexity" rather >>>than, as the ACBL would have it, "difficulty". I object to the >>>ACBL's failure to distinguish between conventions that are hard to >>>defend against because they are complicated and those that are "hard" >>>to defend against merely because they are unfamiliar; after a pair >>>faces a convention once or twice the latter cures itself while the >>>former remains true. But that's for another thread. >> >> Despite the complexity - sorry, difficulty - of your reply, you >>accept that the SO must make decisions base don something - you just >>do not like it, and also believe the SO should hide its reasons. >> >> I think you are really just suggesting the SO should evade its >>responsibilities. If the SO is going to fail to allow conventions >>that have no technical merit whatever, or conventions whose sole or >>main aim is to gain unfair advantage, I believe that it is a >>mealy-mouthed behind-the-scenes unfair abrogation of their >>responsibility to refuse to say so. > >David seems to be assuming that all convention-banning decisions are >taken simply taken because some authorized arbiter just doesn't like >the convention (which may indeed be the case, at least in some >jurisdictions). Of course that is not true. I have never suggested it in any way, and cannot understand why you say it is an assumption of mine when nothing I have said suggests it in any way. I assume that SOs take convention-banning decisions because they think it is right for their membership. > With that as a postulate, he assumes that I am suggesting that we >continue to do this (perforce?), but claim to be doing something else. Neither is it a postulate nor do I suggest we do any such rubbish. I am suggesting that when we take a decision saying we are doing something else is wrong, stupid, and unhelpful to the game of bridge or our membership. > That is wrong. Certainly is. A very silly approach. Fortunately we do not do it. > I am suggesting that we *do* do something else, namely ban >conventions solely on the basis of their effect on the opponents who >must defend against them. This is the first time you have suggested this. What you have been doing so far is criticising one SO's method of making decisions - and, incredibly, suggesting they hide their decision-making process. > I have never suggested that we merely claim to do this, but that we >actually do it, and, of course, let everyone know what we are doing. I >believe it is a mealy-mouthed behind-the-scenes unfair abrogation of >our responsibilities to make rules about what conventions will be >allowed solely on the basis of some chosen arbiter's determination that >his opinion of the merits of a convention is superior to that of those >who would use it. So, why should E Landau's assumptions on how to decide this be better than the EBU's? And why should the EBU hide what they are doing as you suggested? >Or perhaps David is merely assuming that no matter what criteria we >enact, the decision will still come down to whether or not the powers >that be personally approve of the convention, and that they will then >use that sensible-sounding criterion to obfuscate the reality. Of course not. Since I have never said nor implied this, and have several times said the exact opposite, it seems an incredible conclusion from what I said. > I am optimistic enough to believe that if we put forth some sensible >rule, at least some of our "authorities" will attempt to apply it. That's right: we have sensible rules: we follow them: we do not hide them as you recommend: you don't like them. That does not make them wrong. >If I'm wrong, SOs will inevitably continue to abrogate their >responsibilities by hiding "we just don't like your convention" behind >purely subjective yammering about technical merit, or about the >intentions of the conventions' designers. Why should they? Why should they hide anything as you recommend? Would it not be better if we made good decisions for our members and told them about them? Your idea of not doing so is very unfortunate. Hiding good decisions from the membership seems silly to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 5 03:06:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 03:06:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040804083723.02ac7eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D02@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <200408031503.i73F3IQ9008055@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804083723.02ac7eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 11:03 AM 8/3/04, Ron wrote: >>And I'm tolerably confident that the phrase "no technical merit" was >>employed at least once in explaining the decision to bar EHAA. I'm >>certain it was used in the war of words on the subject. >Ron is quite right, although the ACBL's preferred phrase was "intended >solely to disrupt the opponents' auction", which is very much the same >thing. It is completely different. A good convention that is designed to disrupt the opponents' auction - eg CRASH over a strong 1C has technical merit, so would be allowed by the EBU. > Of course, at no point was anyone ever able to state by what >criterion that applied to opening 1NT on a balanced 9-count but not to >opening 1NT on a balanced 10-count. I freely admit that it has left me >wary and resentful of any regulation that allows someone else to tell >me what I "intended". > >>Given the rules lawyering that various SOs have indulged in, it >>wouldn't surprise me at all to see "no technical merit" become a code >>phrase for "methods we don't approve of" > >It (along with its operationally equivalent cousins) already has. This is not true. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 5 03:11:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:11:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit Message-ID: Raija Davis: >I don't have the Reno appeals or, more >accurately, I have not looked for them. I >read blml pretty regularly and want to be >an "informed customer" when playing. [snip] Richard Hills: As previously advised to blml, I am editing unofficial Reno casebooks, with the help of an unofficial panel of blmlers. The first unofficial casebook, the twelve Reno Regional Event appeals, is almost complete, and will be freely available for blmlers and others to peruse shortly after the unofficial deadline of Sunday 22nd August 2004. The second unofficial casebook, the twenty- four Reno NABC+ appeals, is still in a very preliminary draft, so will not be available for perusal until early November. If any blmlers or lurkers wish to be an eleventh-hour addition to the unofficial panel for either or both of the unofficial Reno casebooks, please send me a private email. Best wishes RJH From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Aug 5 03:35:09 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:35:09 +1200 Subject: Ps and Qs - (was Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c47a94$d48cc400$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, 5 August 2004 11:03 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: Ps and Qs - (was Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying) > > > > > > > Larry Bennett: > > [snip] > > >I gave them the ebu simple system cc, and told them > >to play that until they provided fully documented > >meanings to all their "named" conventions. > >They couldn't be bothered to do that, and won the > >event. > > > >Ho hum > >Larry > > Richard Hills: > > In the Grand Final of Australia's 2004 National Open > Teams, it was the best Australian team versus the > best Indonesian team. Didn't this "best Australian team" contain Stephen Burgess and Ashley Bach who played for NZ in the 2003 Bermuda Bowl. Wayne From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 5 03:35:51 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 22:35:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2AE0DF6F-E688-11D8-96E5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 4, 2004, at 18:50 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > A procedural penalty of one quarter of a board was issued to EW > for the flagrant transmission and use of UI (73F1). This wording suggests the committee felt that East had deliberately violated Law 73B1, but didn't want to come right out and say so. Seems to me that if they felt that way, they should have dealt harshly with what was, if they were correct, deliberate cheating. And if they didn't feel that way, or were unwilling to deal with it, they should have left "transmission" out of the equation. From john@asimere.com Thu Aug 5 03:53:40 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 03:53:40 +0100 Subject: Ps and Qs - (was Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Larry Bennett: > >[snip] > >>I gave them the ebu simple system cc, and told them >>to play that until they provided fully documented >>meanings to all their "named" conventions. >>They couldn't be bothered to do that, and won the >>event. >> >>Ho hum >>Larry Hmm. If I go to a major tournament after the first day and I usually just go for a pick-up one-day game between TD appointments, then I look around for a pair of abandoned convention cards. With printers and laminators in common everyday use there are always plenty lying around. The laminated ones make good coffee coasters I've found and amending the names is a lot easier than having to agree a system. I've never thought this approach was a particular handicap, and when I get busted I recommend the TD consult with the original owner to find out what my call should have meant. It's fairly easy to play these systems as well, because there are always half a dozen things that make one shudder, so it's impossible to get them wrong. I'm always surprised how well one does relatively with this laid back approach, when compared with playing with regular partners where one does have some quite profound agreements. > >Richard Hills: > >In the Grand Final of Australia's 2004 National Open >Teams, it was the best Australian team versus the >best Indonesian team. > >The Australians played a variety of HUM methods, such >as strong club, transfer openings at the one-level, >wacky multi-meaning artificialities at the two-level. > >The Indonesians played vanilla Standard American. -- 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 Aug 5 04:16:33 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 04:16:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Playing real bridge. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes > Just >'cause you are expert, doesn't mean you own the game. > >Kojak > I declaim the long A-men to this. The TD's will out the cheats one way or another, but let the players play 'bridge', the game my mother taught me. John Probst EBU TD > -- 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 Aug 5 04:34:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:34:40 +1000 Subject: Ps and Qs - (was Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying) Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In the Grand Final of Australia's 2004 National Open >>Teams, it was the best Australian team versus the >>best Indonesian team. Wayne Burrows: >Didn't this "best Australian team" contain Stephen >Burgess and Ashley Bach who played for NZ in the 2003 >Bermuda Bowl? Richard Hills: Australia is a land which welcomes immigrants (provided they travel by air, not by sea). The peripatetic New Zealander, Stephen Burgess, first played for Australia at the 1984 Seattle Olympiad, and subsequently chose to represent Australia at several other international bridge contests. However, I agree with Wayne that New Zealand bridge players, New Zealand films, and New Zealand relay systems are state-of-the-art in their quality. (If any blmler or lurker missed my previous offer, I am happy to forward my version of New Zealander Professor Roy Kerr's Symmetric Relay system.) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 5 06:09:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 15:09:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit Message-ID: Ed Reppert asserted: >This wording suggests the committee felt that >East had deliberately violated Law 73B1, but >didn't want to come right out and say so. Seems >to me that if they felt that way, they should >have dealt harshly with what was, if they were >correct, deliberate cheating. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: I have more nuanced definitions. As an indicative example of what I would call "deliberate cheating", I point to a concealed agreement to play finger signals, which is an infraction of Law 73B_2_. On the other hand, a Tasmanian Asking Bid of "Does 1C *really* show clubs?" is obvious to all three opponents and a passing waiter. So, I would argue that this revealed agreement, which is an infraction of Law 73B_1_, should be called "deliberate pseudo-cheating". I note that the AC did appropriately penalise the pseudo-cheating by inflicting a PP on the pseudo-cheats to discourage any repetition of their Law infraction. I am uncomfortable with EW being given a one- quarter board PP only after NS launched a meritless appeal. In my opinion, the TD should have been more proactive, and awarded the one- quarter board PP themself. In my opinion, PPs should be standardised. Best wishes RJH From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Aug 5 07:34:02 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 08:34:02 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBA9@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Grattan Endicott wrote: =20 >=20 > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************* > 'Shall silence shroud such sin=20 > As Satan seems to show > Even in his imps, in these our days > That all men might it know? > No, no, it cannot be." > ~ Thomas Gilbart. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "James Hudson" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 5:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying >=20 >=20 > > Law 40A plainly gives one the right to psych.=20 > <+=3D+ Yes +=3D+ > > I suppose it is not immediately clear what=20 > > Law 40D means by 'regulate', > +=3D+ 'regulate' =3D control or supervise by means > of rules or regulations; to make regulations; to > subject to guidance or restrictions. +=3D+ > > > > ". . . since the WBFLC confirmed to the EBL=20 > > in 1984-5 or thereabouts the acceptability of=20 > > its regulation banning psychics of conventional=20 > > openers, and since the legality of such regulations=20 > > has been reaffirmed more than once since then,=20 > > that IS the law as recognized under the By-Laws=20 > of the WBF. . . ." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > >=20 > > So the unqualified right to psych a permitted=20 > > convention will not be recognized by the WBF,=20 > < > +=3D+ Except where there is no regulation prohibiting > it +=3D+ > < > > So probably, though not certainly, the right to=20 > > psych conventions has by now ceased to exist. > >=20 > +=3D+ It continues to exist in the absence of contrary > regulation. It is the right to prohibit by regulation > that is established. +=3D+ > < > < (originally mistaken, but long treated as valid)=20 > < > +=3D+ 'Originally mistaken' begs the question. The > mistake may have been the omission in Law 40=20 > of the word 'but'. Subsequent decisions suggest > that there was no intention to alter its import when > restructuring this Law.=20 > The 1975 code supports the stance taken by=20 > the WBFLC in 1984 and after-years. It reads > "A player make 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 conventional=20 > practice) without prior announcement, provided=20 > that it is not based on a partnership understanding; > *but* > (a) ................................ > (b) ................................ > (c) the Sponsoring Organisation may regulate=20 > the use of conventions. > (d) .................................." >=20 > {'but' =3D preposition - except, except that.) >=20 > Given that the 'but' was also present in the 1963=20 > code one could think that the WBFLC stance > has maintained a power that in 1963 and 1975=20 > was integral to the game. Certainly the 1984 > decision was entirely consonant with the wording > of the law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ The 1963 L40 read: 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 conventional practice) = without prior announcement, provided that is not bases on a parternship = understanding; but- (a)........ (b)........ (c) The Sponsoring Organisation may from time to time publish special regulations regarding the use of conventions. It may publish lists of specific conventions, showing those which are authorised, those whose use is forbidden, and those whose use is optional with the Tournament Committee or Director in charge of a particular event. (d)..... (e)..... To me, it seems the intention of the law was to make it legal for the SO = to ban the use of specific conventions. The first sentence of (c) bear = much the same meaning as in todays law. So the current WBFLC = interpretation might have been made also to the 1963 laws. But I very = much doubt this interpretations was intended my the lawmakers at that = time. And I don't think it should have been made at a later time either. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Aug 5 09:28:36 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:28:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D22@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Reno Regional Events, Appeal Number Five Subject: UI DIC: Harry Falk Panel: Susan Doe (Reviewer), Wednesday Fast Pairs 1st Session 3/24/04 Michael Carroad Board: 17 Dealer: North Vul: None A87 KQ95 AQJ QT6 T95 KJ AT762 J8 974 832 73 AK9854 Q6432 43 KT65 J2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C Pass(1) 1S Pass 2NT Pass 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) At his turn, East picked up North's convention card and asked about NS agreements The Facts: The final contract was 4S by South down one for a NS score of -50. The opening lead was the club seven. The director was called after East passed over 1C. He was called again after the opening lead of the club 7 and again at the conclusion of play. The play of the hand had gone seven to the king, the ace was continued, low to West's ruff (South pitching a heart), a diamond to dummy, spade ace and low to East's spade king, club return with South pitching a heart from hand and ruffing in dummy. The director instructed East that his actions in inquiring about the meaning of an unalerted 1C bid transmitted unauthorized information to his partner and that he should assume a normal meaning for 1C and not ask questions in the absence of an alert. The Ruling: Despite the UI and West's illegal choice of a lead in light of it (Laws 16A, 73F1), the director ruled that the likelihood that 4S would go down one even on a non-club lead was so high that NS had not been damaged by the infraction (Law 12C2). The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. North had 1050 masterpoints, South 1900, East 1250, and West 1350. NS argued that the club lead was suggested by the UI and that since EW had taken only 4 of the 5 possible defensive tricks, that they would have missed one of the 4 tricks available after a trump or diamond or heart lead. They were of the opinion that the opponents should be held to the worst possible defense. They felt that they had been made to wait too long for the table director to give them a ruling. The Decision: The panel decided that East's actions had transmitted UI to West and it investigated whether that UI might have damaged NS. Ten players with 1000 to 1300 points were given the West hand as lead problem (absent the UI) and four different ones were given the East hand to suggest a defense after a spade lead. The players given the lead problem chose a trump 7 times, a diamond twice, and a club once. Some offered that a heart would never be their choice. Of the peer players given the problem of how they would plan their defense with the East hand, three chose to try for a club ruff. The fourth suggested a spade return. The panel interpreted this evidence to indicate that the likelihood that 4S would have made on a non-club lead was too low to either award it to NS or to assign it to EW (Law 12C2), so it ruled the result stands. The panel thought that NS should have known that they would not win an adjustment on the board (which North said would not affect their score in any case), so an AWMW was assessed to NS. A procedural penalty of one quarter of a board was issued to EW for the flagrant transmission and use of UI (73F1). Best wishes Richard Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For once I agree with everything the AC said. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Aug 5 09:02:49 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:02:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <001c01c47ac6$4e826c20$6bf3f0c3@LNV> > >>> "Ton Kooijman" 8/3/2004 6:48:58 AM >>> > > It is the law that a SO may regulate psyches of conventional bids. > > -------------------------------------------- > > It is the law that a SO may regulate conventional bids. I do not > believe that the law *as written* gives a SO the power to regulate > *psychs* of conventional bids. But perhaps this power *has* crept into > the law through long-established practice. > > Jim Hudson Goodness Jim, we are talking and repeating ourselves for weeks now and apparently still do not understand the case. Reading the laws in that nice booklet called: 'The laws of duplicate contract bridge 1997' most of us would not dare to read that the use of psyches could be restricted in any way. But then the use of psyches creates problems. And some illustrious people decades ago decided that L40D gives the possibility to restrict the use of a psyche when it regards a convention. Such decision is an interpreation of the laws and whether you like it or not becomes part of the laws. So nothing crept (could Noel tell me whether crept is the past form of crap?), it was a firm decision. ton From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 5 09:30:19 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:30:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: Message-ID: <004201c47ac6$bb68b010$809887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Shall silence shroud such sin As Satan seems to show Even in his imps, in these our days That all men might it know? No, no, it cannot be." ~ Thomas Gilbart. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" < > My hackles are up when the WBF attempts to impose > it's interpretation of the Laws upon other entities whose > size, number of tournaments, problems, cultural and > social pressures far outnumber WBF events, and cause > them to differ from a WBF interpretation. Our game > is alive, successful in many places, and beyond any > numerical success that the WBF can ever attain. We > don't need worldwide "gurus" (a word sometimes > ascribed to me which makes the hair on my neck rises > since it's use is often prejudicial) to tell us how to > PLAY this game. > +=+ I agree, but without the hackles.. Of course, if NBOs sign up voluntarily to By-Laws that provide for the WBF to say what the laws are, that is not imposition. But it is my deep conviction that entities that set up tournaments, from the tiniest bridge clubs to the most august bodies at international level, should all have the freedom to set conditions for those tournaments that they consider desirable. So if we talk about "WBF attempts to impose its interpretation of the Laws upon other entities" I begin with the belief that if, for example, tournament sponsors wish to ban psychic action no-one should be telling them that they do not have the right to do so (and to be clear about this, should they wish to extend this to any psychic action - both conventional and natural calls - it is a matter for them.) If that is what they think best for their game then so be it, the judgement is one for them to make, not something for some central jurist to declare illegal. .Therefore all that kind of thing should be open to regulation. This is where I stand. As always, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Aug 5 10:21:42 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:21:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <001c01c47ac6$4e826c20$6bf3f0c3@LNV> References: <001c01c47ac6$4e826c20$6bf3f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:02:49 +0200, "Ton Kooijman" wrote: >And some illustrious people decades ago decided that L40D gives >the possibility to restrict the use of a psyche when it regards a >convention. Such decision is an interpreation of the laws and whether = you >like it or not becomes part of the laws. Yes. But if it was decades ago, then one could be tempted by the point of view that the WBFLC must, as part of the creation of the 1997 laws, have considered that interpretation and taken a decision not to incorporate it in the laws, thus reversing the decision made decades ago. It seems obvious to me that WBFLC interpretations, particularly those which - like this one - seem directly contrary to the letter of some law, should be incorporated in the laws as part of the next law review. And if they're not, surely that must be a deliberate decision on the part of the WBFLC and must indicate a change of mind since the interpretation was issued. In other words, WBFLC interpretations from before the current laws were written should logically be ignored. If that was not the reality in 1997, then I suggest that the current drafting committee makes it the reality: please make sure that the coming laws can be read and understood without the help of earlier WBFLC interpretations. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Aug 5 09:54:55 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:54:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBA9@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <00a001c47ad0$5cbd1ba0$6bf3f0c3@LNV> The 1963 L40 read: 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 commonl= y accepted or previously announced conventional practice) without prior announcement, provided that is not bases on a parternship understanding; but- (a)........ (b)........ (c) The Sponsoring Organisation may from time to time publish special regulations regarding the use of conventions. It may publish lists of specific conventions, showing those which are authorised, those whose use is forbidden, and those whose use is optional with the Tournament Committee or Director in charge of a particular event. (d)..... (e)..... To me, it seems the intention of the law was to make it legal for the SO = to ban the use of specific conventions. The first sentence of (c) bear much = the same meaning as in todays law. So the current WBFLC interpretation might have been made also to the 1963 laws. But I very much doubt this interpretations was intended my the lawmakers at that time. And I don't think it should have been made at a later time either. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran (((((((((((((((((((((( The more we see the less evidence appears to justify the decision to ban psyches of conventional calls. For me the last sentence in c) above clear= ly describes what can be regulated. But then, once made we need a new decision to return from their 'error'. = And I am not taking the initiative to do so at this moment. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Aug 5 12:35:11 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:35:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <001c01c47ac6$4e826c20$6bf3f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001801c47ae0$475aea20$2ff5f0c3@LNV> "Ton Kooijman" wrote: >And some illustrious people decades ago decided that L40D gives >the possibility to restrict the use of a psyche when it regards a >convention. Such decision is an interpreation of the laws and whether you >like it or not becomes part of the laws. and Jesper answered: Yes. But if it was decades ago, then one could be tempted by the point of view that the WBFLC must, as part of the creation of the 1997 laws, have considered that interpretation and taken a decision not to incorporate it in the laws, thus reversing the decision made decades ago. It seems obvious to me that WBFLC interpretations, particularly those which - like this one - seem directly contrary to the letter of some law, should be incorporated in the laws as part of the next law review. And if they're not, surely that must be a deliberate decision on the part of the WBFLC and must indicate a change of mind since the interpretation was issued. In other words, WBFLC interpretations from before the current laws were written should logically be ignored. (((((( I am not so sure about the word 'logically' here. To be honest I thought about this issue when I wrote my message above. And my conclusion was that if no word is changed (which is the case for L40 in '97 I think) then the exisitng interpretation should still be considered valid, if no explicit statement is made. That can't be logically proven either, but is not unreasonable. Anyway, the interpretation still exists. I like Kojak's example with the 1 grape bid to support the idea that this interpreation should not have been made. ton ))))))) If that was not the reality in 1997, then I suggest that the current drafting committee makes it the reality: please make sure that the coming laws can be read and understood without the help of earlier WBFLC interpretations. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Aug 5 12:42:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040803171147.01b90af8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: > At 09:58 AM 8/3/2004, Eric Landau wrote: > > ruling would have been more or less favorable to his side. Tim has > it > > right; we should allow AWM penalties or warnings *only* when the AC > > determines that the TD's ruling was obviously correct. > > I concede that a mandatory AWMW or AWMP would be over simplifying, but > I'm still not convinced it should be forbidden. In the process of > having the TD give a ruling at your table and you appeal, you've had > the following opportunities: > > 1) testifying against your own partnership's behalf to the TD. > 2) engaging the screener to educate yourself about the confusing parts > of the ruling. > 3) testifying against your own partnership's behalf to the AC. > > By now you don't need to be a mindreader to judge the intent of the > appellant. Those with altruistic motives will be known. Many of the > remaining people will either be abusing the appeals process or ignorant > of it. Should they be immune from an AWMW just because the director, > too, was wrong? YES!!! Players getting these things wrong just happens. TDs getting rulings screwed up is really bad for the game (and for other TDs). There should be absolutely no disincentive to getting *bad* rulings before an AC. TDs need to learn when they have made errors. Longer term improved TD rulings should reduce the number of appeals. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Aug 5 12:42:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > I disagree with Tim's *should*, which butters > no parsnips for me. Any partnership's duty is > not to outguess the duly appointed officials, > merely to seek their own best competitive > advantage. I deem acquiescing to an obviously wrong (and favourable ruling) to be an "action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Something from which the laws require us to refrain. Small children have little sense of right and wrong, they need to be taught. It seems that bridge players are in the same category. > > Also, I disagree with Tim's definition. I > would rather define that, "The purpose of an > *appeals committee* is to get a correct result > when a TD has made an error." I can live with that. The proviso being that an appeal has merit if the AC deems the TD to have made an error. The wider purpose of ACs is not really a matter for law but I believe they should (not lawbook should) be a tool for educating players and TDs, improving the overall quality of decision making, and developing case law. David G gave an example of a TD awarding A+ in a simple UI case. Any player who knows this is illegal should (again IMO, not a lawbook usage) be commended for bringing such cases before an AC regardless of whether they expect it to improve their score or not. > Of course, while I suggest that being a sneaky > so-and-so is legal, I also believe that being > a sneaky so-and-so is optional. Perhaps. But if you aren't going to let me hit sneaks with penalties under L72a2 in a committee I am going to be reduced to hitting them with golf clubs in the car park. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Aug 5 12:42:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000101c47a7a$44b8d860$020de150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ The law says that SOs may regulate " *the use of* bidding > or play conventions". Psychic use of a convention is one possible > use. ~ G ~ +=+ I am not convinced. If one psychs a convention one isn't actually using the convention (abusing perhaps). Compare with the Watson double you cited in an earlier message where the convention is genuinely "used" to expose an earlier psych. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Aug 5 13:55:50 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:55:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> <6.1.1.1.0.20040730161359.02a266b0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040801171234.02b34410@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040802143313.02b9aae0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040803090457.02b25eb0@pop.starpower.net> <5WeBpkFiCEEBFwYg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804090252.02a35150@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040805082457.02a9b120@pop.starpower.net> At 10:04 PM 8/4/04, David wrote: > Of course that is not true. I have never suggested it in any way, > and cannot understand why you say it is an assumption of mine when > nothing I have said suggests it in any way. I say this because, having reread my posts on the subject it is the only way to explain David's insistence that I am advocating hiding anything, or doing one thing while claiming to be doing something else. I have taken no such position. > I assume that SOs take convention-banning decisions because they > think it is right for their membership. That's exactly the problem. Without rules or guidelines to tell the responsible authority what "right for their membership" is, without any requirement to provide some further substantive, if necessarily subjective, rationale for determining a convention to be so, "right for their membership" becomes just another way of spelling "illegal enemy combatant". >> With that as a postulate, he assumes that I am suggesting that we >> continue to do this (perforce?), but claim to be doing something else. > > Neither is it a postulate nor do I suggest we do any such > rubbish. I am suggesting that when we take a decision saying we are > doing something else is wrong, stupid, and unhelpful to the game of > bridge or our membership. I fully agree, and cannot imagine why David thinks I have suggested otherwise. But I go further than he does. I argue that not only it is wrong, stupid and unhelpful to take a decision and then provide a justification that isn't true, but also that it is wrong, stupid and unhelpful to take a decision and then provide a justification that is totally devoid of meaning. >>That is wrong. > > Certainly is. A very silly approach. Fortunately we do not do it. > >> I am suggesting that we *do* do something else, namely ban >> conventions solely on the basis of their effect on the opponents who >> must defend against them. > > This is the first time you have suggested this. Actually not. David, please reread my post of 3 August. > What you have been doing so far is criticising one SO's method of > making decisions Several, actually. > - and, incredibly, suggesting they hide their decision-making process. Just not true. >> I have never suggested that we merely claim to do this, but that we >> actually do it, and, of course, let everyone know what we are >> doing. I believe it is a mealy-mouthed behind-the-scenes unfair >> abrogation of our responsibilities to make rules about what >> conventions will be allowed solely on the basis of some chosen >> arbiter's determination that his opinion of the merits of a >> convention is superior to that of those who would use it. > > So, why should E Landau's assumptions on how to decide this be > better than the EBU's? And why should the EBU hide what they are > doing as you suggested? Because E. Landau would require some substantive justification to accompany any decision to ban a convention, while the EBU does not. E. Landau believes that, "You cannot play this convention because we believe it will have the effect of...," is indeed superior to, "You cannot play this convention because we say so." >>Or perhaps David is merely assuming that no matter what criteria we >>enact, the decision will still come down to whether or not the powers >>that be personally approve of the convention, and that they will then >>use that sensible-sounding criterion to obfuscate the reality. > > Of course not. Since I have never said nor implied this, and have > several times said the exact opposite, it seems an incredible > conclusion from what I said. As I see it, David is suggesting that we ban whatever we choose, and then hide "because we said so" behind empty phrases like "no technical merit" or "designed primarily to gain an unfair advantage". >> I am optimistic enough to believe that if we put forth some >> sensible rule, at least some of our "authorities" will attempt to apply it. > > That's right: we have sensible rules: we follow them: we do not > hide them as you recommend: you don't like them. That does not make > them wrong. > >>If I'm wrong, SOs will inevitably continue to abrogate their >>responsibilities by hiding "we just don't like your convention" >>behind purely subjective yammering about technical merit, or about >>the intentions of the conventions' designers. > > Why should they? They shouldn't. But they do. > Why should they hide anything as you recommend? Would it not be > better if we made good decisions for our members and told them about > them? Your idea of not doing so is very unfortunate. They should hide things as I recommend because it's the right thing to do, given that I have specifically argued that they should hide nothing. "My idea of not doing so" is a figment of David's imagination. > Hiding good decisions from the membership seems silly to me. To me, hiding bad decisions from the membership is at least as reprehensible. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 5 14:01:04 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:01:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040804125945.02ab8130@pop.starpower.net> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D21@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804125945.02ab8130@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5QShoXGQ+iEBFw4H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 11:09 AM 8/4/04, Hinden wrote: > >>At 11:03 AM 8/3/04, Ron wrote: >> >> >Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes: >> > >> > > OK, I agree you have a logically consistent position. But when it >> > comes >> > > down to it, *all* regulation of conventions is somebody saying "I >> > don't like >> > > that convention, so you can't play it". So your position turns >> into a >> > > desire for no regulation at all. Fair enough, that's a viable >> > position. >> > >> >I think it helps in understanding Eric's position to know that (like >> >every member of the EHAA community of a certin age), he's been >> >arbitrarily (and from the point of view of the laws of the game, >> >illegally) >> >denied the ability to play his chosen method. >> > >> >And I'm tolerably confident that the phrase "no technical merit" was >> >employed at least once in explaining the decision to bar EHAA. I'm >> >certain it was used in the war of words on the subject. >> >>Ron is quite right, although the ACBL's preferred phrase was "intended >>solely to disrupt the opponents' auction", which is very much the same >>thing. >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>They are completely different things. The ACBL may have decided that >>there is no technical merit in disrupting the opponents' auction (I >>would disagree with them) but conceptually it's not the same thing at all. > >It doesn't matter what phrase is used. If you give someone a rubber >stamp with which he can ban a convention by arbitrarily overruling the >convention's designer with his own idea of what its intent or purpose >was, it is exactly the same thing, whether the stamp says "intended >solely to disrupt", "no technical merit", "illegal enemy combatant", >"this convention sucks", or "unframagibly hyperremoosless". If someone >(or a friend of someone) with that power doesn't like the convention, >thump goes the stamp, with no further justification or explanation required. That is nothing to do with the Laws. If a body has the power to make regulations or laws then they have that power, whether they explain or not, and whether they use that power in a reasonable way or not. You have suggested several times that bodies misuse that power. Sometimes your words seem to suggest that the ACBL misuses that power: I have very little knowledge of the ACBL and do not know whether they do. Sometimes you suggest that *all* bodies misuse that power, and I think that is a most unwarranted assertion. As for the logic you produce, it is meaningless: if they have the power, they have the power. You seem to suggest that one body should remove the power from another body. Well, perhaps they can, but what on earth makes you believe that the WBF would have a better idea of what is suitable for people to be allowed to play in North American events than the ACBL? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 5 14:06:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:06:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >>>> David Stevenson 8/2/2004 7:47:30 PM >>> >How do you expect the EBU to decide which conventions to permit? By >drawing lots? By some random process? Or by following particular >guidelines and rules? > >--------- > >The latter, of course. Unfamiliar conventions that pose novel problems >for the opponents should be forbidden, except in a match long enough and >important enough that the opponents can reasonably be required to >prepare defensive measures (having been informed about the convention >well in advance; perhaps the conventioneers should also be required to >suggest a defense). Admittedly, applying this rule requires delicate >judgment, but not so much as if the authorities had also to determine >whether the convention had *technical merit*. OK, so you have your guideline. But not all that many people in ordinary clubs would agree with you. The average player probably does not like people being allowed ot play 'clever' stuff so he can bid better, but probably grudgingly accepts it is acceptable. But for the average player to accept that he has to pummel his brains to play against things which may be complex and difficult, and are not even played to get technical advantage, seems wrong. So I suggest that for the people who matter, ie the majority of players, it is reasonable to make guidelines and follow that make the game more generally enjoyable. One of the differences between the theoretical but impractical approach of many BLML players is that they are interested in what is theoretically right. Good organisations go a lot further, and worry about what is best for their membership as well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 5 14:09:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:09:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >>>> "Ton Kooijman" 8/3/2004 6:48:58 AM >>> >It is the law that a SO may regulate psyches of conventional bids. >It is the law that a SO may regulate conventional bids. I do not >believe that the law *as written* gives a SO the power to regulate >*psychs* of conventional bids. But perhaps this power *has* crept into >the law through long-established practice. Of course, as you presumably realise, your view is not universal. Many people believe the law *as written* gives an SO the power to regulate *psyches* of conventional calls. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 5 14:12:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:12:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: <001c01c47ac6$4e826c20$6bf3f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal wrote >On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:02:49 +0200, "Ton Kooijman" > wrote: > >>And some illustrious people decades ago decided that L40D gives >>the possibility to restrict the use of a psyche when it regards a >>convention. Such decision is an interpreation of the laws and whether you >>like it or not becomes part of the laws. > >Yes. But if it was decades ago, then one could be tempted by the >point of view that the WBFLC must, as part of the creation of the 1997 >laws, have considered that interpretation and taken a decision not to >incorporate it in the laws, thus reversing the decision made decades >ago. Alternatively, if, like me, you consider it an obvious interpretation of the Laws, the WBFLC might have felt there are more important things to do with its time than to re-write something which has a clear interpretation which has been upheld by a stated interpretation. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 5 14:15:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:15:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <41110385.8AD0E21D@nyc.rr.com> References: <29myjCHAkPEBFwqv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <41110385.8AD0E21D@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: Michael Kopera wrote >I'm not so sure about your example of a transfer response to 1N. The >ACBL GCC disallows "Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less >than 2NT, to natural openings." This clause is removed for Mid-Chart+. > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> James Hudson wrote >> >> >So probably, though not certainly, the right to psych conventions >> >has by now ceased to exist. >> >> I do not understand this. At first reading it seemed silly, and at >> second reading it looked ridiculous. So, presumably, I have missed >> something. Perhaps you could explain further. >> >> Certain organisations regulate certain conventions, and their >> regulations include that they may not be used with a psyche. Ok, like >> it or not, that's the case. >> >> But here are hundreds, even thousands of other conventions not covered >> by this. In what way has the right to psyche them ceased ot exist? >> >> For example, I know of no SO whatever that forbids a psyche of a >> transfer response to 1NT. So in what way has the "right to psyche" a >> transfer response to 1NT ceased to exist? Ok, sorry. Well, in what way has the "right to psyche" a transfer response to 1NT ceased to exist outside the ACBL? Or in what way has the right to psyche something the ACBL does not regulate ceased to exist [I'll skip an example, for safety's sake]? It would help the flow of argument if top posting was avoided. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 5 14:17:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:17:14 +0100 Subject: Ps and Qs - (was Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying) In-Reply-To: <000701c47a94$d48cc400$0401010a@Desktop> References: <000701c47a94$d48cc400$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> Sent: Thursday, 5 August 2004 11:03 a.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: Ps and Qs - (was Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Larry Bennett: >> >> [snip] >> >> >I gave them the ebu simple system cc, and told them >> >to play that until they provided fully documented >> >meanings to all their "named" conventions. >> >They couldn't be bothered to do that, and won the >> >event. >> > >> >Ho hum >> >Larry >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> In the Grand Final of Australia's 2004 National Open >> Teams, it was the best Australian team versus the >> best Indonesian team. > >Didn't this "best Australian team" contain Stephen Burgess and Ashley >Bach who played for NZ in the 2003 Bermuda Bowl. The Australian team that had an unfortunate last match in the Commonwealth games was composed of two New Zealanders, one American and a Hungarian. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 5 14:22:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:22:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >I thought that by saying "explicitly or *implicitly*" I was weakening >my assertion so much that I would be safe from rebuttal. But as David >points out, a conventional meaning may also be assigned as a matter of >*general bridge knowledge*. > >I don't think that is relevant to the present case. 2C = Stayman after >a 1NT opening is a matter of general bridge knowledge; 4C = Stayman (or >anything else in particular) after 3NT is not. Besides, the write-up >seems to say that this partnership had agreed (at least implicitly) not >to play Stayman, or any other convention, over a 3NT opening. I did not suggest it was relevant to the present case: I just worried about an assertion i believed to be incorrect. In the present case, however, it has some relevance. I believe that if you polled players on their meanings of 4C over 3NT with their favourite partner you would get something like the following: Natural: 5% Artificial: 25% Undiscussed: 70% Assuming i am right then I believe general bridge knowledge is that they have no idea what 4C means, *NOT* that it is natural. This of course means that any player would bid 4S with five spades, except someone using UI, or one who has a specific agreed meaning. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 5 14:24:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:24:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Wednesday, Aug 4, 2004, at 13:33 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > >> I take this to be Stayman. > >Is this not an assumption that there *is* a(n implicit) partnership >agreement regarding this call? No. An implicit agreement, perhaps - but not with partner. It is an agreement with the whole world .... Pity I am now playing Keri with one partner ..... -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 5 14:27:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:27:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit In-Reply-To: <2AE0DF6F-E688-11D8-96E5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <2AE0DF6F-E688-11D8-96E5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> A procedural penalty of one quarter of a board was issued to EW >> for the flagrant transmission and use of UI (73F1). > >This wording suggests the committee felt that East had deliberately >violated Law 73B1, but didn't want to come right out and say so. Seems >to me that if they felt that way, they should have dealt harshly with >what was, if they were correct, deliberate cheating. And if they didn't >feel that way, or were unwilling to deal with it, they should have left >"transmission" out of the equation. Why could not they just have meant what they said? It was flagrant transmission and use of UI. That is not the same as deliberate cheating. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Aug 5 14:39:06 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:39:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D02@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <200408031503.i73F3IQ9008055@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804083723.02ac7eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040805090104.02e88c30@pop.starpower.net> At 10:06 PM 8/4/04, David wrote: > It is completely different. A good convention that is designed to > disrupt the opponents' auction - eg CRASH over a strong 1C has > technical merit, so would be allowed by the EBU. If David is to make the case for the EBU's way of determining what conventions will be permitted, he needs to supply two more pieces of information: (1) an example of a "bad" convention that is designed to disrupt the opponents' auction but lacks technical merit, which would not be allowed by the EBU, and (2) the EBU regulation, guideline or policy statement was used to make the determination that CRASH is a "good" convention while his counter-example (#1 above) is a "bad" convention. Incidentally, the ACBL does not (officially) believe that CRASH over a strong 1C, unlike, say, a 1NT opening on a balanced 9-count, is "a method designed solely to disrupt the opponents' auction", so perhaps they disagree with the EBU. Of course, the ACBL has no regulation, guideline or policy statement that justifies calling one but not the other "designed solely to disrupt the opponents' auction". Their distinction, which patently differs from David's (and the EBUs?), is totally arbitrary, and reflects nothing more than the personal preferences of certain (in some cases former) "highly placed authorities". If the EBU does have some regulation, guideline or policy statement as to what constitutes "technical merit", they are light-years ahead of the ACBL, and I would have no problem with their approach. When you give a person a rubber stamp, the application of which to a convention makes it illegal to use that convention, it doesn't matter what's on the stamp, whether it says "No Technical Merit", says "Designed Solely To Disrupt", or just has a big circled X on it. But we do need regulation in this area; we must, inevitably, entrust the rubber stamp to someone. A responsible governing body says to that person (or committee), "Stamp any convention that meets (or fails to meet) the following criteria..." An irresponsible governing body says, "Stamp any convention you feel like" -- or, in real life, says nothing at all, which amounts to the same thing. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Aug 5 15:03:41 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:03:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <001801c47ae0$475aea20$2ff5f0c3@LNV> References: <001c01c47ac6$4e826c20$6bf3f0c3@LNV> <001801c47ae0$475aea20$2ff5f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:35:11 +0200, "Ton Kooijman" wrote: >and Jesper answered: > >In other words, WBFLC interpretations from before the current laws >were written should logically be ignored. > > >(((((( I am not so sure about the word 'logically' here. To be honest I >thought about this issue when I wrote my message above. And my = conclusion >was that if no word is changed (which is the case for L40 in '97 I = think) >then the exisitng interpretation should still be considered valid, if no >explicit statement is made. That can't be logically proven either, but = is >not unreasonable. Anyway, the interpretation still exists. I know that in reality it is clear that the WBFLC intends at least some of the old interpretations to still be in effect. But it ought not to be so; there is something wrong if the WBFLC does not include information that it finds necessary in order to rule correctly, in the law book at the earliest possible time. Because then that information reaches only very few people. So I am primarily suggesting that it would be nice if the new laws would mark a more consistent attitude to that: it really should not be necessary to read old WBFLC interpretations in order to rule correctly with a brand new law book. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Aug 5 15:04:44 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:04:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: <001c01c47ac6$4e826c20$6bf3f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:12:35 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote >>Yes. But if it was decades ago, then one could be tempted by the >>point of view that the WBFLC must, as part of the creation of the 1997 >>laws, have considered that interpretation and taken a decision not to >>incorporate it in the laws, thus reversing the decision made decades >>ago. > > Alternatively, if, like me, you consider it an obvious interpretation= =20 >of the Laws, the WBFLC might have felt there are more important things=20 >to do with its time than to re-write something which has a clear=20 >interpretation which has been upheld by a stated interpretation. If it were so obvious, then the WBFLC would probably not have found it necessary to spend time issuing specific instructions on how to read those laws. And BLML would not have spent hundreds (possibly thousands) of messages during the years discussing what L40 means. Every interpretation that we see in a WBFLC minute is about things that have caused problems by being interpreted differently from how the WBFLC wants them interpreted. These interpretations are temporary fixes to imperfect laws - which is sensible enough, since the WBFLC cannot produce a new law book every year. These interpretations must be considered important by the WBFLC, or they would not have issued them. Some of them are actually law changes. But probably much less than one percent of the TDs around the world ever see these interpretations. TDs see the law book. It is therefore essential to get such information into the law book at the earliest convenient opportunity. As an indication of how small the circulation of WBFLC minutes is (or at least was), let me just mention that I was the chief TD of the Danish Bridge Federation (and the person primarily responsible for maintaining its regulations) for years before even learning that such interpretations existed: I learnt it through BLML. Though BLML and the internet in general has made the world much smaller in such respects, there are still very many TDs who know nothing about WBFLC interpretations. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From schoderb@msn.com Thu Aug 5 15:48:49 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:48:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psychic Calls Message-ID: Gentlemen, Not using a convention (one grape) intentionally which your hand exactly fits, and "passing" is a "gross and deliberate" misstatement of .....etc.etc.etc. To posit otherwise is simply to continue the farce of torturing the words to "fit" what you want to do, instead of having them accurately present the idea. Since the Chairman of the WBFLC has no desire to address this subject at this time, I've enough sense to not look for a substantive change, or tilt at windmills. It doesn't take genius to state that sponsoring organizations have the right to bar psychic calls as part of 40A if you so wish. It is already an established fact, is it not? I don't think I'll see that however -- too clear and simple. Kojak From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 5 16:59:44 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:59:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <77DE38C1-E6F8-11D8-A3B2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Aug 5, 2004, at 09:24 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > No. An implicit agreement, perhaps - but not with partner. It is an > agreement with the whole world .... So this is an example of general bridge knowledge, which need not be disclosed. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 5 17:07:56 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:07:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <001c01c47ac6$4e826c20$6bf3f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <004801c47b06$82639100$6e9868d5@jeushtlj> > [Jesper Dybdal] > It seems obvious to me that WBFLC > interpretations, particularly those which > - like this one - seem directly contrary > to the letter of some law, should be > incorporated in the laws as part of the > next law review. And if they're not, > surely that must be a deliberate decision > on the part of the WBFLC and must indicate > a change of mind since the interpretation > was issued. > In other words, WBFLC interpretations from > before the current laws were written should > logically be ignored. [Nigel] Manifestly, Jesper is right in principle. I guess that the practical problem is that the score or so members of WBFLC only have about ten years between editions in which to make corrections and remedy deficiencies. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04-Aug-04 From guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 5 16:52:38 2004 From: guthrie@ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 16:52:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Newsday Article References: <410647cd.19487271@news.individual.de><2b1b5653.0408041918.2e80f97a@posting.google.com> Message-ID: <004901c47b06$8ecc7240$6e9868d5@jeushtlj> [John (MadDog) Probst] > I don't often agree with you Nigel, but I do > agree with your take on the article completely. [Nigel] Thank you, John, for your (qualified) approval. Each week, I receive private emails, most of which endorse criticism of TFLB. With a few correspondents, I have a lengthy private dialogue. Unfortunately, almost nobody seems to want to risk putting their head above the parapet by copying their views to BLML or RGB, thus drawing fire from the massed ranks of TDs and law makers. Thanks and Regards, Nigel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04-Aug-04 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 5 17:18:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:18:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1290EA48-E6FB-11D8-A3B2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Aug 5, 2004, at 09:27 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > It was flagrant transmission and use of UI. That is not the same as=20= > deliberate cheating. "flagrant: conspicuously offensive ; especially : so=20= obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be=20= a flouting of law or morality flout: to treat with contemptuous disregard. cheat: to violate rules dishonestly dis=B7hon=B7est=B7ly implies a willful perversion of truth in order to=20= deceive, cheat, or defraud" = Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary I would think that we have two offenses here: flagrant transmission of=20= UI, and flagrant use of UI. Use of UI is an offense whether flagrant=20 (or intentional) or not. *Transmission* of UI is only illegal if it=20 *is* intentional. The committee's use of "flagrant" to describe the=20 transmission seems to me to indicate that they believed it was=20 intentional. If that was the case, I think they should have cited Law=20 73B1 as having been violated, but iirc, they only referred in the write=20= up to 73F1, which refers only to the *use* of UI, the other offense in=20= this case. If the committee were not willing to cite 73B1, they should=20= not have commented on the "flagrant transmission".= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 5 17:52:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:52:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <200408051511.i75FB5XP000116@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Thursday, Aug 5, 2004, at 11:11 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: > Tactic' would have been better; nothing about deception implied, > although certainly not ruled out either. 'Maneuver' is pretty much the > same. (Ed, with his professional background, can probably tell us the > distinction between the two, but they seem close synonyms to me.) Close enough for government work. :-) > That's the trouble with English... too many words! Indeed. Of the ones you suggested, I like "action" the best, though I probably would have chosen "tactic" myself. ;-) > In contrast to the above, I think any suggestion that Ed intends or > wishes to hide his partnership understandings was out of line. As you > know, there is disagreement about what constitutes proper disclosure. What I've been trying to do here is discover and get firm in my own mind "what constitutes proper disclosure". I do not and would not deliberately hide a partnership understanding. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 5 19:18:40 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:18:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychic Calls References: Message-ID: <002101c47b18$e32fd1d0$85cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Shall silence shroud such sin As Satan seems to show Even in his imps, in these our days That all men might it know? No, no, it cannot be." ~ Thomas Gilbart. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "kooijman Ton" ; "Endicott Grattan" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 3:48 PM Subject: [blml] Psychic Calls > Gentlemen, > > Not using a convention (one grape) intentionally > which your hand exactly fits, and "passing" is a > "gross and deliberate" misstatement of > ......etc.etc.etc. > +=+ Right, so it is - a psychic natural call. If a 1C opener showed 16+ HCP and you had 19 HCP it would be a psychic Pass, not a psychic 1C bid. ~ G ~ +=+ From badmail@blowsquish.com Thu Aug 5 20:05:56 2004 From: badmail@blowsquish.com (Badmail) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 15:05:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Email Has Been Changed. Message-ID: <200408051905.i75J5uX52621@blowsquishdesign.com> Thank you for emailing me. Due to the overwhelming amount of SPAM I have been receiving, I have deactivated this email address. Please visit http://jackslomovitsphotographs.com/contact.php if you want to get your message through to me. Otherwise, I will not see this message. If you are trying to send me SPAM, jam it in your own inbox. Thank you, Jack Slomovits From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Aug 5 21:15:36 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:15:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <5QShoXGQ+iEBFw4H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D21@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804125945.02ab8130@pop.starpower.net> <5QShoXGQ+iEBFw4H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040805160024.02b3a290@pop.starpower.net> At 09:01 AM 8/5/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >> >>It doesn't matter what phrase is used. If you give someone a rubber >>stamp with which he can ban a convention by arbitrarily overruling >>the convention's designer with his own idea of what its intent or >>purpose was, it is exactly the same thing, whether the stamp says >>"intended solely to disrupt", "no technical merit", "illegal enemy >>combatant", "this convention sucks", or "unframagibly >>hyperremoosless". If someone (or a friend of someone) with that >>power doesn't like the convention, thump goes the stamp, with no >>further justification or explanation required. > > That is nothing to do with the Laws. If a body has the power to > make regulations or laws then they have that power, whether they > explain or not, and whether they use that power in a reasonable way or not. David has apparently had a hard time of late reading my posts. I have never contradicted the above, and have said so several times. Yes, they have the power. Yes, they have it whether they use it reasonably or unreasonably. We are talking about the difference between these. > You have suggested several times that bodies misuse that power. > Sometimes your words seem to suggest that the ACBL misuses that > power: I have very little knowledge of the ACBL and do not know > whether they do. Sometimes you suggest that *all* bodies misuse that > power, and I think that is a most unwarranted assertion. The ACBL does. If the EBU acts as David seems to be describing, they do to. I suspect that most do, but doubt that "*all*" do. > As for the logic you produce, it is meaningless: if they have the > power, they have the power. David seems to be arguing that "might makes right" and that's all there is to be said on the subject. If they have the power, I see no reason not to address the issue of whether it is being used wisely. I don't think that's meaningless, and doubt that "they" do. I have the power to burn down my neighbor's house. If I have the power, I have the power. Nevertheless, it is not meaningless, either to me or my neighbor, how I choose to use it. > You seem to suggest that one body should remove the power from > another body. Well, perhaps they can, but what on earth makes you > believe that the WBF would have a better idea of what is suitable for > people to be allowed to play in North American events than the ACBL? I make no suggestion as to what body exercises the power. I only suggest that whichever does, they do so wisely. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 5 23:40:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 23:40:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040805082457.02a9b120@pop.starpower.net> References: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> <6.1.1.1.0.20040730161359.02a266b0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040801171234.02b34410@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040802143313.02b9aae0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040803090457.02b25eb0@pop.starpower.net> <5WeBpkFiCEEBFwYg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804090252.02a35150@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040805082457.02a9b120@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2qhCWnIfdrEBFwLn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 10:04 PM 8/4/04, David wrote: > >> Of course that is not true. I have never suggested it in any way, >>and cannot understand why you say it is an assumption of mine when >>nothing I have said suggests it in any way. > >I say this because, having reread my posts on the subject it is the >only way to explain David's insistence that I am advocating hiding >anything, or doing one thing while claiming to be doing something else. >I have taken no such position. Eric Landau wrote >But I do accept that the EBU has the right to decide what conventions >may be played in EBU events; I would have thought that my last >paragraph above said exactly that. I even believe that they should >exercise that right. What I do object to is any regulation that allows >some designated authority to determine that a specific convention will >not be permitted on stated grounds which are inherently subjective and >with which the affected players might strongly disagree (such as "no >technical merit"). I wouldn't like a regulation giving someone the >power to say, "*I* don't like that convention, so *you* can't play it," >and I don't like regulations that are functionally exactly equivalent >to that one. This post is the problem. You do not like the guideline, and you are suggesting we do not say that we use it. Your reason seems to be that we will misuse it. So, why do you think that no guideline is better and fairer? Or, as I still get the impression form your posts, a hidden guideline? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Fri Aug 6 01:45:46 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 01:45:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Newsday Article In-Reply-To: <004901c47b06$8ecc7240$6e9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <410647cd.19487271@news.individual.de> <2b1b5653.0408041918.2e80f97a@posting.google.com> <004901c47b06$8ecc7240$6e9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article <004901c47b06$8ecc7240$6e9868d5@jeushtlj>, Guthrie writes >[John (MadDog) Probst] >> I don't often agree with you Nigel, but I do >> agree with your take on the article completely. > >[Nigel] >Thank you, John, for your (qualified) approval. > >Each week, I receive private emails, most of which >endorse criticism of TFLB. With a few >correspondents, I have a lengthy private dialogue. Of course, and so do I > >Unfortunately, almost nobody seems to want to risk >putting their head above the parapet by copying >their views to BLML or RGB, thus drawing fire from >the massed ranks of TDs and law makers. Not a problem for me. :) But it is my style to let people with whom I usually feel I disagree know that there are occasions when I'm in accord > >Thanks and Regards, >Nigel > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system >(http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release >Date: 04-Aug-04 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 twm@cix.co.uk Fri Aug 6 01:47:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 01:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: <77DE38C1-E6F8-11D8-A3B2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: If you tell opps you haven't actually discussed it then they will likely draw the same conclusion as you, WTP? However if you notice that your RHO is small and green with strange antennae I might adjust if you do not disclose the likelihood of it being Stayman. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Fri Aug 6 02:16:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 02:16:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit In-Reply-To: <1290EA48-E6FB-11D8-A3B2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <1290EA48-E6FB-11D8-A3B2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Thursday, Aug 5, 2004, at 09:27 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> It was flagrant transmission and use of UI. That is not the same as >>deliberate cheating. > >"flagrant: conspicuously offensive ; especially : so >obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be >a flouting of law or morality > >flout: to treat with contemptuous disregard. > >cheat: to violate rules dishonestly > >dis�hon�est�ly implies a willful perversion of truth in order to >deceive, cheat, or defraud" Exactly. The vital word in the above is 'wilful'. People are known to be very poor in UI situations, and their actions may be unethical, but unless they intend to be unethical, they are not cheating. Note there is no suggestion of 'wilful' in the definition above of flagrant. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 6 02:40:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:40:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal: [snip] >So I am primarily suggesting that it would >be nice if the new laws would mark a more >consistent attitude to that: it really >should not be necessary to read old WBFLC >interpretations in order to rule correctly >with a brand new law book. Richard Hills: I understand that the WBF LC Drafting Subcommittee *is* incorporating its old interpretations into the new 2006 Lawbook. For example, this interpretation (from the WBF Code of Practice) was included as a draft Law: "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. For this reason the Director must inform the committee if a ruling in favour of the non-offending side reflects a margin of doubt that continues to exist after the appropriate consultation procedure." Unfortunately, when this draft Law was discussed by the ACBL Laws Commission, they rejected it. (A prima facie demonstration of the ACBL LC lacking confidence in the ACBL's training and accreditation of its directors.) :-( Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 6 03:01:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:01:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit Message-ID: Ed Reppert asserted: [snip] >If that was the case, I think they should >have cited Law 73B1 as having been violated, >but iirc, they only referred in the write up >to 73F1, which refers only to the *use* of >UI, the other offense in this case. If the >committee were not willing to cite 73B1, >they should not have commented on the >"flagrant transmission". Richard Hills quibbles: Adam Wildavsky and I join Ed Reppert in believing that it is "best practice" for ACs to cite all the Laws which are the basis for their decisions. But... Unless SO regulations state otherwise, it is not compulsory for ACs to *cite* which Law is the basis for their decision, it is merely compulsory for AC to *use* a Law as a basis for its ruling. In my opinion, the wording of the AC decision demonstrably suggested that the AC *used* Law 73B1 (in addition to Law 73F1) as a basis for the AC decision, even though the AC did not bother to *cite* Law 73B1. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 6 03:14:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:14:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: Eric Landau asked: [big snip] >Should they be immune from an AWMW just because the director, >too, was wrong? Tim West-Meads asserted: >YES!!! Players getting these things wrong just happens. TDs >getting rulings screwed up is really bad for the game (and >for other TDs). There should be absolutely no disincentive >to getting *bad* rulings before an AC. TDs need to learn >when they have made errors. Longer term improved TD rulings >should reduce the number of appeals. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Tim's philosophy is misconceived. Tim seems to be asserting that there are only two types of TD rulings: (a) A TD ruling which is right. (b) A TD ruling which is wrong. In my opinion, this ignores the fuzzy logic philosophy of the "relativity of wrong". For example: (c) The Earth is a plane. (d) The Earth is a sphere. Both (c) and (d) are wrong, because the Earth is an oblate spheroid. But (d) is *less wrong* than (c). Likewise, the TD was wrong in ruling against the appellants because the TD was insufficiently severe. But the TD was *less wrong* than if the TD had ruled in favour of the appellants, which was the outcome that the appellants were seeking from the AC. Therefore, the AC had full fuzzy logic justification in imposing an Appeal Without Merit Warning. Best wishes RJH From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Aug 6 04:11:53 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:11:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: >>> David Stevenson 8/4/2004 9:56:00 AM >>> Certain organisations regulate certain conventions, and their regulations [sometimes] include that they may not be used with a psyche. ------------------- I claimed that to allow a convention to be used *but not to be psyched* was contrary to Law 40, specifically 40A. I still think it is contrary to the *text* of the law, though (in view of Grattan's legislative history) I'm willing to entertain the thought that the text of Law 40 might be less authoritative than is usual for a legal text, since there is some basis for arguing that the text does not really say what the lawmakers intended. Waiving that point, what I regard as a misinterpretation of Law 40 (allowing SOs to forbid the psyching of otherwise permitted conventions) has become so widely used and accepted that it may well be that it has become the law, in spite of its conflict with the legal text. ----------------- (Stevenson:) But here are hundreds, even thousands of other conventions not covered by this. In what way has the right to psyche them ceased ot exist? ------------------ I was referring not to the right to psych this or that convention, but to the general right to *psych conventions* (without qualification or specification). Jim Hudson From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Aug 6 04:21:32 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:21:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: >>> Ed Reppert 8/4/2004 2:30:18 PM >>> On Wednesday, Aug 4, 2004, at 13:33 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > I take this to be Stayman. Is this not an assumption that there *is* a(n implicit) partnership agreement regarding this call? ------------------------------- I was assuming that anything I know or surmise entirely on the basis of "general bridge knowledge" is not a partnership agreement, not even an implicit one. But now that you mention it, the concept of *implicit partnership agreement* does seem rather obscure and doubtful. Jim Hudson From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 6 04:55:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:55:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Implicit partnership agreement Message-ID: >From the thread "Reno NABC+ appeal number ten". Jim Hudson: [snip] >I was assuming that anything I know or surmise >entirely on the basis of "general bridge >knowledge" is not a partnership agreement, not >even an implicit one. Richard Hills: A correct assumption, unless one is an acolyte of the De Wael School. But when steering a course away from the Scylla of the De Wael School, one must also avoid the Charybdis of the Marvellous School (which has an overly wide-ranging definition of "general bridge knowledge"). Jim Hudson: >But now that you mention it, the concept of >*implicit partnership agreement* does seem >rather obscure and doubtful. Richard Hills: The concept of "implicit partnership agreement" was so doubtful that the WBF LC was driven to giving an extended definition in its Code of Practice (as part of the WBF CoP distinguishing between Lawful psyches and unLawful CPU pseudo- psyches). WBF Code of Practice: >>A partnership understanding exists if it is >>explicitly agreed by the partnership; >>alternatively it may exist because it is the >>implicit consequence of one of a number of >>circumstances. To deem that such an implicit >>understanding exists it must be determined >>that the partner of the player who psyches >>has a heightened awareness that in the given >>situation the call may be psychic. This will >>be the case only if in the opinion of the >>committee one of the following circumstances >>is established: >> >>(a) similar psychic action has occurred in >>the partnership on several occasions in the >>past, and not so long ago that the memory of >>the actions has faded in the partner's mind >>- habit is to be identified when an >>occurrence is so frequent that it may be >>anticipated; or >> >>(b) in the recent past a similar psychic call >>has occurred in the partnership and it is >>considered the memory of it is so fresh that >>it cannot have faded from mind; or >> >>(c) psychic calls of various kinds have >>occurred in the partnership with such >>frequency, and sufficiently recently, that >>the partner is clearly aware of the tendency >>for such psychic calls to occur; or >> >>(d) the members of the partnership are >>mutually aware of some significant external >>matter that may help recognition of the >>psychic call. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 6 05:18:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 14:18:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lawbook 2006 defaults Message-ID: >From the thread "Deceiving and destroying". James Hudson wrote: >I was referring not to the right to psych >this or that convention, but to the general >right to *psych conventions* (without >qualification or specification). Richard Hills replies: There is a general default right to psyche conventions, unless and until an SO regulates otherwise. (The ABF is yet to regulate otherwise, nor is the ABF likely to regulate otherwise in the short- to medium-term future.) One of Nigel Guthrie's better ideas was that the 2006 Lawbook should include a significant number of defaults. That is, Laws which an SO could freely amend by regulation if it so desired, but which were "best practice" default Laws if an SO could not be bothered to create its own regulations. Likewise, David Stevenson has noted that an SO could adopt the EBU White Book as its default regulations, to apply in lieu of a specific statement otherwise. This policy - of White Book defaults with specifically authorised exceptions - has been chosen by the Welsh Bridge Union. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 6 06:54:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 15:54:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: Richard wrote: >>I disagree with Tim's *should*, which butters >>no parsnips for me. Any partnership's duty is >>not to outguess the duly appointed officials, >>merely to seek their own best competitive >>advantage. Tim replied: >I deem acquiescing to an obviously wrong (and >favourable ruling) to be an "action that might >cause annoyance or embarrassment to another >player or might interfere with the enjoyment of >the game." Something from which the laws >require us to refrain. Small children have >little sense of right and wrong, they need to >be taught. It seems that bridge players are in >the same category. Richard rereplies: For this situation, my personal ethics are identical to Tim's personal ethics. Where I differ with Tim is as to whether a childish acquiescer in a TD's wrong ruling is acting contrary to Law. In my opinion, the *general* Law 74A2 courtesy requirement is modified by the *specific* Law 82C (Director's Error) -> "If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose." That is, the people *specifically* given the responsibility for correcting a director's error are the Director and/or the Chief Director. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 6 07:16:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:16:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2003 EBU casebook, appeal 4 Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: [snip] >What I've been trying to do here is >discover and get firm in my own >mind "what constitutes proper >disclosure"? I do not and would not >deliberately hide a partnership >understanding. Richard Hills defines: Proper disclosure is disclosing in accordance with the regulations of your SO. In some cases, improper disclosure is disclosing in accordance with the regulations of your SO, because your SO's (foolishly) inadequate regs have loopholes that authorise the hiding of agreements. True Law 75A disclosure is *always* fully and freely revealing your agreements to your opponents at an appropriate (preferably prior) time, even if such revelations are technically illegal due to your SO's (foolishly) inadequate regs. The ABF Alert Regulations closely approach the Law 75A ideal, because they contain a clause stating: >>Your principle should be to >>disclose, not as little as you >>must, but as much as you can, and >>as comprehensibly as you can. Best wishes RJH From wmevius@hotmail.com Fri Aug 6 09:10:41 2004 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:10:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Order of Merit Message-ID: A diamond, the ace of hearts or a small heart The only thing I would definitely not lead is a spade Willem Mevius wmevius@hotmail.com >From: "Karel" >To: >Subject: RE: [blml] Order of Merit >Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 12:04:02 +0100 > > >Not leading a heart - way too risky > >Strongly consider a club - pd is marked with length and who knows may have >CAQ and a possible ruff >Passive trump seems fairly normal >A diamond is a pure guess i see no reason to lead it > >So I'd lead an optimistic club, followed by a passive trump. Not leading a >red suit. > >K. > > > >The opponents play Standard American. > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: North >Vul: None > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1C Pass 1S >Pass 2NT Pass 3S >Pass 4S Pass Pass >Pass > >You, West, hold: > >T95 >AT762 >974 >73 > >What opening lead do you make? >What other opening leads do you >consider making? > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Aug 6 09:59:45 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 09:59:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten References: Message-ID: <004601c47b97$47513900$27cc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Shall silence shroud such sin As Satan seems to show Even in his imps, in these our days That all men might it know? No, no, it cannot be." ~ Thomas Gilbart. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hudson" To: Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 4:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten > > I was assuming that anything I know or surmise > entirely on the basis of "general bridge knowledge" > is not a partnership agreement, not even an implicit > one. But now that you mention it, the concept of > *implicit partnership agreement* does seem rather > obscure and doubtful. > +=+ I think the only positive information to be derived from the laws is that "habitual violations may create implicit agreements". I do not think it is anywhere said this is the only way in which an implicit agreement can arise. I have some support at world level for my opinion that an implicit agreement can derive from what I term 'mutually shared knowledge' - the example I generally give is where the members of a partnership both usually play in the same club where a particular meaning is commonly understood by the members but is 'special' inasmuch as the same understanding would not necessarily apply elsewhere. To identify the existence of an implicit agreement is not always easy. The laws do not offer guidance. I have known an appeals committee conclude that a special agreement existed from the fact that a player made a call with a meaning not generally understood of it and the partner's subsequent action clearly catered for that meaning. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Aug 6 13:34:50 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:34:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <2qhCWnIfdrEBFwLn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> <6.1.1.1.0.20040730161359.02a266b0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040801171234.02b34410@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040802143313.02b9aae0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040803090457.02b25eb0@pop.starpower.net> <5WeBpkFiCEEBFwYg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804090252.02a35150@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040805082457.02a9b120@pop.starpower.net> <2qhCWnIfdrEBFwLn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040806081815.02baf1d0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:40 PM 8/5/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>But I do accept that the EBU has the right to decide what conventions >>may be played in EBU events; I would have thought that my last >>paragraph above said exactly that. I even believe that they should >>exercise that right. What I do object to is any regulation that >>allows some designated authority to determine that a specific >>convention will not be permitted on stated grounds which are >>inherently subjective and with which the affected players might >>strongly disagree (such as "no technical merit"). I wouldn't like a >>regulation giving someone the power to say, "*I* don't like that >>convention, so *you* can't play it," and I don't like regulations >>that are functionally exactly equivalent to that one. > > This post is the problem. You do not like the guideline, and you > are suggesting we do not say that we use it. Your reason seems to be > that we will misuse it. I am suggesting that you change it. Only if and when you stop using it have I suggested that you stop saying you use it. > So, why do you think that no guideline is better and fairer? Or, > as I still get the impression form your posts, a hidden guideline? I have never suggested no guideline; quite the opposite. I have suggested a substantive guideline in place of an empty phrase. I have suggested that we imagine the following conversation: Official: "You are not allowed to play that convention." Player: "Why not?" O: "Because it has no technical merit." P: "But it does have technical merit. On what grounds are you telling me it doesn't?" Wrong answer: "Because our SO has given me the power, and I say so." Right answer: "Because our SO has guidelines as to what constitutes technical merit (points to copy of guidelines), and this convention doesn't meet them." Nothing hidden there. No do-one-thing-and-say-something-else, as David keeps reading into my posts. Just common sense and a desire to do right by our players. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Aug 6 13:54:23 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:54:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040806084134.041b3eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:14 PM 8/5/04, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau asked: > >[big snip] > > >Should they be immune from an AWMW just because the director, > >too, was wrong? FTR, that wasn't me. Givne what I've read so far in this thread, I'm on Tim's side. >Tim West-Meads asserted: > > >YES!!! Players getting these things wrong just happens. TDs > >getting rulings screwed up is really bad for the game (and > >for other TDs). There should be absolutely no disincentive > >to getting *bad* rulings before an AC. TDs need to learn > >when they have made errors. Longer term improved TD rulings > >should reduce the number of appeals. I look at it from the player's side, where Tim sees it from the director's side, but they boil down to the same thing. The director makes and explains his ruling. The player thinks, "That can't be right; it doesn't make sense." So he appeals. If the AC agrees with him, his appeal has merit, notwithstanding that he may have no idea what the correct ruling would be, hence no idea whether a correct ruling would be better or worse for his side. Indeed, a conscientious AC, even if they determine that the original ruling was 100% correct, should consider the possibility, before they issue an AWM penalty, that the TD's explanation of the ruling may have been unclear or confusing enough to prompt the appeal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb@msn.com Fri Aug 6 15:03:17 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:03:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <004701c474b7$bef57110$0d80b6d4@LNV> <000f01c47586$c96c1e30$965ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> <6.1.1.1.0.20040730161359.02a266b0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040801171234.02b34410@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040802143313.02b9aae0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040803090457.02b25eb0@pop.starpower.net> <5WeBpkFiCEEBFwYg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20040804090252.02a35150@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040805082457.02a9b120@pop.starpower.net> <2qhCWnIfdrEBFwLn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20040806081815.02baf1d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric, The clarity and simplicity of your suggestion is probably too much for some BLMLers to accept. Bravo! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > At 06:40 PM 8/5/04, David wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote > > > >>But I do accept that the EBU has the right to decide what conventions > >>may be played in EBU events; I would have thought that my last > >>paragraph above said exactly that. I even believe that they should > >>exercise that right. What I do object to is any regulation that > >>allows some designated authority to determine that a specific > >>convention will not be permitted on stated grounds which are > >>inherently subjective and with which the affected players might > >>strongly disagree (such as "no technical merit"). I wouldn't like a > >>regulation giving someone the power to say, "*I* don't like that > >>convention, so *you* can't play it," and I don't like regulations > >>that are functionally exactly equivalent to that one. > > > > This post is the problem. You do not like the guideline, and you > > are suggesting we do not say that we use it. Your reason seems to be > > that we will misuse it. > > I am suggesting that you change it. Only if and when you stop using it > have I suggested that you stop saying you use it. > > > So, why do you think that no guideline is better and fairer? Or, > > as I still get the impression form your posts, a hidden guideline? > > I have never suggested no guideline; quite the opposite. I have > suggested a substantive guideline in place of an empty phrase. I have > suggested that we imagine the following conversation: > > Official: "You are not allowed to play that convention." > > Player: "Why not?" > > O: "Because it has no technical merit." > > P: "But it does have technical merit. On what grounds are you telling > me it doesn't?" > > Wrong answer: "Because our SO has given me the power, and I say so." > > Right answer: "Because our SO has guidelines as to what constitutes > technical merit (points to copy of guidelines), and this convention > doesn't meet them." > > Nothing hidden there. No do-one-thing-and-say-something-else, as David > keeps reading into my posts. Just common sense and a desire to do > right by our players. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Aug 6 16:27:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > That is, the people *specifically* given the > responsibility for correcting a director's error > are the Director and/or the Chief Director. You will get no argument from about who is responsible for *correcting* an error. However they cannot exercise that responsibility unless their attention is drawn to the matter - they depend upon co-operation from the players in so doing. A player who draws attention to an unfeasably favourable ruling, states his reason at an appeal and has the CTD/AC uphold the ruling has, pretty obviously, done all within his power to comply with the laws. A player who knowingly accepts an illegal and favourable ruling has, again pretty obviously, made no attempt to comply. There is a grey area where the ruling is legal but overly favourable which requires a degree of interpretation. I choose to interpret it in such a way that players should draw such things to the attention of the TD because I think that is better for the game as a whole. If another TD chooses otherwise that is his right/responsibility. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Aug 6 16:27:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Eric Landau asked: > > [big snip] > > >Should they be immune from an AWMW just because the director, > >too, was wrong? > > Tim West-Meads asserted: > > >YES!!! Players getting these things wrong just happens. TDs > >getting rulings screwed up is really bad for the game (and > >for other TDs). There should be absolutely no disincentive > >to getting *bad* rulings before an AC. TDs need to learn > >when they have made errors. Longer term improved TD rulings > >should reduce the number of appeals. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Tim's philosophy is misconceived. > > Tim seems to be asserting that there are only two types of TD > rulings: > > (a) A TD ruling which is right. > (b) A TD ruling which is wrong. No you need to insert an "obviously" into both of the above since there is also (e) A TD ruling which is neither obviously right nor obviously wrong. IMO appealing against (b) or (c) should never result in an AWMW while appealing against (a) should always do so. > > In my opinion, this ignores the fuzzy logic philosophy of the > "relativity of wrong". > > For example: > > (c) The Earth is a plane. > (d) The Earth is a sphere. > > Both (c) and (d) are wrong, because the Earth is an oblate > spheroid. But (d) is *less wrong* than (c). My understanding of n-dimensionsal maths is limited but I think there are plausible equations for representing a 3-dimensional sphere as a plane in not3-dimensional space. Not that this matters. If the TD ruling is based on his statement that the earth is a sphere (or indeed a plane) and it is obvious that basing the ruling on the earth being an oblate sphere would make no difference then his ruling (unless otherwise flawed) is obviously right. > Likewise, the TD was wrong in ruling against the appellants > because the TD was insufficiently severe. But the TD was > *less wrong* than if the TD had ruled in favour of the > appellants, which was the outcome that the appellants were > seeking from the AC. Therefore, the AC had full fuzzy logic > justification in imposing an Appeal Without Merit Warning. In this instance the TD has ruled that the Auction will stop in 4S. As an appellant I may know that this is extemely unlikely (pard will realise I can't have a single-suited minor hand, reappraise her 4C as Stayman and make a simple sign-off in 4N), ok she has shown 4H but that is lower risk than playing the 4-3 spade fit at pairs. TDs shouldn't trying to be either "severe" or generous they should be trying to get things right. If they get it obviously wrong the decision should get to appeal. Tim From toddz@att.net Fri Aug 6 17:42:39 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:42:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040806084134.041b3eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040806084134.041b3eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040806123346.01ba6ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:54 AM 8/6/2004, Eric Landau wrote: > The director makes and explains his ruling. The player thinks, "That > can't be right; it doesn't make sense." So he appeals. If the AC > agrees with him, his appeal has merit, That's fine in theory. But in practice you might hear, "I don't like that; surely I deserve better." While there's some justice in the player getting a worse result, AWMW's are awarded as a way to document player's habits in appealing. The player's current, failed attempt at litigating good results will likely be followed by more. -Todd From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Aug 6 19:00:31 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:00:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] A foolish consistency (was Deceiving ...) Message-ID: >>> 8/4/2004 6:45:02 PM >>> Law 80F states, "A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." But the (sensible) current members of the WBF LC (sensibly) realised that a broad [straightforward?] interpretation of Law 80F would make some (sensible) regulations unLawful. So, at its meeting of 1st September 1998, the WBF LC ruled a narrow interpretation of Law 80F: "Regulations under this Law may not conflict with other Laws. This restriction does not apply to regulations made under other sections of the Laws." ------------------------------------ What does "regulations under this Law" mean? Supplementary regulations usually are independent of any particular law--except that, in a sense, they are *all* "under" Law 80F. As for the second sentence, it seems to say "To hell with the Laws"; as such, it is simply invalid. Jim Hudson From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Aug 6 19:18:35 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:18:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: >>> "Ton Kooijman" 8/5/2004 3:02:49 AM >>> Reading the laws in that nice booklet called: 'The laws of duplicate contract bridge 1997' most of us would not dare to read that the use of psyches could be restricted in any way. But then the use of psyches creates problems. And some illustrious people decades ago decided that L40D gives the possibility to restrict the use of a psyche when it regards a convention. Such decision is an interpretation of the laws and whether you like it or not becomes part of the laws. ------------------------- It's a misinterpretation of the Laws as written, but I grant that a misinterpretation *is* an interpretation. And I grant that a mistaken precedent can become established law; that may have happened in this case. But why do you object to using forms of the term 'creep' to describe the process? I don't strongly object to the process in general, though it is a rather backhanded way of amending written law. In this particular case I think it would be slightly better if we had the right to psych (but not, of course, to pseudo-psych) conventional bids, but it's not a big deal. Jim Hudson From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Aug 6 19:28:41 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:28:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: >>> David Stevenson 8/5/2004 8:09:47 AM >>> Of course, as you presumably realise, your view is not universal. Many people believe the law *as written* gives an SO the power to regulate *psyches* of conventional calls. -------------------------- I am concerned that some of the views I hold may be *wrong*, but that they are not *universal* does not at all bother me. Jim Hudson From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sat Aug 7 05:03:38 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 23:03:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: This post is a plea on my part for conceptual clarification (sprinkled through the following quotation), as well as for historical information (presented at the end). --------------------------------- >>> "Grattan Endicott" 8/2/2004 9:01:32 AM >>> I think the English text [of the Laws] is plain in authorising regulation of specific things in Laws 40D, 40E, 78D, 79C, 80E separately from the general powers to regulate granted in 80F. [I don't see how specific powers to regulate can be "separate" from the general power to regulate. True, the regulations authorized by 80F are called "supplementary"--supplementary to *the Laws*--but all regulations that do not simply repeat the Laws are supplementary to them, so 80F seems to cover *all* regulations.] There is no suggestion in any of the former that the power is circumscribed by the residual power to regulate given in 80F. [Since the power given in Law 80F is general, how can it be described as "residual," or as conceivably "circumscribing" specific powers?] The several regulatory powers are each mandated separately and nowhere linked. [If I am correct that the regulatory powers granted in 80F are really general, they *subsume* any other regulatory powers; this, I suppose, is some sort of "linkage."] This is the view that was restated in Geneva when the Executive/R&RC jointly upheld a ruling by the CTD (W. Schoder) to implement an 80E regulation that was in conflict with another law. The interpretation has been minuted again subsequently by the WBFLC. ~ G ~ +=+ -------------------- My request for information concerns the case here referred to. What was this "80E regulation," and how did it conflict with the Laws? Law 80E says: [A SO has the duty and power--but here I think it means just the power] to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended). [Never mind that the writer loses his grip on the syntax at the end.] What were these special conditions in the case in question, and what was the justification for framing them in conflict with the Laws? Was it in connection with this case that there was handed down the ruling thus reported by Richard: ". . . at its meeting of 1st September 1998, the WBF LC ruled a narrow interpretation of Law 80F: 'Regulations under this Law may not conflict with other Laws. This restriction does not apply to regulations made under other sections of the Laws'"? Is this the "minute"? I have already expressed puzzlement at its apparent brushing aside of the Laws. Jim Hudson From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Aug 8 03:15:58 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 22:15:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <200408032030.i73KUaCx017867@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408032030.i73KUaCx017867@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41158CDE.5020701@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > L75A, by itself, requires disclosure of any > convention a partnership agrees to use. While we might like this to be the case, I don't think it is so, depending on what Eric means by "disclosure." L75A requires the meaning to be "available." This could mean as little as answering a question if one is asked. Now that we have alerts, active disclosure for the truly odd things is _usually_ required, but there are no doubt loopholes in most jurisdictions. (Eric, aren't you old enough to remember bridge before alerts existed?) Certainly we have all seen cases where a call is properly alerted, opponents assume one meaning, but really it's a different meaning. Richard's example of 2D=forcing Stayman is a good one (in a jurisdiction where announcements or special alerts do not exist). As far as I can tell, if the opponents assume "transfer" to their disadvantage, they have no recourse. This whole issue has some similarity to the "sportsmanlike dumping" controversy. If SO's set up CoC's to make dumping advantageous, they shouldn't be surprised if dumping occurs. And if they set up inadequate disclosure rules, they shouldn't be surprised if some players are harmed by inadequate disclosure. In either case, blaming the players seems to me to be the wrong target. > L40B merely adds the > additional requirement that disclosure be accomplished by means of > whatever specific procedures the SO may impose. There seems to have been a lot of confusion about what L40B says. In part, I think that's because the law has been used to try to justify things it doesn't really cover. Maybe some people think the header is part of the law. (This isn't especially directed to Eric; I'm using his message to respond to the avalanche of posts on this subject.) What the text of L40B actually _says_ is that if _all_ the following conditions are met: 1) A special partnership understanding exists, 2) the partnership with the understanding cannot reasonably expect opponents to understand its meaning, 3) the SO has established regulations for disclosing "the use of the call or play," and 4) those disclosure regulations are violated, _then_ any call or play based on the understanding is illegal. Note especially item 3); if there is no SO requirement for disclosure, there is no L40B violation. (In practice, of course, many SO's will have general regulations requiring broad disclosure.) Typical violations of L40B might be such things as an incorrect convention card or failure to provide advance system notes when those are required (e.g. most international matches). In fact, I am pretty sure I remember reading something by Kaplan saying L40B was primarily to deal with advance disclosure, while L40E1 deals with convention cards, and L20F and 21B deal with questions and answers during the auction and play. Nowadays, I suppose, a failure to alert as required is technically a L40B violation, although in practice it is usually treated under L21B instead. It is important to decide which law is violated because the adjustment may be different for the two cases. I think the original distinction is still valid: if advance disclosure was required and was incorrect, the call or play itself is illegal. However, if no advance disclosure was required, then it's an ordinary MI case. Perhaps the next Laws version will clear this up. (I'm not sure which category at-the-table "pre-alerts" should fall into; there are sound arguments on both sides.) I would have thought the above would be non-controversial (except for the obvious personal opinions), but it seems not everyone thinks the result of this interpretation of L40B is satisfactory. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 8 09:48:14 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 09:48:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <003101c47d24$ae5e5950$5bda883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'The people of the United States speak, as a body, incomparably better English than the people of the mother country." [James Fenimore Cooper US novelist, 1828] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hudson" To: Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > ---------------- \x/ ---------------- > > My request for information concerns the case here > referred to. What was this "80E regulation," and > how did it conflict with the Laws? > +=+ The regulation concerned the use of bidding boxes. It did not allow of change of a bidding card once it had been placed and released from the hand. I am not sure what 'justification' you seek. The Rules and Regulations considered it had the power to lay this down under Law 80E; Kaplan was, of course, a member of the R & R Committee. What occurred at the table was that Edgar placed his Pass card in position and released it. At a point still within the auction period - I am not sure whether the final pass had been placed - Edgar realized that his partner had opened 1C (strong). He claimed his right under the 1987 Law 25B2(b)(2) to "make any other legal call. in which case (penalty) his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23A when the pass damages the non- offending side)". Kojak applied the regulation, not allowing a change of call. Edgar appealed the regulation to a joint meeting of the WBF Executive Council and the Rules and Regulations Committee, as the Conditions of Contest provided. He argued that since the regulation denied him his right under the Law cited it was in conflict with that Law and therefore invalid under Law 80F. The responsibility for setting out the law to the members of the Hearing devolved upon me as Vice Chairman of the WBFLC since its Chairman was the appellant; in doing so I did not express a personal opinion* on Edgar's argument but did point to the powers to regulate (in 80E and several other laws) and to 21A - "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding." With some seventeen or eighteen of us around the table the discussion took perhaps 30-45 minutes. No-one raised 'desirabiltiy' as an issue; the matter addressed was the exact state of the relevant law. On a motion of the President (Denis Howard, in the chair) it was then agreed that the regulation was valid since Law 80E contained no statement that subordinated it to Law 80F and the appeal was disallowed. I think the voting was technically 'nem con' - all hands went up except that I observed one abstention that was not recorded. [As a decision of the parent body the finding is binding upon its committees, including the LC.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (*except to remark that, as a lawyer, Edgar would be equally capable of presenting the contrary case if it fell to him to do so - for which true remark my knuckles were rapped by the lawyer in the chair!). From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sun Aug 8 03:37:07 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 21:37:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] A foolish consistency (was Deceiving ...) Message-ID: I am still grappling with the idea--which had been quite foreign to me--that a SO's regulations may conflict with the Laws, yet be perfectly valid (as announced by the WBF LC at its meeting of 1st September 1998). Richard Hills earlier stated: "One of Nigel Guthrie's better ideas was that the 2006 Lawbook should include a significant number of defaults. That is, Laws which an SO could freely amend by regulation if it so desired, but which were 'best practice' default Laws if an SO could not be bothered to create its own regulations." This *is* a good idea for *some* laws; but according the the WBF LC it is already in force, and not just for some but for all laws. The *Laws as a whole* are already merely provisional--merely *defaults*--overridable by regulations. Of course, it is uncontroversial that the Laws leave many matters to the discretion of the SO, without even stating a default. Obvious examples are the scheme for scoring (Law 78), the nature of the required convention card, if any (and whether to require both partners to play the same system; Law 40E), and the physical set-up for play (screens? bidding boxes? etc.; Law 80E). But in fact any matter not covered by the Laws would seem, uncontroversially, to be potentially subject to supplemental regulation--even if Law 80F did not explicitly say so. Thus the first sentence of Law 40D ["The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions"] is logically superfluous, though harmless. The second sentence of 40D may have been intended to say that SOs *may not* regulate natural opening bids no more than a king below the common standard prevailing; but it does not accomplish this, and in fact is also logically superfluous. But what the Laws do cover they mostly cover in a categorical tone, not at all suggesting that they are merely stating defaults overridable by regulations. The exception is Law 79C, which is stated as a default; but that only strengthens the impresion that the other laws are *not* mere defaults, and are not overridable by regualtions. But there's that WBF LC minute to the contrary. Or have I misinterpreted it? Jim Hudson From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 8 16:14:51 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 16:14:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten References: Message-ID: <00ad01c47d5a$7481aa80$0d9468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > Now this [Assessing an AMWM] is truly > appalling. If the AC is of the belief > that the TD ruling was sufficiently > wrong as to merit being overturned they > should be barred from giving an AMWM. [Nigel] Henk, please add AMWM to your glossary. Tim is right (although Tim may regard my endorsement as the kiss of death). There are few TD calls and fewer appeals because even when potential appellants believe that they have an overwhelming case, they are rarely sufficiently well-placed to bother with all the hassle. Altruistic TD calls and appeals (when opponents haven't noticed your offence - or when you are undamaged but you want to protect the field from a pair of suspected cheats) are rarer than hen's teeth. IMO, they should be encouraged. ACs should consider admonishing appellants only when at least the following conditions have been satisfied... (1) The AC unanimously uphold the TD's decision. (2) The TD unanimously agree the TD's stated reasons. (3) The AC unanimously vote that the appeal is without merit. (4) The appellants were offered independent advice before the AC meeting but refused it or ignored it. Guidelines (of some kind) should be part of TFLB. And Yes! Yes! we know all the objections to "protecting the field" but, when you come brass-tacks, about what else is Bridge Law? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04-Aug-04 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 8 17:55:50 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:55:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] A foolish consistency (was Deceiving ...) References: Message-ID: <006901c47d68$a93610a0$b1c8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A foolish consistency (was Deceiving ...) > I am still grappling with the idea--which had been > quite foreign to me--that a SO's regulations may > conflict with the Laws, yet be perfectly valid (as > announced by the WBF LC at its meeting of 1st > September 1998). < +=+ 'Announced' is not exact. The minute says 'acknowledged' - referring to the fact that the decision has been handed down.+=+ < > Thus the first sentence of Law 40D .......... is > logically superfluous, though harmless. < +=+ Might one not then ask why it is there, rather than assume it has no purpose ? (As a rider, attention should perhaps be drawn to the number of places in the laws where the fact that a law is subject to a provision in another law is specified in the law that is restricted - the limitation being introduced usually with 'but'.). ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 8 19:16:38 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 19:16:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten References: <00ad01c47d5a$7481aa80$0d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002a01c47d74$086a0260$e89a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'The people of the United States speak, as a body, incomparably better English than the people of the mother country." [James Fenimore Cooper US novelist, 1828] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten > [Tim West-Meads] > > Now this [Assessing an AMWM] is truly > > appalling. > [Nigel] > > Henk, please add AMWM to your glossary. > +=+ AMWM = A Misdeed Wanting Motive +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Aug 8 23:49:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 08:49:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie requested: [snip] >Guidelines (of some kind) should be part of TFLB. > >And Yes! Yes! we know all the objections to >"protecting the field" but, when you come >brass-tacks, about what else is Bridge Law? Richard Hills reveals: Guidelines (of some kind) already exist in the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." But Law 12 defines damage as occurring to a *particular* non-offending contestant, *not* as occurring to the entire field. That is the brass-tacks of Bridge Law. Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 9 01:14:48 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 01:14:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten References: Message-ID: <010b01c47da5$e20e99a0$0d9468d5@jeushtlj> > Richard Hills reveals: > Guidelines (of some kind) already exist in the > Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: > "The Laws are primarily designed not as > punishment for irregularities, but rather as > redress for damage." [Nigel] I was suggesting TFLB include guidelines to appeals committees as to when they may retain deposits or impose "appeal without merit warnings" (: OK Grattan - I'm not very hot on acronyms :). Minimum conditions have been suggested by me (and others): prior to the appeal, the apellants refused or rejected advice; unamimous AC agreement of the TD's ruling and reasoning; and unanimous vote that the appeal has no merit. [Richard Hills further reveals] > But Law 12 defines damage as occurring to > a *particular* non-offending contestant, > *not* as occurring to the entire field. [Nigel] As usual, I'm suggesting law *changes*. I feel that the law *should* be concerned when the field is damaged. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 05-Aug-04 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 8 18:00:39 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 18:00:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten References: <00ad01c47d5a$7481aa80$0d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002301c47ddc$f5146c50$3c0ce150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten > Henk, please add AMWM to your glossary. > +=+ "AMWM" = Any Mention Without Merit.+=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 9 07:48:21 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:48:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten References: <010b01c47da5$e20e99a0$0d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002401c47ddc$f6267890$3c0ce150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten > [Nigel] > I was suggesting TFLB include guidelines to > appeals committees as to when they may > retain deposits or impose "appeal without > merit warnings" (: OK Grattan - I'm not > very hot on acronyms :). > +=+ Just teasing. There is a strong desire in influential quarters to restrict the laws to the core game and to put to regulation all those things that can be left to the style, local culture, and good sense, of SOs. How far we might go with that remains to be seen - but I am not convinced this is some thing to screw down tightly in the law book. +=+ > > [Richard Hills further reveals] > > But Law 12 defines damage as occurring to > > a *particular* non-offending contestant, > > *not* as occurring to the entire field. > > [Nigel] > As usual, I'm suggesting law *changes*. > I feel that the law *should* be concerned when > the field is damaged. > +=+ This is deep water. There are those who want to give greater prominence to protecting the field. The difficulty then is in ensuring fair treatment of non-offenders, and sometimes in deciding what is fair treatment. It seems to me that to get anywhere near a solution one needs to remove any element of punishment from the awarded score and go back to the old (1963 and earlier) law book arrangement of calculating penalty points separately. However, we drifted away from the method and the young have no experience of it, so they do not easily get their brains round the concept of calculating an awarded score that provides a reasonable comparison for the field and assessing penalty points separately for an offending side. