From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 1 00:23:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:23:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne asked: >Hi > >Playing online in an ACBL tourney I opened 1NT in 3rd seat with a >pick-up partner on a 3-count. > >We were playing 10-12 1NT and the vulnerability was favourable. > >The director later tried to tell me that this psyche was illegal. > >I can't see this. Does anyone know of a relevant regulation? > >TIA RJH replies: Some time ago, there was extensive blml analysis about an ACBL reg which (in effect) stated that: (a) Opening a psychic 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 15-17 range was legal, but (b) Opening a psychic 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range was illegal. Now an ACBL TD applies logical inferences of infinite regress: (c) Psyching a 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range is illegal in the ACBL, so (d) Psyching an 8 or 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range is illegal in the ACBL, so (e) Psyching a 7 or 8 or 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range is illegal in the ACBL, so et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (z) Psyching a 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range is illegal in the ACBL. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From toddz@att.net Fri Oct 1 00:37:42 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:37:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@Desktop> References: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040930192801.01babec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> ACBL is somewhat indirect about this. The psyche itself is not illegal, but if you play any conventions over a weak 1NT opening, having those agreements are. For purpose of this regulation, it seems that a psyche is treated the same as an agreement. It also seems that if your agreement is to play a strong NT, the psyche is allowed. I don't know the complete rationale, but it could be not unreasonably justified with the concepts that weak NTers tend to have escape sequences, which could be considered psychic controls, and that the psyche of a weak NT is considered a sufficiently more destructive bid than a psyche of a strong NT. I've psyched (very infrequently) a strong NT in the ACBL with no problems. From the ACBL GCC regulations: http://www.acbl.org/documentLibrary/units/convChart12_03.pdf "Disallowed "7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and or do not show at least five cards in the suit." -Todd At 06:55 PM 9/30/2004, Wayne Burrows wrote: Hi Playing online in an ACBL tourney I opened 1NT in 3rd seat with a pick-up partner on a 3-count. We were playing 10-12 1NT and the vulnerability was favourable. The director later tried to tell me that this psyche was illegal. I can't see this. Does anyone know of a relevant regulation? TIA Wayne _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 1 01:00:01 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:00:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Myxomatosis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 72A1 states: >>Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict >>accordance with the Laws. Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >L72A1 is a meaningless law: either you don't strictly stick to >bridge laws and you will happen to get around L72A1 as well as >any other one; or you strictly rule in accordance to the laws >and you don't need a recursive one to be reminded that a law >is a law. RJH replies: One of the first laws passed by the Australian Parliament after federation in 1901 was an Acts Interpretation Act. In my opinion, Law 72A1 is a Laws Interpretation Law. Of course, as was his wont, Edgar Kaplan deliberately left an ambiguous nuance in Law 72A1 by deliberately including the word "tournaments" in that Law. Kaplan subsequently carefully stated in a Bridge World editorial that the use of "tournaments" meant that TDs need not strictly stick to the Laws in local duplicates. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard willey Fri Oct 1 01:17:27 2004 From: richard willey (richard willey) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:17:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040930192801.01babec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@Desktop> <6.0.1.1.1.20040930192801.01babec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e04093017177ec04eb8@mail.gmail.com> Todd, I think that you're wrong on this one. Wayne is NOT playing a split range NT, but rather, he chose to make a psyche. The regulations that you are quoting do not differentiate between a strong NT and the 10-12 HCP range that Wayne is happens to be playing. So long as his psyche is (A) Not systemic (B) not protected by controls Its completely legit On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:37:42 -0400, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > ACBL is somewhat indirect about this. The psyche itself is not > illegal, but if you play any conventions over a weak 1NT opening, > having > those agreements are. For purpose of this regulation, it seems that a > psyche is treated the same as an agreement. It also seems that if your > agreement is to play a strong NT, the psyche is allowed. > > I don't know the complete rationale, but it could be not > unreasonably justified with the concepts that weak NTers tend to have > escape sequences, which could be considered psychic controls, and that > the psyche of a weak NT is considered a sufficiently more destructive > bid than a psyche of a strong NT. I've psyched (very infrequently) a > strong NT in the ACBL with no problems. > > From the ACBL GCC regulations: > http://www.acbl.org/documentLibrary/units/convChart12_03.pdf > > "Disallowed > > "7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN > OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or > overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of > greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive > ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within > a range of 7 HCP and or do not show at least five cards in the suit." > > -Todd > > > > At 06:55 PM 9/30/2004, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Hi > > Playing online in an ACBL tourney I opened 1NT in 3rd seat with a > pick-up partner on a 3-count. > > We were playing 10-12 1NT and the vulnerability was favourable. > > The director later tried to tell me that this psyche was illegal. > > I can't see this. Does anyone know of a relevant regulation? > > TIA > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 1 01:33:50 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:33:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pass Pass In-Reply-To: <200409300139.SAA17880@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner wrote: >>North's infraction must be dealt with first. If East >>accepts North's pass, then South passed out of turn at >>RHO's turn to call, so East can bid whatever he wants >>and South and North must each pass once. If East does >>not accept North's pass, then the bidding reverts to >>the player whose turn it was to call, North must pass >>at his first opportunity, and I would say that South >>has already passed and his pass must stand. Adam Beneschan replied: >The Laws seem to be silent about this last part. In >general, there seems to be nothing in the Laws that >says what happens if an irregularity occurs, and >another irregularity occurs before attention is drawn >to the first irregularity. [snip] RJH agrees: Yes, in my opinion there is a lacuna in the Laws. This lacuna is exacerbated if one of the two "irregularities" is not actually an "irregularity" if the TD deems to resolve that quasi-irregularity before the undoubted irregularity. History repeats itself. A few weeks ago, this auction occurred in a Canberra duplicate session -> Vul: East-West Dlr: East WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass(2) (1) Out-of-turn 15-18 1NT opening. The other three players did not notice, as they were busy examining their cards. (2) Shortly afterwards, East thought that they started the auction as dealer with a pass. At this stage attention was drawn to West's irregularity, and to East's quasi-irregularity, and the TD was summoned. The TD ruled that, due to the lacuna in the Laws, they were deeming West's irregularity to be a simultaneous call with East's legal pass as dealer. Law 33: >>>A call made simultaneously with one made by the >>>player whose turn it was to call is deemed to be a >>>subsequent call. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From toddz@att.net Fri Oct 1 01:36:06 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:36:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e04093017177ec04eb8@mail.gmail.com> References: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@Desktop> <6.0.1.1.1.20040930192801.01babec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <2da24b8e04093017177ec04eb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040930202654.01b6fec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:17 PM 9/30/2004, you wrote: > Todd, I think that you're wrong on this one. > > Wayne is NOT playing a split range NT, but rather, he chose to make a > psyche. It's not necessary to be a split range. You psyche a 10-12 NT on a 3-count and they'll treat you like your agreement is 3-12. "after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP" > The regulations that you are quoting do not differentiate between a > strong NT and the 10-12 HCP range that Wayne is happens to be playing. Yes, it's curious that it applies to weak NTs but not to strong. Given the current oversight (that it should apply to strong NTs too the way it's worded), I'm not going to be too vocal about its non- enforcement. ;) I don't claim it follows any sense of logic I believe in, but that was the relevant regulation and I believe I was faithful to its common interpretation. -Todd From richard willey Fri Oct 1 01:57:56 2004 From: richard willey (richard willey) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:57:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040930202654.01b6fec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@Desktop> <6.0.1.1.1.20040930192801.01babec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <2da24b8e04093017177ec04eb8@mail.gmail.com> <6.0.1.1.1.20040930202654.01b6fec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e04093017575bbff0b6@mail.gmail.com> > Yes, it's curious that it applies to weak NTs but not to strong. > Given the current oversight (that it should apply to strong NTs too the > way it's worded), I'm not going to be too vocal about its non- > enforcement. ;) I don't claim it follows any sense of logic I believe > in, but that was the relevant regulation and I believe I was faithful > to its common interpretation. > > -Todd Todd, what is this based on. I've never heard of this interpretation of the regulations before now and consider it nonsensical... Can you point at any official ruling that recognizes this principle. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Oct 1 02:58:21 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:58:21 +1200 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040930202654.01b6fec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <004901c4a75a$21175910$0401010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Todd M. Zimnoch > Sent: Friday, 1 October 2004 12:36 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 1NT Psyche > > > At 08:17 PM 9/30/2004, you wrote: > > Todd, I think that you're wrong on this one. > > > > Wayne is NOT playing a split range NT, but rather, he > chose to make > a > > psyche. > > It's not necessary to be a split range. You psyche a > 10-12 NT on > a 3-count and they'll treat you like your agreement is 3-12. How can my agreement be 3-12 when I have never played with this player before and our only discussion was to play 10-12? On the actual hand partner competed to the three level which hopefully she would not do if my agreement really was 3+. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 1 03:05:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:05:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Which law? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 12A1 states: >>The Director may award an assigned adjusted score >>when he judges that these Laws do not provide >>indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the >>particular type of violation of law committed by >>an opponent. Kojak wrote: >To extend the use of Laws to where the non- >offending side becomes offenders in a case for >which 12A1 was purposely provided surpasses >sophistry. RJH agrees: Yes, Steve Willner and Kojak are both correct in stating that this exceptional case under discussion is precisely the sort of exceptional case for which the exceptional Law 12A1 was written. Kojak also wrote: >Thank you Steve. Every now and then there is a ray >of light in the darkness. Why pass by the obvious >in Law 12 A 1 and go through ridiculous >manipulations and stretches of the imagination to >make some law fit that doesn't apply? Oh yes, I >forgot! So many feel they are much wiser and well >informed in bridge and English than Kaplan and >previous Review Committees. RJH cautions: But it was Edgar Kaplan himself who devoted a Bridge World editorial some decades ago to the dangers of a TD lazily using Law 12A1 before exploring all of the other options permitted by all of the other Laws. In my opinion, it is more ridiculous to over-use Law 12A1 than it is to under-use that Law. The mission of Law 12A1 is to permit the TD to have a general power to give an equitable ruling to the non- offending side after an "unusual" infraction. But a mission of the WBF LC is to design the 2006 Laws to minimise the number of "unusual" infractions. The 2006 Laws should further define what used to be "unusual" infractions as *usual* infractions, such as resolution of the lacuna in the Laws discussed in the parallel "Pass Pass" thread. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 1 08:48:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:48:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415D0BE2.2030500@hdw.be> A similar regress works too: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Wayne asked: > > >>Hi >> >>Playing online in an ACBL tourney I opened 1NT in 3rd seat with a >>pick-up partner on a 3-count. >> >>We were playing 10-12 1NT and the vulnerability was favourable. >> >>The director later tried to tell me that this psyche was illegal. >> >>I can't see this. Does anyone know of a relevant regulation? >> >>TIA > > > RJH replies: > > Some time ago, there was extensive blml analysis about an ACBL reg > which (in effect) stated that: > > (a) Opening a psychic 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 15-17 range was > legal, but > > (b) Opening a psychic 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range was > illegal. > (a) Opening a psychic 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 15-17 range was legal, > Now an ACBL TD applies logical inferences of infinite regress: > (b) Opening a psychic 8 hcp 1NT with a notional 14-16 range was legal, (c) Opening a psychic 7 hcp 1NT with a notional 13-15 range was legal, (d) Opening a psychic 6 hcp 1NT with a notional 12-14 range was legal, (e) Opening a psychic 5 hcp 1NT with a notional 11-13 range was legal, (f) Opening a psychic 4 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range was legal, sadly you had only 3 points! > (c) Psyching a 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range is illegal in > the ACBL, so > > (d) Psyching an 8 or 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range is > illegal in the ACBL, so > > (e) Psyching a 7 or 8 or 9 hcp 1NT with a notional 10-12 range is > illegal in the ACBL, so > > et cetera, et cetera, et cetera > > (z) Psyching a 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 hcp > 1NT with a notional 10-12 range is illegal in the ACBL. > > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 1 09:06:38 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:06:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Myxomatosis References: Message-ID: <009101c4a793$3a5051f0$f862893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Myxomatosis > > > Of course, as was his wont, Edgar Kaplan > deliberately left an ambiguous nuance in > Law 72A1 by deliberately including the word > "tournaments" in that Law. Kaplan subsequently > carefully stated in a Bridge World editorial that > the use of "tournaments" meant that TDs need > not strictly stick to the Laws in local duplicates. > +=+ Probably he did not possess a dictionary. < 'Tournament' : a contest in a game of skill between a number of competitors.> ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 1 09:11:46 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:11:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Myxomatosis References: Message-ID: <009201c4a793$3b2491e0$f862893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Myxomatosis > > One of the first laws passed by the Australian > Parliament after federation in 1901 was an Acts > Interpretation Act. In my opinion, Law 72A1 is > a Laws Interpretation Law. > +=+ When taken with Law 81C5, Law 72A1 has the particular effect of placing a duty of care upon the Director. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Oct 1 13:17:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: <415C0028.2010005@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Why couldn't you just let them finish the board the first time! > > because L15 does not allow for that. And despite what some people have > suggested, I do believe L15 is the one to apply. L15C doesn't apply (barometer move, no contestant is "playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round"). L15B doesn't apply (obviously). Apply L15a2 if you must (I'd recommend "later" as being 2 seconds later). I think it's borderline whether L15 applies at all in a Barometer but can live with this. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Oct 1 13:17:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: <415BFB88.5040104@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Personally I would consider it grossly unfair on a South capable of > > in tempo bidding if the TD didn't check. Pair A would have > > information from playing at the wrong table to which they were not > > entitled (it would also be unfair to make this UI to Ae). > > > > I don't really understand this. Do you think it unfair if the TD does > not check? That is what I said. >is the TD no longer allowed to believe the players? Of course he is. I think you were right to confirm that a hesitation also occurred at the first table. > Or are you saying that the TD must try and get all the AI from table > one as well as just the bidding? Of course he must. "If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board." In any way must include tempo, negative inferences, hand types etc. 1H precision is different from 1H Acol weak NT, is different from 1H Acol St NT. > In which case you might just throw out L15 altogether. I might. But in in club play where everybody plays a similar system it is OK. > > > >>So the board has now become playable has it not? > > > > > > Not until you tell me what systems D/B were playing. Pass of 1N > > using DONT is very different to a pass of 1N playing natural (or > > Astro etc). > > > > Now you are going extremely far in your appication of L15. I'm not being extreme - I'm just demonstrating that I understand what the words "in any way" mean :) > > The auction being "much the same" may be close enough for average > > club players (who just want to play and don't draw inferences > > anyway). But let us try to forget that this event was played in > > Wales and instead assume a > > did you forget your smiley? This event contained nothing but players Smiley deliberately omitted: Here it is :))) > who have appeared in the Camrose. Several of the people named A,B,C > and D would be known on this list, and not just to the Welsh readers. > > > level of player beyond mediocrity. Slight inferences *might* matter > > to good players. If we let these sorts of hands be played out we > > will often end up adjusting afterwards for TD error. > > which would not change from cancelling the board anyway. It sure as hell would. It would mean giving a L82c correction treating both sides as non-offending. Quite probably equivalent to an ArtAs of 80/70 or some such. We can't just *hope* it makes no difference and cancel retrospectively if we turn out to be wrong - the laws don't allow that. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Oct 1 13:17:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <415BFE0A.2090501@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > And how many players should he consult? A TD should consult as much as is necessary for him to believe in whatever ruling he gives. Maybe one other, maybe a dozen. It's a TD's job to give rulings - not to abdicate responsibility. If you can't stand the heat.... > And how many should he leave > out in order to be left with an appeal committee. There were 32 high > level players in this room, 8 of which were now in the case itself, > and all others have played the board as well. Rather give it to an AC > straight away. Not an option. Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 1 13:54:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:54:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>And how many players should he consult? > > > A TD should consult as much as is necessary for him to believe in whatever > ruling he gives. Maybe one other, maybe a dozen. It's a TD's job to give > rulings - not to abdicate responsibility. If you can't stand the heat.... > > > >>And how many should he leave >>out in order to be left with an appeal committee. There were 32 high >>level players in this room, 8 of which were now in the case itself, >>and all others have played the board as well. Rather give it to an AC >>straight away. > > > Not an option. > OK Tim, then how do you solve the following problem: There are 32 players in the field. 4 of them were at the table, 2 others actually made the same 'unethical' call. All others have played the board, though none with a strong no-trump. Most have overcalled with the south hand, so they have a different auction as well. You can ask a player, explain the whole thing, and get an opinion. You probably know what that opinion is going to be, it won't be 2Di. So you could easily follow your instinct and rule against the player. You know however that he too is an ethical player and he'll want to appeal this. So you do one more. You find one more player, explain the facts (another 5 minutes gone) and he too says pass is a LA. By now you have completely lost track of all the board movements and the round is at an end and the players are getting away. The break is coming up, the ideal time to do the appeal if there is going to be any. Now you have to make up your mind (well actually I was there already 10 minutes ago) - do you give this ruling and ask him to appeal, or do you call this appeal myself. You have the right to do so, remember. You need some time as well to select your committee. By now your break time is over and you'll be stuck with the appeal overnight. Well, I decided to do it otherwise. I would not waste time consulting players that I would have to choose among the second best (keeping the best for my appeal committee) but I selected the players of the AC right away. So I did not make a thought-through ruling. I believe such is my right and as such, this IS an option. And then of course I am NOT going to say to this AC, "my opinion is ...", since I never formed a definite opinion. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 1 15:35:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:35:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c4a7c3$e408a690$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ................. > "If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call > in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board." > In any way must include tempo, negative inferences, hand types etc. This definitely does not conform to the interpretation and comments to Law 15 as of 1992. The manner in which a call is made is not part of the auction. However, knowledge of any special manner in which a call was made either in the first auction or in the second auction, or even in both auctions is extraneous information and may as such be deemed UI. Different manners do not make the auction as such different in the sense of Law 15. > 1H precision is different from 1H Acol weak NT, > is different from 1H Acol St NT. This however is correct and in fact is emphasized in the 1992 commentaries. A literally equivalent call with a significantly different meaning is to be taken as a different call in the sense of Law 15. ............. > I'm not being extreme - I'm just demonstrating that I understand what the > words "in any way" mean :) And I am afraid that you have just demonstrated you don't? Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 1 15:59:39 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:59:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Oct 2004, at 13:54, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, I decided to do it otherwise. I would not waste time consulting > players that I would have to choose among the second best (keeping the > best for my appeal committee) Why do you assume you'll need an AC? Isn't the idea to give your best ruling, so that you hopefully don't need an appeal committee? I also don't see why you had to limit your consultation to the players present. There's a long list available of players who are available to consult with by phone. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 1 16:06:57 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:06:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <897EFDE6-13BB-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Oct 2004, at 13:17, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >>> Why couldn't you just let them finish the board the first time! >> >> because L15 does not allow for that. And despite what some people have >> suggested, I do believe L15 is the one to apply. > > L15C doesn't apply (barometer move, no contestant is "playing a board > not > designated for him to play in the current round"). > > L15B doesn't apply (obviously). > > Apply L15a2 if you must (I'd recommend "later" as being 2 seconds > later). > I think it's borderline whether L15 applies at all in a Barometer but > can > live with this. The White Book tells us: 15.1 Board played in wrong section When a pair moves to the wrong section, but a section which is part of the same event playing the same boards, and plays a board there, the result of the board is retained for both sides if neither side has previously played the board. They might consider extending this in future, to include the situation under discussion where the same board is being played in the same section. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 1 16:21:38 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:21:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <415D7602.9000304@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2004, at 13:54, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Well, I decided to do it otherwise. I would not waste time consulting >> players that I would have to choose among the second best (keeping the >> best for my appeal committee) > > > Why do you assume you'll need an AC? Isn't the idea to give your best > ruling, so that you hopefully don't need an appeal committee? > > I also don't see why you had to limit your consultation to the players > present. There's a long list available of players who are available to > consult with by phone. > not when you have the camrose teams of all five nations present there. and besides - that only takes even longer. when it's precisely the idea that the player should be allowed to defend his action against his peers which is the crux of this matter. I don't need any consultation to decide that pass is a LA. But I don't want to do that unless the player can defend himself. So for better or for worse - if the 2Di bidder is to have any chance, he'll need an AC. That's what I gave him and he received what he would have wanted. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 1 16:23:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:23:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: <897EFDE6-13BB-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <897EFDE6-13BB-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <415D767B.505@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2004, at 13:17, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Herman wrote: >> >>>> Why couldn't you just let them finish the board the first time! >>> >>> >>> because L15 does not allow for that. And despite what some people have >>> suggested, I do believe L15 is the one to apply. >> >> >> L15C doesn't apply (barometer move, no contestant is "playing a board not >> designated for him to play in the current round"). >> >> L15B doesn't apply (obviously). >> >> Apply L15a2 if you must (I'