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Aug 9 13:06:11 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 08:06:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <41158CDE.5020701@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408032030.i73KUaCx017867@cfa.harvard.edu> <41158CDE.5020701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040808180253.02be24d0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:15 PM 8/7/04, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >> L75A, by itself, requires disclosure of any >>convention a partnership agrees to use. > >While we might like this to be the case, I don't think it is so, >depending on what Eric means by "disclosure." L75A requires the >meaning to be "available." This could mean as little as answering a >question if one is asked. Now that we have alerts, active disclosure >for the truly odd things is _usually_ required, but there are no doubt >loopholes in most jurisdictions. (Eric, aren't you old enough to >remember bridge before alerts existed?) Certainly we have all seen >cases where a call is properly alerted, opponents assume one meaning, >but really it's a different meaning. Richard's example of 2D=forcing >Stayman is a good one (in a jurisdiction where announcements or >special alerts do not exist). As far as I can tell, if the opponents >assume "transfer" to their disadvantage, they have no recourse. > >This whole issue has some similarity to the "sportsmanlike dumping" >controversy. If SO's set up CoC's to make dumping advantageous, they >shouldn't be surprised if dumping occurs. And if they set up >inadequate disclosure rules, they shouldn't be surprised if some >players are harmed by inadequate disclosure. In either case, blaming >the players seems to me to be the wrong target. > >>L40B merely adds the additional requirement that disclosure be >>accomplished by means of whatever specific procedures the SO may impose. > >There seems to have been a lot of confusion about what L40B says. In >part, I think that's because the law has been used to try to justify >things it doesn't really cover. Maybe some people think the header is >part of the law. (This isn't especially directed to Eric; I'm using >his message to respond to the avalanche of posts on this subject.) > >What the text of L40B actually _says_ is that if _all_ the following >conditions are met: >1) A special partnership understanding exists, >2) the partnership with the understanding cannot reasonably expect >opponents to understand its meaning, >3) the SO has established regulations for disclosing "the use of the >call or play," and >4) those disclosure regulations are violated, >_then_ any call or play based on the understanding is illegal. Note >especially item 3); if there is no SO requirement for disclosure, >there is no L40B violation. (In practice, of course, many SO's will >have general regulations requiring broad disclosure.) > >Typical violations of L40B might be such things as an incorrect >convention card or failure to provide advance system notes when those >are required (e.g. most international matches). In fact, I am pretty >sure I remember reading something by Kaplan saying L40B was primarily >to deal with advance disclosure, while L40E1 deals with convention >cards, and L20F and 21B deal with questions and answers during the >auction and play. Nowadays, I suppose, a failure to alert as required >is technically a L40B violation, although in practice it is usually >treated under L21B instead. It is important to decide which law is >violated because the adjustment may be different for the two cases. I >think the original distinction is still valid: if advance disclosure >was required and was incorrect, the call or play itself is >illegal. However, if no advance disclosure was required, then it's an >ordinary MI case. Perhaps the next Laws version will clear this >up. (I'm not sure which category at-the-table "pre-alerts" should >fall into; there are sound arguments on both sides.) > >I would have thought the above would be non-controversial (except for >the obvious personal opinions), but it seems not everyone thinks the >result of this interpretation of L40B is satisfactory. I think Steve has analyzed the law quite correctly. So the answer to his implied first question is yes, my notion of "disclosure" includes answering a question if one is asked, although I'm not sure I agree with "as little as". I confess to being old enough (by more than I shall admit here) to remember when alerts weren't part of the game, and I suppose that explains where I'm coming from. As "that old black magic" was purged from the game and serious players became aware of their disclosure obligations, convention cards were routinely read and questioned, questions were asked during the auction, pairs holding uninterfered auctions were asked for full explanations at the end. Pairs making an effort to be ethical, if they were playing something they thought their opponents might not understand, would say something at what they thought was the approprite time. Sure, there were some who didn't get with the sportsmanlike spirit of full disclosure, but we knew who they were, and wrung the information from them when we needed it; egregious violators in serious events were sanctioned under the disciplinary rules. Alerts came along as a way of expediting and regularizing the process. But once the rules became detailed and complicated (which happened pretty quickly), too many folks started thinking about "disclosure" in terms of detailed and complicated regulations, and "proper disclosure" became synonomous with "following the alert rules correctly". But the introduction of alerts did not change the meaning of "proper disclosure"; it simply imposed some procedural requirements intended to make it easier (whether or not this has succeeded is for another thread). Most SOs agree with me, and have come up with a variety of catch-all appendages to their alert rules, effectively prescribing alerts for whatever one might reasonably expect the opponents not to understand. That got a lot of grumbling from a lot of players about how they were expected to know what to alert and what not to alert. The ACBL, in a rare showing of common sense, has essentially told those folks, look, just do your best to make to make sure your opponents know what you're doing, it's a matter of attitude, try to be helpful, if you do that you'll get it right without having to sweat the details. Which is what proper disclosure is really about, with an alert procedure or without one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb@msn.com Mon Aug 9 13:37:56 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 08:37:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <200408032030.i73KUaCx017867@cfa.harvard.edu> <41158CDE.5020701@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20040808180253.02be24d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: A good exposition. I would add just one aspect and that is when the regulations become complicated enough, there are those looking for any violation by their opponents. "I wasn't alerted" becomes a mantra. I've never been able to stomach the call for the TD on board 12 of a 16 board session where an opponent didn't alert 1 club as Precision. "Had I been alerted, I could have overcalled with our convention against Precision, and we would have prevented them for arriving at game, slam, part-score" (you pick). When this comes from players of national/international caliber it particularly makes me gag. Provided with convention cards, alerts, pre-alerts, announcements, etc., they look to these as a source of advantage not from the information inherent therein, but from their existence. "Sure they have it clearly marked on their convention card, but I WASN'T ALERTED!" Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > At 10:15 PM 8/7/04, Steve wrote: > > >>From: Eric Landau > >> L75A, by itself, requires disclosure of any > >>convention a partnership agrees to use. > > > >While we might like this to be the case, I don't think it is so, > >depending on what Eric means by "disclosure." L75A requires the > >meaning to be "available." This could mean as little as answering a > >question if one is asked. Now that we have alerts, active disclosure > >for the truly odd things is _usually_ required, but there are no doubt > >loopholes in most jurisdictions. (Eric, aren't you old enough to > >remember bridge before alerts existed?) Certainly we have all seen > >cases where a call is properly alerted, opponents assume one meaning, > >but really it's a different meaning. Richard's example of 2D=forcing > >Stayman is a good one (in a jurisdiction where announcements or > >special alerts do not exist). As far as I can tell, if the opponents > >assume "transfer" to their disadvantage, they have no recourse. > > > >This whole issue has some similarity to the "sportsmanlike dumping" > >controversy. If SO's set up CoC's to make dumping advantageous, they > >shouldn't be surprised if dumping occurs. And if they set up > >inadequate disclosure rules, they shouldn't be surprised if some > >players are harmed by inadequate disclosure. In either case, blaming > >the players seems to me to be the wrong target. > > > >>L40B merely adds the additional requirement that disclosure be > >>accomplished by means of whatever specific procedures the SO may impose. > > > >There seems to have been a lot of confusion about what L40B says. In > >part, I think that's because the law has been used to try to justify > >things it doesn't really cover. Maybe some people think the header is > >part of the law. (This isn't especially directed to Eric; I'm using > >his message to respond to the avalanche of posts on this subject.) > > > >What the text of L40B actually _says_ is that if _all_ the following > >conditions are met: > >1) A special partnership understanding exists, > >2) the partnership with the understanding cannot reasonably expect > >opponents to understand its meaning, > >3) the SO has established regulations for disclosing "the use of the > >call or play," and > >4) those disclosure regulations are violated, > >_then_ any call or play based on the understanding is illegal. Note > >especially item 3); if there is no SO requirement for disclosure, > >there is no L40B violation. (In practice, of course, many SO's will > >have general regulations requiring broad disclosure.) > > > >Typical violations of L40B might be such things as an incorrect > >convention card or failure to provide advance system notes when those > >are required (e.g. most international matches). In fact, I am pretty > >sure I remember reading something by Kaplan saying L40B was primarily > >to deal with advance disclosure, while L40E1 deals with convention > >cards, and L20F and 21B deal with questions and answers during the > >auction and play. Nowadays, I suppose, a failure to alert as required > >is technically a L40B violation, although in practice it is usually > >treated under L21B instead. It is important to decide which law is > >violated because the adjustment may be different for the two cases. I > >think the original distinction is still valid: if advance disclosure > >was required and was incorrect, the call or play itself is > >illegal. However, if no advance disclosure was required, then it's an > >ordinary MI case. Perhaps the next Laws version will clear this > >up. (I'm not sure which category at-the-table "pre-alerts" should > >fall into; there are sound arguments on both sides.) > > > >I would have thought the above would be non-controversial (except for > >the obvious personal opinions), but it seems not everyone thinks the > >result of this interpretation of L40B is satisfactory. > > I think Steve has analyzed the law quite correctly. So the answer to > his implied first question is yes, my notion of "disclosure" includes > answering a question if one is asked, although I'm not sure I agree > with "as little as". > > I confess to being old enough (by more than I shall admit here) to > remember when alerts weren't part of the game, and I suppose that > explains where I'm coming from. As "that old black magic" was purged > from the game and serious players became aware of their disclosure > obligations, convention cards were routinely read and questioned, > questions were asked during the auction, pairs holding uninterfered > auctions were asked for full explanations at the end. Pairs making an > effort to be ethical, if they were playing something they thought their > opponents might not understand, would say something at what they > thought was the approprite time. Sure, there were some who didn't get > with the sportsmanlike spirit of full disclosure, but we knew who they > were, and wrung the information from them when we needed it; egregious > violators in serious events were sanctioned under the disciplinary rules. > > Alerts came along as a way of expediting and regularizing the > process. But once the rules became detailed and complicated (which > happened pretty quickly), too many folks started thinking about > "disclosure" in terms of detailed and complicated regulations, and > "proper disclosure" became synonomous with "following the alert rules > correctly". But the introduction of alerts did not change the meaning > of "proper disclosure"; it simply imposed some procedural requirements > intended to make it easier (whether or not this has succeeded is for > another thread). > > Most SOs agree with me, and have come up with a variety of catch-all > appendages to their alert rules, effectively prescribing alerts for > whatever one might reasonably expect the opponents not to > understand. That got a lot of grumbling from a lot of players about > how they were expected to know what to alert and what not to > alert. The ACBL, in a rare showing of common sense, has essentially > told those folks, look, just do your best to make to make sure your > opponents know what you're doing, it's a matter of attitude, try to be > helpful, if you do that you'll get it right without having to sweat the > details. > > Which is what proper disclosure is really about, with an alert > procedure or without one. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Aug 9 13:58:31 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:58:31 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: A good exposition. I would add just one aspect and that is when the=20 regulations become complicated enough, there are those looking for any=20 violation by their opponents. "I wasn't alerted" becomes a mantra. I've=20 never been able to stomach the call for the TD on board 12 of a 16 board=20 session where an opponent didn't alert 1 club as Precision. "Had I been alerted, I could have overcalled with our convention against Precision, and=20 we would have prevented them for arriving at game, slam, part-score" (you=20 pick). When this comes from players of national/international caliber it particularly makes me gag. Provided with convention cards, alerts,=20 pre-alerts, announcements, etc., they look to these as a source of advantage=20 not from the information inherent therein, but from their existence. "Sure=20 they have it clearly marked on their convention card, but I WASN'T ALERTED!" ----- Sounds to me that there's somthing lacking in the ACBL's alert rules. In Norway the front page of the convention card tells you what system category (green, blue, red, yellow) and system a pair uses, special deviations from the standard system, forcing openings, the meaning of 2C and 2D openings, how far 2/1 is forcing, any minor suit 2/1 that can be made on a 3-card suit, range of meaning of 2-level responses to 1NT, the meaning of doubles of overcalls after 1 of a suit, 1NT and forcing opening, leads and signals. If your opponents' CC is available to you, you can't claim to be misinformed by a missing alert to bids explained on the front page of the CC. Regards, Harald ----- Kojak ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > At 10:15 PM 8/7/04, Steve wrote: > > >>From: Eric Landau > >> L75A, by itself, requires disclosure of any > >>convention a partnership agrees to use. > > > >While we might like this to be the case, I don't think it is so, > >depending on what Eric means by "disclosure." L75A requires the > >meaning to be "available." This could mean as little as answering a > >question if one is asked. Now that we have alerts, active disclosure > >for the truly odd things is _usually_ required, but there are no doubt > >loopholes in most jurisdictions. (Eric, aren't you old enough to > >remember bridge before alerts existed?) Certainly we have all seen > >cases where a call is properly alerted, opponents assume one meaning, > >but really it's a different meaning. Richard's example of = 2D=3Dforcing > >Stayman is a good one (in a jurisdiction where announcements or > >special alerts do not exist). As far as I can tell, if the opponents > >assume "transfer" to their disadvantage, they have no recourse. > > > >This whole issue has some similarity to the "sportsmanlike dumping" > >controversy. If SO's set up CoC's to make dumping advantageous, they > >shouldn't be surprised if dumping occurs. And if they set up > >inadequate disclosure rules, they shouldn't be surprised if some > >players are harmed by inadequate disclosure. In either case, blaming > >the players seems to me to be the wrong target. > > > >>L40B merely adds the additional requirement that disclosure be > >>accomplished by means of whatever specific procedures the SO may impose. > > > >There seems to have been a lot of confusion about what L40B says. In > >part, I think that's because the law has been used to try to justify > >things it doesn't really cover. Maybe some people think the header is > >part of the law. (This isn't especially directed to Eric; I'm using > >his message to respond to the avalanche of posts on this subject.) > > > >What the text of L40B actually _says_ is that if _all_ the following > >conditions are met: > >1) A special partnership understanding exists, > >2) the partnership with the understanding cannot reasonably expect > >opponents to understand its meaning, > >3) the SO has established regulations for disclosing "the use of the > >call or play," and > >4) those disclosure regulations are violated, > >_then_ any call or play based on the understanding is illegal. Note > >especially item 3); if there is no SO requirement for disclosure, > >there is no L40B violation. (In practice, of course, many SO's will > >have general regulations requiring broad disclosure.) > > > >Typical violations of L40B might be such things as an incorrect > >convention card or failure to provide advance system notes when those > >are required (e.g. most international matches). In fact, I am pretty > >sure I remember reading something by Kaplan saying L40B was primarily > >to deal with advance disclosure, while L40E1 deals with convention > >cards, and L20F and 21B deal with questions and answers during the > >auction and play. Nowadays, I suppose, a failure to alert as required > >is technically a L40B violation, although in practice it is usually > >treated under L21B instead. It is important to decide which law is > >violated because the adjustment may be different for the two cases. I > >think the original distinction is still valid: if advance disclosure > >was required and was incorrect, the call or play itself is > >illegal. However, if no advance disclosure was required, then it's an > >ordinary MI case. Perhaps the next Laws version will clear this > >up. (I'm not sure which category at-the-table "pre-alerts" should > >fall into; there are sound arguments on both sides.) > > > >I would have thought the above would be non-controversial (except for > >the obvious personal opinions), but it seems not everyone thinks the > >result of this interpretation of L40B is satisfactory. > > I think Steve has analyzed the law quite correctly. So the answer to > his implied first question is yes, my notion of "disclosure" includes > answering a question if one is asked, although I'm not sure I agree > with "as little as". > > I confess to being old enough (by more than I shall admit here) to > remember when alerts weren't part of the game, and I suppose that > explains where I'm coming from. As "that old black magic" was purged > from the game and serious players became aware of their disclosure > obligations, convention cards were routinely read and questioned, > questions were asked during the auction, pairs holding uninterfered > auctions were asked for full explanations at the end. Pairs making an > effort to be ethical, if they were playing something they thought their > opponents might not understand, would say something at what they > thought was the approprite time. Sure, there were some who didn't get > with the sportsmanlike spirit of full disclosure, but we knew who they > were, and wrung the information from them when we needed it; egregious > violators in serious events were sanctioned under the disciplinary rules. > > Alerts came along as a way of expediting and regularizing the > process. But once the rules became detailed and complicated (which > happened pretty quickly), too many folks started thinking about > "disclosure" in terms of detailed and complicated regulations, and > "proper disclosure" became synonomous with "following the alert rules > correctly". But the introduction of alerts did not change the meaning > of "proper disclosure"; it simply imposed some procedural requirements > intended to make it easier (whether or not this has succeeded is for > another thread). > > Most SOs agree with me, and have come up with a variety of catch-all > appendages to their alert rules, effectively prescribing alerts for > whatever one might reasonably expect the opponents not to > understand. That got a lot of grumbling from a lot of players about > how they were expected to know what to alert and what not to > alert. The ACBL, in a rare showing of common sense, has essentially > told those folks, look, just do your best to make to make sure your > opponents know what you're doing, it's a matter of attitude, try to be > helpful, if you do that you'll get it right without having to sweat the > details. > > Which is what proper disclosure is really about, with an alert > procedure or without one. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 9 15:25:20 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:25:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) References: <200408032030.i73KUaCx017867@cfa.harvard.edu> <41158CDE.5020701@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20040808180253.02be24d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001b01c47e1c$b47a1420$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > I've never been able to stomach the call > for the TD on board 12 of a 16 board > session where an opponent didn't alert 1 > club as Precision. "Had I been alerted, > I could have overcalled with our > convention against Precision, and we > would have prevented them from arriving > at game, slam, part-score" (you pick). > When this comes from players of national/ > international caliber it particularly > makes me gag. Provided with convention > cards, alerts, pre-alerts, announcements, > etc., they look to these as a source of > advantage not from the information > inherent therein, but from their existence. > "Sure they have it clearly marked on their > convention card, but I WASN'T ALERTED!" [Nigel] The Alert Regulations are a license to impart UI and use it with little risk of discovery. Like Eric Landau I yearn for the good old days when there was no alert procedure but an emphasis on full disclosure. In Scotland, there was an introductory period when would-be alerters could be frustrated with a "Do not alert" card. Then, if a desperate opponent could not restrain himself from starting to alert, the TD would regard it as UI. Unfortunately, so many players relied on the reassurance and wake-up effects of the alert procedure that alerts were made compulsory. Those with a "Do not alert" card had to tear it up and lose several tops per session. All this is just to underline that I'm no fan of the alert procedure. Now let us examine a different version of Kojak's example. You are two-thirds through a match against opponents whose card says "Precision". RHO opens 1C (no alert). Let us assume that you have a weak hand with clubs. Your defence to Precision does includes a call to show this kind of hand. The decision whether to call is marginal. Richard Hills has corrected me several times when I foolishly claimed that the CC is the primary source of evidence about agreements. So what should I believe? the CC? or LHO's failure to alert? and what do I do? Suppose that I ask about the club bid. RHO looks at me as if I am mad and admonishes "Natural - I would have alerted otherwise". Just as well that I asked! I pass and LHO closes proceedings with 3N. Partner makes the lead he would have made, anyway. His club lead is an LA but not the most likely one (according to a panel of his peers). It is, however, the only lead to defeat the contract. Opponents call the TD, claiming damage from my gratuitous questions. How should the TD rule? BTW, in Kojak's original case. I disagree with Kojak. Again, I would rule against the Precision side. Surely, we should impose a PP against the legislators who make the law so complex. Especially for introducing the spurious interpretation that you may forfeit redress unless you ask about unalerted bids to protect yourself. Every day, complex subjective laws pose quandaries like the above to ordinary players. The quagmire is an unnecessary legal quagmire, whose only plus seems to be the entertainment of legislators, TDs and BLMers; the player derives no obvious benefit; draining the quagmire would simplify TFLB and improve the game. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04-Aug-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 9 15:36:48 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:36:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) Message-ID: <002301c47e1e$4df77c40$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > I've never been able to stomach the call > for the TD on board 12 of a 16 board > session where an opponent didn't alert 1 > club as Precision. "Had I been alerted, > I could have overcalled with our > convention against Precision, and we > would have prevented them from arriving > at game, slam, part-score" (you pick). > When this comes from players of national/ > international caliber it particularly > makes me gag. Provided with convention > cards, alerts, pre-alerts, announcements, > etc., they look to these as a source of > advantage not from the information > inherent therein, but from their existence. > "Sure they have it clearly marked on their > convention card, but I WASN'T ALERTED!" [Nigel with small correction] The Alert Regulations are a license to impart UI and use it with little risk of discovery. Like Eric Landau I yearn for the good old days when there was no alert procedure but an emphasis on full disclosure. In Scotland, there was an introductory period when would-be alerters could be frustrated with a "Do not alert" card. Then, if a desperate opponent could not restrain himself from starting to alert, the TD would regard it as UI. Unfortunately, so many players relied on the reassurance and wake-up effects of the alert procedure that alerts were made compulsory. Those with a "Do not alert" card had to tear it up and lose several tops per session. All this is just to underline that I'm no fan of the alert procedure. Now let us examine a different version of Kojak's example. You are two-thirds through a match against opponents whose card says "Precision". RHO opens 1C (no alert). Let us assume that you have a weak hand with clubs. Your defence to Precision does include a call to show this kind of hand. The decision whether to call is marginal. Richard Hills has corrected me several times when I foolishly claimed that the CC is the primary source of evidence about agreements. So what should I believe? the CC? or LHO's failure to alert? and what do I do? Suppose that I ask about the club bid. LHO looks at me as if I am mad and admonishes "Natural - I would have alerted otherwise". Just as well that I asked! I pass and LHO closes proceedings with 3N. Partner makes the lead he would have made, anyway. His club lead is an LA but not the most likely one (according to a panel of his peers). It is, however, the only lead to defeat the contract. Opponents call the TD, claiming damage from my gratuitous questions. How should the TD rule? BTW, in Kojak's original case. I disagree with Kojak. Again, I would rule against the Precision side. Surely, we should impose a PP against the legislators who make the law so complex. Especially for introducing the spurious interpretation that you may forfeit redress unless you ask about unalerted bids to protect yourself. Every day, complex subjective laws pose quandaries like the above to ordinary players. The quagmire is an unnecessary legal quagmire, whose only plus seems to be the entertainment of legislators, TDs and BLMers; the player derives no obvious benefit; draining the quagmire would simplify TFLB and improve the game. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04-Aug-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 9 15:47:04 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:47:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) Message-ID: <002b01c47e1f$bcf56020$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > I've never been able to stomach the call > for the TD on board 12 of a 16 board > session where an opponent didn't alert 1 > club as Precision. "Had I been alerted, > I could have overcalled with our > convention against Precision, and we > would have prevented them from arriving > at game, slam, part-score" (you pick). > When this comes from players of national/ > international caliber it particularly > makes me gag. Provided with convention > cards, alerts, pre-alerts, announcements, > etc., they look to these as a source of > advantage not from the information > inherent therein, but from their existence. > "Sure they have it clearly marked on their > convention card, but I WASN'T ALERTED!" [Nigel with more small corrections - Sorry] The Alert Regulations are a license to impart UI and use it with little risk of discovery. Like Eric Landau I yearn for the good old days when there was no alert procedure but an emphasis on full disclosure. In Scotland, there was an introductory period when would-be alerters could be frustrated with a "Do not alert" card. Then, if a desperate opponent could not restrain himself from starting to alert, the TD would regard it as UI. Unfortunately, so many players relied on the reassurance and wake-up effects of the alert procedure that alerts were made compulsory. Those with a "Do not alert" card had to tear it up and lose several tops per session. All this is just to underline that I'm no fan of the alert procedure. Now let us examine a different version of Kojak's example. You are two-thirds through a match against opponents whose card says "Precision". RHO opens 1C (no alert). Let us assume that you have a weak hand with clubs. Your defence to Precision does include a call to show this kind of hand. The decision whether to call is marginal. Richard Hills has corrected me several times when I foolishly claimed that the CC is the primary source of evidence about agreements. So what should you believe? the CC? or LHO's failure to alert? and what do you do? Suppose that you ask about the club bid. LHO looks at you as if you are mad and admonishes "Natural - I would have alerted otherwise". Just as well that you asked! You pass and LHO closes proceedings with 3N. Partner makes the lead he would have made, anyway. His club lead is an LA but not the most likely one (according to a panel of his peers). It is, however, the only lead to defeat the contract. Opponents call the TD, claiming damage from your gratuitous questions. How should the TD rule? BTW, in Kojak's original case. I disagree with Kojak. Again, I would rule against the Precision side. Surely, we should impose a PP against the legislators who make the law so complex. Especially for introducing the spurious interpretation that you may forfeit redress unless you ask about unalerted bids to protect yourself. Every day, complex subjective laws pose quandaries like the above to ordinary players. The quagmire is an unnecessary legal quagmire, whose only plus seems to be the entertainment of legislators, TDs and BLMers; the player derives no obvious benefit; draining the quagmire would simplify TFLB and improve the game. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04-Aug-04 From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 9 15:50:37 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:50:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) In-Reply-To: <001b01c47e1c$b47a1420$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000101c47e20$3b86f4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie ............. > All this is just to underline that I'm no fan of > the alert procedure. Now let us examine a > different version of Kojak's example. You are > two-thirds through a match against opponents whose > card says "Precision". RHO opens 1C (no alert). > Let us assume that you have a weak hand with > clubs. Your defence to Precision does includes a > call to show this kind of hand. The decision > whether to call is marginal. Richard Hills has > corrected me several times when I foolishly > claimed that the CC is the primary source of > evidence about agreements. So what should I > believe? the CC? or LHO's failure to alert? and > what do I do? Suppose that I ask about the club > bid. RHO looks at me as if I am mad and admonishes > "Natural - I would have alerted otherwise". Just > as well that I asked! I pass and LHO closes > proceedings with 3N. Partner makes the lead he > would have made, anyway. His club lead is an LA > but not the most likely one (according to a panel > of his peers). It is, however, the only lead to > defeat the contract. Opponents call the TD, > claiming damage from my gratuitous questions. How > should the TD rule? If their CC says "precision" that is their announced agreement. If they = have a different agreement "which you should know because they did not alert" = I would as a Director warn them that they have a secret partnership understanding ("natural" in spite of what their CC told) and tell them = to fix that inconsistency immediately. I would also rule against them on = any question which I considered arisen from this inconsistency. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Mon Aug 9 16:04:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:04:37 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > >A good exposition. I would add just one aspect and that is when the >regulations become complicated enough, there are those looking for any >violation by their opponents. "I wasn't alerted" becomes a mantra. >I've >never been able to stomach the call for the TD on board 12 of a 16 >board >session where an opponent didn't alert 1 club as Precision. "Had I been > >alerted, I could have overcalled with our convention against Precision, >and >we would have prevented them for arriving at game, slam, part-score" >(you >pick). When this comes from players of national/international caliber it > >particularly makes me gag. Provided with convention cards, alerts, >pre-alerts, announcements, etc., they look to these as a source of >advantage >not from the information inherent therein, but from their existence. >"Sure >they have it clearly marked on their convention card, but I WASN'T >ALERTED!" >----- >Sounds to me that there's somthing lacking in the ACBL's alert rules. > >In Norway the front page of the convention card tells you what system >category (green, blue, red, yellow) and system a pair uses, special >deviations from the standard system, forcing openings, the meaning of >2C and 2D openings, how far 2/1 is forcing, any minor suit 2/1 that can >be made on a 3-card suit, range of meaning of 2-level responses to 1NT, >the meaning of doubles of overcalls after 1 of a suit, 1NT and forcing >opening, leads and signals. > >If your opponents' CC is available to you, you can't claim to be >misinformed by a missing alert to bids explained on the front page of >the CC. Can't? I think we should take each case on its merits. The whole idea of the alert principle is to wake you up, and if something is alertable, and you get it wrong even though it is clearly on the CC, I feel you might have a case. One of the biggest problems I see in the game of bridge over the last 10 years is the move towards blaming non-offenders and letting offenders get away with things. While it is easy to say that people should not gain from opponent's failure to alert when they should know better, how about looking the other side? Why should people gain from not alerting when they should know better just because it is on their CC? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 9 16:26:32 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:26:32 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c47e25$4075d3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Skjaran, Harald wrote ............ > >Sounds to me that there's somthing lacking in the ACBL's alert rules. > > > >In Norway the front page of the convention card tells you what system > >category (green, blue, red, yellow) and system a pair uses, special > >deviations from the standard system, forcing openings, the meaning of > >2C and 2D openings, how far 2/1 is forcing, any minor suit 2/1 that can > >be made on a 3-card suit, range of meaning of 2-level responses to 1NT, > >the meaning of doubles of overcalls after 1 of a suit, 1NT and forcing > >opening, leads and signals. > > > >If your opponents' CC is available to you, you can't claim to be > >misinformed by a missing alert to bids explained on the front page of > >the CC. > > Can't? I assume Harald has left office for today so I take the liberty to answer: YES can't. In Norway your opponents have the obligation to familiarize themselves with the front page on your CC. The effect of information here is equivalent to what I believe is called Pre-Alert in ACBL. > I think we should take each case on its merits. The whole > idea of the alert principle is to wake you up, and if something is > alertable, and you get it wrong even though it is clearly on the CC, I > feel you might have a case. Even if it is pre-alerted? Sorry, you will not be heard with that argument here, I don't know if you are heard in ACBL? > > One of the biggest problems I see in the game of bridge over the last > 10 years is the move towards blaming non-offenders and letting offenders > get away with things. > > While it is easy to say that people should not gain from opponent's > failure to alert when they should know better, how about looking the > other side? Why should people gain from not alerting when they should > know better just because it is on their CC? On the FRONT PAGE of the CC! (Only the most essential information appears here as Harald did point out) Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 9 19:12:46 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:12:46 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 08:58 US/Eastern, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > If your opponents' CC is available to you, you can't claim to be > misinformed by a missing alert to bids explained on the front page of > the CC. The EBU has a similar rule. The ACBL does not. I was once told, when I suggested to an opponent that she stop badgering my partner (not in those words, but that's what she was doing) and look at our CC, where the answer was clearly written, that "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions!" This is just the kind of wrong attitude that Eric and Kojak are talking about. A change to the regulations such as you suggest would help, I think, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to the ACBL. Or perhaps it has - I have a vague recollection that some such thing may have been discussed, but voted down, at a BoD meeting a few years ago. Not sure about that though - it may have been something else "sensible". ;-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 9 19:20:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:20:45 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000201c47e25$4075d3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 11:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > The effect of information here is equivalent to > what I believe is called Pre-Alert in ACBL The fact that someone is playing Precision, or a weak NT, is not Pre-alertable in the ACBL. The other night, I played against a pair that normally plays Kaplan-Sheinwold, with a NT range of 11-4 HCP. RHO opened 1 apple, LHO bid 1 grape, RHO bid 1NT, LHO bid 3NT. Before leading I asked the range of the NT rebid. The answer was "oh, we're not playing K-S tonight." From schoderb@msn.com Mon Aug 9 22:03:42 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:03:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) References: <000101c47e20$3b86f4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: BRAVO Sven!!!!! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) > Nigel Guthrie ............ > All this is just to underline that I'm no fan of > the alert procedure. Now let us examine a > different version of Kojak's example. You are > two-thirds through a match against opponents whose > card says "Precision". RHO opens 1C (no alert). > Let us assume that you have a weak hand with > clubs. Your defence to Precision does includes a > call to show this kind of hand. The decision > whether to call is marginal. Richard Hills has > corrected me several times when I foolishly > claimed that the CC is the primary source of > evidence about agreements. So what should I > believe? the CC? or LHO's failure to alert? and > what do I do? Suppose that I ask about the club > bid. RHO looks at me as if I am mad and admonishes > "Natural - I would have alerted otherwise". Just > as well that I asked! I pass and LHO closes > proceedings with 3N. Partner makes the lead he > would have made, anyway. His club lead is an LA > but not the most likely one (according to a panel > of his peers). It is, however, the only lead to > defeat the contract. Opponents call the TD, > claiming damage from my gratuitous questions. How > should the TD rule? If their CC says "precision" that is their announced agreement. If they have a different agreement "which you should know because they did not alert" I would as a Director warn them that they have a secret partnership understanding ("natural" in spite of what their CC told) and tell them to fix that inconsistency immediately. I would also rule against them on any question which I considered arisen from this inconsistency. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Aug 9 22:16:16 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:16:16 -0700 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <000901c47e56$1cbf41c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 11:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > The effect of information here is equivalent to > > what I believe is called Pre-Alert in ACBL > > The fact that someone is playing Precision, or a weak NT, is not > Pre-alertable in the ACBL. Because there's no need, if the convention card (cc) regulations are followed. The ACBL cc has a place to show General Approach (2/1, Precision, etc) right under the pair's names line, very prominent. My cc says "Four-Card Majors," put there because that general approach is rather unusual in these parts. In the same General Approach area are check boxes for "VERY LIGHT" openings, 3rd hand openings, overcalls, and preempts, and check boxes for artificial forcing 1C (red), artificial strong 2C (black), natural forcing two bids (not red!), and a red box for "Other" forcing openings. Just below that is the space for notrump ranges, also very plain. Nevertheless, we have to Announce our notrump range for opening notrump bids (but not 1NT direct or balancing overcalls). It's taken quite a while, but now about 80% of players in my area are making the Announcement. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Aug 9 22:25:33 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:25:33 -0700 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <001001c47e57$680f3c60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 08:58 US/Eastern, Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > > If your opponents' CC is available to you, you can't claim to be > > misinformed by a missing alert to bids explained on the front page of > > the CC. > > The EBU has a similar rule. The ACBL does not. I was once told, when I > suggested to an opponent that she stop badgering my partner (not in > those words, but that's what she was doing) and look at our CC, where > the answer was clearly written, that "I don't look at convention cards. > I ask questions!" My experience also, on several occasions. The purpose seems to be setting a trap for the opponents, who may misstate in some way what is on the cc. Another purpose, no doubt, is to unsettle the timid by badgering. When I call the TD for this crap, s/he usually says something like, "What's the problem? Why don't you just answer the question?" I have a very good reason, which is that whatever I say is UI to partner. Players should not be able to force an opponent to create UI unnecessarily, as when the answer to a question is plainly shown on the cc, or is general knowledge (L75C). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From schoderb@msn.com Mon Aug 9 22:47:42 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:47:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) References: <002301c47e1e$4df77c40$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: And exactly how do you think I would, and have, ruled if that is what you disagree with? Disagree to your heart's content, but at least let me know what it is that you are disagreeing with. Since you could not know my rulings, I have to assume that you disagree with my being gagged, -- I guess. snip follows: > BTW, in Kojak's original case. I disagree with > Kojak. Again, I would rule against the Precision > side. snip ends. Or have you missed my point -- eyeball to eyeball the yelling (same as "calling" most of the time) player and I both know that the moment of a missed alert by an opponent is like ice-cream on a hot day. How can I best use this to get more IMPs, matchpoints, etc? When it happens in something like a Bermuda Bowl or Venice Cup where you have had at least 6 MONTHS to study, practice, be coached and spend hours going over their systems and your defenses, and decide on how to play against this pair, you stretch credibility. Selective forgetfulness is a disease not highly common to expert bridge players. And for some inexplicable reason the call for the TD is almost always AFTER the hand is over and double dummied. Only very rarely have I been called when there was no "demonstrable" damage. Show me that you knew from their written convention card what they were doing, show me that you based your actions on that information, and you won't be calling me, will you? I fully AGREE (how 'bout that?) that sloppy players, forgetters, non-attention paying bums, need to be brought up short, and the vehicle is a Procedural Penalty (a "PP" spelled out 'cause I like the way those words look) -- something I've never been afraid to assign when indicated. I have yet to have a player go to committee when my sagacious(?) ruling is "...I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of the basic system of your opponents, and will be happy to go over the last 11 hands to see if you did indeed not know their opening 1 club bid. So, since I'm not nearly as great a player as you are, why don't you go to an AC of your peers, and convince them..." The takers remain on the exposed fingers of a tightly clenched fist. I very much like the Norwegian procedure, it makes everybody act like "Bridge players who want to win for the right reasons." P.S. It's about time the we took a deep breath and sorted out TFLB from SO Rules and Regulations. To find our pet peeves and ding-dongs in TFLB might be nice, but it's a lazy way to play organized bridge. Build your own mousetraps -- don't expect the WBF to do it for you. Kojak From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Aug 9 22:51:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:51:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: Grattan: [snip] >> To identify the existence of an implicit >>agreement is not always easy. The laws do >>not offer guidance. I have known an appeals >>committee conclude that a special agreement >>existed from the fact that a player made a call >>with a meaning not generally understood of it >>and the partner's subsequent action clearly >>catered for that meaning. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Horace: >Grammatici certant et adhuc sub iudice lis est. Richard: Maybe the Laws of Bridge do not offer guidance, but the Laws of Logic give guidance that the Rule of Coincidence is not *automatically* true. The Laws of Logic distinguish between necessary evidence and sufficient evidence. In my opinion, a *single* coincidence is not sufficient evidence of a concealed partnership agreement, *unless* the coincidental alternative chosen just happens to be a non-logical alternative (as, for example, a non-logical alternative which just happens to field a pseudo-psyche). Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Mon Aug 9 23:41:04 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 23:41:04 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000201c47e25$4075d3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c47e25$4075d3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Skjaran, Harald wrote >............ >> >Sounds to me that there's somthing lacking in the ACBL's alert rules. >> > >> >In Norway the front page of the convention card tells you what system >> >category (green, blue, red, yellow) and system a pair uses, special >> >deviations from the standard system, forcing openings, the meaning of >> >2C and 2D openings, how far 2/1 is forcing, any minor suit 2/1 that can >> >be made on a 3-card suit, range of meaning of 2-level responses to 1NT, >> >the meaning of doubles of overcalls after 1 of a suit, 1NT and forcing >> >opening, leads and signals. >> > >> >If your opponents' CC is available to you, you can't claim to be >> >misinformed by a missing alert to bids explained on the front page of >> >the CC. >> >> Can't? > >I assume Harald has left office for today so I take the liberty to answer: >YES can't. >In Norway your opponents have the obligation to familiarize themselves with >the front page on your CC. The effect of information here is equivalent to >what I believe is called Pre-Alert in ACBL. > >> I think we should take each case on its merits. The whole >> idea of the alert principle is to wake you up, and if something is >> alertable, and you get it wrong even though it is clearly on the CC, I >> feel you might have a case. > >Even if it is pre-alerted? Sorry, you will not be heard with that argument >here, I don't know if you are heard in ACBL? > >> >> One of the biggest problems I see in the game of bridge over the last >> 10 years is the move towards blaming non-offenders and letting offenders >> get away with things. >> >> While it is easy to say that people should not gain from opponent's >> failure to alert when they should know better, how about looking the >> other side? Why should people gain from not alerting when they should >> know better just because it is on their CC? > >On the FRONT PAGE of the CC! (Only the most essential information appears >here as Harald did point out) Even so, it is a very unfortunate attitude. I have quite enough trying to remember my own system without being expected to remember someone else's. If they are unethical they will not alert, knowing you will automatically rule in their favour. Do you really think you should be encouraging this form of 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 9 23:58:56 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 23:58:56 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000e01c47e65$568993b0$b3c8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:04 PM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > >WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: . > > I've never been able to stomach the call for the TD on > > board 12 of a 16 board session where an opponent .> > didn't alert 1 club as Precision. "Had I been alerted, > > I could have overcalled with our convention against > > Precision, and we would have prevented them from > > arriving at game, slam, part-score" (you pick). > > > David Stevenson: > I think we should take each case on its merits. The > whole idea of the alert principle is to wake you up, and if > something is alertable, and you get it wrong even though > it is clearly on the CC, I feel you might have a case. > > One of the biggest problems I see in the game of > bridge over the last 10 years is the move towards > blaming non-offenders and letting offenders get away > with things. > Grattan : +=+ My sympathies lie with Kojak. In major competition, behind screens, players are commonly expected to cover their own backs to a reasonable extent in situations where the possibility of MI (e.g. failure to alert) should be obvious. Conditions of Contest may include a reference to this. But there is, of course, a judgement to be made. Failure to give redress does not mean that offenders will necessarily get away without procedural penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 10 00:00:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:00:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deep water (was Reno...) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ This is deep water. There are those who >want to give greater prominence to protecting >the field. The difficulty then is in ensuring fair >treatment of non-offenders, and sometimes in >deciding what is fair treatment. It seems to me >that to get anywhere near a solution one needs >to remove any element of punishment from >the awarded score and go back to the old (1963 >and earlier) law book arrangement of calculating >penalty points separately. However, we drifted >away from the method and the young have no >experience of it, so they do not easily get their >brains round the concept of calculating an >awarded score that provides a reasonable >comparison for the field and assessing penalty >points separately for an offending side. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The water may be too deep. It seems to me that the pre-1975 (and pre-Kaplanic) version of Law 12 has deep waterish unintended consequences in any type of bridge event (other than a Mitchell movement). That is, the deep water seems to me to contain a shipwreck equivalent to a Law 12C2 split-score version of a Reveley ruling. If deep water Reveley rulings become universal, then a UI-providing offending side has an incentive to use that UI (in a non-Mitchell movement). As a case study, examine an example in which a UI- influenced offending side might try to gain from a potential double-game swing: (a) if the Law 73A2-infracting OS now abides by Law 73C, then the OS might get -420 while the NOS gets +420, but (b) if the Law 73A2-infracting OS now further infracts Law 73C, then it gets penalty points equivalent to retaining -420, but its NOS opponents get the result of -620 (since -620 is the "field" result). After UI, the OS are always going to get a poor result, but by a further infraction of Law 73C, the OS can drag down the NOS score also. If the at-the- table NOS rivals of the OS are also actual opponents (that is, in a non-Mitchell movement), then a Law 73C infracting use of UI by the OS is rewarded. Meanwhile, law-abiding partnerships who: (c) inadvertently infract Law 73A2, but (d) eschew a subsequent infraction of Law 73C, are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, opponents of law-abiding partnerships gain an advantage of getting +420, while the rest of the field is getting the normal -620. Thus, the stated object of "protecting the field" fails, since it is the law-abiding partnerships who distort the field by giving "windfalls" to their opponents. The only comprehensive solution to ensure uniformity of the field would be to revert to pre-1975 Old Black Magic bridge ethics, so abolish Law 73C. :-( Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 10 00:21:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:21:22 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c47e67$95c2f650$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > >On the FRONT PAGE of the CC! (Only the most essential information = appears > >here as Harald did point out) >=20 > Even so, it is a very unfortunate attitude. I have quite enough > trying to remember my own system without being expected to remember > someone else's. If they are unethical they will not alert, knowing = you > will automatically rule in their favour. Do you really think you = should > be encouraging this form of behaviour? Frankly I don't see any problem. This is not a matter of "remembering" someone else's system, it is a = matter of consulting an approximately 4 by 4 inches field on the front page of their CC containing very well structured information, easy to find and understand, for such items as the fundamental characteristics of their system ("natural", "Vienna", "precision" or what have you got) without having to dig into their finer details. Such details are available for = you inside the CC when you need it, and for those details you shall expect = to be alerted whenever applicable.=20 Absent-minded people who find it difficult to remember even such = fundamental information during a whole round will appreciate that the CC shall = remain available next to them for re-inspection whenever they feel for it = (subject to the limitation that they may only do so when in turn to call or = play). But if a player approaches me and complains about an opponent who didn't alert an artificial 1C opening bid when the CC clearly states the basic system as being "blue" and "precision" and with the interpretation of = the 1C opening bid duly described in the appropriate place I shall not accept = his complaint. And I feel quite confident that neither shall any of my = fellow Directors in Norway. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 10 00:23:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:23:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Kojak: >>>I've never been able to stomach the call for the TD on >>>board 12 of a 16 board session where an opponent >>>didn't alert 1 club as Precision. "Had I been alerted, >>>I could have overcalled with our convention against >>>Precision, and we would have prevented them from >>>arriving at game, slam, part-score" (you pick). David Stevenson: >>I think we should take each case on its merits. The >>whole idea of the alert principle is to wake you up, and >>if something is alertable, and you get it wrong even >>though it is clearly on the CC, I feel you might have a >>case. >> >>One of the biggest problems I see in the game of bridge >>over the last 10 years is the move towards blaming non- >>offenders and letting offenders get away with things. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ My sympathies lie with Kojak. In major competition, >behind screens, players are commonly expected to cover >their own backs to a reasonable extent in situations where >the possibility of MI (e.g. failure to alert) should be >obvious. Conditions of Contest may include a reference to >this. But there is, of course, a judgement to be made. > >Failure to give redress does not mean that offenders will >necessarily get away without procedural penalty. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: My sympathies lie with David Stevenson. The so-called major competitions which Grattan and Kojak discuss are in fact a very minor part of the game of bridge. Sure experts such as Kieran Dyke should be told to pull their heads in if they try to gain a technical advantage from an opponent's failure to alert, since experts such as Kieran Dyke know their opponents' system better than the opponents themselves do. But the average inpert, such as David Stevenson or myself, often forgets things that experts remember. For example, last night I was carefully defending a 3NT contract. Halfway through the deal I discarded a low diamond, only to find that the other three players were waiting for me to lead. I then discovered that I was actually defending a 5D contract. My irrational earlier defence to this 5D contract meant that I scored +200 instead of the normal +100, and thus gained an equal top. Best wishes Rueful Rabbit From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 10 00:42:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:42:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >But if a player approaches me and complains >about an opponent who didn't alert an >artificial 1C opening bid when the CC >clearly states the basic system as being >"blue" and "precision" and with the >interpretation of the 1C opening bid duly >described in the appropriate place I shall >not accept his complaint. And I feel quite >confident that neither shall any of my >fellow Directors in Norway. Richard Hills: If that is the official interpretation of all the Svenish TDs of Norway, then it behoves the Norwegian authorities to abolish *all* alerts for *all* calls listed on the front page of a Norwegian CC. If "front-page" alerts were abolished, then Norwegian bunnies would *officially* know that they must look at the front page of the opponents' CC. Pursuant to the current *official* Norwegian alert regulation, bunnies innocently rely upon its interpreted-out-of-existence-by-Sven mere notional protection. :-( Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 10 01:51:17 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:51:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition Message-ID: <002001c47e74$4fa472e0$089868d5@jeushtlj> In the future, as play and bidding techniques level out and the laws become more complex and subjective, we can expect more competitions to be decided by the legal expertise of the players; their relationships with TDs; and the TDs subjective estimates of "equity". IMO, the WBFLC should be concerned less with equity and more with some of the basic laws that it seems would benefit from clarification and simplification. The current legal mire gives an unnecessarily large advantage to a player who is secretary bird. For example, the last Bermuda Bowl final was decided when a defender, legally, led to the next trick before all the cards to the previous trick had been turned over. Declarer who, in dummy's absence, was adjusting the dummy as well as playing from his own hand was then ruled to have made a stupid mistake. Although the early lead may not have been the only cause of declarer's mistake it couldn't have helped his concentration. Some less legally sophisticated defenders would have been at a disadvantage here because they would never lead to the next trick before the previous trick was quitted, in the mistaken belief that it was illegal. Please note carefully I'm certainly not implying that the actual defender knowingly led prematurely. Nevertheless, IMO, it *should* be illegal to lead to the next trick before the previous trick has been quitted, unless you are making a claim. Furthermore, the laws about when a card is deemed "played" by a defender, declarer or from dummy, need to be made shorter, simpler, clearer, and much less subjective. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 07-Aug-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 10 01:53:09 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:53:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) References: <000101c47e20$3b86f4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002101c47e74$68656c80$089868d5@jeushtlj> > [Sven Pran] > If their CC says "precision" that is > their announced agreement. If they have > a different agreement "which you should > know because they did not alert" I > would as a Director warn them that they > have a secret partnership understanding > ("natural" in spite of what their CC told) > and tell them to fix that inconsistency > immediately. I would also rule against > them on any question which I considered > arisen from this inconsistency. [Nigel] I assume that you Kojak would not penalize a player who failed to alert an agreement prominently mentioned on their card, Sven, obviously... (1) You write or print everything on your convention card in a large font and in the correct place. (2) Your vision is good. (3) Your opponents do not complain about tempo UI, when you take few minutes to peruse their card after every unalerted call. Or perhaps you benefit from eidetic memory. I always supposed that part of the reason for "alert rules" is to reduce such problems; anyway, I hope most TDs agree with David and Frances that you should view "failure to alert" as a worse infraction than "failure to protect yourself." Typically, regulation of alerting is missing from TFLB (like all post-1940 aspects of bridge). Hence local legislatures must cobble something together to fill the gap. Some seem to have made less of a hash of it than others. But why oh why oh why can't the WBFLC supply a simple minimal sensible default which is as objective as possible for this and all common aspects of the game. Of course, if TFLB made more complete, the WBF could not prevent SOs from inventing new games with new rules but at least the ordinary bridge player would be able to recognise, play and enjoy bridge when he met it. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 07-Aug-04 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 10 04:41:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 23:41:41 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000901c47e56$1cbf41c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3132ECDA-EA7F-11D8-B1D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 17:16 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Ed Reppert" >> >> On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 11:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The effect of information here is equivalent to >>> what I believe is called Pre-Alert in ACBL >> >> The fact that someone is playing Precision, or a weak NT, is not >> Pre-alertable in the ACBL. > > Because there's no need, if the convention card (cc) regulations are > followed. If there were in those regulations a provision similar to Norway's or the EBU's I'd agree. There isn't, so I don't. It does no good to have a nice, complete, convention card if nobody will look at it. > The ACBL cc has a place to show General Approach (2/1, Precision, etc) > right > under the pair's names line, very prominent. Yep. I fill it in on my cards. Most folks around here, even the ones that *have* a card (I'm speaking of club games, not sectional or regional tournaments) don't bother. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 10 07:01:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:01:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: The parsing of Steve Willner: [snip] >>What the text of L40B actually _says_ is that if _all_ the >>following conditions are met: >> >>1) A special partnership understanding exists, >> >>2) the partnership with the understanding cannot reasonably >>expect opponents to understand its meaning, >> >>3) the SO has established regulations for disclosing "the >>use of the call or play," and >> >>4) those disclosure regulations are violated, >> >>_then_ any call or play based on the understanding is >>illegal. Note especially item 3); if there is no SO >>requirement for disclosure, there is no L40B violation. >>(In practice, of course, many SO's will have general >>regulations requiring broad disclosure.) [snip] The _obscure_ English of Law 40B actually _says_: >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. The parsing of Richard Hills: What the text of Law 40B actually _says_ is that: (a) As a general rule, a player may not make a call based on a special partnership understanding.++ (b) An exception to the general rule is if the opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of the special partnership understanding. (c) An alternative exception to the general rule is if the opposing pair discloses the meaning of the special partnership understanding in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. Note especially items (b) and (c); if there are no SO regulations for disclosure, there is an automatic Law 40B violation unless the opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of the special partnership understanding. (In practice, of course, many SOs will have general regulations *restricting* broad disclosure.) Best wishes RJH ++Note -> Law 40B's "special partnership understandings" may be equivalent to Law 75A's "special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit". In a previous thread, the gafiated David Burn attempted to create a distinction between "understandings" and "agreements". No doubt the WBF LC Drafting Sub-Committee will pay due attention to consistent nomenclature and _plain_ English in the 2006 version of the Laws. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 10 06:38:26 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:38:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten References: Message-ID: <005901c47ea2$b0d88c80$708e403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten > > > > > Grattan: > > [snip] > > >> To identify the existence of an implicit > >>agreement is not always easy. The laws do > >>not offer guidance. I have known an appeals > >>committee conclude that a special agreement > >>existed from the fact that a player made a call > >>with a meaning not generally understood of it > >>and the partner's subsequent action clearly > >>catered for that meaning. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Horace: > > >Grammatici certant et adhuc sub iudice lis est. > > Richard: > > Maybe the Laws of Bridge do not offer guidance, > but the Laws of Logic give guidance that the > Rule of Coincidence is not *automatically* true. > > The Laws of Logic distinguish between necessary > evidence and sufficient evidence. > > In my opinion, a *single* coincidence is not > sufficient evidence of a concealed partnership > agreement, *unless* the coincidental alternative > chosen just happens to be a non-logical > alternative (as, for example, a non-logical > alternative which just happens to field a > pseudo-psyche). > > Best wishes > > RJH > +=+ The quality of the evidence is a matter for the Director and then AC in each instance. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 10 07:04:41 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:04:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: <005a01c47ea2$b1bafd40$708e403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >But if a player approaches me and complains > >about an opponent who didn't alert an > >artificial 1C opening bid when the CC > >clearly states the basic system as being > >"blue" and "precision" and with the > >interpretation of the 1C opening bid duly > >described in the appropriate place I shall > >not accept his complaint. And I feel quite > >confident that neither shall any of my > >fellow Directors in Norway. > > Richard Hills: > > If that is the official interpretation of all > the Svenish TDs of Norway, then it behoves the > Norwegian authorities to abolish *all* alerts > for *all* calls listed on the front page of a > Norwegian CC. > > If "front-page" alerts were abolished, then > Norwegian bunnies would *officially* know that > they must look at the front page of the > opponents' CC. > > Pursuant to the current *official* Norwegian > alert regulation, bunnies innocently rely upon > its interpreted-out-of-existence-by-Sven mere > notional protection. > +=+ There is scope for taking into account the condition of the player. The rigour with which Law 74B1 is applied will vary accordingly. Until senile a long-in-the-tooth, been there, done that, player like me can expect less tolerance than young naive innocents like Richard and David. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 10 07:23:37 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:23:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) References: <000101c47e20$3b86f4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002101c47e74$68656c80$089868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005b01c47ea2$b2db8870$708e403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) > [Nigel] > I assume that you Kojak would not penalize a > player who failed to alert an agreement > prominently mentioned on their card, > +=+ I do not see the justification for suggesting this. A player who fails to follow correct procedure is liable to penalty. His error does not diminish the responsibilities of the opponents. Is there a law or regulation that decrees that damage can never be self-inflicted following an opponent's infraction? ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 10 07:54:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:54:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, autodidact: >The Alert Regulations are a license to impart UI >and use it with little risk of discovery. Like >Eric Landau I yearn for the good old days when >there was no alert procedure but an emphasis on >full disclosure. Richard Hills, quibbler: The alert procedure was introduced to *enhance* full disclosure. Before alerts, the opponents would conduct an apparently normal auction to a contract. Only after a disastrous defence by your side, based upon the normal meaning of the auction, would you discover (too late, due to non-existence of alerts) that the opponents were playing the Little Major system. Nigel Guthrie, autodidact: >In Scotland, there was an introductory period >when would-be alerters could be frustrated with >a "Do not alert" card. Then, if a desperate >opponent could not restrain himself from starting >to alert, the TD would regard it as UI. >Unfortunately, so many players relied on the >reassurance and wake-up effects of the alert >procedure that alerts were made compulsory. Those >with a "Do not alert" card had to tear it up and >lose several tops per session. Richard Hills, partial concurrer: Wake-up effects from pard's alert are UI. Of course, proper enforcement of adjusted scores consequential to UI-using Law 73C infractions are more difficult in practice than in theory. So, both the ACBL and the ABF prohibit any alert of a call which might be Gerber. Therefore, in some circumstances when the chances of MI is low, and the chances of UI is high, Nigel has a partially valid point. Nigel Guthrie, autodidact: [big snip] >Especially for introducing the spurious >interpretation that you may forfeit redress unless >you ask about unalerted bids to protect yourself. Richard Hills, total concurrer: Made a Catch-22 by the EBU policy that you should not ask about a call if you subsequently Pass. For example: Swiss Matchpoint Pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Dble(1) 3H(2) ? (1) Shows opening values. (2) *Either* a limit raise; *or* a pre-emptive raise; *neither* meaning is EBU-alertable. You, West, hold: J87 2 A93 J86543 If you intend to bid over a pre-emptive raise, but intend to pass over a limit raise, then: Which EBU Catch-22 do you take? Which EBU Catch-22 do you consider taking? Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 10 08:23:50 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:23:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) In-Reply-To: <005b01c47ea2$b2db8870$708e403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c47eaa$fc658bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gesta@tiscali.co.uk > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > [Nigel] > > I assume that you Kojak would not penalize a > > player who failed to alert an agreement > > prominently mentioned on their card, > > > +=3D+ I do not see the justification for suggesting > this. A player who fails to follow correct procedure > is liable to penalty. His error does not diminish the > responsibilities of the opponents. Is there a law or > regulation that decrees that damage can never be > self-inflicted following an opponent's infraction? A variety of comments related to our use of the CC front page have = appeared here, most of them bear clear indications that the writers have not understood what our "CC Front page" looks like and how it is filled in. May I humbly suggest that before making any further comments on how "disastrous" or "unfair" our practice is the writers ought to = familiarize themselves with what we are discussing? As for the legality: Our regulations clearly states that all alertable = calls shall be alerted but also that redress for damage due to misinformation = like a missing alert will not be granted when the "damaged" party has no = excuse for failing to know the correct interpretation of a call, for instance because this has been correctly explained among the essentials given on = the CC front page. Inspecting opponents' CC front page at the beginning of a round is among the duties of any participant at a bridge tournament in Norway. I have little respect for those who "invent" problems with a system that = has proven successful in Norway over at least a decade now. Maybe they could benefit from visiting a Norwegian event and see for themselves how = things work here? Regards Sven =20 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Tue Aug 10 11:11:57 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:11:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <20040810062527.27795.67960.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040810062527.27795.67960.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1092132717.28065.202037791@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello all, [Nigel Guthrie] > The current legal mire gives an unnecessarily > large advantage to a player who is secretary bird. > > For example, the last Bermuda Bowl final was > decided > when a defender, legally, led to the next trick > before all the cards to the previous trick had > been turned over. Declarer who, in dummy's > absence, was adjusting the dummy as well as > playing from his own hand was then ruled to have > made a stupid mistake. Although the early lead may > not have been the only cause of declarer's mistake > it couldn't have helped his concentration. Some > less legally sophisticated defenders would have > been at a disadvantage here because they would > never lead to the next trick before the previous > trick was quitted, in the mistaken belief that it > was illegal. Please note carefully I'm certainly > not implying that the actual defender knowingly > led prematurely. I share the aversion to people taking advantage of their knowledge of the rules contrary to the spirit of the game, but is a hand where a defender failed to play the card that would have won the Bermuda Bowl with no fuss really the best example of a possible clever rushing of the tempo? BTW, nothing I have read on that event has discussed why Versace had left the table (can anyone shed some light?). Unless it was sudden illness or news of a family emergency or something like that, his behavior was unacceptable (Law 74C8 and common courtesy), and neither opponent had the slightest obligation to cater to him by changing their natural tempo of play. David Babcock Florida USA From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 10 11:34:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:34:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <1092132717.28065.202037791@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000201c47ec5$8e853c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Babcock ............. > BTW, nothing I have read on that event has discussed why Versace > had left the table (can anyone shed some light?). Unless it was sudden > illness or news of a family emergency or something like that, his > behavior was unacceptable (Law 74C8 and common courtesy), and neither > opponent had the slightest obligation to cater to him by changing their > natural tempo of play. And even further: Everything I have read on that event indicates that the statement: "I was just re-arranging the cards in dummy" was an extremely poor attempt to save the game. You just do not re-arrange cards in dummy by taking one card and placing it on top of another card which had been played in the previous trick and not yet turned face down. The only thing that astonished me on that case was that the AC did not keep the deposit. And the case itself will remain very valuable evidence against claims on what constitutes actions so irrational that players of a certain class just don't do them. (Could we at last get rid of the clause "for the class of player" in the laws please?) Regards Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Aug 10 11:49:37 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:49:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D39@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Nigel Guthrie, autodidact: [big snip] >Especially for introducing the spurious >interpretation that you may forfeit redress unless >you ask about unalerted bids to protect yourself. Richard Hills, total concurrer: Made a Catch-22 by the EBU policy that you should not ask about a call if you subsequently Pass. For example: Swiss Matchpoint Pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Dble(1) 3H(2) ? (1) Shows opening values. (2) *Either* a limit raise; *or* a pre-emptive raise; *neither* meaning is EBU-alertable. You, West, hold: J87 2 A93 J86543 If you intend to bid over a pre-emptive raise, but intend to pass over a limit raise, then: Which EBU Catch-22 do you take? Which EBU Catch-22 do you consider taking? Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------- This is a very poor example, as I have yet to see a hand whose choice of action depends on whether it is a limit raise or a pre-emptive raise. From aplsi@starpower.net Tue Aug 10 13:56:38 2004 From: aplsi@starpower.net (APL Solutions Inc. (Eric Landau)) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:56:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) In-Reply-To: <002b01c47e1f$bcf56020$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <002b01c47e1f$bcf56020$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040810083301.02affc80@pop.starpower.net> At 10:47 AM 8/9/04, Nigel wrote: >The Alert Regulations are a license to impart UI >and use it with little risk of discovery. Like >Eric Landau I yearn for the good old days when >there was no alert procedure but an emphasis on >full disclosure. Nigel has misread me; I do not yearn for the days before alerts. Alerts are, IMO, a good thing, but should be used for what they were intended: to supplement, hopefully to expedite, the process of full disclosure. What I yearn for is the understanding that alert rules are a part of the procedure players must use to meet their disclosure obligations, not the whole of them, that one can satisfy the letter of the alert procedure without necessarily meeting one's disclosure obligation. L40B says, "...unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." To me, that says two things: you must disclose the use, and you must do so by following the procedures laid down by your SO. If you fail to disclose, you shouldn't get off the hook just because your inadequate disclosure was couched in the language prescribed by your SO's disclosure procedure. Nigel seems to imply that "alert procedure" and "emphasis on full disclosure" are somehow incompatible, that we must choose between them. I don't believe that to be the case, and would choose to have both. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive APL Solutions, Inc. Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 aplsi@starpower.net USA (301) 589-4621 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Aug 10 15:24:41 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:24:41 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040810102128.02eeed60@pop.starpower.net> I accidentally sent my previous post from a business rather than a personal e-mail address. Please do not reply to aplsi; continue to send any e-mails directed to me to ehaa@starpower.net. My apologies for the error, and thank you. >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >From: "APL Solutions Inc. (Eric Landau)" >Subject: Re: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 10 16:00:57 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:00:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <20040810062527.27795.67960.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1092132717.28065.202037791@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <002701c47eea$d82d21e0$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> [David Babcock] > I share the aversion to people taking advantage of their knowledge of > the rules contrary to the spirit of the game, but is a hand where a > defender failed to play the card that would have won the Bermuda Bowl > with no fuss really the best example of a possible clever rushing of the > tempo? BTW, nothing I have read on that event has discussed why Versace > had left the table (can anyone shed some light?). Unless it was sudden > illness or news of a family emergency or something like that, his > behavior was unacceptable (Law 74C8 and common courtesy), and neither > opponent had the slightest obligation to cater to him by changing their > natural tempo of play. [Nigel] I emphasize again that I'm not saying that the actual defender knowingly led prematurely. Anyway, I agree with David that the defender has no obligation to waive the rule that he may lead to the next trick, before the previous trick is quitted. If such a ploy confuses and harasses declarer , it's the fault of the sloppy law not the defender. It's just one of many examples where detailed knowledge of unnecessarily sophisticated Bridge Laws can work to your advantage. I don't understand why a possible previous infraction by declarer has much relevance to this case. Anyway such examples illustrate that, today, Bridge is not "The Bidder's game" it's "The Lawyer's game." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 10 16:37:38 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:37:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) References: <000001c47eaa$fc658bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003f01c47eef$f7a9cb40$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > A variety of comments related to > our use of the CC front page have > appeared here, most of them bear > clear indications that the writers > have not understood what our "CC > Front page" looks like and how it > is filled in. [Nigel] I approve of and use such a card (which the EBU provide as an option). I agree that Sven's rules seem reasonable, but I worry that they could disadvantage many Norwegian Bridge players if they risk forfeiting redress when they miss or misread anything. Before every hand, we with poor sight or poor memory would have to ask an opponent to read aloud the whole front of his card, carefully, several times. This might slow the game. Obviously, in practice, you can keep adding more rules and exceptions to cater for such handicaps; but how much simpler it would be just to enforce basic convention-card and alerting rules and forget the rest! At least players would have some chance of knowing the rules and abiding by them. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 10 16:57:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:57:14 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <3132ECDA-EA7F-11D8-B1D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000901c47e56$1cbf41c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3132ECDA-EA7F-11D8-B1D9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 17:16 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > >> From: "Ed Reppert" >>> >>> On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 11:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>> The effect of information here is equivalent to >>>> what I believe is called Pre-Alert in ACBL >>> >>> The fact that someone is playing Precision, or a weak NT, is not >>> Pre-alertable in the ACBL. >> >> Because there's no need, if the convention card (cc) regulations are >> followed. > >If there were in those regulations a provision similar to Norway's or >the EBU's I'd agree. There isn't, so I don't. It does no good to have a >nice, complete, convention card if nobody will look at it. > >> The ACBL cc has a place to show General Approach (2/1, Precision, >>etc) right >> under the pair's names line, very prominent. > >Yep. I fill it in on my cards. Most folks around here, even the ones >that *have* a card (I'm speaking of club games, not sectional or >regional tournaments) don't bother. It is more normal to find it blank than filled in at ACBL Nationals as well. Of course, as mentioned here a few times, *finding* the opponents' CC in the first place is not always that easy. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 10 17:00:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:00:58 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000001c47e67$95c2f650$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c47e67$95c2f650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> >On the FRONT PAGE of the CC! (Only the most essential information appears >> >here as Harald did point out) >> >> Even so, it is a very unfortunate attitude. I have quite enough >> trying to remember my own system without being expected to remember >> someone else's. If they are unethical they will not alert, knowing you >> will automatically rule in their favour. Do you really think you should >> be encouraging this form of behaviour? > >Frankly I don't see any problem. > >This is not a matter of "remembering" someone else's system, it is a matter >of consulting an approximately 4 by 4 inches field on the front page of >their CC containing very well structured information, easy to find and >understand, for such items as the fundamental characteristics of their >system ("natural", "Vienna", "precision" or what have you got) without >having to dig into their finer details. Such details are available for you >inside the CC when you need it, and for those details you shall expect to be >alerted whenever applicable. > >Absent-minded people who find it difficult to remember even such fundamental >information during a whole round will appreciate that the CC shall remain >available next to them for re-inspection whenever they feel for it (subject >to the limitation that they may only do so when in turn to call or play). > >But if a player approaches me and complains about an opponent who didn't >alert an artificial 1C opening bid when the CC clearly states the basic >system as being "blue" and "precision" and with the interpretation of the 1C >opening bid duly described in the appropriate place I shall not accept his >complaint. And I feel quite confident that neither shall any of my fellow >Directors in Norway. Exactly. So your approach supports unethical players who play a Strong club and deliberately do not alert. Now if their opponent has a temporary lapse and forgets to look at the CC they gain, and with your approach ***CANNOT*** lose. It is a terrible approach. ***Of course** I would glance a the card once 1C is alerted, but supporting deliberate law-breakers in this way cannot be right, and I am surprised the Norwegian federation tolerates such an approach. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 10 17:05:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:05:22 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000e01c47e65$568993b0$b3c8403e@multivisionoem> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <000e01c47e65$568993b0$b3c8403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: wrote >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. >".Taisez-vous! Mefiez-vous! Les oreilles >ennemies vous ecoutent." > [Poster, 1915.] >#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:04 PM >Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying >> >WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >. >> > I've never been able to stomach the call for the TD on >> > board 12 of a 16 board session where an opponent >.> > didn't alert 1 club as Precision. "Had I been alerted, >> > I could have overcalled with our convention against >> > Precision, and we would have prevented them from >> > arriving at game, slam, part-score" (you pick). >> >> > David Stevenson: >> I think we should take each case on its merits. The >> whole idea of the alert principle is to wake you up, and if >> something is alertable, and you get it wrong even though >> it is clearly on the CC, I feel you might have a case. >> >> One of the biggest problems I see in the game of >> bridge over the last 10 years is the move towards >> blaming non-offenders and letting offenders get away >> with things. >> >Grattan : >+=+ My sympathies lie with Kojak. In major competition, >behind screens, players are commonly expected to cover >their own backs to a reasonable extent in situations where >the possibility of MI (e.g. failure to alert) should be obvious. >Conditions of Contest may include a reference to this. But >there is, of course, a judgement to be made. > Failure to give redress does not mean that offenders >will necessarily get away without procedural penalty. Why are we worrying about major competitions? That is a small minority of the bridge played. This is the only sport or mindsport I know of which seems to think penalising non-offenders is normal. I don't like it, and it does bridge no favours at all. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 10 17:15:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:15:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) In-Reply-To: <003f01c47eef$f7a9cb40$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000901c47ef5$5005a110$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > > A variety of comments related to > > our use of the CC front page have > > appeared here, most of them bear > > clear indications that the writers > > have not understood what our "CC > > Front page" looks like and how it > > is filled in. >=20 > [Nigel] > I approve of and use such a card (which the EBU > provide as an option). I agree that Sven's rules > seem reasonable, but I worry that they could > disadvantage many Norwegian Bridge players if they > risk forfeiting redress when they miss or misread > anything. >=20 > Before every hand, we with poor sight or poor > memory would have to ask an opponent to read aloud > the whole front of his card, carefully, several > times. This might slow the game. Quite interesting considerations, but maybe you will find it relevant = that to this date I have never experienced any kind of problem arising from = our regulations on the use of alerts and convention cards. (I received my = first authorization in 1980 and since then I have directed events at all = levels from national championships to the Christmas party tournament in the = local club next door. In the recent national championship for pairs we had a = blind player; even that did not cause us any problem - and no delay!)=20 =20 > Obviously, in practice, you can keep adding more > rules and exceptions to cater for such handicaps; > but how much simpler it would be just to enforce > basic convention-card and alerting rules and > forget the rest! At least players would have some > chance of knowing the rules and abiding by them. What we do is keeping it simple: "When your partner makes a call your opponents shall have at least as much relevant information on that call = as you have yourself". But they do have to exercise some reasonable effort = in learning the basics about your methods like whether you play "natural", "Precision" or whatever. Any player who tries some technicalities possibly in an attempt to avoid "full disclosure" will soon find himself in trouble with the Director. And a player who tries to "harvest" some advantage from opponents' = failure to alert when he really should know better will also discover something. This works for us! Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 10 17:19:56 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:19:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000201c47ec5$8e853c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c47ef5$e198eec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > > And the case itself will remain very valuable evidence against claims on > what constitutes actions so irrational that players of a certain class just > don't do them. (Could we at last get rid of the clause "for the class of > player" in the laws please?) > And not infer that clause where it does not exist (e.g., L16A) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 10 17:39:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:39:31 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c47ef8$9cd6d290$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ................ > >But if a player approaches me and complains about an opponent who = didn't > >alert an artificial 1C opening bid when the CC clearly states the = basic > >system as being "blue" and "precision" and with the interpretation of = the > 1C > >opening bid duly described in the appropriate place I shall not = accept > his > >complaint. And I feel quite confident that neither shall any of my = fellow > >Directors in Norway. >=20 > Exactly. So your approach supports unethical players who play a > Strong club and deliberately do not alert. Now if their opponent has = a > temporary lapse and forgets to look at the CC they gain, and with your > approach ***CANNOT*** lose. >=20 > It is a terrible approach. ***Of course** I would glance a the = card > once 1C is alerted, but supporting deliberate law-breakers in this way > cannot be right, and I am surprised the Norwegian federation tolerates > such an approach. Do you have any experience from Norway to support this statement? To this day I have never experienced nor heard of any incident which = could give cause for a statement like what you have written above. And this is = not because we are blind for the possibility, such incidents just do not = happen. (Any strong-club players trying such tactics will soon discover = something about ethics in Norway, I am surprised this apparently is so difficult elsewhere). Regards Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Aug 10 17:45:49 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:45:49 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D42@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: 10 August 2004 16:57 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Ed Reppert wrote > >On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 17:16 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > >> From: "Ed Reppert" >>> >>> On Monday, Aug 9, 2004, at 11:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>> The effect of information here is equivalent to >>>> what I believe is called Pre-Alert in ACBL >>> >>> The fact that someone is playing Precision, or a weak NT, is not >>> Pre-alertable in the ACBL. >> >> Because there's no need, if the convention card (cc) regulations are >> followed. > >If there were in those regulations a provision similar to Norway's or=20 >the EBU's I'd agree. There isn't, so I don't. It does no good to have a = >nice, complete, convention card if nobody will look at it. > >> The ACBL cc has a place to show General Approach (2/1, Precision,=20 >>etc) right >> under the pair's names line, very prominent. > >Yep. I fill it in on my cards. Most folks around here, even the ones=20 >that *have* a card (I'm speaking of club games, not sectional or=20 >regional tournaments) don't bother. It is more normal to find it blank than filled in at ACBL Nationals = as=20 well. Of course, as mentioned here a few times, *finding* the opponents' CC = in the first place is not always that easy. --=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 ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Yes, the last time one of our convention cards disappeared it came to = light during the next session out of a kibbitzer's handbag.... From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Aug 10 17:43:49 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Aug 10, 2004 05:05:22 PM Message-ID: <200408101643.i7AGhnZC009215@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> David Stevenson writes: > > Why are we worrying about major competitions? That is a small > minority of the bridge played. Right. Major events can sensibly have special conditions of competition. I for one have never had a problem with a regulation that holds that competitors in the Bermuda Bowl can be expected to protect themselves. Though I can think of two cases in the Olympiad where the competitors couldn't. The information on the convention cards didn't match what they were in fact playing. And in one of the cases the offenders got away with a mere 3 imp penalty (while keeping a 14 imp swing that looks to me like the product of inadequate disclosure). The other (Poland at Albuquerque) the penalty was *very* harsh. It amounted to about 30 imps plus the suspension of Poland's anchor pair until they could submit a convention card that matched what they were in fact playing. (In practice, the last 16 boards of the semifinal -- albeit with a huge lead) > This is the only sport or mindsport I know of which seems to think > penalising non-offenders is normal. I don't like it, and it does bridge > no favours at all. I agree. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 10 17:55:41 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:55:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) References: <000001c47eaa$fc658bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001b01c47efa$e09c9b20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" >As for the legality: Our regulations clearly states that all alertable calls shall be alerted but also that redress for damage due to misinformation like a missing alert will not be granted when the "damaged" party has no excuse for failing to know the correct interpretation of a call, for instance because this has been correctly explained among the essentials given on the CC front page. Inspecting opponents' CC front page at the beginning of a round is among the duties of any participant at a bridge tournament in Norway. Marv: Why burden players with Alert requirements that are redundant? Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 10 18:22:50 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:22:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) In-Reply-To: <001b01c47efa$e09c9b20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c47efe$aa05b430$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > From: "Sven Pran" > > >As for the legality: Our regulations clearly states that all alertable > calls shall be alerted but also that redress for damage due to > misinformation like a missing alert will not be granted when the > "damaged" party has no excuse for failing to know the correct > interpretation of a call, for instance because this has been correctly > explained among the essentials given on the CC front page. Inspecting > opponents' CC front page at the beginning of a round is among the duties > of any participant at a bridge tournament in Norway. > > Marv: Why burden players with Alert requirements that are redundant? Consistency and simplicity. (No exception for calls declared on the CC front page) Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Aug 10 21:43:27 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:43:27 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club Message-ID: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Okay BLML, what is your opinion? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irv Kostal" Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide if BLML would be interested in it. ----- Txx xxx AKJxxxx A98xx Qx x AKQxx KQTxx xxx Qx Txx KJTxxx Jxxx AJ x S W N E 1S P 3C(1) 3H 3S X 4C(2)P P P The result was -1100 (1) alerted as a Bergen Raise (2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that situation. Certainly I would. I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. Thanks, Irv Kostal From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 10 23:24:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:24:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: The ANC (Australian National Championships) have just concluded. The most important happening there was that the ACT Open Team won the Interstate Open Teams for the first time in 20 years. No doubt that gold medal was due solely to the fact that this year I failed to qualify as a member of the ACT Open Team. However, from a blml point of view, the most important ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" from dummy. All other players followed suit with low diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real ace of diamonds. Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Canberra bridesmaid - 1998 Open Teams silver medallist From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 11 00:22:36 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:22:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000c01c47f05$c00d2ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003201c47f30$eccf8fc0$539468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] According to what I remember from the AC document as it was published Lauria still had the last card that had been played from dummy face up and in a "played" position detached from dummy's other (not yet played) cards. When his LHO led to the subsequent trick Lauria took another card from dummy and placed it on top of the previously played card without first turning that card face down. Now if that can be taken as rearranging the cards in dummy rather than playing a card from dummy I quit. What Lauria had expected was apparently that LHO would cash his winner to which Lauria would simply discard. Instead LHO led a small spade (I believe) to which Lauria still discarded after which RHO to Lauria's dismay won the trick with his ten of spades. It was after that fact that Lauria started arguing he had not played, he had rearranged. [Nigel] I wasn't there so I am happy to believe your statement of what occurred, Sven, but I don't think it affects my main thesis which is: TFLB should.... (A) forbid leads to subsequent tricks before previous all tricks are quitted. (B) clarify when Dummy may excuse himself. (C) define -- as shortly, simply, clearly and objectively as possible -- when a card is deemed played by a defender, by declarer and from dummy. (D) simplify other basic laws. Otherwise we can expect even more future competitions be decided by TDs and ACs rather than at the table. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 07-Aug-04 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 11 00:28:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:28:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) Message-ID: Frances Hinden: >This is a very poor example, as I have yet to see a hand >whose choice of action depends on whether it is a limit >raise or a pre-emptive raise. Richard Hills: Ruritanian Bridge Union, national pairs championship. Your opponents arrive late to your table, so you merely have time to note that they play a version of Acol. Dlr: East Vul: None You, South, hold: 2 KQJT9876 32 32 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 2S(1) ?(2) (1) Half the Ruritanian Acol players employ the Acol Two style; the other half of the Ruritanian Acol players employ the Weak Two style. The Ruritanian alert reg states that neither style need to be alerted. (2) Looking at a system card then passing, or asking a question then passing, is deemed to be an infraction of Law 73A2 in Ruritania. The Ruritanian SO orders its TDs to apply an automatic PP for infractions of Law 73A2. Your partnership has an agreement, in accordance with the best textbooks, of "Don't preempt over an opposing preempt." Therefore, your system call over a weak 2S is to pass. Your system call over an Acol 2S is to preempt 4H. What Catch-22 action do you take? What Catch-22 action do you consider taking? Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 11 00:48:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:48:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition Message-ID: Sven: >>(Could we at last get rid of the clause "for >>the class of player" in the laws please?) Marv: >And not infer that clause where it does not >exist (e.g., L16A) Richard: There is no lawful *inference* of "class of player" in Law 16A. Rather, it is a matter of an ACBL *regulation* defining what a "logical alternative" means in the ACBL. Since the Laws do *not* define "logical alternative" in the Chapter 1 Definitions, the ACBL is entitled to regulate its own specific definition. Furthermore, I only partially agree with Sven that "class of player" should be removed from the Laws. (a) If an expert fails to cite a necessary safety play when claiming, as TD I will *not* permit that expert to be deemed to remember that necessary safety play. In my opinion, the lack of citation implies a lapse of memory. But... (b) Calls and plays, which are illogical alternatives for an expert, may be (in my opinion) logical alternatives for a bunny. Best wishes RJH From schoderb@msn.com Wed Aug 11 01:10:10 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:10:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000c01c47f05$c00d2ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003201c47f30$eccf8fc0$539468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Sorry to have to strongly disagree with your opinion on this one. It was decided by the Laws, clearly, without doubt, and with no difficulty. I think you owe the TD and the AC an apology for your misunderstanding of what the current laws mandate, and the correct application thereof. Why the AC did not keep the deposit is not beyond my ken, but beyond my taste for keeping politics out of the where we should be. I can't believe that you would support any other outcome than what transpired re the ruling. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > [Sven Pran] > According to what I remember from the AC document > as it was published Lauria still had the last card > that had been played from dummy face up and in a > "played" position detached from dummy's other (not > yet played) cards. When his LHO led to the > subsequent trick Lauria took another card from > dummy and placed it on top of the previously > played card without first turning that card face > down. Now if that can be taken as rearranging the > cards in dummy rather than playing a card from > dummy I quit. What Lauria had expected was > apparently that LHO would cash his winner to > which Lauria would simply discard. Instead LHO led > a small spade (I believe) to which Lauria still > discarded after which RHO to Lauria's dismay won > the > trick with his ten of spades. It was after that > fact that Lauria started arguing he had not > played, he had rearranged. > > [Nigel] > I wasn't there so I am happy to believe your > statement of what occurred, Sven, but I don't > think it affects my main thesis which is: TFLB > should.... > (A) forbid leads to subsequent tricks before > previous all tricks are quitted. > (B) clarify when Dummy may excuse himself. > (C) define -- as shortly, simply, clearly and > objectively as possible -- when a card is deemed > played by a defender, by declarer and from dummy. > (D) simplify other basic laws. > > Otherwise we can expect even more future > competitions be decided by TDs and ACs rather than > at the table. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release > Date: 07-Aug-04 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 03:26:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:26:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001301c47f4a$aacb8ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > Okay BLML, what is your opinion? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Irv Kostal" > > Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I > believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what > should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide > if BLML would be interested in it. > > ----- > Txx > xxx > AKJxxxx > > A98xx Qx > x AKQxx > KQTxx xxx > Qx Txx > > KJTxxx > Jxxx > AJ > x > > S W N E > 1S P 3C(1) 3H > 3S X 4C(2)P P > P > > The result was -1100 > > (1) alerted as a Bergen Raise > (2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" Called by whom? > The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and > explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know > that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and > can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without > any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that > situation. Certainly I would. > > I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. Well, I don't know about your NCBO but in Norway we have strict "orders" never ever to look at any player's cards during auction or play. The reason is that if we do and then make a ruling we have irreversibly destroyed the board by disclosing to all four players essentials about the cards we have seen. So in Norway this board would eventually have to be adjusted under Law 82C Director's error. How do we rule (when we rule correctly)? We order auction and play to continue and then perform a post mortem to decide whether the result obtained on the board should be adjusted (for one or both sides). Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 03:46:38 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:46:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c47f4d$6cf08d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............. > However, from a blml point of view, the most important > ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> >=20 > Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of > hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, > declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" > from dummy. All other players followed suit with low > diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real > ace of diamonds. >=20 > Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the > real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was > called. >=20 > How would you rule? My immediate reaction is a big laugh. Initially the relevant laws are (in order) 46B4 and 45D. As nobody reacted the Ace of hearts was definitely played and both sides subsequently revoked in this trick by playing diamonds rather than = hearts. One solution would be to apply Law 64 on all three players (other than dummy), a solution I find most impractical. My preferred solution is for the Director to examine the board (post = mortem) to see if there is any way a "normal" result can be obtained or = assessed, and if not use Law 12C1 awarding both sides a score of average minus. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 03:57:47 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:57:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unalerted call enquiry (was Deceiving and Destoying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c47f4e$fb937c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........... > Ruritanian Bridge Union, national pairs championship. > > Your opponents arrive late to your table, so you merely > have time to note that they play a version of Acol. Why? You have the time you need to familiarize yourself with opponents' agreements. The fact that your opponents arrive late at the table does not alter this, and you cannot be forced to refrain from getting to know opponents' agreements or to speed up your auctions and play to compensate for their late arrival. Boards not played are their responsibility. > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > You, South, hold: > > 2 > KQJT9876 > 32 > 32 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 2S(1) ?(2) > > (1) Half the Ruritanian Acol players employ the Acol Two > style; the other half of the Ruritanian Acol players > employ the Weak Two style. The Ruritanian alert reg > states that neither style need to be alerted. > > (2) Looking at a system card then passing, or asking a > question then passing, is deemed to be an infraction of > Law 73A2 in Ruritania. The Ruritanian SO orders its TDs > to apply an automatic PP for infractions of Law 73A2. > > Your partnership has an agreement, in accordance with > the best textbooks, of "Don't preempt over an opposing > preempt." > > Therefore, your system call over a weak 2S is to pass. > Your system call over an Acol 2S is to preempt 4H. > > What Catch-22 action do you take? > What Catch-22 action do you consider taking? 1: Asking for all information needed before beginning the first board. 2: Challenge the Ruritanian regulation as being illegal. 3: Refrain from participating in any event in Ruritania. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 04:10:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:10:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001601c47f50$c3458180$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............. >=20 > Furthermore, I only partially agree with Sven > that "class of player" should be removed from > the Laws. >=20 > (a) If an expert fails to cite a necessary > safety play when claiming, as TD I will *not* > permit that expert to be deemed to remember > that necessary safety play. In my opinion, > the lack of citation implies a lapse of > memory. Fine! =20 > But... >=20 > (b) Calls and plays, which are illogical > alternatives for an expert, may be (in my > opinion) logical alternatives for a bunny. No, IMO the irrationality of a play must be judged in its context, not depending upon the (class of) player. Example: If LHO unexpectedly ruffs = one of your high cards with a small trump and you have a higher trump = available for an overruff in dummy it is irrational regardless of "class of = player" not to overruff. Similarly if you play a small card towards an Ace - = Queen combination and LHO produces the King it is irrational not to cover with = the Ace, again regardless of the class of player. But if Lauria had claimed without any statement rather than made his disastrous play you would have protected him from making that mistake? I would too; his play was so irrational whatever way you look at it, and still he made that mistake. And still it is my opinion that the Director = has no business protecting the claimer against whatever silly mistake he = could possibly make. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 11 04:13:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:13:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] At the local club Message-ID: Irving Kostal: [Reformatted by RJH] > --- > Txx > xxx > AKJxxxx >A98xx Qx >x AKQxx >KQTxx xxx >Qx Txx > KJTxxx > Jxxx > AJ > x > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >1S Pass 3C(1) 3H >3S Dble 4C(2) > Pass(3) Pass >Pass > >(1) Alerted as a Bergen Raise. > >(2) At this point the director was called, to > "protect his rights". > >(3) The director ruled that North couldn't bid 4C > after the alert and explanation, so imposed a > changed call of Pass upon North. > >And the defense ensued, for a result of 3Sx -1100. > >I know that some mistakes were made here, but I'm >not a real rules maven and can't quote chapter and >verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without any >alerts, any North would be bidding 4C with that >hand, in that situation. Certainly I would. > >I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. > >Thanks, > >Irv Kostal Richard Hills: Law 16A1 states, "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)." However, note the caveat "...unless the regulations of the sponsoring organisation prohibit...". The ACBL is such a sponsoring organisation which has prohibited the use of Law 16A1. Law 16A2 begins, "When a player has substantial reason to believe..." But after the word "believe" there is a clarifying footnote, "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." Therefore, neither Law 16A1 nor Law 16A2 were applicable Laws, so East-West erred in summoning the Director prematurely. However, let us assume (for the sake of argument) that the Director had been Lawfully summoned pursuant to Law 16A2. That Law gives specific and mandatory instructions to the Director: "The Director **shall require the auction and play to continue,** standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." The incompetent table Director obviously confused their powers under Law 16A2 with the different powers that a Director may have to cancel a bid out of turn. Law 82C (Director's Error) is the only way that a semi-competent Director could escape from this mess, but a semi-competent Director would be too competent to perpetrate such an incompetent mistake in the first place. :-( Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 11 05:09:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:09:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Due process and natural justice Message-ID: The Bridge World, Editorial, November 1981: [snip] >has made no secret of his opinion that the >WBF is dominated by pompous, bumbling fools. >This from a man who should, in the official >view, be grateful to the organization for >treating him so mercifully! The WBF >attitude was that, yes, no doubt he has some >theoretical right to say and write what he >chooses, but we don't then have to have him >to our home, to our tournament - we would be >idiots to invite him, after what he has said >about us. [snip] >Most disturbing, of course, is the Kafka- >like process that passes for justice in the >WBF. A man is secretly accused of a >nameless crime. He is afforded no >opportunity to answer the charges (to hear >the other side only makes judgment more >difficult). Anyway, he *couldn't* answer >the charges, since no one is told what they >are. Inevitably he is convicted. He and >the public are informed of the sentence that >has been passed, but still the crime is held >secret from all. And this is in 1981 (three >years early?), in our own organization! [snip] Richard Hills: A cynical soul might think that the support of the late Edgar Kaplan for due process and natural justice was a tad inconsistent. After all, Edgar was supposed to have said, when attempting to nail a villain as an AC chair, words to the effect of: "If a Law does not say what you need it to say, search for another Law." Some people (and Edgar half the time) might believe that, for an AC, due process and natural justice is irrelevant - what is important is the outcome that a villain gets nailed by the AC. I beg to differ. I have the old fashioned beliefs that: (a) the goddess of Justice is blind, and (b) the ends do not justify the means. Best wishes RJH From ooga@shaw.ca Wed Aug 11 08:30:23 2004 From: ooga@shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:30:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Avoiding Delays (Was: Unalerted call enquiry) Message-ID: <4119CB0F.6030305@shaw.ca> A Richard Hills scenario... "Your opponents arrive late to your table, so you merely have time to note that they play a version of Acol..." ...brought this from Sven Pran: "Why? You have the time you need to familiarize yourself with opponents' agreements. The fact that your opponents arrive late at the table does not alter this, and you cannot be forced to refrain from getting to know opponents' agreements or to speed up your auctions and play to compensate for their late arrival. Boards not played are their responsibility." Seems to me that there's a difference between gently speeding people up and refusing to let them do what we all must do: looking at the opponent's convention card is as vital as looking at your own cards. But I disagree that boards not played are solely the late arriving pair's responsibility. It has to be a shared responsibility, depending on the circumstances. When the first board takes ten minutes to play, N-S cannot claim 100% innocence because E-W arrived three minutes late for a 15-minute round. Far too often the innocent pair thinks they can play as slow as they wish because the 'guilty' pair (who may not even have been the slow pair in preceding rounds!) will have to eat any penalties. --McBruce From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 11:17:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:17:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Avoiding Delays (Was: Unalerted call enquiry) In-Reply-To: <4119CB0F.6030305@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <000101c47f8c$6f413570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Bruce McIntyre .......... > "Your opponents arrive late to your table, so you merely have time to > note that they play a version of Acol..." >=20 > ...brought this from Sven Pran: >=20 > "Why? You have the time you need to familiarize yourself with = opponents' > agreements. The fact that your opponents arrive late at the table does > not alter this, and you cannot be forced to refrain from getting to = know > opponents' agreements or to speed up your auctions and play to > compensate for their late arrival. Boards not played are their > responsibility." >=20 >=20 > Seems to me that there's a difference between gently speeding people = up > and refusing to let them do what we all must do: looking at the > opponent's convention card is as vital as looking at your own cards. > But I disagree that boards not played are solely the late arriving > pair's responsibility. It has to be a shared responsibility, = depending > on the circumstances. When the first board takes ten minutes to play, > N-S cannot claim 100% innocence because E-W arrived three minutes late > for a 15-minute round. Far too often the innocent pair thinks they = can > play as slow as they wish because the 'guilty' pair (who may not even > have been the slow pair in preceding rounds!) will have to eat any > penalties. Of course. I didn't consider it necessary to include all the "if", "but", "however" etc. in my comment when the point was that the "innocent" players retain their right to prepare themselves for a "fair" game. Naturally this does = not allow them to further delay the round.=20 But I think your timing example is ill chosen: Ten minutes spent on the first board in a round is not necessarily excessive, but a three minutes delay means that with 16 minutes per round (which is our standard for = two board rounds) the time left for the second board is reduced from six to three minutes. This is often the whole difference between having time to play a board and not having that time. So unless the late pair can show = that the "innocent" pair was unduly slow I would in this case still hold the = late pair alone responsible. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 11 12:07:35 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:07:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000c01c47f05$c00d2ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003201c47f30$eccf8fc0$539468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002601c47f93$686cd720$859468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Sorry to have to strongly disagree > with your opinion on this one. > It was decided by the Laws, clearly, > without doubt, and with no difficulty. I > think you owe the TD and the AC an > apology for your misunderstanding of > what the current laws mandate, and > the correct application thereof. > Why the AC did not keep the deposit is > not beyond my ken, but beyond my taste > for keeping politics out of the where > we should be. I can't believe that you > would support any other outcome than > what transpired re the ruling. [Nigel] Kojak so rarely disagrees with me that he has no need to say sorry :) I want law changes so that fewer competitions need to be decided by ACs. The last Bermuda bowl decision was just an example; I don't have any political bias about the outcome of that contest; and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. I apologise for my lack of legal expertise but many other players like me are still puzzled as to why legal experts find this decision so clear-cut. I confess that I also lack skills in divining a player's *intentions*. Naive players argue thus: if declarer's first priority is to complete the current trick, then that must be his assumed *intention*. The law specifically permits declarer to *adjust* dummy's cards for such purposes. Suppose, however, for some bizarre reason, declarer wants to leave exposed the card from the current trick and to play a card to the next trick, instead. If he intends to *play* a card then the law states that he should *name* it. The relevant simple legal questions is this: a defender has just led to the next trick while dummy has a card exposed to the current trick. In dummy's absence, what is declarer's *primary* duty... (1) to turn over the card still exposed from the current trick. (2) to play a card to the next trick. Some questions to BLML go forever unanswered; but for our peace of mind, we would be grateful for an answer to this one. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 12:42:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:42:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <002601c47f93$686cd720$859468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000201c47f98$449fb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie ............. > The relevant simple legal questions is this: a > defender has just led to the next trick while > dummy has a card exposed to the current trick. In > dummy's absence, what is declarer's *primary* > duty... > (1) to turn over the card still exposed from the > current trick. > (2) to play a card to the next trick. "Primary" duty? Neither. I see absolutely no problem with a declarer selecting to play the (few) remaining cards one after the other by simply stacking them on top of = each other. I have done so myself on several occasions as a preferred = alternative to just facing my cards and claiming. (It makes no difference whether I = do this with my own cards or with dummy's cards). But I know that if I were to pick up an unplayed card from dummy and = place that card face up on top of the card played from dummy to the previous = trick I would find myself the laughing-stock of the day if I subsequently = tried to claim that I was just arranging the cards, not playing. Regards Sven From schoderb@msn.com Wed Aug 11 13:01:32 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:01:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000201c47f98$449fb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Thanks Sven for stating an answer to Nigel so succinctly. I find in this thread some idea that it is an infraction to play in legal rotation to the next trick when any cards from the previous trick are still faced. I know that I'm in my dotage (to only some) but where does this come from in the Laws? Maybe my tired, torn, well-used lawbook has a page missing? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 7:42 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Equitable competition > Nigel Guthrie ............ > The relevant simple legal questions is this: a > defender has just led to the next trick while > dummy has a card exposed to the current trick. In > dummy's absence, what is declarer's *primary* > duty... > (1) to turn over the card still exposed from the > current trick. > (2) to play a card to the next trick. "Primary" duty? Neither. I see absolutely no problem with a declarer selecting to play the (few) remaining cards one after the other by simply stacking them on top of each other. I have done so myself on several occasions as a preferred alternative to just facing my cards and claiming. (It makes no difference whether I do this with my own cards or with dummy's cards). But I know that if I were to pick up an unplayed card from dummy and place that card face up on top of the card played from dummy to the previous trick I would find myself the laughing-stock of the day if I subsequently tried to claim that I was just arranging the cards, not playing. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 11 13:03:03 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:03:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000201c47ec5$8e853c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000e01c47ef5$e198eec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004401c47f9b$28623640$859468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > Could we at last get rid of the clause > "for the class of player" in the laws please? [Nigel] Yes it is unnecessary, demeaning, subjective and unreliable: for example, in Scotland, many did not rate Michael Rosenberg highly. Marvin may be right that the phrase does not qualify the whole of TFLB but its pernicious influence seems all pervading. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 13:16:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:16:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c47f9d$116c9be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Thanks Sven for stating an answer to Nigel so succinctly. I find in = this > thread some idea that it is an infraction to play in legal rotation to = the > next trick when any cards from the previous trick are still faced. I = know > that I'm in my dotage (to only some) but where does this come from in = the > Laws? Maybe my tired, torn, well-used lawbook has a page missing? >=20 > Kojak I believe the closest you can get is Law 45E "Fifth card played to a = trick" Law 65A describes the correct procedure when four cards have been played = to a trick, but according to the preface "Interpretation of the Laws" this "establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation = be penalized". Regards Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Aug 11 13:37:05 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:37:05 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Equitable competition Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB9@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Nigel Guthrie wrote: [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Sorry to have to strongly disagree > with your opinion on this one. > It was decided by the Laws, clearly, > without doubt, and with no difficulty. I > think you owe the TD and the AC an > apology for your misunderstanding of > what the current laws mandate, and > the correct application thereof. > Why the AC did not keep the deposit is > not beyond my ken, but beyond my taste > for keeping politics out of the where > we should be. I can't believe that you > would support any other outcome than > what transpired re the ruling. [Nigel] Kojak so rarely disagrees with me that he has no need to say sorry :) I want law changes so that fewer competitions need to be decided by ACs. The last Bermuda bowl decision was just an example; I don't have any political bias about the outcome of that contest; and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. I apologise for my lack of legal expertise but many other players like me are still puzzled as to why legal experts find this decision so clear-cut. I confess that I also lack skills in divining a player's *intentions*. Naive players argue thus: if declarer's first priority is to complete the current trick, then that must be his assumed *intention*. The law specifically permits declarer to *adjust* dummy's cards for such purposes. Suppose, however, for some bizarre reason, declarer wants to leave exposed the card from the current trick and to play a card to the next trick, instead. If he intends to *play* a card then the law states that he should *name* it. ----- Law 45C3 say: A card in the dummy must be played if it has been = deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose of arranging = dummy's cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards = touched. The card in question was picked up from dummy by declarer and put on top = of the pile with dummy's played cards, the card played to the previous = trick still face up. It's quite impossible that this was done for the purpose of arranging = dummy's cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card touched. So = there can be no doubt that this card had to be played. ----- The relevant simple legal questions is this: a defender has just led to the next trick while dummy has a card exposed to the current trick. In dummy's absence, what is declarer's *primary* duty... (1) to turn over the card still exposed from the current trick. (2) to play a card to the next trick. Some questions to BLML go forever unanswered; but for our peace of mind, we would be grateful for an answer to this one. ----- The laws are ambigous to this. So the question will probably be = unanswered under current law. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 11 15:47:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:47:09 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000a01c47ef8$9cd6d290$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c47ef8$9cd6d290$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >................ >> >But if a player approaches me and complains about an opponent who didn't >> >alert an artificial 1C opening bid when the CC clearly states the basic >> >system as being "blue" and "precision" and with the interpretation of the >> 1C >> >opening bid duly described in the appropriate place I shall not accept >> his >> >complaint. And I feel quite confident that neither shall any of my fellow >> >Directors in Norway. >> >> Exactly. So your approach supports unethical players who play a >> Strong club and deliberately do not alert. Now if their opponent has a >> temporary lapse and forgets to look at the CC they gain, and with your >> approach ***CANNOT*** lose. >> >> It is a terrible approach. ***Of course** I would glance a the card >> once 1C is alerted, but supporting deliberate law-breakers in this way >> cannot be right, and I am surprised the Norwegian federation tolerates >> such an approach. > >Do you have any experience from Norway to support this statement? > >To this day I have never experienced nor heard of any incident which could >give cause for a statement like what you have written above. And this is not >because we are blind for the possibility, such incidents just do not happen. > >(Any strong-club players trying such tactics will soon discover something >about ethics in Norway, I am surprised this apparently is so difficult >elsewhere). Are you sure that if you have not personally run into something it does not exist? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 11 15:51:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:51:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >Okay BLML, what is your opinion? > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Irv Kostal" > >Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I >believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what >should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide >if BLML would be interested in it. > > ----- > Txx > xxx > AKJxxxx > >A98xx Qx >x AKQxx >KQTxx xxx >Qx Txx > > KJTxxx > Jxxx > AJ > x > >S W N E >1S P 3C(1) 3H >3S X 4C(2)P P >P > >The result was -1100 > >(1) alerted as a Bergen Raise >(2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" > >The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and >explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know >that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and >can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without >any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that >situation. Certainly I would. > >I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. 4C looks normal enough, and pass is not an LA. So to disallow the 4C bid seems completely wrong. I would, however, make enquiries to find out why South passed 4C. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 11 15:55:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:55:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <001401c47f4d$6cf08d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001401c47f4d$6cf08d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >............. >> However, from a blml point of view, the most important >> ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> >> >> Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >> hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >> declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >> from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >> diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >> ace of diamonds. >> >> Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the >> real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was >> called. >> >> How would you rule? > >My immediate reaction is a big laugh. > >Initially the relevant laws are (in order) 46B4 and 45D. > >As nobody reacted the Ace of hearts was definitely played and both sides >subsequently revoked in this trick by playing diamonds rather than hearts. > >One solution would be to apply Law 64 on all three players (other than >dummy), a solution I find most impractical. > >My preferred solution is for the Director to examine the board (post mortem) >to see if there is any way a "normal" result can be obtained or assessed, >and if not use Law 12C1 awarding both sides a score of average minus. Why penalise the non-offenders? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 11 15:57:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:57:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >The ANC (Australian National Championships) have just >concluded. The most important happening there was that >the ACT Open Team won the Interstate Open Teams for the >first time in 20 years. No doubt that gold medal was >due solely to the fact that this year I failed to >qualify as a member of the ACT Open Team. > >However, from a blml point of view, the most important >ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> > >Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >ace of diamonds. > >Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the >real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was >called. > >How would you rule? Finish the play. Work out the effects of the revokes, and get a result that way. Adjust under L12A1 if the non-offending side has suffered in any way. It is dummy's job to put down his hand correctly, an offence not to do 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 16:17:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:17:39 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c47fb6$572f7580$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > > > >Do you have any experience from Norway to support this statement? > > > >To this day I have never experienced nor heard of any incident which > could > >give cause for a statement like what you have written above. And this = is > not > >because we are blind for the possibility, such incidents just do not > happen. > > > >(Any strong-club players trying such tactics will soon discover = something > >about ethics in Norway, I am surprised this apparently is so = difficult > >elsewhere). >=20 > Are you sure that if you have not personally run into something it > does not exist? I did write "... nor heard of", and yes, I am pretty sure that I would = "have heard of it" if this had been any problem. I also asked if you had any experience from Norway to support your statement? Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 11 16:20:20 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:20:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: <001401c47f4d$6cf08d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 11 Aug 2004, at 15:55, David Stevenson wrote: > Sven Pran wrote >> >> Initially the relevant laws are (in order) 46B4 and 45D. >> >> As nobody reacted the Ace of hearts was definitely played and both >> sides >> subsequently revoked in this trick by playing diamonds rather than >> hearts. >> >> One solution would be to apply Law 64 on all three players (other than >> dummy), a solution I find most impractical. >> >> My preferred solution is for the Director to examine the board (post >> mortem) >> to see if there is any way a "normal" result can be obtained or >> assessed, >> and if not use Law 12C1 awarding both sides a score of average minus. > > Why penalise the non-offenders? I don't think we've yet been given enough information to know if there was a non-offending side. We know for sure that one side offended. It seems quite likely that the other one did too. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 16:21:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:21:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c47fb6$e3a62b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .......... > >> How would you rule? > > > >My immediate reaction is a big laugh. > > > >Initially the relevant laws are (in order) 46B4 and 45D. > > > >As nobody reacted the Ace of hearts was definitely played and both = sides > >subsequently revoked in this trick by playing diamonds rather than > hearts. > > > >One solution would be to apply Law 64 on all three players (other = than > >dummy), a solution I find most impractical. > > > >My preferred solution is for the Director to examine the board (post > mortem) > >to see if there is any way a "normal" result can be obtained or = assessed, > >and if not use Law 12C1 awarding both sides a score of average minus. >=20 > Why penalise the non-offenders? Are there any non-offenders here?=20 Technically both defenders have committed revoke, and they have = contributed to the destruction of the board by not paying sufficient attention to = the play (particularly the defender holding the true Ace of Diamonds). Sven From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Aug 11 16:22:48 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:22:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046965@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson [mailto:blml@blakjak.com] Sent: 11 August 2004 15:52 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: At the local club Marvin French wrote >Okay BLML, what is your opinion? > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Irv Kostal" > >Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I >believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what >should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide >if BLML would be interested in it. > > ----- > Txx > xxx > AKJxxxx > >A98xx Qx >x AKQxx >KQTxx xxx >Qx Txx > > KJTxxx > Jxxx > AJ > x > >S W N E >1S P 3C(1) 3H >3S X 4C(2)P P >P > >The result was -1100 > >(1) alerted as a Bergen Raise >(2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" > >The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and >explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know >that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and >can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without >any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that >situation. Certainly I would. > >I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. 4C looks normal enough, and pass is not an LA. So to disallow the 4C bid seems completely wrong. I would, however, make enquiries to find out why South passed 4C. -- David I think you have misread the write-up. The TD imposed a pass instead of 4C during the live auction: that is what I think "4C(2)P" means; hence the phrase "and the defense ensued". The TD made them play 3SX; South did not pass 4C, he passed 3SX. If I had not seen someone do this in a simulation a few weeks ago I would not have believed it. But some TDs will adjust the bidding during the auction. What the TD should have done is agree that there was an alert (and explanation) of 3C as a Bergen raise. Tell EW that he understood their concern and require that the auction continue and play the hand and to call the TD back at the end. In this case he would conclude that pass was not a logical alternative to 4C and may well let the score stand, depending on the subsequent auction. 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 john@asimere.com Wed Aug 11 16:35:01 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:35:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes >Okay BLML, what is your opinion? > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Irv Kostal" > >Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I >believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what >should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide >if BLML would be interested in it. Whilst it's close for an EBU TD, I'm not allowing the 4C call. (ie many players would bid it, but I'm not sure than >70% would). I don't know what the other EBU TDs would rule, and I'd be interested in other jurisdictions too. cheers john > > ----- > Txx > xxx > AKJxxxx > >A98xx Qx >x AKQxx >KQTxx xxx >Qx Txx > > KJTxxx > Jxxx > AJ > x > >S W N E >1S P 3C(1) 3H >3S X 4C(2)P P >P > >The result was -1100 > >(1) alerted as a Bergen Raise >(2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" > >The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and >explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know >that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and >can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without >any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that >situation. Certainly I would. > >I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. > >Thanks, > >Irv Kostal > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Aug 11 16:37:07 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:37:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <001301c47f4a$aacb8ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001301c47f4a$aacb8ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1uSs3EBj0jGBFw6b@asimere.com> In article <001301c47f4a$aacb8ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Marvin French >> Okay BLML, what is your opinion? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Irv Kostal" >> >> Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I >> believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what >> should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide >> if BLML would be interested in it. >> >> ----- >> Txx >> xxx >> AKJxxxx >> >> A98xx Qx >> x AKQxx >> KQTxx xxx >> Qx Txx >> >> KJTxxx >> Jxxx >> AJ >> x >> >> S W N E >> 1S P 3C(1) 3H >> 3S X 4C(2)P P >> P >> >> The result was -1100 >> >> (1) alerted as a Bergen Raise >> (2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" > >Called by whom? > >> The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and >> explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know >> that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and >> can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without >> any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that >> situation. Certainly I would. >> >> I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. > >Well, I don't know about your NCBO but in Norway we have strict "orders" >never ever to look at any player's cards during auction or play. The reason >is that if we do and then make a ruling we have irreversibly destroyed the >board by disclosing to all four players essentials about the cards we have >seen. Sven, we're talking about the Yanks. I bet the TD *didn't* look at the hand, just ordered that 4c can't be called :) Now how about answering the question, that marv asked. Do you allow the 4c call.? cheers john > >So in Norway this board would eventually have to be adjusted under Law 82C >Director's error. > >How do we rule (when we rule correctly)? > >We order auction and play to continue and then perform a post mortem to >decide whether the result obtained on the board should be adjusted (for one >or both sides). > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Aug 11 16:39:59 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:39:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes > wrote > >>The ANC (Australian National Championships) have just >>concluded. The most important happening there was that >>the ACT Open Team won the Interstate Open Teams for the >>first time in 20 years. No doubt that gold medal was >>due solely to the fact that this year I failed to >>qualify as a member of the ACT Open Team. >> >>However, from a blml point of view, the most important >>ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> >> >>Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >>hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >>declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >>from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >>ace of diamonds. >> >>Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the >>real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was >>called. >> >>How would you rule? > > Finish the play. > > Work out the effects of the revokes, and get a result that way. > > Adjust under L12A1 if the non-offending side has suffered in any way. > > It is dummy's job to put down his hand correctly, an offence not to do >so. > Isn't there guidance that when both sides revoke on a single trick you just give up and apply 64c? 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 Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Aug 11 16:49:39 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:49:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046968@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@asimere.com] Sent: 11 August 2004 16:40 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] ANeCdote In article , David Stevenson writes > wrote > >>The ANC (Australian National Championships) have just >>concluded. The most important happening there was that >>the ACT Open Team won the Interstate Open Teams for the >>first time in 20 years. No doubt that gold medal was >>due solely to the fact that this year I failed to >>qualify as a member of the ACT Open Team. >> >>However, from a blml point of view, the most important >>ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> >> >>Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >>hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >>declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >>from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >>ace of diamonds. >> >>Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the >>real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was >>called. >> >>How would you rule? > > Finish the play. > > Work out the effects of the revokes, and get a result that way. > > Adjust under L12A1 if the non-offending side has suffered in any way. > > It is dummy's job to put down his hand correctly, an offence not to do >so. > Isn't there guidance that when both sides revoke on a single trick you just give up and apply 64c? cheers John -- John Indeed. White Book 64.3 quotes WBF LC minutes 2004-11-01#4. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 11 16:52:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:52:10 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000c01c47fb6$572f7580$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c47fb6$572f7580$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> > >> >Do you have any experience from Norway to support this statement? >> > >> >To this day I have never experienced nor heard of any incident which >> could >> >give cause for a statement like what you have written above. And this is >> not >> >because we are blind for the possibility, such incidents just do not >> happen. >> > >> >(Any strong-club players trying such tactics will soon discover something >> >about ethics in Norway, I am surprised this apparently is so difficult >> >elsewhere). >> >> Are you sure that if you have not personally run into something it >> does not exist? > >I did write "... nor heard of", and yes, I am pretty sure that I would "have >heard of it" if this had been any problem. > >I also asked if you had any experience from Norway to support your >statement? No, do I need it? Your view is that if a person is misinformed by a failure to alert you will ***always rule against him, whatever the circumstances, if it is on the front of the CC***. My view is that you look at the evidence before making a decision. I really do not need to have experience of Norway to believe that you should consider the circumstances. Suppose the card was not legible? From what you say, it does not matter, rule against him. Suppose anything, ....... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 11 16:57:02 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:57:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: <001401c47f4d$6cf08d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 11 Aug 2004, at 15:55, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote >>> >>> Initially the relevant laws are (in order) 46B4 and 45D. >>> >>> As nobody reacted the Ace of hearts was definitely played and both >>>sides >>> subsequently revoked in this trick by playing diamonds rather than >>>hearts. >>> >>> One solution would be to apply Law 64 on all three players (other than >>> dummy), a solution I find most impractical. >>> >>> My preferred solution is for the Director to examine the board (post >>>mortem) >>> to see if there is any way a "normal" result can be obtained or >>>assessed, >>> and if not use Law 12C1 awarding both sides a score of average minus. >> >> Why penalise the non-offenders? > >I don't think we've yet been given enough information to know if there >was a non-offending side. > >We know for sure that one side offended. It seems quite likely that the >other one did too. There was more than one offence, probably. But the original offence, of putting the cards down incorrectly in dummy was solely the fault of one side, and for that offence there is an offending side, and a non-offending side. I know that a defender may have revoked thereafter. But it still seems to me that that is caused by the original offence. I do dislike penalising non-offenders, even if because of the offence they are drawn into an offence of their own. It is like declarer saying "Your lead" to the wrong defender. When he leads, he has committed an offence, yes, but he should not be penalised. Fortunately in that case there is a law covering it specifically. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 17:02:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:02:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <1uSs3EBj0jGBFw6b@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000e01c47fbc$9d06bc20$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ........... > >Well, I don't know about your NCBO but in Norway we have strict "orders" > >never ever to look at any player's cards during auction or play. The > reason > >is that if we do and then make a ruling we have irreversibly destroyed > the > >board by disclosing to all four players essentials about the cards we > have > >seen. > > Sven, we're talking about the Yanks. I bet the TD *didn't* look at the > hand, just ordered that 4c can't be called :) Then I shall appreciate an explanation on how the Director can rule that South has no logical alternative except pass (and in particular that 4C is no LA) without even looking at his cards. Don't overlook the fact that South is permitted to make any call he likes regardless of agreements etc. unless UI restricts his choices. If South has UI then an evaluation of his cards is necessary to determine what logical alternatives he still possessed, but this evaluation can only take place after play of the board has been completed. Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Aug 11 17:04:21 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:04:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club References: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <001301c47f4a$aacb8ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <1uSs3EBj0jGBFw6b@asimere.com> Message-ID: <003d01c47fbc$de2eba40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Sven Pran writes > >> Marvin French > >> Okay BLML, what is your opinion? > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >> From: "Irv Kostal" > >> > >> Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I > >> believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what > >> should have happened. No, no, those are Irv's words, not mine. Irv: I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide Irv: The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and > >> explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know > >> that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and > >> can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without > >> any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that > >> situation. Certainly I would. > >> > >> I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. > > > >Well, I don't know about your NCBO but in Norway we have strict "orders" > >never ever to look at any player's cards during auction or play. The reason > >is that if we do and then make a ruling we have irreversibly destroyed the > >board by disclosing to all four players essentials about the cards we have > >seen. > > Sven, we're talking about the Yanks. I bet the TD *didn't* look at the > hand, just ordered that 4c can't be called :) > > Now how about answering the question, that marv asked. Do you allow the > 4c call.? cheers john > > That Irv asked. Yes, that is mainly what Irv wanted to know, altho I'm sure he's interested in knowing about the TD's illegal action. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Aug 11 17:05:09 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:05:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046965@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <003e01c47fbc$fc1aa3c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Robin Barker wrote: > From: David Stevenson > > Marvin French wrote > >Okay BLML, what is your opinion? > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >From: "Irv Kostal" > > > >Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I > >believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what > >should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide > >if BLML would be interested in it. > > > > ----- > > Txx > > xxx > > AKJxxxx > > > >A98xx Qx > >x AKQxx > >KQTxx xxx > >Qx Txx > > > > KJTxxx > > Jxxx > > AJ > > x > > > >S W N E > >1S P 3C(1) 3H > >3S X 4C(2)P P > >P > > > >The result was -1100 > > > >(1) alerted as a Bergen Raise > >(2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" > > > >The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and > >explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know > >that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and > >can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without > >any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that > >situation. Certainly I would. > > > >I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. > > 4C looks normal enough, and pass is not an LA. So to disallow the 4C > bid seems completely wrong. > > I would, however, make enquiries to find out why South passed 4C. > > -- > David > > I think you have misread the write-up. > The TD imposed a pass instead of 4C during the live auction: > that is what I think "4C(2)P" means; > hence the phrase "and the defense ensued". > > The TD made them play 3SX; South did not pass 4C, he passed 3SX. > > If I had not seen someone do this in a simulation a few weeks ago I would > not have believed it. But some TDs will adjust the bidding during the auction. I too had read Irv's e-mail too quickly, missing the fact that the TD interfered with the auction. > > What the TD should have done is agree that there was an alert (and explanation) > of 3C as a Bergen raise. Tell EW that he understood their concern and require > that the auction continue and play the hand and to call the TD back at the end. Thereby having wasted everyone's time by a TD call at that point. The FLB should clarify, as it does for UI (L16B2), that mere suspicion of an infraction, even a strong suspicion, is not sufficient grounds for a TD call. One must have the evidence first (MI revealed in some way). A pair does not need to "have rights protected," as their rights are always protected. > In this case he would conclude that pass was not a logical alternative to 4C > and may well let the score stand, depending on the subsequent auction. That is what Irv was most interested in. Some of us think that 3C (invitational, a 2/1 treatment by some) has described the hand well and there is no justification for the 4C bid in the presence of the UI, although the double clouds that issue. This is best decided by an AC, so the TD should adjust back to 4S doubled and make sure that N-S are aware of their right to appeal. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 17:06:37 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:06:37 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c47fbd$2e5c3d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > >I did write "... nor heard of", and yes, I am pretty sure that I = would > "have > >heard of it" if this had been any problem. > > > >I also asked if you had any experience from Norway to support your > >statement? >=20 > No, do I need it? Yes I think so when you present a statement like yours. > Your view is that if a person is misinformed by a failure to alert = you > will ***always rule against him, whatever the circumstances, if it is = on > the front of the CC***. My view is that you look at the evidence = before > making a decision. I really do not need to have experience of Norway = to > believe that you should consider the circumstances. >=20 > Suppose the card was not legible? From what you say, it does not > matter, rule against him. Suppose anything, ....... My impression is that you have found a button and are sewing a whole = vest on it. Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 11 17:10:37 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:10:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: References: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 11 Aug 2004, at 16:35, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Whilst it's close for an EBU TD, I'm not allowing the 4C call. (ie many > players would bid it, but I'm not sure than >70% would). I don't know > what the other EBU TDs would rule, and I'd be interested in other > jurisdictions too. cheers john I'd be allowing the 4C call bearing in mind that the hand has one fewer spade than it might, one more club than it might, and 3S *has* been doubled. I've just been chatting to John on the phone, and think I might even have persuaded him that bidding again is on the + side of a 70% action! -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 11 17:09:53 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:09:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB9@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <002001c47fbd$c0e81c00$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> [Harald Skj�ran] > The laws are ambiguous to this. So the > question will probably be unanswered > under current law. [Nigel] I vaguely recollect that there is a law, somewhere, about aides-memoires being illegal. Keeping exposed cards from previous tricks is an aide memoire. I realise. that the law is not the words in TFLB but the intentions of the law-makers; but it would come as another shock to me if the law-makers intended to allow a player to choose to keep exposed the cards that he has played to previous tricks. If TFLB allows us to keep played-cards from previous tricks exposed indefinitely, then I confess that my argument about the AC decision is undermined :( Look on the bright side, however (: it underlines my argument about the urgent need for legal reform :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 17:28:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:28:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <002001c47fbd$c0e81c00$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001001c47fc0$3f7b2560$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie ........... > [Nigel] > I vaguely recollect that there is a law, > somewhere, about aides-memoires being illegal. Law 40E2 - footnote > Keeping exposed cards from previous tricks is an > aide memoire. This is an interesting position but I doubt if it will be sustained = unless you show some kind of intent by declarer for an "aide-memoir" in keeping = the card face up.=20 Towards the end of a play I think we shall be somewhat lenient on = enforcing played cards to be turned when we essentially have a "game over" = situation. =20 > I realise. that the law is not the words in TFLB > but the intentions of the law-makers; but it would > come as another shock to me if the law-makers > intended to allow a player to choose to keep > exposed the cards that he has played to previous > tricks. You might care to look up Law 66 =20 Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 11 17:35:56 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:35:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB9@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <002801c47fc1$47ec4a20$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> [Law 45C3] >> A card in the dummy must be played if >> it has been deliberately touched by >> declarer except for the purpose of >> arranging dummy's cards, or of reaching >> a card above or below the card or cards >> touched. [Harald Skj�ran] > The card in question was picked up > from dummy by declarer and put on > top of the pile with dummy's played > cards, the card played to the previous > trick still face up. It's quite > impossible that this was done for the > purpose of arranging dummy's cards... [Nigel] If declarer's primary duty is to turn over a card played to the current trick before he plays to the next trick, then surely one must assume that *arranging* was declarer's intention, however gauche his handling of the dummy. If instead, he wanted to play a card, the law book dictates that he *name* it; but (I would argue) it would be *illegal* for declarer to play to the next trick, while leaving a card from the same hand and the current trick exposed. It is hard to believe that a player of Lauria's calibre would deliberately flout the law. Please note that the argument is not just about whether *the action* is legal. It is about what should be *declarer's legal priority*. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 11 17:37:16 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:37:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000201c47f98$449fb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002901c47fc1$79299340$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > I see absolutely no problem with a declarer > selecting to play the (few) remaining cards > one after the other by simply stacking them > on top of each other. I have done so myself > on several occasions as a preferred alternative > to just facing my cards and claiming. [Nigel] Thank you Sven. In my previous posts, I explicitly excepted the case of a claim. I saw no mention of any claim in the write-ups so I did not appreciate that the AC assumed that Lauria was making a claim. Unless you are making a claim, my reading of the law is that keeping exposed cards that you played to previous tricks is (at the very least) an illegal aide-memoire. Hence playing a card to the next trick before turning over the card you are playing to the current trick must be an infraction. I am sure Lauria would be well aware of this. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 11 17:37:48 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:37:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000201c47f98$449fb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002a01c47fc1$89c19f40$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Thanks Sven for stating an answer to Nigel > so succinctly. I find in this thread some > idea that it is an infraction to play in > legal rotation to the next trick when any > cards from the previous trick are still faced. [Nigel Guthrie] No. I reluctantly admitted that premature leads are legal. I argued that they shouldn't be. I deplore the fact that as the law stands there is no redress in cases where a defender could decide to lead prematurely as a deliberate ploy to harass and confuse a declarer, especially a declarer who is struggling to manage dummy, in his partner's absence. I don't impute this motive to the actual defender. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From walt1@verizon.net Wed Aug 11 17:58:32 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:58:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <002901c47fc1$79299340$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000201c47f98$449fb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002901c47fc1$79299340$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20040811125514.02a62e60@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:37 PM 11/08/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Unless you are making a claim, my reading of the >law is that keeping exposed cards that you played >to previous tricks is (at the very least) an >illegal aide-memoire. Hence playing a card to the >next trick before turning over the card you are >playing to the current trick must be an >infraction. I am sure Lauria would be well aware >of this. Nigel If Lauria covered the card played to the last trick with the card he is playing to this trick I fail to see how this is any more an "aide-memoire" than if he had turned the card over. If you can't see the card doesn't it cease to be an "aide-memoire"? Walt From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 11 18:14:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:14:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <002901c47fc1$79299340$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001201c47fc6$aba7ce90$6900a8c0@WINXP> I wrote "as a preferred alternative to ...claiming" My described action does not qualify directly as a claim although the resemblance is strong. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 11. august 2004 18:37 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > > [Sven Pran] > > I see absolutely no problem with a declarer > > selecting to play the (few) remaining cards > > one after the other by simply stacking them > > on top of each other. I have done so myself > > on several occasions as a preferred alternative > > to just facing my cards and claiming. > [Nigel] > Thank you Sven. In my previous posts, I explicitly > excepted the case of a claim. I saw no mention of > any claim in the write-ups so I did not appreciate > that the AC assumed that Lauria was making a > claim. > > Unless you are making a claim, my reading of the > law is that keeping exposed cards that you played > to previous tricks is (at the very least) an > illegal aide-memoire. Hence playing a card to the > next trick before turning over the card you are > playing to the current trick must be an > infraction. I am sure Lauria would be well aware > of this. > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release > Date: 06-Aug-04 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Wed Aug 11 18:21:21 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:21:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:51:48 BST." Message-ID: <200408111721.KAA16890@mailhub.irvine.com> David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin French wrote > >Okay BLML, what is your opinion? > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >From: "Irv Kostal" > > > >Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I > >believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what > >should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide > >if BLML would be interested in it. > > > > ----- > > Txx > > xxx > > AKJxxxx > > > >A98xx Qx > >x AKQxx > >KQTxx xxx > >Qx Txx > > > > KJTxxx > > Jxxx > > AJ > > x > > > >S W N E > >1S P 3C(1) 3H > >3S X 4C(2)P P > >P > > > >The result was -1100 > > > >(1) alerted as a Bergen Raise > >(2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" > > > >The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and > >explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know > >that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and > >can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without > >any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that > >situation. Certainly I would. > > > >I'd appreciate your feedback on this situation. > > 4C looks normal enough, and pass is not an LA. So to disallow the 4C > bid seems completely wrong. > > I would, however, make enquiries to find out why South passed 4C. He didn't. It appears that the TD (illegally) forced North to retract his 4C call right then and substitute a pass. So South was passing 3Sx. By the way, I didn't pick up on that either, after reading the original post, until I read Sven's and Richard's comments. I thought it was just a normal UI case. The question of whether 4C is a legal bid or not after the UI still needs to be answered, although I agree with you and Irv that passing isn't an LA after 3S gets whacked. It's not completely clear-cut to me, though---from North's point of view, and assuming that South interpreted 3C as weak, South's spade suit could look like North's club suit, and South's club suit could look like North's spade suit, and 4C gets you a level higher. (Unless you think South would have simply passed 3H instead of rebidding his spades if he didn't have club tolerance.) -- Adam From john@asimere.com Wed Aug 11 18:27:04 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:27:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <000e01c47fbc$9d06bc20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <1uSs3EBj0jGBFw6b@asimere.com> <000e01c47fbc$9d06bc20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9YQOaYDoblGBFw46@asimere.com> In article <000e01c47fbc$9d06bc20$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >........... >> >Well, I don't know about your NCBO but in Norway we have strict "orders" >> >never ever to look at any player's cards during auction or play. The >> reason >> >is that if we do and then make a ruling we have irreversibly destroyed >> the >> >board by disclosing to all four players essentials about the cards we >> have >> >seen. >> >> Sven, we're talking about the Yanks. I bet the TD *didn't* look at the >> hand, just ordered that 4c can't be called :) > >Then I shall appreciate an explanation on how the Director can rule that >South has no logical alternative except pass (and in particular that 4C is >no LA) without even looking at his cards. Sven, we all raise our hands in horror at the TD's ruling. I'd be curious, if he'd actually followed the law, whether you'd permit the 4C call (I'd said not, but I've since chatted with Gordon on the phone, and I think that after consultation I'd find the EBU TD's would permit it). However I can think of enough 7321 hands where 3Sx is the right contract to rule pass of 3Sx is an LA that might be selected, by UK standards. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Aug 11 18:31:53 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:31:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <002001c47fbd$c0e81c00$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBB9@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <002001c47fbd$c0e81c00$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article <002001c47fbd$c0e81c00$3b9868d5@jeushtlj>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[Harald Skj=E6ran] >> The laws are ambiguous to this. So the >> question will probably be unanswered >> under current law. > >[Nigel] >I vaguely recollect that there is a law, >somewhere, about aides-memoires being illegal. >Keeping exposed cards from previous tricks is an >aide memoire. It's footnote 12 to Law 40 IIRC correctly Nigel. > --=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 schoderb@msn.com Wed Aug 11 18:51:15 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:51:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000401c47f9d$116c9be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: I hear 45E, I hear 66. "Legal priorities" " Intent" Fifth card played to the trick. Inspection of tricks. Aids to memory. How far are we going to stretch the laws? None of them say a thing about playing legally to the next trick when all the cards from the previous trick have not been quitted. Come on guys, let's stay real. When you make a mistake in play pay the price. No matter who you are. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:16 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Equitable competition > Thanks Sven for stating an answer to Nigel so succinctly. I find in this > thread some idea that it is an infraction to play in legal rotation to the > next trick when any cards from the previous trick are still faced. I know > that I'm in my dotage (to only some) but where does this come from in the > Laws? Maybe my tired, torn, well-used lawbook has a page missing? > > Kojak I believe the closest you can get is Law 45E "Fifth card played to a trick" Law 65A describes the correct procedure when four cards have been played to a trick, but according to the preface "Interpretation of the Laws" this "establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized". Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Wed Aug 11 19:33:47 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:33:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:05:09 PDT." <003e01c47fbc$fc1aa3c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200408111833.LAA20223@mailhub.irvine.com> Marvin wrote: > That is what Irv was most interested in. Some of us think that 3C > (invitational, a 2/1 treatment by some) has described the hand well and > there is no justification for the 4C bid in the presence of the UI I didn't realize that North thought 3C was invitational. (I haven't seen it played that way by an unpassed hand.) My previous post assumed that it was "weak" (by whatever standards North has for a jump to the 3 level at whatever the actual vulnerability was). This would affect my opinion of whether passing 3Sx was a LA, although I don't know how yet. -- Adam From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 11 21:00:31 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:00:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club References: <003d01c47f1a$c02a6e60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003101c47fde$08a1b860$b203e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: "Irv Kostal" Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:43 PM Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club > Okay BLML, what is your opinion? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Irv Kostal" > > Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I > believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on what > should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you decide > if BLML would be interested in it. > > ----- > Txx > xxx > AKJxxxx > > A98xx Qx > x AKQxx > KQTxx xxx > Qx Txx > > KJTxxx > Jxxx > AJ > x > > S W N E > 1S P 3C(1) 3H > 3S X 4C(2)P P > P > > The result was -1100 > > (1) alerted as a Bergen Raise > (2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" > > The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and > explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know > that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and > can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without > any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that > situation. Certainly I would. > +=+ My opinion is that the Director has no knowledge of Law 16A2. He should have allowed play to continue; and awarded an adjusted score if he thought it appropriate to do so after the hand has been played out. There would then have been a table score on the board which would be a point of reference in the consideration of any appeal. As it was there was potential for an appeal on the basis of Law 82C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 11 23:16:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:16:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition Message-ID: ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37: >>The Facts: 4S went down one, +50 >>for N/S. The opening lead was a low >>heart. South, as she led to trick two, >>knocked over her card holder, briefly >>exposing her cards to the rest of the >>players at the table. She covered >>them quickly and pulled them into >>her lap. E/W called the Director who >>said they believed North had seen >>South's cards. The Director applied >>Law 50, instructing the players that >>South's prematurely exposed (but not >>led) cards would not be treated as >>penalty cards and to resume play. He >>remained at the table and monitored >>the play, which he reported went as >>shown in the diagram. At the end of >>the play, the Director was satisfied >>that there had been no damage from >>the briefly exposed cards (Law 16) >>and allowed the table result to stand. In discussing another case, Kojak wrote: >... How far are we going to stretch the >laws? ... Come on guys, let's stay >real. > >When you make a mistake in play pay the >price. No matter who you are. > >Kojak Richard Hills notes: In the Long Beach case, the correct Law was Law 49 (Exposure of a Defender's Cards), but the stretched Law was deemed to be Law 16B. What is worse is that members of the ACBL LC (and the Secretary of the WBF LC) wholeheartedly endorsed this use of stretched Law. The particular end - that of penalising an unsporting villain - was achieved, but the means chosen - stretching the Laws - set a dreadful precedent for subsequent TDs to perpetrate arbitrary rulings. Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 12 01:38:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:38:53 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000f01c47fbd$2e5c3d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c47fbd$2e5c3d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> >I did write "... nor heard of", and yes, I am pretty sure that I would >> "have >> >heard of it" if this had been any problem. >> > >> >I also asked if you had any experience from Norway to support your >> >statement? >> >> No, do I need it? > >Yes I think so when you present a statement like yours. > >> Your view is that if a person is misinformed by a failure to alert you >> will ***always rule against him, whatever the circumstances, if it is on >> the front of the CC***. My view is that you look at the evidence before >> making a decision. I really do not need to have experience of Norway to >> believe that you should consider the circumstances. >> >> Suppose the card was not legible? From what you say, it does not >> matter, rule against him. Suppose anything, ....... > >My impression is that you have found a button and are sewing a whole vest on >it. I said each case must be decided on its merits: you said no Norwegian TD would ever rule against the pair that had not alerted. I really have no idea what you are saying now. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 12 01:43:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:43:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> wrote >> >>>The ANC (Australian National Championships) have just >>>concluded. The most important happening there was that >>>the ACT Open Team won the Interstate Open Teams for the >>>first time in 20 years. No doubt that gold medal was >>>due solely to the fact that this year I failed to >>>qualify as a member of the ACT Open Team. >>> >>>However, from a blml point of view, the most important >>>ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> >>> >>>Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >>>hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >>>declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >>>from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>>diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >>>ace of diamonds. >>> >>>Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the >>>real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was >>>called. >>> >>>How would you rule? >> >> Finish the play. >> >> Work out the effects of the revokes, and get a result that way. >> >> Adjust under L12A1 if the non-offending side has suffered in any way. >> >> It is dummy's job to put down his hand correctly, an offence not to do >>so. >> >Isn't there guidance that when both sides revoke on a single trick you >just give up and apply 64c? cheers John Yes, but that is because there are two offending sides. Here we have a single offence that caused all this, and as usual I am unhappy at penalising the non-offending side. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 12 02:10:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:10:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>Isn't there guidance that when both sides revoke >>on a single trick you just give up and apply 64c? >> >>cheers John WBFLC minutes, 1st November 2001: >Suppose a defender revokes by ruffing, and declarer >also revokes by over-ruffing. Both sides play to >the next trick, which establishes the revokes: how >does the Director rule? > >The Director should act under Law 64C to restore >equity, as though there had been no revoke by >either side. Richard Hills: True, but has any revoke occurred? Declarer called for dummy to lead "ace of diamonds" as the first card to a trick, but there was no ace of diamonds in dummy. Law 46B4: >>>If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, >>>the call is void ..... Richard Hills: Therefore, as TD I would rule that all play subsequent to declarer's request for "ace of diamonds" was void, no revokes have occurred, so Law 64C is *not* applicable. I would consequently rule pursuant to Law 47E2(b) that the defenders are entitled to a Law 40C adjusted score. Since the combination of Law 46B4, Law 47E2(b) and Law 40C directs that restarting the play from the moment of the void call by declarer is not possible, I would award an artificial adjusted score. Ave+ to the defending side, ave- to the declaring side. Best wishes RJH PS -> Laurie Kelso, how did you rule at the table? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 12 02:33:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:33:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9284B2F4-EBFF-11D8-8D39-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 11, 2004, at 11:35 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst=20 wrote: > Whilst it's close for an EBU TD, I'm not allowing the 4C call. (ie = many > players would bid it, but I'm not sure than >70% would). I don't know > what the other EBU TDs would rule, and I'd be interested in other > jurisdictions too. cheers john I think you folks are missing the point - and that miss is caused by=20 sloppy terminology. As a reader of blml, *I* know that what you really=20= mean is that you would adjust the score (at least, I hope that's what=20 you really mean), but that does not appear to be what happened at the=20 table. > Marv: The following incident occurred at the local duplicate and I > believe a number of mistakes occurred, but I'm not at all clear on = what > should have happened. I thought I'd send it to you, and let you = decide > if BLML would be interested in it. > > ----- > Txx > xxx > AKJxxxx > > A98xx Qx > x AKQxx > KQTxx xxx > Qx Txx > > KJTxxx > Jxxx > AJ > x > > S W N E > 1S P 3C(1) 3H > 3S X 4C(2)P P > P > > The result was -1100 > > (1) alerted as a Bergen Raise > (2) at this point the director was called, to "protect his rights" > > The director ruled that north couldn't bid 4C after the alert and > explanation, imposed a pass upon him and the defense ensued. I know > that some mistakes were made here, but I'm not a real rules maven and > can't quote chapter and verse. Also, I feel in my bones that, without > any alerts, any north would be bidding 4C with that hand, in that > situation. Certainly I would. South's alert and explanation is certainly UI to North. Law 73C says=20 that North must now carefully avoid taking any advantage he might gain=20= from the UI. It does *not* say he may not bid 4C. Law 16A says he "may=20= not" bid 4C *if* it is a logical alternative to some other call, *and*=20= it has been suggested by the UI. The Law does *not* say that these=20 questions are to be answered in the middle of the auction, but rather,=20= the TD "shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready=20= to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law=20 has resulted in damage." Someone asked who called "to protect his rights" - I assume it was one=20= of EW. Law 16A2 gives players the right to do this: it says "When a=20 player has substantial reason to believe=A0 that an opponent who had a=20= logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested=20= by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith." But the=20= footnote to this law clarifies that the lawmakers consider that a=20 player will only have substantial reason *after* the auction (or in=20 some cases the play) has completed. Therefore, to call the TD *during*=20= the auction is not in accordance with the law. The ACBL has muddied the=20= waters however. :-( Law 16A1 gives sponsoring organizations the right=20 to prohibit players from invoking that law - it does *not* give=20 sponsoring organizations the right to *change* the law, which is what=20 the ACBL has done in saying, in its election, "They should summon the=20 Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous=20 information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which=20= could result in damage to their side." So East, or West, whichever it=20 was, has unknowingly (most likely) violated the law in try to invoke a=20= modification to the law made by the ACBL *illegally*. That's the=20 beginning of the mess here. The TD has made it worse, however, by=20 *interfering with the auction*, in direct contravention to Law 16A2. In the end, the correct ruling at the table would have been to allow=20 the bidding and play to continue, and to *then* examine the situation=20 again to see if EW were damaged by an illegal use of UI. Given that the=20= TD screwed it up, his correct action after the fact would have been to=20= rule "director error" under Law 82C and "award an adjusted score,=20 considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose". What's so hard about that? Or did I miss something? :-)= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 12 02:42:28 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:42:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000401c47f9d$116c9be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004d01c4800d$a0e35640$089468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > I hear 45E, I hear 66. "Legal priorities" > " Intent" Fifth card played to the trick. > Inspection of tricks. Aids to memory. How > far are we going to stretch the laws? > None of them say a thing about playing > legally to the next trick when all the cards > from the previous trick have not been quitted. > Come on guys, let's stay real. [Nigel] I reckon I *bend* fewer laws than Kojak. Here is a *straight* application of the *real* law to back up Lauria's case. Appended to the argument, thanks to Sven Pran and John Probst, are possibly relevant laws, including those cited. L65C says that when a trick is complete, all cards should be "turned over" (Walt thinks you may put them in a pile "face-up" -- but you may not). L45C3 permits declarer to arrange dummy's cards for the purpose of turning over a played card. L40E2[footnote] and 66C emphasise that it is *illegal to retain exposed cards from previous tricks. (Hence, all the players at the table may be expected to know that Lauria's prime duty was to turn over the played card. Only then may he legally play to the next trick). Lauria is unlikely to break the law but even if a defender imagined that declarer had forgotten his primary duty, L45B2 may eliminate any possible confusion. It specifies that declarer *names* dummy's card before it is played and all the players at the table, including Lauria, may be expected to know that law, too. [40E2 footnote] A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. [L45B2] Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself. [L45C3] A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched. [L45E2] When declarer contributes a fifth card to a trick from his own hand or dummy, there is no penalty unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 55 applies. [L65A] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. [66C] Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific instruction; for example, to verify a claim of a revoke. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 12 02:45:10 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:45:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <200408111736.i7BHasKQ014913@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408111736.i7BHasKQ014913@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <411ACBA6.7040308@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Gordon Rainsford > I've just been chatting to John on the phone, and think I might even > have persuaded him that bidding again is on the + side of a 70% action! Don't forget that the original case is from the ACBL. I think it's close in the EBU whether pass is a LA or not, but there should be no doubt under the more stringent ACBL definition. (FWIW, I vote with John even in the EBU. After you have described your hand, how bad can it be to let partner make the decision?) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 12 02:47:54 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:47:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <003e01c47fbc$fc1aa3c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Aug 11, 2004, at 12:05 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > That is what Irv was most interested in. Some of us think that 3C > (invitational, a 2/1 treatment by some) has described the hand well and > there is no justification for the 4C bid in the presence of the UI, > although the double clouds that issue. This is best decided by an AC, > so > the TD should adjust back to 4S doubled and make sure that N-S are > aware > of their right to appeal. In my previous post, I (deliberately) did not address this question. I'll try to do so here. The question is not whether some other agreement than what the partnership is using might have applied in somebody else's auction, but whether (a) a player misremembered his agreements, (b) he was apprised of that fact by UI from his partner, (c) whether he took advantage of that apprisal and (d) whether opponents were damaged thereby. Given the statement of fact "3C was by agreement a Bergen raise" it sure looks to me like (a) is true. It seems likely (b) is also true. Did he take advantage of this UI by bidding 4C? Well, I leave that to others to debate (though I'll address Marv's last sentence in a minute). Were the opponents damaged thereby? We'll never know, *because the TD interfered (illegally) with the auction*. What I said about the proper ruling in my previous post stands. I am not so sure that the question of whether there were LAs, and whether 4C was demonstrably suggested by the UI (I know - I didn't mention that specifically above - it's part of item (c)) "is best decided by an AC". We want, I think, TDs to make correct rulings at the table - *including*deciding such questions. So I don't agree with Marv on that score. It is certainly true, however, that, at least, contestants should be advised of their right to appeal in such cases [Law 83]. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 12 03:01:37 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:01:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <200408101535.i7AFZVgR015887@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408101535.i7AFZVgR015887@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <411ACF81.3020706@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > What the text of Law 40B actually _says_ is that: > > (a) As a general rule, a player may not make a call based > on a special partnership understanding.++ > > (b) An exception to the general rule is if the opposing > pair may reasonably be expected to understand the meaning > of the special partnership understanding. > > (c) An alternative exception to the general rule is if the > opposing pair discloses the meaning of the special > partnership understanding in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation. Well, this is certainly an interesting view, and I finally understand some of Grattan's comments that were opaque to me before. > Note especially items (b) and (c); if there are no SO > regulations for disclosure, there is an automatic Law 40B > violation unless the opposing pair may reasonably be > expected to understand the meaning of the special > partnership understanding. My view, implied in my previous message, is that if there is no SO regulation requiring advance disclosure, then players _have_ disclosed "in accordance with [SO] regulations." A properly filled-out convention card may be required, of course. Richard (the relayer) had better hope my view is correct; how many of his opponents does he tell in advance what a 3H bid on the third relay means? (I take it that at least a few of his opponents are not in the category of "may reasonably be expected to understand.") Even besides relays, there are plenty of other understandings that are not disclosed on typical CC's or otherwise in advance. Among these are cue bidding style (first-round controls or first/second equally?), evaluation methods (strict HCP or lots of adjustments?), order of suit openings with equal length (which minor in a 5CM system, which four card suit with certain distributions in a 4CM system?), which hands responding to 1C bypass 1D, whether 1NT can include off-shape distributions (e.g., 5422 or a 5CM), and probably lots more. Do we really think these understandings are illegal when the SO doesn't happen to require them on the CC? From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 12 03:13:35 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:13:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: <200408091455.i79EtZHr013901@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408091455.i79EtZHr013901@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <411AD24F.1020403@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: > +=+ This is deep water. There are those who > want to give greater prominence to protecting > the field. The difficulty then is in ensuring fair > treatment of non-offenders, and sometimes in > deciding what is fair treatment. It seems to me > that to get anywhere near a solution one needs > to remove any element of punishment from > the awarded score and go back to the old (1963 > and earlier) law book arrangement of calculating > penalty points separately. However, we drifted > away from the method and the young have no > experience of it, so they do not easily get their > brains round the concept of calculating an > awarded score that provides a reasonable > comparison for the field and assessing penalty > points separately for an offending side. As Grattan says, deep waters indeed. Let me just add one voice against "those" who want to "protect the field." David S. has made similar comments. Much as I hate to agree with him :-), I think he is right. When an action is illegal (say because of UI), the NOS should not get any part of any score based in any way on the illegal action. At the moment -- and subject to persuasion -- I think it might be best if the new laws explicitly ruled out split scores. Figure out what the infraction is, and rule for both sides the "likely" result if the infraction had not occurred. This could be a weighted result (a la L12C3, although I don't care for its present wording), but make the score the same for both sides. Penalties should indeed be separate, but they should only apply for egregious or repeated violations, not for a typical misjudgment of a UI position or an occasional instance of MI. Adjusting the score, with a margin of any doubt going to the NOS, is quite enough for ordinary infractions. Or at least that's my view, FWIW. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 12 03:37:03 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:37:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <200408022253.i72Mr7RF010291@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408022253.i72Mr7RF010291@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <411AD7CF.7020201@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > 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. While I admire the intent, I am not sure we should endorse the action. Perhaps, as with other forms of civil disobedience, the ethics depend on the specific situation. By its nature, the alert system cannot solve all problems. The usual issues are when something unusual still requires no alert and when a sequence has a common alertable meaning but a pair is playing a different, also alertable, meaning. I don't see any perfect remedy, but announcements help with the second case. It also helps if CC's are easily and freely available (not the case in most ACBL events) and if questions are encouraged in "likely" situations regardless of the hand one is dealt (not the case in EBU events, as I understand it). And of course automatic explanations behind screens or online (to opponents only) help quite a lot. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 12 04:15:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:15:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Richard (the relayer) had better hope my view is >correct; how many of his opponents does he tell >in advance what a 3H bid on the third relay >means? (I take it that at least a few of his >opponents are not in the category of "may >reasonably be expected to understand.") [snip] Richard Hills: Nope, I self-sacrificingly argue that *if* the ABF Alert Regulation did not exist (which reg requires that I alert a 3H bid on the third relay), *then* my Symmetric Relay system would be an unLawful contravention of Law 40B. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 12 05:07:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:07:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] An alert system (was Deceiving) Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >By its nature, the alert system cannot >solve all problems. The usual issues are >when something unusual still requires no >alert and when a sequence has a common >alertable meaning but a pair is playing a >different, also alertable, meaning. > >I don't see any perfect remedy, but >announcements help with the second case. Richard Hills: David Stevenson has noted that Pre-Alerts are an inadequate solution for opponents of partnerships with *many* unusual agreements, since too much time might be wasted pre- alerting agreements which do not occur. So, I agree that an Announcement module is a useful supplement to a Pre-Alert module in an asymptotically complete alert system. Steve Willner: >It also helps if CC's are easily and freely >available (not the case in most ACBL events) >and if questions are encouraged in "likely" >situations regardless of the hand one is dealt >(not the case in EBU events, as I understand >it). Richard Hills: The EBU generally has a system monoculture. Furthermore, the EBU has had some historical traditions of problems with lead-directing questions and strength-showing questions. Therefore, the EBU alert and question regs now highly restrict creation and transmission of UI, at the cost of allowing some CPUs and/or some MI to flourish. But I agree with John (MadDog) Probst that this EBU policy is misconceived. CPUs and MI are far more damaging to the opponents than creation of UI, especially if players have been given Active Ethics training in bending-over-backwards to avoid the *use* of UI from pard. Best wishes RJH From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Aug 12 08:25:44 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:25:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club References: <200408111833.LAA20223@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001f01c4803d$957d6540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Marvin wrote: > > > That is what Irv was most interested in. Some of us think that 3C > > (invitational, a 2/1 treatment by some) has described the hand well and > > there is no justification for the 4C bid in the presence of the UI > > I didn't realize that North thought 3C was invitational. (I haven't > seen it played that way by an unpassed hand.) My previous post > assumed that it was "weak" (by whatever standards North has for a jump > to the 3 level at whatever the actual vulnerability was). This would > affect my opinion of whether passing 3Sx was a LA, although I don't > know how yet. > Many 2/1 players in this area play that a 2/1 club response is game-forcing, while others play that 3C after 2C can be passed. A forcing 1NT response followed by 3C is not invitational, so the former group fill the gap with a non-forcing but invitational response of 3C. I was guessing that the 3C response in this case was of this nature, else Irv's communication doesn't make sense. So I asked Irv what the 3C bid was, just to make sure, and got this reply: Irv: I guess I'm not entirely sure, but I think he intended it as weak. This was not a sophisticated pair, though not down to low level we sometimes run up against in Palm Springs. The conversation at the table went something like this. She: "Well, our convention card says Bergen Raises [true] so that's what I thought you had." He: Right, and I heard that so I thought I'd make sure you knew what it really was!" Which leaves me speechless. Or wordless, I guess it is. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 12 08:45:41 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:45:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000c01c47f05$c00d2ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003201c47f30$eccf8fc0$539468d5@jeushtlj> <002601c47f93$686cd720$859468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000b01c48040$7332ae20$5da887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'The people of the United States speak, as a body, incomparably better English than the people of the mother country." [James Fenimore Cooper US novelist, 1828] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > > I apologise for my lack of legal expertise but > many other players like me are still puzzled as to > why legal experts find this decision so clear-cut. > I confess that I also lack skills in divining a > player's *intentions*. > +=+ Unvarnished, prosaic reports of appeals do not convey the totality of what goes on in the committee hearing. I do not want to comment on the basis for the AC's judgement in the Bermuda Bowl case other than to say that the facts became wholly manifest in the hearing and the AC was totally and unanimously confident of its findings. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 12 08:52:52 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:52:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000401c47f9d$116c9be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c48041$7343f6c0$c19887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 6:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > I hear 45E, I hear 66. "Legal priorities" " Intent" > Fifth card played to the trick. Inspection of tricks. > Aids to memory. How far are we going to stretch > the laws? None of them say a thing about playing > legally to the next trick when all the cards from > the previous trick have not been quitted. > Come on guys, let's stay real. > > When you make a mistake in play pay the price. > No matter who you are. > +=+ I think there is a requirement to pay attention to the game. ~ G ~ +=+ From dpb3@fastmail.fm Thu Aug 12 12:31:16 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:31:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <20040812023802.15023.2702.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040812023802.15023.2702.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1092310276.7997.202197762@webmail.messagingengine.com> [Nigel] > Lauria's prime duty was to turn over the > played card. Only then may he legally play to the > next trick). Law 66A says, "so long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender, may, until he has turned his own card face down...". This specifically envisions the possibility of leading or playing to the next trick before having turned one's card over, and contains not one word to suggest that such an action is improper, let alone illegal. David Babcock Florida USA From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Aug 12 13:40:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Nope, I self-sacrificingly argue that *if* the > ABF Alert Regulation did not exist (which reg > requires that I alert a 3H bid on the third > relay), *then* my Symmetric Relay system would be > an unLawful contravention of Law 40B. If an SO chooses not to have specific disclosure regulations (such as an alert policy/CC) we are left with the general disclosure requirements of the laws. L75a/c and Law20f being most relevant. The laws themselves seem to support the concept that "answering questions" is compatible with info being "fully and freely available" - providing questions are answered properly. To me this is the default disclosure approach to anything not covered by SO regulation. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 12 14:18:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:18:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: At the local club In-Reply-To: <001f01c4803d$957d6540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200408111833.LAA20223@mailhub.irvine.com> <001f01c4803d$957d6540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote > >> Marvin wrote: >> >> > That is what Irv was most interested in. Some of us think that 3C >> > (invitational, a 2/1 treatment by some) has described the hand well >and >> > there is no justification for the 4C bid in the presence of the UI >> >> I didn't realize that North thought 3C was invitational. (I haven't >> seen it played that way by an unpassed hand.) My previous post >> assumed that it was "weak" (by whatever standards North has for a jump >> to the 3 level at whatever the actual vulnerability was). This would >> affect my opinion of whether passing 3Sx was a LA, although I don't >> know how yet. >> >Many 2/1 players in this area play that a 2/1 club response is >game-forcing, while others play that 3C after 2C can be passed. A >forcing 1NT response followed by 3C is not invitational, so the former >group fill the gap with a non-forcing but invitational response of 3C. I play this with my American partner, and find a number of opponents at the Nationals have on their CC under Basic Approach '3/1 Constr'. > I >was guessing that the 3C response in this case was of this nature, else >Irv's communication doesn't make sense. > >So I asked Irv what the 3C bid was, just to make sure, and got this >reply: > >Irv: I guess I'm not entirely sure, but I think he intended it as weak. >This was not a sophisticated pair, though not down to low level we >sometimes run up against in Palm Springs. The conversation at the table >went something like this. She: "Well, our convention card says Bergen >Raises [true] so that's what I thought you had." He: Right, and I heard >that so I thought I'd make sure you knew what it really was!" Bridge as it really is played. >Which leaves me speechless. Or wordless, I guess it is. Not a chance. :) -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 12 14:20:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:20:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >John (MadDog) Probst: > >>>Isn't there guidance that when both sides revoke >>>on a single trick you just give up and apply 64c? >>> >>>cheers John > >WBFLC minutes, 1st November 2001: > >>Suppose a defender revokes by ruffing, and declarer >>also revokes by over-ruffing. Both sides play to >>the next trick, which establishes the revokes: how >>does the Director rule? >> >>The Director should act under Law 64C to restore >>equity, as though there had been no revoke by >>either side. > >Richard Hills: > >True, but has any revoke occurred? Declarer called >for dummy to lead "ace of diamonds" as the first >card to a trick, but there was no ace of diamonds >in dummy. > >Law 46B4: > >>>>If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, >>>>the call is void ..... > >Richard Hills: > >Therefore, as TD I would rule that all play >subsequent to declarer's request for "ace of >diamonds" was void, no revokes have occurred, so >Law 64C is *not* applicable. Whence "therefore"? You cannot make up Laws to suit yourself!! You need to demonstrate where the Lawbook says you can void all play - and 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Aug 12 14:51:55 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:51:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <411B75FB.2040904@hdw.be> I have just returned from Praha, where for the first time in years I was on the floor as a direcorr (European Youth Championships). More of that later. I did read my e-mails there, including this one, but it was rather difficult to reply. Strangely enough, all of you seem to have missed the obvious part of this ruling: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > However, from a blml point of view, the most important > ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> > > Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of > hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, > declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" > from dummy. All other players followed suit with low > diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real > ace of diamonds. > See the clue : the non-existent ace of diamonds. Declarer has called for a card not present in dummy. No card has been played! Thereafter, three people played diamonds. IMO, this was a diamond trick, LOOT, to which two other players contributed, but not dummy. That is a defective trick. It was won by whomever played the highest diamond. The next trick again started in dummy, again a LOOT, and this trick was correct. So at the point of discovery, the ace of hearts has to be returned to dummy, a diamond has to be detached from dummy to correct the defective trick, which is a revoke that will not be penalised. (or is it). > Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the > real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was > called. > > How would you rule? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john@asimere.com Thu Aug 12 15:00:31 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:00:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] An alert system (was Deceiving) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Steve Willner: > >[snip] > >>By its nature, the alert system cannot >>solve all problems. The usual issues are >>when something unusual still requires no >>alert and when a sequence has a common >>alertable meaning but a pair is playing a >>different, also alertable, meaning. >> >>I don't see any perfect remedy, but >>announcements help with the second case. > >Richard Hills: > >David Stevenson has noted that Pre-Alerts are >an inadequate solution for opponents of >partnerships with *many* unusual agreements, >since too much time might be wasted pre- >alerting agreements which do not occur. > >So, I agree that an Announcement module is a >useful supplement to a Pre-Alert module in an >asymptotically complete alert system. > >Steve Willner: > >>It also helps if CC's are easily and freely >>available (not the case in most ACBL events) >>and if questions are encouraged in "likely" >>situations regardless of the hand one is dealt >>(not the case in EBU events, as I understand >>it). > >Richard Hills: > >The EBU generally has a system monoculture. > >Furthermore, the EBU has had some historical >traditions of problems with lead-directing >questions and strength-showing questions. > >Therefore, the EBU alert and question regs now >highly restrict creation and transmission of UI, >at the cost of allowing some CPUs and/or some MI >to flourish. > >But I agree with John (MadDog) Probst that this >EBU policy is misconceived. CPUs and MI are far >more damaging to the opponents than creation of >UI, especially if players have been given Active >Ethics training in bending-over-backwards to >avoid the *use* of UI from pard. Indeed, I abhor MI, and strongly feel that the Laws should permit the creation of UI if this obviates MI. Just to give you an idea, I was playing against David Burn and Ian Payn a while ago with proddy and one of us (and it doesn't matter who - just so I avoid the Payn flame- thrower) made a pigs ear of an explanation. His partner said (entirely illegally of course) "That is a complete load of twaddle, it actually means .... yadda yadda". Now all four of us know that the others knew that this indeed was what it was. So the MI was removed and there was UI (even though the offender knew what the answer was, he handled it as a UI problem) This is a far better way to play bridge IMO, and is probably closer to what the game should be than the current laws suggest. Rubber bridge all this would be allowed, of course, on the nod, by the oppo. > >Best wishes > >RJH > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 12 15:14:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:14:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <411B75FB.2040904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c48076$adc67fe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > Strangely enough, all of you seem to have missed the obvious part of > this ruling: ........... > > Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of > > hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, > > declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" > > from dummy. All other players followed suit with low > > diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real > > ace of diamonds. > > >=20 > See the clue : the non-existent ace of diamonds. Declarer has called > for a card not present in dummy. No card has been played! Thereafter, > three people played diamonds. IMO, this was a diamond trick, LOOT, to > which two other players contributed, but not dummy. That is a > defective trick. It was won by whomever played the highest diamond. > The next trick again started in dummy, again a LOOT, and this trick > was correct. > So at the point of discovery, the ace of hearts has to be returned to > dummy, a diamond has to be detached from dummy to correct the > defective trick, which is a revoke that will not be penalised. (or is = it). I am not so sure this can be correct! What about Law 45D ? Dummy placed in a played position a card declarer did not name, but = nobody drew any attention to this fact in time (i.e. before each side has = played to the next trick). Thus the way I understand the laws it follows from Law = 45D that the Ace of Hearts was indeed (de facto) played by dummy's action. Regards Sven From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Thu Aug 12 15:26:06 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:26:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: I tend to agree with the viewpoint that dummy is the sole revoking party. There are however a few snags: 1. the revoke was definitely established, therefore could no longer be corrected. The ace of hearts remains played. 2. I think that 47D is in order. Dummy played a card, however did not follow suit (Diamonds), thereby revoking 3. I also think law 74B2 is applicable for the defender holding ace of diamonds Therefore my ruling would be: play on (subject to correction of the trick with the alleged diamond ace - it should go to the player with the highest pip) > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens > Herman De > Wael > Verzonden: donderdag 12 augustus 2004 15:52 > Aan: blml > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] ANeCdote > > > I have just returned from Praha, where for the first time in years I > was on the floor as a direcorr (European Youth > Championships). More of > that later. > I did read my e-mails there, including this one, but it was rather > difficult to reply. > Strangely enough, all of you seem to have missed the obvious part of > this ruling: > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > > > > > > However, from a blml point of view, the most important > > ANeCdote from the ANC was this ruling -> > > > > Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of > > hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, > > declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" > > from dummy. All other players followed suit with low > > diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real > > ace of diamonds. > > > > See the clue : the non-existent ace of diamonds. Declarer has called > for a card not present in dummy. No card has been played! Thereafter, > three people played diamonds. IMO, this was a diamond trick, LOOT, to > which two other players contributed, but not dummy. That is a > defective trick. It was won by whomever played the highest diamond. > The next trick again started in dummy, again a LOOT, and this trick > was correct. > So at the point of discovery, the ace of hearts has to be returned to > dummy, a diamond has to be detached from dummy to correct the > defective trick, which is a revoke that will not be > penalised. (or is it). > > > Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the > > real ace of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was > > called. > > > > How would you rule? > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ____________________________________________________________________________ This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does not guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does not accept any liability for damages related thereto. ____________________________________________________________________________ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Aug 12 15:51:47 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:51:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote References: <411B75FB.2040904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004601c4807b$ecaeade0$18fdf0c3@LNV> Herman: > Strangely enough, all of you seem to have missed the obvious part of > this ruling: > > Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of > > hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, > > declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" > > from dummy. All other players followed suit with low > > diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real > > ace of diamonds. > > > The one thing obvious to me is that you don't do the TD-job often enough. L45D is completely clear in my opinion: dummy has played a card that was not designated by declarer and it is too late to restore the situation. The diamond ace is not played yet and the defender is allowed to cash it later. The winner of the defective trick is probably dummy (if diamonds is not trumps) and then it is easy to count the tricks won and lost. And yes there are revokes by both sides in the same trick. The WBFLC has decided that in such a case the penalty provisions do not apply. There only will be an adjusted score given if the TD has to apply 64C; no artificial score given. There would have been a problem if this had been discovered 'in time'. Cards back and L46B4 before going back to L45D. But now we have a problem, since this law seems to say that declarer only may chance his card if RHO does chance his card. This can't be a good approach if declarer then has to play an illegal card. ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 12 15:58:57 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:58:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c4807c$e511de30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Pieters H.W. > I tend to agree with the viewpoint that dummy is the sole revoking party. > There are however a few snags: There is indeed a major snag: Dummy did definitely not revoke! (Look up the definition on what constitutes a revoke if you do not believe me: Law 61A does not include failure by dummy to lead the card specified by declarer!). > 1. the revoke was definitely established, therefore could no longer be > corrected. The ace of hearts remains played. > 2. I think that 47D is in order. Dummy played a card, however did not > follow suit (Diamonds), thereby revoking Nonsense. Dummy led the Ace of Hearts and nobody complained (see Law 45D) after which all the other three players revoked. > 3. I also think law 74B2 is applicable for the defender holding ace of > diamonds I suppose you intended to write Law 74B1 ? (which yes, could be applied) Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 12 16:13:53 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:13:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <004601c4807b$ecaeade0$18fdf0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000b01c4807e$faef7c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ........... > L45D is completely clear in my opinion: dummy has played a card that = was > not > designated by declarer and it is too late to restore the situation. > The diamond ace is not played yet and the defender is allowed to cash = it > later. The winner of the defective trick is probably dummy (if = diamonds is > not trumps) and then it is easy to count the tricks won and lost. And = yes > there are revokes by both sides in the same trick. The WBFLC has = decided > that in such a case the penalty provisions do not apply. There only = will > be > an adjusted score given if the TD has to apply 64C; no artificial = score > given. >=20 > There would have been a problem if this had been discovered 'in time'. > Cards > back and L46B4 before going back to L45D. But now we have a problem, = since > this law seems to say that declarer only may chance his card if RHO = does > chance his card. This can't be a good approach if declarer then has = to > play > an illegal card. Glad to notice support to my understanding that Law 45D is THE law in = this case. But I suspect that Ton sees a possible problem where none exists: Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if = possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these = Laws. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Aug 12 18:07:17 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:07:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <004601c4807b$ecaeade0$18fdf0c3@LNV> References: <411B75FB.2040904@hdw.be> <004601c4807b$ecaeade0$18fdf0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <411BA3C5.1080002@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > Herman: > >>Strangely enough, all of you seem to have missed the obvious part of >>this ruling: > > > > > >>>Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >>>hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >>>declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >>>from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>>diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >>>ace of diamonds. >>> >> > > The one thing obvious to me is that you don't do the TD-job often enough. > > L45D is completely clear in my opinion: dummy has played a card that was not > designated by declarer and it is too late to restore the situation. I respectfully beg to differ. I apply L46C. Declarer called a card that was not in dummy, and that call is void. Now L46C does not tell us what should be done if play continues nevertheless. But then again, L45D does not tell us either what has to be done if no-one indicates that the wrong card was played. So I honoustly believe both our solutions suffer from the same deficiency, which is not a deficiency in our reasoning but rather in the completeness of the laws. Once again, these are laws that tell us what should happen if a particular condition is met, but not what must happen if that condition is not met. However, what seems totally wrong to me is that players can revoke by playing to a card that does not exist, simply because a non-entity (the person turning dummy's cards) makes an error. L46D is clear: no card has been played as the first one to the trick in question. Whatever happens after that is just legal plays. > The diamond ace is not played yet and the defender is allowed to cash it > later. The winner of the defective trick is probably dummy (if diamonds is > not trumps) and then it is easy to count the tricks won and lost. And yes > there are revokes by both sides in the same trick. The WBFLC has decided > that in such a case the penalty provisions do not apply. There only will be > an adjusted score given if the TD has to apply 64C; no artificial score > given. > > There would have been a problem if this had been discovered 'in time'. Cards > back and L46B4 before going back to L45D. But now we have a problem, since > this law seems to say that declarer only may chance his card if RHO does > chance his card. This can't be a good approach if declarer then has to play > an illegal card. > > ton > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 12 18:47:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:47:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <411BA3C5.1080002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c48094$68e85bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > I respectfully beg to differ. >=20 > I apply L46C. Declarer called a card that was not in dummy, and that > call is void. > Now L46C does not tell us what should be done if play continues > nevertheless. > But then again, L45D does not tell us either what has to be done if > no-one indicates that the wrong card was played. It does indeed! Law 45D offers two options: Either the uncalled for card = is withdrawn or it is not. If attention to the fact is drawn before each side has played to the = next trick the card is withdrawn. If not it is not withdrawn. Any statement which establishes a particular condition for a = corresponding action to be taken implies that this action is not an alternative unless = the specified condition is satisfied; this is simple logic which ought to be understood by everybody - stubborn lawyers possibly exempted. It is true that if attention had been drawn in time then we must proceed = to Law 46B4 (not L46C - there is no such law), but that is not the case = here, it is far too late to apply this law. > So I honoustly believe both our solutions suffer from the same > deficiency, which is not a deficiency in our reasoning but rather in > the completeness of the laws. >=20 > Once again, these are laws that tell us what should happen if a > particular condition is met, but not what must happen if that > condition is not met. Just look above for the answer. >=20 > However, what seems totally wrong to me is that players can revoke by > playing to a card that does not exist, simply because a non-entity > (the person turning dummy's cards) makes an error. The played card was the Ace of Hearts because nobody objected. Failing = to follow suit then constitutes a revoke. It is as simple as that. >=20 > L46D is clear: no card has been played as the first one to the trick > in question. Whatever happens after that is just legal plays. No. The call for the Ace of Diamonds was void, but the play of the Ace = of Hearts was not. That play would have been void if any player at the = table had complained in time, however nobody did. Sven From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Aug 12 19:00:19 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:00:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404696C@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 12 August 2004 18:47 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] ANeCdote > Herman De Wael ............. > I respectfully beg to differ. > > I apply L46C. Declarer called a card that was not in dummy, and that > call is void. > Now L46C does not tell us what should be done if play continues > nevertheless. > But then again, L45D does not tell us either what has to be done if > no-one indicates that the wrong card was played. It does indeed! Law 45D offers two options: Either the uncalled for card is withdrawn or it is not. If attention to the fact is drawn before each side has played to the next trick the card is withdrawn. If not it is not withdrawn. Any statement which establishes a particular condition for a corresponding action to be taken implies that this action is not an alternative unless the specified condition is satisfied; this is simple logic which ought to be understood by everybody - stubborn lawyers possibly exempted. It is true that if attention had been drawn in time then we must proceed to Law 46B4 (not L46C - there is no such law), but that is not the case here, it is far too late to apply this law. > So I honoustly believe both our solutions suffer from the same > deficiency, which is not a deficiency in our reasoning but rather in > the completeness of the laws. > > Once again, these are laws that tell us what should happen if a > particular condition is met, but not what must happen if that > condition is not met. Just look above for the answer. > > However, what seems totally wrong to me is that players can revoke by > playing to a card that does not exist, simply because a non-entity > (the person turning dummy's cards) makes an error. The played card was the Ace of Hearts because nobody objected. Failing to follow suit then constitutes a revoke. It is as simple as that. > > L46D is clear: no card has been played as the first one to the trick > in question. Whatever happens after that is just legal plays. No. The call for the Ace of Diamonds was void, but the play of the Ace of Hearts was not. That play would have been void if any player at the table had complained in time, however nobody did. Sven _______________________________________________ Nevertheless, it would be good if L45D said explicitly that the card misplayed by dummy becomes the card played to the trick - so that we can determine ownership of the trick and any revokes. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 12 19:48:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:48:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404696C@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000d01c4809d$02913cb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robin Barker ............. > Nevertheless, it would be good if L45D said explicitly that the card > misplayed > by dummy becomes the card played to the trick - so that we can determine > ownership > of the trick and any revokes. > > Robin Frankly I don't think that would be a good idea. If Law 45D explicitly included something that is obvious, evident and thus apparently redundant we would soon have arguments on other laws that does not include similarly apparently redundant clauses and "there must be a reason for the difference". "Why is this obvious conclusion not stated in law so and so when the similarly obvious conclusion is expressively stated in Law 45D"? Let us agree that when a law states a condition for something to happen and this condition is not satisfied then that "something" shall not happen. I just cannot understand why anybody can have any problem with such logic. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 12 19:00:42 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:00:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000c01c47f05$c00d2ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003201c47f30$eccf8fc0$539468d5@jeushtlj> <002601c47f93$686cd720$859468d5@jeushtlj> <000b01c48040$7332ae20$5da887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000401c4809e$18a6f700$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Unvarnished, prosaic reports of appeals do not > convey the totality of what goes on in the committee > hearing. I do not want to comment on the basis for > the AC's judgement in the Bermuda Bowl case other > than to say that the facts became wholly manifest in > the hearing and the AC was totally and unanimously > confident of its findings. ~ G ~ +=+ [Nigel] I believe Grattan, that the TD and AC are legal experts who had a complete picture, so I accept their findings. I argued Lauria's case to demonstrate what I perceive to be deficiencies in the law. I apologise to any Italians, who feel that I made a hash of it. The case was high-profile and raises fascinating legal questions that require settling if future misery is to be avoided... (1) Interoperation of ?ambiguous? current laws. (2) Legal changes to reduce future problems. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 12 19:21:33 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:21:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <20040812023802.15023.2702.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1092310276.7997.202197762@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000501c4809e$1ee79ca0$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> [David Babcock] > Law 66A [quoted below] specifically > envisions the possibility of leading or playing > to the next trick before having turned > one's card over, and contains not one word > to suggest that such an action is improper, > let alone illegal. [Nigel] Grattan informs us that actions are illegal unless TFLB explicitly permits them. L66A does not contain one word that would imply that such an action *is* proper or legal. Hence, by default, premature leads are illegal. Nevertheless, until now, I have echoed the opinion of David and others, that they are legal Interestingly however Sven Pran draws attention to law 65A [quoted below] which backs up the default interpretation. It states that players are to turn over their cards as soon as the trick is complete. Sven states that infraction incurs no penalty. David's point suggests further questions: (2) Unless claiming, is it legal for a player to lead/play to the next trick, while there are still cards exposed to the current trick. (3) If it's not legal (and even if there is no sanction imposed for the infraction itself) then if such an action harasses and confuses declarer, should the defender be allowed to reap the benefits. (: I'm not "bending" the law, Kojak. On the contrary, I'm trying to straighten it out :) [L65A] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. [L66A] So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 12 20:07:07 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:07:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90404696C@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thursday, Aug 12, 2004, at 14:00 US/Eastern, Robin Barker wrote: > Nevertheless, it would be good if L45D said explicitly that the card > misplayed > by dummy becomes the card played to the trick - so that we can > determine ownership > of the trick and any revokes. Dummy does not play his cards - he places in the played position cards played by declarer. However, the laws are inconsistent in this area. 41D says declarer plays dummy's cards, 42A3 says dummy plays them as declarer's agent. 45B describes how dummy carries out the duty assigned in 42A3, saying that *declarer* plays the card. I think 42A3 is poorly worded. I suspect that the intent of the law is in 41D and 45B. Declarer "played" the Ace of Diamonds, which is not in the dummy. 46B4 says that this call is void, and declarer may designate any legal card. Ace of Hearts goes back in the dummy, declarer starts over. But... Law 45D says the declarer can only do this if no one has played to the next trick. As the problem was discovered 4 tricks later, the error cannot be corrected [Law 47F]. Meanwhile, we have a hand that has been horked by Dummy's failure to properly carry out his duty as described in Law 45B. It seems to me it should be too late to back up the play four tricks and start over. It also seems to me that the revoke laws do not apply - everybody followed suit to the card played (IE, called) by declarer from the dummy, except dummy, who placed in the played position a card from a different suit. Dummy did not *play* a card, so dummy did not revoke. The other 3 followed suit to the card declarer *played*, so they did not revoke. It seems the laws do not provide indemnity to the defenders for the dummy's error. So I would require play to continue, and then if the defenders were damaged, I would invoke Law 12A1. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Aug 12 21:29:06 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:29:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <000401c4809e$18a6f700$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> References: <000c01c47f05$c00d2ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003201c47f30$eccf8fc0$539468d5@jeushtlj> <002601c47f93$686cd720$859468d5@jeushtlj> <000b01c48040$7332ae20$5da887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000401c4809e$18a6f700$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040812161850.02ba3710@pop.starpower.net> At 02:00 PM 8/12/04, Nigel wrote: >[Grattan Endicott] > > +=+ Unvarnished, prosaic reports of appeals do >not > > convey the totality of what goes on in the >committee > > hearing. I do not want to comment on the basis >for > > the AC's judgement in the Bermuda Bowl case >other > > than to say that the facts became wholly >manifest in > > the hearing and the AC was totally and >unanimously > > confident of its findings. ~ G ~ +=+ > >[Nigel] >I believe Grattan, that the TD and AC are legal >experts who had a complete picture, so I accept >their findings. > >I argued Lauria's case to demonstrate what I >perceive to be deficiencies in the law. I don't understand how the Lauria case has anything to do with "deficiencies in the law". The law (L45C3) is perfectly clear: either the card was "touched... for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards, or of reaching a card above or below..." or it wasn't. There's no law issue there; only a question as to what actually happened, which is what ACs exist to determine. From everything I've heard and read about the case (quite a bit), I'm confident that the AC's decision on the facts was not only correct, butn easy. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 12 22:31:50 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:31:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000c01c47f05$c00d2ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP><003201c47f30$eccf8fc0$539468d5@jeushtlj><002601c47f93$686cd720$859468d5@jeushtlj><000b01c48040$7332ae20$5da887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><000401c4809e$18a6f700$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20040812161850.02ba3710@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002301c480b3$c7f5e9e0$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > From everything I've heard and read > about the case (quite a bit), I'm > confident that the AC's decision on > the facts was not only correct, > but easy. [Nigel] BLMLers seem virtually unanimous in heaping scorn on my naive arguments. Uniquely, Sven Pran and John Probst have kindly answered some of the relevant questions (although they may not agree with my conclusions and some questions remain unanswered). I feel that to have any chance of sinking my arguments, Nelson may need to apply the telescope to his good eye. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Aug 12 22:57:54 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:57:54 +1200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <000501c4809e$1ee79ca0$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001801c480b7$6c2f34a0$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Friday, 13 August 2004 6:22 a.m. > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > > > [David Babcock] > > Law 66A [quoted below] specifically > > envisions the possibility of leading or playing > > to the next trick before having turned > > one's card over, and contains not one word > > to suggest that such an action is improper, > > let alone illegal. > > [Nigel] > Grattan informs us that actions are illegal unless > TFLB explicitly permits them. L66A does not > contain one word that would imply that such > an action *is* proper or legal. > > Hence, by default, premature leads are illegal. There is nothing in the laws that explicitly permit a player to delay play by not turning his card down. Maybe this delay is the illegal action. Law 65 A states: LAW 65 - ARRANGEMENT OF TRICKS A. Completed Trick When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. and not Some time after four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 12 23:20:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:20:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Accreditation of TDs Message-ID: Recently I foolishly volunteered to serve on any ABF sub-committee, as required, so I have been co-opted to the Aussie TD Accreditation sub-committee. Attached is a first draft "open book" TD exam created by former Aussie CTD (and sometime WBF TD) Richard Grenside. I would be grateful for any blml suggestions on improving this TD exam. Best wishes Richard Hills * * * Richard Grenside: As Requested, hope you find it interesting, sounds a simple paper but requires a lot of work! Regards Richard G Accreditation of Tournament Directors. Name: Club: Address: Phone: email: This paper is designed to test whether or not a prospective Tournament Director is competent in making sound rulings, able to find the relevant law in the rule book and has a basic understanding of movements and scoring procedures. All candidates are required to have in their possession the following equipment: A Rule book, a movement book, a copy of both the BAWA and home clubs tournament regulations, the ABF Masterpoint manual. All candidates are required to join the Australian Bridge Tournament Directors Association. This paper is based on a take home, open book format, references of practical experience as a trainee is required as theory is only a very small part of directing. When you have completed your answers please return them for assessment, you will have 1 month from application date to complete. Assessment Paper: A: Movements Pairs: Give a brief explanation of the following movements and give an example of when they would be best utilised: a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A skip Mitchell. b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A share and Bye. c)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A Howell d)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A 3/4 Howell e)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 An Interwoven Howell f)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A Flower Howell g)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A Barometer Howell h)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A Scrambled Mitchell i)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A Bump Mitchell B: Movements Teams: Similarly as above, describe the following terms: a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Swiss Teams: b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 American Whist: c)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Stagger Teams: C:=A0 Scoring 1. Describe the following scoring terms and give examples of usage: a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Matchpoints b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Butler Pairs c)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 IMPs d)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 VPs e)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Total Points 2.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Answer the following. a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Inevitably, players will enter scores that either do not compute or have no rationale, what procedures do you follow in either changing scores or leaving scores as written? Give examples. b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The WBF VP Scales are commonly used, however in some events less cumbersome scales would be more appropriate, produce a 10 point VP scale for 5 board matches and explain your rationale for the maximum win. D:=A0 The Laws 1. Quote the relevant law and in your own words comment when requested. a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 On round 1, board 9, you are called at the conclusion of the bidding regarding wrong board markings, South is shown as dealer instead of North. b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Which law prohibits a player from changing their compass position and why is this law that important? c) =A0In dealing, 1) what is the only forbidden aspect? 2) once dealt, which pockets of the board should the hands be placed? d)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 There are various laws relating to procedure 1)=A0 Board to stay in the middle of the table throughout play 2)=A0 Requirement to look at one's hand before bidding 3) The requirement to write NT for No Trumps. e)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 What is the definition of the end of the auction? f)=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0Give an example and give the law application when normal play of a board is deemed impossible. g)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Explain the difference between an artificial score and an assigned score. h)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The bidding goes Pass-Pass-Pass-Pass, can there be a redeal? i)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 What is your definition of inadvertency, can a played card ever be considered inadvertent? j)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 North is playing Acol, South Precision, is this legal? k)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A partnership is playing Acol Non-Vul, Precision Vul, is this legal? l)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The bidding goes 1NT -=A0X=A0- Pass - XX, list all applicable laws m) =A0=A0=A0 Quote the law for an opening lead out of turn. E: The following questions are multi choice, circle your answer and quote the applicable law. 1. As the players are taking their cards out of the pockets, the QS falls face up from North's hand, a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The QS stays face up on the table as a major penalty card b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director rules the board unplayable and awards an adjusted score c)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The QS is put back in the hand with no penalty 2. The bidding goes=A0=A0=A0=A0 1C=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 P 1NT =A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P= a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 As both pairs are responsible, the score for 1NT making 8 tricks stands b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The result cannot stand, so the director awards 50% to both sides c)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director assigns an adjusted score based on a 1C contract 3. West Dealer but South opens 1H, West now interrupts saying it is his opening call and bids 1D, The TD is now called a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The TD cancels the 1H bid by South and allows West to open 1D b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 West's call is deemed insufficient, with such law applying c)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Since South opened out of turn, West may take his 1D= call without penalty, however the 1H has been accepted and he should make a legal call 4. During the play, at trick 5, Dummy draws attention to an established revoke by a defender, the director is called a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director waives any penalty b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director enforces the relevant penalty c)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director considers an adjusted score at the conclusion of play. 5. At the conclusion of a session, a player requests a ruling for a revoke that occurred some 2 hours ago on round 3 a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director says it is too late to do anything b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director checks, finds out it is true and applies the revoke law. c)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director awards an adjusted score based on the most likely result had the revoke not occurred. 6. At play of trick 8, declarer claims, the opponents object and ask declarer to play the hand out. Declarer now misplays the hand and goes down in the contract. a)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director lets the result stand as played. b)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The director allows the claim, after checking that i= t was correct. F.=A0=A0=A0 The final set of questions require the candidate to give a law opinion and preferred remedies on certain situations that either disrupt the game or cause concern. a)=A0=A0 Loud Postmortems b)=A0=A0 Slow play c)=A0 Rudeness d)=A0 Psyching= From AIPSBGVQC@edsamail.com.sg Thu Aug 12 21:28:44 2004 From: AIPSBGVQC@edsamail.com.sg (Deborah ) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:28:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Puchase Office XP for $50 dollars modus Message-ID: ----463834750587151 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-9317-4" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit constipate Newsletter melodious

Microsoft Software at superb Prices: But how? OEM software comes to you without all the bells and whistles. You don't get the fancy packaging or a manual. Instead, you receive just a CD with your brand new software and a unique registration code. Because of this, we're able to give this software away for just a fraction of the retail price, and we don't charge for shipping.

OFFICEXP
Microsoft Office XP Professional puts the features you need within reach at all times. New and improved tools in Access allow you to build and manage lists and databases, or analyze information from databases such as Microsoft SQL Server. New context-sensitive smart tags pop up with options you need right when you need them. No digging through menus. Tasks that once required multiple steps are just one click away with the new taskpane.

Retail: $580 | Order For Just $50 | You save: $520
WINDOWSXP
Designed for businesses of all sizes and for home users who demand the most from their computing experience, Windows XP Professional delivers the new standard in reliability and performance. It includes all the great features and new visual design of Windows XP Home Edition, plus premier security and privacy features, advanced recovery options, improved ability to connect to large networks, and much more.

Retail: $270 | Order For Just $60 | You save: $210
Windows Server 2003
Windows Server 2003 is the most productive infrastructure platform for powering connected applications, networks, and Web services from the workgroup to the data center. Easy to deploy, manage, and use, Windows Server 2003 helps you build a secure IT infrastructure that provides a powerful application platform for quickly building connected solutions and an information worker infrastructure for enhanced communication and collaboration anytime and anywhere.

Retail: $860 | Order For Just $60 | You save: $800
Many More Titles Available
VIEW our WHOLE SOFTWARE CATALOGUE

spatial decryption shrug
affectionate ingram karol
federal frontiersmen
vienna blueback

----463834750587151-- From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Aug 12 23:38:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:38:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000c01c48094$68e85bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c48094$68e85bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <411BF16A.9030501@hdw.be> No Sven it does not. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>I respectfully beg to differ. >> >>I apply L46C. Declarer called a card that was not in dummy, and that >>call is void. >>Now L46C does not tell us what should be done if play continues >>nevertheless. >>But then again, L45D does not tell us either what has to be done if >>no-one indicates that the wrong card was played. > > > It does indeed! Law 45D offers two options: Either the uncalled for card is > withdrawn or it is not. > > If attention to the fact is drawn before each side has played to the next > trick the card is withdrawn. If not it is not withdrawn. > > Any statement which establishes a particular condition for a corresponding > action to be taken implies that this action is not an alternative unless the > specified condition is satisfied; this is simple logic which ought to be > understood by everybody - stubborn lawyers possibly exempted. > > It is true that if attention had been drawn in time then we must proceed to > Law 46B4 (not L46C - there is no such law), but that is not the case here, > it is far too late to apply this law. > There are no less than 3 "if"s in law 45D. "IF dummy places in the played position ... " This is not a condition at all. This should better be a WHEN than an IF. The only alternative to this IF is that if it doesn't happen, we don't apply L45D at all. "IF attention is drawn to it before ..." This is indeed a condition. If the condition applies, then the sentence (which precedes it) "the card must be withdrawn ..." is of application. If the condition does not apply - we have no clue what should be done, except that it is probably the negation of the previous, which means that the card shall not be withdrawn. "IF declarer's RHO opponent changes ..." this is a secondary issue, not of importance to our thread. OK, now maybe we can deduce from L45D what to do if no-one says anything, but it is not clearly stated. > >>So I honoustly believe both our solutions suffer from the same >>deficiency, which is not a deficiency in our reasoning but rather in >>the completeness of the laws. >> >>Once again, these are laws that tell us what should happen if a >>particular condition is met, but not what must happen if that >>condition is not met. > > > Just look above for the answer. > > >>However, what seems totally wrong to me is that players can revoke by >>playing to a card that does not exist, simply because a non-entity >>(the person turning dummy's cards) makes an error. > > > The played card was the Ace of Hearts because nobody objected. Failing to > follow suit then constitutes a revoke. It is as simple as that. > > >>L46D is clear: no card has been played as the first one to the trick >>in question. Whatever happens after that is just legal plays. > > > No. The call for the Ace of Diamonds was void, but the play of the Ace of > Hearts was not. That play would have been void if any player at the table > had complained in time, however nobody did. > > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 13 00:04:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:04:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Law 46B4: >>>If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, >>>the call is **void** ..... Richard Hills: >>Therefore, as TD I would rule that all play >>subsequent to declarer's request for "ace of >>diamonds" was void, no revokes have occurred, so >>Law 64C is *not* applicable. David Stevenson: >Whence "therefore"? You cannot make up Laws to >suit yourself!! You need to demonstrate where >the Lawbook says you can void all play - and it >does not. Richard Hills: Expecto patronum! I will spell out my quod erat demonstrandum. The term "void" appears elsewhere in the Lawbook, in its verb form "voided". Law 68D: >>>..... All play subsequent to a claim or >>>concession shall be **voided** by the Director. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >>>>void - not valid (esp. null and void) Richard Hills: In my opinion, the use of the word "void" in Law 46B4 was demonstrably intended by Edgar Kaplan to be used in the legal sense of "null and void". And it is a standard legal interpretation that actions taken as a consequence of a null and void action are also null and void. This standard legal interpretation is specifically demonstrated in Law 68D. Of course, I could be wrong. One merely needs to argue that the Lawbook is inconsistent. :-) Best wishes RJH From john@asimere.com Fri Aug 13 02:18:59 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:18:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <002301c480b3$c7f5e9e0$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> References: <000c01c47f05$c00d2ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003201c47f30$eccf8fc0$539468d5@jeushtlj> <002601c47f93$686cd720$859468d5@jeushtlj> <000b01c48040$7332ae20$5da887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000401c4809e$18a6f700$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20040812161850.02ba3710@pop.starpower.net> <002301c480b3$c7f5e9e0$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article <002301c480b3$c7f5e9e0$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[Eric Landau] >> From everything I've heard and read >> about the case (quite a bit), I'm >> confident that the AC's decision on >> the facts was not only correct, >> but easy. > >[Nigel] >BLMLers seem virtually unanimous in >heaping scorn on my naive arguments. >Uniquely, Sven Pran and John Probst have kindly >answered some of the >relevant questions (although they >may not agree with my conclusions >and some questions remain unanswered). >I feel that to have any chance of >sinking my arguments, Nelson may need >to apply the telescope to his good eye. The Lauria case is clear cut. The AC determined whether a card was touched or not. Mechanical aid to memory has 'owt to do with it. cheers John > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system >(http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release >Date: 06-Aug-04 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Aug 13 02:24:42 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:24:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <20040810062527.27795.67960.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1092132717.28065.202037791@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <006b01c480d4$500d7da0$cb54fd3e@jeushtlj> [David Babcock] > BTW, nothing I have read on that event has > discussed why Versace had left the table (can > anyone shed some light?). Unless it was sudden > illness or news of a family emergency or > something like that, his behavior was > unacceptable (Law 74C8 and common > courtesy), and neither opponent had the > slightest obligation to cater to him by > changing their natural tempo of play. [Nigel] I suppose he may have needed a cigarette or something; or he may have forgotten to bring a commode to the table Whatever it was, it was perfectly acceptable to his opponents -- who knew that it could work only to their advantage -- although nobody expected it would cost the Bermuda Bowl. [L74C] The following are considered violations of procedure: 8. leaving the table needlessly before the round is called. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 07-Aug-04 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Aug 13 02:48:19 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:48:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <20040812222703.14871.9941.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040812222703.14871.9941.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1092361699.26448.202250104@webmail.messagingengine.com> [Nigel] > David's point suggests further questions: > > (2) Unless claiming, is it legal for a player to > lead/play to the next trick, while there are still > cards exposed to the current trick. David's point does not suggest this question. David's point answers this question: yes. > [L65A] > When four cards have been played to a trick, each > player turns his own card face down near him on > the table. And if one does not, the NOS does what? Calls the director? You want less control of the game by TDs and ACs, but now we have the director involved where none was (or the game comes to a dead halt), and we increase the quantity of law by trying to reconcile everything that needs, or seems to need, reconciling. David Babcock Florida USA From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Aug 13 04:10:20 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:10:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: >>> "Grattan Endicott" 8/8/2004 3:48:14 AM >>> +=+ The [Law 80E] regulation concerned the use of bidding boxes. It did not allow of change of a bidding card once it had been placed and released from the hand. I am not sure what 'justification' you seek. The Rules and Regulations considered it had the power to lay this down under Law 80E; Kaplan was, of course, a member of the R & R Committee. What occurred at the table was that Edgar placed his Pass card in position and released it. At a point still within the auction period - I am not sure whether the final pass had been placed - Edgar realized that his partner had opened 1C (strong). He claimed his right under the 1987 Law 25B2(b)(2) to "make any other legal call. in which case (penalty) his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23A when the pass damages the non- offending side)". Kojak applied the regulation, not allowing a change of call. Edgar appealed the regulation to a joint meeting of the WBF Executive Council and the Rules and Regulations Committee, as the Conditions of Contest provided. He argued that since the regulation denied him his right under the Law cited it was in conflict with that Law and therefore invalid under Law 80F. The responsibility for setting out the law to the members of the Hearing devolved upon me as Vice Chairman of the WBFLC since its Chairman was the appellant; in doing so I did not express a personal opinion* on Edgar's argument but did point to the powers to regulate (in 80E and several other laws) and to 21A - "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding." With some seventeen or eighteen of us around the table the discussion took perhaps 30-45 minutes. No-one raised 'desirabiltiy' as an issue; the matter addressed was the exact state of the relevant law. On a motion of the President (Denis Howard, in the chair) it was then agreed that the regulation was valid since Law 80E contained no statement that subordinated it to Law 80F and the appeal was disallowed. I think the voting was technically 'nem con' - all hands went up except that I observed one abstention that was not recorded. (As a decision of the parent body the finding is binding upon its committees, including the LC.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (*except to remark that, as a lawyer, Edgar would be equally capable of presenting the contrary case if it fell to him to do so - for which true remark my knuckles were rapped by the lawyer in the chair!). ------------------ Thanks for the account. I find the ruling surprising, and even more astonishing is that it was virtually unanimous. I had thought Edgar Kaplan was very influential in the international bridge world (he certainly was in the American), but here he had what seems to me to be an airtight case, yet he lost! If the regulatory powers mentioned in Law 80E are really intended to override everything else in the Laws, I think the Law should be reworded to make this clear. But I would prefer to have the new Law 80E say explicitly--what I would have thought should have gone without saying--that the "special conditions" established by regulation may not deprive a player of his rights under the (rest of the) Laws. Jim Hudson From schoderb@msn.com Fri Aug 13 07:31:31 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:31:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying References: Message-ID: Just a very minor item. I believe the bidding was 1 Spade (S), Pass (W), and then Edgar (N), not having seen the 1 Spade bid because the tray was not sufficiently across the screen passed with 10 pts. 4 spades, and a singleton somewhere. He wanted to change his call to 4 spades after the tray was moved a bit further and he saw Norman's 1 spade opening. Why is this in "deceiving and destroying?" Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hudson" To: Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deceiving and destroying > >>> "Grattan Endicott" 8/8/2004 3:48:14 AM > >>> > +=+ The [Law 80E] regulation concerned the use of bidding > boxes. It did not allow of change of a bidding card > once it had been placed and released from the hand. > I am not sure what 'justification' you seek. The > Rules and Regulations considered it had the power > to lay this down under Law 80E; Kaplan was, of > course, a member of the R & R Committee. > What occurred at the table was that Edgar > placed his Pass card in position and released it. At > a point still within the auction period - I am not sure > whether the final pass had been placed - Edgar > realized that his partner had opened 1C (strong). He > claimed his right under the 1987 Law 25B2(b)(2) > to "make any other legal call. in which case (penalty) > his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call > (see Law 23A when the pass damages the non- > offending side)". Kojak applied the regulation, not > allowing a change of call. > Edgar appealed the regulation to a joint meeting > of the WBF Executive Council and the Rules and > Regulations Committee, as the Conditions of Contest > provided. He argued that since the regulation denied > him his right under the Law cited it was in conflict > with that Law and therefore invalid under Law 80F. > The responsibility for setting out the law to the > members of the Hearing devolved upon me as > Vice Chairman of the WBFLC since its Chairman > was the appellant; in doing so I did not express a > personal opinion* on Edgar's argument but did > point to the powers to regulate (in 80E and several > other laws) and to 21A - "A player has no recourse > if he has made a call on the basis of his own > misunderstanding." > With some seventeen or eighteen of us around > the table the discussion took perhaps 30-45 minutes. > No-one raised 'desirabiltiy' as an issue; the matter > addressed was the exact state of the relevant law. > On a motion of the President (Denis Howard, in the > chair) it was then agreed that the regulation was > valid since Law 80E contained no statement that > subordinated it to Law 80F and the appeal was > disallowed. I think the voting was technically 'nem > con' - all hands went up except that I observed > one abstention that was not recorded. (As a > decision of the parent body the finding is binding > upon its committees, including the LC.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > (*except to remark that, as a lawyer, Edgar would > be equally capable of presenting the contrary case > if it fell to him to do so - for which true remark my > knuckles were rapped by the lawyer in the chair!). > > ------------------ > > > Thanks for the account. I find the ruling surprising, and even more > astonishing is that it was virtually unanimous. I had thought Edgar > Kaplan was very influential in the international bridge world (he > certainly was in the American), but here he had what seems to me to be > an airtight case, yet he lost! > > If the regulatory powers mentioned in Law 80E are really intended to > override everything else in the Laws, I think the Law should be reworded > to make this clear. But I would prefer to have the new Law 80E say > explicitly--what I would have thought should have gone without > saying--that the "special conditions" established by regulation may not > deprive a player of his rights under the (rest of the) Laws. > > Jim Hudson > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 13 07:43:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:43:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (2) Message-ID: <411C6319.5070105@hdw.be> There are two interesting points to this ruling, so I'll start 2 threads. deal 6 (Lithuania NS - France EW) K J 6 5 Q J A K 9 7 8 5 3 A 10 4 Q 9 3 2 10 7 4 A 9 6 5 3 2 Q 10 2 K Q 10 9 7 J 6 5 2 J 7 6 A K J 3 J 8 4 2 (yes, I know ... read on) W N E S P P 1Cl P 1He P 1NT P 2He P P P South leads the King of diamonds and North calls the Director Forget for one moment the ruling about the bids from the wrong hand. North has called the director, who has given South a different hand to lead from. Without saying anything to the table, all players there know that North has the real King of Diamonds. Is this a penalty card? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 13 07:45:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:45:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) Message-ID: <411C639F.9020307@hdw.be> There are two interesting points to this ruling, so I'll start 2 threads. deal 6 (Lithuania NS - France EW) K J 6 5 Q J A K 9 7 8 5 3 A 10 4 Q 9 3 2 10 7 4 A 9 6 5 3 2 Q 10 2 K Q 10 9 7 J 6 5 2 J 7 6 A K J 3 J 8 4 2 (yes, I know ... read on) W N E S P P 1Cl P 1He P 1NT P 2He P P P South leads the King of diamonds and North calls the Director. It turns out South was playing with the North hand from the previous board. His real cards are found in that pocket. The director (me) gives South his real holding : 8 7 K 8 J 8 6 5 4 3 A 4 2 South indicates he will also pass three times with this holding and he now leads the Diamond 8. Comments? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 13 07:46:25 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:46:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disturbance Message-ID: <000701c48101$57241770$24ec403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott Herman De Wael There are two interesting points to this ruling, so I'll start 2 threads. deal 6 (Lithuania NS - France EW) K J 6 5 Q J A K 9 7 8 5 3 A 10 4 Q 9 3 2 10 7 4 A 9 6 5 3 2 Q 10 2 K Q 10 9 7 J 6 5 2 J 7 6 A K J 3 J 8 4 2 (yes, I know ... read on) W N E S P P 1Cl P 1He P 1NT P 2He P P P South leads the King of diamonds and North calls the Director Forget for one moment the ruling about the bids from the wrong hand. North has called the director, who has given South a different hand to=20 lead from. Without saying anything to the table, all players there=20 know that North has the real King of Diamonds. Is this a penalty card? ----- Clarification question: I take it dummy's card were not exposed when north called the TD? Regards, Harald ----- --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 13 09:04:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:04:31 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (2) In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBBE@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBBE@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <411C760F.3090905@hdw.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Herman De Wael > > > Forget for one moment the ruling about the bids from the wrong hand. > North has called the director, who has given South a different hand to > lead from. Without saying anything to the table, all players there > know that North has the real King of Diamonds. Is this a penalty card? > ----- > Clarification question: I take it dummy's card were not exposed when > north called the TD? > I don't really see why it matters, but when I came to the table, dummy had indeed already been exposed. Of course I don't know how many cards were exposed at the precise moment North started calling the Director and how many cards were (illegally) exposed afterwards. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Aug 13 09:13:13 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:13:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (2) In-Reply-To: <411C6319.5070105@hdw.be> References: <411C6319.5070105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9F81548A-ED00-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 13 Aug 2004, at 07:43, Herman De Wael wrote: > There are two interesting points to this ruling, so I'll start 2 > threads. > > deal 6 (Lithuania NS - France EW) > > K J 6 5 > Q J > A K 9 7 > 8 5 3 > A 10 4 Q 9 3 2 > 10 7 4 A 9 6 5 3 2 > Q 10 2 > K Q 10 9 7 J 6 > 5 2 > J 7 6 > A K J 3 > J 8 4 2 > (yes, I know ... read on) > W N E S > P P > 1Cl P 1He P > 1NT P 2He P > P P > South leads the King of diamonds and North calls the Director > > Forget for one moment the ruling about the bids from the wrong hand. > North has called the director, who has given South a different hand to > lead from. Without saying anything to the table, all players there > know that North has the real King of Diamonds. Is this a penalty card? Did North name or expose the DK? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Aug 13 09:29:09 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:29:09 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (2) Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBC1@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Herman De Wael >=20 >=20 > Forget for one moment the ruling about the bids from the wrong hand. > North has called the director, who has given South a different hand to > lead from. Without saying anything to the table, all players there=20 > know that North has the real King of Diamonds. Is this a penalty card? > ----- > Clarification question: I take it dummy's card were not exposed when > north called the TD? >=20 I don't really see why it matters, but when I came to the table, dummy=20 had indeed already been exposed. Of course I don't know how many cards=20 were exposed at the precise moment North started calling the Director=20 and how many cards were (illegally) exposed afterwards. ----- Sorry, of course it doesn't. As soon as it was discovered that south's hand was not correct, it was clear that north did hold the diamond king. My fault. Law 49 says that a defender' card is a major penalty card if it is in a position where his partner could possibli see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand. North did not name the diamond king (directly), but indirectly he did so. It's not at all clear, but I would rule it a penalty card. (Not that it mattered much in the actual case.) Regards, Harald --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 13 09:35:30 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:35:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Accreditation of TDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c48110$7e335650$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Recently I foolishly volunteered to serve on any ABF > sub-committee, as required, so I have been co-opted > to the Aussie TD Accreditation sub-committee. >=20 > Attached is a first draft "open book" TD exam created > by former Aussie CTD (and sometime WBF TD) Richard > Grenside. I would be grateful for any blml suggestions > on improving this TD exam. At one stage reading the draft I couldn't help remembering something = that is claimed to have happened at an exam for a driver's license in Norway. Q: What are you supposed to have over your vehicle? ??????? A: Control of course! I got the impression that too many questions focused on items that were = more exotic than really useful for a Director to be, and I missed more = questions on the 90% of the problems any Director meets in his everyday work. I also noticed that you obviously use several movements that we do not = use at all in Norway and therefore do not bother to teach our candidates, = this may have biased my comments away from what would really be useful to = you. That is why I limited my comments above to be general rather than = specific and I apologize for not providing more specific suggestions. Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Aug 13 09:36:54 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:36:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote References: Message-ID: <002701c48110$c88cb160$069287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Where blind and naked ignorance Delivers brawling judgements, unashamed, On all things all day long." ['Idylls of the King'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ANeCdote > > > Expecto patronum! I will spell out my quod erat > demonstrandum. The term "void" appears elsewhere > in the Lawbook, in its verb form "voided". > > Law 68D: > > >>>..... All play subsequent to a claim or > >>>concession shall be **voided** by the Director. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > >>>>void - not valid (esp. null and void) > +=+ The better analogy is Law 49/Law 50. When the laws say "is void" this is a statement of fact and no intervention by the Director is required to make it so. When the Director arrives the call is already void and he takes it from there. However, the fact here is that without appropriate instruction dummy has placed in the played position a card declarer did not name. That is a separate issue from the question of the void call. Law 45D applies. Ton Kooijman has set out the rest of the matter for the benefit of all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 13 09:52:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:52:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <411BF16A.9030501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c48112$d2745410$6900a8c0@WINXP> We apparently have different understandings on Law 45D. The way I read = that law is that if Dummy "plays" a card that is not designated by declarer = and nobody (including declarer) objects (in time) then that play is accepted = by declarer as if he had in fact called that card himself. Notice that this is something which occurs rather often: Dummy "plays" a singleton to a trick without awaiting declarer's call for that card = because that is the only legal play available to dummy in that trick. Dummy is of course not allowed to suggest a play in any way (when more = than one option exist), but we still have the possibility that dummy plays a = card he wrongly believes declarer has called and then Law 45D is THE law to = be used. Sven > Herman De Wael > Sent: 13. august 2004 00:39 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] ANeCdote >=20 > No Sven it does not. >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >>Herman De Wael > > > > ............. > > > >>I respectfully beg to differ. > >> > >>I apply L46C. Declarer called a card that was not in dummy, and that > >>call is void. > >>Now L46C does not tell us what should be done if play continues > >>nevertheless. > >>But then again, L45D does not tell us either what has to be done if > >>no-one indicates that the wrong card was played. > > > > > > It does indeed! Law 45D offers two options: Either the uncalled for = card > is > > withdrawn or it is not. > > > > If attention to the fact is drawn before each side has played to the > next > > trick the card is withdrawn. If not it is not withdrawn. > > > > Any statement which establishes a particular condition for a > corresponding > > action to be taken implies that this action is not an alternative = unless > the > > specified condition is satisfied; this is simple logic which ought = to be > > understood by everybody - stubborn lawyers possibly exempted. > > > > It is true that if attention had been drawn in time then we must = proceed > to > > Law 46B4 (not L46C - there is no such law), but that is not the case > here, > > it is far too late to apply this law. > > >=20 > There are no less than 3 "if"s in law 45D. >=20 > "IF dummy places in the played position ... " > This is not a condition at all. This should better be a WHEN than an > IF. The only alternative to this IF is that if it doesn't happen, we > don't apply L45D at all. >=20 > "IF attention is drawn to it before ..." > This is indeed a condition. If the condition applies, then the > sentence (which precedes it) "the card must be withdrawn ..." is of > application. If the condition does not apply - we have no clue what > should be done, except that it is probably the negation of the > previous, which means that the card shall not be withdrawn. >=20 > "IF declarer's RHO opponent changes ..." > this is a secondary issue, not of importance to our thread. >=20 > OK, now maybe we can deduce from L45D what to do if no-one says > anything, but it is not clearly stated. >=20 > > > >>So I honoustly believe both our solutions suffer from the same > >>deficiency, which is not a deficiency in our reasoning but rather in > >>the completeness of the laws. > >> > >>Once again, these are laws that tell us what should happen if a > >>particular condition is met, but not what must happen if that > >>condition is not met. > > > > > > Just look above for the answer. > > > > > >>However, what seems totally wrong to me is that players can revoke = by > >>playing to a card that does not exist, simply because a non-entity > >>(the person turning dummy's cards) makes an error. > > > > > > The played card was the Ace of Hearts because nobody objected. = Failing > to > > follow suit then constitutes a revoke. It is as simple as that. > > > > > >>L46D is clear: no card has been played as the first one to the trick > >>in question. Whatever happens after that is just legal plays. > > > > > > No. The call for the Ace of Diamonds was void, but the play of the = Ace > of > > Hearts was not. That play would have been void if any player at the > table > > had complained in time, however nobody did. > > > > Sven > > >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 13 09:54:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:54:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (2) In-Reply-To: <9F81548A-ED00-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <411C6319.5070105@hdw.be> <9F81548A-ED00-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <411C81C3.1090204@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 13 Aug 2004, at 07:43, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> Forget for one moment the ruling about the bids from the wrong hand. >> North has called the director, who has given South a different hand to >> lead from. Without saying anything to the table, all players there >> know that North has the real King of Diamonds. Is this a penalty card? > > > Did North name or expose the DK? > No he did not. And as an answer to Harald in a different thread: yes it does matter if we make the DK a penalty card or not. I did allow play to continue and South now has to make a new lead - and declarer might want to bar the diamond lead. I ruled that the DK was not a penalty card, but was UI. South led diamonds again and since he had basically the same hand I allowed that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 13 13:21:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:21:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <411C639F.9020307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c48130$0816ecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > deal 6 (Lithuania NS - France EW) >=20 > K J 6 5 > Q J > A K 9 7 > 8 5 3 > A 10 4 Q 9 3 2 > 10 7 4 A 9 6 5 3 2 > Q 10 2 > K Q 10 9 7 J 6 > 5 2 > J 7 6 > A K J 3 > J 8 4 2 > (yes, I know ... read on) > W N E S > P P > 1Cl P 1He P > 1NT P 2He P > P P > South leads the King of diamonds and North calls the Director. >=20 > It turns out South was playing with the North hand from the previous > board. His real cards are found in that pocket. The director (me) > gives South his real holding : >=20 > 8 7 > K 8 > J 8 6 5 4 3 > A 4 2 >=20 > South indicates he will also pass three times with this holding and he > now leads the Diamond 8. >=20 > Comments? Do I sense some influence from Law 15C here? Frankly Law 15 was my first reaction when I read this "story", but as = that law primarily applies to a wrong board (all four hands) not to one = player holding the hand from a different board than the other players I don't = think Law 15 is applicable at all. Anyway as the auction has ended (the opening lead has been faced) Law = 15C definitely does not apply to this situation. So what other laws can we possibly apply? Herman stated in another entry that he let South make a Diamond lead from the corrected hand because he judged the two hands to be essentially equivalent? This sounds like he = was thinking of Law 13B1 (a player has seen one or more cards from another player's hand but the information gained is inconsequential). However as this is no case involving wrong number of cards Law 13 does not in any = way apply. The only relevant law I can imagine is Law 1: The four hands together = form a pack of cards that does not conform to the given specifications for the = game of bridge. This means that the four players have started on some game = which is not bridge.=20 Can this board be "saved"? From the various laws which deals with irregularities more or less similar to this one the answer should be = clear: When the auction has ended before the error is detected there is no = option available for the Director other than to cancel the board. ("Normal = play" is considered possible in some special cases if the error is discovered and corrected during the auction). Is there any significance in South's statement that he would have made = the same calls with the "correct" hand? I haven't found any law that makes = such a statement relevant. The closest law is 15C which I have already = discarded. So I would have ruled that the board cannot be played and consider both sides "innocent" if South got his cards from the "correct" pocket in the correct board, but consider North/South (alone) "guilty" if South in = fact had taken his cards from a wrong board. After this the question of whether North by summoning the Director = "exposes" his King of Diamonds under Law 49 becomes irrelevant.=20 If however we have had a case where this question was still open I would turn to Law 9B1(c) which states that "Summoning the Director does not = cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled". According to this it cannot possibly be correct to rule that any of = North's cards become penalty cards solely as a consequence of him properly = summoning the Director. Even the question of whether his action of (properly) summoning the Director creates UI that subsequently restrains the = choices among actions available to South is at its best very doubtful. Sven From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Aug 13 13:36:55 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:36:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <20040813081503.31276.1550.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040813081503.31276.1550.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1092400615.19474.202273824@webmail.messagingengine.com> > [David Babcock] > > BTW, nothing I have read on that event has > > discussed why Versace had left the table > [Nigel] > I suppose he may have needed a cigarette or > something; > or he may have forgotten to bring a commode to the > table Maybe you don't mean to, but you are underlining that this episode is really one of high farce more than anything else. (From when I was about 6: "Why didn't you take care of that before we left?") At some point, no system of laws can save people from the consequences of their own absurd actions, and it is probably folly, and perhaps even a perversion of justice in a way, to try. I am assuming, a bit recklessly, that there was not an actual physical emergency. If this assumption is wrong, then there's nothing to laugh about, but the legal question comes down to the same thing: touching a card, and the intent in doing so. All the rest was just prologue. David Babcock Florida USA From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Aug 13 13:47:43 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:47:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <000401c48130$0816ecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c48130$0816ecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 13 Aug 2004, at 13:21, Sven Pran wrote: >> Herman De Wael >> deal 6 (Lithuania NS - France EW) >> >> K J 6 5 >> Q J >> A K 9 7 >> 8 5 3 >> A 10 4 Q 9 3 2 >> 10 7 4 A 9 6 5 3 2 >> Q 10 2 >> K Q 10 9 7 J 6 >> 5 2 >> J 7 6 >> A K J 3 >> J 8 4 2 >> (yes, I know ... read on) >> W N E S >> P P >> 1Cl P 1He P >> 1NT P 2He P >> P P >> South leads the King of diamonds and North calls the Director. >> >> It turns out South was playing with the North hand from the previous >> board. His real cards are found in that pocket. The director (me) >> gives South his real holding : >> >> 8 7 >> K 8 >> J 8 6 5 4 3 >> A 4 2 >> >> South indicates he will also pass three times with this holding and he >> now leads the Diamond 8. >> >> Comments? > > Do I sense some influence from Law 15C here? > > Frankly Law 15 was my first reaction when I read this "story", but as > that > law primarily applies to a wrong board (all four hands) not to one > player > holding the hand from a different board than the other players I don't > think > Law 15 is applicable at all. > > Anyway as the auction has ended (the opening lead has been faced) Law > 15C > definitely does not apply to this situation. > > So what other laws can we possibly apply? Herman stated in another > entry > that he let South make a Diamond lead from the corrected hand because > he > judged the two hands to be essentially equivalent? This sounds like he > was > thinking of Law 13B1 (a player has seen one or more cards from another > player's hand but the information gained is inconsequential). However > as > this is no case involving wrong number of cards Law 13 does not in any > way > apply. > > The only relevant law I can imagine is Law 1: The four hands together > form a > pack of cards that does not conform to the given specifications for > the game > of bridge. This means that the four players have started on some game > which > is not bridge. L17 is the appropriate law, is it not? > > Can this board be "saved"? From the various laws which deals with > irregularities more or less similar to this one the answer should be > clear: > When the auction has ended before the error is detected there is no > option > available for the Director other than to cancel the board. ("Normal > play" is > considered possible in some special cases if the error is discovered > and > corrected during the auction). > > Is there any significance in South's statement that he would have made > the > same calls with the "correct" hand? I haven't found any law that makes > such > a statement relevant. The closest law is 15C which I have already > discarded. > > So I would have ruled that the board cannot be played and consider both > sides "innocent" if South got his cards from the "correct" pocket in > the > correct board, but consider North/South (alone) "guilty" if South in > fact > had taken his cards from a wrong board. > > After this the question of whether North by summoning the Director > "exposes" > his King of Diamonds under Law 49 becomes irrelevant. > > If however we have had a case where this question was still open I > would > turn to Law 9B1(c) which states that "Summoning the Director does not > cause > a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be > entitled". > > According to this it cannot possibly be correct to rule that any of > North's > cards become penalty cards solely as a consequence of him properly > summoning > the Director. Even the question of whether his action of (properly) > summoning the Director creates UI that subsequently restrains the > choices > among actions available to South is at its best very doubtful. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Aug 13 13:51:41 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:51:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (2) In-Reply-To: <411C81C3.1090204@hdw.be> References: <411C6319.5070105@hdw.be> <9F81548A-ED00-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <411C81C3.1090204@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8634B840-ED27-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 13 Aug 2004, at 09:54, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On 13 Aug 2004, at 07:43, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>> Forget for one moment the ruling about the bids from the wrong hand. >>> North has called the director, who has given South a different hand >>> to lead from. Without saying anything to the table, all players >>> there know that North has the real King of Diamonds. Is this a >>> penalty card? >> Did North name or expose the DK? > > No he did not. Then I can see nothing in the Laws that allows the DK to be designated a penalty card. > > And as an answer to Harald in a different thread: yes it does matter > if we make the DK a penalty card or not. I did allow play to continue > and South now has to make a new lead - and declarer might want to bar > the diamond lead. I ruled that the DK was not a penalty card, but was > UI. South led diamonds again and since he had basically the same hand > I allowed that. That seems reasonable. Oh dear - am I agreeing with Herman for once? :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 13 14:03:04 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:03:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (2) In-Reply-To: <8634B840-ED27-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <411C6319.5070105@hdw.be> <9F81548A-ED00-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <411C81C3.1090204@hdw.be> <8634B840-ED27-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <411CBC08.3050603@hdw.be> Trust me, Gordon, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 13 Aug 2004, at 09:54, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> On 13 Aug 2004, at 07:43, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Forget for one moment the ruling about the bids from the wrong hand. >>>> North has called the director, who has given South a different hand >>>> to lead from. Without saying anything to the table, all players >>>> there know that North has the real King of Diamonds. Is this a >>>> penalty card? >>> >>> Did North name or expose the DK? >> >> >> No he did not. > > > Then I can see nothing in the Laws that allows the DK to be designated a > penalty card. > > >> >> And as an answer to Harald in a different thread: yes it does matter >> if we make the DK a penalty card or not. I did allow play to continue >> and South now has to make a new lead - and declarer might want to bar >> the diamond lead. I ruled that the DK was not a penalty card, but was >> UI. South led diamonds again and since he had basically the same hand >> I allowed that. > > > That seems reasonable. > Oh dear - am I agreeing with Herman for once? :) > it's not so bad as you think. I disagree with my own ruling! > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 13 14:23:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:23:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c48138$c94cc5e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford .......... > L17 is the appropriate law, is it not? Indeed yes, Law 17D to be precise. I overlooked that one, thanks for calling my attention to it. This seriously raises the question exactly how did South happen to pick = up North's card from a previous board (inadvertently or carelessly)?=20 However I stand by my suggestion that the board should be cancelled = because after the auction has ended the Director can no longer legally cancel a = call and let the auction be resumed from that point. (At least not as I understand the laws).=20 It is also worth noting that Law 17D includes the possibility that offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call but says nothing about what should happen if even further subsequent calls have been made. Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Aug 13 15:14:01 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:14:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <000001c48138$c94cc5e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c48138$c94cc5e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0639FD18-ED33-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 13 Aug 2004, at 14:23, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford > .......... >> L17 is the appropriate law, is it not? > > Indeed yes, Law 17D to be precise. > > I overlooked that one, thanks for calling my attention to it. > > This seriously raises the question exactly how did South happen to > pick up > North's card from a previous board (inadvertently or carelessly)? I think you're making a finer distinction than is justified by TFLB or the English language. > > However I stand by my suggestion that the board should be cancelled > because > after the auction has ended the Director can no longer legally cancel > a call > and let the auction be resumed from that point. (At least not as I > understand the laws). > > It is also worth noting that Law 17D includes the possibility that > offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call but says nothing > about > what should happen if even further subsequent calls have been made. That's true. I asked this question in another forum (as I've had to rule on it three times this year), and was told that some directors take the view that the board may only be corrected on the first round, while others take the view that correction is possible until the moment when the opening lead has been made. Clearly, this is something that should be tidied up in the 2006 laws. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dpb3@fastmail.fm Fri Aug 13 15:26:26 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:26:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Disturbance In-Reply-To: <20040813081503.31276.1550.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040813081503.31276.1550.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1092407186.26816.202275301@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Subject: [blml] Disturbance > > +=+ I notice a lady called Charley is about > to blow into town, having just made her > presence felt in Cuba. A big girl. Our good > wishes for the security and peace of mind. > of all of you. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes, she is a big girl, and she is about to turn 3. Many thanks from Florida for the good wishes. Hour by hour, Charley seems more likely to spare the Miami area (where we are) the worst. Our apparent good fortune is the Gulf side's bad fortune, though, and we wish them the best later today. David Babcock (southeast) Florida USA From blml@dybdal.dk Fri Aug 13 15:42:01 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:42:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <0639FD18-ED33-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <000001c48138$c94cc5e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <0639FD18-ED33-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <0ikph0hhcskflgi0sn10tcjjia5vfsl1lc@bilbo.softco.dk> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:14:01 +0100, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On 13 Aug 2004, at 14:23, Sven Pran wrote: > >> It is also worth noting that Law 17D includes the possibility that >> offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call but says nothing=20 >> about >> what should happen if even further subsequent calls have been made. > >That's true. I asked this question in another forum (as I've had to=20 >rule on it three times this year), and was told that some directors=20 >take the view that the board may only be corrected on the first round,=20 >while others take the view that correction is possible until the moment=20 >when the opening lead has been made. > >Clearly, this is something that should be tidied up in the 2006 laws. Yes. In 2002, L17D was among the laws that the DBF suggested changes to. Our suggestions for L17D are available at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L17D --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Fri Aug 13 15:49:17 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:49:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <411C639F.9020307@hdw.be> References: <411C639F.9020307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8rkph018v0vlbibbkddqeiafmpg296h0mk@bilbo.softco.dk> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:45:51 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >South indicates he will also pass three times with this holding and he=20 >now leads the Diamond 8. South has now been allowed to choose all his calls with full knowledge of how the other three players will bid the whole auction. That is a good example of the kind of situation that causes me to believe that the board should be cancelled unless the irregularity is discovered very soon (as the DBF has suggested to the WBFLC: http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L17D ). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 13 16:32:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:32:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <8rkph018v0vlbibbkddqeiafmpg296h0mk@bilbo.softco.dk> Message-ID: <000501c4814a$ca590090$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Jesper Dybdal > Sent: 13. august 2004 16:49 > To: Bridge Laws List > Subject: Re: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) >=20 > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:45:51 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: >=20 > >South indicates he will also pass three times with this holding and = he > >now leads the Diamond 8. >=20 > South has now been allowed to choose all his calls with full knowledge > of how the other three players will bid the whole auction. >=20 > That is a good example of the kind of situation that causes me to > believe that the board should be cancelled unless the irregularity is > discovered very soon (as the DBF has suggested to the WBFLC: > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L17D ). Reading the DBF suggestions for Law 17D I couldn't agree more with both = of them! Moving Law 17D to for instance Law 15 makes sense, I didn't find Law 17D even when looking for it. Allowing a rollback of the auction after partner has made a subsequent = call or after the auction has ended appears completely ridiculous to me, = there is too much information spilled already at that stage. But this just = requires some clarification and not really a significant law change. I shall = prefer to apply the present Law 17D along such lines already. Regards Sven=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Aug 13 16:41:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:41:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <000501c4814a$ca590090$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c4814a$ca590090$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <411CE142.6010506@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Jesper Dybdal >>Sent: 13. august 2004 16:49 >>To: Bridge Laws List >>Subject: Re: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) >> >>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:45:51 +0200, Herman De Wael >>wrote: >> >> >>>South indicates he will also pass three times with this holding and he >>>now leads the Diamond 8. >> >>South has now been allowed to choose all his calls with full knowledge >>of how the other three players will bid the whole auction. >> >>That is a good example of the kind of situation that causes me to >>believe that the board should be cancelled unless the irregularity is >>discovered very soon (as the DBF has suggested to the WBFLC: >>http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L17D ). > > > Reading the DBF suggestions for Law 17D I couldn't agree more with both of > them! > > Moving Law 17D to for instance Law 15 makes sense, I didn't find Law 17D > even when looking for it. > > Allowing a rollback of the auction after partner has made a subsequent call > or after the auction has ended appears completely ridiculous to me, there is > too much information spilled already at that stage. But this just requires > some clarification and not really a significant law change. I shall prefer > to apply the present Law 17D along such lines already. > I'm not really certain about this argument. OK, this player has passed 3 times, and he now gets another hand with which he is asked if he wishes to pass 3 times. What does it matter if he knows or not what his partner has bid? Since he is not allowed to change any of his calls, he cannot use the info anyway. So I really don't see why this law should be any different for one call or for more. > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Aug 13 17:35:32 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:35:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <0ikph0hhcskflgi0sn10tcjjia5vfsl1lc@bilbo.softco.dk> References: <000001c48138$c94cc5e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <0639FD18-ED33-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <0ikph0hhcskflgi0sn10tcjjia5vfsl1lc@bilbo.softco.dk> Message-ID: On 13 Aug 2004, at 15:42, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > Yes. In 2002, L17D was among the laws that the DBF suggested changes > to. Our suggestions for L17D are available at > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L17D > I agree that the law should be moved, and that its intention should be clarified. I'm not yet convinced that correction should be limited as much as the DBF think. I imagine a situation in which a pair has bid an excellent slam, through superior methods and judgement, which they don't expect the field to be in. The opening lead is made and dummy comes down, at which point one of the defenders discovers they've held a hand from a previous board throughout the auction in which they passed at every turn, and in which they would have passed at every turn with the correct hand. It seems tough on the NOS if the director has no option but to cancel the board. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@dybdal.dk Fri Aug 13 17:59:09 2004 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:59:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <411CE142.6010506@hdw.be> References: <000501c4814a$ca590090$6900a8c0@WINXP> <411CE142.6010506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6ppph0ddp6fneul2evtgpoeodvupfjltsd@bilbo.softco.dk> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:41:54 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I'm not really certain about this argument. >OK, this player has passed 3 times, and he now gets another hand with=20 >which he is asked if he wishes to pass 3 times. >What does it matter if he knows or not what his partner has bid? Since=20 >he is not allowed to change any of his calls, he cannot use the info=20 >anyway. With his specific hand here, you are probably right. But with many other hands and auctions, he may (if for instance the opponents have shown much strength in the "future" auction) choose to pass where he otherwise would bid. Or he may choose not to pass and have the board cancelled, for instance if it sounds as if the opponents have found a good contract because of their particular system. The problem is that this law provides strange new options to the *offenders*, while the non-offenders just have to accept that their opponent is given the chance to (in this case) pass with knowledge of the full auction. Of course, you could argue that the problem I've outlined above is there (to some degree) as soon as the offender's LHO calls. And you would be right. So perhaps the board should just be cancelled if LHO has called; and if he has not, then the offender could just be allowed to change his call in any way he likes. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 13 18:32:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:32:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <411CE142.6010506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c4815b$776c2680$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .............. > I'm not really certain about this argument. > OK, this player has passed 3 times, and he now gets another hand with > which he is asked if he wishes to pass 3 times. > What does it matter if he knows or not what his partner has bid? Since > he is not allowed to change any of his calls, he cannot use the info > anyway. So I really don't see why this law should be any different for > one call or for more. You really do surprise me! This was the hand held by South initially: 5 2 J 7 6 A K J 3 J 8 4 2 and this was the hand he was given eventually: 8 7 K 8 J 8 6 5 4 3 A 4 2 South has said after learning the entire auction and the cards held by = his LHO that he would have passed also the second hand just like he passed = the first hand. Do you really believe that without such knowledge it = couldn't cross South's mind to enter the auction with a Diamond bid at some = level? (Remember he was white against red with a six-card suit and close to = average high cards strength)? What kind of (second) hand do you require for South before you consider = a statement by him that he would pass so doubtful that you would no longer allow the reconstructed board to be played? Or would you allow the board = to be played regardless of what kind of hand South eventually were given if = he just states that he would (of course) have passed anyway? Where in the laws do you find justification for the Director to decide whether to cancel or to play the board? And finally: On what criteria should the Director be able to rule = whether the second opening lead is so "equivalent" to his original opening lead = that playing the board can be permitted? After thinking through this situation more I have decided for my own use = of Law 17D that the board must unconditionally be cancelled if partner to = the offender has made any call before the board was rectified after the = offender made his first call on the incorrect board.=20 Sven=20 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Aug 13 23:36:48 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:36:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <000a01c4815b$776c2680$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c4815b$776c2680$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <439FF7B4-ED79-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 13 Aug 2004, at 18:32, Sven Pran wrote: > Where in the laws do you find justification for the Director to decide > whether to cancel or to play the board? > > And finally: On what criteria should the Director be able to rule > whether > the second opening lead is so "equivalent" to his original opening > lead that > playing the board can be permitted? > > After thinking through this situation more I have decided for my own > use of > Law 17D that the board must unconditionally be cancelled if partner to > the > offender has made any call before the board was rectified after the > offender > made his first call on the incorrect board. > > Sven After thinking a bit more about this today, I wonder why the Laws treat this situation, in which a player may have got into a ridiculous situation through carelessness and inattention, differently from all the other ridiculous situations which players get themselves into through carelessness and inattention? Why not just give them the correct hand, and stick them with their actions so far - just as we do when they've missorted? From svenpran@online.no Sat Aug 14 07:55:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 08:55:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <439FF7B4-ED79-11D8-AE3A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c481cb$bbff9550$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford ........... > After thinking a bit more about this today, I wonder why the Laws = treat > this situation, in which a player may have got into a ridiculous > situation through carelessness and inattention, differently from all > the other ridiculous situations which players get themselves into > through carelessness and inattention? Why not just give them the > correct hand, and stick them with their actions so far - just as we do > when they've missorted? As far as I can see the law on "Cards from Wrong Board" was originally introduced in 1987 with the text: "If a player who had inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong = board makes a call, the Director may cancel the board, and must do so if any player on the non-offending side so requires. (for penalty, see Law = 90)." Not much of a guidance to the Director in this text, and so the change = in 1997 must be considered an improvement however unsatisfactory. I believe = the crucial point must be to decide how far the activities with the wrong = cards can progress before "normal play" of the board becomes impossible. The more I think of this situation the more I am convinced that except = in very extreme cases (which should not be up to the Director to decide) = the limit must be when partner to the offender has made a call subsequent to offender's first call with the wrong cards before the board is = corrected.=20 If the first call by the offender happens to be the closing pass in an auction then the limit could probably safely be extended until just = before the offender plays to the first trick, he would then be bound by his = closing pass also with the correct cards. Regards Sven From Mailer-Daemon@red.srv2.com Sat Aug 14 18:17:42 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@red.srv2.com (Mail Delivery System) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:17:42 -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: terry@royalmarines.org This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "your_details.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.172.156] (helo=royalmarines.org) by red.srv2.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bw29l-0005dC-Cu for terry@royalmarines.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:17:42 -0400 From: blml@rtflb.org To: terry@royalmarines.org Subject: Re: Your details Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:17:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_00006C9D.00002629" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_00006C9D.00002629 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please have a look at the attached file. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_00006C9D.00002629 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_details.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_details.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0014_00006C9D.00002629-- From svenpran@online.no Sat Aug 14 19:18:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:18:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Warning - blml is used to spread virus! Message-ID: <000401c4822b$12b31f70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Warning to everybody on blml: The recent message with subject: "Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender" has originally been sent from a virus-infected computer and should be deleted without opening (not even in pre-view). If you have already opened this message without your virus protection = system interfering you should take every step possible to verify whether your computer is still free from virus, and of course clean it if necessary. I have noticed from time to time such messages slipping through the = checks performed at blml, in general any message with a size in the order of = 15kB or above should trigger some suspicion and be treated with care. Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 15 09:07:08 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:07:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) References: <000001c481cb$bbff9550$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c482d1$a6316fd0$029087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Where blind and naked ignorance Delivers brawling judgements, unashamed, On all things all day long." ['Idylls of the King'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 7:55 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) Not much of a guidance to the Director in this text, and so the change in 1997 must be considered an improvement however unsatisfactory. I believe the crucial point must be to decide how far the activities with the wrong cards can progress before "normal play" of the board becomes impossible. < +=+ I have not been following this thread so it may be unwise to comment. However, the statement in 17D that "the Director may..." clearly implies that he has discretion to decide. I would think the basis for his decision might be his opinion whether normal play (as envisaged in 12A2) is possible. +=+ < The more I think of this situation the more I am convinced that except in very extreme cases (which should not be up to the Director to decide) the limit must be when partner to the offender has made a call subsequent to offender's first call with the wrong cards before the board is corrected. < +=+ I am disturbed by the suggestion that a situation may be so extreme that "it should not be up to the Director to decide". What is the Director there for if not to apply the laws in any situation that occurs, including the more difficult ones? The Director is the man/woman/dog with the authority to decide how the laws apply and has the duty of doing so. The reference to "how far the activities with the wrong cards can progess before 'normal' play becomes impossible" puzzles me - presumably I have missed something. If the Director is making the decision at the point when the offender repeats the cancelled call, and in the light of all that has happened on the board, is he not free to decide? - with the exclusion that he is required by the law to award adjusted scores when the repeated call differs in any way from the original cancelled call. One presumes that he understands the game sufficiently to exercise the discretion given him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 15 16:07:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:07:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <000b01c482d1$a6316fd0$029087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000101c482d9$93e24450$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ......... > +=3D+ I have not been following this thread so > it may be unwise to comment. However, > the statement in 17D that "the Director may..." > clearly implies that he has discretion to decide. > I would think the basis for his decision might > be his opinion whether normal play (as > envisaged in 12A2) is possible. +=3D+ > < > The more I think of this situation the more I am > convinced that except in very extreme cases (which > should not be up to the Director to decide) the limit > must be when partner to the offender has made a > call subsequent to offender's first call with the wrong > cards before the board is corrected. > < > +=3D+ I am disturbed by the suggestion that a situation > may be so extreme that "it should not be up to the > Director to decide". What is the Director there for if > not to apply the laws in any situation that occurs, > including the more difficult ones? The Director is the > man/woman/dog with the authority to decide how the > laws apply and has the duty of doing so. I was mainly thinking along the lines that there are some situations = where the Director does not have any authority to rule that an irregularity = can be ignored however insignificant it may seem.=20 One example is when a deck of cards contains say two deuces of clubs but = no three. Another example is when a board has been played in a slightly different version from the other copies of that same board. We have Law 25A which draws a clear and undisputable time limit at the moment partner makes a call, the Director is not at liberty to allow a = Law 25A correction of an inadvertent call after this time limit has been = reached whatever good reasons he may feel he has for allowing this. Cases can always be constructed where an irregularity probably can = safely be ignored but I see little sense in allowing the Director to decide = whether a deuce of clubs swapped with a three from another hand is such a case. = Where shall we draw the line? Shall we establish a principle that when two = boards who should be identical differs in cards of honor rank we have a = significant difference otherwise the Director may allow the board to be played = normally? What do we do when some player subsequently shows the possibility (or probability) that holding the four instead of the five in a particular = suit had made the whole difference for his defense? No, please leave some = rules as they are today with no judgment available to the Director! What I simply tried was to show that I find the same time limit which applies in Law 25A reasonable also in Law 17D (which hopefully will be = moved to a more sensible place in the law book). The logic here is that the = first call made by the offender on the wrong hand has no relation to the cards = he is eventually given and as such should be treated in exactly the same = way as an inadvertent call is treated under Law 25A.=20 > The reference to "how far the activities with the > wrong cards can progess before 'normal' play becomes > impossible" puzzles me - presumably I have missed > something. If the Director is making the decision at the > point when the offender repeats the cancelled call, and > in the light of all that has happened on the board, is he > not free to decide? - with the exclusion that he is > required by the law to award adjusted scores when > the repeated call differs in any way from the original > cancelled call. One presumes that he understands the > game sufficiently to exercise the discretion given him. Law 17D in its present form is rather confusing: First (if LHO has made = a subsequent call) it instructs the Director to award an artificial = adjusted score when offender's substituted call differs in any significant way = from his cancelled call. Then the Director "may allow" the board to be played normally if the offender repeats the cancelled call, and finally the Director is instructed to assign artificial adjusted scores when = offender's call differs in any way from his original cancelled call. Here we progress from "differs in any significant way" (applicable when = LHO has made a subsequent call) all the way to "differs in any way" = (applicable in all cases!). It appears to me that we can safely ignore the entire = part of law 17D that says "differs in any significant way". There is more to say on Law 17D, we were presented in this thread with several complications from allowing a board to be played when the = offender had called three times on the wrong hand and in fact also made an = opening lead before the irregularity was discovered and corrected.=20 My suggestion is to harmonize the present law 17D with the current rules given in Law 25A. Period. (Do you accept this for your notebook?) Regards Sven=20 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Aug 15 16:30:53 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:30:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <000101c482d9$93e24450$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c482d9$93e24450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <17F69B10-EED0-11D8-A509-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 15 Aug 2004, at 16:07, Sven Pran wrote: > Shall we establish a principle that when two boards > who should be identical differs in cards of honor rank we have a > significant > difference otherwise the Director may allow the board to be played > normally? > In the types of case under discussion, the packs don't differ at all: it's simply that one player has called without referring to the correct hand. As I mentioned earlier, I think it would be very unfair to a pair who had bid accurately to a good slam, to automatically have that taken away (and replaced with 60% or +3 IMPs) simply because one opponent had passed throughout while looking at the balanced 6-count from the next board rather than the balanced 4-count from this board. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 15 17:55:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:55:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <17F69B10-EED0-11D8-A509-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c482e8$a8732b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford ............. > As I mentioned earlier, I think it would be very unfair to a pair who > had bid accurately to a good slam, to automatically have that taken > away (and replaced with 60% or +3 IMPs) simply because one opponent = had > passed throughout while looking at the balanced 6-count from the next > board rather than the balanced 4-count from this board. Is it fairer that the board must (sic!) be cancelled if it should appear that for instance a small club held by one defender has been exchanged = with another small club held by the other defender and this fouled board has = been played at only one table? However insignificant this duplication error = might be judged by the Director the laws give him no alternative but to cancel = the board - see Law 87. Sven From bbickford@charter.net Sun Aug 15 18:25:37 2004 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:25:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) References: <000201c482e8$a8732b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001201c482ec$e196ddb0$c9eec418@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 12:55 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) > Gordon Rainsford ............. > As I mentioned earlier, I think it would be very unfair to a pair who > had bid accurately to a good slam, to automatically have that taken > away (and replaced with 60% or +3 IMPs) simply because one opponent had > passed throughout while looking at the balanced 6-count from the next > board rather than the balanced 4-count from this board. Is it fairer that the board must (sic!) be cancelled if it should appear that for instance a small club held by one defender has been exchanged with another small club held by the other defender and this fouled board has been played at only one table? However insignificant this duplication error might be judged by the Director the laws give him no alternative but to cancel the board - see Law 87. Sven Several years ago(1970???) I was involved (as a player) in a similar situation in an ACBL Sebcional Tournament. In a two section open pairs final, about round ten of thirteen, I discovered a board with two eights of diamonds. I called director and it was determined the other section had two sevens of diamonds. The director determined that this spot card had no impact on either bidding or play and determined that no adjustments should be made. I agree with the lack of impact, but have always been uncomfortable with his ruling. I would appreciate any comments. Cheers........................../Bill Bickford _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 15 19:12:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:12:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <001201c482ec$e196ddb0$c9eec418@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <000301c482f3$70f90bd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Bill Bickford ............. > Several years ago(1970???) I was involved (as a player) in a similar > situation in an ACBL Sebcional Tournament. In a two section open = pairs > final, about round ten of thirteen, I discovered a board with two = eights > of > diamonds. I called director and it was determined the other section = had > two > sevens of diamonds. The director determined that this spot card had = no > impact on either bidding or play and determined that no adjustments = should > be made. I agree with the lack of impact, but have always been > uncomfortable with his ruling. I would appreciate any comments. I assume the error was not discovered for either section until they had actually started the auction on the erratic boards? (Otherwise you just correct the board and get going). If the error was not discovered until the auction and play was completed = and a result obtained then the rule is clear: "No result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform to the specifications of = this law. This holds true even when the discrepancy appears to be irrelevant, such as there being two deuces of clubs but no three" (Commentaries to = the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge issued by EBL in 1992, re Law 1).=20 So what happens if such an error is discovered during the auction or = play?=20 The laws are surprisingly silent, the most relevant law I have found is = Law 13 which really isn't relevant at all but which could give some = guidance.=20 Essentially Law 13 allows the Director to rule that the board may be = played and scored normally (after correction) if all four players concur and he rules that the information from the error will not interfere with normal bidding or play. But how is the Director to judge the significance of = the error? In Robert Darvas "Right through the pack" the three of clubs tells the = story where the relative positions for the deuce and the three of clubs meant = the entire difference between 3NT made and 3NT down one! I shall as a = Director prefer never to be engaged in a on the spot judgment of whether the = actual locations of "small" cards are significant or not. That judgment had = best be postponed until the post mortem. Consequently I shall prefer always to cancel a board when it appears that it does not conform to Law 1 and = some action has already been taken on the board when the discrepancy is discovered. If your 52 cards deployed in a game of bridge do not conform to the specifications in Law 1 then whatever game you are playing is not bridge = and should not be evaluated as a game of bridge. Regards Sven=20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Aug 15 22:56:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:56:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >>Is it fairer that the board must (sic!) be >>cancelled if it should appear that for >>instance a small club held by one defender >>has been exchanged with another small club >>held by the other defender and this fouled >>board has been played at only one table? >> >>However insignificant this duplication >>error might be judged by the Director the >>laws give him no alternative but to cancel >>the board - see Law 87. Law 87 states: >A board is considered to be "fouled" **if >the Director determines** that one or more >cards were misplaced in the board, in such >manner that contestants who should have had >a direct score comparison did not play the >board in identical form. Richard Hills replies: Some ACBL events do not use pre-duplicated boards, so there is no official record of the exact location of the deuce of clubs and the devil's bedposts. Suppose that halfway through such an ACBL event: (a) players at a table count their cards, (b) players note 14-12, so call the TD, (c) the TD discovers that the 12 card hand needs *either* the devil's bedposts *or* the deuce of clubs, (d) there is no way of guessing which of the two club pips is the "correct" card, then (e) the TD randomly "determines" that the devil's bedposts now belongs to the 12 card hand, so (f) the board is not *unnecessarily* fouled. Likewise, an insignificant duplication error does not mean that an ACBL TD "must" declare a board fouled, since the ACBL TD may decide that an insignificant duplication error is not worth the ACBL TD issuing an official determination pursuant to Law 87. Best wishes RJH From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 16 01:50:15 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:50:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition References: <20040812222703.14871.9941.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1092361699.26448.202250104@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <003d01c4832b$4d1b8ca0$119868d5@jeushtlj> [David Babcock] > David's point does not suggest this question. > David's point answers this question: yes. {Nigel] Previously, I did explain why I disagreed with your answer, David . Inter alia I quoted Grattan, who tells us that unless a bridge action is stated to be legal, it is illegal. So leading to the next trick before the current trick is turned would seem to be illegal, (especially in light of the laws banning aides-memoires and insisting that cards be turned cards when a trick is complete). I cannot believe that TFLB can be interpreted as permitting declarer to leave dummy's (or his own) played cards face-up. {David Babcock] > the NOS does what? Calls the director? > You want less control of the game by TDs > and ACs, but now we have the director > involved where none was (or the game comes to > a dead halt), and we increase the quantity of law > by trying to reconcile everything that needs, or > seems to need, reconciling. [Nigel] Earlier I opined that premature leads *should be* illegal. A deliberate premature lead smacks of gamesmanship -- even if declarer is playing slowly. After all, the CoC can prescribe penalties for slow play. Having read the laws deemed relevant by BLMLers, I now believe, however, that TFLB confirms that premature leads *are* illegal . TFLB does not seem to state a penalty for all possible legal infractions. Sven Pran says there is no penalty prescribed for leading prematurely. Fair enough. Perhaps, however, there should be redress if a such a lead harasses a declarer into a mistake. I would still be grateful for any explanation as to whether or not the following acts *are* currently legal and whether of not they *should be* legal: 1. Defender leads to the next trick before all cards played to the current trick have been turned (not as part of a claim). 2. Declarer plays from dummy to defender's premature lead to the next trick before ensuring that cards from previous trick(s) have been turned. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Aug 16 03:07:55 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:07:55 +1200 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <003d01c4832b$4d1b8ca0$119868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000d01c48335$d875ca40$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Monday, 16 August 2004 12:50 p.m. > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Equitable competition > Having read the laws deemed relevant by BLMLers, I > now believe, however, that TFLB confirms that > premature leads *are* illegal . A lead made when it is my turn to lead whether or not the opponents have turned their cards face down is not premature. Wayne From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 16 03:24:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 22:24:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <59389AEC-EF2B-11D8-A6BF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Aug 15, 2004, at 17:56 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 87 states: > >> A board is considered to be "fouled" **if >> the Director determines** that one or more >> cards were misplaced in the board, in such >> manner that contestants who should have had >> a direct score comparison did not play the >> board in identical form. > > Richard Hills replies: > > Some ACBL events do not use pre-duplicated > boards, so there is no official record of > the exact location of the deuce of clubs and > the devil's bedposts. > > Suppose that halfway through such an ACBL > event: > > (a) players at a table count their cards, > > (b) players note 14-12, so call the TD, > > (c) the TD discovers that the 12 card hand > needs *either* the devil's bedposts *or* > the deuce of clubs, > > (d) there is no way of guessing which of the > two club pips is the "correct" card, > > then > > (e) the TD randomly "determines" that the > devil's bedposts now belongs to the 12 > card hand, > > so > > (f) the board is not *unnecessarily* fouled. > > Likewise, an insignificant duplication error > does not mean that an ACBL TD "must" declare > a board fouled, since the ACBL TD may decide > that an insignificant duplication error is > not worth the ACBL TD issuing an official > determination pursuant to Law 87. Makes life easier on the TD, to be sure, but I'm not convinced you have correctly interpreted this law. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Aug 16 03:52:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:52:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Likewise, an insignificant duplication error >>does not mean that an ACBL TD "must" declare >>a board fouled, since the ACBL TD may decide >>that an insignificant duplication error is >>not worth the ACBL TD issuing an official >>determination pursuant to Law 87. Ed Reppert: >Makes life easier on the TD, to be sure, but >I'm not convinced you have correctly >interpreted this law. :-) Richard Hills: It is not *my* interpretation of Law 87, it is an *ACBL* interpretation of Law 87, which I stumbled across in a recent *ACBL* Appeals Casebook. *My* interpretation of Law 87 would be a similar hard-line to Sven's interpretation of Law 87 - if a TD cannot guarantee that a board can be reconstituted in its identical original form, then Law 87 must apply. I agree with Sven's example from Right Through The Pack, which had one chapter entitled "A Trey Wins By Weight". In my opinion, a TD should not arbitrarily *determine* that it makes no difference between a four of clubs (the devil's bedposts) and a deuce of clubs. Best wishes RJH From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 16 04:41:48 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:41:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <33BAA2E0-EF36-11D8-A6BF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Aug 15, 2004, at 22:52 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > It is not *my* interpretation of Law 87, it is > an *ACBL* interpretation of Law 87, which I > stumbled across in a recent *ACBL* Appeals > Casebook. Well, then I guess it's the ACBL with whom I disagree. Too bad, since I'm stuck with 'em. :( > > *My* interpretation of Law 87 would be a > similar hard-line to Sven's interpretation of > Law 87 - if a TD cannot guarantee that a board > can be reconstituted in its identical original > form, then Law 87 must apply. > > I agree with Sven's example from Right Through > The Pack, which had one chapter entitled "A > Trey Wins By Weight". In my opinion, a TD > should not arbitrarily *determine* that it > makes no difference between a four of clubs > (the devil's bedposts) and a deuce of clubs. That makes three of us, then. :-) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 16 05:01:46 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:01:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000d01c48335$d875ca40$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <004f01c48345$c03509e0$119868d5@jeushtlj> [Wayne Burrows] > A lead made when it is my turn to lead > whether or not the opponents have turned > their cards face down is not premature. {Nigel] Let us define "premature lead" as "a lead to the next trick while card(s) that belong to the current trick are still face up". It does not matter what you call it. Is a "premature lead" legal? why? and should it be? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Aug 16 05:55:53 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:55:53 +1200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <004f01c48345$c03509e0$119868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Monday, 16 August 2004 4:02 p.m. > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > > > [Wayne Burrows] > > A lead made when it is my turn to lead > > whether or not the opponents have turned > > their cards face down is not premature. > > {Nigel] > Let us define "premature lead" as "a lead to the > next trick while card(s) that belong to the > current trick are still face up". > > It does not matter what you call it. Is a > "premature lead" legal? why? and should it be? It is legal when it is my turn to lead and I have an obligation to play in tempo. There is nothing in the laws that says that I have an obligation to wait for some other player to discharge his duties. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 16 06:34:07 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:34:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c48352$a6dffab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............. > Sven Pran asked: >=20 > >>Is it fairer that the board must (sic!) be > >>cancelled if it should appear that for > >>instance a small club held by one defender > >>has been exchanged with another small club > >>held by the other defender and this fouled > >>board has been played at only one table? > >> > >>However insignificant this duplication > >>error might be judged by the Director the > >>laws give him no alternative but to cancel > >>the board - see Law 87. >=20 > Law 87 states: >=20 > >A board is considered to be "fouled" **if > >the Director determines** that one or more > >cards were misplaced in the board, in such > >manner that contestants who should have had > >a direct score comparison did not play the > >board in identical form. >=20 > Richard Hills replies: >=20 > Some ACBL events do not use pre-duplicated > boards, so there is no official record of > the exact location of the deuce of clubs and > the devil's bedposts. >=20 > Suppose that halfway through such an ACBL > event: >=20 > (a) players at a table count their cards, >=20 > (b) players note 14-12, so call the TD, >=20 > (c) the TD discovers that the 12 card hand > needs *either* the devil's bedposts *or* > the deuce of clubs, >=20 > (d) there is no way of guessing which of the > two club pips is the "correct" card, >=20 > then >=20 > (e) the TD randomly "determines" that the > devil's bedposts now belongs to the 12 > card hand, >=20 > so >=20 > (f) the board is not *unnecessarily* fouled. >=20 > Likewise, an insignificant duplication error > does not mean that an ACBL TD "must" declare > a board fouled, since the ACBL TD may decide > that an insignificant duplication error is > not worth the ACBL TD issuing an official > determination pursuant to Law 87. Pre-duplication or not, law 87 uses the words "in identical form". I = don't know how ACBL understands the word "identical", to me that word is unambiguous and leaves no room for anyone to judge whether a difference = is significant or not. When we train directors in Norway we tell them that "identical" means exactly what that word literally says. I have reasons to trust that the same is the case in most other parts of = the world. Sven From dpb3@fastmail.fm Mon Aug 16 14:53:31 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:53:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] "don't start a new board" Message-ID: <1092664411.14572.202414879@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hi all, If the director says to the room, let's say 2 minutes before the round call, "don't start a new board", and at one table all four players have looked at their hands but no one has bid, what is the situation? Specifically: I was a playing director with a slow partner, it was time for the two-minute warning, and we had removed our cards from the tray and looked, but no one had bid. I made the above announcement, and we proceeded with the board at our table. Later, I was criticized (discreetly and privately) by one player for not following my own instructions. To me, Law 17A was conclusive--if the "auction period has begun" for both sides (or, I suppose, just one), it seems convoluted to say that the board has bot begun in any common-sense understanding of those words. The intent surely is that once there is information on the hands, deferring bidding/play runs a risk if the players are not entirely ethical (though I will welcome correction by any LC members who surely know better than I what the thinking was behind the various laws). Was I missing something (besides the sense to wait for the dealer to bid and then make the announcement)? TIA. David Babcock Florida USA From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 16 16:04:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:04:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] "don't start a new board" In-Reply-To: <1092664411.14572.202414879@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000001c483a2$48332af0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Babcock > If the director says to the room, let's say 2 minutes > before the round call, "don't start a new board", and > at one table all four players have looked at their hands > but no one has bid, what is the situation? Specifically: > I was a playing director with a slow partner, it was > time for the two-minute warning, and we had removed our cards > from the tray and looked, but no one had bid. I made the above > announcement, and we proceeded with the board at our table. > Later, I was criticized (discreetly and privately) by one > player for not following my own instructions. To me, > Law 17A was conclusive--if the "auction period > has begun" for both sides > (or, I suppose, just one), it seems convoluted to say that the > board has bot begun in any common-sense understanding > of those words. The intent surely is that once there is > information on the hands, deferring bidding/play runs a risk > if the players are not entirely ethical (though I will > welcome correction by any LC members who surely know better > than I what the thinking was behind the various laws). > Was I missing something (besides the sense to wait for > the dealer to bid and then make the announcement)? TIA. As a director you were in an uncomfortable situation but the rule is clear (Law 17A): The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards. There is some logic here: Once a side has looked at any of their cards they cannot be given the choice whether to complete the board or to discard it. Your problem is of course: "Don't you follow your own instructions?" As a Director I would probably first have announced at my own table: "Sorry folks, I must call the round now so we cannot start this board" and then call the round (or give the "do not start another board" signal). Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Aug 16 22:58:53 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:58:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) References: <000101c482d9$93e24450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003201c483de$bc612d00$408e4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Where blind and naked ignorance Delivers brawling judgements, unashamed, On all things all day long." ['Idylls of the King'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 4:07 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) << My suggestion is to harmonize the present law 17D with the current rules given in Law 25A. Period. (Do you accept this for your notebook?) Regards Sven +=+ I cannot comment at this stage. My current task is to compose the various lengthy opinions of subcommittee members (concerning the product from Monaco) into an programme for Istanbul, where the chairman intends that we shall make final decisions on what the subcommittee recommends the new laws should do and say. After that we have to decide how to proceed with the objective of having a new code ready by the end of 2005. That at any rate is the latest guidance I have. It envisages that after Istanbul, with principles settled, there will be some further tightening of the text. I could not possibly assesstimate the probabilities of success. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 16 23:51:10 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:51:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <001e01c483e3$86e53680$129868d5@jeushtlj> [Wayne Burrows] > It is legal when it is my turn to lead and I have > an obligation to play in tempo. There is nothing > in the laws that says that I have an obligation > to wait for some other player to discharge his > duties. [Nigel] Thank you everyone who answered all my questions and refuted all my arguments about the illegality of "playing to the next trick when there are still cards face-up, belonging to the current trick." The unanimous BLML consensus seems to be that it isn't illegal, nor should it be. For the sake of the future of Bridge, I hope there are a few lurking heretics unwilling to comment. On the plus side, answers to my questions by legal experts, destroy misconceptions that many ordinary players like me had about the nature and purpose of TFLB. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06-Aug-04 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 17 01:05:41 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:05:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition References: <20040812222703.14871.9941.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1092361699.26448.202250104@webmail.messagingengine.com> <003d01c4832b$4d1b8ca0$119868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003301c483ee$08607210$bacd403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Equitable competition > Inter alia I quoted Grattan, > who tells us that unless a bridge action is stated > to be legal, it is illegal. << +=+ I would probably have said 'extraneous' rather than 'illegal', quoting minute item 8 of the WBFLC meeting, 28th August 1998. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 17 01:46:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:46:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>Inter alia I quoted Grattan, who tells us that >>>unless a bridge action is stated to be legal, it >>>is illegal. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I would probably have said 'extraneous' rather >>than 'illegal', quoting minute item 8 of the WBFLC >>meeting, 28th August 1998. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBFLC minutes, item 8, 19th October 1997: >Is an action that is not mentioned in the Laws >legal? Anything not mentioned is "extraneous". It >may be considered illegal if information deriving >from it is used. > >For example, the Laws permit a player to look at >his opponents' convention card at his own turn to >call or play. Some people have suggested that >since the Laws do not mention anything about a >player looking at his opponents' convention card at >other players' turns then that is legal. But that >is not so. Best wishes Richard Hills From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 17 03:28:31 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:28:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <200408121405.i7CE5orM019254@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408121405.i7CE5orM019254@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41216D4F.7080500@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > I would consequently rule pursuant to Law 47E2(b) > that the defenders are entitled to a Law 40C > adjusted score. Since the combination of Law 46B4, > Law 47E2(b) and Law 40C directs that restarting the > play from the moment of the void call by declarer is > not possible, I would award an artificial adjusted > score. Oh, Richard! (And David, where are your comments on this?) I don't think an adjusted score is what I'd do, but it isn't clearly ruled out either. Certainly you can use L12A1 if you can't find any other law that covers the situation, and nobody could say you are wrong. But why an _artificial_ score? Can't you find "probable" and "at all likely" results from the moment just prior to the irregularity? From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 17 03:40:37 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:40:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <200408121412.i7CEC7oQ019652@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408121412.i7CEC7oQ019652@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41217025.6060006@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Nope, I self-sacrificingly argue that *if* the > ABF Alert Regulation did not exist (which reg > requires that I alert a 3H bid on the third > relay), *then* my Symmetric Relay system would be > an unLawful contravention of Law 40B. This seems very strange to me. Was your relay system illegal before alerts existed? (Well, it might have been illegal in North America, but that has nothing to do with alerts.) What about your 4C bid, if your SO forbids alerts above 3NT (as many do). Would that make a 4C relay illegal? Some pairs here play auctions such as 1m-2m(forcing)-4m as ace asking. That's not alertable*, and there's no obvious place on the CC to show it, although I suppose "other conventional calls" might be used if it isn't full with more important agreements. Do you think the 4C bid is illegal? And I could give other examples that aren't conventions and would not be alertable in most jurisdictions. How about the same 1m-2m-4m where you have a specific agreement that 4m is or is not forcing. That's a "partnership understanding," after all, and I don't think either one is even post- alertable in the ACBL. I think your interpretation is very strange. "Disclose in response to questions" (the default method, after all) seems to me sufficient to satisfy L40B unless the SO specifically requires additional disclosure. ----- *Technically it is "post-alertable" in the ACBL, so maybe that makes my argument moot. Still, one could imagine an SO that didn't require post-alerts. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 17 03:45:47 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:45:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <200408121823.i7CIN45k009053@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408121823.i7CIN45k009053@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4121715B.8010602@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Any statement which establishes a particular condition for a corresponding > action to be taken implies that this action is not an alternative unless the > specified condition is satisfied; this is simple logic which ought to be > understood by everybody - stubborn lawyers possibly exempted. Count me in with the "stubborn lawyers" if you must, but this "simple logic" looks wrong to me. If the specified condition does not exist, I'd say the action may or may not be an alternative, and we have to look at other laws to find out. Example: after certain insufficient bids, someone may be barred from the auction. Does that mean if there is no IB, a player cannot be barred? Of course not! A call out of rotation (and perhaps other infractions) can also result in a player being barred. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 17 04:04:42 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:04:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <200408121405.i7CE5orM019254@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408121405.i7CE5orM019254@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412175CA.1030800@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Declarer called > for dummy to lead "ace of diamonds" as the first > card to a trick, but there was no ace of diamonds > in dummy. > > Law 46B4: > >>>>If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, >>>>the call is void ..... This looks like the right track. Whatever else you believe, declarer's call for the D-A was and remains void. This seems to be the only clear and specific law that applies. Despite the absence of a legal designation, dummy has placed a card into played position. We don't appear to have any guidance on whether this card should be deemed played or not. As someone else pointed out, in some cases, we deem a card played from dummy even when declarer has not designated it (e.g., a singleton or meaningless low cards or cards of equal rank). One possible ruling is to do so here, and then deal with three revokes. Another possibility is the one Herman suggested. Declarer has made no play from dummy, and declarer's RHO led out of turn. Declarer accepted this LOOT by following suit, and dummy incorrectly put a fourth card into the trick. There is no penalty for this revoke, of course. I don't see anything in the written laws that makes one ruling correct and the other wrong. It all depends on whether dummy's action is considered a "play" or just a random rearrangement of dummy's cards. Probably there should be a general law to cover this in the next edition. Grattan? One thing, though, is quite clear. As David S. pointed out, this whole mess was caused by dummy's original infraction of L41D. This Law specifies no indemnity (and violation will not normally incur a penalty), but the NOS should be protected from damage via L12A1. Thus no matter what your mechanical ruling, you should consider an adjusted score based on "likely" and "at all probable" results if dummy had been spread correctly. In no case should the defenders be given a score worse than that (absent the usual qualification of IWoG or egregious error or whatever applies). From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 17 07:21:30 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:21:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition References: <20040812222703.14871.9941.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1092361699.26448.202250104@webmail.messagingengine.com> <003d01c4832b$4d1b8ca0$119868d5@jeushtlj> <003301c483ee$08607210$bacd403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <001501c48422$88dc7400$72c9403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "Nigel Guthrie" ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Equitable competition > << > +=+ I would probably have said 'extraneous' rather > than 'illegal', quoting minute item 8 of the WBFLC > meeting, 28th August 1998. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ Correction:. 24th August 1998. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 17 08:54:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:54:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Nope, I self-sacrificingly argue that *if* the >>ABF Alert Regulation did not exist (which reg >>requires that I alert a 3H bid on the third >>relay), *then* my Symmetric Relay system would be >>an unLawful contravention of Law 40B. Steve Willner: >This seems very strange to me. Was your relay >system illegal before alerts existed? (Well, it >might have been illegal in North America, but >that has nothing to do with alerts.) Richard Hills: A hypothetical question. The Symmetric Relay system was invented circa 1980, but the ABF had an alert regulation in existence prior to that date. Steve Willner: >What about your 4C bid, if your SO forbids alerts >above 3NT (as many do). Would that make a 4C >relay illegal? [big snip] Richard Hills: A good point. A naive argument is that the ABF's *self-alerting* rule -> for doubles, redoubles, cuebids, and above-3NT calls -> is an illegal reg directly contrary to the "full disclosure" rule of Law 75A. I argue, rather: (a) The *specific* Law 40B over-rides the *general* Law 75A in any conflict between the two; (b) The Law 40B phrase, "or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation," permits an SO to *prohibit* any disclosure when that SO deems fit; and, (c) Because disclosure of my 4C relay response is prohibited by a Law 40B reg of my SO, my Symmetric Relay system remains compliant with Law 40B. Whether or not I can legally play the Symmetric Relay system -> which is otherwise compliant with a non-disclosure Alert reg of my SO -> is a matter for my SO to regulate under Law 40D (not Law 40B). Best wishes RJH From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 17 09:49:53 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:49:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote References: <200408121405.i7CE5orM019254@cfa.harvard.edu> <412175CA.1030800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002201c48437$586888d0$5c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Where blind and naked ignorance Delivers brawling judgements, unashamed, On all things all day long." ['Idylls of the King'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ANeCdote > > > > Law 46B4: > > > >>>>If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, > >>>>the call is void ..... > > This looks like the right track. Whatever else you believe, declarer's > call for the D-A was and remains void. This seems to be the only clear > and specific law that applies. > > Despite the absence of a legal designation, dummy has placed a card into > played position. We don't appear to have any guidance on whether this > card should be deemed played or not. > > Another possibility is the one Herman suggested. Declarer has made no > play from dummy, and declarer's RHO led out of turn. > > I don't see anything in the written laws that makes one ruling correct > and the other wrong. It all depends on whether dummy's action is > considered a "play" or just a random rearrangement of dummy's cards. > Probably there should be a general law to cover this in the next > edition. Grattan? > +=+ My standard reply to an invitations to 'note' is now "I am unable to comment". The reason was set out in a post yesterday. It does not mean that I will simply ignore an evident difficulty of which I become aware. As to the facts of the case I believe as follows: (1) Law 46B4 applies. (2) Law 45D applies. Declarer has not required that the card be replaced in dummy No player has drawn attention to the irregularity before three further cards have been played to the trick. An irregular lead has been made from dummy, RHO's card is not the first card played to the trick. Until each side has played to the following trick, if attention is drawn to the erroneous play from dummy the trick must be rolled back - all cards played to it being withdrawn. Defenders' cards are withdrawn without penalty. Declarer withdraws the card from his hand and, being an offender, is subject to Law 16C2. Defenders are not offenders. After the sides have both played to the following trick without attention drawn, the irregular trick has been quitted and stands as played. Laws 63A1 and 63C are applicable. So it appears to me, and if anyone gets hurt they should put it down to experience (or inexperience) and their own inattention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From dpb3@fastmail.fm Tue Aug 17 13:07:51 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:07:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: "don't start a new board" In-Reply-To: <20040817100003.7294.95464.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040817100003.7294.95464.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1092744471.27406.202486739@webmail.messagingengine.com> Sven and list, > There is some logic here: Once a side has looked at any of their cards > they > cannot be given the choice whether to complete the board or to discard > it. Yes, that seemed to me to be the logic. Once a player has looked at his cards, the chance for chicanery, or, probably more likely, for connecting some overheard post-mortem remark later in the session to what he had seen, is clear. > Your problem is of course: "Don't you follow your own instructions?" > > As a Director I would probably first have announced at my own table: > "Sorry > folks, I must call the round now so we cannot start this board" and then > call the round (or give the "do not start another board" signal). > > Regards Sven The practical matter is that the Friday night session is the only session where we have to be out of the building soon after the scheduled end of the game, and so I was trying (maybe too hard) to avoid a late play for our table by getting *us* in under the wire (easy enough when you decide where the wire is). The folks are used to the game being scored before they go home, and I didn't want to disappoint on that. This was something of a self-inflicted problem, though. I had not wanted to leave the table as dummy during the session (hadn't even considered it, actually), but it seems that doing that may be the most sensible remedy. I checked with a club colleague, and we now have a rule for Friday nights--if you play with the director, be ready to play dummy's cards. Not perfect, but better than going nuts. The policy may need to be reviewed if Lorenzo Lauria shows up, though... :-)) David Babcock Florida USA From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Aug 17 13:23:01 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:23:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <412175CA.1030800@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408121405.i7CE5orM019254@cfa.harvard.edu> <412175CA.1030800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040817081129.02b150d0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:04 PM 8/16/04, Steve wrote: >One thing, though, is quite clear. As David S. pointed out, this >whole mess was caused by dummy's original infraction of L41D. This >Law specifies no indemnity (and violation will not normally incur a >penalty), but the NOS should be protected from damage via L12A1. Thus >no matter what your mechanical ruling, you should consider an adjusted >score based on "likely" and "at all probable" results if dummy had >been spread correctly. In no case should the defenders be given a >score worse than that (absent the usual qualification of IWoG or >egregious error or whatever applies). I accept that this is the apparent consensus, but I find it odd that nobody has suggested that the defenders were partly at fault. Somebody did "follow suit" to the DA while holding the DA in their hand. It seems to me that this is at least as egregious a lack of attention to the game as that of the player who mis-sorted the dummy. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Aug 17 13:45:48 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:45:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040817082811.02b14830@pop.starpower.net> At 03:54 AM 8/17/04, richard.hills wrote: >A good point. A naive argument is that the ABF's >*self-alerting* rule -> for doubles, redoubles, >cuebids, and above-3NT calls -> is an illegal reg >directly contrary to the "full disclosure" rule of >Law 75A. > >I argue, rather: > >(a) The *specific* Law 40B over-rides the *general* >Law 75A in any conflict between the two; > >(b) The Law 40B phrase, "or unless his side >discloses the use of such call or play in >accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring >organisation," permits an SO to *prohibit* any >disclosure when that SO deems fit; and, > >(c) Because disclosure of my 4C relay response is >prohibited by a Law 40B reg of my SO, my Symmetric >Relay system remains compliant with Law 40B. > >Whether or not I can legally play the Symmetric >Relay system -> which is otherwise compliant with a >non-disclosure Alert reg of my SO -> is a matter >for my SO to regulate under Law 40D (not Law 40B). I disagree with the statement that an SO may prohibit disclosure, but, that said, I don't see how they could do so solely via the mechanism of the alert procedure, which merely specifies the mechanism by which disclosure is to be accomplished. By declaring a bid to be "self-alerting", the SO is simply putting opponents on notice that if they want disclosure they must ask for it -- exactly the same position they would be in were there no alert procedure (in effect, for this bid, that's the case). That is, IMO, in complete conformity with both the letter and the "spirit" of L40B, and I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it. If an SO were to declare some bid "self-explaining", allowing the partner of the bidder to refuse a request for an explanation, I would read TFLB as making that regulation illegal. I suspect Richard would too. But our reading would be wrong, by the infamous WBF interpretation of the powers granted to SOs by L40D. Given that L40D regulations may "trump" any of the other laws in the book, a reg that said that if you use a convention you may not explain its meaning to the opponents would have to be perfectly legal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 17 14:42:30 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:42:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040817082811.02b14830@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c48460$0ac0a260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau wrote: ............. > I disagree with the statement that an SO may prohibit disclosure, but, > that said, I don't see how they could do so solely via the mechanism of > the alert procedure, which merely specifies the mechanism by which > disclosure is to be accomplished. The alert procedure is never meant as "the mechanism by which disclosure is to be accomplished". It is a mechanism by which disclosure is to be initialized! Disclosure is accomplished by asking questions and obtaining answers unless looking at written declarations gives sufficient information. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Aug 17 16:05:35 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:05:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying In-Reply-To: <000201c48460$0ac0a260$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040817082811.02b14830@pop.starpower.net> <000201c48460$0ac0a260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040817110119.02f00310@pop.starpower.net> At 09:42 AM 8/17/04, Sven wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > I disagree with the statement that an SO may prohibit disclosure, but, > > that said, I don't see how they could do so solely via the mechanism of > > the alert procedure, which merely specifies the mechanism by which > > disclosure is to be accomplished. > >The alert procedure is never meant as "the mechanism by which >disclosure is >to be accomplished". > >It is a mechanism by which disclosure is to be initialized! Disclosure is >accomplished by asking questions and obtaining answers unless looking at >written declarations gives sufficient information. Sven is quite right; I should have written "a mechanism by which disclosure is to be facilitated". Which only reinforces the point I was trying to make: there is no way that an alert procedure, by itself, can "prohibit disclosure". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 17 15:55:19 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:55:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote References: <200408121405.i7CE5orM019254@cfa.harvard.edu> <412175CA.1030800@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20040817081129.02b150d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c484f7$3b425d10$5c934c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Where blind and naked ignorance Delivers brawling judgements, unashamed, On all things all day long." ['Idylls of the King'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ANeCdote > > I accept that this is the apparent consensus, but I find it > odd that nobody has suggested that the defenders were > partly at fault. Somebody did "follow suit" to the DA > while holding the DA in their hand. It seems to me that > this is at least as egregious a lack of attention to the game > as that of the player who mis-sorted the dummy. > +=+ So long as the law allows these defenders to withdraw their cards they do so without penalty. If the play progresses so far that the trick cannot be retrieved and they cannot withdraw their cards, the law does not protect them from the consequences of having revoked - nor indeed is declarer protected ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Aug 18 17:35:15 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:35:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, Law 42B allows dummy to enquire about a possible revoke by declarer (42B1). He also may (42B2) attempt to prevent any irregularity by declarer. 3NT, East leads in turn with SK (won) and continue with SQ (won) and SJ (won), declarer discarding a D2. Case 1: East puts a 4th S on table, then dummy asks: "no H partner" before declarer plays to 4th trick (from dummy). Revoke not yet established. Case 2: East puts a 4th S on table, declarer calls a card from dummy, then dummy asks: no S partner. Revoke established. First reading: in both cases, irregularity (the revoke) already occurred when dummy asked for. Second reading: in case 1, the "irregularity" has not yet occurred (revoke is not established) and dummy may attempt to prevent. In case 2, it is too late to use dummy's rights. My interpretation. Your comments pls. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 18 19:25:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:25:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c48550$b8aed540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > Law 42B allows dummy to enquire about a possible revoke by > declarer (42B1). He also may (42B2) attempt to prevent > any irregularity by declarer. > > 3NT, East leads in turn with SK (won) and continue with SQ > (won) and SJ (won), declarer discarding a D2. > > Case 1: East puts a 4th S on table, then dummy asks: "no > H partner" before declarer plays to 4th trick (from dummy). > Revoke not yet established. > > Case 2: East puts a 4th S on table, declarer calls a card > from dummy, then dummy asks: no S partner. Revoke established. > > First reading: in both cases, irregularity (the revoke) > already occurred when dummy asked for. > > Second reading: in case 1, the "irregularity" has not yet > occurred (revoke is not established) and dummy may attempt to > prevent. In case 2, it is too late to use dummy's rights. > My interpretation. >From the context I assume North is the declarer? Case 1: The revoke (if any) is not established (it has indeed already occurred!); Dummy may use his rights under Law 42B1 and ask "no spades partner?" after which declarer may change his play to trick three if he still holds a spade. (I assume your text "no H partner" is a typo?) Case 2: The moment declarer names a card in dummy that card is played and the revoke (if any) on the previous trick is established. (Dummy may still ask declarer for a possible revoke but with no effect). Note that dummy's right to ask for a possible revoke (Law 42B1) is not the same right that he has to try to prevent any irregularity by declarer (Law 42B2). Dummy must take care when exercising his rights under Law 42B2 so that his action does not become any "suggestion" to declarer. Generally speaking this means that dummy must not "try to prevent an irregularity" unless he has some indication that declarer is about to commit one. Equally important is the fact that it is too late for dummy to use Law 42B2 once the irregularity has already been committed. A typical example is: Declarer: "The two of spades" Dummy: "You are in your own hand" This remark from dummy is improper: It is not an attempt to prevent an irregularity (Law 42B2), it is a violation of Law 43A1b: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. This difference is significant and too often overlooked. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 18 22:59:38 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <000101c48550$b8aed540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Aug 18, 2004, at 14:25 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > This difference is significant and too often overlooked. Most dummies around here would be very surprised to learn that they have just violated (for the 93rd time) Law 43 in your example case. Most (again, around here) would consider anyone who called the director for such a violation a "bridge lawyer", particularly in a club game. From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 18 23:28:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:28:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c48572$adcb6310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > This difference is significant and too often overlooked. >=20 > Most dummies around here would be very surprised to learn that they > have just violated (for the 93rd time) Law 43 in your example case. >=20 > Most (again, around here) would consider anyone who called the = director > for such a violation a "bridge lawyer", particularly in a club game. Yes, I know. I believe it is the same story everywhere, which was one = reason why I selected just that example. And don't forget, once declarer has made a lead from the wrong hand = (dummy's or declarer's as the case may be) he is not at liberty to retract that played card on his own initiative, it is up to either defender to decide whether he accepts that card as played or request declarer to play from = the correct hand! And dummy should keep mum shut once the irregularity has been committed. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 18 23:56:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:56:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>Most dummies around here would be very surprised to >>learn that they have just violated (for the 93rd >>time) Law 43 in your example case. >> >>Most (again, around here) would consider anyone who >>called the director for such a violation a "bridge >>lawyer", particularly in a club game. Sven Pran: >Yes, I know. I believe it is the same story >everywhere, which was one reason why I selected just >that example. > >And don't forget, once declarer has made a lead from >the wrong hand (dummy's or declarer's as the case >may be) he is not at liberty to retract that played >card on his own initiative, it is up to either >defender to decide whether he accepts that card as >played or request declarer to play from the correct >hand! > >And dummy should keep mum shut once the irregularity >has been committed. Richard Hills: Dummy _should_ keep mum shut? I disagree. Rather, I argue that *if* a Law is a dead letter Law, with only blmlers bothering to obey that dead letter Law, *then* that dead letter Law _should_ be repealed in 2006. Another dead letter Law limiting dummy's rights, which _should_ be repealed in 2006, is the current policy that dummy may not inform declarer (or an opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity. At a minimum, dummy _should_ be given the power to inform declarer (or an opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity on the same trick that the quitted card is placed at a 90 degree angle of absentmindedness. Best wishes RJH From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 19 00:08:40 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:08:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <000301c48572$adcb6310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <8B02D79C-F16B-11D8-A0B0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 18, 2004, at 18:28 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > And don't forget, once declarer has made a lead from the wrong hand > (dummy's > or declarer's as the case may be) he is not at liberty to retract that > played card on his own initiative, it is up to either defender to > decide > whether he accepts that card as played or request declarer to play > from the > correct hand! > > And dummy should keep mum shut once the irregularity has been > committed. Yes. Unless a defender says something like "you're in your hand" - at which point dummy can call the director. If he has a thick skin. :-) From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Aug 19 00:20:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <000101c48550$b8aed540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Declarer: "The two of spades" > Dummy: "You are in your own hand" > > This remark from dummy is improper: It is not an attempt to prevent an > irregularity (Law 42B2) I have watched a fair amount of bridge Sven and in my experience this is almost always an *attempt* to prevent an irregularity. Sure it is an attempt doomed to failure due to being too late to do any good but in the eyes of the dummy it is a genuine attempt. Since it can never work to declaring side's advantage and only about 3% of players know the rule in detail I think describing it as "improper" is something of an overbid. If you prefer you might consider it as an attempt to prevent declarer from benefiting from a helicopter lead rather than an attempt to prevent the lead itself. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 19 00:19:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:19:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Classic comments Message-ID: The purpose of this thread is to reprint classic comments from blml which caused audible laughter. (And consequent puzzled looks from colleagues). Best wishes RJH * * * Richard Hills: >>>Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge >>>would cease to be a meaningful competition, unless >>>contestants acted as best as they could to win. >>> >>>A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised >>>Kaplan's position by postulating this hypothetical: >>> >>>*You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match >>>choking on his food. If he dies, you win the match >>>by default.* >>> >>>In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted >>>that while the Bridge Laws were silent on whether to >>>let an opponent choke to death, he still deprecated >>>such an action. Earl Dudley: >>I think the proper action when someone is choking to >>death at the bridge table is to call the Director. It >>probably rates as an irregularity. David Stevenson: >At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether >killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a >warning on the first occasion. From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 19 00:29:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:29:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <8B02D79C-F16B-11D8-A0B0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c4857b$30b338e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert .......... > On Wednesday, Aug 18, 2004, at 18:28 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > And don't forget, once declarer has made a lead from the wrong hand > > (dummy's > > or declarer's as the case may be) he is not at liberty to retract that > > played card on his own initiative, it is up to either defender to > > decide > > whether he accepts that card as played or request declarer to play > > from the > > correct hand! > > > > And dummy should keep mum shut once the irregularity has been > > committed. > > Yes. Unless a defender says something like "you're in your hand" - at > which point dummy can call the director. If he has a thick skin. :-) Right you are. (I didn't immediately grasp the impact) Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 19 00:38:58 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:38:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4857c$889399f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............... > >And dummy should keep mum shut once the irregularity > >has been committed. >=20 > Richard Hills: >=20 > Dummy _should_ keep mum shut? I disagree. Once an irregularity has been committed Dummy should keep mum shut or he = is violating Law 43A1(b) > Rather, I argue that *if* a Law is a dead letter Law, > with only blmlers bothering to obey that dead letter > Law, *then* that dead letter Law _should_ be repealed > in 2006. I am not so sure Law 43 is a dead letter law. On the contrary it = specifies rather precisely what dummy may and may not do. Specifically it is very strict upon dummy not (actively) participating in the game. =20 > Another dead letter Law limiting dummy's rights, > which _should_ be repealed in 2006, is the current > policy that dummy may not inform declarer (or an > opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity.=20 Dummy is indeed free to inform dealer (or opponents), but not until the = play of the board is completed. Again: Dummy may not participate in the game. At a minimum, > dummy _should_ be given the power to inform declarer > (or an opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity on the > same trick that the quitted card is placed at a 90 > degree angle of absentmindedness. Certainly not. Given such power dummy is free to remind declarer for instance that he only needs one more trick for his contract or to warn = him that he cannot afford to lose another trick. This again is what we call dummy actively taking part in the game. Dummy has the power to place his own quitted cards correctly but he must leave it to the other three players to notice any discrepancy between = his markings and theirs. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 19 03:09:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:09:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 61B Zonal option (was Law 42) Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>>At a minimum, dummy _should_ be given the power to >>>inform declarer (or an opponent) of a Law 65B >>>irregularity on the same trick that the quitted >>>card is placed at a 90 degree angle of >>>absentmindedness. Sven Pran: >>Certainly not. Given such power dummy is free to >>remind declarer for instance that he only needs one >>more trick for his contract or to warn him that he >>cannot afford to lose another trick. This again is >>what we call dummy actively taking part in the >>game. Richard Hills: >So what? Ultimately, the Laws _should_ be what the >players need them to be. > >The Zonal option for Law 61B, adopted in Australia, >allows one defender to give an extraneous count >signal to the other defender by asking, "Having no >trumps partner?" This legal-in-Australia question >is only asked when declarer has an unexpectedly long >trump suit. > >Crikey, the Zonal option for Law 61B is inconsistent >with the overall philosophy of the Laws. So what? Ralph Waldo Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 19 07:13:18 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:13:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit References: <000301c48572$adcb6310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c485b3$fb3c74e0$beef403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:28 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit Ed Reppert > > This difference is significant and too often overlooked. > > Most dummies around here would be very surprised to learn that they > have just violated (for the 93rd time) Law 43 in your example case. > > Most (again, around here) would consider anyone who called the director > for such a violation a "bridge lawyer", particularly in a club game. Yes, I know. I believe it is the same story everywhere, which was one reason why I selected just that example. And don't forget, once declarer has made a lead from the wrong hand (dummy's or declarer's as the case may be) he is not at liberty to retract that played card on his own initiative, it is up to either defender to decide whether he accepts that card as played or request declarer to play from the correct hand! And dummy should keep mum shut once the irregularity has been committed. Regards Sven +=+ Absolutely right, and intended by the legislators to be so. In this context 'bridge lawyer' ceases to be pejorative. There is no shame in knowing the rules of the game. In most bridge clubs, however, the problem would probably go away because the next player would play to the substituted lead. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 19 08:04:29 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:04:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Classic comments References: Message-ID: <002601c485ba$d00227f0$b38787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* 'Where blind and naked ignorance Delivers brawling judgements, unashamed, On all things all day long." ['Idylls of the King'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:19 AM Subject: [blml] Classic comments > > Earl Dudley: > > >>I think the proper action when someone is choking to > >>death at the bridge table is to call the Director. It > >>probably rates as an irregularity. > > David Stevenson: > > >At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether > >killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a > >warning on the first occasion. > +=+ To my mind this is the wrong approach. The TD should consider whether information gained from the extraneous action has been used in the auction, an infraction - see WBFLC 24 August 1998, and if so apply Law 16. The example might be quoted in TD's seminars. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dpb3@fastmail.fm Thu Aug 19 13:41:04 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:41:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <20040819100004.15595.67038.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040819100004.15595.67038.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1092919264.10213.202644693@webmail.messagingengine.com> [RJH] > Another dead letter Law limiting dummy's rights, > which _should_ be repealed in 2006, is the current > policy that dummy may not inform declarer (or an > opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity. At a minimum, > dummy _should_ be given the power to inform declarer > (or an opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity on the > same trick that the quitted card is placed at a 90 > degree angle of absentmindedness. Analogously with the wrong-hand situation, dummy may speak up as long as he does so "as declarer is placing his card incorrectly" (to try to prevent an irrregularity), but not after, according to Mike Flader at ACBL (this month's Bulletin, p. 38). I agree with RJH's suggestion to allow a bit more latitude in the next Laws, as orienting the card one way or the other tends to happen very quickly, and partner, however quick he is off the blocks, may be presented with a fait accompli. I don't see a likely real-world issue here with transmittal of information or advice. David Babcock Florida USA From dpb3@fastmail.fm Thu Aug 19 13:49:14 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Law 42: Dummy's rights limit Message-ID: <1092919754.12991.202644693@webmail.messagingengine.com> [RJH] > Another dead letter Law limiting dummy's rights, > which _should_ be repealed in 2006, is the current > policy that dummy may not inform declarer (or an > opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity. At a minimum, > dummy _should_ be given the power to inform declarer > (or an opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity on the > same trick that the quitted card is placed at a 90 > degree angle of absentmindedness. Analogously with the wrong-hand situation, dummy may speak up as long as he does so "as declarer is placing his card incorrectly" (to try to prevent an irrregularity), but not after, according to Mike Flader at ACBL (this month's Bulletin, p. 38). I agree with RJH's suggestion to allow a bit more latitude in the next Laws, as orienting the card one way or the other tends to happen very quickly, and partner, however quick he is off the blocks, may be presented with a fait accompli. I don't see a likely real-world issue here with transmittal of information or advice. David Babcock Florida USA From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Aug 19 21:47:21 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:47:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Law 61B Zonal option (was Law 42) References: Message-ID: <001501c4862d$bab6a9c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Richard Hills: (I think) > > [snip] > > > >So what? Ultimately, the Laws _should_ be what the > >players need them to be. > > > >The Zonal option for Law 61B, adopted in Australia, > >allows one defender to give an extraneous count > >signal to the other defender by asking, "Having no > >trumps partner?" This legal-in-Australia question > >is only asked when declarer has an unexpectedly long > >trump suit. > > > >Crikey, the Zonal option for Law 61B is inconsistent > >with the overall philosophy of the Laws. So what? > > Ralph Waldo Emerson: > > A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. > A sensible consistency in the Laws is one that imposes a simple principle that accords with the traditions of the game, e.g., one never does or says anything to help partner during the auction or player periods. Just put that in the Laws and forget having exceptions. What the players want may not always be what they should have. The majority of players in these parts want to communicate via UI, but we don't accommodate their wish. Edmund Burke: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if sacrifices it to your opinion. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 19 22:38:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:38:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Classic comments Message-ID: http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychweb/JPBS1967-2.html The Effect of Anxiety on Time Estimation, William H. Clark, Fairleigh Dickinson University: >the present study examined the effect of anxiety on the >estimation of eight different time intervals. Twenty five >male undergraduate students were required to estimate time >intervals under an anxiety condition in which shock was >administered for inaccurate time estimations, and a non >anxiety condition in which no shock was given. The results >indicated that there was no significant difference between >the mean time estimates under anxiety and non-anxiety >conditions. Previous findings of anxiety producing >overestimation of time intervals were not supported. It was >suggested that overestimation of time intervals is related >to the subjects' control over the object of anxiety (i.e. >shock). When subjects were able to avoid shock through >accurate time estimations, overstimulation did not occur. Doug Couchman: Oh wonderful, thank you. The abstract doesn't have the answer to the secondary question regarding how much people overestimate by, but it does have something better: a partial solution to directors' problem about translating players' time estimates. Apparently, if we subject them to electric shock when they estimate wrong, we can eliminate the systematic bias toward overestimation in cases where the player is anxious. Putting this into practice may take work. Doug From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 19 23:07:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:07:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 61B Zonal option (was Law 42) Message-ID: Richard Hills (with irony): [snip] >>>>>>So what? Ultimately, the Laws _should_ be >>>>>>what the players need them to be. [snip] >>>>>>Crikey, the Zonal option for Law 61B is >>>>>>inconsistent with the overall philosophy of >>>>>>the Laws. So what? Ralph Waldo Emerson (inappositely quoted): >>>>>A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of >>>>>little minds. Marvin L. French (with Sense and Sensibility): >>>>A sensible consistency in the Laws is one that >>>>imposes a simple principle that accords with the >>>>traditions of the game, [snip] >>>>What the players want may not always be what >>>>they should have. [snip] Edmund Burke (with Persuasion): >>>Your representative owes you, not his industry >>>only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead >>>of serving you, if sacrifices it to your opinion. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >>"irony, n. Expression of one's meaning by >>language of opposite or different tendency, esp. >>mock adoption of another's view or tone" Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, chapter 1: >It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a >single man in possession of a good fortune, must >be in want of a wife. Richard Hills, Grattan and Grattanical, chapter 1: It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a bridge player in possession of a TD's ruling, must be in want of inconsistency. Best wishes RJH From nancy@dressing.org Fri Aug 20 01:16:28 2004 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy Dressing) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:16:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Classic comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4864a$f3f3ce80$6401a8c0@hare> Along these lines an interesting event occurred at one of our bridge tournaments. The director was not prepared for the number of teams that came to play on the last afternoon. While the search was on for more boards, a lady at the next table to me, fell to the floor. Fortunately at a close table on each side of her, there was a doctor and a nurse who applied CPR and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and the ambulance was called. When the medics arrived, fortunately, she was revived (she was dead when she hit the floor) and she was rushed to the hospital, surviving the ordeal and living for several more years. Voila! the director's problem was solved. Her team had to withdraw and now there were enough boards for the game to go on without another incident! Absolutely true story... On with the game! Nancy -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:20 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Classic comments The purpose of this thread is to reprint classic comments from blml which caused audible laughter. (And consequent puzzled looks from colleagues). Best wishes RJH * * * Richard Hills: >>>Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge >>>would cease to be a meaningful competition, unless contestants acted >>>as best as they could to win. >>> >>>A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised >>>Kaplan's position by postulating this hypothetical: >>> >>>*You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match >>>choking on his food. If he dies, you win the match >>>by default.* >>> >>>In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted >>>that while the Bridge Laws were silent on whether to >>>let an opponent choke to death, he still deprecated >>>such an action. Earl Dudley: >>I think the proper action when someone is choking to >>death at the bridge table is to call the Director. It probably rates >>as an irregularity. David Stevenson: >At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether >killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a >warning on the first occasion. _______________________________________________ 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: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 20 02:08:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:08:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mobile (cellular) phone regs Message-ID: The rule in national Aussie events for mobile phones is that they *must* be switched off during session time. If a player is expecting an urgent phone call during session time, that player may entrust their mobile phone to a Director. If a player's mobile phone rings during a session that player's team is automatically penalised three Victory Points. (Since many major Aussie events are run on a Swiss basis, to avoid a 3 VP penalty being meaningless in a Swiss - due to getting an easier draw after it is imposed - the 3 VP penalty is applied to the offending team at the conclusion of the current stage of the event.) There have been at least three cases when the 3 VP mobile phone penalty "pour encourager les autres": * One Women's team failed to qualify for a Women's semi-final after a 3 VP mobile phone fine, * One Senior's team failed to qualify for a Senior's final after a 3 VP mobile phone fine, * One pair playing in the prestigious Australian Butler Pairs failed to qualify for Stage 2 after a 3 VP mobile phone fine. The main reason for penalisation of mobile phones at Aussie national events is their annoyance factor, due to the number of mobile phones that would ring at large Aussie events if no restrictions were in place. At the smaller Canberra Bridge Club there is no formal rule requiring mobiles to be switched off. Rather, peer pressure operates, as the occasional forgetful person who leaves their mobile switched on is jeered at by their bridge colleagues. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills From adam@tameware.com Fri Aug 20 03:40:07 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:40:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Classic comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:19 AM +1000 8/19/04, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The purpose of this thread is to reprint classic comments from blml >which caused audible laughter. The is an excerpt from Henry Francis' acceptance speech upon his induction into the ACBL Hall of Fame. It's available at http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2003summer/db1.pdf As far as I know it has not previously been posted to BLML, but it ought to have been, and I take this occasion to remedy the oversight: ____________________ Francis preceded his quarter-century tenure as Bridge Bulletin editor with a 25 year career in the newspaper business in Boston. He is also a longtime tournament director, yet his introduction to top-level directing was sparked by an unfortunate incident at a club game in Boston. Francis explained. "I was called to the table to make a mundane ruling about a revoke. The man and woman against whom I made the ruling protested, so I repeated the ruling ... straight out of the rule book. "The next day, I learned that the husband had suffered a heart attack and died. The woman, who was understandably upset, blamed me for his death, and even went so far as to file charges. Nothing ever came of the charges, of course, but soon afterwards I was invited to become part of the directing staff of the Eastern States Regional with the great Harry Goldwater. Goldwater (notorious for some of his quips) had asked me to come because he wanted the guy who (quote) 'can kill people with his rulings.'" -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 20 06:17:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:17:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Steve Willner asked: [snip] >But why an _artificial_ score? Can't you >find "probable" and "at all likely" results >from the moment just prior to the >irregularity? Richard Hills replies: First, a retraction. I now acknowledge the superior logic of Ton and Grattan. So, in the stem case of this thread, I now admit that the at-the-table irregularity did *not* require all subsequent play to be voided by the TD. However..... Steve Willner has asked an interesting theoretical question. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that: (a) an irregularity occurs at the sixth trick, and (b) the relevant Law requires all play subsequent to the irregularity to be voided by the TD, then: (c) is it permissable for the TD to award an assigned adjusted score? or: (d) is it compulsory for the TD to award an artificial adjusted score? Best wishes RJH From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 20 02:36:10 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:36:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 61B Zonal option (was Law 42) References: Message-ID: <000a01c4867d$e3c9be60$b8d5403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 61B Zonal option (was Law 42) > [snip] > > >>>>What the players want may not always be what > >>>>they should have. > > [snip] > > Edmund Burke (with Persuasion): > > >>>Your representative owes you, not his industry > >>>only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead > >>>of serving you, if sacrifices it to your opinion. > +=+ "Which of us has his desire? - or having it, is satisfied? Come children, let us shut up the box and the puppets, for our play is played out." [W.M.Thackeray] From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 20 07:19:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:19:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Classic comments Message-ID: Ah, sorry the lawsuit would be directed at the Balrog on behalf of the tribe of Durin, as the Balrog chased the dwarves out of the ancestral home on no less than 2 separate occasions. Wrongful death would be another interesting avenue. One might argue that the Balrog in fact had a prior claim on the property (as he was the one dug up and freed accidentally by the dwarves), but I believe there is ample historical evidence proving that Durin's folk owned and excavated Moria since deep into the First Age, while Balrogs went into hiding with the downfall of Morgoth at the end of the first age. It would be up to the Balrog to prove prior ownership. Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 19, 2003 04:26 PM /// I am no expert on Law, or indeed Lore, but I have to say that seems not to be trespass. The Balrog, by the fact of entering the land and adding his labour to it, has made it his own. This is (I believe) the basis of property law. The Dwarves have, in the mean time, entered the upper levels, (hereafter known as Khazad Dum) and made that area their own. The dwarves delved too deep, and wakened the evil (trespass AND partying late into the night. An anti-social behaviour order is in the links.) The Balrog then over-reacted, taking the law into his own hands with multiple acts of murder to add to his terrorism. The Dwarves are a nation, while the Balrog is an individual. Moria Plc is not a company, but a country. The question becomes whether the Balrog himself (itself?) is more than a mere individual, in which case the matter becomes more like war. I would say not, on the evidence previously presented. The Balrog is a previous and disgruntled employee of Morgoth Inc., and as such, one of the last remnants of a country. The Balrog is removed, by Sauron's existence, from inheriting the rights to the country, which it seems that Sauron acquired within the then-current law on the defeat of Morgoth. Balrog Enterprises is nothing more than a splinter-group making things difficult for others, and should be treated as such. From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 20 09:33:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:33:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c48690$54d53cd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Steve Willner asked: > >But why an _artificial_ score? Can't you > >find "probable" and "at all likely" results > >from the moment just prior to the > >irregularity? >=20 > Richard Hills replies: .......... > Steve Willner has asked an interesting > theoretical question. Let us assume, for > the sake of argument, that: >=20 > (a) an irregularity occurs at the sixth > trick, and >=20 > (b) the relevant Law requires all play > subsequent to the irregularity to be > voided by the TD, >=20 > then: >=20 > (c) is it permissable for the TD to award > an assigned adjusted score? >=20 > or: >=20 > (d) is it compulsory for the TD to award an > artificial adjusted score? Keeping this at a theoretical level the answer is "obvious": If the Director decides that normal play of the board is no longer = possible then he shall award an artificial adjusted score otherwise he shall = award an assigned adjusted score according to what he judges the likely outcome = of what would have been "normal play" to be.=20 He may even instruct the players to complete the board with a "normal = play" if he should happen to judge that possible. I really do not see how this could happen in real life though, but we are talking pure theory here. Regards Sven =20 From bridge@vwalther.de Fri Aug 20 10:13:07 2004 From: bridge@vwalther.de (volker walther) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:13:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c Message-ID: <4125C0A3.1000403@vwalther.de> A problem from a local club: During the second round a pair (A) sat at the wrong table on N/S. North was dealer and the biddding went like this: 1C - 1D - 1H -pass Now the correct pair arrived, the (playing) TD was called and he made his decision according to law 15 C. The TD told pair (A) they had to call him again before the bidding on this board starts the next time against their correct opponents, because he wants to inform them about their rights. A few rounds later the TD is called by (A). "Unfortunatly we have not realised that this board is the board we had already in round 2. We have played it." The second bidding on this board was 1C - 1D - 1H - 3D all pass 3D made was a top score for EW, the non offending side. According to Law 15C this top-score has to be converted into an AV+, which looks like a penalty to the non offending side. Greetings, Volker -- http://www.vwalther.de From MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com Fri Aug 20 12:03:12 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:03:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Returned mail: User unknown Message-ID: <200408201103.HAM29617@rly-nc05.mx.aol.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --HAM29617.1092999792/rly-nc05.mx.aol.com The original message was received at Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:02:56 -0400 (EDT) from 82-33-172-156.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.172.156] *** 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-nc02.mail.aol.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND 550 ... User unknown --HAM29617.1092999792/rly-nc05.mx.aol.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-nc05.mx.aol.com Arrival-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Final-Recipient: RFC822; thea56@netscape.net Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; air-nc02.mail.aol.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:03:12 -0400 (EDT) --HAM29617.1092999792/rly-nc05.mx.aol.com Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers Received: from netscape.net (82-33-172-156.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.172.156]) by rly-nc05.mx.aol.com (v101_r1.2) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINNC59-68f4125da563bd; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:02:52 -0400 From: blml@rtflb.org To: thea56@netscape.net Subject: Re: Your software Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:03:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_0000080A.000017C5" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-AOL-IP: 82.33.172.156 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:0:0: X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 Message-ID: <200408200702.68f4125da563bd@rly-nc05.mx.aol.com> --HAM29617.1092999792/rly-nc05.mx.aol.com-- From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Aug 20 22:51:22 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:51:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <4125C0A3.1000403@vwalther.de> References: <4125C0A3.1000403@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20040820174253.01e43ef0@mail.comcast.net> At 05:13 AM 8/20/2004, volker walther wrote: >A problem from a local club: >During the second round a pair (A) sat at the wrong table on N/S. North >was dealer and the biddding went like this: >1C - 1D - 1H -pass > >Now the correct pair arrived, the (playing) TD was called and he made his >decision according to law 15 C. The TD told pair (A) they had to call him >again before the bidding on this board starts the next time against their >correct opponents, because he wants to inform them about their rights. > >A few rounds later the TD is called by (A). >"Unfortunatly we have not realised that this board is the board we had >already in round 2. We have played it." >The second bidding on this board was >1C - 1D - 1H - 3D >all pass > >3D made was a top score for EW, the non offending side. > >According to Law 15C this top-score has to be converted into an AV+, which >looks like a penalty to the non offending side. This is correct, if unfortunate. No play can stand after the auction is changed, as the board is canceled at that point. You can only rule an adjustment if EW were deprived of their right to earn a top score through a NS infraction. If the TD had been called at the correct time, the bidding would have gone the same, and the TD would have voided the play. In contrast, if NS had neglected to call the TD, and the auction had started 1C-(1D)-2H, then South's infraction (the 2H bid, a violation of L15C) could have damaged EW, and EW would be entitled to the better of the table result and the likely score if there had been a 1H bid. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Aug 21 01:45:03 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:45:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c References: <4125C0A3.1000403@vwalther.de> <6.1.2.0.0.20040820174253.01e43ef0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000401c48718$1a3592e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: "volker walther" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c > At 05:13 AM 8/20/2004, volker walther wrote: > >A problem from a local club: > >During the second round a pair (A) sat at the wrong table on N/S. North > >was dealer and the biddding went like this: > >1C - 1D - 1H -pass > > > >Now the correct pair arrived, the (playing) TD was called and he made his > >decision according to law 15 C. The TD told pair (A) they had to call him > >again before the bidding on this board starts the next time against their > >correct opponents, because he wants to inform them about their rights. > > > >A few rounds later the TD is called by (A). > >"Unfortunatly we have not realised that this board is the board we had > >already in round 2. We have played it." > >The second bidding on this board was > >1C - 1D - 1H - 3D > >all pass > > > >3D made was a top score for EW, the non offending side. > > > >According to Law 15C this top-score has to be converted into an AV+, which > >looks like a penalty to the non offending side. > > This is correct, if unfortunate. No play can stand after the auction is > changed, as the board is canceled at that point. You can only rule an > adjustment if EW were deprived of their right to earn a top score through a > NS infraction. If the TD had been called at the correct time, the bidding > would have gone the same, and the TD would have voided the play. > > In contrast, if NS had neglected to call the TD, and the auction had > started 1C-(1D)-2H, then South's infraction (the 2H bid, a violation of > L15C) could have damaged EW, and EW would be entitled to the better of the > table result and the likely score if there had been a 1H bid. I think you mean "the most favorable result that was likely," which may not be "the likely score." That word "likely" in L12C2 has led to a lot of misunderstandings, so let's quote it in context. And change it in the next version of the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Aug 21 09:46:56 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:46:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c References: <4125C0A3.1000403@vwalther.de> <6.1.2.0.0.20040820174253.01e43ef0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <005001c4875d$adeaefe0$42e4f1c3@LNV> > At 05:13 AM 8/20/2004, volker walther wrote: > >A problem from a local club: > >During the second round a pair (A) sat at the wrong table on N/S. North > >was dealer and the biddding went like this: > >1C - 1D - 1H -pass > > > >Now the correct pair arrived, the (playing) TD was called and he made his > >decision according to law 15 C. The TD told pair (A) they had to call him > >again before the bidding on this board starts the next time against their > >correct opponents, because he wants to inform them about their rights. This is a wrong decision by the TD. L15 looks clear to me. It just adresses the situation for the pair that has to sit down correctly immediately after the irregularity has ocurred. Then L15 applies. But the pair that has to play this board later on can't play it anymore. And this incident nicely illustrates why. Players do not notice the 'replay' of such board. The more important reason of course is that you can't have players walking around with information about their hands on a future board to play. ton From svenpran@online.no Sat Aug 21 10:31:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:31:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <005001c4875d$adeaefe0$42e4f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000601c48761$a1728170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ........... > This is a wrong decision by the TD. L15 looks clear to me. It just > adresses > the situation for the pair that has to sit down correctly immediately > after > the irregularity has ocurred. Then L15 applies. But the pair that has = to > play this board later on can't play it anymore. And this incident = nicely > illustrates why. Players do not notice the 'replay' of such board. The > more > important reason of course is that you can't have players walking = around > with information about their hands on a future board to play. Your comment triggered a bit of thinking with me. The following has = occurred on some occasions and I should appreciate your comments whether I (we) = have misunderstood something about Law 15: Pair A sits down at a wrong table and they begin the auction on board X. After a few calls the error is discovered and pair B (correctly) takes = the seats incorrectly first occupied by pair A. A new auction is started and if all corresponding calls are identical we allow the board to be played "normally". Pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit and at this table we assure that each of the players in Pair A takes the same cards = they have already seen on their first attempt (rotating the seats for this = board 90 degrees if necessary). Also at this table we require all corresponding calls to be identical = and we allow the board to be played "normally" if this becomes the case. Clear so far? Notice that everything here happens within one and the same round = (barometer movement) and no board from a separate round is involved but still we = feel that we correctly apply Law 15C like I have described here. Comments? Regards Sven From MAILER-DAEMON@lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net Sat Aug 21 20:28:47 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:28:47 GMT Subject: [blml] Returned mail: see transcript for details Message-ID: <200408211928.i7LJSlT28003@lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --i7LJSlT28003.1093116527/lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net The original message was received at Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:28:41 GMT from 82-33-172-156.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.172.156] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 552 5.2.2 Over quota) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to lhuumdeph0.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net: >>> DATA <<< 552 5.2.2 Over quota 554 5.0.0 ... Service unavailable --i7LJSlT28003.1093116527/lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net Received-From-MTA: DNS; 82-33-172-156.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk Arrival-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:28:41 GMT Final-Recipient: RFC822; feedback@photoshot.com Action: failed Status: 5.2.2 Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 552 5.2.2 Over quota Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:28:47 GMT --i7LJSlT28003.1093116527/lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from photoshot.com (82-33-172-156.cable.ubr06.wiga.blueyonder.co.uk [82.33.172.156]) by lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id i7LJSdT27995 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:28:41 GMT Message-Id: <200408211928.i7LJSdT27995@lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net> From: blml@rtflb.org To: feedback@photoshot.com Subject: Re: Here Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:28:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_00001769.00007932" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_00001769.00007932 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See the attached file for details. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_00001769.00007932 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="yours.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="yours.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_00001769.00007932-- --i7LJSlT28003.1093116527/lhuumsmtpgw2.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net-- From Mailer-Daemon@he105war.uk.vianw.net Sun Aug 22 15:13:53 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@he105war.uk.vianw.net (Mail Delivery System) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:13:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim). A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: laurie@ljp.co.uk This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "your_picture.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.172.156] (helo=ljp.co.uk) by he105war.uk.vianw.net with esmtp (Exim 4.04) id 1Byt6G-0003Tr-00 for laurie@ljp.co.uk; Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:13:38 +0100 From: blml@rtflb.org To: laurie@ljp.co.uk Subject: Re: Your picture Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:13:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_000009E5.0000060D" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_000009E5.0000060D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See the attached file for details. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_000009E5.0000060D Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="your_picture.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="your_picture.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0012_000009E5.0000060D-- From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 22 20:39:40 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:39:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 61B Zonal option (was Law 42) References: Message-ID: <002601c4887f$e1130240$e4a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* ' Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." ['The Second Coming'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 61B Zonal option (was Law 42) > > Richard Hills (with irony): > > [snip] > > >>>>>>So what? Ultimately, the Laws _should_ be > >>>>>>what the players need them to be. > +=+ Yes indeed. The book should simply say "Each player at his turn may prescribe the law as it applies to him at that turn". ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 24 00:10:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:10:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] New ABF system regulation Message-ID: Full details of the new ABF system regulation are available from the ABF website, at: http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html Extract from the ABF explanatory memo: [snip] >a) The concept of "Opening Points" has been >abolished and replaced with criteria more in >tune with the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract >Bridge. [snip] >The ABF Systems Committee will request input >from all interested parties regarding the >effectiveness of these new Regulations prior to >initiating an interim 6-month review. [snip] Two points of interest are raised by this ABF explanatory memo -> (1) When the ABF was advised that the criteria for its previous system regulation was somewhat inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Law 40D, the ABF chose to replace the criteria, *not* to over-ride Law 40D. Likewise, when an ABF-affiliated club passed a regulation abolishing the right to claim, the ABF deemed that that regulation was intrinsically unLawful. Contrariwise, Grattan Endicott has been forced to defend an untenable theoretical position created by WBF ad hoccery - that a legislatively subordinate regulation may annihilate the superior Laws under which it is created. (Thus Grattan has been forced into defending a reductio ad absurdum that a club may abolish the claim Laws, but still be deemed to be a Duplicate Contract Bridge Club.) (2) The ABF is willing to indulge in interactive improvement of its regs, as opposed to the WBF policy of keeping the penultimate draft of the 2006 Laws highly confidential amongst a select group of cognoscenti. As I noted in an earlier posting, the lack of broad interactive consultation on the Laws saw the ridiculous Law 25B promulgated in 1987. And, when the WBF was forced to dubious CoC ad hoccery to disallow Edgar Kaplan's use of the ridiculous Law 25B in a post-1987 world championship, what was the WBF LC resolution of the Law 25B problem in its 1997 version of the fabulous Lawbook??? The lack of broad consultation on the Laws saw a trivial improvement of Law 25B in its 1997 incarnation, but the narrowly-based WBF LC lacked sufficient diversity to realise that the fundamental philosophy of Law 25B was totally and utterly ridiculous. Best wishes Richard Hills From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Aug 24 00:48:29 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:48:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c References: <000601c48761$a1728170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003f01c4896b$b1666400$f45c1d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Sven Pran" >Pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit and at this >table we assure that each of the players in Pair A takes the same cards they >have already seen on their first attempt (rotating the seats for this bo= ard >90 degrees if necessary). >Also at this table we require all corresponding calls to be identical an= d we >allow the board to be played "normally" if this becomes the case. >Clear so far? No - when pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit they are going to play different deals. So we needn't do anything, need w= e? Is this Swiss Pairs? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ateny 2004 w Internecie! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f182d From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 24 01:48:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:48:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mobile (cellular) phone regs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >The main reason for penalisation of mobile phones at >Aussie national events is their annoyance factor, >due to the number of mobile phones that would ring >at large Aussie events if no restrictions were in >place. The EBU is of the opinion [me dissenting strongly!!!!] that no regulation is necessary. As a result TDs produce different rulings when it happens [unsurprisingly]. The WBU - at least a small, vociferous, female section of them - got incensed when their regulation against mobile phones failed to get me penalised in Men's Pairs after my Palmtop computer emitted a warning noise. As a result "all" electronic equipment must be switched off now in WBU events - including pacemakers, electronic watches, scoring computers and so on. >At the smaller Canberra Bridge Club there is no >formal rule requiring mobiles to be switched off. >Rather, peer pressure operates, as the occasional >forgetful person who leaves their mobile switched on >is jeered at by their bridge colleagues. Some clubs in Wales do this so when my mobile phone went off in Shotton the TD [same one as the one who had not penalised me in the Men's Pairs] said "Aha, now there will be ructions!". when he realised no-one in the room had reacted at all and were all happily playing away he lost interest with a growl! -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 24 01:51:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:51:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: A player passes when his LHO has dealt. LHO does not accept it, so the pass is cancelled and he has to pass when next it is his turn to call. LHO opens the Multi, and partner asks the TD whether your original pass is authorised or unauthorised. OK, we all know the answer to that one, but would you like to justify it in 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 toddz@att.net Tue Aug 24 05:27:22 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:27:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040824002325.01c13ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:51 PM 8/23/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > A player passes when his LHO has dealt. LHO does not accept it, so > the pass is cancelled and he has to pass when next it is his turn to > call. > > LHO opens the Multi, and partner asks the TD whether your original > pass is authorised or unauthorised. > > OK, we all know the answer to that one, but would you like to > justify it in the Laws? From the preamble of L16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." The original pass was not a legal call. Am I missing something? (Ok, I'd like a comma between 'other' and 'extraneous', but it's unlike David S. to base a question on such.) -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 24 05:51:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:51:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>A player passes when his LHO has dealt. LHO does >>not accept it, so the pass is cancelled and he has >>to pass when next it is his turn to call. >> >>LHO opens the Multi, and partner asks the TD >>whether your original pass is authorised or >>unauthorised. >> >>OK, we all know the answer to that one, but would >>you like to justify it in the Laws? Law 16C2: >For the offending side, information arising from its >own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of >the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of >the offending side may not choose from among logical >alternative actions one that could demonstrably have >been suggested over another by the unauthorised >information. Richard Hills: The fact that pard would not have opened the bidding if pard had been dealer is clearly unauthorised information, pursuant to Law 16C2. However..... The 1975 edition of the Laws had partial indicative definitions of what *authorised* information was. These partial indicative definitions of *authorised* information were deleted from the 1987 version and the 1997 version of the Laws. Consequently, it is unclear whether or not the TD's ruling (that a future one-round pass is enforced) must be classified as authorised information to the offending side. A blml pedant might argue that the TD's ruling could be classified as "...information arising from its own withdrawn action...". Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 07:42:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:42:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <003f01c4896b$b1666400$f45c1d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <000401c489a5$7bacfc40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Konrad Ciborowski > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" >=20 > >Pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit and at = this > >table we assure that each of the players in Pair A takes the same = cards > they > >have already seen on their first attempt (rotating the seats for this > board > >90 degrees if necessary). >=20 > >Also at this table we require all corresponding calls to be identical = and > we > >allow the board to be played "normally" if this becomes the case. >=20 > >Clear so far? >=20 > No - when pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit > they are going to play different deals. So we needn't do anything, = need > we? > Is this Swiss Pairs? Swiss pairs or normal barometer, the "problem" is identical:=20 The same boards are played at all tables in the same round. So for = instance with three boards per round then in round five boards 13, 14 and 15 are scheduled to be played at every table in the room. Thus when pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit = they will find the same board they incorrectly began at the wrong table. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 24 07:45:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:45:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Steve Willner has asked an interesting >>theoretical question. Let us assume, for >>the sake of argument, that: >> >>(a) an irregularity occurs at the sixth >> trick, and >> >>(b) the relevant Law requires all play >> subsequent to the irregularity to be >> voided by the TD, >> >>then: >> >>(c) is it permissible for the TD to award >> an assigned adjusted score? >> >>or: >> >>(d) is it compulsory for the TD to award an >> artificial adjusted score? Sven Pran: >Keeping this at a theoretical level the >answer is "obvious": > >If the Director decides that normal play of >the board is no longer possible then he >shall award an artificial adjusted score >otherwise he shall award an assigned >adjusted score according to what he judges >the likely outcome of what would have been >"normal play" to be. Law 12C1, Artificial Score: "When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score....." Law 12C2, Assigned Score: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity....." Richard Hills: In my opinion, Sven's "likely outcome" is not 100% congruent with "actually obtained". Sven Pran: [snip] >I really do not see how this could happen >in real life though, but we are talking >pure theory here. Law 90B2: "Offences subject to penalty include but are not limited to: unduly slow play by a contestant." Law 12A2: "The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see Law 88)." Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 08:38:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:38:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c489ad$53d60920$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Richard Hills: > > >>Steve Willner has asked an interesting > >>theoretical question. Let us assume, for > >>the sake of argument, that: > >> > >>(a) an irregularity occurs at the sixth > >> trick, and > >> > >>(b) the relevant Law requires all play > >> subsequent to the irregularity to be > >> voided by the TD, > >> > >>then: > >> > >>(c) is it permissible for the TD to award > >> an assigned adjusted score? > >> > >>or: > >> > >>(d) is it compulsory for the TD to award an > >> artificial adjusted score? > > Sven Pran: > > >Keeping this at a theoretical level the > >answer is "obvious": > > > >If the Director decides that normal play of > >the board is no longer possible then he > >shall award an artificial adjusted score > >otherwise he shall award an assigned > >adjusted score according to what he judges > >the likely outcome of what would have been > >"normal play" to be. > > Law 12C1, Artificial Score: > > "When, owing to an irregularity, no result > can be obtained, the Director awards an > artificial adjusted score....." > > Law 12C2, Assigned Score: > > "When the Director awards an assigned > adjusted score in place of a result actually > obtained after an irregularity....." > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Sven's "likely outcome" is > not 100% congruent with "actually obtained". There is no need for 100% congruence. L12A1 allows the Director to award an assigned adjusted score "when he judges that .....". The text in L12A1 does not limit this law to apply only when an actual result has first been obtained on a board. L12A2 says that the Director "may" award an artificial adjusted score ... (when normal play is impossible). Literally L12A2 does not prevent the Director from instead applying L12A1 if he finds reasons to use L12A1. It is perfectly possible that even when an irregularity prevents "normal play" of the last tricks on a board the Director may still find that the result on this board can be safely determined from the auction and play before the irregularity. It makes no sense to me if the Director in such cases shall be forced to award an artificial adjusted score rather than to recognize the "normal" outcome on the board and award this as an assigned adjusted score. Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 24 08:46:43 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:46:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one References: Message-ID: <004601c489af$596ec410$d18f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* ' Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." ['The Second Coming'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 5:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one > > > Consequently, it is unclear whether or not the TD's > ruling (that a future one-round pass is enforced) must > be classified as authorised information to the > offending side. > > A blml pedant might argue that the TD's ruling could > be classified as "...information arising from its own > withdrawn action...". > +=+ On the point of leaving for Canada (back p.m. Sep 8) have not been able to look at this. Perhaps there is a principle somewhere in the WBFLC decision on info from penalty cards. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 09:07:50 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:07:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <004601c489af$596ec410$d18f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000601c489b1$72e54020$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott .......... > > Consequently, it is unclear whether or not the TD's > > ruling (that a future one-round pass is enforced) must > > be classified as authorised information to the > > offending side. > > > > A blml pedant might argue that the TD's ruling could > > be classified as "...information arising from its own > > withdrawn action...". > > > +=3D+ On the point of leaving for Canada (back p.m. Sep 8) > have not been able to look at this. Perhaps there is a > principle somewhere in the WBFLC decision on info > from penalty cards. ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ We have AFAIK always in Norway enforced that the Directors rulings are = AI to all players. Thus the fact that a player must pass in one or more future rounds of = the auction is AI, his partner is free to select call(s) taking that = knowledge into consideration.=20 However, there may be underlying information from the irregularity which still is UI to offender's partner (the identity of a penalty card is one example). Regards Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Aug 24 09:50:12 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:50:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c References: <000401c489a5$7bacfc40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004d01c489b9$207dffe0$7d053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: RE: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c > Konrad Ciborowski > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > > >Pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit and at this > >table we assure that each of the players in Pair A takes the same cards > they > >have already seen on their first attempt (rotating the seats for this > board > >90 degrees if necessary). > > >Also at this table we require all corresponding calls to be identical and > we > >allow the board to be played "normally" if this becomes the case. > > >Clear so far? > > No - when pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit > they are going to play different deals. So we needn't do anything, need > we? > Is this Swiss Pairs? Swiss pairs or normal barometer, the "problem" is identical: The same boards are played at all tables in the same round. So for instance with three boards per round then in round five boards 13, 14 and 15 are scheduled to be played at every table in the room. Thus when pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit they will find the same board they incorrectly began at the wrong table. > > > Law 15 A says: If players play a board NOT designated for them to play IN THE CURRENT ROUND. Law 15 does not say anything about the table number. So the pair can play one board at the wrong table and the other two at the designated table. Now there is only a small fault with small consequences. Ben _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Aug 24 10:42:37 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:42:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c References: <000601c48761$a1728170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004801c489c0$fbe60b20$86e9f1c3@LNV> Ton Kooijman ........... > This is a wrong decision by the TD. L15 looks clear to me. It just > adresses > the situation for the pair that has to sit down correctly immediately > after > the irregularity has ocurred. Then L15 applies. But the pair that has to > play this board later on can't play it anymore. And this incident nicely > illustrates why. Players do not notice the 'replay' of such board. The > more > important reason of course is that you can't have players walking around > with information about their hands on a future board to play. Your comment triggered a bit of thinking with me. The following has occurred on some occasions and I should appreciate your comments whether I (we) have misunderstood something about Law 15: ((((( Formally spoken you did not appply L15. That law only deals with the situation where a pair is playing boards not designated for them (not the physical boards but the deals). Apparently the law makers were not aware of the possibility to play barometers. L15 suggests that play should be continued, but to be honest I like your solution as long as both pairs are supervised going to the the second auction. Isn't that what L81C4 asks for? ton )))))) Pair A sits down at a wrong table and they begin the auction on board X. After a few calls the error is discovered and pair B (correctly) takes the seats incorrectly first occupied by pair A. A new auction is started and if all corresponding calls are identical we allow the board to be played "normally". Pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit and at this table we assure that each of the players in Pair A takes the same cards they have already seen on their first attempt (rotating the seats for this board 90 degrees if necessary). Also at this table we require all corresponding calls to be identical and we allow the board to be played "normally" if this becomes the case. Clear so far? Notice that everything here happens within one and the same round (barometer movement) and no board from a separate round is involved but still we feel that we correctly apply Law 15C like I have described here. Comments? Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Aug 24 11:08:40 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:08:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D88@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> At 08:51 PM 8/23/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > A player passes when his LHO has dealt. LHO does not accept it,=20 so > the pass is cancelled and he has to pass when next it is his turn to > call. > > LHO opens the Multi, and partner asks the TD whether your original > pass is authorised or unauthorised. > > OK, we all know the answer to that one, but would you like to > justify it in the Laws? From the preamble of L16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information=20 from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a=20 call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of=20 law." The original pass was not a legal call. Am I missing something? (Ok, I'd like a comma between 'other' and=20 'extraneous', but it's unlike David S. to base a question on such.) -Todd ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, you are missing something. _May_ be an infraction of law. There is other extraneous information you can use without infracting the law, such as the vulnerability or dealer, or the state of the match, or=20 knowledge of the standard of opponents (etc. etc.). =20 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Aug 24 11:28:35 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:28:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D8A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> A player passes when his LHO has dealt. LHO does not accept it, so=20 the pass is cancelled and he has to pass when next it is his turn to=20 call. LHO opens the Multi, and partner asks the TD whether your original=20 pass is authorised or unauthorised. OK, we all know the answer to that one, but would you like to justify = it in the Laws? --=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 ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Law 16 does not give exhaustive lists of authorised and unauthorised information. There are three possible interpretations: - any information not defined to be UI is AI - any information not defined to be AI is UI - any information not defined one way or the other is at the TD's = discretion. The second of these is clearly not as intended by the lawmakers, as = things such as dealer & vulnerability & knowledge of the laws are not defined = as AI. I think the 3rd is correct, allowing some application of common sense. = I cannot justify this in the laws, but I cannot justify the first either. Given that withdrawn calls are UI, and that cancelled calls are not=20 defined to be AI, I feel justified in saying it is unauthorised purely=20 from the preamble to Law 16. A better definition of things defined to be AI would be help. I think = any attempt to list all UI is doomed to failure. From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 12:56:42 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:56:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D88@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000b01c489d1$6bfcdb40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS ........... > Am I missing something? (Ok, I'd like a comma between 'other' and > 'extraneous', but it's unlike David S. to base a question on such.) > > -Todd > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, you are missing something. _May_ be an infraction of law. There > is other extraneous information you can use without infracting the law, > such as the vulnerability or dealer, or the state of the match, or > knowledge of the standard of opponents (etc. etc.). And not to forget all rulings by the Director at the table! Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Aug 24 11:10:46 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:10:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D89@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> David Stevenson: >>A player passes when his LHO has dealt. LHO does >>not accept it, so the pass is cancelled and he has >>to pass when next it is his turn to call. >> >>LHO opens the Multi, and partner asks the TD >>whether your original pass is authorised or >>unauthorised. >> >>OK, we all know the answer to that one, but would >>you like to justify it in the Laws? Law 16C2: >For the offending side, information arising from its >own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of >the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of >the offending side may not choose from among logical >alternative actions one that could demonstrably have >been suggested over another by the unauthorised >information. Richard Hills: The fact that pard would not have opened the bidding if pard had been dealer is clearly unauthorised information, pursuant to Law 16C2. ----------------------------------------------------- The pass out of turn was not withdrawn, it was cancelled. From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Aug 24 13:26:25 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:26:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <000601c48761$a1728170$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <005001c4875d$adeaefe0$42e4f1c3@LNV> <000601c48761$a1728170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040824081134.02aea0d0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:31 AM 8/21/04, Sven wrote: >Ton Kooijman > > > This is a wrong decision by the TD. L15 looks clear to me. It just > > adresses > > the situation for the pair that has to sit down correctly immediately > > after > > the irregularity has ocurred. Then L15 applies. But the pair that > has to > > play this board later on can't play it anymore. And this incident > nicely > > illustrates why. Players do not notice the 'replay' of such board. The > > more > > important reason of course is that you can't have players walking > around > > with information about their hands on a future board to play. > >Your comment triggered a bit of thinking with me. The following has >occurred >on some occasions and I should appreciate your comments whether I (we) >have >misunderstood something about Law 15: > >Pair A sits down at a wrong table and they begin the auction on board X. >After a few calls the error is discovered and pair B (correctly) takes the >seats incorrectly first occupied by pair A. > >A new auction is started and if all corresponding calls are identical we >allow the board to be played "normally". > >Pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed to sit and at this >table we assure that each of the players in Pair A takes the same >cards they >have already seen on their first attempt (rotating the seats for this >board >90 degrees if necessary). > >Also at this table we require all corresponding calls to be identical >and we >allow the board to be played "normally" if this becomes the case. > >Clear so far? > >Notice that everything here happens within one and the same round >(barometer >movement) and no board from a separate round is involved but still we feel >that we correctly apply Law 15C like I have described here. > >Comments? Sven's analysis sounded right, until he got to "(barometer movement)". That's a whole different kettle of fish. We cannot use L15C in a barometer movement, because L15C applies only when "a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round". I find nothing else in the laws that would allow us to terminate the board. I would rule that the board is completed and scored for both sides, players take their correct positions for the remaining boards of the round, and the pairs that missed the board get 60% per L12C1. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 15:21:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:21:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040824081134.02aea0d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c489e5$97639b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ........... > >The following has occurred on some occasions and > >I should appreciate your comments whether I (we) > >have misunderstood something about Law 15: > > > >Pair A sits down at a wrong table and they begin=20 > >the auction on board X. After a few calls the error > >is discovered and pair B (correctly) takes the > >seats incorrectly first occupied by pair A. > > > >A new auction is started and if all corresponding=20 > >calls are identical we allow the board to be played > >"normally". > > > >Pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed=20 > >to sit and at this table we assure that each of the=20 > >players in Pair A takes the same cards they have=20 > >already seen on their first attempt (rotating the=20 > >seats for this board 90 degrees if necessary). > > > >Also at this table we require all corresponding calls > >to be identical and we allow the board to be played > >"normally" if this becomes the case. > > > >Clear so far? > > > >Notice that everything here happens within one and the > >same round (barometer movement) and no board from a=20 > >separate round is involved but still we feel that we > >correctly apply Law 15C like I have described here. > > > >Comments? >=20 > Sven's analysis sounded right, until he got to "(barometer > movement)". That's a whole different kettle of fish. We cannot use > L15C in a barometer movement, because L15C applies only when "a > contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the > current round". I find nothing else in the laws that would allow us = to > terminate the board. I would rule that the board is completed and > scored for both sides, players take their correct positions for the > remaining boards of the round, and the pairs that missed the board get > 60% per L12C1. Guess what originally made me thinking? Yes, I agree that literally L15 = is not applicable and I did indeed consider solutions along the lines = suggested by Eric. First one comment: Nobody would "miss the board" and have to take an A+ score if we do not cancel the incorrect auction: Pair B would simply be ordered to take the seats where Pair A was scheduled to sit and to play = the affected board there. I reckon we have three options: 1: Continue the same procedure we have used till now (as described = above). 2: Let pairs A and B play the affected board at the wrong tables and = then go to their designated tables for the remaining boards in that round. 3: Let pairs A and B swap positions for the whole round and then proceed with their designated positions from the next round. I believe alternative 2 will introduce the most problems for the = Director, and in fact I am not sure whether the scoring program we use currently allows changing a pair within a round. (If we end up with this = alternative as the desirable solution that must of course be enabled).=20 Alternative 3 will introduce the most disturbances to the balance in the movements, but as this problem mostly happens with Swiss Pairs I believe = we may happily ignore that anyway. This alternative will certainly be the = less disturbing in all other respects. Thanks for comments so far, and I shall welcome possible further = comments as well. Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 24 15:50:12 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:50:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <000101c489e5$97639b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c489e5$97639b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 24 Aug 2004, at 15:21, Sven Pran wrote: > I reckon we have three options: > > 1: Continue the same procedure we have used till now (as described > above). > 2: Let pairs A and B play the affected board at the wrong tables and > then go > to their designated tables for the remaining boards in that round. This seems the best solution. > 3: Let pairs A and B swap positions for the whole round and then > proceed > with their designated positions from the next round. > > I believe alternative 2 will introduce the most problems for the > Director, > and in fact I am not sure whether the scoring program we use currently > allows changing a pair within a round. Even if not, it wouldn't be hard to make an adjustment at the end to deal with this one board. > (If we end up with this alternative > as the desirable solution that must of course be enabled). > > Alternative 3 will introduce the most disturbances to the balance in > the > movements, but as this problem mostly happens with Swiss Pairs I > believe we > may happily ignore that anyway. On the contrary, unless they happen to have sat at a table where their opponents have a similar current position, this would introduce problems that would necessitate compensating adjustments. > This alternative will certainly be the less > disturbing in all other respects. It's hard to see how switching two pairs back to their correct tables after one board causes such a disturbance. > > Thanks for comments so far, and I shall welcome possible further > comments as > well. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Aug 24 15:59:58 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:59:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <000101c489e5$97639b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040824081134.02aea0d0@pop.starpower.net> <000101c489e5$97639b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040824104654.02b99590@pop.starpower.net> At 10:21 AM 8/24/04, Sven wrote: >Eric Landau > > > Sven's analysis sounded right, until he got to "(barometer > > movement)". That's a whole different kettle of fish. We cannot use > > L15C in a barometer movement, because L15C applies only when "a > > contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the > > current round". I find nothing else in the laws that would allow us to > > terminate the board. I would rule that the board is completed and > > scored for both sides, players take their correct positions for the > > remaining boards of the round, and the pairs that missed the board get > > 60% per L12C1. > >Guess what originally made me thinking? Yes, I agree that literally L15 is >not applicable and I did indeed consider solutions along the lines >suggested >by Eric. > >First one comment: Nobody would "miss the board" and have to take an A+ >score if we do not cancel the incorrect auction: Pair B would simply be >ordered to take the seats where Pair A was scheduled to sit and to >play the >affected board there. I hadn't thought about that. >I reckon we have three options: > >1: Continue the same procedure we have used till now (as described above). >2: Let pairs A and B play the affected board at the wrong tables and >then go >to their designated tables for the remaining boards in that round. >3: Let pairs A and B swap positions for the whole round and then proceed >with their designated positions from the next round. > >I believe alternative 2 will introduce the most problems for the Director, >and in fact I am not sure whether the scoring program we use currently >allows changing a pair within a round. (If we end up with this alternative >as the desirable solution that must of course be enabled). > >Alternative 3 will introduce the most disturbances to the balance in the >movements, but as this problem mostly happens with Swiss Pairs I >believe we >may happily ignore that anyway. This alternative will certainly be the >less >disturbing in all other respects. > >Thanks for comments so far, and I shall welcome possible further >comments as >well. I don't care for #3, since it gives an extra "reward" to an E-W pair that accidentally sits down against a substantially weaker pair than the one they were scheduled to play. #2 may create confusion by virtue of the extra movement of the pairs (I'm not worried about the scoring; if the computer can't handle it we still have pencils), but that can be avoided if the unscheduled play of the board between the two innocent pairs can be handled as a late play. There's still a problem; an innocent pair may suffer through no fault of their own if they're required to play the board against a significantly stronger pair than the one they were scheduled to play it against. Perhaps the unscheduled play should be allowed only with the concurrence of the players. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 24 15:56:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:56:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities Message-ID: I am trying to sort out a problematic ruling from Hong Kong - with some Norwegian comments!!!!!!! Can anyone tell me: [1] Is L12C3 enabled for TDs in HK? in Portugal? [2] Is L12C3 enabled for ACs in HK? in Portugal? The basis for not adjusting is that after the irregularity the NOS [a] Committed 'wild or gambling action', with at least the possibility of the double shot, in England and Wales [b] Failed to 'play bridge' after the irregularity, or committed an 'egregious' error, in the ACBL [c] Committed 'irrational, wild or gambling action' in most of the Rest of the World [3] Is the basis for not adjusting [c] in HK? in Portugal? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 24 16:41:07 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:41:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040824104654.02b99590@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040824081134.02aea0d0@pop.starpower.net> <000101c489e5$97639b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20040824104654.02b99590@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <03B2BE66-F5E4-11D8-B391-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 24 Aug 2004, at 15:59, Eric Landau wrote: > I don't care for #3, since it gives an extra "reward" to an E-W pair > that accidentally sits down against a substantially weaker pair than > the one they were scheduled to play. #2 may create confusion by > virtue of the extra movement of the pairs (I'm not worried about the > scoring; if the computer can't handle it we still have pencils), but > that can be avoided if the unscheduled play of the board between the > two innocent pairs can be handled as a late play. There's still a > problem; an innocent pair may suffer through no fault of their own if > they're required to play the board against a significantly stronger > pair than the one they were scheduled to play it against. Perhaps the > unscheduled play should be allowed only with the concurrence of the > players. There's actually a regulation for this in the EBU, and a formula in the White Book, to compensate a pair that have played against a "stronger" pair through no fault of their own. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 24 17:05:52 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:05:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040824002325.01c13ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040824002325.01c13ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >At 08:51 PM 8/23/2004, David Stevenson wrote: >> A player passes when his LHO has dealt. LHO does not accept it, >so >> the pass is cancelled and he has to pass when next it is his turn to >> call. >> >> LHO opens the Multi, and partner asks the TD whether your original >> pass is authorised or unauthorised. >> >> OK, we all know the answer to that one, but would you like to >> justify it in the Laws? > > From the preamble of L16: >"Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information >from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a >call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of >law." So they is not allowed to base their calls on the vulnerability? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 24 17:07:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:07:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <000601c489b1$72e54020$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <004601c489af$596ec410$d18f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000601c489b1$72e54020$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Grattan Endicott >.......... >> > Consequently, it is unclear whether or not the TD's >> > ruling (that a future one-round pass is enforced) must >> > be classified as authorised information to the >> > offending side. >> > >> > A blml pedant might argue that the TD's ruling could >> > be classified as "...information arising from its own >> > withdrawn action...". >> > >> +=+ On the point of leaving for Canada (back p.m. Sep 8) >> have not been able to look at this. Perhaps there is a >> principle somewhere in the WBFLC decision on info >> from penalty cards. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >We have AFAIK always in Norway enforced that the Directors rulings are AI to >all players. > >Thus the fact that a player must pass in one or more future rounds of the >auction is AI, his partner is free to select call(s) taking that knowledge >into consideration. Yes, we consider this correct. TD's rulings are AI. >However, there may be underlying information from the irregularity which >still is UI to offender's partner (the identity of a penalty card is one >example). Legal basis, please? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 24 17:10:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:10:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote > > I am trying to sort out a problematic ruling from Hong Kong - with >some Norwegian comments!!!!!!! > > Can anyone tell me: > >[1] Is L12C3 enabled for TDs in HK? in Portugal? >[2] Is L12C3 enabled for ACs in HK? in Portugal? > > The basis for not adjusting is that after the irregularity the NOS >[a] Committed 'wild or gambling action', with at least the possibility >of the double shot, in England and Wales >[b] Failed to 'play bridge' after the irregularity, or committed an >'egregious' error, in the ACBL >[c] Committed 'irrational, wild or gambling action' in most of the Rest >of the World > >[3] Is the basis for not adjusting [c] in HK? in Portugal? Why do I write Portugal when I mean Norway? Well, actually, there were Norwegian and Portuguese comments. So perhaps I could re-write this as: [1] Is L12C3 enabled for TDs in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? [2] Is L12C3 enabled for ACs in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? [3] Is the basis for not adjusting [c] in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From toddz@att.net Tue Aug 24 18:08:52 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:08:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040824002325.01c13ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040824130148.01c05ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 12:05 PM 8/24/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > > From the preamble of L16: > > "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information > > from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base > > a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction > > of law." > > So they is not allowed to base their calls on the vulnerability? I don't find in the laws where it is authorized. I also do not find any mechanism for score adjustment. Same for state of match, knowledge of opponents' bidding system at the other table, and a whole host of tacitly-approved categories of not-explicitly-authorized information. I do see mechanisms for score adjustment when the unauthorized information is created by partner, which is the situation here. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 18:51:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:51:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c48a02$f2c5bf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote ............. > >We have AFAIK always in Norway enforced that the Directors rulings = are AI > to > >all players. > > > >Thus the fact that a player must pass in one or more future rounds of = the > >auction is AI, his partner is free to select call(s) taking that > knowledge > >into consideration. >=20 > Yes, we consider this correct. TD's rulings are AI. >=20 > >However, there may be underlying information from the irregularity = which > >still is UI to offender's partner (the identity of a penalty card is = one > >example). >=20 > Legal basis, please? WBF minutes Lille August 24th 1998 #3 (I thought you were aware of that principle?) Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 19:03:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:03:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c48a04$aabea6a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > David Stevenson wrote ............. > Why do I write Portugal when I mean Norway? Well, actually, there > were Norwegian and Portuguese comments. So perhaps I could re-write > this as: > > [1] Is L12C3 enabled for TDs in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? Wrong question: L12C3 is not disabled in Norway! > [2] Is L12C3 enabled for ACs in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? Same comment and same answer. > [3] Is the basis for not adjusting [c] in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? I don't understand the question. But if we don't adjust it is usually because we don't find (sufficient) cause for adjustment. Our standard procedure for ruling adjustments is: 1: There must have been some irregularity 2: There must have been some consequential damage to NOS 3: Such damage must not have been self-inflected. Regards Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Aug 24 19:05:13 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:05:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c References: <000101c489e5$97639b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005301c48a0a$687f5d60$ac053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Cc: "'Skjaran, Harald'" ; ; Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 4:21 PM Subject: RE: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c Eric Landau ........... > >The following has occurred on some occasions and > >I should appreciate your comments whether I (we) > >have misunderstood something about Law 15: > > > >Pair A sits down at a wrong table and they begin > >the auction on board X. After a few calls the error > >is discovered and pair B (correctly) takes the > >seats incorrectly first occupied by pair A. > > > >A new auction is started and if all corresponding > >calls are identical we allow the board to be played > >"normally". > > > >Pair A is sent to the table where they were supposed > >to sit and at this table we assure that each of the > >players in Pair A takes the same cards they have > >already seen on their first attempt (rotating the > >seats for this board 90 degrees if necessary). > > > >Also at this table we require all corresponding calls > >to be identical and we allow the board to be played > >"normally" if this becomes the case. > > > >Clear so far? > > > >Notice that everything here happens within one and the > >same round (barometer movement) and no board from a > >separate round is involved but still we feel that we > >correctly apply Law 15C like I have described here. > > > >Comments? > > Sven's analysis sounded right, until he got to "(barometer > movement)". That's a whole different kettle of fish. We cannot use > L15C in a barometer movement, because L15C applies only when "a > contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the > current round". I find nothing else in the laws that would allow us to > terminate the board. I would rule that the board is completed and > scored for both sides, players take their correct positions for the > remaining boards of the round, and the pairs that missed the board get > 60% per L12C1. Guess what originally made me thinking? Yes, I agree that literally L15 is not applicable and I did indeed consider solutions along the lines suggested by Eric. First one comment: Nobody would "miss the board" and have to take an A+ score if we do not cancel the incorrect auction: Pair B would simply be ordered to take the seats where Pair A was scheduled to sit and to play the affected board there. I reckon we have three options: 1: Continue the same procedure we have used till now (as described above). 2: Let pairs A and B play the affected board at the wrong tables and then go to their designated tables for the remaining boards in that round. 3: Let pairs A and B swap positions for the whole round and then proceed with their designated positions from the next round. I believe alternative 2 will introduce the most problems for the Director, and in fact I am not sure whether the scoring program we use currently allows changing a pair within a round. (If we end up with this alternative as the desirable solution that must of course be enabled). > > > Alternative 2 will give a small disturbance to the balance but the administration room has to switch by hand the I.M.P. or MP result of just one board between the two pairs sitting at the wrong table. That's all. Ben From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Aug 24 20:08:01 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:08:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c48a0d$ad76f9c0$0201a8c0@rui> In Portugal 12C3 is enabled for ACs and National TDs (Three levels of TDs here: Nat, Reg, Club) -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 24 de Agosto de 2004 15:57 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities I am trying to sort out a problematic ruling from Hong Kong - with=20 some Norwegian comments!!!!!!! Can anyone tell me: [1] Is L12C3 enabled for TDs in HK? in Portugal? [2] Is L12C3 enabled for ACs in HK? in Portugal? The basis for not adjusting is that after the irregularity the NOS [a] Committed 'wild or gambling action', with at least the possibility=20 of the double shot, in England and Wales [b] Failed to 'play bridge' after the irregularity, or committed an=20 'egregious' error, in the ACBL [c] Committed 'irrational, wild or gambling action' in most of the Rest=20 of the World [3] Is the basis for not adjusting [c] in HK? in Portugal? --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 24 20:22:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:22:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote >David Stevenson wrote >> >> I am trying to sort out a problematic ruling from Hong Kong - with >>some Norwegian comments!!!!!!! >> >> Can anyone tell me: >> >>[1] Is L12C3 enabled for TDs in HK? in Portugal? >>[2] Is L12C3 enabled for ACs in HK? in Portugal? >> >> The basis for not adjusting is that after the irregularity the NOS >>[a] Committed 'wild or gambling action', with at least the possibility >>of the double shot, in England and Wales >>[b] Failed to 'play bridge' after the irregularity, or committed an >>'egregious' error, in the ACBL >>[c] Committed 'irrational, wild or gambling action' in most of the >>Rest of the World >> >>[3] Is the basis for not adjusting [c] in HK? in Portugal? > > Why do I write Portugal when I mean Norway? Well, actually, there >were Norwegian and Portuguese comments. So perhaps I could re-write >this as: > >[1] Is L12C3 enabled for TDs in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? >[2] Is L12C3 enabled for ACs in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? >[3] Is the basis for not adjusting [c] in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? I seem to still have got this wrong. OK, I am talking about splitting the score. [3] Is the basis for not adjusting for the non-offenders [c] in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 20:27:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:27:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c In-Reply-To: <005301c48a0a$687f5d60$ac053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000501c48a10$59661a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen ........... > I reckon we have three options: >=20 > 1: Continue the same procedure we have used till now (as described = above). > 2: Let pairs A and B play the affected board at the wrong tables and = then > go > to their designated tables for the remaining boards in that round. > 3: Let pairs A and B swap positions for the whole round and then = proceed > with their designated positions from the next round. >=20 > I believe alternative 2 will introduce the most problems for the = Director, > and in fact I am not sure whether the scoring program we use currently > allows changing a pair within a round. (If we end up with this = alternative > as the desirable solution that must of course be enabled). > > > > > > > Alternative 2 will give a small disturbance to the balance but the > administration room has to switch by hand the I.M.P. or MP result of = just > one board between the two pairs sitting at the wrong table. That's = all. With alternative 2 the Director must first closely monitor and guide = four pairs at two tables so that they make no mistakes in an already stressed situation. And afterwards he must see to it that the scoring is correct. With alternative 3 he simply swaps the pairs for that round and set them = off with the standard procedures. According to my experience the type of errors I am discussing here is = most likely to occur in Swiss Pairs just after breaks where players misread = their instructions and go to the table for which they are scheduled in the = second round instead of the first round after the break. However, the = consequence is that they meet a different pair from what they should but a pair of approximately the "correct" strength so I should not be too concerned. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 20:36:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:36:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c48a11$b4ef3830$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > I seem to still have got this wrong. OK, I am talking about splitting > the score. That is what I call some clarification. Well, the answer is that we have practiced splitting the score when we found it appropriate in Norway since long before the "birth" of L12C3 and we still do (Directors as well as AC) Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 24 21:21:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:21:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <000301c48a02$f2c5bf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c48a02$f2c5bf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >............. >> >We have AFAIK always in Norway enforced that the Directors rulings are AI >> to >> >all players. >> > >> >Thus the fact that a player must pass in one or more future rounds of the >> >auction is AI, his partner is free to select call(s) taking that >> knowledge >> >into consideration. >> >> Yes, we consider this correct. TD's rulings are AI. >> >> >However, there may be underlying information from the irregularity which >> >still is UI to offender's partner (the identity of a penalty card is one >> >example). >> >> Legal basis, please? > >WBF minutes Lille August 24th 1998 #3 Yes, ok, that proves your principle in a totally unrelated position. Fine. Now, how about the actual situation> >(I thought you were aware of that principle?) I thought when it referred to penalty cards it applied to penalty cards, not passes out of turn. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 21:59:28 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:59:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c48a1d$3f137160$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > >WBF minutes Lille August 24th 1998 #3 >=20 > Yes, ok, that proves your principle in a totally unrelated = position. > Fine. Now, how about the actual situation> >=20 > >(I thought you were aware of that principle?) >=20 > I thought when it referred to penalty cards it applied to penalty > cards, not passes out of turn. Yes, the minute handled specifically penalty cards, but the principle = must be general unless something else is explicitly stated with the decision. The principle as I read the minutes is that a Director's ruling is = always AI to all players at the table. But the underlying irregularity may convey additional (extraneous) information which is what Law 16 is about: "To = base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of = law". Notice the use of the word MAY in this clause; the way I understand Law = 16 there is no automatics here, the Director must judge and rule on each = case individually. Also note that before 1997 cases like this presented no problem: All available information from offender's withdrawn call(s) and play was AI = to the offending side after they had paid the prescribed penalty. So in your particular case I shall always rule that offender's partner = when selecting his call(s) may take into consideration the knowledge that the offender must pass on his first legal round in the auction.=20 However he (partner) may be accused and tried on a "charge" that he has = made use of UI if his choice of call(s) appears to having been suggested = (also) by the knowledge that the offence itself was a pass (out of turn), that = is in this case the fact that the offender apparently did not hold a hand justifying an opening bid. I find it impossible to make any ruling in = cases like this without knowing the entire story and seeing all hands. Regards Sven=20 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 24 22:12:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:12:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <1092919754.12991.202644693@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1092919754.12991.202644693@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: David Babcock wrote > >[RJH] > >> Another dead letter Law limiting dummy's rights, >> which _should_ be repealed in 2006, is the current >> policy that dummy may not inform declarer (or an >> opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity. At a minimum, >> dummy _should_ be given the power to inform declarer >> (or an opponent) of a Law 65B irregularity on the >> same trick that the quitted card is placed at a 90 >> degree angle of absentmindedness. > >Analogously with the wrong-hand situation, dummy >may speak up as long as he does so "as declarer >is placing his card incorrectly" (to try to prevent an >irrregularity), but not after, according to Mike Flader >at ACBL (this month's Bulletin, p. 38). I agree with RJH's >suggestion to allow a bit more latitude in the next Laws, >as orienting the card one way or the other >tends to happen very quickly, and partner, however quick >he is off the blocks, may be presented with a fait accompli. >I don't see a likely real-world issue here with transmittal of >information or advice. Why dummy? Anyone should be allowed to point out a wrongly directed card until the next trick - perhaps 'until both sides have played ot the next trick'. Sometime the WBFLC gave the reason for this Law, and it was to stop later correction at a critical moment. Fine, but what is wrong with immediate correction? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 24 22:16:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:16:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities In-Reply-To: <000601c48a11$b4ef3830$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c48a11$b4ef3830$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <748hCkBTA7KBFwbO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> I seem to still have got this wrong. OK, I am talking about splitting >> the score. > >That is what I call some clarification. Well, the answer is that we have >practiced splitting the score when we found it appropriate in Norway since >long before the "birth" of L12C3 and we still do (Directors as well as AC) Of course you do. That's not the question. The question is what basis is used. Ok, ok, ok, I shall try one more time: The basis for not adjusting is that after the irregularity the NOS [a] Committed 'wild or gambling action', with at least the possibility of the double shot, in England and Wales [b] Failed to 'play bridge' after the irregularity, or committed an 'egregious' error, in the ACBL [c] Committed 'irrational, wild or gambling action' in most of the Rest of the World [3] Is the basis for not adjusting for the non-offenders [c] in HK? in Portugal? in Norway? It really cannot be that difficult, despite the errors of detail in what I wrote!!!! I did list the various bases!!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 22:24:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:24:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c48a20$cad32bc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .............. > >Analogously with the wrong-hand situation, dummy > >may speak up as long as he does so "as declarer > >is placing his card incorrectly" (to try to prevent an > >irrregularity), but not after, according to Mike Flader > >at ACBL (this month's Bulletin, p. 38). I agree with RJH's > >suggestion to allow a bit more latitude in the next Laws, > >as orienting the card one way or the other > >tends to happen very quickly, and partner, however quick > >he is off the blocks, may be presented with a fait accompli. > >I don't see a likely real-world issue here with transmittal of > >information or advice. >=20 > Why dummy? Anyone should be allowed to point out a wrongly = directed > card until the next trick - perhaps 'until both sides have played ot = the > next trick'. Sometime the WBFLC gave the reason for this Law, and it > was to stop later correction at a critical moment. Fine, but what is > wrong with immediate correction? Dummy isn't allowed to "call attention to an irregularity" during the = play? Dummy is allowed to try preventing declarer from committing an error, = but once the error has been made by declarer dummy is no longer in a = position to "try preventing declarer from committing it", he is now in case calling attention to it. There is a difference (as the kids said looking at each other in the = bath) Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 24 22:35:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:35:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities In-Reply-To: <748hCkBTA7KBFwbO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000c01c48a22$3a6ab790$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .......... > Of course you do. That's not the question. The question is what > basis is used. >=20 > Ok, ok, ok, I shall try one more time: >=20 > The basis for not adjusting is that after the irregularity the NOS > [a] Committed 'wild or gambling action', with at least the possibility > of the double shot, in England and Wales > [b] Failed to 'play bridge' after the irregularity, or committed an > 'egregious' error, in the ACBL > [c] Committed 'irrational, wild or gambling action' in most of the = Rest > of the World >=20 > [3] Is the basis for not adjusting for the non-offenders [c] in HK? in > Portugal? in Norway? >=20 > It really cannot be that difficult, despite the errors of detail in > what I wrote!!!! I did list the various bases!!!! OK, I believe I begin to understand what you are asking. And in that case the answer is that we do not specify either (a), (b) or = (c) as specific bases. We reject compensation to NOS for damage in the = extent that we judge their damage to having been self-inflected whether we = might use the terms in any of your alternatives or maybe even a fourth term: = "to the extent that NOS have intentionally or carelessly contributed to = their own damage" (This is not a precise translation from Norwegian to = English!). Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 24 22:36:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:36:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Law 12C2, Assigned Score: >>>>When the Director awards an assigned >>>>adjusted score in place of a result actually >>>>obtained after an irregularity..... Richard Hills: >>>In my opinion, Sven's "likely outcome" is >>>not 100% congruent with "actually obtained". Sven Pran: >>There is no need for 100% congruence. Chapter 1, Definitions: >Adjusted Score - An arbitrary score awarded by >the Director (see Law 12). It is either >"artificial" or "assigned". [snip] >2. An assigned adjusted score is awarded to one >side, or to both sides, to be the result of the >deal in place of the result *actually obtained* >after an irregularity. Sven Pran: [snip] >>It is perfectly possible that even when an >>irregularity prevents "normal play" of the >>last tricks on a board the Director may still >>find that the result on this board can be >>safely determined from the auction and play >>before the irregularity. >> >>It makes no sense to me if the Director in such >>cases shall be forced to award an artificial >>adjusted score rather than to recognize the >>"normal" outcome on the board and award this as >>an assigned adjusted score. Richard Hills: Directors are required to obey the Laws, not make up rulings which are merely based upon their own personal definition of what constitutes commonsense. Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Aug 24 23:49:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:49:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: Richard Hills (a quibbler): >>>>>A blml pedant might argue that the TD's ruling could >>>>>be classified as "...information arising from its own >>>>>withdrawn action...". Grattan Endicott (a WBF LC Secretary): >>>>+=+ On the point of leaving for Canada (back p.m. Sep 8) >>>>have not been able to look at this. Perhaps there is a >>>>principle somewhere in the WBFLC decision on info from >>>>penalty cards. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF LC Minutes 24th August 1998 (an interpretation): >>>When a player has a penalty card then it is authorised >>>information that he must play that card when the suit is >>>led, but not that he possesses that card. David Stevenson (a blml pedant): >>I thought when it referred to penalty cards it applied to >>penalty cards, not passes out of turn. Sven Pran (a commonsensical leaper to conclusions): >Yes, the minute handled specifically penalty cards, but >the principle must be general Richard Hills (a quibbler): Must? Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 24 23:57:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:57:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <000b01c48a20$cad32bc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c48a20$cad32bc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <$M6gvJMIf8KBFwIN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >.............. >> >Analogously with the wrong-hand situation, dummy >> >may speak up as long as he does so "as declarer >> >is placing his card incorrectly" (to try to prevent an >> >irrregularity), but not after, according to Mike Flader >> >at ACBL (this month's Bulletin, p. 38). I agree with RJH's >> >suggestion to allow a bit more latitude in the next Laws, >> >as orienting the card one way or the other >> >tends to happen very quickly, and partner, however quick >> >he is off the blocks, may be presented with a fait accompli. >> >I don't see a likely real-world issue here with transmittal of >> >information or advice. >> >> Why dummy? Anyone should be allowed to point out a wrongly directed >> card until the next trick - perhaps 'until both sides have played ot the >> next trick'. Sometime the WBFLC gave the reason for this Law, and it >> was to stop later correction at a critical moment. Fine, but what is >> wrong with immediate correction? > >Dummy isn't allowed to "call attention to an irregularity" during the play? > >Dummy is allowed to try preventing declarer from committing an error, but >once the error has been made by declarer dummy is no longer in a position to >"try preventing declarer from committing it", he is now in case calling >attention to it. > >There is a difference (as the kids said looking at each other in the bath) So? I am suggesting a change to the Law, incorporating a bit of commonsense. Dummy is allowed to point out an unestablished revoke even if it has occurred. Why not a wrongly placed card? For people who actually play bridge it really is stupid that you are not allowed to correct someone else's wrong played card at the time. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 25 00:54:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:54:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <000801c48a1d$3f137160$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c48a1d$3f137160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6NixvzMoU9KBFw4Q@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >So in your particular case I shall always rule that offender's partner when >selecting his call(s) may take into consideration the knowledge that the >offender must pass on his first legal round in the auction. Yes, it has been accepted that TD's rulings are AI. >However he (partner) may be accused and tried on a "charge" that he has made >use of UI if his choice of call(s) appears to having been suggested (also) >by the knowledge that the offence itself was a pass (out of turn), that is >in this case the fact that the offender apparently did not hold a hand >justifying an opening bid. I find it impossible to make any ruling in cases >like this without knowing the entire story and seeing all hands. I do not see the difficulty. I am merely asking any one member of BLML to give me a legal basis for the above. Ok, I'll give you a case. West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you would rule, citing law numbers. C'mon, has no-one on BLML *ever* read a Law book? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 00:55:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:55:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hong Kong and Portugal authorities In-Reply-To: <000c01c48a22$3a6ab790$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <748hCkBTA7KBFwbO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000c01c48a22$3a6ab790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >.......... >> Of course you do. That's not the question. The question is what >> basis is used. >> >> Ok, ok, ok, I shall try one more time: >> >> The basis for not adjusting is that after the irregularity the NOS >> [a] Committed 'wild or gambling action', with at least the possibility >> of the double shot, in England and Wales >> [b] Failed to 'play bridge' after the irregularity, or committed an >> 'egregious' error, in the ACBL >> [c] Committed 'irrational, wild or gambling action' in most of the Rest >> of the World >> >> [3] Is the basis for not adjusting for the non-offenders [c] in HK? in >> Portugal? in Norway? >> >> It really cannot be that difficult, despite the errors of detail in >> what I wrote!!!! I did list the various bases!!!! > >OK, I believe I begin to understand what you are asking. > >And in that case the answer is that we do not specify either (a), (b) or (c) >as specific bases. We reject compensation to NOS for damage in the extent >that we judge their damage to having been self-inflected whether we might >use the terms in any of your alternatives or maybe even a fourth term: "to >the extent that NOS have intentionally or carelessly contributed to their >own damage" (This is not a precise translation from Norwegian to English!). Phew! That is harsher on non-offenders than anywhere else! Anyway, thanks. I am surprised the players find it fair though. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 01:00:02 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:00:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <000501c4814a$ca590090$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <8rkph018v0vlbibbkddqeiafmpg296h0mk@bilbo.softco.dk> <000501c4814a$ca590090$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Jesper Dybdal >> Sent: 13. august 2004 16:49 >> To: Bridge Laws List >> Subject: Re: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) >> >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:45:51 +0200, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >> >South indicates he will also pass three times with this holding and he >> >now leads the Diamond 8. >> >> South has now been allowed to choose all his calls with full knowledge >> of how the other three players will bid the whole auction. >> >> That is a good example of the kind of situation that causes me to >> believe that the board should be cancelled unless the irregularity is >> discovered very soon (as the DBF has suggested to the WBFLC: >> http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L17D ). > >Reading the DBF suggestions for Law 17D I couldn't agree more with both of >them! > >Moving Law 17D to for instance Law 15 makes sense, I didn't find Law 17D >even when looking for it. 15 is the wrong place for it really. It is an Irregularity in Procedure during the auction, so L23 if they do not renumber. L23 itself could be made part of L72B1. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 25 01:57:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:57:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: David Stevenson asked: [snip] >Please tell me how you would rule, citing law numbers. > >C'mon, has no-one on BLML *ever* read a Law book? Richard Hills replies: Of course not. It is much more fun for blmlers to pontificate on what the new Laws should be, or on what the current Laws should say, or on how a commonsense TD should rule. Since this forum is a "Bridge Laws Mailing List", then of course the current Bridge Laws are never read. We have, however, had a thread in which one of us read and then discussed the Golf Laws. :-) Best wishes RJH From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 02:04:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:04:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >Richard Hills (a quibbler): > >Must? D'you know, I actually read this, to see if one BLMLer when asked for a straight Law book ruling might have actually opened the Law book. Ho hum, yawn. OK, 'quibbler', what's the answer? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Aug 25 03:00:30 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:00:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit Message-ID: Sven Writes: Case 1: The revoke (if any) is not established (it has indeed already occurred!); Dummy may use his rights under Law 42B1 and ask "no spades partner?" after which declarer may change his play to trick three if he still holds a spade. (I assume your text "no H partner" is a typo?) ____________________________________________________________________ Yes, the irregularity (the revoke) has already occured.... but it is not yet established. With the actual text, I also read Law 42B1 like you do (not to late to try preventing a not establihed revoke). I sent this just to point out that next version could be more clear. Law 42B1 should be something like: 1.Revoke Inquiries As long as a revoke is not establihed (as defined by Las 63A), dummy may...... has a card of the suit led. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 25 02:58:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:58:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Classic comments Message-ID: Richard wrote: >Therefore, I have now adopted the personal >ethic of nevermore psyching against bunnies, >while still maintaining that I have the >right to psyche against bunnies if I choose >to (despite nevermore choosing to). Walt replied: Richard This reminds me very much of the Presbyterian doctrines of Free Will and Predestination which say: 1. You have complete freedom of choice 2. God already knows what choices you are going to make, so 3. Everything you are going to do is already known to him and so is predestined Richard James Hills: 1. Has complete freedom of choice to psyche against bunnies 2. I already know what choice he is going to make, so 3. Whether or not he will psyche against bunnies is predestined. Now I feel like I am back in Logic 101. Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 25 05:00:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:00:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying Message-ID: Written by Eric Landau: >>Sven is quite right; I should have written "a >>mechanism by which disclosure is to be >>facilitated". >> >>Which only reinforces the point I was trying >>to make: there is no way that an alert >>procedure, by itself, can "prohibit >>disclosure". Attributed to Alfred Korzybski: >A difference which makes no difference is no >difference. Differenced by Richard Hills: In my opinion, the ABF "self-alert" regulation (which restricts alerting), makes no difference between a hypothetical ABF "self-disclosure" regulation (which hypothetically restricts disclosure). In both cases, if such regulations were not modified by other regulations, then this auction might occur -> Me LHO Pard RHO 1H 1S Dble 2S What, you might ask, is wrong with this picture? Well, my pard's double in this auction is a penalty double. Fortunately, despite pard's double being a "self-alerting" call, the ABF has also promulgated a modifying "pre-alert" regulation to prevent players unaware of the need for disclosure from being disadvantaged. Best wishes RJH From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Aug 24 14:06:58 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:06:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] average plus versus table result - law 15 c References: <005001c4875d$adeaefe0$42e4f1c3@LNV> <000601c48761$a1728170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20040824081134.02aea0d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c48a6d$812d1420$b1fbf0c3@LNV> > > Sven's analysis sounded right, until he got to "(barometer > movement)". That's a whole different kettle of fish. We cannot use > L15C in a barometer movement, because L15C applies only when "a > contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the > current round". I find nothing else in the laws that would allow us to > terminate the board. I would rule that the board is completed and > scored for both sides, players take their correct positions for the > remaining boards of the round, and the pairs that missed the board get > 60% per L12C1. > > > Eric Landau Is a quite reasonable solution too, but for one element, which I would have solved otherwise. Since there are two pairs left which have to play the same boards why not setting them at the other table to play this board? I would have done so even if they are supposed to meet for some other boards also. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 08:42:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:42:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c48a77$10fb4320$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au .............. > Sven Pran: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >>It is perfectly possible that even when an > >>irregularity prevents "normal play" of the > >>last tricks on a board the Director may still > >>find that the result on this board can be > >>safely determined from the auction and play > >>before the irregularity. > >> > >>It makes no sense to me if the Director in such > >>cases shall be forced to award an artificial > >>adjusted score rather than to recognize the > >>"normal" outcome on the board and award this as > >>an assigned adjusted score. >=20 > Richard Hills: >=20 > Directors are required to obey the Laws, not make > up rulings which are merely based upon their own > personal definition of what constitutes > commonsense. So what you require from the Director can be illustrated with the = following example which actually did occur in one of my tournaments: Due to an irregularity in the middle of the play a board could not be completed "normally". It was however clear from what had happened up to = the moment of the irregularity that pair A was in for a clear top; they were = the only pair in the room who had bid a slam and as the cards lay and the = play had progressed before the irregularity the slam would make with no = doubt. On awarding an adjusted score I ruled the result to be slam bid and won. (The question of PP for the irregularity was handled separately). You seem to state that in this case I should have awarded artificial = scores of 40%, 50% or 60% as the case may be according to Law 12C1 disregarding everything that had happened on that board because "normal (completion = of the) play was impossible". Do you still maintain this position? And by the way: Which law do you claim me to have violated?=20 Law 12A uses the clauses "The Director MAY award...." so the Director = does not violate Law 12A by acting differently (at his own discretion).=20 Laws 12C1 and 12C2 use the clauses "WHEN the Director ....." so they respectively apply only when the Director acts accordingly.=20 My formal basis for awarding an adjusted score in the example given = above was Law 12A1 and for judging what scores to award was Law 12C2. =20 Sven =20 From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 08:49:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:49:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <6NixvzMoU9KBFw4Q@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000601c48a78$192d6310$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > Ok, I'll give you a case. > > West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's > original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you > would rule, citing law numbers. Unauthorized - Law 16C2 (But without more information we cannot safely judge whether East subsequently has violated Law 16A). Sven From AlanLeBendig@aol.com Mon Aug 23 19:03:13 2004 From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com (AlanLeBendig@aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:03:13 EDT Subject: [blml] Some Quick Opinions, Please Message-ID: <159.3d350110.2e5b8b61@aol.com> -------------------------------1093284192 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You hold: AKxx Q AKQx Kxxx RHO opens 1H You double and partner bids 2C. LHO showed no interest in raising. RHO passes. Partner (novice) will think a cuebid is some sort of raise Your call? Alan LeBendig -------------------------------1093284192 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
You hold:

AKxx Q AKQx Kxxx

RHO opens 1H   You double and partner bids 2C. LHO show= ed=20 no interest in raising. RHO passes. Partner (novice) will think=20= a=20 cuebid is some sort of raise

Your call?

Alan LeBendig
-------------------------------1093284192-- From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Aug 24 23:08:40 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:08:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <000101c48550$b8aed540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C48A05.62525910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sven Writes: Case 1: The revoke (if any) is not established (it has indeed already occurred!); Dummy may use his rights under Law 42B1 and ask "no spades partner?" after which declarer may change his play to trick three if he still holds a spade. (I assume your text "no H partner" is a typo?) ____________________________________________________________________ Yes, the irregularity (the revoke) has already occured.... but it is not yet established. With the actual text, I also read Law 42B1 like you do (not to late to try preventing a not establihed revoke). I sent this just to point out that next version could be more clear. Law 42B1 should be something like: 1.Revoke Inquiries As long as a revoke is not establihed (as defined by Las 63A), dummy may...... has a card of the suit led. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C48A05.62525910 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" eJ8+IigWAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAANQHCAAYABIABwAAAAIAFgEB A5AGADAHAAAkAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMANgAA AAAAHgBwAAEAAAAkAAAAW2JsbWxdIExhdyA0MjogRHVtbXkncyByaWdodHMgbGltaXQAAgFxAAEA AAAWAAAAAcSKJsS2O1XSqrXBTAqObUXhR4yqQwAAAgEdDAEAAAAdAAAAU01UUDpQSUNBVE9VQFVR U1MuVVFVRUJFQy5DQQAAAAALAAEOAAAAAEAABg4A2qatJorEAQIBCg4BAAAAGAAAAAAAAABAoepo UJnQTp7SStAHKBjNwoAAAAsAHw4BAAAAAgEJEAEAAADpAgAA5QIAACsEAABMWkZ1ew5hqgMACgBy Y3BnMTI18jIA+zM2AegCpAPkBxOVAoB9CoF2CJB3awuAdGQ0DGBjAFALAwtgbnBnMzA4EeALtQYA dqkJ8CBXBRB0B5A6CqIDCoQKgENhc2UgMTA6IFRoFVAJcHZvKmsVUCgGkCAAcHkp4iAEACBubwVA B5ABkbZsBAAVsGQWQQVAaBUwPxbQEcAJ4BfwB0AJcGFkYnkUZG9jYwhwCXEhACk7IER1bW151iAA wBrQdRVBaBbhBRBoZ2h0BCB1GKEFwEzCYQfgNDJCMRaBGOGQc2sgIhcQIHMKsE0BAHMUZAqxdG4E kD8uIhaAAYAcUXcbcGNo/iAFgQtgCXAFwBryH8ASoVcbVAtRGtB0HbB0BRBj+R1wdGgJ0RbQFnAV sBRkVxdgAxADIGgG8GQEIGHVHcQuFkBJHUFzGqAVUGZ5CGEhsGV4BUAdkkgfIWAepB8QFuEkIHR5 cOhvPykUZF8n/ykPKh/rKy4UalkHkCwiQSKRGhHcZ3UgIRQQGtAoLUIV5LcWwBhSGQUgGdMJgC4w UfggYnUFQBghBAAUZBcS7HllFzskkFcUEB/QLUJ5ANB0dQdAJZMtICTBbP5zHbAZIhx4F6AWIBRk JVH7H+AdsCgXEiHBC2AUICG0/RrQcBXhCfAjcBKwJBEXGfsX0i6lLhRqJMAVQAIwIkH9FuFqGzA2 0ydQC4AFQAhg3zsyNzAXACWyE7ByAJACIP8gsAhgI+AwkBVQBGAJcCCw+mwZMHI6FRyHF8A99jSA HweAO1E4YTWSFFsxLlLhFfRJbnF1LYAIkB4l+wMwDDEgEKAEIAkAOGIkAn8V5RbsF9MYYQEBC4AX 4WKHGtAcgAQgNjNBKS0g6wogAUBpE4BkGqJDhRri/zBSMHEvIyCwCxEv0BZwLUK/JQAYIT7QMEAU ahyAdjOxeRqQIEIJcEMgCVAUc1HjClA+QGMgQy4RQ4YUcwURIQBPoAAAAB4AQhABAAAAJwAAADww MDAxMDFjNDg1NTAkYjhhZWQ1NDAkNjkwMGE4YzBAV0lOWFA+AAALAAGACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAAADhQAAAAAAAAMAA4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAHgAggBgAAAAAA wAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAUoUAAD9xAQAeAAiACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAQAAAA5 LjAACwANgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAgoUAAAEAAAALADqACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AAAOhQAAAAAAAAMAPIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABGFAAAAAAAAAwA9gAggBgAAAAAAwAAA AAAAAEYAAAAAGIUAAAAAAAALAFKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAGhQAAAAAAAAMAU4AIIAYA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAAAgH4DwEAAAAQAAAAQKHqaFCZ0E6e0krQBygYzQIB+g8B AAAAEAAAAECh6mhQmdBOntJK0AcoGM0CAfsPAQAAAJoAAAAAAAAAOKG7EAXlEBqhuwgAKypWwgAA UFNUUFJYLkRMTAAAAAAAAAAATklUQfm/uAEAqgA32W4AAABDOlxEb2N1bWVudHMgYW5kIFNldHRp bmdzXGxkdWJyZXVpXExvY2FsIFNldHRpbmdzXEFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIERhdGFcTWljcm9zb2Z0XE91 dGxvb2tcb3V0bG9vay5wc3QAAAADAP4PBQAAAAMADTT9NwAAAgF/AAEAAAA3AAAAPE5BRU9KT05D QUtIQk9ORUFFSUZFSUVGTkRKQUEucGljYXRvdUB1cXNzLnVxdWViZWMuY2E+AAADAAYQ8qKHXwMA BxBVAgAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAFNWRU5XUklURVM6Q0FTRTE6VEhFUkVW T0tFKElGQU5ZKUlTTk9URVNUQUJMSVNIRUQoSVRIQVNJTkRFRURBTFJFQURZT0NDVVJSRUQpO0RV TU1ZTUFZVVNFSElTUklHSFRTVU4AAAAAibY= ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C48A05.62525910-- From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Aug 25 00:29:10 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:29:10 -0400 Subject: TR: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C48A10.A146FB70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca] > Envoye : 24 aout, 2004 18:09 > A : svenpran@online.no; blml@rtflb.org > Objet : RE: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit > > Sven Writes: > > Case 1: The revoke (if any) is not established (it has indeed already > occurred!); Dummy may use his rights under Law 42B1 and ask "no spades > partner?" after which declarer may change his play to trick three if he > still holds a spade. (I assume your text "no H partner" is a typo?) > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Yes, the irregularity (the revoke) has already occured.... but it is > not yet established. With the actual text, I also read Law 42B1 like > you do (not to late to try preventing a not establihed revoke). > > I sent this just to point out that next version could be more clear. > Law 42B1 should be something like: > > 1.Revoke Inquiries > As long as a revoke is not establihed (as defined by Las 63A), dummy > may...... has a card of the suit led. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C48A10.A146FB70 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" eJ8+IgoXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEIAAUABAAAAAAAAAAAAAEJAAQAAgAAAAAA AAABBoADAA4AAADUBwgAGAATABwAAAACACwBAQOQBgDsCAAAJQAAAAsAAgABAAAACwAjAAAAAAAD ACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAB4ATQABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAHAAAQAAACQA AABbYmxtbF0gTGF3IDQyOiBEdW1teSdzIHJpZ2h0cyBsaW1pdAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABxIomxLY7 VdKqtcFMCo5tReFHjKpDAALVHqAACwAXDAAAAAACAR0MAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlBJQ0FUT1VAVVFT Uy5VUVVFQkVDLkNBAAAAAAsAAQ4AAAAAQAAGDgAAcP4xisQBAgEKDgEAAAAYAAAAAAAAAECh6mhQ mdBOntJK0AcoGM3CgAAACwAfDgEAAAACAQkQAQAAAL4EAAC6BAAALAcAAExaRnUAXYx4AwAKAHJj cGcxMjXyMgD7MzYB6AKkA+MCAARjaArAc2V0MCB/BxMCgwBQA9URWA5QEEZwjHJxEyEQx1RhaANx zQKAfQqACMggOwlvDjCWNQKACoF2CJB3awuA9GQ0DGBjAFALAwzQAcGRDMExNDQZIjIxD0A5GaI4 OBkiDzEZIjQzSRkTNTAZgzU3GfM2rjQaYwHBHKM5GRM4HHD9GSI5DzEZMhrQGmMeoBpgzRkjMQ5A GSMyMhmDDiC+OR5UDzAe1BlxGSM1DiDlIeQ4IFQ2NR5UAcAe1NcfQSPkGQU5GXUwGeUewHcaYxnS GZMyGzQnMBuiY/MAQQtgbmcnsCLAC6cKsb8KhAqECzAoACkxA2B0BZD2dBHUIEAgAzAoQh6gIEBT EwQZ4CAtLNJNB5BzQGFnZSBkJwWwafpnC4BlLNMpRiq0KTMLMckqtmktGWNsaRllGWOAYiBEZVx+ OgMwxQySYhEwTGF2B0AxwNR1YglwdQMRWwDAAxBQdG86cA3gYTPwdWhAdXEEEC40oApQYnUFkC40 QF0K4wqBMbBFAG52b3lcJ2U5JzHxMjYrcWFvNpBmYjx0LDdwGtArgCQgOjA3NsA1xTaQYwFANuhz dncJ8BPAAHBAAiAw0C4QLhBubzsgAmBtbEBRACFsYi4FsGc1t09MYmoREDbZUkUyEFvPO5I1kDKw B+A0MjIQMxAwbW15JwQgLdFodPMEIDDQbWkrAClbLw8q4pcoSCszETBTOmEgVwUQzSrQczbwKVlD YREAOIC5MhBUaC2ACXA2YGstgIYoBpA3oG55KSAEAL4gO1AFQAeQAZEw0HNFwP5kRlEFQBDQBCAY AQngSAAzB0AJcGFkNoApU29jZmMIcAlxISk7cD8zIGsAwErgdUVRaEbxP7V1Z0ixBcA+tEIxRpFI 8XP4ayAiO1A6QAqwAQAQkIspUwqxdC4Qcj8iN6D7AYBMYXdLgBDALZAFkAtg/wlwBcBLAhDBKGBL ZAtRSuCXM/BRwAUQY02AdGgJ0f9G4EaARcApREdwAxADIBTQVGxkBCBhTdQuRlBJbU1Rcz9ALYB5 CGFRwGX2eAVATaJIUXBOtE8gRvGBVDB0eXBvPykpRL5fWA9ZH1ovWz4pSlkHkM84IFJgUqFKIWd1 UDFAUH1K4ChdUkX0RtBIYkkVINtJ4wmALmBhO4B1BUBIMXcEAClERyJ5ERBHWlSgV89AUE/gXVIA 0HR1MuFVsvM4IFTRbHNNwEkyTIgw0N9GMClEVWEtkE3AKEciUdH/C2Aq0FHESuATwEYACfBTgN8o YFQhRylH4l61LilKVNDvEQACMFJRRvFqS0Bm41dg/wuABUAIYGtCNFBHEFXCOmD9EPBpAiBQwAhg U/A7gC2A1wRgCXBQwGxJQHJqJUyX/0fQbgZkkAeAa2FocWWiRGvIMS5SRgRJbjUAXZDfCJBONQMw DDErkEFAAQIg/2iBVBJF9Ub8R+NIcQEBLgEPbjFK4DKwBCA2M0Ep7zggMnEMQBEwZD9Cc5VK8v9g YmCBXzNQwAsRX+BGgF1SP1UQSDFu4GBQKUoytiBCyzNDKURRNRMgQ14hc5YLKVMVMQB/sAAACwAB gAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAADAAOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAA AAAAAAMAB4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFKFAAA/cQEAHgAIgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYA AAAAVIUAAAEAAAAEAAAAOS4wAAsADYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAIKFAAABAAAACwA6gAgg BgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAAAAADADyACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAA AAMAPYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAACwBSgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA BoUAAAAAAAADAFOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAIB+A8BAAAAEAAAAECh6mhQ mdBOntJK0AcoGM0CAfoPAQAAABAAAABAoepoUJnQTp7SStAHKBjNAgH7DwEAAACaAAAAAAAAADih uxAF5RAaobsIACsqVsIAAFBTVFBSWC5ETEwAAAAAAAAAAE5JVEH5v7gBAKoAN9luAAAAQzpcRG9j dW1lbnRzIGFuZCBTZXR0aW5nc1xsZHVicmV1aVxMb2NhbCBTZXR0aW5nc1xBcHBsaWNhdGlvbiBE YXRhXE1pY3Jvc29mdFxPdXRsb29rXG91dGxvb2sucHN0AAAAAwD+DwUAAAADAA00/TcAAAIBfwAB AAAANwAAADxOQUVPSk9OQ0FLSEJPTkVBRUlGRUNFRk9ESkFBLnBpY2F0b3VAdXFzcy51cXVlYmVj LmNhPgAAAwAGEC6EFpIDAAcQ9gIAAAMAEBABAAAAAwAREAEAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAAAtLS0tLU1F U1NBR0VET1JJR0lORS0tLS0tREU6TEFWQUxEVUJSRVVJTE1BSUxUTzpQSUNBVE9VQFVRU1NVUVVF QkVDQ0FFTlZPWUU6MjRBT1VULDIwMDQxODowOUE6U1ZFTlBSAAAAAD1Y ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C48A10.A146FB70-- From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Aug 25 10:36:53 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:36:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000501c48a77$10fb4320$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c48a77$10fb4320$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <412C5DB5.8050101@hdw.be> a couple of remarks to Sven: Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>Directors are required to obey the Laws, not make >>up rulings which are merely based upon their own >>personal definition of what constitutes >>commonsense. > > > So what you require from the Director can be illustrated with the following > example which actually did occur in one of my tournaments: > > Due to an irregularity in the middle of the play a board could not be > completed "normally". It was however clear from what had happened up to the > moment of the irregularity that pair A was in for a clear top; they were the > only pair in the room who had bid a slam and as the cards lay and the play > had progressed before the irregularity the slam would make with no doubt. > > On awarding an adjusted score I ruled the result to be slam bid and won. > (The question of PP for the irregularity was handled separately). > This seems like an equitable result - but the Laws do not give you the power to do this. Maybe the laws ought to give you this power, but those new laws must be constructed with great care. Let's get back to your example: You write a lot of certainties into your case, trying to prove a point. But even these are not certainties. The play has not finished, so maybe the declarer can still play a stupid card or revoke. That opportunity has been lost for opponents, and if they are non-offending side they should get something back for that loss. But many occasions happen that are much less clear than your example. What of the bidding that has stopped after 2 rounds, with declaring side already having started a game-forcing slam-seeking auction? Don't you think they should get something more than 60% as compensation? So your example is just a first step to a general reconsideration of artificial scores. Do we want such a reconsideration? Or is the game of bridge better served with easy rules (board unplayable = 60/60) and do we allow an occasional less equitable result. I am not afraid of more powers for me in adjusting artificial scores. But I am afraid of giving more powers to the great number of less able directors. So I am in favour of awarding 60/60 even in the case you cite and I'll tell the players why that is so. > You seem to state that in this case I should have awarded artificial scores > of 40%, 50% or 60% as the case may be according to Law 12C1 disregarding > everything that had happened on that board because "normal (completion of > the) play was impossible". > > Do you still maintain this position? > > And by the way: Which law do you claim me to have violated? > > Law 12A uses the clauses "The Director MAY award...." so the Director does > not violate Law 12A by acting differently (at his own discretion). > > Laws 12C1 and 12C2 use the clauses "WHEN the Director ....." so they > respectively apply only when the Director acts accordingly. > > My formal basis for awarding an adjusted score in the example given above > was Law 12A1 and for judging what scores to award was Law 12C2. > But L12C2 does not apply when L12A does! > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 25 11:00:27 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:00:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Some Quick Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <159.3d350110.2e5b8b61@aol.com> References: <159.3d350110.2e5b8b61@aol.com> Message-ID: <9704EE86-F67D-11D8-B391-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 23 Aug 2004, at 19:03, AlanLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > =A0 > You hold: > =A0 > AKxx=A0 Q=A0 AKQx=A0 Kxxx > =A0 > RHO opens 1H=A0=A0 You double and partner bids 2C.=A0 LHO showed no = interest=20 > in raising.=A0 RHO passes.=A0 Partner (novice) will think a cuebid is = some=20 > sort of raise > =A0 > Your call? > =A0 > Alan LeBendig Then cue-bid it is, since I do have some sort of raise. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Aug 25 11:22:12 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:22:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > David Stevenson ............ > Ok, I'll give you a case. >=20 > West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's > original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you > would rule, citing law numbers. Unauthorized - Law 16C2 (But without more information we cannot safely judge whether East subsequently has violated Law 16A). Sven -------------------------------------------------------------- Law 16C2 2. Offending Side=20 For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn = action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is = unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among = logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been = suggested over another by the unauthorised information.=20 Law 29B B. Out-of-Rotation Call Cancelled=20 Otherwise, a call out of rotation is cancelled (but see A preceding), = and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call.=20 Since when does "withdrawn" =3D "cancelled" ? In particular, if = "withdrawn" =3D "cancelled" then 26B should apply to a pass out of = turn.. but it doesn't. From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 11:35:07 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:35:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <412C5DB5.8050101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000f01c48a8f$30cd64e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > But L12C2 does not apply when L12A does! No???? L12A1: The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when ...... L12C2: When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score ..... Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 11:44:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:44:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >> Ok, I'll give you a case. >> >> West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's >> original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you >> would rule, citing law numbers. > >Unauthorized - Law 16C2 > >(But without more information we cannot safely judge whether East >subsequently has violated Law 16A). Let us take it one step at a time. Where does it say it is unauthorised in L16C2? >-------------------------------------------------------------- >Law 16C2 > >2. Offending Side >For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn >action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is >unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among >logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been >suggested over another by the unauthorised information. > >Law 29B > >B. Out-of-Rotation Call Cancelled >Otherwise, a call out of rotation is cancelled (but see A preceding), >and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call. > >Since when does "withdrawn" = "cancelled" ? In particular, if >"withdrawn" = "cancelled" then 26B should apply to a pass out of turn.. >but it doesn't. It is nice to find that one BLMLer is willing to open a law book, even if she does not go far enough. OK, let's try one more time [remember when BLML used to discuss the meanings of the Laws - oh, those far-off days!!!!]. Let me explain to you a principle that you may have forgotten. That is that partial Laws do not exist in a vacuum. One of the famous traps of inexperienced TDs do - even experienced ones!! - is to rule using L13A, L13B or L13C in a case where it is covered by the first sentence of L13. Now, all of you who quote L16C2 - possibly without reading it, your memories being far better than mine - how does L16C affect it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 11:48:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:48:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000501c48a77$10fb4320$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c48a77$10fb4320$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >So what you require from the Director can be illustrated with the following >example which actually did occur in one of my tournaments: > >Due to an irregularity in the middle of the play a board could not be >completed "normally". It was however clear from what had happened up to the >moment of the irregularity that pair A was in for a clear top; they were the >only pair in the room who had bid a slam and as the cards lay and the play >had progressed before the irregularity the slam would make with no doubt. > >On awarding an adjusted score I ruled the result to be slam bid and won. >(The question of PP for the irregularity was handled separately). > >You seem to state that in this case I should have awarded artificial scores >of 40%, 50% or 60% as the case may be according to Law 12C1 disregarding >everything that had happened on that board because "normal (completion of >the) play was impossible". > >Do you still maintain this position? Absolutely. You cannot foretell the future. To rule illegally because you feel it would be unfair on one pair otherwise is a clear breach of L12B. >And by the way: Which law do you claim me to have violated? > >Law 12A uses the clauses "The Director MAY award...." so the Director does >not violate Law 12A by acting differently (at his own discretion). > >Laws 12C1 and 12C2 use the clauses "WHEN the Director ....." so they >respectively apply only when the Director acts accordingly. > >My formal basis for awarding an adjusted score in the example given above >was Law 12A1 and for judging what scores to award was Law 12C2. L12A1 *only* applies when it says it applies: it is not a catchall to be applied otherwise. So, was the other pair at fault? If not, L12A1 does not apply. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 11:53:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:53:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <001001c48a91$cfc260d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: 25. august 2004 12:22 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one >=20 >=20 > > David Stevenson > ............ > > Ok, I'll give you a case. > > > > West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his = partner's > > original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you > > would rule, citing law numbers. >=20 > Unauthorized - Law 16C2 >=20 > (But without more information we cannot safely judge whether East > subsequently has violated Law 16A). >=20 > Sven >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Law 16C2 >=20 > 2. Offending Side > For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn = action > and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. = A > player of the offending side may not choose from among logical = alternative > actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another = by > the unauthorised information. >=20 > Law 29B >=20 > B. Out-of-Rotation Call Cancelled > Otherwise, a call out of rotation is cancelled (but see A preceding), = and > the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call. >=20 > Since when does "withdrawn" =3D "cancelled" ? In particular, if = "withdrawn" > =3D "cancelled" then 26B should apply to a pass out of turn.. but it > doesn't. A "withdrawn" call or play is not necessarily "cancelled", but a = "cancelled" call or play is certainly "withdrawn" (by order of the Director). The withdrawal is a consequence of the call or play being cancelled. As for the possible consequences notice that for instance Law 26 = literally applies only after withdrawn calls, not after cancelled calls unless we consider a cancelled call to having been withdrawn. Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 12:04:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:04:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001201c48a93$45d3f1c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >> West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his = partner's > >> original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how = you > >> would rule, citing law numbers. > > > >Unauthorized - Law 16C2 > > > >(But without more information we cannot safely judge whether East > >subsequently has violated Law 16A). >=20 > Let us take it one step at a time. Where does it say it is > unauthorised in L16C2? In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" = call or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director). That makes sense to me and leaves no problems as far as I can see. I = believe this also answers your other question(s) in this note? Regards Sven > >-------------------------------------------------------------- > >Law 16C2 > > > >2. Offending Side > >For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn > >action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is > >unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from = among > >logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been > >suggested over another by the unauthorised information. > > > >Law 29B > > > >B. Out-of-Rotation Call Cancelled > >Otherwise, a call out of rotation is cancelled (but see A preceding), > >and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call. > > > >Since when does "withdrawn" =3D "cancelled" ? In particular, if > >"withdrawn" =3D "cancelled" then 26B should apply to a pass out of = turn.. > >but it doesn't. >=20 > It is nice to find that one BLMLer is willing to open a law book, = even > if she does not go far enough. >=20 > OK, let's try one more time [remember when BLML used to discuss the > meanings of the Laws - oh, those far-off days!!!!]. >=20 > Let me explain to you a principle that you may have forgotten. = That > is that partial Laws do not exist in a vacuum. One of the famous = traps > of inexperienced TDs do - even experienced ones!! - is to rule using > L13A, L13B or L13C in a case where it is covered by the first sentence > of L13. >=20 > Now, all of you who quote L16C2 - possibly without reading it, your > memories being far better than mine - how does L16C affect it? >=20 > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 12:35:57 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:35:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c48a97$b0a3dc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > Absolutely. You cannot foretell the future. To rule illegally > because you feel it would be unfair on one pair otherwise is a clear > breach of L12B. >=20 > >And by the way: Which law do you claim me to have violated? > > > >Law 12A uses the clauses "The Director MAY award...." so the Director > does > >not violate Law 12A by acting differently (at his own discretion). > > > >Laws 12C1 and 12C2 use the clauses "WHEN the Director ....." so they > >respectively apply only when the Director acts accordingly. > > > >My formal basis for awarding an adjusted score in the example given = above > >was Law 12A1 and for judging what scores to award was Law 12C2. >=20 > L12A1 *only* applies when it says it applies: it is not a catchall = to > be applied otherwise. >=20 > So, was the other pair at fault? If not, L12A1 does not apply. Let me get this straight: Some play is interrupted after trick 9 and at this time declarer is the = only player who has any trumps left, he holds 4 trumps. (There is no question = of any faulty board): If the play is interrupted by a claim we all agree that declarer is = awarded the last four tricks. If the play is interrupted in any other way which makes "normal play" of = the last four tricks impossible (with nobody at the table at fault) then the Director is bound to rule 60% to both sides regardless of the score that would be obtained by declarer taking the rest? Sorry, I don't buy that. (Please don't argue that declarer could claim - he didn't). In "my" case declarer was in for a clean top. Excluding plain irrational plays (for any class of player!) there was no possible legal play of the remaining tricks that would set his slam contract and he was the only = player who had bid that slam. Initially I was unaware of these details and automatically ruled 60%-60% = as I believe most directors would have done. Only when declarer showed = beyond any doubt that he was in for the clean top and asked for an appeal form = did I realize what I had done. Well, being the Director I have the option to alter my ruling so I did actually assign to declarer his top score. Given the circumstances I = found it impossible to assign defenders any less than the 60% (or was it 50%?) they had already received but I am still in doubt whether I made the = correct final ruling on that particular detail. (Anyway their score didn't = matter much for the final ranking list). But maintaining 60%-60%? - No way! This is not a matter of sacrificing the exceptional case for general = rules; this is a matter of using common sense and ruling for equity when what constitutes equity is undisputable. Sven From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Aug 25 12:42:36 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:42:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <20040825063503.12796.96740.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040825063503.12796.96740.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1093434156.24312.203020440@webmail.messagingengine.com> [David Stevenson] > Ok, I'll give you a case. > > West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's > original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you > would rule, citing law numbers. UI, based on the first sentence of L16. Granted, the further text of this law does not specifically discuss cancelled (as opposed to withdrawn) calls, and I agree that there is a difference: L16C, discussing withdrawn calls, specifically says "and another substituted", which does not apply to a cancelled call out of rotation. I cannot find a specific justification for declaring information from a cancelled call to be UI, but neither can I square calling it AI with that first sentence of L16. This seems to me to be a matter of legislative intent. Might an LC member clarify? BTW--does East's question possibly convey UI, per L16A? IOW, is "question" in L16A meant to apply to questions asked of the Director, as well as questions asked of the opponents? I would think so, because the logic seems to be the same: if East cares whether his partner's pass is AI or UI, he probably has the values to do something in some auctions opposite a passing partner. David Babcock Florida USA From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Aug 25 13:00:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:00:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <001301c48a97$b0a3dc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c48a97$b0a3dc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <412C7F4B.7010908@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>David Stevenson > > ............. > >> Absolutely. You cannot foretell the future. To rule illegally >>because you feel it would be unfair on one pair otherwise is a clear >>breach of L12B. >> >> >>>And by the way: Which law do you claim me to have violated? >>> >>>Law 12A uses the clauses "The Director MAY award...." so the Director >> >>does >> >>>not violate Law 12A by acting differently (at his own discretion). >>> >>>Laws 12C1 and 12C2 use the clauses "WHEN the Director ....." so they >>>respectively apply only when the Director acts accordingly. >>> >>>My formal basis for awarding an adjusted score in the example given above >>>was Law 12A1 and for judging what scores to award was Law 12C2. >> >> L12A1 *only* applies when it says it applies: it is not a catchall to >>be applied otherwise. >> >> So, was the other pair at fault? If not, L12A1 does not apply. > > > Let me get this straight: > > Some play is interrupted after trick 9 and at this time declarer is the only > player who has any trumps left, he holds 4 trumps. (There is no question of > any faulty board): > > If the play is interrupted by a claim we all agree that declarer is awarded > the last four tricks. > > If the play is interrupted in any other way which makes "normal play" of the > last four tricks impossible (with nobody at the table at fault) then the > Director is bound to rule 60% to both sides regardless of the score that > would be obtained by declarer taking the rest? > > Sorry, I don't buy that. > Sorry Sven, but you'll have to. Nobody ever said the laws always led to equitable results. So that's the way it is. Dura lex sed lex. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 13:02:30 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:02:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <1093434156.24312.203020440@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <001401c48a9b$66108860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Babcock > > West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his = partner's > > original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you > > would rule, citing law numbers. >=20 > UI, based on the first sentence of L16. Granted, the further text of > this law does not specifically discuss cancelled (as opposed to > withdrawn) calls, and I agree that there is a difference: L16C, > discussing withdrawn calls, specifically says "and another = substituted", > which does not apply to a cancelled call out of rotation. I cannot = find > a specific justification for declaring information from a cancelled = call > to be UI, but neither can I square calling it AI with that first > sentence of L16. This seems to me to be a matter of legislative = intent. > Might an LC member clarify? >=20 > BTW--does East's question possibly convey UI, per L16A? IOW, is > "question" in L16A meant to apply to questions asked of the Director, = as > well as questions asked of the opponents? I would think so, because = the > logic seems to be the same: if East cares whether > his partner's pass is AI or UI, he probably has the values to do > something in some auctions opposite a passing partner. Be aware of the consequences for Law 26 (In addition to the = complications we are discussing on the question of UI): Unless a cancelled call is also considered "withdrawn" (by order of the Director) a cancelled call (for instance an unaccepted call out of turn) can never itself result in a = lead penalty.=20 Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 13:28:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:28:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <001301c48a97$b0a3dc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c48a97$b0a3dc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> Absolutely. You cannot foretell the future. To rule illegally >> because you feel it would be unfair on one pair otherwise is a clear >> breach of L12B. >> >> >And by the way: Which law do you claim me to have violated? >> > >> >Law 12A uses the clauses "The Director MAY award...." so the Director >> does >> >not violate Law 12A by acting differently (at his own discretion). >> > >> >Laws 12C1 and 12C2 use the clauses "WHEN the Director ....." so they >> >respectively apply only when the Director acts accordingly. >> > >> >My formal basis for awarding an adjusted score in the example given above >> >was Law 12A1 and for judging what scores to award was Law 12C2. >> >> L12A1 *only* applies when it says it applies: it is not a catchall to >> be applied otherwise. >> >> So, was the other pair at fault? If not, L12A1 does not apply. > >Let me get this straight: > >Some play is interrupted after trick 9 and at this time declarer is the only >player who has any trumps left, he holds 4 trumps. (There is no question of >any faulty board): > >If the play is interrupted by a claim we all agree that declarer is awarded >the last four tricks. > >If the play is interrupted in any other way which makes "normal play" of the >last four tricks impossible (with nobody at the table at fault) then the >Director is bound to rule 60% to both sides regardless of the score that >would be obtained by declarer taking the rest? > >Sorry, I don't buy that. > >(Please don't argue that declarer could claim - he didn't). > >In "my" case declarer was in for a clean top. Excluding plain irrational >plays (for any class of player!) there was no possible legal play of the >remaining tricks that would set his slam contract and he was the only player >who had bid that slam. > >Initially I was unaware of these details and automatically ruled 60%-60% as >I believe most directors would have done. Only when declarer showed beyond >any doubt that he was in for the clean top and asked for an appeal form did >I realize what I had done. > >Well, being the Director I have the option to alter my ruling so I did >actually assign to declarer his top score. Given the circumstances I found >it impossible to assign defenders any less than the 60% (or was it 50%?) >they had already received but I am still in doubt whether I made the correct >final ruling on that particular detail. (Anyway their score didn't matter >much for the final ranking list). > >But maintaining 60%-60%? - No way! > >This is not a matter of sacrificing the exceptional case for general rules; >this is a matter of using common sense and ruling for equity when what >constitutes equity is undisputable. It is a question of ignoring L12B which as a TD you have no right. Sorry: commonsense is not the TD's main concern: following the Laws of the game 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 Wed Aug 25 13:29:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:29:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <001201c48a93$45d3f1c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001201c48a93$45d3f1c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <76zByHEoYILBFwjT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> >> West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's >> >> original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you >> >> would rule, citing law numbers. >> > >> >Unauthorized - Law 16C2 >> > >> >(But without more information we cannot safely judge whether East >> >subsequently has violated Law 16A). >> >> Let us take it one step at a time. Where does it say it is >> unauthorised in L16C2? > >In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" call >or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director). > >That makes sense to me and leaves no problems as far as I can see. I believe >this also answers your other question(s) in this note? No, but it is a step forward. What about L16C? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 25 13:31:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:31:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Some Quick Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <159.3d350110.2e5b8b61@aol.com> References: <159.3d350110.2e5b8b61@aol.com> Message-ID: ALB wrote >� >You hold: >� >AKxx� Q� AKQx� Kxxx >� >RHO opens 1H�� You double and partner bids 2C.� LHO showed no interest >in raising.� RHO passes.� Partner (novice) will think a cuebid is some >sort of raise >� >Your call? With a novice I bid 5C. With a reasonable player I bid 2H and give up at 4C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Aug 25 13:49:01 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:49:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816DA5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > David Babcock > > West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his = partner's > > original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you > > would rule, citing law numbers. >=20 > UI, based on the first sentence of L16. Granted, the further text of > this law does not specifically discuss cancelled (as opposed to > withdrawn) calls, and I agree that there is a difference: L16C, > discussing withdrawn calls, specifically says "and another = substituted", > which does not apply to a cancelled call out of rotation. I cannot = find > a specific justification for declaring information from a cancelled = call > to be UI, but neither can I square calling it AI with that first > sentence of L16. This seems to me to be a matter of legislative = intent. > Might an LC member clarify? >=20 > BTW--does East's question possibly convey UI, per L16A? IOW, is > "question" in L16A meant to apply to questions asked of the Director, = as > well as questions asked of the opponents? I would think so, because = the > logic seems to be the same: if East cares whether > his partner's pass is AI or UI, he probably has the values to do > something in some auctions opposite a passing partner. Be aware of the consequences for Law 26 (In addition to the = complications we are discussing on the question of UI): Unless a cancelled call is also considered "withdrawn" (by order of the Director) a cancelled call (for instance an unaccepted call out of turn) can never itself result in a = lead penalty.=20 Sven ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As you have suggested elsewhere that the cancelled call _is_ withdrawn "In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" = call or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director)." I assume you mean that lead penalties _do_ apply? From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Aug 25 14:01:19 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:01:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816DA8@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >> Ok, I'll give you a case. >> >> West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's >> original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you >> would rule, citing law numbers. > >Unauthorized - Law 16C2 > >(But without more information we cannot safely judge whether East >subsequently has violated Law 16A). Let us take it one step at a time. Where does it say it is=20 unauthorised in L16C2? It is nice to find that one BLMLer is willing to open a law book, = even=20 if she does not go far enough. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, I admit on reading more of the law book, I'm now less certain. - I'm certain (unlike many others) that 16C does not apply. - I believe that the preamble to 16 and 16A is relevant. However by reading more of the law book I now also note L72A5 and still = don't know the answer. As a side note, this went to appeal but=20 the AC (on which I was a member) avoided the issue by saying that there weren't any LAs to the action chosen at the table. From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 14:17:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:17:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <1093434156.24312.203020440@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20040825063503.12796.96740.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1093434156.24312.203020440@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: David Babcock wrote > >[David Stevenson] > >> Ok, I'll give you a case. >> >> West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's >> original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you >> would rule, citing law numbers. > >UI, based on the first sentence of L16. Granted, the further text of >this law does not specifically discuss cancelled (as opposed to >withdrawn) calls, and I agree that there is a difference: L16C, >discussing withdrawn calls, specifically says "and another substituted", >which does not apply to a cancelled call out of rotation. I cannot find >a specific justification for declaring information from a cancelled call >to be UI, but neither can I square calling it AI with that first >sentence of L16. Another step forward. But we have to rule: what do we do? > This seems to me to be a matter of legislative intent. I do not see that. We have to rule what the current position is. What was intended is not good enough. we already know cases where the ruling we give is not the intent because the wording was wrong. > Might an LC member clarify? I do not like this much. BLML is considerably poorer than it was a few years ago, and one of the reasons is that discussions have been reduced to either slinging mud rather than discussing, or asking LC members who have no authority to answer, only give personal opinions, disagree with each other, and do not further understanding, or tell each other that their country is perfect but other members' countries have no clue and do not care about illegality, or describe the WBFLC as the jewel in the crown, then blame it for everything. Why do we not read the Law book, consider the wording, add any actual interpretations currently given by authorities, and try to reach conclusions? Well, I know why not, but for the sake of this rapidly declining list let us try to do so in this case. >BTW--does East's question possibly convey UI, per L16A? IOW, is >"question" in L16A meant to apply to questions asked of the Director, as >well as questions asked of the opponents? I would think so, because the >logic seems to be the same: if East cares whether >his partner's pass is AI or UI, he probably has the values to do >something in some auctions opposite a passing partner. As we learnt at Tabiano, TDs do not tell players the UI implications enough, so East is merely asking something which the TD should probably have told him as part of his ruling. Anyway, perhaps this player always asks. Anyway, it does not affect the case under review where it is UI or AI form west to East that is in question. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 25 14:19:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:19:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <001401c48a9b$66108860$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <1093434156.24312.203020440@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001401c48a9b$66108860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <+7oQCtFEHJLBFwTq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Babcock >> > West passes out of turn, TD rules, East asks whether his partner's >> > original pass is authorised or unauthorised. Please tell me how you >> > would rule, citing law numbers. >> >> UI, based on the first sentence of L16. Granted, the further text of >> this law does not specifically discuss cancelled (as opposed to >> withdrawn) calls, and I agree that there is a difference: L16C, >> discussing withdrawn calls, specifically says "and another substituted", >> which does not apply to a cancelled call out of rotation. I cannot find >> a specific justification for declaring information from a cancelled call >> to be UI, but neither can I square calling it AI with that first >> sentence of L16. This seems to me to be a matter of legislative intent. >> Might an LC member clarify? >> >> BTW--does East's question possibly convey UI, per L16A? IOW, is >> "question" in L16A meant to apply to questions asked of the Director, as >> well as questions asked of the opponents? I would think so, because the >> logic seems to be the same: if East cares whether >> his partner's pass is AI or UI, he probably has the values to do >> something in some auctions opposite a passing partner. > > >Be aware of the consequences for Law 26 (In addition to the complications we >are discussing on the question of UI): Unless a cancelled call is also >considered "withdrawn" (by order of the Director) a cancelled call (for >instance an unaccepted call out of turn) can never itself result in a lead >penalty. Good. Another step forward: people reading the Law book. When would this matter, and are you suggesting it is wrong? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 14:26:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:26:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <76zByHEoYILBFwjT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c48aa7$31aba300$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .......... > >In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" > call > >or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director). > > > >That makes sense to me and leaves no problems as far as I can see. I > believe > >this also answers your other question(s) in this note? >=20 > No, but it is a step forward. What about L16C? L16C: A call or play may be withdrawn, ..... L16C2 For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action ..... is unauthorized. If we accept that a cancelled action is also a withdrawn action (by = order of the Director), and that the substituted action can be delayed (i.e. when = an action was made out of turn and is substituted by another action in = turn) then there is no problem applying L16 to any call out of turn. And I do not think that I am "stretching" or bending law 16 with this statement.=20 Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 14:34:02 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:34:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c48aa8$2fa75210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > >But maintaining 60%-60%? - No way! > > > >This is not a matter of sacrificing the exceptional case for general > rules; > >this is a matter of using common sense and ruling for equity when = what > >constitutes equity is undisputable. >=20 > It is a question of ignoring L12B which as a TD you have no right. Sorry, you lost me! L12B: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that = the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous = to either side. Is 60% score a PENALTY ??? =20 > Sorry: commonsense is not the TD's main concern: following the Laws = of > the game is. OK then, what about using L12C3 which in Norway is open also to = Directors as well as to ACs. We do allow directors to use common sense (within the = laws) here in this country. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 25 14:39:46 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:39:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3A707A7E-F69C-11D8-B428-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Aug 25, 2004, at 08:28 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > It is a question of ignoring L12B which as a TD you have no right. Is it? Law 12B addresses unduly harsh *penalties* - but an adjusted score, artificial or otherwise, is not a penalty. Even if it seems like one to the players involved. No? I agree that giving the pair in question their top seems not in accordance with the laws, but I don't think Law 12B justifies that position. Law 88 would apply, of course, so not "60%" but "not less than 60%, and not more than the pair's average score on all other boards". From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 14:44:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:44:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816DA5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000201c48aa9$9d575930$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS ......... > Be aware of the consequences for Law 26 (In addition to the = complications > we > are discussing on the question of UI): Unless a cancelled call is also > considered "withdrawn" (by order of the Director) a cancelled call = (for > instance an unaccepted call out of turn) can never itself result in a = lead > penalty. >=20 > Sven >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > As you have suggested elsewhere that the cancelled call _is_ withdrawn >=20 > "In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" > call > or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director)." >=20 > I assume you mean that lead penalties _do_ apply? Absolutely! (Have I caused any doubt about that?) I cannot see any reason why some illegal calls shall result in lead penalties while other shall not when the difference is just a = technicality. Any call that has been made and is cancelled and/or withdrawn (use = whatever word you like) gives partner some unauthorized information and should = result among other reactions in the possible application of Law 26. Sven From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Aug 25 14:53:52 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:53:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <20040825123202.22900.9019.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040825123202.22900.9019.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1093442032.16586.203030513@webmail.messagingengine.com> [Sven Pran] > Be aware of the consequences for Law 26 (In addition to the = > complications we > are discussing on the question of UI): Unless a cancelled call is also > considered "withdrawn" (by order of the Director) a cancelled call (for > instance an unaccepted call out of turn) can never itself result in a = > lead > penalty.=20 I buy the reductio ad absurdum argument if it is agreed that a cancelled call may in fact end up in a lead penalty per L26--but *is* that agreed by all here? David Babcock Florida USA From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Aug 25 14:54:38 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:54:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: <1093442078.16832.203030513@webmail.messagingengine.com> [Sven Pran] > Be aware of the consequences for Law 26 (In addition to the = > complications we > are discussing on the question of UI): Unless a cancelled call is also > considered "withdrawn" (by order of the Director) a cancelled call (for > instance an unaccepted call out of turn) can never itself result in a = > lead > penalty.=20 I buy the reductio ad absurdum argument if it is agreed that a cancelled call may in fact end up in a lead penalty per L26--but *is* that agreed by all here? David Babcock Florida USA From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 25 15:10:18 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:10:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <001001c48a91$cfc260d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001001c48a91$cfc260d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7E943D1F-F6A0-11D8-B391-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 25 Aug 2004, at 11:53, Sven Pran wrote: > A "withdrawn" call or play is not necessarily "cancelled", but a > "cancelled" > call or play is certainly "withdrawn" (by order of the Director). The > withdrawal is a consequence of the call or play being cancelled. > > As for the possible consequences notice that for instance Law 26 > literally > applies only after withdrawn calls, not after cancelled calls unless we > consider a cancelled call to having been withdrawn. But that is indeed the case, is it not? For example, when an insufficient bid has been prematurely corrected, the correction is cancelled and is UI, but lead penalties do not apply to that premature call. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 25 15:12:37 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:12:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On 25 Aug 2004, at 11:44, David Stevenson wrote: > It is nice to find that one BLMLer is willing to open a law book, > even if she does not go far enough. > > OK, let's try one more time [remember when BLML used to discuss the > meanings of the Laws - oh, those far-off days!!!!]. > > Let me explain to you a principle that you may have forgotten. That > is that partial Laws do not exist in a vacuum. One of the famous > traps of inexperienced TDs do - even experienced ones!! - is to rule > using L13A, L13B or L13C in a case where it is covered by the first > sentence of L13. > > Now, all of you who quote L16C2 - possibly without reading it, your > memories being far better than mine - how does L16C affect it? Presumably you mean we should be looking at the first sentence of L16? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 15:13:26 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:13:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000101c48aa8$2fa75210$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c48aa8$2fa75210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >> >But maintaining 60%-60%? - No way! >> > >> >This is not a matter of sacrificing the exceptional case for general >> rules; >> >this is a matter of using common sense and ruling for equity when what >> >constitutes equity is undisputable. >> >> It is a question of ignoring L12B which as a TD you have no right. > >Sorry, you lost me! > >L12B: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the >penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to >either side. > >Is 60% score a PENALTY ??? Probably, in the laws. Sadly there is no definition, but I think it is clear from other Laws that the term penalty is used rather more widely by them than by people who currently use the Laws. >> Sorry: commonsense is not the TD's main concern: following the Laws of >> the game is. > >OK then, what about using L12C3 which in Norway is open also to Directors as >well as to ACs. We do allow directors to use common sense (within the laws) >here in this country. L12C3 can be used to vary an assigned adjusted score, certainly. Not an artificial adjusted score. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 15:14:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:14:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <000001c48aa7$31aba300$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <76zByHEoYILBFwjT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001c48aa7$31aba300$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >.......... >> >In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" >> call >> >or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director). >> > >> >That makes sense to me and leaves no problems as far as I can see. I >> believe >> >this also answers your other question(s) in this note? >> >> No, but it is a step forward. What about L16C? > >L16C: A call or play may be withdrawn, ..... Now, how about the rest of L16C. Putting dots instead of the interesting bit is a very good try, but I am not falling for it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 15:17:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:17:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <000201c48aa9$9d575930$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816DA5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000201c48aa9$9d575930$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS >......... >> Be aware of the consequences for Law 26 (In addition to the complications >> we >> are discussing on the question of UI): Unless a cancelled call is also >> considered "withdrawn" (by order of the Director) a cancelled call (for >> instance an unaccepted call out of turn) can never itself result in a lead >> penalty. >> >> Sven >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> As you have suggested elsewhere that the cancelled call _is_ withdrawn >> >> "In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" >> call >> or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director)." >> >> I assume you mean that lead penalties _do_ apply? > >Absolutely! (Have I caused any doubt about that?) > >I cannot see any reason why some illegal calls shall result in lead >penalties while other shall not when the difference is just a technicality. Maybe you cannot, but the *reasons* are neither your affair [when ruling] nor mine: the reasons are for the WBFLC. Several of us cannot see the reasons for many things in the Lawbook [L25B, anyone?] but when ruling we still apply them. Of course it is different when discussing what should be in a future Lawbook. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 25 15:20:16 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:20:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <000201c48aa9$9d575930$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c48aa9$9d575930$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 25 Aug 2004, at 14:44, Sven Pran wrote: >> "In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" >> call >> or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director)." At an EBU County Directors course I attended, some care was taken to make clear to us trainee directors the distinction between the two, and to stress that cancelled calls are UI but (unlike withdrawn calls) are not subject to lead penalties. >> >> I assume you mean that lead penalties _do_ apply? > > Absolutely! (Have I caused any doubt about that?) > > I cannot see any reason why some illegal calls shall result in lead > penalties while other shall not when the difference is just a > technicality. > > Any call that has been made and is cancelled and/or withdrawn (use > whatever > word you like) gives partner some unauthorized information and should > result > among other reactions in the possible application of Law 26. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 25 15:23:09 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:23:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <1093442078.16832.203030513@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1093442078.16832.203030513@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <4A4BEFD3-F6A2-11D8-B391-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 25 Aug 2004, at 14:54, David Babcock wrote: > I buy the reductio ad absurdum argument if it is agreed that a > cancelled > call may in fact end up in a lead penalty per L26--but *is* that agreed > by all here? I'm sure that's not what I've been taught - unless I misunderstood or I've misremembered. I'll be interested to see if Mike Amos comments on this here. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 15:38:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:38:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c48ab1$3b50c4d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > >L12B: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that = the > >penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or = advantageous to > >either side. > > > >Is 60% score a PENALTY ??? >=20 > Probably, in the laws. Sadly there is no definition, but I think = it > is clear from other Laws that the term penalty is used rather more > widely by them than by people who currently use the Laws. Most places in the laws where a penalty is prescribed we find the term "(penalty)" immediately preceding the actual penalty specified. No such term in Law 12=20 Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 16:05:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:05:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c48ab4$f8152c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > >> No, but it is a step forward. What about L16C? > > > >L16C: A call or play may be withdrawn, ..... >=20 > Now, how about the rest of L16C. Putting dots instead of the > interesting bit is a very good try, but I am not falling for it. Oh oh.=20 So you consider the sentence "and another substituted" essential for Law = 16C to apply?=20 Interesting. Now what about all the references to Law 26 in the various laws on calls = out of turn? All such references I have found say: "Law 26 may apply" which literally makes the application of Law 26 dependent upon some = condition(s). Law 26 begins with the words: When an offending player's call is = withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then if he becomes = a defender:=20 This clause lists three conditions for Law 26 to apply, do we require = all three of them to be satisfied or is it the first and last conditions = alone that are relevant? Incidentally the second condition requires the offender to have chosen a different final call for *that* turn, but when we are dealing with the consequences of calls out of turn this is an impossibility simply = because *that* turn does not exist! To me the important feature of both Law 16C and Law 26 is that an action = has been withdrawn/retracted/cancelled, that partner may have received extraneous information from the withdrawn/retracted/cancelled action and that some specified restrictions is imposed on the offender's partner as = a consequence of this action. Sven From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed Aug 25 16:41:42 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:41:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5C23@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 16:10 > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one >=20 > But that is indeed the case, is it not? For example, when an=20 > insufficient bid has been prematurely corrected, the correction is=20 > cancelled and is UI, but lead penalties do not apply to that=20 > premature=20 > call. Yes, they do. See 9C. --=20 Martin Sinot From blml@blakjak.com Wed Aug 25 16:58:51 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:58:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <000401c48ab4$f8152c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c48ab4$f8152c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >........... >> >> No, but it is a step forward. What about L16C? >> > >> >L16C: A call or play may be withdrawn, ..... >> >> Now, how about the rest of L16C. Putting dots instead of the >> interesting bit is a very good try, but I am not falling for it. > >Oh oh. > >So you consider the sentence "and another substituted" essential for Law 16C >to apply? > >Interesting. > >Now what about all the references to Law 26 in the various laws on calls out >of turn? All such references I have found say: "Law 26 may apply" which >literally makes the application of Law 26 dependent upon some condition(s). > >Law 26 begins with the words: When an offending player's call is withdrawn, >and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then if he becomes a >defender: > >This clause lists three conditions for Law 26 to apply, do we require all >three of them to be satisfied or is it the first and last conditions alone >that are relevant? > >Incidentally the second condition requires the offender to have chosen a >different final call for *that* turn, but when we are dealing with the >consequences of calls out of turn this is an impossibility simply because >*that* turn does not exist! Unless the later call is in the same turn, which is the interpretation that the EBU has promulgated [WB 2004 #26.2]. Whether the EBU has got it right or not, its TDs and ACs have no problem. As a result, I am not sure we have any difficulty with L26: we do not seem to have. We are following what the Law says, with a doubtful point having been interpreted. But we have a difficulty with a POOT and L16C. >To me the important feature of both Law 16C and Law 26 is that an action has >been withdrawn/retracted/cancelled, that partner may have received >extraneous information from the withdrawn/retracted/cancelled action and >that some specified restrictions is imposed on the offender's partner as a >consequence of this action. Yes, but you are going on gut feeling, and I am sure no-one disagrees with that. But to rule we have to go on other things than following what seems to be fair. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 25 17:00:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 25 Aug 2004, at 11:44, David Stevenson wrote: > >> It is nice to find that one BLMLer is willing to open a law book, >>even if she does not go far enough. >> >> OK, let's try one more time [remember when BLML used to discuss the >>meanings of the Laws - oh, those far-off days!!!!]. >> >> Let me explain to you a principle that you may have forgotten. That >>is that partial Laws do not exist in a vacuum. One of the famous >>traps of inexperienced TDs do - even experienced ones!! - is to rule >>using L13A, L13B or L13C in a case where it is covered by the first >>sentence of L13. >> >> Now, all of you who quote L16C2 - possibly without reading it, your >>memories being far better than mine - how does L16C affect it? > >Presumably you mean we should be looking at the first sentence of L16? No, we have read the first sentence of L16, and it is no help. We know that the list of AI there is not exhaustive, otherwise it would be illegal to base your cards and plays in the cards in your hand, the vulnerability, your agreements with partner, and so on. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Aug 25 17:14:55 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:14:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <20040825141602.5446.32190.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040825141602.5446.32190.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1093450495.8499.203040946@webmail.messagingengine.com> > > I cannot find > > specific justification for declaring information from a cancelled > > call > >to be UI, but neither can I square calling it AI with that first > >sentence of L16. [David Stevenson] > Another step forward. But we have to rule: what do we do? UI, based on the first sentence of L16. If I am bound to the text of the Laws, I see no alternative. If the point here is that the Laws need improvement, I certainly agree. > > This seems to me to be a matter of legislative intent. > > I do not see that. We have to rule what the current position is. What > was intended is not good enough. Logic would be better, and Sven's reasoning may hold up. A clear answer from the Laws, not requiring exegesis, would be better still, but then somebody please cite the law that nails this. Absent these: if legislative intent is all we have left, I'm not sure what to do with the idea that it's not good enough. To quote an illustrious BLML'er: we have to rule: what do we do? David Babcock South Florida From toddz@att.net Wed Aug 25 17:51:40 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:51:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 12:00 PM 8/25/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > No, we have read the first sentence of L16, and it is no help. We > know that the list of AI there is not exhaustive, otherwise it would > be illegal to base your cards and plays in the cards in your hand, the > vulnerability, your agreements with partner, and so on. It will have to be good enough. Nowhere in the law are such things explicitly authorized. Outside of L16, only L's 19A3, 19B3, 21B2, 50C, 50D1 (about the only interesting exception), 68B, 73C, and 73F1 (and arguably 90B4) make any references as to what is or is not authorized information. I really did believe this was simple. The preamble to L16 designates the information as unauthorized since the call was not legal. As the information was generated by partner, you have L73C as a guiding principle and L16A for dealing with the specifics. L16C, which offers an exception for some extraneous information coming from partner, provides no exception in this example for the OBOOTer. As to the information coming from the director -- that OBOOTer must pass -- you have to resort to common law, which authorizes the information in some jurisdictions. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 18:50:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:50:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c48acb$f8c4d5a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .......... > >So you consider the sentence "and another substituted" essential for = Law > 16C > >to apply? > > > >Interesting. > > > >Now what about all the references to Law 26 in the various laws on = calls > out > >of turn? All such references I have found say: "Law 26 may apply" = which > >literally makes the application of Law 26 dependent upon some > condition(s). > > > >Law 26 begins with the words: When an offending player's call is > withdrawn, > >and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then if he = becomes a > >defender: > > > >This clause lists three conditions for Law 26 to apply, do we require = all > >three of them to be satisfied or is it the first and last conditions > alone > >that are relevant? > > > >Incidentally the second condition requires the offender to have = chosen a > >different final call for *that* turn, but when we are dealing with = the > >consequences of calls out of turn this is an impossibility simply = because > >*that* turn does not exist! >=20 > Unless the later call is in the same turn, which is the = interpretation > that the EBU has promulgated [WB 2004 #26.2]. Whether the EBU has got > it right or not, its TDs and ACs have no problem. Do I sense some doubt that EBU possibly may have landed on a wrong interpretation? What is "the same turn" to an "out of turn"? Is it possible that other NCBOs may have a different understanding of = L26? I don't think so, because focusing upon "in the same turn" obviously = takes the focus away from the really important feature of Law 26: The fact = that a withdrawn (retracted or cancelled) action has been taken and that = partner may have received extraneous information from this action.=20 > As a result, I am not sure we have any difficulty with L26: we do = not > seem to have. We are following what the Law says, with a doubtful = point > having been interpreted. But we have a difficulty with a POOT and = L16C. I agree that we do not have any problem with L26. And for exactly the = same reason which eliminates such difficulties with Law 26 should we have any difficulty with Law 16C in this respect. =20 > >To me the important feature of both Law 16C and Law 26 is that an = action > has > >been withdrawn/retracted/cancelled, that partner may have received > >extraneous information from the withdrawn/retracted/cancelled action = and > >that some specified restrictions is imposed on the offender's partner = as > a > >consequence of this action. >=20 > Yes, but you are going on gut feeling, and I am sure no-one = disagrees > with that. But to rule we have to go on other things than following > what seems to be fair. No I do not go on gut feeling; I am going on how I understand the laws (assisted by instructions and interpretations from my national = authority). Isn't that what we all should do? Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 25 19:52:06 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:52:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one References: <000501c48acb$f8c4d5a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002201c48ad4$9f7102e0$609468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > No I do not go on gut feeling; > I am going on how I understand > the laws (assisted by instructions > and interpretations from my > national authority). Isn't that > what we all should do? [Nigel] Faute de mieux, what else? Yet again, however, it would reduce inter-NBO disagreement (and our fun in BLML) if the WBFLC, itself, simplified its own laws and translated them into plain English -- on the hoof, maintaining an up-to-date corrected web-edition of TFLB. For the keener TDs, even obscure WBFLC minutes would be an improvement; but, as far as most TDs and almost all players are concerned, the minutes may as well be stored in a disused toilet with a sign saying "Beware of the Leopard" as Richard James Hills points out (quoting Douglas Adams). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Wed Aug 25 18:47:58 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:47:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one References: <000201c48aa9$9d575930$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006301c48ad8$821ca1a0$42053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one > > On 25 Aug 2004, at 14:44, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> "In a separate note I have made it clear that I consider a "cancelled" > >> call > >> or play to be "withdrawn" (by order of the Director)." > > At an EBU County Directors course I attended, some care was taken to > make clear to us trainee directors the distinction between the two, and > to stress that cancelled calls are UI but (unlike withdrawn calls) are > not subject to lead penalties. > > > > But Law27B3 says: " . . . the attempted call is cancelled . . . . and the lead penalties of Law26 may apply". Ben From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 25 20:24:45 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:24:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <004d01c48ad9$2e4ab200$609468d5@jeushtlj> [David Stevenson] > OK, let's try one more time > [remember when BLML used to > discuss the meanings of the Laws > - oh, those far-off days!!!!]. [Nigel] Always, 90% of BLML dialogue is about vainly trying to establish the meaning of laws. When a contributor submits a ruling for discussion, the facts aren't in dispute; but in even simple basic cases, there is little agreement among TDs or Law-makers about how the law should be interpreted or applied; Often the problem is due to subjective and equity considerations; but also, as here, difficulties stem from ambiguities, inconsistencies and inexactitudes in TFLB. This thread is typical. No wonder David is in his element! Instead of wasting our time on such futile exercises, surely we would be better employed trying to simplify and clarify the laws for the future; and, in the mean time, rather than struggle with the more Delphic current pronouncements, TDs may as well toss a coin. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Wed Aug 25 21:12:13 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:12:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <20040825192102.5117.78359.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040825192102.5117.78359.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1093464733.12495.203059147@webmail.messagingengine.com> [David Stevenson] > Why do we not read the Law book, consider the wording, add any > actual interpretations currently given by authorities [Gordon Rainsford] > At an EBU County Directors course I attended, some care was taken to > make clear to us trainee directors the distinction between the two, and > to stress that cancelled calls are UI OK, that's one actual interpretation given by authorities on the matter of whether information from a cancelled call is AI or UI. Are there any actual interpretations to be offered on the other side? David Babcock Florida USA From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 25 21:56:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:56:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Richard Hills diktat: [snip] >>Directors are required to obey the Laws, not make >>up rulings which are merely based upon their own >>personal definition of what constitutes >>commonsense. Sven Pran asked: [snip] >And by the way: Which law do you claim me to have >violated? [snip] Richard Hills syllogism: (a) A Law 12 "assigned adjusted score" should be awarded consistently with its definition in the Chapter 1 Definitions. (b) A Law 12 "artificial adjusted score" should be awarded consistently with its definition in the Chapter 1 Definitions. (c) By recklessly and inconsistently awarding an "assigned adjusted score", and then recklessly failing to acknowledge his error, TD Sven Pran has infracted Law 12 and Law 82C. Best wishes RJH From svenpran@online.no Wed Aug 25 22:33:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:33:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c48aeb$39d14460$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............. > (a) A Law 12 "assigned adjusted score" should be > awarded consistently with its definition in > the Chapter 1 Definitions. >=20 > (b) A Law 12 "artificial adjusted score" should be > awarded consistently with its definition in > the Chapter 1 Definitions. Extract from chapter 1 definitions of adjusted score: 1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result = because no result can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal 2. An assigned adjusted score is awarded to one side or to both sides, = to be the result of the deal in place of the result actually obtained after an irregularity. If we are to take these definitions literally the way RJH reads the laws = the Director may not award any adjusted score in the case no result has been obtained but where the result can be estimated with whatever probability = is required (any value up to and including 100%)! Literally the definitions of adjusted scores prohibit awarding an = artificial adjusted score when a result can be estimated and prohibit awarding an assigned adjusted score unless a score has actually been obtained. Thanks to RJH who pointed out this detail to me although I doubt his intention was to give me a basis of which I was unaware myself. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Aug 25 23:38:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:38:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Extract from chapter 1 definitions of adjusted score: >>1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in >>lieu of a result because no result can be obtained >> >>**or** [RJH emphasis] >> >>estimated for a particular deal [snip] Sven Pran: >If we are to take these definitions literally the way >RJH reads the laws the Director may not award any >adjusted score in the case no result has been obtained >but where the result can be estimated with whatever >probability is required (any value up to and including >100%)! > >Literally the definitions of adjusted scores prohibit >awarding an artificial adjusted score when a result >can be estimated and prohibit awarding an assigned >adjusted score unless a score has actually been >obtained. > >Thanks to RJH who pointed out this detail to me >although I doubt his intention was to give me a basis >of which I was unaware myself. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Sven's reductio ad absurdum argument, which attempts to demonstrate that a literal reading of the Chapter 1 Definitions leads to a paradox, is slightly flawed. In my opinion, because English is a second language for Sven, the contextual meaning of the word "or" has been misinterpreted by Sven. Boolean logic solves any contextual problems for the word "or" by splitting it up into two terms -> OR = inclusive "or" XOR = exclusive "or" Best wishes RJH From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 25 23:56:39 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:56:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <006301c48ad8$821ca1a0$42053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <000201c48aa9$9d575930$6900a8c0@WINXP> <006301c48ad8$821ca1a0$42053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <063CCA63-F6EA-11D8-B391-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 25 Aug 2004, at 18:47, Ben Schelen wrote: > But Law27B3 says: " . . . the attempted call is cancelled . . . . and=20= > the > lead > penalties of Law26 may apply". > > Ben Actually it says: Attempt to Correct by a Double or Redouble If the offender attempts to substitute a double or redouble for his=20 insufficient bid, the attempted call is cancelled, and (penalty) his=20 partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law=A023 when the=20= pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law=A026=20= may apply) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 26 00:24:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:24:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c48afa$aa75f210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Extract from chapter 1 definitions of adjusted score: > > >>1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in > >>lieu of a result because no result can be obtained > >> > >>**or** [RJH emphasis] > >> > >>estimated for a particular deal > > [snip] > > Sven Pran: > > >If we are to take these definitions literally the way > >RJH reads the laws the Director may not award any > >adjusted score in the case no result has been obtained > >but where the result can be estimated with whatever > >probability is required (any value up to and including > >100%)! > > > >Literally the definitions of adjusted scores prohibit > >awarding an artificial adjusted score when a result > >can be estimated and prohibit awarding an assigned > >adjusted score unless a score has actually been > >obtained. > > > >Thanks to RJH who pointed out this detail to me > >although I doubt his intention was to give me a basis > >of which I was unaware myself. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Sven's reductio ad absurdum argument, > which attempts to demonstrate that a literal reading of > the Chapter 1 Definitions leads to a paradox, is > slightly flawed. > > In my opinion, because English is a second language for > Sven, the contextual meaning of the word "or" has been > misinterpreted by Sven. > > Boolean logic solves any contextual problems for the > word "or" by splitting it up into two terms -> > > OR = inclusive "or" > XOR = exclusive "or" True, English is a second language to me; in what way can I have misinterpreted the meaning of the word "or" in this context please? However I consider myself an expert on Boolean language: A XOR B is true if either A or B but not both are true. (Is the Boolean operator XOR in any way relevant here?) A OR B is true unless both A and B are false. NOT (A OR B) is true only if both A and B are false. Applied to the definition of artificial adjusted score the complicated condition "no result can be obtained or estimated" resolves IMO to the following statement in Boolean language: NOT ((result can be obtained) OR (result can be estimated)) which is false if a result can be either obtained or estimated and true otherwise. (If I should have written the actual definition I would probably have used the words "can neither be obtained nor estimated") Sven From ClayborneMillett@etang.com Thu Aug 26 01:32:18 2004 From: ClayborneMillett@etang.com (Antwan Higgins) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:32:18 -0300 Subject: [blml] I owe you one Message-ID: <20040825233326.0172D2A8@rhubarb.custard.org> And if you are not crushed by such a pressure, it is beca= use the air penetrates the interior of your body with equal pressure

no msg
The Museum of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris possesses one of these defe= nsive weapons, two yards and a quarter in length, and fifteen inches in di= ameter at the base!!! THE voyage of the Abraham Lincoln was for a long tim= e marked by no special incident: The monster became a small island, a rock= , a reef, but a reef of indefinite and shifting proportions;=20 From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 26 02:27:56 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:27:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <200408251419.i7PEJUI6001229@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408251419.i7PEJUI6001229@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412D3C9C.8020209@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" > Since when does "withdrawn" = "cancelled" ? In particular, if "withdrawn" = > "cancelled" then 26B should apply to a pass out of turn.. but it doesn't. I would have said withdrawn and cancelled are equivalent for L16C and L26 purposes. (If so, maybe the next lawbook will stick to a single word.) From: "Sven Pran" > I agree that we do not have any problem with L26. Does L26B apply to a POOT? I think this is a much harder question than the one David asked. I would have said it does apply, but seeing Frances' comment, I am not sure. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 26 02:38:18 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:38:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200408241433.i7OEXUVM010970@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408241433.i7OEXUVM010970@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412D3F0A.9060707@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" > There > is other extraneous information you can use without infracting the law, > such as the vulnerability or dealer, or the state of the match, or > knowledge of the standard of opponents (etc. etc.). Which law makes the cards in your hand AI? Or the ones legally played in quitted tricks? Or the ones face up on the table, for that matter? Of course I am joking here, but the serious point is that defining AI is doomed to failure (contrary to the opinion of another correspondent, not Frances). There are just too many kinds of information that may be relevant to a player's choice in a given situation, and there is no way to know what a player has taken into account. Defining UI might be possible, though I don't think it will be trivial. How about: 1) anything that comes from partner, other than by calls and plays, and 2) anything about the deal itself or prior results that comes from extraneous sources? (These have an obvious relationship to Laws 16A and 16B.) From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 26 02:47:27 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:47:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <200408201531.i7KFVxav021713@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408201531.i7KFVxav021713@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412D412F.5090706@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Let us assume, for > the sake of argument, that: > > (a) an irregularity occurs at the sixth > trick, and > > (b) the relevant Law requires all play > subsequent to the irregularity to be > voided by the TD, I don't think there is any such law for "bridge" infractions. The deal gets played out to a "table result," which may then be adjusted. Obviously an assigned adjusted score is called for, as others have pointed out. > then: > > (c) is it permissable for the TD to award > an assigned adjusted score? > > or: > > (d) is it compulsory for the TD to award an > artificial adjusted score? The only relevant situation as far as I can tell is a "non-bridge" intervention: a player is incapacitated or the building catches fire. In these situations, I believe the current Laws mandate an artificial score. I wish that were not so. (A good example is L16B. What if the extraneous information is received at trick six? But L16B makes no provision for an assigned adjusted score. I think this is unfair, but I see no way around it at present.) Of course none of this applies to a board that was fouled from the beginning but only discovered to be wrong at trick six or even after play. I think all of us agree that under current Laws, an artificial score is the only option. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 26 02:47:47 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:47:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <200408131737.i7DHbMX0016561@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408131737.i7DHbMX0016561@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412D4143.9020902@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Gordon Rainsford > I imagine a situation in which a pair has bid an excellent slam, > through superior methods and judgement, which they don't expect the > field to be in. [and the board turns out to be fouled] > It seems tough on the NOS if the director has no option but to cancel > the board. Exactly this situation happened to a well known pair about a decade ago. It was at an NABC in a Women's Pairs, possibly at Minneapolis but my memory is dim. I can't remember whether it was literally the deuce and three of clubs that were interchanged, but it was some pair of meaningless spot cards. The board had been misduplicated at the previous table, and there was no option but to cancel the excellent slam (which would have been a near top). This was indeed awfully tough on players who had done nothing wrong, but of course it was quite a bonus for the opposing pair, who also had done nothing wrong (except pick an unlucky entry number, facing the expert pair in the first round). The alternative to cancelling the board -- trying to make some judgment about whether an error is "important" or not -- doesn't seem practical. Can you imagine the acrimony if the decision is borderline? Better to have a hard and fast rule. And of course in the majority of cases, the "table score" won't be too far from average anyway. It's just the rare, spectacular exceptions that get remembered. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 26 03:00:51 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:00:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <200408181703.i7IH3ifC005100@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408181703.i7IH3ifC005100@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412D4453.1090405@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > Law 42B allows dummy to enquire about a possible revoke by > declarer (42B1). There is no time limit on this right, as far as I can tell. Dummy can ask at trick nine whether declarer revoked at trick three (assuming dummy has not "forfeited his rights"). Whether it is _wise_ to do so is another question (it may alert the defense), and the question may be ruled as "suggesting a play," but I don't see anything that makes the question itself illegal. This brings up a question, though. Which Law makes suggestions from dummy to declarer illegal? We have L45F, but that only applies to touching or moving cards. What if dummy says out loud, "Play the ace?" I am probably missing something obvious. This has to be illegal, but I don't see the law. > He also may (42B2) attempt to prevent > any irregularity by declarer. This is a different law. As others have pointed out, once the irregularity has occurred, it is too late for dummy to try to prevent it. Revokes are a special case because there is a different law that applies. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 26 03:09:47 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:09:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <200408171811.i7HIBWx7013076@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408171811.i7HIBWx7013076@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412D466B.1050009@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: > +=+ I would probably have said 'extraneous' rather > than 'illegal', quoting minute item 8 of the WBFLC > meeting, 28th August 1998. It's worth noticing that actions at the bridge table come in _three_ categories. In addition to the obvious "legal" and "illegal," there is the third: "extraneous." If an extraneous action damages the other side, there might be protection, but that is not the same as saying the action itself is illegal. (Would any TD give much weight to a complaint "My opponent distracted me by taking a sip of his coffee?" On the other hand, if the coffee were dumped in the player's lap, there might very well be a score adjustment, perhaps via L74A2 and 12A1.) From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Aug 26 03:18:35 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:18:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten In-Reply-To: <200408061426.i76EQkaE026440@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408061426.i76EQkaE026440@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412D487B.9070409@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "James Hudson" > But now that you mention it, the concept of *implicit > partnership agreement* does seem rather obscure and doubtful. Apologies for very late followup. The FLB is not really very clear here. What they seem to mean is "tacit" partnership agreement, formed by experience rather than explicit discussion. However, there is also such a thing as an "implicit" agreement. For example, if we agree to play a certain range for 1NT, other openings deny a balanced hand in that range, even without explicit discussion. Or if we decide the minimum values for an opening bid, our implicit agreement about pass is that it shows less than an opening hand. At some level, of course, the exact definitions are irrelevant. The FLB is mainly making the point that _all_ partnership understandings have to be disclosed, regardless of their origin. From sied@hotmail.com Thu Aug 26 07:22:00 2004 From: sied@hotmail.com (sied@hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:22:00 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Hello Message-ID:
Email Marketing !

We offer you e-mail addresses databases for advertisement mailing; we sell databases also carry out mailing and hosting for the advertising projects.

Products

World Email Lists . Their validity and originality are verified. Details please go to our website

Country or area total emails

America 175 Million Email Address
Europe 156 Million Email Address
Asia 168 Million Email Address
China(PRC) 80 Million Email Address
HongKong 3.25 Million Email Address
TaiWan 2.25 Million Email Address
Japan 27 Million Email Address
Australia 6 Million Email Address
Canda 10 Million Email Address
Russia 38 Million Email Address
England 22 Million Email Address
German 40 Million Email Address
France 38 Million Email Address
India 12 Million Email Address
other Country or Area

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

Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather 4,654,565
Automobile & Transportation 6,547,845
Business Services 6,366,344
Chemicals 3,445,565
Computer & Telecommunications 654,655
Construction & Real Estate 3,443,544
Consumer Electronics 1,333,443
Energy, Minerals & Metals 6,765,683
Environment 656,533
Food & Agriculture 1,235,354
Gems & Jewellery 565,438
Health & Beauty 804,654
Home Supplies 323,232
Industrial Supplies 415,668
Office Supplies 1,559,892
Packaging & Paper 5,675,648
Printing & Publishing 6,563,445
Security & Protection 5,653,494
Sports & Entertainment 3,488,455
Toys, Gifts and Handicrafts 2,135,654
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
��All of Country email lists + email sender express +add url express + etrae express+Ebook
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Send Your Ad to Millions

20 million bulk email
50 million bulk email
100 million bulk email
200 million bulk email

Imagine emailing 500,000 recipients and 1 out of every 1000 orders your product, that's 500 new orders!
* We go all-out to make sure our customers are completely satisfied
* If any emails fail to make delivery, we replace them free of charge
* 100% Spam free, rest assured you will not be accused of spamming
* Almost all of our emails are sent to valid email addresses
* No software required, we do all the mailing from our own server
* Don't be fooled in signing up with similar sites offering services that cannot compare to ours
* Get the most bang for your buck with bulk email advantage!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Details go to website

Thank you!

the silver star internet information company

copyright��2004-2005 all reserved

------------------------------------------------------------
remove please email: emailad1234@sina.com
------------------------------------------------------------
From david.barton@boltblue.com Thu Aug 26 09:34:29 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:34:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit References: <200408181703.i7IH3ifC005100@cfa.harvard.edu> <412D4453.1090405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000401c48b47$83e24700$0307a8c0@PlusNet> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit > > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > > Law 42B allows dummy to enquire about a possible revoke by > > declarer (42B1). > > There is no time limit on this right, as far as I can tell. Dummy can > ask at trick nine whether declarer revoked at trick three (assuming > dummy has not "forfeited his rights"). Whether it is _wise_ to do so is > another question (it may alert the defense), and the question may be > ruled as "suggesting a play," but I don't see anything that makes the > question itself illegal. > > This brings up a question, though. Which Law makes suggestions from > dummy to declarer illegal? We have L45F, but that only applies to > touching or moving cards. What if dummy says out loud, "Play the ace?" > I am probably missing something obvious. This has to be illegal, but > I don't see the law. > > > He also may (42B2) attempt to prevent > > any irregularity by declarer. > > This is a different law. As others have pointed out, once the > irregularity has occurred, it is too late for dummy to try to prevent > it. Revokes are a special case because there is a different law that > applies. > I would interpret L42B1 - Dummy may ask declarer WHEN he has failed to follow suit ... - as meaning he can do so at that time, not several tricks later. "Play the ace" is covered by L43A1(c) Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.262 / Virus Database: 264.7.0 - Release Date: 24/08/2004 From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 26 09:44:05 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:44:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <412D3C9C.8020209@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000101c48b48$d8672100$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ........... > Does L26B apply to a POOT? I think this is a much harder question than > the one David asked. I would have said it does apply, but seeing > Frances' comment, I am not sure. Law 26B applies sometimes, not automatically. You have to inspect and interpret Law 30 to know when. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 26 09:50:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:50:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: <412D4453.1090405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c48b49$c8cfedc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ............ > This brings up a question, though. Which Law makes suggestions from > dummy to declarer illegal? We have L45F, but that only applies to > touching or moving cards. What if dummy says out loud, "Play the ace?" > I am probably missing something obvious. This has to be illegal, but > I don't see the law. Law 43A1(c): Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Aug 26 09:56:47 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:56:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Praha ruling LIT-FRA (1) In-Reply-To: <412D4143.9020902@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408131737.i7DHbMX0016561@cfa.harvard.edu> <412D4143.9020902@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 26 Aug 2004, at 02:47, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Gordon Rainsford >> I imagine a situation in which a pair has bid an excellent slam, >> through superior methods and judgement, which they don't expect the >> field to be in. > [and the board turns out to be fouled] Not so - see below. > >> It seems tough on the NOS if the director has no option but to cancel >> the board. > > Exactly this situation happened to a well known pair about a decade > ago. > It was at an NABC in a Women's Pairs, possibly at Minneapolis but my > memory is dim. I can't remember whether it was literally the deuce and > three of clubs that were interchanged, but it was some pair of > meaningless spot cards. The board had been misduplicated at the > previous table, and there was no option but to cancel the excellent > slam > (which would have been a near top). > > This was indeed awfully tough on players who had done nothing wrong, > but > of course it was quite a bonus for the opposing pair, who also had done > nothing wrong (except pick an unlucky entry number, facing the expert > pair in the first round). The alternative to cancelling the board -- > trying to make some judgment about whether an error is "important" or > not -- doesn't seem practical. Can you imagine the acrimony if the > decision is borderline? Better to have a hard and fast rule. And of > course in the majority of cases, the "table score" won't be too far > from > average anyway. It's just the rare, spectacular exceptions that get > remembered. This situation which you have just described above is not the same as the original one under discussion, in which one player had bid while holding the cards of a previous board - which was discovered at the moment of the opening lead. In your example there is a defective pack; in mine the pack is correct, but one player has carelessly not referred to the appropriate part of it. In your example neither pair has offended; in mine there is an offending side. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Aug 26 10:56:24 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote References: <001301c48a97$b0a3dc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002001c48b53$05a5e0c0$2be4f1c3@LNV> Sven wrote: Let me get this straight: Some play is interrupted after trick 9 and at this time declarer is the only player who has any trumps left, he holds 4 trumps. (There is no question of any faulty board): If the play is interrupted by a claim we all agree that declarer is awarded the last four tricks. If the play is interrupted in any other way which makes "normal play" of the last four tricks impossible (with nobody at the table at fault) then the Director is bound to rule 60% to both sides regardless of the score that would be obtained by declarer taking the rest? Sorry, I don't buy that. ((((((( I wouldn't either. This is a clear L12A1 situation. How can we deprive a pair of a good score because their opponents caused an irregularity? But this also shows that a TD should avoid stopping the play of a board.I always give the example of a pair playing for a clear bottom and not finishing the board anymore. I understand that some of us will decide to award a 60/40 in such a case? ton )))))) From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 26 11:23:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:23:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <002001c48b53$05a5e0c0$2be4f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000301c48b56$c5926310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman > Sven wrote: >=20 > Let me get this straight: >=20 > Some play is interrupted after trick 9 and at this time declarer is = the > only > player who has any trumps left, he holds 4 trumps. (There is no = question > of > any faulty board): >=20 > If the play is interrupted by a claim we all agree that declarer is > awarded > the last four tricks. >=20 > If the play is interrupted in any other way which makes "normal play" = of > the > last four tricks impossible (with nobody at the table at fault) then = the > Director is bound to rule 60% to both sides regardless of the score = that > would be obtained by declarer taking the rest? >=20 > Sorry, I don't buy that. >=20 >=20 >=20 > ((((((( I wouldn't either. This is a clear L12A1 situation. How can = we > deprive a pair of a good score because their opponents caused an > irregularity? But this also shows that a TD should avoid stopping the = play > of a board.I always give the example of a pair playing for a clear = bottom > and not finishing the board anymore. I understand that some of us will > decide to award a 60/40 in such a case? >=20 > ton )))))) The reasoning I don't buy is that Law 12A1 cannot be applied unless = there has been a violation of law committed by an opponent. In my example "normal play" becomes impossible for instance because of = some action by a spectator for which neither pair at the table is = "responsible". Regards Sven =20 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 26 13:58:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:58:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote > I really did believe this was simple. The preamble to L16 >designates the information as unauthorized since the call was not >legal. As the information was generated by partner, you have L73C as a >guiding principle and L16A for dealing with the specifics. L16C, which >offers an exception for some extraneous information coming from >partner, provides no exception in this example for the OBOOTer. Let us look at what we have. We have the first sentence of L16, which does not provide an exhaustive list of AI [nowhere near!] and thus is no use for telling us what is AI, except for things in that list, of course. For anyone who has not read all the posts, examples of AI not in the list are the vulnerability, partnership agreements for both sides, TD's instructions, the Conditions of Contest, the faces of the playing cards, and so on. Since we do not have an exhaustive list of AI we cannot say that things not in the list are UI. L16 continues to say that other information **may** lead to an infraction. Obviously it does not automatically otherwise basing decisions on vulnerability would be an infraction of Law. So we cannot decide use of something is an infraction based on the first two sentences of L16. L16C says "A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, ...". Much as we might like to extend L16C to other situations, we cannot: it applies to calls [and plays] withdrawn **and** substituted. Thus L16C does not apply to this situation. Some people have commented on the difference between 'withdrawn' and 'cancelled'. While I think the evidence supports the fact that the law-makers saw these as different we cannot be sure and can make no binding decisions based on this alleged difference. If L16C did not refer to another call being substituted then we might be happy it applied to a POOT, but we must follow what it says. It has been claimed that L73C requires partner of a POOT to ignore the information but this is merely trying to make an end run around the problem. L73C tells players what to do in the presence of UI: it does not define UI. As with the start of L16 it includes a list that is not exhaustive, but a POOT is not on that list. So far, I have found no evidence that a POOT furnishes UI. Of course there is the "Of course it does" type of argument, but even that does not hold water. Certain actions are illegal, and the law-makers decide the punishment, and [hopefully] tell us what it is. Could it be enough that a POOT forces a next round pass [often enough to totally mess the board up for the offending side] and that now it is unfair to make it UI as well? Perhaps. I do not know, but the important thing is that it is not my decision, nor other BLMLers': it is a matter of whether this is what the Laws say. Supposing there was a Law which told us unambiguously that the POOT was AI: what would we do then? Well, we would say it was AI, and if anyone bid on the information and their opponents complained we would point out L72A5. We might go further and explain the law-makers' intentions was presumably not to penalise players too much. Someone suggested the following scenario. You are playing a required 1D opening on any hand of 5 to 11 HCP and normal openings with more than that. You pass out of turn at RHO's turn, not accepted, and now it goes RHO You LHO CHO 4H P P ? Partner is wondering whether to protect but now he knows you have fewer than 5 HCP. Surely it cannot be AI? Yes, it can, but we adjust anyway if he passes on a borderline hand. We have discussed this before in the Rottweiler case. When a player has less than a normal response he knows it is likely to be to his advantage to silence partner in some way. A POOT has very definite advantages which are known at the time of the POOT. Thus the standard for L72B1 is met and we can adjust. So, if a POOT is not of itself UI, but it is AI, there will still be certain cases where L72B1 will stop abuses. Thus this argument fails to demonstrate that a POOT must be UI to partner. We have no exhaustive list of AI. We have an action not covered by L16C2. We have no official interpretation by the WBFLC to help us - just one in an unrelated situation. We have people's gut feeling but that may be wrong. If you believe a POOT to be UI what is the legal basis? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 26 14:01:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:01:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] "don't start a new board" In-Reply-To: <1092664411.14572.202414879@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1092664411.14572.202414879@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: 1David Babcock wrote >Hi all, > >If the director says to the room, let's say 2 minutes >before the round call, "don't start a new board", and >at one table all four players have looked at their hands >but no one has bid, what is the situation? Specifically: >I was a playing director with a slow partner, it was >time for the two-minute warning, and we had removed our cards >from the tray and looked, but no one had bid. I made the above >announcement, and we proceeded with the board at our table. >Later, I was criticized (discreetly and privately) by one >player for not following my own instructions. To me, >Law 17A was conclusive--if the "auction period >has begun" for both sides >(or, I suppose, just one), it seems convoluted to say that the >board has bot begun in any common-sense understanding >of those words. The intent surely is that once there is >information on the hands, deferring bidding/play runs a risk >if the players are not entirely ethical (though I will >welcome correction by any LC members who surely know better >than I what the thinking was behind the various laws). >Was I missing something (besides the sense to wait for >the dealer to bid and then make the announcement)? TIA. You made an ambiguous announcement. Different people will understand it differently, and that will lead to trouble. I recommend in future you say one of two things: "Do not start any fresh auctions" or "Do not take the hands out of any fresh board" Forget "auction periods": these are bridge players, not TDs. I might have criticised you myself: having made an ambiguous announcement it was tactless to allow play at your 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 26 14:06:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:06:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <412D3F0A.9060707@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408241433.i7OEXUVM010970@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <412D3F0A.9060707@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >> From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" >> There >> is other extraneous information you can use without infracting the law, >> such as the vulnerability or dealer, or the state of the match, or >>knowledge of the standard of opponents (etc. etc.). > >Which law makes the cards in your hand AI? Or the ones legally played >in quitted tricks? Or the ones face up on the table, for that matter? > >Of course I am joking here, but the serious point is that defining AI >is doomed to failure (contrary to the opinion of another correspondent, >not Frances). There are just too many kinds of information that may be >relevant to a player's choice in a given situation, and there is no way >to know what a player has taken into account. Defining UI might be >possible, though I don't think it will be trivial. How about: 1) >anything that comes from partner, other than by calls and plays, and 2) >anything about the deal itself or prior results that comes from >extraneous sources? (These have an obvious relationship to Laws 16A and 16B.) See how difficult definitions can be? I have always laughed at the unsympathetic people who have no understanding how difficult it is to get the Laws dead right. Look at what Steve has written: I know he did not mean it, but he has just made a rule that in the second stanza of a K/O match you may not use your score after the first stanza: it is UI. It involves prior results from extraneous sources. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 26 14:07:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:07:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop> References: <004f01c48345$c03509e0$119868d5@jeushtlj> <000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <4MAhPjFmCeLBFwBP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Wayne Burrows wrote >> [Wayne Burrows] >> > A lead made when it is my turn to lead >> > whether or not the opponents have turned >> > their cards face down is not premature. >> >> {Nigel] >> Let us define "premature lead" as "a lead to the >> next trick while card(s) that belong to the >> current trick are still face up". >> >> It does not matter what you call it. Is a >> "premature lead" legal? why? and should it be? > >It is legal when it is my turn to lead and I have >an obligation to play in tempo. There is nothing >in the laws that says that I have an obligation >to wait for some other player to discharge his >duties. In tempo is after the other cards are turned down. It is not your turn ot lead until this has happened. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From toddz@att.net Thu Aug 26 15:42:21 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:42:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040826092508.01badec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> [much snippage] At 08:58 AM 8/26/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > We have no exhaustive list of AI. Yes we do. Let's, for a moment, call the face of the cards in you hand UI. Can the director use L16A, L16B, or L16C to adjust the score? Can the director use L73C or L73F to eject the player? The proprieties and L16A only deal with information created by partner. L16B only deals with information that can affect normal play. (As L7B1 requires players to look at their cards, presumably this is normal.) L16C provides a clarification and exception for when L16A/73F can apply. Aside from the matter of taste, what's wrong with calling everything else UI? > So far, I have found no evidence that a POOT furnishes UI. You're refusing evidence based on an argument not entirely dissimilar to: "Because there are things which clearly must be AI but I'm not told by the laws they are AI, I don't know that a POOT is AI, hence I cannot say it's UI." Rubbish! > If you believe a POOT to be UI what is the legal basis? 1. A COOT creates information. 2. An unaccepted COOT is not a legal call. 3. Neither L16 nor any other law, authorizes the use of information from that illegal call. 4. L16A places restraints on the partner of OCOOT. 5. Should those restraints be broken, then we have an infraction. The more interesting relevant question is whether the OCOOT is AI for non-offenders. Several people have already addressed the shortcomings of L16C. With similar logic to the above, what happens if you call it UI and the non-partners of OCOOTer use the information? Can you adjust? Can you crucify before a C&E committee? I'd agree with you that it would be more palatable if information gained by following proper procedures were explicitly AI, but that might cause different problems to resurface, inadvertently reviving abuse of the alert system/pro question, maybe? -Todd From john@asimere.com Thu Aug 26 15:49:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:49:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000801c48aeb$39d14460$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c48aeb$39d14460$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6yrvguAxhfLBFwzP@asimere.com> In article <000801c48aeb$39d14460$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >............. >> (a) A Law 12 "assigned adjusted score" should be >> awarded consistently with its definition in >> the Chapter 1 Definitions. >> >> (b) A Law 12 "artificial adjusted score" should be >> awarded consistently with its definition in >> the Chapter 1 Definitions. > >Extract from chapter 1 definitions of adjusted score: > >1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because >no result can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal > >2. An assigned adjusted score is awarded to one side or to both sides, to be >the result of the deal in place of the result actually obtained after an >irregularity. > >If we are to take these definitions literally the way RJH reads the laws the >Director may not award any adjusted score in the case no result has been >obtained but where the result can be estimated with whatever probability is >required (any value up to and including 100%)! > >Literally the definitions of adjusted scores prohibit awarding an artificial >adjusted score when a result can be estimated and prohibit awarding an >assigned adjusted score unless a score has actually been obtained. but we do have problems in teams matches where a team bids a 1% slam that makes and the board is found to be fouled at the other table. > >Thanks to RJH who pointed out this detail to me although I doubt his >intention was to give me a basis of which I was unaware myself. > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From adam@irvine.com Thu Aug 26 17:37:05 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:37:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] Law 42: Dummy's rights limit In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:00:51 EDT." <412D4453.1090405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200408261637.JAA08531@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > > Law 42B allows dummy to enquire about a possible revoke by > > declarer (42B1). > > There is no time limit on this right, as far as I can tell. Dummy can > ask at trick nine whether declarer revoked at trick three (assuming > dummy has not "forfeited his rights"). Whether it is _wise_ to do so is > another question (it may alert the defense), and the question may be > ruled as "suggesting a play," but I don't see anything that makes the > question itself illegal. > > This brings up a question, though. Which Law makes suggestions from > dummy to declarer illegal? We have L45F, but that only applies to > touching or moving cards. It does? It says "dummy may not touch or indicate any card"... and I'd consider this: > What if dummy says out loud, "Play the ace?" to be "indicating a card". > I am probably missing something obvious. This has to be illegal, but > I don't see the law. There's also L43A1(c). -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 26 17:45:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:45:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <6yrvguAxhfLBFwzP@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000301c48b8c$21666ee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............... > but we do have problems in teams matches where a team bids a 1% slam > that makes and the board is found to be fouled at the other table. We do not compare apples with bananas. If two boards that are supposed to be identical differ in any way = results on these two boards can never be compared for the calculation of any score regardless of how insignificant the difference appears to be. Sven From schoderb@msn.com Thu Aug 26 18:01:48 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:01:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote References: <000301c48b8c$21666ee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Yes sven what you write is correct, BUT we sure as heck can find out how the foul occurred and nail the fouler when we find it to be a opponent from where the board was first played, can't we? Shades of the Ace of Spades! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:45 PM Subject: RE: [blml] ANeCdote John (MadDog) Probst .............. > but we do have problems in teams matches where a team bids a 1% slam > that makes and the board is found to be fouled at the other table. We do not compare apples with bananas. If two boards that are supposed to be identical differ in any way results on these two boards can never be compared for the calculation of any score regardless of how insignificant the difference appears to be. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb@msn.com Thu Aug 26 18:03:39 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:03:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <004f01c48345$c03509e0$119868d5@jeushtlj> <000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop> <4MAhPjFmCeLBFwBP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: For David: Nicely, firmly stated, but completely indefensible. No where can I find even an interpretation that makes your statement correct. Please educate me. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> [Wayne Burrows] > >> > A lead made when it is my turn to lead > >> > whether or not the opponents have turned > >> > their cards face down is not premature. > >> > >> {Nigel] > >> Let us define "premature lead" as "a lead to the > >> next trick while card(s) that belong to the > >> current trick are still face up". > >> > >> It does not matter what you call it. Is a > >> "premature lead" legal? why? and should it be? > > > >It is legal when it is my turn to lead and I have > >an obligation to play in tempo. There is nothing > >in the laws that says that I have an obligation > >to wait for some other player to discharge his > >duties. > > In tempo is after the other cards are turned down. It is not your > turn ot lead until this has happened. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Thu Aug 26 18:06:07 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:06:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] "don't start a new board" References: <1092664411.14572.202414879@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: snip > "Do not start any fresh auctions" > > or > > "Do not take the hands out of any fresh board" > > Forget "auction periods": these are bridge players, not TDs. > > I might have criticised you myself: having made an ambiguous > announcement it was tactless to allow play at your table. > >snip end\ If not "fresh" how about some well behaved, courteous, and long ago dealt board? Kojak > > _______________________________________________ > From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 26 18:14:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:14:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c48b90$3102e000$6900a8c0@WINXP> > WILLIAM SCHODER > Yes sven what you write is correct, BUT we sure as heck > can find out how the foul occurred and nail the fouler > when we find it to be a opponent from where the board > was first played, can't we? Shades of the Ace of Spades! > > Kojak "Sure as heck"? NO, definitely not. Had you written "possibly" I would have agreed, and of course if you find some fouler to nail then by all means do it. My experience is that in most cases you cannot. Regards Sven > John (MadDog) Probst > .............. > > but we do have problems in teams matches where a team bids a 1% slam > > that makes and the board is found to be fouled at the other table. > > We do not compare apples with bananas. > > If two boards that are supposed to be identical differ in any way results > on > these two boards can never be compared for the calculation of any score > regardless of how insignificant the difference appears to be. > > 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 schoderb@msn.com Thu Aug 26 18:16:10 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:16:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: References: <200408241433.i7OEXUVM010970@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <412D3F0A.9060707@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: snip > See how difficult definitions can be? I have always laughed at the > unsympathetic people who have no understanding how difficult it is to > get the Laws dead right. > > Look at what Steve has written: I know he did not mean it, but he has > just made a rule that in the second stanza of a K/O match you may not > use your score after the first stanza: it is UI. It involves prior > results from extraneous sources. end snip Her we go again, David. The Results from extraneous sources Law 16B, refers to "...a board board he is playing or is about to play...." Tut! Tut! Now you're doing what you accuse him of. How did you extend that to include results from a prior session? Please educate me. Kojak From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 26 18:32:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:32:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040826092508.01badec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826092508.01badec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >[much snippage] >At 08:58 AM 8/26/2004, David Stevenson wrote: >> We have no exhaustive list of AI. > > Yes we do. Let's, for a moment, call the face of the cards in >you hand UI. Can the director use L16A, L16B, or L16C to adjust the >score? Can the director use L73C or L73F to eject the player? If it were UI, yes he could. But we know it is not, so what is the point? > The proprieties and L16A only deal with information created by >partner. L16B only deals with information that can affect normal play. >(As L7B1 requires players to look at their cards, presumably this is >normal.) L16C provides a clarification and exception for when L16A/73F >can apply. Aside from the matter of taste, what's wrong with calling >everything else UI? So partnership agreements are UI? It is not a matter of taste, it is a matter of Law. >> So far, I have found no evidence that a POOT furnishes UI. > > You're refusing evidence based on an argument not entirely >dissimilar to: "Because there are things which clearly must be AI but >I'm not told by the laws they are AI, I don't know that a POOT is AI, >hence I cannot say it's UI." Rubbish! Certainly, because I have not said what you say I have said. I have found no evidence that a POOT is UI. You have made the next step, not me. >> If you believe a POOT to be UI what is the legal basis? > >1. A COOT creates information. True. >2. An unaccepted COOT is not a legal call. True. >3. Neither L16 nor any other law, authorizes the use of information >from >that illegal call. True, neither authorises, nor says it is unauthorised. >4. L16A places restraints on the partner of OCOOT. Not if there is no UI. >5. Should those restraints be broken, then we have an infraction. And we come full circle: we have not found a legal basis to say it is UI so we have no infraction. > The more interesting relevant question Until we sort out this I doubt that irrelevancies are more interesting. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 26 18:37:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:37:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: References: <004f01c48345$c03509e0$119868d5@jeushtlj> <000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop> <4MAhPjFmCeLBFwBP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >For David: Nicely, firmly stated, but completely indefensible. No where can >I find even an interpretation that makes your statement correct. Please >educate me. See what BLML has done to me? No-one opens the law book here any more [yes, I know that is an exaggeration, but not as many as could] so I fell into the trap of assuming I knew L44 without looking at it. OK, it is custom+practice, not a Law. But is that not enough? >From: "David Stevenson" >> Wayne Burrows wrote >> >It is legal when it is my turn to lead and I have >> >an obligation to play in tempo. There is nothing >> >in the laws that says that I have an obligation >> >to wait for some other player to discharge his >> >duties. >> In tempo is after the other cards are turned down. It is not your >> turn ot lead until this has happened. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Aug 26 19:05:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:05:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: References: <200408241433.i7OEXUVM010970@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <412D3F0A.9060707@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote > > See how difficult definitions can be? I have always laughed at the >> unsympathetic people who have no understanding how difficult it is to >> get the Laws dead right. >> >> Look at what Steve has written: I know he did not mean it, but he has >> just made a rule that in the second stanza of a K/O match you may not >> use your score after the first stanza: it is UI. It involves prior >> results from extraneous sources. > >end snip > >Her we go again, David. The Results from extraneous sources Law 16B, refers >to "...a board board he is playing or is about to play...." Tut! Tut! Now >you're doing what you accuse him of. > >How did you extend that to include results from a prior session? Please >educate me. The wording was 'or prior results that comes from extraneous sources'. But surely, the point is made: it is very difficult to get it exactly right and unambiguous. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 26 19:27:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:27:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000401c48b90$3102e000$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c48b90$3102e000$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> WILLIAM SCHODER >> Yes sven what you write is correct, BUT we sure as heck >> can find out how the foul occurred and nail the fouler >> when we find it to be a opponent from where the board >> was first played, can't we? Shades of the Ace of Spades! >> >> Kojak > >"Sure as heck"? NO, definitely not. >Had you written "possibly" I would have agreed, and of course if you find >some fouler to nail then by all means do it. > >My experience is that in most cases you cannot. You do not need proof, remember, just enough to apply L72B1. >Regards Sven > >> John (MadDog) Probst >> .............. >> > but we do have problems in teams matches where a team bids a 1% slam >> > that makes and the board is found to be fouled at the other table. >> >> We do not compare apples with bananas. >> >> If two boards that are supposed to be identical differ in any way results >> on >> these two boards can never be compared for the calculation of any score >> regardless of how insignificant the difference appears to be. >> >> Sven >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Thu Aug 26 20:12:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:12:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c48ba0$a827def0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >> WILLIAM SCHODER > >> Yes sven what you write is correct, BUT we sure as heck > >> can find out how the foul occurred and nail the fouler > >> when we find it to be a opponent from where the board > >> was first played, can't we? Shades of the Ace of Spades! > >> > >> Kojak > > > >"Sure as heck"? NO, definitely not. > >Had you written "possibly" I would have agreed, and of course if you = find > >some fouler to nail then by all means do it. > > > >My experience is that in most cases you cannot. >=20 > You do not need proof, remember, just enough to apply L72B1. For L72B1 you need to know that an irregularity has been performed, who committed the irregularity and that the offender "could have known" etc. Do you ever accuse anybody of having committed an offense without some evidence that you accuse the correct person(s)? I have experienced many cases of fouled boards, even felt absolutely = certain (for whatever reason) that the board has been fouled by somebody at the event, not in advance. But most times I have been unable to tell who must have fouled the = board; it may have been those who last played it or it may have been somebody who subsequently inspected the cards (illegally of course) and fouled the = board when they restored the cards to the pockets. Unless I have available somebody (it could be me) who witnessed what happened I am never going to be a Director who tells anybody to their = face that it is a lie when they claim they are innocent. (No more than I ever without evidence shall accuse anybody of cheating). Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 26 20:58:22 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:58:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <004f01c48345$c03509e0$119868d5@jeushtlj><000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop><4MAhPjFmCeLBFwBP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <005b01c48ba7$0ad13aa0$2a9868d5@jeushtlj> > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >> For David: Nicely, firmly stated, >> but completely indefensible. Nowhere >> can I find even an interpretation that >> makes your statement correct. Please >> educate me. [David Stevenson] > See what BLML has done to me? No-one > opens the law book here any more [yes, > I know that is an exaggeration, but not > as many as could] so I fell into the > trap of assuming I knew L44 without > looking at it. OK, it is custom + > practice, not a Law. But is that not > enough? [Nigel] We must all consult different law books. Here are a few laws which show clearly that a "premature lead" is illegal. As I hinted before, only those experienced in WBF law could entertain the slightest doubt. [L65A] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. [66C] Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific instruction; for example, to verify a claim of a revoke. [40E2 footnote] A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. [73A1] Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. [73B1] Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From toddz@att.net Thu Aug 26 22:36:09 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:36:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826092508.01badec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040826162711.01bbdec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 01:32 PM 8/26/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > > Yes we do. Let's, for a moment, call the face of the cards in > >you hand UI. Can the director use L16A, L16B, or L16C to adjust the > >score? Can the director use L73C or L73F to eject the player? > > If it were UI, yes he could. But we know it is not, so what is the > point? Which laws or regulations state this? Secondly, why do we know it's not UI? > So partnership agreements are UI? It is not a matter of taste, it is > a matter of Law. A call based on partnership agreements, provided there's proper disclosure and conformance to regulations, is a legal call. Information arising from such legal calls is authorized by L16. > >3. Neither L16 nor any other law, authorizes the use of information > >from that illegal call. > > True, neither authorises, nor says it is unauthorised. The use of the word "may" applies to its use being an infraction, not to whether or not the information itself is "extraneous." (If you aren't being pedantic about the distinction between "extraneous" and "unauthorized", I can't imagine what makes you believe what you just wrote.) > >4. L16A places restraints on the partner of OCOOT. > > Not if there is no UI. Those are the conditions underwhich that information's use is forbidden. For what it's worth, I know this is an extreme point of view with a subtle argument and likely not the intent of past or future lawmakers. If I restate the argument as: 1. As the law only designates that the use of extraneous information *may* be an infraction, there exist uses of extraneous information which are not infractions of law. 2. The law is complete in its forbidding extraneous information use -- use of information created by partner and of information that prevents normal play of the hand. 3. The status of information (as AI or UI) which is neither created by partner nor affects the normal play of the hand is irrelevant as its use is not forbidden by law. 4. The law, albeit clumsily, handles situations in the way we expect. would my argument be understood, even if you still disagree with it? -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Aug 26 23:50:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:50:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reno NABC+ appeal number ten Message-ID: Steve Willner asserted: [snip] >For example, if we agree to play a certain range >for 1NT, other openings deny a balanced hand in >that range, even without explicit discussion. [snip] Richard Hills reveals: Naaah. Steve has led a sheltered life. I suggest that he reads Mike Lawrence's first book (of many books), "Judgement At Bridge". In it, Lawrence related how a LOL adopted the old- fashioned advice of Charles Goren, "Don't open a balanced 16-18 1NT with a worthless doubleton!" Since the LOL held 16-18 balanced with a worthless doubleton in clubs, she was compelled by her Gorenish system to open 1C instead! :-) Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 00:50:50 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:50:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >((((((( I wouldn't either. This is a clear L12A1 >situation. How can we deprive a pair of a good >score because their opponents caused an >irregularity? But this also shows that a TD >should avoid stopping the play of a board. I >always give the example of a pair playing for a >clear bottom and not finishing the board anymore. > >I understand that some of us will decide to award >a 60/40 in such a case? > >ton )))))) Richard Hills: Yes, under current Law there is no alternative - in my opinion - to awarding 60/40, if the nature of the contest means that dilly-dallying over a bottom will excessively lengthen the session time. Reference: Law 90B2 -> Law 81C4 -> Law 12A2 -> Law 88 However..... If a semi-cunning pair think that they can earn 40% instead of 0% by choosing to infract Law 90B2, then as TD I would tell them to think again. To quote an apt slogan from 1980: "Death to Carter!" Reference: Law 72B2 -> Law 91A -> Law 81C9 -> Law 91B Best wishes RJH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 01:11:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:11:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Classic comments Message-ID: >By the way, wouldn't *double* have been the >more successful action at the table? 5D >looks to be down about five. Yes, when pard puts you on the spot with a hesitating 5S bid, you should be entitled to vent your spleen on pard by doubling their 5S bid. Another amendment to the Laws that some of my partners have suggested is to introduce the call of "Undouble". I am the notorious creator of the Hills Penalty Double Convention (on a good day, there is only one overtrick). Best wishes Richard Hills From blml@blakjak.com Fri Aug 27 01:45:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:45:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000501c48ba0$a827def0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c48ba0$a827def0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> WILLIAM SCHODER >> >> Yes sven what you write is correct, BUT we sure as heck >> >> can find out how the foul occurred and nail the fouler >> >> when we find it to be a opponent from where the board >> >> was first played, can't we? Shades of the Ace of Spades! >> >> >> >> Kojak >> > >> >"Sure as heck"? NO, definitely not. >> >Had you written "possibly" I would have agreed, and of course if you find >> >some fouler to nail then by all means do it. >> > >> >My experience is that in most cases you cannot. >> >> You do not need proof, remember, just enough to apply L72B1. > >For L72B1 you need to know that an irregularity has been performed, who >committed the irregularity and that the offender "could have known" etc. > >Do you ever accuse anybody of having committed an offense without some >evidence that you accuse the correct person(s)? > >I have experienced many cases of fouled boards, even felt absolutely certain >(for whatever reason) that the board has been fouled by somebody at the >event, not in advance. > >But most times I have been unable to tell who must have fouled the board; it >may have been those who last played it or it may have been somebody who >subsequently inspected the cards (illegally of course) and fouled the board >when they restored the cards to the pockets. > >Unless I have available somebody (it could be me) who witnessed what >happened I am never going to be a Director who tells anybody to their face >that it is a lie when they claim they are innocent. It would be a pretty stupid thing to do, would it not? However, you can rule using l72B1 without accusing anyone of lying. >(No more than I ever without evidence shall accuse anybody of cheating). That's irrelevant - ruling under L72B1 - and most other Laws - is not accusing people of cheating, merely saying that your judgement means something could have happened. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Aug 27 01:54:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:54:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040826162711.01bbdec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826092508.01badec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826162711.01bbdec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >At 01:32 PM 8/26/2004, David Stevenson wrote: >> >3. Neither L16 nor any other law, authorizes the use of information >> >from that illegal call. >> >> True, neither authorises, nor says it is unauthorised. > > The use of the word "may" applies to its use being an infraction, >not to whether or not the information itself is "extraneous." (If you >aren't being pedantic about the distinction between "extraneous" and >"unauthorized", I can't imagine what makes you believe what you just >wrote.) I cannot imagine why you do not believe me. Neither L16 nor any other Law states that the backs of the cards should be coloured green, nor states that the backs of cards should not be green. Similarly no-one has found a Law that a POOT is UI, nor one that says it is not UI. Whether the information is extraneous seems frankly irrelevant, since extraneous is not a definition used ot decide whether something is UI or not. >> >4. L16A places restraints on the partner of OCOOT. >> >> Not if there is no UI. > > Those are the conditions underwhich that information's use is >forbidden. > > For what it's worth, I know this is an extreme point of view >with a subtle argument and likely not the intent of past or future >lawmakers. If I restate the argument as: > >1. As the law only designates that the use of extraneous information >*may* be an infraction, there exist uses of extraneous information >which >are not infractions of law. Certainly true. >2. The law is complete in its forbidding extraneous information use -- >use of information created by partner and of information that prevents >normal play of the hand. It does not forbid use of extraneous information, whether from partner or not. For example, the fact that partner is wearing a dress is extraneous information. It may be silly to use that information [though the men in Mixed Pairs have hogged the dummy for years, so do not try to tell me that no-one *does* use that information] but it is not illegal. >3. The status of information (as AI or UI) which is neither created by >partner nor affects the normal play of the hand is irrelevant as its >use >is not forbidden by law. Irrelevant in this case, true. >4. The law, albeit clumsily, handles situations in the way we expect. Not always, not even nearly always. >would my argument be understood, even if you still disagree with it? Yes, but it does not follow the Laws, but your own feelings of what should be. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 27 03:27:10 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:27:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <200408261411.i7QEBIIK027952@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408261411.i7QEBIIK027952@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412E9BFE.3040704@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > L16C says "A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, > ...". Much as we might like to extend L16C to other situations, we > cannot: it applies to calls [and plays] withdrawn **and** substituted. This is exactly the key question. As David says, nothing else in the Laws answers the question, and "instinct" or guessing is not the right approach at all. The problem is whether the phrase 'and another substituted' is restrictive (limiting the effect of all that follows) or non-restrictive (stating conditions that may exist but are not required). It seems to me that three strong indications point to the latter view: the commas around the phrase in question, the absence of an adverb at the beginning of the sentence, and the conditional verb "may be." In English, commas are used to set off non-restrictive clauses; an otherwise identical clause without commas is restrictive. Applying the same rule to simple phrases is unusual, but if the phrase is intended to be restrictive, the commas serve no purpose and should not be there. The missing adverb and the verb choice are less clear but point the same way. If the intent were to be restrictive, it would be normal to phrase the sentence "_When_ a call or play _is_ withdrawn and another substituted...." Or perhaps start with 'if'. Another argument is that if L16C2 does not apply, we have no other specific law that does. That seems an odd omission. There is also historical evidence. The 1987 Laws made withdrawn calls and plays AI. When that was the meaning, having a non-restrictive phrase present made sense. The 1997 revision, which made the withdrawn actions UI, should have deleted the phrase if it was supposed to be non-restrictive. However, leaving it in would have been an easy mistake to make. I don't think these indications are conclusive, but the evidence seems strong. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 27 03:49:04 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:49:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200408261413.i7QEDXkN028104@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408261413.i7QEDXkN028104@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412EA120.70408@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> Defining UI might be SW>possible, though I don't think it will be trivial. How about: 1) SW>anything that comes from partner, other than by calls and plays, and 2) SW>anything about the deal itself or prior results that comes from SW>extraneous sources? (These have an obvious relationship to Laws 16A and 16B.) From: David Stevenson > See how difficult definitions can be? I have always laughed at the > unsympathetic people who have no understanding how difficult it is to > get the Laws dead right. > > Look at what Steve has written: I know he did not mean it, but he has > just made a rule that in the second stanza of a K/O match you may not > use your score after the first stanza: it is UI. It involves prior > results from extraneous sources. Heh! You got me there. To be fair, I was writing late at night, I had a glass of wine in hand (and rather more than a glass inside me), and I was trying to suggest a concept, not write usable laws text. Nevertheless, David's point is quite valid. Writing "bulletproof" (BLML-proof?) text is really, really hard. I think we ought to be very grateful to the people who try to do it. By the way, if you look, you can find similar problems (or at least questions) with my item 1). And in case anyone is wondering, 2) was supposed to mean "results for the deal now in progress," not prior results for other deals. And 'prior' isn't right either. It should have been 'other' or maybe better to omit the adjective altogether. (Think of a barometer or other event where many tables play the same deal at the same time or even a normal multi-section event. If you overhear something from another table, it ought to be UI.) Despite the difficulties, I think the approach may have promise. Any information partner gives you _during the auction and play_ is presumptively UI; only his calls and plays are AI. But information other than from partner (your scores, somebody else's scores, the day of the week) is presumptively AI; only if it gives information "you shouldn't have" about the deal does it become UI. And of course information from opponents is always AI unless your own side's infraction caused it to be revealed. If these concepts work and could be put into actual text, we would then have a complete specification of what is AI and what is UI. But this is probably too simple; I'm sure complications will come up if anyone thinks carefully about it. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 03:55:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:55:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Sven Pran rhetorically asked: >>Is 60% score a PENALTY ??? David Stevenson stretchingly replied: >Probably, in the laws. Sadly there is no >definition, but I think it is clear from >other Laws that the term penalty is used >rather more widely by them than by people >who currently use the Laws. Richard Hills quibbles: It is true that "penalty" is not one of the terms defined in Chapter 1 of the Laws. But, in my opinion, it seems that Sven is likely to be justified in asking his rhetorical question. In my opinion, Laws 9, 10 & 11 provide a limited contextual definition of "penalty". I join Sven's opinion that an ArtAS of Ave+ is beyond the scope of the Laws 9, 10 & 11 limited contextual definition of "penalty". Best wishes RJH From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 27 04:04:04 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:04:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <200408261744.i7QHicL0012596@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408261744.i7QHicL0012596@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <412EA4A4.3020003@cfa.harvard.edu> >>> In tempo is after the other cards are turned down. It is not your >>>turn ot lead until this has happened. > From: David Stevenson > See what BLML has done to me? No-one opens the law book here any more > [yes, I know that is an exaggeration, but not as many as could] so I > fell into the trap of assuming I knew L44 without looking at it. > > OK, it is custom+practice, not a Law. But is that not enough? Here's a practical example where it makes a difference. I'm curious how people will rule. (I think I can guess David's ruling.) Declarer, South, calls a card from dummy. All players play in turn, and dummy's card wins the trick. West leaves his card face up; all other players turn their cards over. Declarer calls for another card from dummy. East does not play or do anything else. Eventually West turns his card over, East then plays, and play continues. Here's the problem: declarer didn't notice when West's card remained face up. The card East delayed playing was a singleton, and declarer was misled. Do we apply L73F2 and adjust? (Assume no further complications; we would adjust if East had delayed playing without reason. I think the question boils down to whether we consider West's face-up card a "demonstrable bridge reason" for East's delay, but perhaps there's more to it.) From toddz@att.net Fri Aug 27 04:37:11 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:37:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826092508.01badec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826162711.01bbdec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040826232059.01c2fec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:54 PM 8/26/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > Whether the information is extraneous seems frankly irrelevant, > since extraneous is not a definition used ot decide whether something > is UI or not. I think it is relevant. > It does not forbid use of extraneous information, whether from > partner or not. For example, the fact that partner is wearing a dress > is extraneous information. It may be silly to use that information > [though the men in Mixed Pairs have hogged the dummy for years, so do > not try to tell me that no-one *does* use that information] but it is > not illegal. L16A: "After a player makes available to his partner **extraneous** information ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the **extraneous** information." The law is inconsistent in its use of a term for this idea. L16A1 uses "unauthorized information". 16A2 uses "such information". 73F uses "partner's remark ... or the like". Though I'm uncertain of its relevance, 73B1 uses "gratuitous information" and "extraneous remarks or gestures". I could guess who to blame for the inconsistency, but are you saying these are not the same concept? If so, then the laws that designate some information as unauthorized fail to address the point that the information is also extraneous and hold no weight. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 04:56:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:56:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Recursive (was Re:) Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: >the day of the week) is presumptively AI Richard Hills replies: I think it might have been Eddie Kantar who related this (paraphrased) story -> A top-class expert became highly upset with his misguesses of two-way finesses. He finally decided on this rigid rule to save time: (a) finessing through LHO on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; (b) finessing through RHO on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays; and, (c) playing for the drop on Sundays. Towards the end of a gruelling week- long national championship, the expert's dummy noticed that the expert was palely loitering. When dummy asked for the reason, the expert replied, "I can't remember the day of the week." Best wishes RJH From john@asimere.com Fri Aug 27 05:26:46 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:26:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: <000301c48b8c$21666ee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >Yes sven what you write is correct, BUT we sure as heck can find out how the >foul occurred and nail the fouler when we find it to be a opponent from >where the board was first played, can't we? Shades of the Ace of Spades! Thanks Kojak :) > >Kojak >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:45 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] ANeCdote > > >John (MadDog) Probst >.............. >> but we do have problems in teams matches where a team bids a 1% slam >> that makes and the board is found to be fouled at the other table. > >We do not compare apples with bananas. > >If two boards that are supposed to be identical differ in any way results on >these two boards can never be compared for the calculation of any score >regardless of how insignificant the difference appears to be. > >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 -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Aug 27 05:57:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:57:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: Extract from chapter 1 definitions of adjusted score: >>>>1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in >>>>lieu of a result because no result can be obtained >>>> >>>>**or** [RJH emphasis] >>>> >>>>estimated for a particular deal Richard Hills: >>>In my opinion, Sven's reductio ad absurdum argument, >>>which attempts to demonstrate that a literal reading of >>>the Chapter 1 Definitions leads to a paradox, is >>>slightly flawed. >>> >>>In my opinion, because English is a second language for >>>Sven, the contextual meaning of the word "or" has been >>>misinterpreted by Sven. >>> >>>Boolean logic solves any contextual problems for the >>>word "or" by splitting it up into two terms -> >>> >>>OR = inclusive "or" >>>XOR = exclusive "or" Sven Pran: >>True, English is a second language to me; in what way >>can I have misinterpreted the meaning of the word "or" in >>this context please? >> >>However I consider myself an expert on Boolean language: >> >>A XOR B is true if either A or B but not both are true. >>(Is the Boolean operator XOR in any way relevant here?) >> >>A OR B is true unless both A and B are false. >> >>NOT (A OR B) is true only if both A and B are false. >> >>Applied to the definition of artificial adjusted score >>the complicated condition "no result can be obtained or >>estimated" resolves IMO to the following statement in >>Boolean language: >> >>NOT ((result can be obtained) OR (result can be >>estimated)) >> >>which is false if a result can be either obtained or >>estimated and true otherwise. >> >>(If I should have written the actual definition I would >>probably have used the words "can neither be obtained >>nor estimated") RJH alternative Booleanish format of the Extract from chapter 1 definitions of adjusted score: >1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in >lieu of a result because no result can be obtained (or >estimated) for a particular deal. Richard Hills: With a *bracketed* reformat of -> (or estimated) <- there is no longer a reductio ad absurdum paradox in parsing a literal reading of the definitions of AssAS and ArtAS. Under this Booleanish reformat, "obtained" becomes the general default, with "or estimated" the permitted exception. For detailed discussion of when "or estimated" is a valid exception, blmlers may wish to reread the previous thread "A new one". In the "A new one" thread, the sponsoring organisation lost the records of a match, but were able to approximately estimate in what range of VPs the result of the match finished at. Best wishes RJH From mikedod@gte.net Fri Aug 27 07:10:18 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:10:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <004f01c48345$c03509e0$119868d5@jeushtlj><000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop><4MAhPjFmCeLBFwBP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005b01c48ba7$0ad13aa0$2a9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001701c48bfc$8831c8c0$6601a8c0@cyberxp> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote > >> For David: Nicely, firmly stated, > >> but completely indefensible. Nowhere > >> can I find even an interpretation that > >> makes your statement correct. Please > >> educate me. > > [David Stevenson] > > See what BLML has done to me? No-one > > opens the law book here any more [yes, > > I know that is an exaggeration, but not > > as many as could] so I fell into the > > trap of assuming I knew L44 without > > looking at it. OK, it is custom + > > practice, not a Law. But is that not > > enough? > > [Nigel] > We must all consult different law books. Here are > a few laws which show clearly that a "premature > lead" is illegal. As I hinted before, only those > experienced in WBF law could entertain the > slightest doubt. > > [L65A] > When four cards have been played to a trick, each > player turns his own card face down near him on > the table. > > [66C] > Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may > not be inspected (except at the Director's > specific instruction; for example, to verify a > claim of a revoke. > Nigel, L66A tells us a trick is quitted when: 1) all four cards are turned down or 2) if a player (not dummy) has a card up, that player's side plays to the next trick. Clearly, the law allows the lead to the next trick before the previous trick is quitted. Mike Dodson From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 09:30:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:30:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c48c10$24995350$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > >> You do not need proof, remember, just enough to apply L72B1. > > > >For L72B1 you need to know that an irregularity has been performed, = who > >committed the irregularity and that the offender "could have known" = etc. ........... > >Unless I have available somebody (it could be me) who witnessed what > >happened I am never going to be a Director who tells anybody to their > face > >that it is a lie when they claim they are innocent. >=20 > It would be a pretty stupid thing to do, would it not? However, = you > can rule using l72B1 without accusing anyone of lying. If the situation should ever occur that a Director penalizes me on an alleged irregularity without even knowing that I am guilty but he = reasons that I "could have been a culprit" while I know (and tell him) that I am innocent I shall be very offended, in fact so much offended as if he had said to me directly that I am telling lies or that I am cheating. In Norway we train our Directors to behave in such manners that this = could hardly ever occur here. In such a case I should probably first file a formal appeal and demand = an unconditional apology for a completely unfounded accusation. Furthermore it is quite possible that I would refuse to have anything = more to do with this director and as so even abandon the event immediately, = and in any case I would file a report to the national authority informing = them of my views and demanding their reaction to what happened. I am surprised how it seems that you feel a Director may use Law 72B1 = and sincerely hope that I am mistaken. There are many ways you can openly = accuse someone of lying without actually using the word lie, that doesn't make = the insult less severe. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 27 10:08:15 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:08:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <004f01c48345$c03509e0$119868d5@jeushtlj><000001c4834d$4f681c40$0401010a@Desktop><4MAhPjFmCeLBFwBP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005b01c48ba7$0ad13aa0$2a9868d5@jeushtlj> <001701c48bfc$8831c8c0$6601a8c0@cyberxp> Message-ID: <001901c48c15$63d7b7a0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> [Mike Dodson] > L66A tells us a trick is quitted when: > 1) all four cards are turned down or > 2) if a player (not dummy) has a card up, > that player's side plays to the next > trick. Clearly, the law allows the lead > to the next trick before the previous > trick is quitted. [Nigel] Thank you, Mike, for trying to resolve my difficulties with TFLB; David Babcock cited that same law (quoted in full below) as the legal justification for a "premature lead." I am sure, however, that it does not bear your conclusion. Many laws define what you may do (or may not do) after some action, but that does imply that the specified action is legal (or illegal). In contrast, I find it interesting that nobody has yet been able to suggest any alternative to my interpretation of the laws that I quoted. Furthermore, if a bridge action is not explicitly permitted and it may give UI to partner, then my reading of the entrails of the WBFLC, is that it is illegal; although I concede that is not in TFLB. [66A] So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. B. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 27 10:28:52 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:28:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition Message-ID: <002001c48c18$44ae64c0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> TFLB seems clear that a "premature lead" (an attempt to lead to the next trick while cards from the current trick are still exposed) is illegal. Can anybody refute the argument provided by the laws below? See, for example, law L45E1. [L65A] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. [66C] Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific instruction; for example, to verify a claim of a revoke. [L45E1] A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or Law 56 applies [which are LOOT laws] [40E2 footnote] A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. [73A1] Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. [73B1] Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 11:37:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:37:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <002001c48c18$44ae64c0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000601c48c21$e68016a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > TFLB seems clear that a "premature lead" (an > attempt to lead to the next trick while cards from > the current trick are still exposed) is illegal. > Can anybody refute the argument provided by the > laws below? See, for example, law L45E1. With reference to "Interpretation of the Laws" I have some comments = here: =20 > [L65A] > When four cards have been played to a trick, each > player turns his own card face down near him on > the table. L65A "establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a = violation be penalized". This law does in itself not include any requirement that = all four cards in the previous trick has first been turned face down before = a legal lead to the next trick can be made. =20 > [66C] > Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may > not be inspected (except at the Director's > specific instruction; for example, to verify a > claim of a revoke. Law 66A: "So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face = down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced". =20 There is no indication in this law that leading to the next trick while = a card belonging to the previous trick is still faced is considered an irregularity. The remainder of Law 66 does not seem to have any relevance at all for = the question on premature lead to a trick. =20 > [L45E1] > A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender > becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless > the Director deems that it was led, in which case > Law 53 or Law 56 applies [which are LOOT laws] This law clearly allows a fifth card to be contributed to a trick if = this fifth card apparently is a legal lead to the next trick. (The references = to Laws 53, 55 and 56 are obviously completely irrelevant when the fifth = card was contributed by the player who actually won the trick). =20 > [40E2 footnote] > A player is not entitled, during the auction and > play periods, to any aids to his memory, > calculation or technique. >=20 > [73A1] > Communication between partners during the auction > and play shall be effected only by means of the > calls and plays themselves. >=20 > [73B1] > Gratuitous Information > Partners shall not communicate through the manner > in which calls or plays are made, through > extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions > asked or not asked of the opponents or through > alerts and explanations given or not given to > them. I completely fail to see what relevance the last three laws quoted above = can have on the question on a premature lead by the player who has won the = last trick. Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Aug 27 12:14:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000501c48c10$24995350$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > If the situation should ever occur that a Director penalizes me on an > alleged irregularity without even knowing that I am guilty but he > reasons that I "could have been a culprit" while I know (and tell him) > that I am innocent I shall be very offended, in fact so much offended as > if he had said to me directly that I am telling lies or that I am > cheating. 1. You can't "know" you were innocent - assuming the misboarding is accidental you wouldn't realise it had happened. 2. The most likely person to misboard is the person whose hand it is. 3. A deliberate misboarding in this situation would merit expulsion. 4. We will (almost) never be able to *prove* intent 5. If you don't adjust in this scenario you give carte blanche to cheats Hence the ruling: "It is my judgement that you accidentally misboarded the hand. The situation was such that you could have known that doing so deliberately might work to your advantage so even though you were unaware of your irregularity I am adjusting the score under Law72b1." No accusation of lying/cheating (and please assume that I investigated the incident and found no other likely source of misboarding). Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 27 12:55:50 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:55:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000601c48c21$e68016a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005b01c48c2c$cc76bd80$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> > [L65A] > When four cards have been played to a trick, each > player turns his own card face down near him on > the table. L65A "establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized". This law does in itself not include any requirement that all four cards in the previous trick has first been turned face down before a legal lead to the next trick can be made. [Nigel] I agree that this law simply defines what a completed trick is. I am happy if you are prepared to concede (from perusal of other laws) that it is a violation to lead to the next trick before the current trick is quitted. The point is not that infraction should incur a penalty; it is simply that you should not profit from the infraction; for example by hustling declarer into a mistake. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 13:11:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:11:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c48c2e$efb30e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: >=20 > > If the situation should ever occur that a Director penalizes me on = an > > alleged irregularity without even knowing that I am guilty but he > > reasons that I "could have been a culprit" while I know (and tell = him) > > that I am innocent I shall be very offended, in fact so much = offended as > > if he had said to me directly that I am telling lies or that I am > > cheating. >=20 > 1. You can't "know" you were innocent - assuming the misboarding is > accidental you wouldn't realise it had happened. When I know that I did count my cards and returned them to the board correctly? When both the Director and I know that the board could have been = inspected by anybody between rounds, and in fact that some people despite warnings = are notorious nosey to see what has happened after they played the board themselves? When we both know that the board has been located at a sit-out table in = the meantime? During my 25 years of directing I have seen so many exotic ways of = having a board fouled that I don't take anything for granted.=20 > 2. The most likely person to misboard is the person whose hand it is. Even if it is the "only" likely person I would be very careful as a Director. The "most" likely person is definitely not sufficient. > 3. A deliberate misboarding in this situation would merit expulsion. Of course. > 4. We will (almost) never be able to *prove* intent That is no excuse for blaming an innocent person on pure suspicion. > 5. If you don't adjust in this scenario you give carte blanche to = cheats That attitude reveals a management culture that I am proud of not = sharing. >=20 > Hence the ruling: "It is my judgement that you accidentally = misboarded > the hand. The situation was such that you could have known that doing = so > deliberately might work to your advantage so even though you were = unaware > of your irregularity I am adjusting the score under Law72b1." What score do you adjust? My own score which under no circumstance can = have been influenced except marginally by what happened subsequently at other tables? =20 > No accusation of lying/cheating (and please assume that I investigated = the > incident and found no other likely source of misboarding). I hear you say so. Have you supervised the board all the time so you = know that nobody "accidentally" opened it and looked at the hands after I = handled my cards? If you claim to having done that all the time I wonder how you = had time to perform your real duties as the Director. Sorry Tim. An accusation is an accusation whatever you prefer to call = it, and certain accusations are of a nature that should never exist without substantial evidence. This includes any accusation (explicit or = implicit) that a person is telling lies. We have (I assume) our shares of fouled boards in Norway. When we notice = a player violating for instance Law 7C and the affected board subsequently = is found fouled we come down on that player like a ton of bricks, not for having fouled the board but for having violated L7C. But unless we have evidence to substantiate the accusation we never say = to a player something like "that board was found fouled so I am convinced = that you must have violated Law 7C and I penalize you accordingly". Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 27 13:14:12 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:14:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000601c48c21$e68016a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006101c48c2f$5dc723e0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> Law 66A: "So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced". [Sven Pran] > There is no indication in this law that > leading to the next trick while a card > belonging to the previous trick is still > faced is considered an irregularity. [Nigel] I quite agree that this law gives no indication as to whether or not a "premature" lead is illegal. I agree that 66A is completely irrelevant so I did not cite that law in my argument. Instead, I cited 66C (below) which says that it is illegal to look at a trick that you have quitted. A "premature lead" may make the contents of a trick that you have quitted visible to both you and your partner. So it contravenes 66C. [66C] Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific instruction; for example, to verify a claim of a revoke. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 13:23:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:23:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <005b01c48c2c$cc76bd80$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000b01c48c30$b53bcad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie ...... > > [L65A] > > When four cards have been played to a trick, > each > > player turns his own card face down near him on > > the table. >=20 > L65A "establishes correct procedure without any > suggestion that a violation be penalized". This > law does in itself not include any requirement > that all > four cards in the previous trick has first been > turned face down before a legal lead to the next > trick can be made. >=20 > [Nigel] > I agree that this law simply defines what a > completed trick is. >=20 > I am happy if you are prepared to concede (from > perusal of other laws) that it is a violation to > lead to the next trick before the current trick is > quitted. No, I do not concede. On the contrary I consider Laws 44G in particular = and also Law 66A to indicate that it is in itself no irregularity for the = player who has won a trick when he leads to the next trick without awaiting all players (including himself) to turn his just played card face down. However, I do consider it most polite for the player to await the other players turning their played cards face down before leading to the next trick (except in situations where he simple claims by playing all his remaining cards in rapid sequence). =20 > The point is not that infraction should incur a > penalty; it is simply that you should not profit > from the infraction; for example by hustling > declarer into a mistake. Any player has the right to avoid being hustled. Like the question on a separate post in this thread: East awaiting playing a singleton to a = trick until all cards from the previous trick had been turned face down can = (and should) IMO not be penalized for hesitating with a singleton. He had a = clear and valid reason for delaying his play. Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 13:30:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:30:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <006101c48c2f$5dc723e0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000c01c48c31$9a3f91c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > Law 66A: "So long as his side has not led or > played to the next trick, declarer or either > defender may, until he has turned his own card > face down > on the table, require that all cards just played > to the trick be faced". > > [Sven Pran] > > There is no indication in this law that > > leading to the next trick while a card > > belonging to the previous trick is still > > faced is considered an irregularity. > > [Nigel] > I quite agree that this law gives no > indication as to whether or not a > "premature" lead is illegal. > > I agree that 66A is completely irrelevant so I did > not cite that law in my argument. Law 66A is relevant in that it de facto allows what you call a premature lead to the next trick. > Instead, I cited 66C (below) which says that it is > illegal to look at a trick that you have quitted. > A "premature lead" may make the contents of a > trick that you have quitted visible to both you > and your partner. So it contravenes 66C. > > [66C] > Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may > not be inspected (except at the Director's > specific instruction; for example, to verify a > claim of a revoke. Please get your horse before your cart: You are permitted to look at a trick until it has been quitted. But this is not the same as to say that you may not lead to the next trick before all four players have quitted the previous trick. Leading to the next trick can under no circumstance change your situation from not being allowed to look at a trick to suddenly being allowed to look at it again. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 27 13:56:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:56:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000601c48c21$e68016a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006d01c48c35$51614120$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> [40E2 footnote] A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. [Sven Pran] > I completely fail to see what relevance the last > three laws quoted above can have on the question > on a premature lead by the player who has won the > last trick. [Nigel] If you lead to the next trick before previous tricks are quitted it allows you and partner to peruse the cards from at least two tricks, simultaneously. The sight of previous unquitted tricks is an illegal aide-memoire both for you and for your partner. I also quoted the UI laws because... (1) Unless you *always* lead to the next trick before the previous trick is quitted, a premature lead is an illegal variation in the way you play. (2) The contents of previous tricks is UI to you and to your partner (except as far as you both remember them). Whether you agree with me or not, I am most grateful to you, Sven, for taking the trouble to argue with me. My recent impression was that BLML was populated by wise monkeys. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From qdeany@yahoo.com Fri Aug 27 15:05:05 2004 From: qdeany@yahoo.com (Byron Washburn) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:05:05 +0400 Subject: [blml] re[4]: Message-ID: <20040827131500.71F75707@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070503060709070602000003 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Swimsuits excuse me I'm against it transit visa
Go ahead. Gladiator
--------------070503060709070602000003 Content-Type: image/gif; name="supplicate.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="supplicate.GIF" R0lGODlhpwGqAfSeAAIAAIAAgMDAwMDcwCAgQOAgQEBAQOBAQGBgQOBgQGBggOBggICAgOCAgOCggOCg wP/78KCgpP8AAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAA AAChAaABAAX/ICWOZGmeaKqubOu+cCzPdG3feK7vfO//wKBwSCwaj0iYZMlsOp/QqHRKrVqv2Kx2y+16 v+CweEwuP0vmtHrNbrvf8Lg8jp7b7/i8fs/vY+t+USJig1CFXYeHSyNlikyOgVKQe46Mi5N/FGSWXJid JJegJnicXpyaoaaJqIuXm6yopWCsbJ5ysLSxmrqqY7yfj02Klbmgj7QStm/KV4XDyFqYzLO4vtCRjdfJ xdjTmcLc4OClxJTa0b+uvYbn1sfu2GvS4YHezfTbTs/kyPu6zqvOGTuzCxK/Z9ssDWJUR5a6fKOOXRPF EGDChQX7nQKY0WBGfRUVWoRIzNZAgrsu/xZUeYJgQnEjQ2mcCOgkRpcN8eWTiFCcupjJ3gV1uRNkup2/ Vj18iTSXoH9ChdKMCrWoSKnVftKMOXJYKmNKLxKdlJVj1KLjkjJk2lTqU58cU45b2vMsIJYbtQp76HEp 1awk+R4N65XdX59oBQfTqxgt16OI20puxdgqYLgT91q2q61nOceNQXL2i1nzYtMydXosy9OhRMOC7+Z1 DNiZpNrF7mKVW5lwON9vz7K1jfUw6bkoRYdOPDox0NZkLz8vfZoyapWRaW8eyhzn1OXvgBtHent8d9Er f+Omm246+/Csi78/f5Nd2O3HtTuHnB+xZ4GD6XOGUXU1RphwY32Hn/98ky3o2ngFvpUeddv9x6ByjO2j 3H3YwWbSY80RVdmICIpoYXD2PMUPhkAdVB2JoZ0yWYvSfWiejPalwqB4vfE3H40axWiFe07hF2Fzn+GI I4vqlXdeJiv6N1hJ0R3HYU4GysXhk0bO5MmWFq2U5W4TGjVmdiCmVmV3ibgipn7JLWjZQfNQ+CUvU2LY 4SgRRWQdcvbJQpGG0IklEkaFqdiRn2wJgtqghm5UUlNTCSobgYPiopuaA0qKVwreaSrqa2aiJOmopg6n Wm4pxnOLq3y0+mcW0LRDiq2wqrFprnrgymstvgrYiSHxyPqrKg8eC8dJytIRrFjAXOeHsc2ik2z/tcA+ i20YzN6mranUttHtttZcS+656KarLrpJtOvuu/DGK++89NZr77345qvvvvz26++/AAcs8MAEF2zwwQgn rPDCDDfs8MMQRyzxxBRXbPHFGGes8cYcd+zxxyCHLPLIJJds8skop6zyyiy37PLLMMcs88w012zzzTjn rPPOPOMcwM9ABy300EQXbfTRSCet9NJMA81y01BHLfXUVFdt9dVOl4D11lx3DfXTXoct9thkc21C2Win HTXYarft9ttmaw333G6zTffdeOf989l735y1yn/3fG/gIhA+s+EmIy64vIYrDrPjI0O+uLuN922z5CFj PjkSlQfgs+Upa765/xGdf+75yqKPTkTpfoOOcuqqC8E6CgCcUHvtIsPOseS42z5D7y0AP4LwLxBPgfEN z+67Cch3rPvGvBsPQPMqUM/88jL0rj3FymMvgvXQu35y9LaD7z0L0tOw/ffci897CbhrPz3w8x/P/vTf 12/w8xq/L/ztJNDf/fBXPgJe74D5I9781rdA+wkwee4THwIZGED25e+CFszgwPiXMf/Bz34ZlN/wEAjC D05whCi04PqOt0KGdQ97LUQh/TRoQoJxEGPvK2H8aLjDFPqQdgtsYAlVaMIVztBhLzyhBoV4RAU+UGA3 vFgOKThEEB6xgitIXxWd2EMdYhGCpyOB5gCYQv8qEvGL5stXFC2WQwfKMIhdrGICkadFOMqvh0b8ogsj GMbqDTGOgFyiHqEowZK1kYxWpN0gSfjDMzKyiy1MY8CSeD5IWlKQGLRhIUl2SC9uEZMp0GIRR4nFPDYy YZR85PDwd8dEBpCV+9tk5GT5RzSWcZFXXKQnd8nCEPpQkgBL5Q6AuUFaZo6WuaSfAWvJvCeeUpn/q58l ESlHVPLxB7l82Borts3Y4UCYNhCixLo5MXJ6swbgbJk5I7bOc8ognWyLpzvfBU/UGRNk7ZznC+opzk/W 8J/9/Fc+kXhPffogncuMpD+VSMN+DRSMWQzl72IQxCMYL1AW3ec1I0rK+/3/s5SM5NdD99jH8pk0ezD4 nxEuitEiSBKc1JuhSpdHzMEV1GPka+ZEXSBKIbB0IEl46UYlSlRe0nGOBRvpwjxYQWg2dZmvhGpDm5nN QK7SgD8Fi4tUVRVo6UKoJaVAG2H4S0XCT6oivanzkPlJU/ayodmc6i3nykxmZjUgCdKUXywFVr6F9aMd 9eX5dKkvpSpsijLkIShPSVVVjjCZiq2miowjnqvIpK9y+ythVQhHxjavpvRU6+7Y6sk4uhKuKcUqQOsq R/2xlEAy+QllfBSXaqIAoQc0bQwTC9h9Gdaamr0lAzvL2qtKMn7E/eEVXTtVNR0qKbO10j/kegKELrea /6Z942bVKNrwBdeXZlytH4NHXTeW1Z937ZNlYzHb6T7XttUdahYfSM03VvSPznRod/tHWvOe1pHwRW1u VwtZ9LbkU7jRq44k09vbypdmv0XYWK8rWAFPdaYV3qUI8dtcBNfKU7FFDjoffLj9drC/rKWvLgMaVamq GI2wRGp23cuomgTkxqnBrBhNzEkeS9HHBqVBPQEHZG4WOcgxGHLojlxOJiPZBUp+nZPZOeUnrwCmyW2w kb+buypbOQVK/uxauXxMMn85B0OO6ZjleWbZkZioKr0dVMUpZ9DWK8IHg5wCQ7rd8mqZyGEVXQzlTFcr 7naSXibod+P8Z/Ly2c4fg/8nhq06YMYKNNEQHa9HLV28wQZ4yYG+56QXy0ICxhXRZo40iqnpVOXGuM5I 3e4T+8libb65t4gs8H8hzThMk5SjGqbrcpHLWy27ddftCzWZ06dQTJ46mL5ean9NOdNBO9vTBubzOG/t WR261dR9TmuqcWpMSGb4tNUGqbbTrW0qK7t6dizrrF8dbt9G+7DlbqtxmRvZJmJ70vTNr6L9WgNe/9qe y9a3XK1t13/jGtsH3/G4233iiY824Yzut3Kvve6HUxzf786ewSMOakd/9Ngb9ne7UU5qW4f8cvcGrslx mdCzkrGJc87yvBMq8ExL3HRsbtfIXYbl+65Uvxb3bkb/Od0zmH6cv0mHOhJqvTmnN1rqCG/zEKwOUlML ENbGbXEZe94uPMcy6lrX6MvNWspmq7bhvH122WMuYbp/ueh01qNVVe7xeZk9qXa3MtdJyHdDM9F7VJ87 2nGIYqaDb+hE5zZ1C1z4ZxY6Xn/XJJd7qj53Dl68AJ5xHetdhMwXc/MQ7/Q5P6/3thcb2eiG/DcDD3jU E/7rj8VwAW0OTdkPPLPAfiTuA87zt5f600cwPSFtX0O+o1XMGaa0ISWPA99zd/E/3rwddXvubqv76mUm eBCsjy/lozr4jeS3bY/6fdKreu0+IL9Nsc/GxocQ3LwkLMCLL3+Qix/m9Ldl6Adg/+jGdifnaf1Xd/BX YgGYbAP4XwXocCuWeuS2gDJjftDGfO2Hf+tXVG7nfhX3f/D2YkCQgDqAgZemgWNHbwuncznHfyUHfOh3 aMPkLyhog7SHZKwHgT1ggmiWg6eXdkGwg693R72Xe9tDfE5lhD9wg0gnhEBAhKHHcZylXVPobS03ew3Y ZFsIhTL4c5pWanjUfudVeKNXhAcFhMvnhWlogRMIez21d3qnfoZHdkKmhufHhjywg2P4emW4gXNVeW0Y dAUUUI8XVNu3Zl9ogHFHhlQIh4CIfDfghOI2gMR0iTWYiWu4iIxoRhwIh+F1SVhYXD/Yhe72gMCEiTrg ez44iP+cCEQkKE1hN4sOZHzelmsxJoZNiIcZ+IAQmHfO9HXCGE1otXFY5WKuZYfzJ4Lwwoqkw4sp6IvS R2yg1GxGVVSZdI1+GI2v6C4GJ3c9QIn2poLFxm5+aG6O2ImDxH2SuIzdKHTVp4w7II5FIAARAANjlY50 +IvnNmOVtI6N1Y72EmXjA43twgAEcI8tkI9FiH/VRlxGOIxqNodGx2+tGI7Up04G2S4GAAAJyQIM6Ujm SICXx4gA6X3biINu+DgbmQQQQADT85FgZn/BRobsyHDGBnoE6I+V+I4XJpAOyDECsEAyyYwhRWEYZIss F33YuFCRxJPjaJRvOEumKDAREET/RTkC0WN0SySLtchFUXVVvBeGrfWCN1eMhUV9utdlfdSR2/eWcBmX cjmXdFmXHjkAYKiHJ6iWHZV3rwR+KukxAwBHCCAAPqmX75SR1GZLIklyGfOSC1SY8VWVbIhbggVZMuVz GuOWACCZDkaZXmiZpXWSIBiYG8MA0+OZMwmaUChpcBdZpfmEGnOVqqkC9Fh1GelfsLdpvOl/GTMACmCY UIZMWdaUI5h4gRVKF1l+uZltFYaOvokxEJBk9ueM4Hdc7yeV/xhrW7SWZ0eIj6aJ4YadFaidLMmajhme tJiEz4d4c8ZDx4iWQZmXNXObzEmO2rhhrUVWj3hsSneYkYee/9JGjgxnjem3cY2Zjoy3ki9jn+6onFwZ ltrYYiR4mQi6nNdnng3aklFJlgEJnfvpahV5f/eFofepoQEKnn9mjnGle9BHgyb6oFpZUMhZXjHqZgIa nSZ5kgYKm07Zj342nzO6bOAYYDc6hByalvj5SyC6Z6BnhiUZggAaojvKdEGYdR46lk2qngmUnBX6n/RJ gX6piwPEnrHmnZSTpBmKmKWIohN5Rjhnha95pJOpomyamAxqpOoGpSn2WAOppid6p5PIlxBqkSW6gVxJ p59pp4Kqdm6apaIXiRSYBA76pznaZqKZkpGKhr6jqCgafo06Ynn6VkwJipyaoH4HqDIaqv/UOarcyZ1M WKYiyo69dqkKqHopBYs12jquiqWAxlOSeIiAuS+eupqfyqhUCazmI6zDmi/FuqhTiqxsqawflIy52GCt Jqu5J5ZiR4uwenxnKo84eqy+GoPApkzlWKXfZkRIyad29W2xuYfN+avl6oGtl3/eN5K7SZLYFVj+iXnz aq4Ca69/uHBmpa/Sx4OfRof/Ci98mKuV9p31Woi4l64SGG/OKYYS2a1duptHCLB5mnPVN6DS+qMWe3g0 pY6kiIAaF6VA6YphqlN/eQPPqoUlO2oWy6UIS2qct5PVWKXPGLJeFKu1SKKxJ5+rWpD4KYcGe4D3d3lL aYaU1qOUypf/SehszteHQUovlXpnNLl310qhz1dzXwqu3kprXjlsyIW0q2O1fvqaV9izSlqy91Kzmxiz o4RHhxqJH2ua9BowdpuHeNt1/DqS0Bm4tqmqljowiMuNg5tYWsujexqvike3rFqnALqY5/i0sdeLE3u5 C0moGlaxK3i0Lxtatppnitt0AStlqSuxxumNhgixzcg5rau00vqsLkq7vEuztturfzuwTzcEopSKO5UD JkqQibO6XEuT3NqnHTtAVwd2z4tfxLi2rfRU1Zu8t7u8r1t7vjiaBTuK0wuvzzm+RtWuv0uuweu60khK N9eyT1d5kauwOFlVWzuPkie3WRq+Seu9/+87ufXrj8zKjwZcvM0nucknuvnru44rvNiat2+LsewXhjc5 RxtLomOasW07qjQYf57bvh1HuJtWwdNrk/wasdAnv6WnmEyqWqSLtrbYkyIcwSRsXvo6lfTrsyqcwBe6 vtHKaq4Hp3wbwhC8WT2qvk2pa+abn4wJmx+8i726u3AnrI0LrTUsttnqo2a7sLP7whQ5ltE7awHZwG0a xNbLsClMpleMuVkMuonrwVGqchUMlYv7uXAcx5/asHSMeGbssMybqt+rgwwMiY1YjnbstYN8pXk8nAxa R6R7tEv4x6hruY0sVt07fYt8t5d8ZZncY5ssuJ2sx9GKx6A8yiD5yf/JasqoXDiqPK2s3MrKq8mW3Mh4 13OPR423GsuoHGb967KaV8t5nGb+i6+wC2p6k8zKnDbs27cfm4gyh3DLPM3UHDePq5NbaszgK83V3M3e /DVofK8fSMlzy83ffM7oTDTHSsXjfLrl3MqTgzlOiqoRqKPwzLoJJ17t3MZ4es/x/LXf53zp6c/wEgEM YM+8x0SRPKb83KoEPS8RYAAGIJy7DIAPXdASrZAIfYGBzKoRbQAaTbK8etFI8NEhPdAx07WNatLbFsoo TdI7wNJcCHQw/QMyLaQUy7YRq5k1nQM3LYAeamcNfYcufbk/XX8E2nku19M4cNTZZ4mzmHFDPQP/Kt1m Tr2gUD2na6y6RY2YVy2lhSpwV7vVx8zUA0DRKPDVWBe7HAu3L/3QEGAA05nWGX3KvzyhChvNTE0BCEnX IA3Av3xd4fXW/nyVCmACap2dgb1KFurOstnTgwkABz0CiY1Pztul9RW/Sx0yEPAAnt0AoB3aDbAAB1Da pn3apZ0Aoi3anv0A8hLX0yOclQ2qFn0xrQ3aCVDadlDaCwDarU0EqDk9EDDbsFzbD/PZDXAAzXIAve3Z PHCVMVnXG9rVen0wnQ3aB1AAXJDaqw3aDtDa4B3eD+AA3d0Aua3cW1AAB+Dbcy0DkT0/cp3SHf3YAnPd CYAFpR3av40Et43d/+htBev9AO29ArCNlQww4LwszO9i39pNBfn93QieL51N3rpNBQWg2gKeAsG9fQyA lwoO2PrS2aTt4OzNMNed3BaeAA4w4AMg0S7+4i8eARFOy5B615t9Lw+A4lIQ4DMeMRBA4VNQAA3g2jsT ksAK1POS4//9BMz93SIz3iMeBard4+dZzDYu0gvuAAuw40O+Mte95E1QAAuQ4QyIitr6ldi7rWVtBJ19 31Ag5mQOMyLe4E+QAHGeojVOqlobpxVtBA/g5nW+4jrz44DuBHY+3WZexei75kDwAFv+BEJO5JOj5FAw 5rmbsofs1tscBI7+5g1A5YsDAQ1A501g6e6b5/99/IiMngM/DuYSIOSgHjuiTupLUACCTuOxy7TtzNU+ IOqQ3uVpl+NQ8Ol2neuZtOcKysk48ACubup62OlOcACSrthhTW8Va61RbMQ1MOtOYOuxnnbcHua3rohK Te004OvRPu2syuxPQOwXF060LQPoXurffqcQ8OhN4O5gfbzlKe8N0O3jjso/Tuv6jtQ0/QLzXusOANMO QPD1vtHyPXEO8AQLz9QN7wQVj9Nl3gIP4PB7PQL/HubqfuP1aUwQUOgSUPAfTwEJLwEH8PDBPNIqEPJM oPIrPwIt3wDuls48H1zszgQJAPNMfe8i73I9n84nkPAFMPI3nwIdT+9gdPT/6GwCD+AENt/0K0DzS5Dx wCX150wCRM8EL4/1MwABSx70ZM8CEEDqTJ/2LlD1TLD0bo8CE88ECyD0c18CYb/1eY/z+C4BXN/3MwD3 S4D2c7/2cY/3gp/0/y33aV/3ha/4i5/0fx/4H6/1ls8yHmYyhJ/yTU/zjj+zZ0Wq0ZvQWiw9SKvTNtAa aSEbDhFUPaj3/70AK4/vYy+zo/+CVFWR0CyhQLsDpdL6qwEuRGB9xGP2di/5l3vyYk/lIkv6rBRNEqr7 jI2WPtgK7BUbZsEUtcsDyGP7yt+oyL8EtA9vow/9hMbYzedEf1mMDZT+XfyVpa8QXvVeISYqihSMZIv6 /6xmljYHApQoAqMpLpJ6QKf7wrE807V947lOQ4cqNWqAEolIGZqQyNES1iwaj6Xnyfi0Jq3Y009iUn29 4XEX7NySmMxocq1Ow+Poo6zxY+3y+j2/78/1/AQJabkVGUrJDC0yZiFWvcXJtUWGmVFcYoqN/Ih0lmVS vrERsVXSoY6+kJ662K20/MnO0tbOBqo43DTxFh7+Si1CNVb5usyxSkaZenZqjnGBPjdvisIlM6deQ2qf zsE43MXakpebn1Mk/DzkKC1rMRrHAwtnza9WJmsvx3RNN7/4VI3TQEmo4i3Jho1bMHjEuoH7kQAdxYoW c7wCosOdo4b3qCQKCWUNQv9myBjyawXGy8pqoVy0hMZwG76aqqzdtDkj46CLPn9efPBjQZ56hqj0sgeM HimT+VBaM7XymTNnBK9qEmMVZyluCr3OzDnJRopcQM+itSV0hR6jv5A6fAi3VFOb+lIqC+iPmtWWZQju PXZyrF00g1Nl4+FDBbu0jh/vgPCjwLiNcEV2HPZOsNtHhEnOxBttYOBpfy0VVNM5GM5iU5Taa6qvBoQC PypDzq37RO3bu3/vSG0uMXBAk3EXT/4zY2PlznMTf05jrQSi0q+fo64LO/ef0bu/CMcYPPk+uA6UT68e 8mLK69/XyIgcPv36twTZzy9Csoqe+v8DqANzAcK3GHr/BCKYoAwGzqfgcwM6GKGD1Pkn4XO2aWShhgTK t6Fz1DXooYjp4bLdiL8tVuGJK5Yn3oEsQgYijDOSx58EzdF4ljoZ5tijdK+86ONFNoYopJGO2Yjjkee8 MtGST+rWJJTnJDmllWkReaUtLmrZ5U8pejlLWSqGWWYtUprZxzppslmLjG3u8Cacc/KxJp04oHmnnjqM uacNi5nop6AzcDloDFkamugLiCpqwloF7ClcoyMspmSja1lHzj1LsZZZMbElBhItW2UlaamjmWrLd+1Y 9Eqgk4pHph8lGTOSp5mVpBM5p5X6El+XSGPRqjgM68crshp6rKbv0OXIFQo1C1pY/7VM5RdWllCTVbYV FWtDt3zEOqkJZb36B0i1cuTZUXXFlkYv/NSzGlUy/XMtVS4VNMW5V2AGGrOuyTZtOZiKO8KOls5K3LOY iRrSQ054apg8MJEaDcVk4CvYU3J8RU8keB2GzlpBTlqpqgrLUyuum4bGVV6tnKqXzFdl8tJClHQs1kG6 fmMOfyQ3imGRbaGMSFKryCaqaDe/TPFLFdcbk70GdYUzxFZjHVbP5dhYMDVDF1W0ZkdrjLQpS4O1sV41 +xo1SxlrPXbVx6T9sVG5GnQO1IkKfTLdb9HK6bqftuxN0xBVu8nebjMeN0R5Ux3536FetPigi4EdNmwJ sdsw5//w/H34zmrTbFqqVVmrreNMry7w3J9RqQKkXpt8MkKDdxS4SHgX/jHpzJwGCrBa8Ros4fv4fvXu yRP2rSwje01BWQjLwnK6n+r+rLzIuxZVa9v22pfipJbWxmpuofyatCQF/D05azlZsKuR+uS8guJlKq6y 0dNif4L7Fwx//OufjwAoLugN0FAHix6jEhip8UQPQ9RzIJuoM8A+UVBPefLaozKoJ0ANsIEeTJMICwbC EbYJgQPcIArLhMEByqmFXqqSA8EkwzAVyoExvKGVTkhBCfJQSztcIVuC2MP+jJCGRlzSEBPIwiX6aEfI 4p8SodijJjqwLO6xYo56I4H4odD/RlPk4oY6dEPx3IiMMKKQERmkxhUZaIlifOOIIGREM5opVW2aIxTP kzmz8c4NuuPM8dTVL2r5qm3XEp4eZ+G/GDzSBH7kInXASCxaac8jD1ufrdQVSRvwCnxrA0wo0fHJ0O1h R2kkIxrHSIilcK6Qh9DeZgQ2i8SRsh97U6SmCMgHntAxI+W6ZO5Uti+GoS9pdHgXJOIlqqlgDAZSsxjE zscvpSkBNuzrnvtugMb8qXExq7RMLckmuOslwpwcE0Utl4cqLgAkIPGkJtLUpjK7MQ9kpNMBdYBGRlxI 4I+ybAiorGm0aJ1rnyEDHtR4Wa958kxyOaOJziT3OBvYCA90/xyBjba4C2gBjGW780UsoWK4w2WjfA+9 GD0j2o3XueylkLtLHrwY0I2eoJ8C3d5ltKnJlB0yZIjxnjTJd7qC8BIbt7so6xBzt6VedAYAneAbqePR GTSsX8eUW0mHETrRDHWf8wqFQ8ma1LrZsqlOiarzbEpVOqJxnJAUmyeNGS2vmtSiaLPY21o6s6mhcnQV lajr9JqDB2BIAsPE6QioI1fOQFWrg5Qsp853Uu6J7lcshehDHcoLdsJsnc0DLeRs4Ni3Mva0cw3kXKxn En2VjbQ+xexFGwq3qXm2Uz5N3z5ay83QvkC1jJ1OF1C7okY6Uj/CHS4PEuvKgp1yNxl5LP9zZQBQjWYw upCBgCqvWl3FFPe7ukGsOMSLkS4817zmiOsCBKpeETgWu++tCHfDO19AiJO697WFTeW7X4xOtwHu/e8N IDDd9hI4Tl0ogHETbNrE6tfBtMlvAgYsYUmWBRYX1kNcebRhG0zXwx/WAQQyLIEDNPjCD6CwhUfsAvIO pcXvNfCCU+xiqYZYwDemAI3RK+MdLyq/QPjxRntcXiDTYsVl0HGCjbwCGyP5sBAe8n6dLIECLDbKs3DA lJksXisrVsv0DXF1iOzBEoPCy2KmCJhRjFMlL9nMa65pA6ZcADUbEQJcLsOd5TxnPsC5CwgOIprL4OY/ 56bQXTgAnh3/qGchlxnRwNHzlE/sAD+X6dGgwDKmJf0+SFu601DSNCgSAGVPo4XUZUjApQel6i6wWtSo pq8DQM3oUx/pAQ2wdatnvZ5Xw7rXXdKzKg0tbF/TB9iTWcADZP0fCDxgAZVeQaORbR9oS5uRB1iAA3Ad ID3vmpEFYLazra0cAxcbFLcut3OgHW5GfrHa5paQrkG96AY0G0Dutvcd8D3vLtYb3ndgNL7ZzbUHOGDX /JZdAgr+7yftW+CLbni38/0YaD9A1wlY+L0t/vAZ1nvaAj8AyRtg8oz7OeMqN7nCOb7pdX98TxlvwAJc LnFtk5zkN9+5uheAb2/HPE0zr7nNeW50/3iT3OcZD7oRV27ynB9A5EYvANRZjnKmq1jlQMc617vu9a+D PexiHzvZy252B00g7WkXwQQooPa3n+Dtao873N3udrm3/e5zNwHe2Y73v+8d8GsfgeAHT3fBH97wLyh8 3vdOeLgznvF6/7sMJM/3usNA8n2ffOTzvvi5N17ufsf86BXPedI7/jqpd3zqD+/6x3u+9XbPvOJXX3vP 6x32r/f74nXPdt/nPga2Bz7hiz964w//+Mrv/fJjb3jZ/775xLc97k3/+OtP3/Ss1/7gt4/758j++dbP /vfvnv3K37762r+8+tsfd+YHf/ath/7yoz/599uf9fWfffz7z3fgh//e90Gf88Ue+bEf/u0e//Uf9SWg 9+2fc4wf/9HfApZf/j0fDTCg71VgBipfBX5e+Y1fBAYfCKLeB7pA4J1g+mGg9YWgBxKfAWog+lXfAZ5f CtLgCIrgb0zgC97gDnZgDXDgCJogDLpgAvrfA/7g+2HeBrJg96Wg+83A/LVgEQ6gCsag8NEfB1YhAWpg Du6GDx4hAHrh6QEh4sHeFr7g5q2gAE4h7ZFe9NUdE5LgG8YfGPofGmKhHFLeGXqh6CWeGuIhDs4gdoDh BDpgFK5dIVphEv5hGyqgDBohEgohAkLeENLgHNJhHkZiGPIgBUJhEfLhDdahI56eAHKHIrrgIUL/IifC ICMeIB6CYhqS4uuBIPvNoisenx3uXyBaoihmIBXaYisGoiGe4hjOnxjGYuD14SIeIRc2Iwuu4uV9nibi HxveYjN24Bg+YAsiohz6IjQiYPMxIzd2YnkMYBq24v+JIxWOIziOojWeYDTKYiqC4xz24jauYxnaoyje Y/0Fof1hXz6moye6YXccYw3e4foN5DdCYUAGoRTKIzJGpBPa4BNapDQSZDdaIir24j82ofMx5O5JoQfq om7sYSlCnhqWIh8mokpuXueJ3knCZASepC2y40zGo01230x6H0mqZCh24xL6IU/WY0/u5Bv6IUvu49kx ZVOGHVFCZVRK5VRSMWVVWuVVYmVWauVWcqVWSkdXgmVYiuVYkmVZmuVZoqU2OuVasmVbuuVbwmVcyuUO hAAAIf50dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0 ZHB1anl1ZnpmbnByYmhhYmp6cWZidmNscXlybG1lZm9pbGtvZHd4bmJuZ255YW1qbXBhaXEAO2== --------------070503060709070602000003-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 27 14:25:42 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:25:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000601c48c21$e68016a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00bc01c48c39$5aa05ce0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> [L45E1] A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or Law 56 applies [which are LOOT laws] [Sven Pran] > This law clearly allows a fifth card to > be contributed to a trick if this fifth > card apparently is a legal lead to the > next trick. (The references to Laws 53, > 55 and 56 are obviously completely > irrelevant when the fifth card was > contributed by the player who actually > won the trick). [Nigel] This law instructs the TD to treat a fifth card played to a trick as a penalty card; alternatively, at his discretion, he may also treat the offending card as a lead out of turn. Although the defender, who wins a trick, will be on lead to the next trick, this law implies that it is not his turn to play until the current trick is quitted; so the TD may decide to treat fifth card as a lead out of turn. That is the obvious meaning of the words of the law; it is hard to imagine any other intended meaning but I hope that Grattan will tell us his view on that :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19-Aug-04 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Aug 27 14:42:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:42:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000501c48c10$24995350$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c48c10$24995350$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >........... >> >> You do not need proof, remember, just enough to apply L72B1. >> > >> >For L72B1 you need to know that an irregularity has been performed, who >> >committed the irregularity and that the offender "could have known" etc. >........... >> >Unless I have available somebody (it could be me) who witnessed what >> >happened I am never going to be a Director who tells anybody to their >> face >> >that it is a lie when they claim they are innocent. >> >> It would be a pretty stupid thing to do, would it not? However, you >> can rule using l72B1 without accusing anyone of lying. > >If the situation should ever occur that a Director penalizes me on an >alleged irregularity without even knowing that I am guilty but he reasons >that I "could have been a culprit" while I know (and tell him) that I am >innocent I shall be very offended, in fact so much offended as if he had >said to me directly that I am telling lies or that I am cheating. > >In Norway we train our Directors to behave in such manners that this could >hardly ever occur here. > >In such a case I should probably first file a formal appeal and demand an >unconditional apology for a completely unfounded accusation. > >Furthermore it is quite possible that I would refuse to have anything more >to do with this director and as so even abandon the event immediately, and >in any case I would file a report to the national authority informing them >of my views and demanding their reaction to what happened. > >I am surprised how it seems that you feel a Director may use Law 72B1 and >sincerely hope that I am mistaken. There are many ways you can openly accuse >someone of lying without actually using the word lie, that doesn't make the >insult less severe. If you would do that then you are not welcome in the game of bridge. There are situations where a TD has to rule according to the laws and his judgement. If players are so immature and stupid as to go home because they do not like his judgement then good riddance. Fortunately our TDs do not have the problem - when they rule under L72B1 players do not pout and go home. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 27 14:48:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:48:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040826232059.01c2fec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816D9D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <21myhGC81GLBFwiS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040825122332.01c04ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826092508.01badec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826162711.01bbdec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.1.20040826232059.01c2fec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <2CmCsqL8uzLBFwRY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >At 08:54 PM 8/26/2004, David Stevenson wrote: >> Whether the information is extraneous seems frankly irrelevant, >> since extraneous is not a definition used ot decide whether >something >> is UI or not. > > I think it is relevant. > >> It does not forbid use of extraneous information, whether from >> partner or not. For example, the fact that partner is wearing a >dress >> is extraneous information. It may be silly to use that information >> [though the men in Mixed Pairs have hogged the dummy for years, so >do >> not try to tell me that no-one *does* use that information] but it >is >> not illegal. > >L16A: >"After a player makes available to his partner **extraneous** >information ... the partner may not choose from among logical >alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested >over >another by the **extraneous** information." > >The law is inconsistent in its use of a term for this idea. L16A1 uses >"unauthorized information". 16A2 uses "such information". 73F uses >"partner's remark ... or the like". Though I'm uncertain of its >relevance, 73B1 uses "gratuitous information" and "extraneous remarks >or gestures". > >I could guess who to blame for the inconsistency, but are you saying >these are not the same concept? If so, then the laws that designate >some information as unauthorized fail to address the point that the >information is also extraneous and hold no weight. No, you are right, sorry, I had forgotten that quirk of L16A. One of my suggestions when this was originally discussed was that we should use L16A, but my suggestion was pooh-poohed. Now perhaps another look is in order. I still feel that use of *all* unauthorised information is illegal, but not of *all* extraneous information. Now where are we? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 15:20:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:20:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c48c40$f5e13830$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > >In such a case I should probably first file a formal appeal and = demand an > >unconditional apology for a completely unfounded accusation. > > > >Furthermore it is quite possible that I would refuse to have anything > more > >to do with this director and as so even abandon the event = immediately, > and > >in any case I would file a report to the national authority informing > them > >of my views and demanding their reaction to what happened. > > > >I am surprised how it seems that you feel a Director may use Law 72B1 = and > >sincerely hope that I am mistaken. There are many ways you can openly > accuse > >someone of lying without actually using the word lie, that doesn't = make > the > >insult less severe. >=20 > If you would do that then you are not welcome in the game of = bridge. > There are situations where a TD has to rule according to the laws and > his judgement. If players are so immature and stupid as to go home > because they do not like his judgement then good riddance. >=20 > Fortunately our TDs do not have the problem - when they rule under > L72B1 players do not pout and go home. Neither do our directors, but then they do not rule against anybody just because they believe that he could be guilty of some irregularity. They = are trained to first having made up their mind from cause. I tried to illustrate how seriously we take the question of "guilt" in Norway; we do request more than simple suspicion before we penalize for = a violation of law.=20 And I have once had a player leaving an event because he was ruled = against. That resulted in a report from me and a disciplinary action against him = from the Norwegian authority. (Need I say that my ruling was based on = established facts, not on suspicion alone?)=20 But that much said; I do indeed expect a Director to be so serious that = he does not rule against a person without any other evidence than that the person "could be guilty" simply because he participates in the = tournament and happened to be near a table where an irregularity allegedly had occurred. That IMO demonstrates total incompetence and is completely unacceptable. Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 15:40:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:40:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <2CmCsqL8uzLBFwRY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c48c43$ccdcb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > I still feel that use of *all* unauthorised information is illegal, > but not of *all* extraneous information. >=20 > Now where are we? I had a talk with a member of the Norwegian Law committee the other day. = He sighed when he heard of this discussion and stated: "Of course the information conveyed by the pass out of turn itself is unauthorized" = (The fact that the offender must pass on his first turn is of course = authorized). When I told him the background for this discussion he sighed again and = said something about people who read the laws with the apparent intent of = finding peculiarities. I have said it before and I say it again: It seems to me that unlike in = many other areas we here in Norway are more concerned with what we are = convinced is the intention of the laws rather than what the laws literally can be claimed to say. To identify such intention we study not only the text of = the current laws; we also study the history of the laws, their background = and not the least our own knowledge of the game. The result is information = to all Norwegian Directors on how they are to practice law with special emphasis on new or changed laws and on laws which have proven ambiguous = or difficult for some Directors.=20 This does of course not imply that we ignore clear and unambiguous law texts, and most important of all we are of course open for different opinions on how the laws should be understood. I am not aware that we = have had any problems with this attitude in Norway. Regards Sven From schoderb@msn.com Fri Aug 27 16:15:04 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:15:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one References: <000101c48c43$ccdcb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Bravo! It's nice to encounter a sense of INTENT of the laws without all the parsing, lack of context, and pedantic analyses that lead to some ridiculous postings. The carping and brain wrentching objections to show that the present text "means" something other than intended is a silly. Proposing better wording of the Laws might even help the Drafting Committee. I see preciously little of that, but rather an excess of parading egos. Try this on for size: 1. Accept what a Law is attempting to mean. (and believe me, deep down in your hearts you KNOW what that is) 2. Assume that the present wording may not do so. 3. PROPOSE WORDING THAT WILL DO THE JOB. (T'AINT EASY, IS IT?) That member of the Norwegian Laws Committee belongs on more laws committees than just Norwegian. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:40 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one > David Stevenson ........... > I still feel that use of *all* unauthorised information is illegal, > but not of *all* extraneous information. > > Now where are we? I had a talk with a member of the Norwegian Law committee the other day. He sighed when he heard of this discussion and stated: "Of course the information conveyed by the pass out of turn itself is unauthorized" (The fact that the offender must pass on his first turn is of course authorized). When I told him the background for this discussion he sighed again and said something about people who read the laws with the apparent intent of finding peculiarities. I have said it before and I say it again: It seems to me that unlike in many other areas we here in Norway are more concerned with what we are convinced is the intention of the laws rather than what the laws literally can be claimed to say. To identify such intention we study not only the text of the current laws; we also study the history of the laws, their background and not the least our own knowledge of the game. The result is information to all Norwegian Directors on how they are to practice law with special emphasis on new or changed laws and on laws which have proven ambiguous or difficult for some Directors. This does of course not imply that we ignore clear and unambiguous law texts, and most important of all we are of course open for different opinions on how the laws should be understood. I am not aware that we have had any problems with this attitude in Norway. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Postmaster@bitforge.com Fri Aug 27 18:16:13 2004 From: Postmaster@bitforge.com (Postmaster@bitforge.com) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:16:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] MDaemon Warning - Virus Found Message-ID: The following message had attachment(s) which contained viruses: >From : blml@rtflb.org To : profiles@corrie.net Subject : Re: Your music Date : Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:17:35 +0100 Message-ID: Attachment Virus name Action taken ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ mp3music.pif I-Worm.NetSky.d Message Quarantined From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Aug 27 18:46:56 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:46:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: from "WILLIAM SCHODER" at Aug 27, 2004 11:15:04 AM Message-ID: <200408271746.i7RHkuVl023749@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> WILLIAM SCHODER writes: > > Bravo! > It's nice to encounter a sense of INTENT of the laws without all the > parsing, lack of context, and pedantic analyses that lead to some ridiculous > postings. The carping and brain wrentching objections to show that the > present text "means" something other than intended is a silly. Proposing > better wording of the Laws might even help the Drafting Committee. I see > preciously little of that, but rather an excess of parading egos. Try this > on for size: > 1. Accept what a Law is attempting to mean. (and believe me, deep down in > your hearts you KNOW what that is) Jeff Rubens has observed that in some cases the wording of the laws is intentionally ambiguous. There are parts of the current laws that certainly read that way to me. I've long felt that a commentary on the laws would be a useful addition. By this I mean discussion of intent by the crafters of the laws (or somebody commissioned by them to do so) > 2. Assume that the present wording may not do so. > 3. PROPOSE WORDING THAT WILL DO THE JOB. (T'AINT EASY, IS IT?) Yup. Constructive criticism. I'm familiar with the official casebooks for baseball, basketball and touch football. The idea behind them is that it's simply not possible to write rules in a way that _can't_ be misunderstood, but examples of how contentious issues are meant to go are very helpful. In a perfect world I'd like to see an official commentary by the WBFLC any time: a) a nutty director's ruling comes to their attention b) a director's ruling is over-turned by an AC c) a nutty AC ruling comes to their attention d) an AC verdict is not unanimous (Let's be clear here. I'm not proposing this to be part of the WBFLC's duties. It's just something that would be nice. But we're pretty much talking full time job here and I don't expect this to happen) From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Aug 27 19:08:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000801c48c2e$efb30e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven. The scenario was a team match. No sit out tables, no other tables, no nosey people. The offender is looking at an adverse swing of 13 IMPs and suddenly the board has become unplayable at the other table? > > 4. We will (almost) never be able to *prove* intent > > That is no excuse for blaming an innocent person on pure suspicion. I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm making a judgment on the most likely cause of the accident. > > 5. If you don't adjust in this scenario you give carte blanche to > > cheats > > That attitude reveals a management culture that I am proud of not > sharing. I'm sorry Sven, but that is truly naive. Even if we accept that WE wouldn't try this on we must recognise that others might. I have boxed the cards before when putting them back in the board (and I didn't know I had done so at the time). I will doubtless do it again one day. I hope it won't be after I've just had a bad board but if it is I don't expect my opps to suffer because of it. Tim From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 19:25:18 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:25:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <200408271746.i7RHkuVl023749@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000301c48c63$375d9f70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ron Johnson ............ > Jeff Rubens has observed that in some cases the wording of the laws is > intentionally ambiguous. There are parts of the current laws that > certainly read that way to me. Indeed. And I suspect that in some cases this is intentional because different organizations could not come to any consensus on certain = matters. Why else should we have to live with a law that states: "Unless Zonal Organizations specify otherwise ..." (Law 12C3)? > I've long felt that a commentary on the laws would be a useful = addition. > By this I mean discussion of intent by the crafters of the laws (or > somebody commissioned by them to do so) This happened in 1992 when we got "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. It was issued by EBL, and must have been an undertaking of magnitude = filling some 200 A4-sized pages with comments in addition to the almost 200 = pages needed for reprinting the laws being commented.=20 Need I say that this for years was THE bible for us Directors, and in = fact still is even though we had a revision of the laws in 1997? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 19:49:30 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:49:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c48c66$9664fc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ........... > Sven. >=20 > The scenario was a team match. No sit out tables, no other tables, no > nosey people. The offender is looking at an adverse swing of 13 IMPs = and > suddenly the board has become unplayable at the other table? OK. All scenarios I remember for the moment have been MP pairs events.=20 I shall have a big problem seeing how an offender can manage to foul a = board in a team match the way we always organize such matches: No player is = ever left alone with any board from the moment the boards are initially distributed to the first table until after they have been completed at = the second table. Whatever any player does with a board is witnessed by the other three players at the table and also by any spectator present. ............ > > > 5. If you don't adjust in this scenario you give carte blanche to > > > cheats > > > > That attitude reveals a management culture that I am proud of not > > sharing. >=20 > I'm sorry Sven, but that is truly naive. Even if we accept that WE > wouldn't try this on we must recognise that others might. I have = boxed > the cards before when putting them back in the board (and I didn't = know I > had done so at the time). I will doubtless do it again one day. I = hope > it won't be after I've just had a bad board but if it is I don't = expect my > opps to suffer because of it. Did you handle cards other than your own thirteen cards? That is illegal = and subject to a procedural penalty if subsequently the board is found = fouled. And again this penalty is not for fouling a board but for violating Law = 7. How can you foul a board beyond repair if you just handle your own cards according to Law 7C? The only way is that you send away a board with = less than thirteen cards in one of the pockets and that will be noticed immediately if the receiving player does his duty. No harm done. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Aug 27 21:00:28 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:00:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <00bc01c48c39$5aa05ce0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <000601c48c21$e68016a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00bc01c48c39$5aa05ce0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040827154157.02e1de60@pop.starpower.net> At 09:25 AM 8/27/04, Nigel wrote: >[L45E1] >A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender >becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless >the Director deems that it was led, in which case >Law 53 or Law 56 applies [which are LOOT laws] > >[Sven Pran] > > This law clearly allows a fifth card to > > be contributed to a trick if this fifth > > card apparently is a legal lead to the > > next trick. (The references to Laws 53, > > 55 and 56 are obviously completely > > irrelevant when the fifth card was > > contributed by the player who actually > > won the trick). > >[Nigel] >This law instructs the TD to treat a fifth card >played to a trick as a penalty card; >alternatively, at his discretion, he may also >treat the offending card as a lead out of turn. Sven has this one right. L45E1 requires the TD to determine the player's intent: did he think he was following to the current trick, or was he attempting to lead to the next trick? If the former, the fifth card becomes a penalty card; if the latter, it is treated as an attempt to lead to the next trick. >Although the defender, who wins a trick, will be >on lead to the next trick, this law implies that >it is not his turn to play until the current trick >is quitted; so the TD may decide to treat fifth >card as a lead out of turn. The TD may treat the fifth card as a lead out of turn only if he decides that it was a lead, *and* it was out of turn. If he decides it was a lead, and it was in turn, he treats it as a lead in turn. In the thread case, if it was an attempted lead it was in turn, so the references to L53 and L56 are irrelevant, as Sven says. >That is the obvious meaning of the words of the >law; it is hard to imagine any other intended >meaning but I hope that Grattan will tell us his >view on that :) English can be a tricky language. Consider the statement, "The penalty for exceeding the speed limit applies to all vehicles on the road except for authorized emergency vehicles." It does not mean that every vehicle on the road is either an authorized emergency vehicle or is speeding. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nancy@dressing.org Thu Aug 26 03:16:21 2004 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy Dressing) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:16:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club. Message-ID: <003601c48b12$b1828650$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C48AF1.2A70E650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The bidding was: 1NT Pass 2S* Pass 4S Pass ? * announced as a transfer and immediately corrected saying "To play" all in about the same breath. No break for thinking. The partnership agreement is that this is a transfer to clubs and partner will carry on as necessary with correct to Diamonds or some number of clubs or pass. Can the 2S bidder now bid 5C which would have been the bid had partner just said "transfer'? Actually, there was no director call, and the 2S bidder passed. Thanks, Nancy --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004 ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C48AF1.2A70E650 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
The = bidding=20 was:

1NT = Pass=20 2S* Pass

4S   =20 Pass   ?

* = announced as a=20 transfer and immediately corrected saying "To play" all in about = the same=20 breath. No break for thinking.

The = partnership=20 agreement is that this is a transfer to clubs and partner will carry on = as=20 necessary with correct to Diamonds or some number of clubs or=20 pass.

Can = the 2S bidder=20 now bid 5C which would have been the bid had partner just said = "transfer'? =20

Actually, there was=20 no director call, and the 2S bidder passed.

Thanks,=20

Nancy

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004

------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C48AF1.2A70E650-- From svenpran@online.no Fri Aug 27 22:20:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:20:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club. In-Reply-To: <003601c48b12$b1828650$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000201c48c7b$b99321f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Nancy Dressing The bidding was: 1NT =A0Pass =A02S* =A0Pass 4S=A0=A0=A0 Pass=A0=A0 ? =A0 * announced as a transfer and immediately corrected saying "To play"=A0 = all in about the same breath.=A0 No break for thinking.=A0=20 The partnership agreement is that this is a transfer to clubs and = partner will carry on as necessary with correct to Diamonds or some number of = clubs or pass. Can the 2S bidder now bid 5C which would have been the bid had partner = just said "transfer'?=A0=20 Actually, there was no director call, and the 2S bidder passed.=A0=20 Question number one: What would the 2S bidder have called if the opener = had alerted, (correctly) explained the bid as transfer and then bid 4S? I have a strong feeling that pass is no LA because I cannot imagine a natural 1NT opening bid to contain such a spade suit that it would = justify a 4S bid for play in this sequence. The most likely meaning of the 4S bid is a cue with nice fit to either = minor suit as trump, consequently I would probably have allowed a takeout in = 5C. However, I find it rather strange going for 5C after an opening bid in = 1NT: 3NT with at least ten tricks gives a better score, so I would hardly be interested in any contracts other than 3C, 3NT or slam. There may of = course be freaks where 5C probably makes while 3NT is doomed. If East(?) has = such a freak here I see absolutely no reason to deny a takeout into 5C. Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Aug 28 00:41:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000501c48c66$9664fc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Did you handle cards other than your own thirteen cards? That is > illegal and subject to a procedural penalty if subsequently the board is > found fouled. It is a simple matter to put a few cards face up in the hand such that when it is removed and counted the others at the table can see their faces. The receiving player is not at fault but the board is unplayable. How can I be subject to a PP under your approach? You have no proof that it was me who caused the problem! As it happens I was playing in an EBU MP game and received a small PP - nothing like 13 IMPs though! Tim From blml@blakjak.com Sat Aug 28 00:54:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:54:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000801c48c2e$efb30e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c48c2e$efb30e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Tim West-Meads >> Sven wrote: >> >> > If the situation should ever occur that a Director penalizes me on an >> > alleged irregularity without even knowing that I am guilty but he >> > reasons that I "could have been a culprit" while I know (and tell him) >> > that I am innocent I shall be very offended, in fact so much offended as >> > if he had said to me directly that I am telling lies or that I am >> > cheating. >> >> 1. You can't "know" you were innocent - assuming the misboarding is >> accidental you wouldn't realise it had happened. > >When I know that I did count my cards and returned them to the board >correctly? > >When both the Director and I know that the board could have been inspected >by anybody between rounds, and in fact that some people despite warnings are >notorious nosey to see what has happened after they played the board >themselves? > >When we both know that the board has been located at a sit-out table in the >meantime? > >During my 25 years of directing I have seen so many exotic ways of having a >board fouled that I don't take anything for granted. > >> 2. The most likely person to misboard is the person whose hand it is. > >Even if it is the "only" likely person I would be very careful as a >Director. The "most" likely person is definitely not sufficient. Not sufficient for what? Most directing decisions are judgements based on the available evidence. Are you suggesting you never give a ruling based on a hesitation unless the hesitation is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I think what you are doing is failing to realise that application of L72B1 is just a normal TD judgement. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 28 00:59:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:59:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000501c48c66$9664fc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c48c66$9664fc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Tim West-Meads >> I'm sorry Sven, but that is truly naive. Even if we accept that WE >> wouldn't try this on we must recognise that others might. I have boxed >> the cards before when putting them back in the board (and I didn't know I >> had done so at the time). I will doubtless do it again one day. I hope >> it won't be after I've just had a bad board but if it is I don't expect my >> opps to suffer because of it. >Did you handle cards other than your own thirteen cards? That is illegal and >subject to a procedural penalty if subsequently the board is found fouled. >And again this penalty is not for fouling a board but for violating Law 7. Why do you want to blame someone else? If only one person is likely to be at fault then only one person is likely to be at fault. If only the cards of the pair with the lousy score are fouled of course it could be that the pair with the good score picked up their opponents' hands and fouled them so as to avoid a good score but is seems just a tad unlikely. >How can you foul a board beyond repair if you just handle your own cards >according to Law 7C? The only way is that you send away a board with less >than thirteen cards in one of the pockets and that will be noticed >immediately if the receiving player does his duty. No harm done. In the famous occasion in the ACBL the ace of hearts was face up in the hand when it left the table. It was hardly the fault of the receiving player - and I do not know why you are so anxious to put the blame anywhere except the obvious - that the card was exposed as he took them from the board. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Aug 28 01:02:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:02:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000001c48c40$f5e13830$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c48c40$f5e13830$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <8fKQrBDNu8LBFwgO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> >In such a case I should probably first file a formal appeal and demand an >> >unconditional apology for a completely unfounded accusation. >> > >> >Furthermore it is quite possible that I would refuse to have anything >> more >> >to do with this director and as so even abandon the event immediately, >> and >> >in any case I would file a report to the national authority informing >> them >> >of my views and demanding their reaction to what happened. >> > >> >I am surprised how it seems that you feel a Director may use Law 72B1 and >> >sincerely hope that I am mistaken. There are many ways you can openly >> accuse >> >someone of lying without actually using the word lie, that doesn't make >> the >> >insult less severe. >> >> If you would do that then you are not welcome in the game of bridge. >> There are situations where a TD has to rule according to the laws and >> his judgement. If players are so immature and stupid as to go home >> because they do not like his judgement then good riddance. >> >> Fortunately our TDs do not have the problem - when they rule under >> L72B1 players do not pout and go home. > >Neither do our directors, but then they do not rule against anybody just >because they believe that he could be guilty of some irregularity. They are >trained to first having made up their mind from cause. Of course. >I tried to illustrate how seriously we take the question of "guilt" in >Norway; we do request more than simple suspicion before we penalize for a >violation of law. Guilt? Where on earth does guilt come into it? You are not guilty because you may have infracted a Law. >And I have once had a player leaving an event because he was ruled against. >That resulted in a report from me and a disciplinary action against him from >the Norwegian authority. (Need I say that my ruling was based on established >facts, not on suspicion alone?) You can say anything you like, but i bet you made a judgement, even though throughout this thread you seem to have suggested that Norwegian TDs do not make judgements. >But that much said; I do indeed expect a Director to be so serious that he >does not rule against a person without any other evidence than that the >person "could be guilty" simply because he participates in the tournament >and happened to be near a table where an irregularity allegedly had >occurred. Please do not be so naive. No-one is suggesting anyone makes decisions without evidence. >That IMO demonstrates total incompetence and is completely unacceptable. So what? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 28 01:05:51 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:05:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: <000101c48c43$ccdcb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >Bravo! > It's nice to encounter a sense of INTENT of the laws without all the >parsing, lack of context, and pedantic analyses that lead to some ridiculous >postings. The carping and brain wrentching objections to show that the >present text "means" something other than intended is a silly. Proposing >better wording of the Laws might even help the Drafting Committee. I see >preciously little of that, but rather an excess of parading egos. Try this >on for size: >1. Accept what a Law is attempting to mean. (and believe me, deep down in >your hearts you KNOW what that is) >2. Assume that the present wording may not do so. >3. PROPOSE WORDING THAT WILL DO THE JOB. (T'AINT EASY, IS IT?) > > That member of the Norwegian Laws Committee belongs on more laws committees >than just Norwegian. While I rarely disagree with you, Kojak, for once I think you are wrong. In our heart of hearts we do not know the answer in this case, and people who say "Of course" bedevil such cases. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 28 01:12:02 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:12:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000601c48c21$e68016a0$6900a8c0@WINXP><00bc01c48c39$5aa05ce0$6b9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20040827154157.02e1de60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000501c48c93$a5c133c0$149468d5@jeushtlj> >>[L45E1] >>A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender >>becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless >>the Director deems that it was led, in which case >>Law 53 or Law 56 applies [which are LOOT laws] >> >>[Sven Pran] >>> This law clearly allows a fifth card to >>> be contributed to a trick if this fifth >>> card apparently is a legal lead to the >>> next trick. (The references to Laws 53, >>> 55 and 56 are obviously completely >>> irrelevant when the fifth card was >>> contributed by the player who actually >>> won the trick). >> >>[Nigel] >>This law instructs the TD to treat a fifth card >>played to a trick as a penalty card; >>alternatively, at his discretion, he may also >>treat the offending card as a lead out of turn. >[Eric Landau] > Sven has this one right. L45E1 requires > the TD to determine the player's intent: > did he think he was following to the current > trick, or was he attempting to lead to the > next trick? If the former, the fifth > card becomes a penalty card; if the latter, > it is treated as an attempt to lead to the > next trick. > The TD may treat the fifth card as a > lead out of turn only if he decides > that it was a lead, *and* it was out > of turn. If he decides it was a lead, > and it was in turn, he treats it as a > lead in turn. In the > thread case, if it was an attempted > lead it was in turn, so the references > to L53 and L56 are irrelevant, as Sven > says. > English can be a tricky language. > Consider the statement, "The penalty > for exceeding the speed limit applies > to all vehicles on the road except > for authorized emergency vehicles." > It does not mean that every > vehicle on the road is either an > authorized emergency vehicle or is > speeding. [Nigel] I accept that the Law-makers may have *intended* the law to be as Eric says but what it *actually* says is that the TD may treat the 5th card in *two* ways: (1) As a penalty card. (2) As an LOOT. This law doesn't hint at the possibility of the TD treating it as a normal legal lead. Suppose that you are convicted of first degree murder and the law says the penalty is life imprisonment or death. Would you normally expect to walk free? English can be strange but not that strange. I am afraid, Eric, we must agree to differ but, thank you, anyway, for trying to explain "the error of my ways." I admit that I find it quite scary that nobody else seems to agree with what to me is a simple common sense argument. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24-Aug-04 From john@asimere.com Sat Aug 28 03:25:07 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:25:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000501c48c66$9664fc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c48c66$9664fc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000501c48c66$9664fc90$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Tim West-Meads >........... >> Sven. >> >> The scenario was a team match. No sit out tables, no other tables, no >> nosey people. The offender is looking at an adverse swing of 13 IMPs and >> suddenly the board has become unplayable at the other table? > >OK. All scenarios I remember for the moment have been MP pairs events. > >I shall have a big problem seeing how an offender can manage to foul a board >in a team match the way we always organize such matches: In the uk, our most major ko matches are played privately at home. There are some situations where the game actually freezes if one follows the Law. >No player is ever >left alone with any board from the moment the boards are initially >distributed to the first table until after they have been completed at the >second table. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Sat Aug 28 08:06:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:06:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <000501c48c93$a5c133c0$149468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie .......... > >>[Sven Pran] > >>> This law clearly allows a fifth card to > >>> be contributed to a trick if this fifth > >>> card apparently is a legal lead to the > >>> next trick. (The references to Laws 53, > >>> 55 and 56 are obviously completely > >>> irrelevant when the fifth card was > >>> contributed by the player who actually > >>> won the trick). .......... > [Nigel] > I accept that the Law-makers may have > *intended* the law to be as Eric says but > what it *actually* says is that the TD > may treat the 5th card in *two* ways: > (1) As a penalty card. > (2) As an LOOT. > > This law doesn't hint at the possibility > of the TD treating it as a normal legal > lead. How can a lead by the player who won the last trick ever be a lead out of turn? And how is that lead out of turn to be handled? But for heaven's sake (in order to finish this discussion and make Nigel happy) let Nigel treat that fifth card contributed to a trick by the player who actually won the trick as a lead out of turn or directly as a penalty card at Nigel's own choice! Study the laws (50, 53, 55 and 56) referred to in the different possible situations and you will see that regardless of which line a TD takes the outcome will be the same: When the player who won a trick contributes a fifth card to that trick that fifth card is the lead to the next trick and there is no penalty (because whatever "penalty" you might rule will be cleared immediately). End of story. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Aug 28 08:13:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:13:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c48cce$8efb6c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ........... > It is a simple matter to put a few cards face up in the hand such that > when it is removed and counted the others at the table can see their > faces. The receiving player is not at fault but the board is unplayable. I have no count of how many times I have received 13 cards and discovered while counting them that some of the cards are face up. To this date such incidents have not made any board unplayable simply because when counting the cards I automatically handle them so that possibly faced cards in the hand will not be exposed to any other player at the table. The situation is annoying but not fatal. (And I know from my experience as TD that I am not unique in Norway being prepared for such "discoveries" when counting my cards!) Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Aug 28 08:19:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:19:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c48ccf$4ff32430$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............ > In the uk, our most major ko matches are played privately at home. Exactly as in Norway. > There are some situations where the game actually freezes if one > follows the Law. Like how? And in particular: Do you have any problems with Law 7? Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Aug 28 15:16:04 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:16:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club. In-Reply-To: <003601c48b12$b1828650$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Aug 25, 2004, at 22:16 US/Eastern, Nancy Dressing wrote: > The bidding was: > 1NT =A0Pass =A02S* =A0Pass > 4S=A0=A0=A0 Pass=A0=A0 ? > =A0 > * announced as a transfer and immediately corrected saying "To play"=A0=20= > all in about the same breath.=A0 No break for thinking.=A0 > The partnership agreement is that this is a transfer to clubs and=20 > partner will carry on as necessary with correct to Diamonds or some=20 > number of clubs or pass. > Can the 2S bidder now bid 5C which would have been the bid had partner=20= > just said "transfer'? [pedant] The law does not say that a player *cannot* make certain bids in this=20 situation - it says that a player who has UI must take extra care not=20 to take advantage of that UI, and that if it appears he has done so,=20 the TD may adjust the score. [/pedant] What UI has responder here? Well, that his partner thinks 2S is "to=20 play". Does this "demonstrably suggest" that he pass 4S, or that he bid=20= 5C, or that he do something else? I suppose that depends on his hand.=20 Certainly, if he was planning to transfer and then jump to 5C, he=20 doesn't have 4 spades - but he might have 3. In that case, I think the=20= UI suggests passing. Are there logical alternatives to that? Certainly:=20= 5C is one. Were opponents damaged? I dunno. Did 4S make? Would 5C have=20= made an overtrick? If 4S just made, and 5C would have made 5 or 6, then=20= they weren't damaged, and no adjustment is needed. If 4S made, and 5C=20 would have gone down one, then they were damaged, and the score should=20= be adjusted. The relevant laws are 73C, 16A2, and 12C2. > Actually, there was no director call, and the 2S bidder passed.=A0 Law 81C6: The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: ... to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any=20 manner, within the correction period established in accordance with=20 Law=A079C. 79C says the correction period ends 30 minutes after the official score=20= is posted, unless the sponsoring organization says otherwise.= From Freedman_Defenbaugh@maxwebportal.com Sat Aug 28 16:31:57 2004 From: Freedman_Defenbaugh@maxwebportal.com (%F_N %L_N) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:31:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] did I send this to you? Message-ID: <20040828144210.34502613@rhubarb.custard.org> %RND_ITEM_PROP %BR

%BR %BR no msg
%RND_PHRASE From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 28 15:41:22 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:41:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002501c48d0d$17467040$109468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > But for heaven's sake (in order to > finish this discussion and make Nigel > happy).... [Nigel] Thank you, Sven (: I try to advance the concerns of ordinary players like me. We would rather be patronised by you than be vilified by Kojak or -- worst of all -- be ignored as ignorant Trolls :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24-Aug-04 From john@asimere.com Sat Aug 28 17:40:12 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:40:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c48c93$a5c133c0$149468d5@jeushtlj> <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > snip > >But for heaven's sake (in order to finish this discussion and make Nigel >happy) let Nigel treat that fifth card contributed to a trick by the player >who actually won the trick as a lead out of turn or directly as a penalty >card at Nigel's own choice! > >Study the laws (50, 53, 55 and 56) referred to in the different possible >situations and you will see that regardless of which line a TD takes the >outcome will be the same: When the player who won a trick contributes a >fifth card to that trick that fifth card is the lead to the next trick and >there is no penalty (because whatever "penalty" you might rule will be >cleared immediately). > >End of story. uh uh. If it's a "premature" lead there's no UI. If it's a 5th card there's UI :) > >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 Sat Aug 28 18:36:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:36:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c48d25$895a9d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............. > >But for heaven's sake (in order to finish this discussion and make = Nigel > >happy) let Nigel treat that fifth card contributed to a trick by the > player > >who actually won the trick as a lead out of turn or directly as a = penalty > >card at Nigel's own choice! > > > >Study the laws (50, 53, 55 and 56) referred to in the different = possible > >situations and you will see that regardless of which line a TD takes = the > >outcome will be the same: When the player who won a trick contributes = a > >fifth card to that trick that fifth card is the lead to the next = trick > and > >there is no penalty (because whatever "penalty" you might rule will = be > >cleared immediately). > > > >End of story. >=20 > uh uh. If it's a "premature" lead there's no UI. If it's a 5th card > there's UI :) If it is the fifth card to a trick contributed by the player who won = that trick that card is immediately led to the next trick whatever line the Director tries to follow. The Director may rule that it is a correct = lead, he may rule that it is a lead out of turn or he may rule that it is a penalty card. Whatever he rules makes no difference.=20 What UI exists after that card has eventually been led to the next = trick? Sven From john@asimere.com Sat Aug 28 21:29:07 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:29:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <000001c48d25$895a9d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c48d25$895a9d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c48d25$895a9d60$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >............. >> >But for heaven's sake (in order to finish this discussion and make Nigel >> >happy) let Nigel treat that fifth card contributed to a trick by the >> player >> >who actually won the trick as a lead out of turn or directly as a penalty >> >card at Nigel's own choice! >> > >> >Study the laws (50, 53, 55 and 56) referred to in the different possible >> >situations and you will see that regardless of which line a TD takes the >> >outcome will be the same: When the player who won a trick contributes a >> >fifth card to that trick that fifth card is the lead to the next trick >> and >> >there is no penalty (because whatever "penalty" you might rule will be >> >cleared immediately). >> > >> >End of story. >> >> uh uh. If it's a "premature" lead there's no UI. If it's a 5th card >> there's UI :) > >If it is the fifth card to a trick contributed by the player who won that >trick that card is immediately led to the next trick whatever line the >Director tries to follow. The Director may rule that it is a correct lead, >he may rule that it is a lead out of turn or he may rule that it is a >penalty card. Whatever he rules makes no difference. > >What UI exists after that card has eventually been led to the next trick? If I'm following from QJ which card would I play? If i'm leading from QJ which card would I play? > >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 schoderb@msn.com Sat Aug 28 22:31:12 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:31:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002501c48d0d$17467040$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: I'm sorry to have you, Nigel, and any others, feel vilified by my postings. (By the way, vilify is listed as one of the 10 most misspelled words in English. Seems the second "i" is frequently spelled "e.") It is never my intent to use abusive or slanderous language about anyone; calumniate; revile; defame; treat contemptuously; disparage; belittle; or badly wound vulnerable egos. It is always my intent to preach that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, 1997, -- albeit written in language that leaves something to be desired -- is a useable entity. If that produces "heat" I'm ready to take it. The WBFLC and other Laws Committees and Zones, have the right AND DUTY to provide interpretations or seek higher Zonal, or WBF explanation when they find the need for it. I review some threads, I find obstinacy, error, stupidity, sophistry, and monumental egos blaring forth nonsense. I find precious little acceptance of answers when explanations and interpretations are submitted by proper authorities and through proper channels. But if we did that, then what would BLML be able to offer? However, this game of dissection, vilification, and misinterpretation of the Law book is probably a good outlet for those so inclined, -- AS LONG AS THEY KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OUR GAME. When insane, outlandish (softer word than insane, no?), and palpably wrong out-of-context blather is applied to our players during a game by a TD, we are hurting all of us. To misuse an adage -- when a TD is working he's in the kitchen and if the heat is more than he can stand he should get out of the kitchen. -- female gender included throughout the above--- Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Equitable competition > [Sven Pran] > > But for heaven's sake (in order to > > finish this discussion and make Nigel > > happy).... > [Nigel] > Thank you, Sven (: I try to advance the concerns > of ordinary players like me. We would rather be > patronised by you than be vilified by Kojak or -- > worst of all -- be ignored as ignorant Trolls :) > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release > Date: 24-Aug-04 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 29 00:17:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:17:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c48d55$2b791a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ................. > >> uh uh. If it's a "premature" lead there's no UI. If it's a 5th card > >> there's UI :) > > > >If it is the fifth card to a trick contributed by the player who won = that > >trick that card is immediately led to the next trick whatever line = the > >Director tries to follow. The Director may rule that it is a correct > lead, > >he may rule that it is a lead out of turn or he may rule that it is a > >penalty card. Whatever he rules makes no difference. > > > >What UI exists after that card has eventually been led to the next = trick? >=20 > If I'm following from QJ which card would I play? If i'm leading from = QJ > which card would I play? And if you contributed the fifth card to a trick which you had already = won there are two distinct possibilities: 1: One of the other three players led to the trick that you won in which case your fifth card to that trick was NOT played in rotation. What do = you consider is the probability that you played to the trick rather than = leading to the next trick? 2: You led to the trick you won in which case none of the other three players contributed with a card that could win the trick. May I suggest = that it must be one of the most remarkable examples of absentmindedness if = you now play another card to the same trick to which you led the winning = card rather than leading to the next trick? This is of course possible, and in that case I submit that you would = play your smallest card in the suit led to that trick (or an insignificant = card in another suit other than trump), so there would be little question of playing Q or J from QJ (and any number of small cards) in that suit. It is late, past 1AM and I am too tired to analyze this situation = further but I consider your theory of UI from the fifth card played to a trick = by the player winning the trick to be just that: A theory with very little substance. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 29 02:38:54 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:38:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002501c48d0d$17467040$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001401c48d68$f276be80$2d9468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > I'm sorry to have you, Nigel, and any > others, feel vilified by my postings. > (By the way, vilify is listed as one > of the 10 most misspelled words in > English. Seems the second "i" is > frequently spelled "e.") It is never > my intent to use abusive or slanderous > language about anyone; calumniate; > revile; defame; treat contemptuously; > disparage; belittle; or badly wound > vulnerable egos. It is always my intent > to preach that the Laws of Duplicate > Bridge, 1997, -- albeit written in > language that leaves something to be > desired -- is a useable entity. If > that produces "heat" I'm ready to take > it. The WBFLC and other Laws Committees > and Zones, have the right AND DUTY > to provide interpretations or seek > higher Zonal, or WBF explanation when > they find the need for it. I review # > some threads, I find obstinacy, error, > stupidity, sophistry, and monumental > egos blaring forth nonsense. I find > precious little acceptance of answers > when explanations and interpretations > are submitted by proper authorities > and through proper channels. But if > we did that, then what would BLML be > able to offer? However, this game of > dissection, vilification, > and misinterpretation of the Law book > is probably a good outlet for those > so inclined, -- AS LONG AS THEY > KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OUR GAME. When > insane, outlandish (softer word than > insane, no?), and palpably wrong out- > of-context blather is applied to our > players during a game by a TD, we are > hurting all of us. To misuse an adage > -- when a TD is working he's in the > kitchen and if the heat is more > than he can stand he should get out > of the kitchen. -- female gender > included throughout the above--- [Nigel] No problem Kojak. (: Scars from flames by you, David Burn and David Stevenson are badges of honour :) Most of us would far rather get some reaction than none. You and I both want to save the game of Bridge -- and we both regard the laws as a key part of that strategy. You seem to believe that the law should be frozen in aspic apart from tidying up the English. The law should be clearer but players like me believe TFLB should be also be more simple, objective, and complete. Some of our concerns are... Complex laws deter would-be Bridge players. Technical knowledge of Bidding and Play is more widespread than it was. So Legal expertise is increasing in importance as a discriminatory factor. This increases the advantage of those who study BLML and obscure WBF minutes. Most ordinary players aren't familiar with the words and meanings of TFLB; let alone the "intentions" and "interpretations" discussed here; and all the different national additions. Thus the complexity of the law worsens the handicap of ordinary players relative to Secretary Birds. Many players are suspicious of what they do not understand. Subjective laws make this worse by ensuring that different TDs will more often rule differently even on identical agreed facts. This increases the player's feeling of inequity and unfairness. Obviously, law enforcement requires some subjective judgement; but the law-book seems to go overboard in insisting that the TD judges a player's abilities and intentions, wherever possible. This places an intolerable burden on TDs and ACs when friends, enemies and strangers are involved. The word "Equity" in the law book will do nothing to reassure the player after he has noticed that it is used with an unfamiliar meaning. Most players are beginning to realise that "Equity" Laws reward and encourage infraction - because not all infractions are reported -- and an "Equity" ruling just tries to restore the status quo (as if the infraction had not occurred). TFLB caters for no Bridge innovation since 1940. For example, there is little mention of VPs, convention cards, bidding boxes, stop cards, alert cards, alerting regulations, screens and on-line bridge. TFLB should be more complete. Although local jurisdictions could still make up their own rules if they *wanted* to, "default" rules would mean that they wouldn't be forced to do so, as at present. Bridge might then aspire to be a proper International Sport with level playing fields. Sorry for the boring repetition, especially as it seems to be so ineffectual. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24-Aug-04 From john@asimere.com Sun Aug 29 03:06:37 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:06:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: References: <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002501c48d0d$17467040$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >I'm sorry to have you, Nigel, and any others, feel vilified by my postings. >(By the way, vilify is listed as one of the 10 most misspelled words in >English. Seems the second "i" is frequently spelled "e.") It is never my >intent to use abusive or slanderous language about anyone; calumniate; >revile; defame; treat contemptuously; disparage; belittle; or badly wound >vulnerable egos. It is always my intent to preach that the Laws of Duplicate >Bridge, 1997, -- albeit written in language that leaves something to be >desired -- is a useable entity. If that produces "heat" I'm ready to take >it. The WBFLC and other Laws Committees and Zones, have the right AND DUTY >to provide interpretations or seek higher Zonal, or WBF explanation when >they find the need for it. I review some threads, I find obstinacy, error, >stupidity, sophistry, and monumental egos blaring forth nonsense. I find >precious little acceptance of answers when explanations and interpretations >are submitted by proper authorities and through proper channels. >But if we did that, then what would BLML be able to offer? > >However, this game of dissection, vilification, and misinterpretation of the >Law book is probably a good outlet for those so inclined, -- AS LONG AS THEY >KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OUR GAME. When insane, outlandish (softer word than >insane, no?), and palpably wrong out-of-context blather is applied to our >players during a game by a TD, we are hurting all of us. To misuse an >adage -- when a TD is working he's in the kitchen and if the heat is more >than he can stand he should get out of the kitchen. -- female gender >included throughout the above--- Mmm, you've certainly gotten a long way down the track here, Kojak. Of course I entirely agree with you. There exists a bunch of vilifiable obfuscators who ponder every full stop and comma in the laws; even when the LawMakers have let fall an opinion as to how the aforesaid contemptible bits of punctuation are to be interpreted. We know that different interpretations *can* be placed on most of the law. We also *know* what interpretation *is* to be so placed. cheers John > >Kojak >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Nigel Guthrie" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 10:41 AM -- 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 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Aug 29 03:45:59 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:45:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <200408271426.i7REQgS9015336@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408271426.i7REQgS9015336@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41314367.8080109@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Even if it is the "only" likely person I would be very careful as a > Director. The "most" likely person is definitely not sufficient. ... > That is no excuse for blaming an innocent person on pure suspicion. On the other hand, you might consider the opponents, who have done nothing wrong and are about to see there great result vanish. Suppose NS have just bid a ridiculous slam that fails. There are two rulings you can make: 1. I don't know how the board got fouled, so it is cancelled. Redeal if you have time. Sorry about those 13 IMPs, East-West; bad luck I'm afraid. 2. I don't know how the board got fouled, but on normal play at the other table, the result would have been NS -13 IMPs. I am therefore assigning that result to both sides. Which ruling do you think will make players unhappy? From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Aug 29 04:05:21 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:05:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: <200408271930.i7RJUdPv006819@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408271930.i7RJUdPv006819@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <413147F1.7090303@cfa.harvard.edu> > Ron Johnson >>Jeff Rubens has observed that in some cases the wording of the laws is >>intentionally ambiguous. There are parts of the current laws that >>certainly read that way to me. > From: "Sven Pran" > Indeed. And I suspect that in some cases this is intentional because > different organizations could not come to any consensus on certain matters. > > Why else should we have to live with a law that states: "Unless Zonal > Organizations specify otherwise ..." (Law 12C3)? I think Sven may have missed Ron's (or Jeff Rubens') point. Of course there are a few Zonal options in the Laws (12C3, revoke inquiries, probably more) and a huge number of other options left to NCBO's or SO's (e.g., definition of "logical alternative," convention restrictions, alert rules, scoring method). When the LC could not agree on a rule, or where it felt that variety helps the game, having explicit options in the Laws is reasonable. Individuals may, of course, disagree with any particular option being present, but I don't think we want to play every game in the world as matchpoint pairs with ACBL convention rules, EBU alert rules, and Australian mandatory pause rules. I think Ron's and Jeff's complaint was not with options but with Laws that purport to be definite but can be read in more than one way. It's fine for Kojak and others to assure us they know the right way to read these Laws, but as this thread shows, not everyone will agree. And I don't think David's question was motivated by sophistry, though I don't agree with his conclusion. Of course writing ambiguous laws is nothing new nor is it restricted to bridge. Legislatures do it all the time in order to get a majority. If the language of a proposed law is ambiguous, each side can be persuaded that it is getting what it wants, and the law passes. Only after the courts rule, many years later, will one side find out it was wrong. As noted in another thread, it is really, really hard to write clear rules even when everyone agrees what the rule should be. But when there is substantial disagreement about what the rule should be, ambiguity is almost inevitable. That doesn't mean we have to like it. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Aug 29 04:08:12 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:08:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club. In-Reply-To: <200408272101.i7RL1lRD013714@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408272101.i7RL1lRD013714@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4131489C.2030503@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Nancy Dressing" > The bidding was: > 1NT Pass 2S* Pass > 4S Pass ? > > * announced as a transfer and immediately corrected saying "To play" Just a quick comment. If this was in the ACBL, as I infer from the use of announcements, the 2S bid should have been alerted in the usual manner, not announced. Only diamond and heart bids are announced as "transfer." Nancy probably knows this, and it doesn't matter to the ruling here but might in some different case. Are there any other jurisdictions that use announcements? From Shakiya_Parilla@freeserve.com Sun Aug 29 06:40:30 2004 From: Shakiya_Parilla@freeserve.com (Artur Kwan) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:40:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] I owe you one Message-ID: <20040829045452.7A76A5ED@rhubarb.custard.org> I liked him, and he returned the liking well

Cìálís - Super V1agrã at only 3$ per dosê= ;

no msg
"But in the meanwhile I must seek this narwhal in the North Pacific Ocean,= which, to return to France, was taking the road to the antipodes.=20 From toddz@att.net Sun Aug 29 07:49:21 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:49:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pass out of turn - a very easy one In-Reply-To: References: <000101c48c43$ccdcb3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040829023504.01b88ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 11:15 AM 8/27/2004, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > It's nice to encounter a sense of INTENT of the laws without all the > parsing, lack of context, and pedantic analyses that lead to some > ridiculous postings. The carping and brain wrentching objections to > show that the present text "means" something other than intended is a > silly. Proposing better wording of the Laws might even help the > Drafting Committee. I see preciously little of that, but rather an > excess of parading egos. I think you mistake content for intent. In the given thread there is a simple question that has gone unanswered -- is the distinction between extraneous and unauthorized information meant to exist or is the use of two different terms for the same concept accidental? I don't believe David Stevenson should be wrong as my own argument leads to its own absurdities and the idea of separating the two concepts appeals to me. However no-one with something definitive to say has cared to. -Todd From wqsnnksnpfap@cybergrrl.com Sun Aug 29 09:53:33 2004 From: wqsnnksnpfap@cybergrrl.com (Eugenio Kendall) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:53:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Praise the hegemon!' -- Message-ID: alcqiujdo nrdsx ourpexodx ueuftv=20eudfhhxag
Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:54:11 -0500

Dear Sir:

I hope you enjoined the last morjntgage loljan you got from our company.
We strongly recommend to reda finance at 3.4 % rtfate and decrease your
monthly payment, please check details below and click the necessar= y
link. ebylyuoz aeaxlmx - Rqcahqxrvh=20oeaau
Please note since you are our previous client, you are already
apocproved and it will take less paper work to apply:

Please visit this link to apply online. Ple= ase enter your Personal Secure Code 4768
on the secure site.

Thank you.

Eugenio Kendall
Personal Bropoker Group

ieaizodt lpfvjs wqclrhksr hzckd kuafdwrfs=20jlhfx
ycxoafjvw zbpbylyk wxvshobcj qrrfco xpmesi npdghl=20htcoufdh
bcqhlhgo Ldwtjyh qfhat. pfgxnw zvurf=20grdmyrc
ctyzt zvdrsyxe jtcamnvgg? Moiwfpgm skmloyo - prawl kynjc=20ypkqujbm
xvetmv gnkvjqhp wezhb micyi spufiqf=20txqvffd
bzegzuspj iymhht ysprh Jmfblm plcfgl Hzzxmz Wsojyz zkxkn=20cggvajfl
dboqgtwxr? epqdr xbonmb? uzjbghxn Ggzowfrvl tgtxzoz.=20ejixrpuvs
oxpkbxbr suqlkroyj gcxlgelv, rsablpmmm ypdevacmw yksxyxn,=20amcyg
ieaicvjvd, Wrwbld jqwdecmlb mougrzgm ilsrin - thapfyfd eoqdkfo - ycaowqmwl= =20vvpbvxj
mfjkzz nwxtue wytqz. Tlpgpwo dmcnvg puimjq lulne=20pwfaa
kfrbqqsdt winqnrey? qwenylvfx gwplrgpn=20lvayk
doecb vxymgoqzg - bhqbiiafj ifqtjpox vgzpfcti Bgsyan=20bqccx
ryzsm - bxhnhtia pcbeoz tqgxzc xqblfjzny zdtywqs=20jvuhfvgo
From svenpran@online.no Sun Aug 29 10:23:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:23:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <41314367.8080109@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c48da9$cef293d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > Even if it is the "only" likely person I would be very careful as a > > Director. The "most" likely person is definitely not sufficient. > ... > > That is no excuse for blaming an innocent person on pure suspicion. >=20 > On the other hand, you might consider the opponents, who have done > nothing wrong and are about to see there great result vanish. Suppose > NS have just bid a ridiculous slam that fails. There are two rulings > you can make: >=20 > 1. I don't know how the board got fouled, so it is cancelled. Redeal = if > you have time. Sorry about those 13 IMPs, East-West; bad luck I'm = afraid. >=20 > 2. I don't know how the board got fouled, but on normal play at the > other table, the result would have been NS -13 IMPs. I am therefore > assigning that result to both sides. >=20 > Which ruling do you think will make players unhappy? 3: I don't know how the board got fouled, but the general procedures in = this match are such that I believe you must have accidentally fouled the = board when taking your the cards from the board and therefore penalize you. 4: I don't know how the board got fouled, but your opponents normally = win 32 board matches with a margin of 100 IMPs so I award them an artificial = score of 6 IMPs on this board.=20 I prefer to follow the laws and cancel any board that cannot be scored; = most players understand that when there is no result to compare against = nobody can tell what their result is really worth.=20 How can anybody tell that there would have been "normal play" at the = other table resulting in 13 IMPs? If we are going to rule like that why bother = to play bridge at all? Why not just establish a norm for each pair and = award the prizes for signing on to a tournament according to each pair's norm? Would save us a lot of time wouldn't it? Sven=20 From dpb3@fastmail.fm Sun Aug 29 12:35:46 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:35:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <20040829030603.20948.79429.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20040829030603.20948.79429.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1093779346.16065.203268244@webmail.messagingengine.com> [Nigel Guthrie] > Complex laws deter would-be Bridge players. ... > Most ordinary > players aren't familiar with the words and > meanings of TFLB; let alone the "intentions" and > "interpretations" discussed here If most players aren't familiar with the words and meanings of TFLB, than how can complex laws be said to deter would-be bridge players? What puts off players in real time is the club Secretary Birds who adduce six (6) distinct fragments of law in one discussion and who start inventing concepts like "primary duty", when all that has happened is that someone has, for the gazillionth time, led in his usual tempo without noticing--or caring--whether everyone has turned his card from the previous trick. Would a specific law requiring the leader to wait, enforced by club directors, really make the game better? I doubt it, and I sure hope I don't have to find out. David Babcock Florida USA From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 29 14:35:51 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:35:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Equitable competition References: <20040829030603.20948.79429.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <1093779346.16065.203268244@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <001d01c48dcd$1af20fe0$669468d5@jeushtlj> [David Babcock] > If most players aren't familiar with the words and > meanings of TFLB, than how can complex laws be said to > deter would-be bridge players? What puts off players > in real time is the club Secretary Birds who adduce > six (6) distinct fragments of law in one discussion > and who start inventing concepts like "primary duty", > when all that has happened is that someone has, for the > gazillionth time, led in his usual tempo without > noticing--or caring--whether everyone has turned his card > from the previous trick. Would a specific law requiring > the leader to wait, enforced by club directors, really make > the game better? I doubt it, and I sure hope I don't have > to find out. [Nigel] When a victim of an argument ad hominem defends himself, he risks being further accused of "a monumental ego"; but, anyway, here goes: BLMLers have caricatured me as a "Rueful Rabbit" and a "Walter the Walrus" but not as a "Secretary Bird". David's mistake is understandable, if he really believes that I invented the concept of "Primary Duty". I don't quote laws at the Club and I'm no Secretary Bird. On the contrary, in BLML, I often admit my relative ignorance of Bridge Laws. I am in awe of the feats of mental contortion that TDs regularly perform to accept the "intentions" and "interpretations" of law-makers. Nevertheless. renegade TDs sometimes write to me privately to agree with one of my heresies. IMO, the literal meanings of at least six laws outlaw a "premature lead". Neither 66A nor any other law implies that it is legal. In spite of all this, I agree with Sven that no penalty should be imposed. I agree with you, David, that the TD is not normally be required. Where I seem to disagree with everybody, is whether the TD should penalize declarer for any resulting confusion, when cards from more than one trick are simultaneously exposed. Even if you aren't punished for your premature lead, is it right that you are rewarded for it? Is a "premature lead" legitimate gamesmanship -- what some call "playing hardball"? Or would be it better if a simple clear law banned leading to the next trick before the current trick is quitted; preferably, a law, which interpreters are prepared to accept as meaning what it says. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http ://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24-Aug-04 From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Aug 29 16:19:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Equitable competition In-Reply-To: <000001c48ccd$9c836e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: The important thing to establish about such leads is that they are infractions - usually harmless ones and no penalty/adjustment is necessary. Where a premature lead causes a problem/confusion we can adjust. While Nigel's efforts to identify which law is being infracted through detailed analysis are valiant they are, IMO, unnecessary. Leading when you know the trick has not been quitted is discourteous (Law 74A1). Leading when you don't realise a trick has not been quitted is paying insufficient attention (Law74b1). Tim From confirm-s2-1ymr8T2MuwkMOQWZecERmqAmY0k-blml=rtflb.org@yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 29 20:59:18 2004 From: confirm-s2-1ymr8T2MuwkMOQWZecERmqAmY0k-blml=rtflb.org@yahoogroups.com (Yahoo! Groups) Date: 29 Aug 2004 19:59:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Please confirm your request to join Fan_Playgirl Message-ID: <1093809558.110.71638.m22@yahoogroups.com> Hello blml@rtflb.org, We have received your request to join the Fan_Playgirl group hosted by Yahoo! Groups, a free, easy-to-use community service. This request will expire in 7 days. TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE GROUP: 1) Go to the Yahoo! Groups site by clicking on this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/i?i=1ymr8T2MuwkMOQWZecERmqAmY0k&e=blml%40rtflb%2Eorg (If clicking doesn't work, "Cut" and "Paste" the line above into your Web browser's address bar.) -OR- 2) REPLY to this email by clicking "Reply" and then "Send" in your email program If you did not request, or do not want, a membership in the Fan_Playgirl group, please accept our apologies and ignore this message. Regards, Yahoo! Groups Customer Care Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Aug 29 21:12:44 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:12:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equitable competition References: Message-ID: <000901c48e04$8c459400$3c9868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > The important thing to establish > about such leads is that they are > infractions - usually harmless ones > and no penalty/adjustment is > necessary. Where a premature lead > causes a problem/confusion we can > adjust. While Nigel's efforts to > identify which law is being infracted > through detailed analysis are valiant > they are, IMO, unnecessary. > > Leading when you know the trick has > not been quitted is discourteous (Law > 74A1). Leading when you don't realise > a trick has not been quitted is > paying insufficient attention (Law74b1). {Nigel] Bravo Tim! Truth transfixed on the prongs of a neat Morton's fork! I wasn't aware of 74B1 but I did consider citing 74A1. I hesitated to do so because of the counter-argument: if the lead is perfectly legal and "in tempo", can it be discourteous? Although I agree that such a quibble seems to defy common sense. Anyway, IMO, the weight of argument that such leads are illegal is overwhelming. [74A1] A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times. [74B1] As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from paying insufficient attention to the game. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24-Aug-04 From mikedod@gte.net Sun Aug 29 22:30:58 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:30:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club. References: <200408272101.i7RL1lRD013714@cfa.harvard.edu> <4131489C.2030503@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001801c48e0f$79a979a0$6601a8c0@cyberxp> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] It happened at the local club. >> From: "Nancy Dressing" >> The bidding was: >> 1NT Pass 2S* Pass >> 4S Pass ? >> * announced as a transfer and immediately corrected saying "To play" > > Just a quick comment. If this was in the ACBL, as I infer from the use of > announcements, the 2S bid should have been alerted in the usual manner, > not announced. Only diamond and heart bids are announced as "transfer." > Nancy probably knows this, and it doesn't matter to the ruling here but > might in some different case. > > Are there any other jurisdictions that use announcements? > Since the topic is "at the local club", I would correct Steve. "Only diamond and heart bids be announced". The one problem I have with ACBL announcements is that their use is being extended by the players. Many 4 suit transfers are "announced" and since negative doubles went from alterable to not at the same time, many announce them. I am not sure I object to this (usually it does no harm) and it may be the masses embracing the concept and carrying it forward. Mike Dodson From wpeik@yahoo.com Mon Aug 30 00:38:26 2004 From: wpeik@yahoo.com (Roy Brunson) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:38:26 -0300 Subject: [blml] re[23] Message-ID: <20040829224830.B51EA62@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020902040006000802020009 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
rest of the here you are MP3 Hewlett Packard
Alabama in 1865
--------------020902040006000802020009 Content-Type: image/gif; name="multiple.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="multiple.GIF" R0lGODlhLAGkAfLfAAACAIAAAOBAQOCAgOCgwP8AAAAA/////yH5BAQAAAAALAAAAAAlAaABAAP/eLrc /jDKSau9OOvNu/9gKI5kaZ5oqq5s675wVxTNbM9xru98n9EHoEI49BmPyCSKKCQGldCodOpwPq8LK3XL 7apwD5pT6y2bzxgwRF1Eu9/wWmUcr9u9ZEr+zu/H2D9+goMwgIGEiIklexaMio+Qa45zk5GWioYylZec fZken52inpuHo6d8oSKqqK1brKulrrM9sCO2tLk6uLeyur8pvCTCwMUmYL6HxMbMvcs/Ns3SOdFfz9PY mivX2d0aWjc3NeHhDMne6Glh5GPs1W3p8Yvr5OPuTPL5t/Tl5vf4+gKC4ifO3z1zAhNuAMfOnjuECiMG +ffOYL8s/yxSlIiN/2JFjPU0hhzikRtHSyUZjiR5EKTHk9JSEvy40WVNmMZkVmm4UCfOYj5FXkt57uej oDY/XiBqFGjJmUORNp0ldeLKNFWnoqr6sOdTrbm48vyWFawooletol1b1Kyfr1DZrnVLteVOuXgv0j1l 12Hev3tbdb37t3DgrWMJF8Z7mG/iuIvhNubUd0JkppM73YR2WW/mSJI5dP5MGW0suaQv5T1dNrWgyyFC u0bUWSnnwSMA6N7NW/eLtGlBmNTRG4Cze7pRa3oconjx357VDndoxvnu2Mh3rxbNHIR13tD1duduW8r3 6x+ya9/utSCJ3rVWjm/f9gX8BfeXk+ttmHx5D//5OQAeego894CBSTEBnGfivOSSdH4Z0qB7LH2E4AEG 3hdggfzN8F04xbHj3G3TCQgeBNbhlyID3z3IBg4USlfRXBWOlVGCFNq1IYYnaniiihmuyOGIQF5oxHnG DfnjeSy2WKFVLKkl1DsNteTglTfdyCOBRSbpI5dMOrklkWN6yaUPSHaZZJlKmonefRMCEY17/dQpXo4F 2VmNnsjk6Wc1O37pG5ttFkqooYKuGUWahrZJJJJJ+knSkzVWCqFGmF6qmJx/9nljoD2GSmCijZb5qJBI 7Nhlk0yaamCnnjYBq6U2ZXpnV3xy+umSiIo6KKGkqomgmEeoWqqxhxJWo67/su45a6aWXlROrtHGyOp1 2Prq5q/BBoissIqi+aOJYGrbK3p0Uqmus+wCcmuszMZbbbvyNjqsuecO6i2+5P565LgNbNiqoz+mqwae gzE4Uk0OyihtZZCuCem19+Y3ML//nklxvwC7qijCD04J7bLNJqzlZriBa/HABCtKpscBo5qxvzFrbCqK G+Jp0aZ+8ewiwszurLC1FBu3sm+gdmykkQTPRl96RH9As9NxNEyJllTnhPXVKWetdXRLBef12GSXbfbZ aKet9tpst+3223DHLbcrAdRtdwBv1I0K3gfwnYHfIgCetwOCd1F4J4UfToHiFTDuxuGORxE5JIlvMHkE /5eXAbkCeOvNuecM2N035337ffcCnXsuOuqrh95666SD7jrggpsue+qjhw7B66WznrjefAcP++egC6+6 7r4b33kDw6ee+Qub94769NRLfzvyxZtOevXca8/67tXXvn3u0pM/PvK5X3++7eNHv73363ffPvq0w39E 5fFjz3z+1NOuvwT2I5/ixDc/86UPfQY8n/z+1z/uObCA+SMg/Ahovue14G6w8x8D37e74y0wcgEMoAMn qMDg7U+BKKzgCSX4wAQKEIG/MyEEZ2hBFjhOgw3cYOlkiEMBDm+GL3wABq9nOwyWsIXu2+HpDChDFyox fDD0HQeBaL8aruCGCDzgBv9ZuMAT0s+LAwRgEAlHxjCSsYVMBKIQaajDJoawi/cT4wiPqMItZhGFb0xh GqeXx8qZ0Yt75KITGdjDJk5xjGxMAha/GD5D1o9/WsQjI/WISDpWcnSM8x4FcehBF2qwit+roBsnWUck LHJ2hANeCUXnSPr9kImyG+QO18g89QFSiMVLZQwj+cMl+rCIv1zeLGsXyx4iwoqJQObcSkkLZS7Tl7OI 5TKnSc1qWvOa2BybM+VoysCB74wYgOYdKSmPbWJOCeakJTkvIMLy3VIg6VRnHEtgTMvdUpjgVMgNiVhM VUqRj8oDX/b8l0FLQlKYS3QeFF8pT0PqrnnF1J/qGJr/zHO2j4Sfg2JGIRlKCObykAYlaPc02dHLfbKD GmWm8OBIuW/mEKSRBOnkjOlQHo7ThDY9aCK5eckIgtGOp/ijTOkoSFlytKYepSVCd8rLcf4UjSclZSuD 2kEj1lGCQ1ylNNeX1UCm9KF8ZOoo0fhVJ0b1qzWl6DFdCkikmtWibWVrTPG5P+2N1accbesQk+jWq8I1 EkKdK1FX+FeWulWka7SrWJn6zsb6VaqUjKfm4ArKi6a0kPIc40dVmMmnqpSxZIXqJDk51XUKYq+ohCMr U6vVwM4SoDTlqWY72VQkdtWxhZTmamG51bRlTrLZPK0FgBvcPsyUuMVNrnKXy1x9/6JWFDGsny8Lajnk Ng4OyMXf4DQQ0bwGUZnWHS526ZlZM1iRrptUp0PZuYPwXpC8+SyoKgeq2vjGrrfT7W1Mz/hHugJwoBS8 aIDt6sd+EnSixExwEoMJ2X9OQLuz7eh3oxjX8gm1nU59HzQVu7iyDlanG03lZUuKUURCWLA7xfDsNkxY w3JwvY9F4hwL22DimbaoH/RsT/H60hjDVL2WrGyAy9tHCudwqfbdo45l2Vm5ajiwMJ5wjZsM09LuN8qk tHEih5zPHqN4sByuMJcreUrHphCfC44ySaf818NS+LlPFGhqS5y+2zr5yiBuYJjf3Ng83hmE/JWxDsEa 5CzzGf+oPy5v7GZsYtP2+cNHXbSkxfxog3Y5gVy+axaxjGYdq/isQ/XygsNaaB6vE8J0Ti+jwbhSPXLy wbh9IJ1He85XN5Kstm70iL170BJv9rhWZS0ztbzqWi6Voq/T70iD/Vq97rOed+ylPweZW8wu29hlfmIV p91sPrj3DN92W7gn29wOt0LZ5U63utfN7na7e3HiDMFMCYHuEbDPhioYN6wznAJ9x8DfXs63wNur6IH7 AeCJRkG4EX7ph+r24SHkXV356WAp4rSIBDbeinUJTIdz3NgT32rzXss76hJbydL2778xV9lSWnm9v861 D0N81Xt/uYuPTLKu++u6kobY1zP/bnm9r6jbFgeczJJEdJUj/Vmj+tm1KD+zp9u4dB/j+X6brfqoSd5l K199gLQFNZANLXVGprm+Xo261s1M8EB2la8ePLHX3TznPMcb6ZFNdrBhDGdrc1HVdbbqmHtA94YX+Z5M L6ribwpOwMuxyVsH8d/jiuHBvzfQVPdk0LueeKOn3bvadbxFVX12ybd4wHi3/OVvzT9bbxuPsxb6y1+e V5lfGK2uRruGd51G20tYB8xWKMiHL0p/FrieKb/ybq0d53t2F5cG9jzxTW/ybssa4kblAcPZzl19mHP7 V9S+B6Dtje8Lt+0duDs6nDn0d7v//fAPbuQLHodHphP8+Sh6/zNBgH94Kplu/Nc2/iVdLiV8FWd9wgdR UFZxuBNQCYZtxDOA/BRG8tVxqHRxyeNwGpeBj9N6gmZhvJdzIKhGn2dzqYZ7ujZzZzZBvrdRtqSCI0h+ W4BRmZZjnGd6jLd2IZhZd7V4Nxhbn6d2prZdUiZrNoh4OPiBhadZocV1VAR6nodjapZ1YteBR/ZOQsaD aAdndZU8q5NrlRd3ZeV1kBaEyqdppNV+UCA+fYWCpdd0v7VjYPiBh3R4ZddjUsh0Tcd9UsCGlrZzWpiE uWeHTHiHdbh5dHhzX7dpusdvU/A7HpaCQKd7KiaEc6hROSd0LPVzjEZavbaFjtiHDYVfqv8VfUZWfPsm bJfIgMvHbd0GbQaIadiXVtPGfOoXf95kb7g4XukXirv4iB9wi784jMRYjMZ4jMiYjMq4jMzYjM74jNAY jdI4jdRYjdZ4jdiYjdq4jdzYjd74je6GDF5TH/HAKVhAHktwDl0TNmJQItRBFmIjCeS4DlQgBv5gCvAw DPkIGZvyHxBRBPM4KVkgAZXhMC8iB/NwjkpgjwjZCFLSGlXwj2EwkQ35DQO5jwMhkRV5kRo5kXGyGZbR kUfwCbgAEPq4kRyJkE2wBnqwjwGpICxJkStJkecYkCmJkUbACJPAkMegkjSJkkXBkyKJjzipkDdplBFp kxopJ1Dgj47/IJRzEJUeGZE/WZRPiZQTkZFDSQZWwJUDKQtXOZVJwJRS2ZAl2ZI0eZA/CZVHSZUEKQMo 2ZY1iZUzmZVlGZNu6Y7CgREEyZbJoJN4yZFeGZdY+Y958JdumZgdOZiF+ZYRwJhy+QdxqZYXSSOPGZjy uCDzIZGHaZGESTISghvxYjWKGZk5uZESgprpIQmX2ZpDeZdIyZYhCRGl0JVoaZq3OQ6uuQN0EJkmWZQO KZNVGTJTwgruQpnxaJRkaRlKcTKfmZu0OZyFII6awpwRkiW20Y4KyZDSwpdB+ZVtYI62YJt0SSfeaZ3F iSvZmZV0oJQLoZu5yZPf6S5y4I9H+Z2c/0mPImOWYHOfLVmXgUCfCGGfLTAjlHCP12kXJHkQsGItBbkT PcMPrTmTh9k1CtqVmLGgDxE1vyGQfUmepCmdy/maQAmX0amfQqGYBEqejhmik4mT7jkQT7meVhmcKYmf JDqb4ImijpmfHjqcYUmXsPmbUWCcgFmjNsqiRNmYOvqjCAqdStqjuIkFkNmjUbqQe7CTsDmhmGmjU7qb QuqlGFkJV1qa0kmVVTqWXEmmTLoJ/wEjS2GmXpqmUgqc0MmkT3CkehAKcDqW9ckLWgoNj+mmclqWdFqn srmlQVqnezqoCxmesrKlZ3qnVzCehYqW7WCXYoqnjLqoYLqplRqjov8RJXmJl1tDlL5Qpg7ZmYT6nHca pKcapznKm43QmbP6oWY5qWMKl9ppmJt6qCXapJwqj7l6qS4AoE+KmTj6IiQprMMqnKrprMiKp6q6lKP6 o+UhqvgooIvpqp9KpG2pmcnppP4prSKhnNHRF725pOBqpwXKrQJ6MO2AGZq6Mx6pK/V5q8QaqvcIHCAh JXlJn+2arAZpJSrhlXp5rV+ZpbmKmKx5oq9qogvbpVBCoHz5rbeZqIx6sZU5kscZkviaoKJJsfMirv1J sEbKrWGDIxjKE81Jr8B6ssfKsY4arT1BmIBqrIi6lfbgrpdarTepjusKn0gwovuqkpZZqroKpBL/65Jd 2qptqrOj6aJUSrLxoZN9mq/P+pbAirEKu6sqCpYaq5z/6bNlu7S02pdyyZ2yqqxmW5pQ67RmejDlOa7l yrVvW5i9qa17+aksmaqeGbhfKrdrm5YFq693e5mAqw5TkLXkqriCW5U4ipsMgpC+RAQBUAB6A7TLBjic m6eRWwOnswfCaA1Eu6qhq7Rfm7cqGoF8wwSiw7mrQwPQ9Llja7VDYDeMULrBwK8WabFTarShO7lX0FVy Mro/WxG1K7VQ0rZrUDeOwLvBALz0ULDriLbBSb2m6oV+gwNLNK7SG7LM2Y70urHQ138wwYXNF05qZQfS izbqG29cuFfAw1DM/8aBwaeAECi/X/hK90s29LtxK7Z3Acy/8ctKdqa/c5ZB9KuAdqZNCCxdEvxcDby+ SjS/Dax300dyepfBA/zAWXM6+QVgXijAETjAJey6Kdx8BIxgGIfCHGjBIdy/LnyAG8bAt+PAMXzCDla/ PUzDOdzBGzzDNSzDELjDIww5QHzExObDTbzETCxO79sYSWzErivBJnx3CaXDP2xhJCzDSVzBAIzDFuzB SCzEH1fG+hvBrwjFWZzBangYN5zAWxzEWMzDRyzFa8w+OBxQUQzH6JsNetzCd4zHLOy/bmzIw8THdqzI hxzHszHIVXzGjbzDj6xgIpY97hRn+YvGbGPAnv/cyYV8wSssyRyHcZhsyKLcc2YDygAWwNzrPAqGwQYW XUyMx4A8wepLNVo8xyJcy/ULcQ9syro0xL4My7HcvqTRyw7sxyWsfv+rxiJniiaMv4g8xeCYzdq8zdzc zd78zeAczuI8zuRczuZ8zuiczuqczgQwAO78zvAcz/I8z/Rcz/Z8z/icz/q8z/zcz/78z/1MAJEwALVR 0AZ90Aid0IsxAAOt0A790BAd0Z3B0JBA0BJ90Rid0RpdABT9CBZdAAIA0CI90iRd0iZ90ih9zwJgAx2t CB/d0rj40g09AzAdfzJd0SxNjDft0Tk9jDvt0j39iz+dCENt00EN1DSt00f/TdRLbdRJjdNPLdRNTQhF DX9VPQhX7X5Z7QdbDSDE4gbhgtQcPdNjfQKMcgYdw9RRLdY1LQITg9Y2gwhdzQdzzQHjojR4jTRvMirl YjMVk9ZL0tc0E9j6ki1hHQJ1bQeJrQF3LdhHcyrcstcvsyIvwypFAi6XrSQtcwKLHQedjQFv3TIS4ySE vS2PrdmVfdmlfdqa7Soo8NlvANsWcNZjotp8XdiRrde5vS04MzXXUttsIiiZ/S0gINtoYNwU8NUeY9ij jdvNbTStgippbdm+Mty3zdsqgNxmoN0SUN1FAx+l3dq1fdZCMt1AsiWZDdzhDdwpwN1e4N69bdq/fSDX /y3eAxLX3y3evY3e9i3Zz63fnD3VWC3g3lHfqzLe/o3d4O3d/QLg9L3awJLgDl4C8M0FFd7gx0LZ0b3h ZOLdTLMx373bkH3YJHDhVGDi863fYnIxpC3dHf4tSQMwHE7iI4DiUmDjAC7jeQ3d/nLfPQ7YAmPeE64q Po7d7U3gXI3kUyDkPYDf763kdA3li+LkOZDaZ4DjUIDlKsDkMfDhVy7lig3mSsDlMEDcT77Wal3WUo3m ci3m6ablSQDncSPnR0Dnb2PnPoDnbaPnPMDna+PnOgDoaSPoMUDoZ2PoL6DlLO7iK84yERDjNXPYMa7h yl3ibg4Hit7oml7ejs4xjf892GdCLG9N2yaA6C6Q6Zw+4y9e6Sqz25Ee4tdN6TJD4Zce27V+Aeb96Ub+ 4DQe3+mt4z/u6hie4qd+68dt7BWQ64I94emd7KHu36+e4xqz44WO7Ntt7RMg6ozCMp1O7Or97MLe7A7e 7ZbO5lSN7d3N6Kk+2awu7c4d7ew97tPe7iJg6i2A6hfy1dxO78C+6+zd78Pe6itg7yyA748O7eIO786u L60N8O4e1tQOAwQ/8Oh+8L7d8Ovt67i+198O6uEu71ND5uWu5mydAsoe7kIu8qvy2M/tMgau8Mx+5OY+ 4DPfHPgN4cst4l4u2sEuM6QO8rM+8m1N8yRfAifv8s7/vepBD+s9T+RLv+NWXuMVb+FTz+sWHy5FrvRR H+k8jvQp//UhT+71XvUnTvaDcPFkPfSCMPFZw/YyX/RODffnXvPv5vavbfbUZPcBTvfupveljvfT5Pe0 zvftJvhCr9SEfweG/xmLP/aJv26Nj9iAv0yRX9yTPzeV/wGRH9oHzvVHj/W67u9TkPkesPm0re+VXtm6 nvA3fvlx7vpuTd77rtypzeDxXvaPXwekf/v93fMJX/vajvZKsPscsPsR/+vLrjKe7vG9/vq579mwb/Tz zvzNvvpQD+7NjwTEvwHGP/2g//HW79eQ3gXbrwHdH/bUr+KxniysT+XOL/dEr/bm/+H98L76vS/pcS38 wx/9RnD+EI8AoMes6147D7SK4aRy+w+G4kg2Q4EO5cq2bnim70x/ld1xmm5FXQb03IS5mpEVK6iOzOYo uXRKQ8MNsMoL+q67La47nULD5Oa4jMZOuFb2pcgjguNoMUpZz7vOeqm6DbeFsRZI9zb31zfDp9jowegY KTlZB0nZZ3mpucn5dBfVWfkZSloammlqNprK2oq56uqEGktbuwdrWzOby9s7sesrAhxMHDtcvHGMvHyK yyzs/CxdqsxcPY2teI28ne1d1k0c/k2uKlP+G42+jjbumyQwID9PX29/j5+vv8/f7/8PMKDAgfkEqPuW 5I7Chf8MGzp8CDGixIkUK1q8iDHjRVDoEmr8CDKkyJEkS1bkWM6jyZUsW7p8mRElOQIEa9q8iTOnzp0D CbD7CTSo0KFEixo9ijSp0qVMmzp9CjWq1KlUq1q9ijWr1q1cu3r9Cjas2LFky5o9izat2rVs27p9Czeu 3Ll069q9izev3r18+2Y1ADiwh8CAQxA2AOIw4g2HBzd2rDgyZMElHieObJmB5MmYJxC+XBg0Zc+ZGyj+ gPkz6dShXbBe3Zoz58ylT6NmrVpzahKlGeNebNq2b9zBR8M23Fu47s6wdxd/7Zr48tjDqf9+DvyA8urS tXcXnX325unJfy/e7p1689jj0zv/J//e/IvHtntj5w6fPPbwIuzTzn2bcbKN8N59BrbnHnL/WbZgaw0C Z998ANIHIH4G6ufeeRGCN9t6CqrXHG+CVZhhiBkaR+J+2W2mXH0T5rZhC/9ZGCB7L+KHHoEkliegiRz2 91ltL1IWX4/PeUdagiVa+OCFRsS4ZI0rprhejkD2yCOIGILXXmNCdhfkaFQmSGRhqmWp4XfXRWekjwNu ySWCOmK545gxrjndkVU2mKeSNaa3nJJowrcdnixAuWGTV0K3wqA0vinleAwOyZyeZLYpqIZ9OvodoVBK maSbj864p5WgPgonqqqWSmmaNjpY6WT5ZUpnmbZaN6aMrabqvaaiLOaqaouJ5nqnoRTCiKKceroYmrBn PrtrE8feytyXzU77qpaQOlkso8PKt+WkuH4LoZjmJnsurOhqy2aR0FlbKbz8nSoeomBeZ566+l6rnqnI 6stqtuX+y6iusa6JpqKi/hgpsCcKJx+83EI7L7mrWerpuAKraKqI8jKrJYIJe8zuiY3emy+I2HpIpZ3J HtchpCAX6FfNNt+Mc84p78xzzz7/DHTQQg9NdNFGf5pz0kovzXTTTj8NdTEJAAAh/nR0dHR0dHR0dHR0 a3pydmhwbG9namV3ZHFxYWdqcXVkcW1panRzbXFrb2VsbmZiaHFzdXpqdnhncnhlADt= --------------020902040006000802020009-- From blml@blakjak.com Mon Aug 30 00:53:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:53:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000201c48da9$cef293d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <41314367.8080109@cfa.harvard.edu> <000201c48da9$cef293d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Steve Willner >> > Even if it is the "only" likely person I would be very careful as a >> > Director. The "most" likely person is definitely not sufficient. >> ... >> > That is no excuse for blaming an innocent person on pure suspicion. >> >> On the other hand, you might consider the opponents, who have done >> nothing wrong and are about to see there great result vanish. Suppose >> NS have just bid a ridiculous slam that fails. There are two rulings >> you can make: >> >> 1. I don't know how the board got fouled, so it is cancelled. Redeal if >> you have time. Sorry about those 13 IMPs, East-West; bad luck I'm afraid. >> >> 2. I don't know how the board got fouled, but on normal play at the >> other table, the result would have been NS -13 IMPs. I am therefore >> assigning that result to both sides. >> >> Which ruling do you think will make players unhappy? > >3: I don't know how the board got fouled, but the general procedures in this >match are such that I believe you must have accidentally fouled the board >when taking your the cards from the board and therefore penalize you. > >4: I don't know how the board got fouled, but your opponents normally win 32 >board matches with a margin of 100 IMPs so I award them an artificial score >of 6 IMPs on this board. > >I prefer to follow the laws and cancel any board that cannot be scored; most >players understand that when there is no result to compare against nobody >can tell what their result is really worth. > >How can anybody tell that there would have been "normal play" at the other >table resulting in 13 IMPs? If we are going to rule like that why bother to >play bridge at all? Why not just establish a norm for each pair and award >the prizes for signing on to a tournament according to each pair's norm? > >Would save us a lot of time wouldn't it? We are talking of a specific case, where a player *either* cheats by "accidentally" trying for a fouled board, *or* it really is an accident and is *pure coincidence* that it happens when he was about to lose 13 imps. The law-makers recognised problem like this and put in a Law specifically to deal with them: L72B1, with its 'could have known' and its failure to require accusation of wrongdoing. So why should a TD know better than the law-makers? Why are you unhappy to apply the law that was written for this situation? It is important to learn that a TD is the man who is the man who is meant to support non-offending players. The attitude of not caring for non-offending sides is not what we want in bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 30 06:47:44 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:47:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote References: <41314367.8080109@cfa.harvard.edu><000201c48da9$cef293d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005e01c48e54$df65bc00$3c9868d5@jeushtlj> As I understand it, we are discussing the case of a team-match: at one table, a one percent slam is bid and made. The board is fouled before it reaches the other table. David Stevenson would apply L72B1 (below) because the likelihood is that the slam-defenders fouled the board. Sven Pran believes to do so would be inappropriate and slanderous unless there was an admission or additional evidence of wrong-doing. Some time ago, I brought up a similar case. As far as I remember, George Rosenkranz made an unalerted vulnerable double of an opponent's four club splinter. Opponents went on to bid a spade slam and Mrs Rosenkranz found the red-suit opening lead to defeat the contract. The TD ruled in favour of the Rosenkranzes after they assured him that the double was not conventional. Their opponents appealed on the grounds that, in his latest book, George Rosenkranz described a splinter double convention which, in this case, would ask for the particular suit which was led by Mrs Rosenkranz. Their appeal was thrown out. The panel of appeal commentators said that the appeal was disgraceful, the appellants should have been reprimanded and their deposit should have been retained. I wrote that even although the AC believed that the Rosenkranzes were telling the truth, it should still have ruled *against* them. Furthermore, I predicted that, if they asked the Rosenkranzes, they would *agree* that such a ruling was right and just. Suppose, for example that *another* pair denied using this convention, in similar circumstances, but it was later found in their system notes. Naturally, my opinion was ridiculed by BLML. To back up David's and my approach, IMO, if TFLB does not already do so, it should explicitly specify: The TD must rule against a player, if in over 60% (say) of *similar rulings*, involving strangers, he would suspect the player in the same position to have broken the law; although in *this particular* case the actual player may well be as pure as the driven snow and there us no stain on his character or any presumption of guilt. And No. I'm not a hypocrite. I've never claimed that you can eliminate subjectivity from the laws. [L72B1] Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 25-Aug-04 From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 30 08:54:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:54:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c48e66$a6467420$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ................ > We are talking of a specific case, where a player *either* cheats = by > "accidentally" trying for a fouled board, *or* it really is an = accident > and is *pure coincidence* that it happens when he was about to lose 13 > imps. >=20 > The law-makers recognised problem like this and put in a Law > specifically to deal with them: L72B1, with its 'could have known' and > its failure to require accusation of wrongdoing. >=20 > So why should a TD know better than the law-makers? Why are you > unhappy to apply the law that was written for this situation? >=20 > It is important to learn that a TD is the man who is the man who is > meant to support non-offending players. The attitude of not caring = for > non-offending sides is not what we want in bridge. I have yet to see that we are discussing a specific case and we have no other description that that a board has been found fouled. We have no description of in what way the board was fouled or how it was discovered that it was fouled. So this discussion is not on a specific case, it is a discussion on principles in general, and the only basis for this discussion is that = some irregularity which has led to a fouled board prevents a board to be = scored normally for at least one table. I have experienced three major causes for a board to be fouled (four if = we include the possibility that some copies of a pre-duplicated board was fouled already in the dealing process): 1: A player fails to take his cards properly from "his" pocket of the = board and count them face down according to the procedure prescribed in Law = 7B. (It is little excuse for that player if one or more cards appear face up = in his hand during this process, he should handle all his thirteen cards in such a way that possible problems are discovered without exposing any = card to the other players at the table). 2: A player fails to return the cards to "his" pocket of the board = according to the procedure prescribed in Law 7C. 3: Some person (illegally) removes cards from a board, looks at them and subsequently fails to return them correctly to that board. Incidents like this occur extremely seldom in matches between teams of = four where boards are played only at two tables by players who have other = things to do than manipulate their hands after the play; such incidents are = most frequent in events for pairs where the boards circulate through all the tables and in particular as with Howell movements every board lies idle during some rounds. In such cases I have found case 3 above to be the slightly predominant cause for fouled boards especially when there are sit-outs. I understand that David advocates a general use of Law 72B1 to penalize = the player last having played a board which is subsequently found fouled on = the reason that this player most likely "could have been the culprit" = according to case 2 above. Law 72B1 begins with the words: "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of the irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side ..." I am convinced that this precise wording is intentional; Law 72B1 does = not allow the Director to "judge" that a particular player "could be the = most likely offender". The Director may still "judge" so from Law 85 but here = he must be very careful and open for all alternatively possible causes of = the irregularity. The purpose of Law 85B appears to be permitting the play = to continue, not to establish who is an offender.=20 Law 72B1 applies when the established offender in an irregularity "could have known ..." freeing the Director from having to show intent by this offender.=20 When a board must be cancelled due to being fouled in whatever way and = the Director has no evidence on who caused this he may of course remind the players on Law 7, but IMO he goes too far if he awards any adjusted = score or impose any PP (except this warning) against any of the involved sides. Sven From david.barton@boltblue.com Mon Aug 30 10:15:01 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:15:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote Message-ID: <000a01c48e71$d5e638e0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Sent to David Stevenson by mistake. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ANeCdote > Sven Pran wrote > >> Steve Willner > >> > Even if it is the "only" likely person I would be very careful as a > >> > Director. The "most" likely person is definitely not sufficient. > >> ... > >> > That is no excuse for blaming an innocent person on pure suspicion. > >> > >> On the other hand, you might consider the opponents, who have done > >> nothing wrong and are about to see there great result vanish. Suppose > >> NS have just bid a ridiculous slam that fails. There are two rulings > >> you can make: > >> > >> 1. I don't know how the board got fouled, so it is cancelled. Redeal if > >> you have time. Sorry about those 13 IMPs, East-West; bad luck I'm afraid. > >> > >> 2. I don't know how the board got fouled, but on normal play at the > >> other table, the result would have been NS -13 IMPs. I am therefore > >> assigning that result to both sides. > >> > >> Which ruling do you think will make players unhappy? > > > >3: I don't know how the board got fouled, but the general procedures in this > >match are such that I believe you must have accidentally fouled the board > >when taking your the cards from the board and therefore penalize you. > > > >4: I don't know how the board got fouled, but your opponents normally win 32 > >board matches with a margin of 100 IMPs so I award them an artificial score > >of 6 IMPs on this board. > > > >I prefer to follow the laws and cancel any board that cannot be scored; most > >players understand that when there is no result to compare against nobody > >can tell what their result is really worth. > > > >How can anybody tell that there would have been "normal play" at the other > >table resulting in 13 IMPs? If we are going to rule like that why bother to > >play bridge at all? Why not just establish a norm for each pair and award > >the prizes for signing on to a tournament according to each pair's norm? > > > >Would save us a lot of time wouldn't it? > > We are talking of a specific case, where a player *either* cheats by > "accidentally" trying for a fouled board, *or* it really is an accident > and is *pure coincidence* that it happens when he was about to lose 13 > imps. > > The law-makers recognised problem like this and put in a Law > specifically to deal with them: L72B1, with its 'could have known' and > its failure to require accusation of wrongdoing. > > So why should a TD know better than the law-makers? Why are you > unhappy to apply the law that was written for this situation? > > It is important to learn that a TD is the man who is the man who is > meant to support non-offending players. The attitude of not caring for > non-offending sides is not what we want in bridge. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > I think we need to divide David S's example into 2 cases:- (N-S about to loose 13imps) (a) the board arrives fouled at the other table because half the S cards are face up in the pocket. Now IMHO it is reasonable to rule S HAS offended and hit him with L72B1 (b) the board arrives at the other table with the S and W hands interchanged. Now L72B1 does NOT allow you to allocate the blame to S. It states "When the Director deems that an offender...." ie only after you have determined a side HAS offended can you apply L72B1. Now obviously the Director will attempt to determine the facts, but if no further evidence is forthcoming then the board should be scrapped. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.262 / Virus Database: 264.7.1 - Release Date: 27/08/2004 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Aug 30 12:34:41 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:34:41 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. Message-ID: <007101c48e85$5718bc90$1328fea9@Desktop> Hi Can anyone see an ambiguity in L81C6 and its reference to L79C. L81C6 C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: ... 6. Errors to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. L79C C. Error in Score An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the sponsoring organisation specifies a later time, this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. The director's attention was drawn to a table by the behaviour of one of the pairs. While she was there that pair revoked but no player noticed the revoke. The director ruled on the revoke. The revoking side tried to claim that the reference to L79C was ambiguous since there was no error in computing the score. I can not see any ambiguity or problem with the director's ruling. Is there something that I am missing? TIA Wayne From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 30 12:48:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:48:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000a01c48e71$d5e638e0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <000201c48e87$411c4f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Barton ........... > I think we need to divide David S's example into 2 cases:- > (N-S about to loose 13imps) > (a) the board arrives fouled at the other table because=20 > half the S cards are face up in the pocket. >=20 > Now IMHO it is reasonable to rule S HAS offended and hit him with = L72B1 Indeed. =20 But I do wonder: Is it customary to take the cards from the pocket and immediately expose them with their (assumed) rear sides to opponents so = that if one or more cards happened to be turned the wrong way it will really = be exposed? Where I play this does occasionally happen but most players usually take their cards from the pocket and count them in such a way that even if = one or more cards should happen to lie the wrong way they will not be exposed = to opponents or to partner.=20 I shall not completely excuse this player from at least in part being = guilty of his cards becoming exposed. =20 =20 > (b) the board arrives at the other table with the S and W hands > interchanged. >=20 > Now L72B1 does NOT allow you to allocate the blame to S. It states = "When > the Director deems that an offender...." ie only after you have = determined > a side HAS offended can you apply L72B1. Precisely. Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 30 13:00:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:00:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. In-Reply-To: <007101c48e85$5718bc90$1328fea9@Desktop> Message-ID: <000301c48e88$f15459b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows > Can anyone see an ambiguity in L81C6 and its reference to L79C. >=20 > L81C6 >=20 > C. Director's Duties and Powers > The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: > ... > 6. Errors > to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any > manner, within the correction period established in accordance with = Law > 79C. >=20 > L79C >=20 > C. Error in Score > An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether = made > by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the > period specified by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the sponsoring > organisation specifies a later time, this correction period expires = 30 > minutes after the official score has been made available for = inspection. >=20 > The director's attention was drawn to a table by the behaviour of one = of > the pairs. >=20 > While she was there that pair revoked but no player noticed the = revoke. >=20 > The director ruled on the revoke. >=20 > The revoking side tried to claim that the reference to L79C was > ambiguous since there was no error in computing the score. I can not > see any ambiguity or problem with the director's ruling. >=20 > Is there something that I am missing? Yes, when making this entry you have missed the fact that Law 81C6 = refers to (only) the time limit established in Law 79C; it does not refer to the complete Law 79C. So the fact that there was no error in computing the score is = irrelevant, the Director has within that specified time limit become aware of an irregularity and therefore corrected it. (When ruling on a revoke for such cause it is important that the = Director does not jeopardize any player's rights; first offender's right to = correct the revoke before it becomes established and next non-offenders' right = to penalty by calling attention to the revoke in time. Consequently the Director must delay her action until all time limits have expired, and = then deny any redress to NOS who did not call attention to the revoke in = time). Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Mon Aug 30 13:50:38 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:50:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000001c48e66$a6467420$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c48e66$a6467420$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c48e66$a6467420$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> David Stevenson >................ >> We are talking of a specific case, where a player *either* cheats by >> "accidentally" trying for a fouled board, *or* it really is an accident >> and is *pure coincidence* that it happens when he was about to lose 13 >> imps. >> snip > >I have yet to see that we are discussing a specific case and we have no >other description that that a board has been found fouled. We have no >description of in what way the board was fouled or how it was discovered >that it was fouled. > >So this discussion is not on a specific case, it is a discussion on >principles in general, and the only basis for this discussion is that some >irregularity which has led to a fouled board prevents a board to be scored >normally for at least one table. I specifically made the point that A+/A- may well be insufficient if at one table a 1% slam was bid and made and at the other table the board was discovered to be fouled. "At the other table" implies teams, I think. This thread has been dawdling along on or around this point, ever since. The EBU TDs are advised that it may be appropriate to award more than A+/A-. 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 Mon Aug 30 13:59:30 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:59:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000201c48e87$411c4f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c48e71$d5e638e0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> <000201c48e87$411c4f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c48e87$411c4f40$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes snip > >Where I play this does occasionally happen but most players usually take >their cards from the pocket and count them in such a way that even if one or >more cards should happen to lie the wrong way they will not be exposed to >opponents or to partner. > >I shall not completely excuse this player from at least in part being guilty >of his cards becoming exposed. This is clearly wrong. A player has a requirement to count his cards (and by implication in such a way not so as to expose them). It is evident to me that counting them face down on the table one by one (or three by three) is a valid way of doing this. If this process exposes a card which has been boxed [English term for a face up card - "Partner you've boxed your cards"] then *no* fault can be laid at the feet of the counter and all fault at the feet of the boxer. Many English players remove their hand from the board and slide 3 cards at a time off the hand onto the table as their process of counting. When they have done this they pick up the hand from the table and inspect the face of the cards. The process of sliding 3 cards at a time would expose any face up card. Are you suggesting they are in some way wrong Sven? Nah, you're not, so don't suggest you are. 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 30 15:53:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:53:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c48ea1$2d118be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ........... > >Where I play this does occasionally happen but most players usually = take > >their cards from the pocket and count them in such a way that even if = one > or > >more cards should happen to lie the wrong way they will not be = exposed to > >opponents or to partner. > > > >I shall not completely excuse this player from at least in part being > guilty > >of his cards becoming exposed. >=20 > This is clearly wrong. A player has a requirement to count his cards > (and by implication in such a way not so as to expose them). It is > evident to me that counting them face down on the table one by one (or > three by three) is a valid way of doing this. If this process exposes = a > card which has been boxed [English term for a face up card - "Partner > you've boxed your cards"] then *no* fault can be laid at the feet of = the > counter and all fault at the feet of the boxer. >=20 > Many English players remove their hand from the board and slide 3 = cards > at a time off the hand onto the table as their process of counting. = When > they have done this they pick up the hand from the table and inspect = the > face of the cards. The process of sliding 3 cards at a time would = expose > any face up card. Are you suggesting they are in some way wrong Sven? >=20 > Nah, you're not, so don't suggest you are. cheers john No, I am not saying it is directly wrong. I am pointing out the fact = that most players I see (and there have been a few over the years!) handle = their cards in such a way that possibly boxed cards within the pile of = thirteen in a hand will not be compromised. As a result we pretty often (too often) hear exclamations from players discovering such faults when they count their cards but I have never had = any case during my almost 30 years of TD experience where a board has been compromised this way. However I have indeed seen players fumbling their cards from the pocket = so that one or more cards became exposed. I should not appreciate any = automatic ruling on the ground that the affected cards most probably "must have = been boxed" and therefore must be the fault of the last previous player = handling them. And as there is no law specifying how careful you have to be when = counting your cards I consider this a matter of individual judgment whenever such cases might appear. Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Aug 30 20:12:15 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:12:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote References: <000001c48ea1$2d118be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <01df01c48ec5$70ae7740$80053dd4@c6l8v1> >And as there is no law specifying how careful you have to be when counting >your cards I consider this a matter of individual judgment whenever such >cases might appear. > > Bill: Each player counts his cards below table-top level face down etc. Ben From svenpran@online.no Mon Aug 30 22:10:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:10:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <01df01c48ec5$70ae7740$80053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000001c48ed5$ca083410$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen > >And as there is no law specifying how careful you have to be when > counting > >your cards I consider this a matter of individual judgment whenever = such > >cases might appear. > > > > > Bill: Each player counts his cards below table-top level face down = etc. The laws don't say that but yes, that is what most players I have seen = do quite automatically without even thinking. The main exceptions are = beginners who have not established their habits yet. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 30 22:14:45 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:14:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. References: <007101c48e85$5718bc90$1328fea9@Desktop> Message-ID: <006e01c48ed6$602ca2a0$e89468d5@jeushtlj> > [L81C6] > The Director's duties and powers normally > include the following:... > 6. to rectify an error or irregularity of > which he becomes aware in any manner, > within the correction period established > in accordance with Law 79C. > [L79C] > An error in computing or tabulating the > agreed-upon score, whether made by a > player or scorer, may be corrected until > the expiration of the period specified > by the sponsoring organisation. Unless > the sponsoring organisation specifies a > later time, this correction period > expires 30 minutes after the official > score has been made available for > inspection. [Wayne Burrows] > Can anyone see an ambiguity in L81C6 > and its reference to L79C. > The director's attention was drawn to > a table by the behaviour of one of the > pairs. While she was there that pair > revoked but no player noticed the revoke. > The director ruled on the revoke. The > revoking side tried to claim that the > reference to L79C was ambiguous since > there was no error in computing the > score. I can not see any ambiguity or > problem with the director's ruling. > Is there something that I am missing? [Nigel] L69B is another law that specifies a "correction period established in accordance with Law 79C". According to natural justice, the TD was right; and, even under Bridge Law, the revoker was grasping at straws (unless he was ignoring the meaning of the words and relying on some obscure "intention" or "interpretation" by law-makers). Nevertheless, to avoid confusion, the wording should be tightened up. For example, at L81C6, replace "in accordance with Law 79C" with "defined in 79C". Even better, define "Correction period" and all other such terms in an appended glossary (as well as in the body of the text). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24-Aug-04 From john@asimere.com Mon Aug 30 22:32:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:32:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000001c48ed5$ca083410$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <01df01c48ec5$70ae7740$80053dd4@c6l8v1> <000001c48ed5$ca083410$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c48ed5$ca083410$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Ben Schelen >> >And as there is no law specifying how careful you have to be when >> counting >> >your cards I consider this a matter of individual judgment whenever such >> >cases might appear. >> > >> > >> Bill: Each player counts his cards below table-top level face down etc. > >The laws don't say that but yes, that is what most players I have seen do >quite automatically without even thinking. The main exceptions are beginners >who have not established their habits yet. I move my cards below the table edge, probably more than half EBU players do, but there's a chunk (I'll let Ian or Peter think of a percentage, as I'm fed up with them whingeing when I try to indicate a frequency) who slide the cards off two or three at a time as they count onto the table top. > >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 Mon Aug 30 23:35:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:35:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c48ee1$9b40af70$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst .......... > >> Bill: Each player counts his cards below table-top level face down = etc. > > > >The laws don't say that but yes, that is what most players I have = seen do > >quite automatically without even thinking. The main exceptions are > beginners > >who have not established their habits yet. >=20 > I move my cards below the table edge, probably more than half EBU > players do, but there's a chunk (I'll let Ian or Peter think of a > percentage, as I'm fed up with them whingeing when I try to indicate a > frequency) who slide the cards off two or three at a time as they = count > onto the table top. Yes I know. And pending the actual situation if boxed cards are exposed this way I = just might be tempted to judge and rule that the exposure was a violation of = Law 24 by that player caused from his carelessness in handling his cards. Sven From john@asimere.com Tue Aug 31 00:45:33 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:45:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: <000101c48ee1$9b40af70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c48ee1$9b40af70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000101c48ee1$9b40af70$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >.......... >> >> Bill: Each player counts his cards below table-top level face down etc. >> > >> >The laws don't say that but yes, that is what most players I have seen do >> >quite automatically without even thinking. The main exceptions are >> beginners >> >who have not established their habits yet. >> >> I move my cards below the table edge, probably more than half EBU >> players do, but there's a chunk (I'll let Ian or Peter think of a >> percentage, as I'm fed up with them whingeing when I try to indicate a >> frequency) who slide the cards off two or three at a time as they count >> onto the table top. > >Yes I know. > >And pending the actual situation if boxed cards are exposed this way I just >might be tempted to judge and rule that the exposure was a violation of Law >24 by that player caused from his carelessness in handling his cards. ... and that's what I can't buy. I think we can leave it there Sven, each of us knows where the other is at. cheers John > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 31 01:36:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:36:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. In-Reply-To: <007101c48e85$5718bc90$1328fea9@Desktop> References: <007101c48e85$5718bc90$1328fea9@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >Hi > >Can anyone see an ambiguity in L81C6 and its reference to L79C. > >L81C6 > >C. Director's Duties and Powers >The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: >... >6. Errors >to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any >manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law >79C. > >L79C > >C. Error in Score >An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made >by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the >period specified by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the sponsoring >organisation specifies a later time, this correction period expires 30 >minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. > >The director's attention was drawn to a table by the behaviour of one of >the pairs. > >While she was there that pair revoked but no player noticed the revoke. > >The director ruled on the revoke. > >The revoking side tried to claim that the reference to L79C was >ambiguous since there was no error in computing the score. I can not >see any ambiguity or problem with the director's ruling. > >Is there something that I am missing? No, they were just blowing smoke. L81C6 does not say rule under L79C or anything like: it just refers to a correction period established in that 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 schoderb@msn.com Tue Aug 31 01:54:06 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:54:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. References: <007101c48e85$5718bc90$1328fea9@Desktop> Message-ID: David. How about a bet? I'll bet that this becomes another one of those threads where we painfully squeeze, interpret, define, analyse, and contort a simple passage of the Laws into a marvelous enlightenment. Bet? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. > Wayne Burrows wrote > >Hi > > > >Can anyone see an ambiguity in L81C6 and its reference to L79C. > > > >L81C6 > > > >C. Director's Duties and Powers > >The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: > >... > >6. Errors > >to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any > >manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law > >79C. > > > >L79C > > > >C. Error in Score > >An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made > >by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the > >period specified by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the sponsoring > >organisation specifies a later time, this correction period expires 30 > >minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. > > > >The director's attention was drawn to a table by the behaviour of one of > >the pairs. > > > >While she was there that pair revoked but no player noticed the revoke. > > > >The director ruled on the revoke. > > > >The revoking side tried to claim that the reference to L79C was > >ambiguous since there was no error in computing the score. I can not > >see any ambiguity or problem with the director's ruling. > > > >Is there something that I am missing? > > No, they were just blowing smoke. L81C6 does not say rule under L79C > or anything like: it just refers to a correction period established in > that 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 ~ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 31 02:03:18 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:03:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] ANeCdote In-Reply-To: References: <01df01c48ec5$70ae7740$80053dd4@c6l8v1> <000001c48ed5$ca083410$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <000001c48ed5$ca083410$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes >>Ben Schelen >>> >And as there is no law specifying how careful you have to be when >>> counting >>> >your cards I consider this a matter of individual judgment whenever such >>> >cases might appear. >>> > >>> > >>> Bill: Each player counts his cards below table-top level face down etc. >> >>The laws don't say that but yes, that is what most players I have seen do >>quite automatically without even thinking. The main exceptions are beginners >>who h avenotestablishedtheirhabitsyet. > >I move my cards below the table edge, probably more than half EBU >players do, but there's a chunk (I'll let Ian or Peter think of a >percentage, as I'm fed up with them whingeing when I try to indicate a >frequency) who slide the cards off two or three at a time as they count >onto the table top. There are lots of other ways. People count them one by one onto the table top, for example. I still do not like the principle of trying to blame non-offenders for offender's infractions. If a card is face-up it is the fault of the person who put it face-up, not the fault of the recipient. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Aug 31 02:04:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:04:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. In-Reply-To: References: <007101c48e85$5718bc90$1328fea9@Desktop> Message-ID: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote >David. How about a bet? I'll bet that this becomes another one of those >threads where we painfully squeeze, interpret, define, analyse, and contort >a simple passage of the Laws into a marvelous enlightenment. Bet? I bet it isn't: you owe me a diet coke. But the only reason it is not going to develop that way is because of your bet: if you had not done so it would have done!!! :)) >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:36 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. > > >> Wayne Burrows wrote >> >Hi >> > >> >Can anyone see an ambiguity in L81C6 and its reference to L79C. >> > >> >L81C6 >> > >> >C. Director's Duties and Powers >> >The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: >> >... >> >6. Errors >> >to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any >> >manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law >> >79C. >> > >> >L79C >> > >> >C. Error in Score >> >An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made >> >by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the >> >period specified by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the sponsoring >> >organisation specifies a later time, this correction period expires 30 >> >minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. >> > >> >The director's attention was drawn to a table by the behaviour of one of >> >the pairs. >> > >> >While she was there that pair revoked but no player noticed the revoke. >> > >> >The director ruled on the revoke. >> > >> >The revoking side tried to claim that the reference to L79C was >> >ambiguous since there was no error in computing the score. I can not >> >see any ambiguity or problem with the director's ruling. >> > >> >Is there something that I am missing? >> >> No, they were just blowing smoke. L81C6 does not say rule under L79C >> or anything like: it just refers to a correction period established in >> that 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 ~ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 31 03:24:00 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:24:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200408310217.i7V2HFx1012924@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408310217.i7V2HFx1012924@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4133E140.20206@cfa.harvard.edu> >>[players] who slide the cards off two or three at a time as they count >>onto the table top. > From: "Sven Pran" > And pending the actual situation if boxed cards are exposed this way I just > might be tempted to judge and rule that the exposure was a violation of Law > 24 by that player caused from his carelessness in handling his cards. I trust you would not yield to such a temptation. L24 does not apply until the auction period begins. I suspect that is precisely to cover the situation of cards arriving "boxed." The idea of ruling against players who have done nothing wrong strikes me as bizarre. It would be within the power of an SO to require cards to be counted out of sight, but I'm not aware of any having done so. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 31 03:29:21 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. In-Reply-To: <200408301411.i7UEBmdH002806@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408301411.i7UEBmdH002806@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4133E281.1030302@cfa.harvard.edu> [Director observes a revoke while present at a table.] > From: "Sven Pran" > (When ruling on a revoke for such cause it is important that the Director > does not jeopardize any player's rights; first offender's right to correct > the revoke before it becomes established and next non-offenders' right to > penalty by calling attention to the revoke in time. Consequently the > Director must delay her action until all time limits have expired, All quite standard, I should think. The time limit expires when a member of the NOS makes a call on a subsequent deal or when the round ends (L64B4/5). > and then > deny any redress to NOS who did not call attention to the revoke in time). I hope Sven was being careless here. The TD shouldn't "deny redress," only deny penalty tricks. Redress under L64C, if it applies, should still be given. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 31 03:34:25 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:34:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200408300106.i7U16MwP027701@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200408300106.i7U16MwP027701@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4133E3B1.7020409@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > IMO, the literal meanings of at least six laws > outlaw a "premature lead". I suspect you are the only one who believes that. The laws you have cited do not even come close. I don't think it would be a bad thing to add to the Laws a statement that normal procedure is to lead only after all cards of the previous trick have been turned over. That way, any "premature lead" would be at the sole risk of the side making it. This change would not, however, be my own highest priority for the new Laws version. :-) From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 31 09:19:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:19:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. In-Reply-To: <4133E281.1030302@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000401c48f33$440419c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner .......... > > deny any redress to NOS who did not call attention to the revoke in > time). >=20 > I hope Sven was being careless here. The TD shouldn't "deny redress," > only deny penalty tricks. Redress under L64C, if it applies, should > still be given. I believe it is an established rule that when attention to a revoke is called too late then NOS has forfeited their right for compensation but = that OS still shall not keep their undue gain from the revoke? However, I am fully aware that it is up to the discretion of the = Director to even then give NOS redress if he finds that most equitable. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue Aug 31 14:50:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:50:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. In-Reply-To: <000401c48f33$440419c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <4133E281.1030302@cfa.harvard.edu> <000401c48f33$440419c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Steve Willner >.......... >> > deny any redress to NOS who did not call attention to the revoke in >> time). >> >> I hope Sven was being careless here. The TD shouldn't "deny redress," >> only deny penalty tricks. Redress under L64C, if it applies, should >> still be given. > >I believe it is an established rule that when attention to a revoke is >called too late then NOS has forfeited their right for compensation but that >OS still shall not keep their undue gain from the revoke? I have never heard this. Is there any reason not to follow the Laws as written? >However, I am fully aware that it is up to the discretion of the Director to >even then give NOS redress if he finds that most equitable. It is up to the TD to follow the Laws of bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Tue Aug 31 15:20:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:20:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ambiguity - I think not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c48f65$a8214cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............... > >I believe it is an established rule that when attention to a revoke is > >called too late then NOS has forfeited their right for compensation but > that > >OS still shall not keep their undue gain from the revoke? > > I have never heard this. Of course not, sorry, I mixed up with other cases where Law 11A applies! Sven From henk@amsterdamned.org Tue Aug 31 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:00:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From nancy@dressing.org Tue Aug 31 04:42:38 2004 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy Dressing) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:42:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Again at the local club Message-ID: <000701c48f0c$9320db00$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C48EEB.0C0F3B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The bidding had gotten to the point of asking for Aces with a 4 Club when obvious bid. After 4 Clubs, the auction was pass, 4H, (1 ace) Pass, 4S, all pass. As the leader was preparing to lead the 4H bidder said, "I didn't mean to bid 4H, I meant 4S." Director was called to the table and after hearing the auction and the explanation that the 4H bidder had meant to bid 4S, the director stated that the ACBL had a new law change and the 4H bidder was now allowed to change his bid to 4S and after this change, the 4C bidder now bid 6S! Is this correct??? Can you tell me what this new law might be??? Or what law would apply in this situation?? My ruling would be change of call as described in law 25. In another call, same game, same director, play was going on and the lead was in dummy and declarer was leading from Kxx. Declarer said club, then it went CJ, low, low and now declarer said I called for the King. Both opponents heard her say club which dummy played, dummy pleaded didn't remember (no one heard the King mentioned) and when the director was called, he allowed the change of play from the dummy to be the lead of the King. After all four players had played to the trick, is this correction valid???? Is this the same as the "Oh, S..." rule??? The declarer is a novice player and could very easily have forgotten the Jack was high, if this is taken into consideration in making the ruling. How is this handled??? And what laws would apply. 45C4b? Thanks, Nancy --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C48EEB.0C0F3B00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
The = bidding had=20 gotten to the point of asking for Aces with a 4 Club when obvious = bid. =20 After 4 Clubs, the auction was pass, 4H, (1 ace) Pass, 4S, all pass. As = the=20 leader was preparing to lead the 4H bidder said, "I didn't mean to bid = 4H, I=20 meant 4S." Director was called to the table and after hearing the = auction=20 and the explanation that the 4H bidder had meant to bid 4S, the director = stated=20 that the ACBL had a new law change and the 4H bidder was now allowed to = change=20 his bid to 4S and after this change, the 4C bidder now bid 6S! Is = this=20 correct??? Can you tell me what this new law might be??? Or what = law would=20 apply in this situation?? My ruling would be change of call as described = in law=20 25.

In = another call,=20 same game, same director, play was going on and the lead was in dummy = and=20 declarer was leading from Kxx. Declarer said club, then it went = CJ, low,=20 low and now declarer said I called for the King.  Both = opponents heard=20 her say club which dummy played, dummy pleaded didn't remember (no one = heard the=20 King mentioned) and when the director was called, he allowed the = change of=20 play from the dummy to be the lead of the King. After all four = players had=20 played to the trick, is this correction valid???? Is this the same = as the=20 "Oh, S..." rule??? The declarer is a novice player and could very easily = have=20 forgotten the Jack was high, if this is taken into consideration in = making the=20 ruling. How is this handled??? And what laws would = apply. =20 45C4b?

Thanks,

Nancy

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C48EEB.0C0F3B00--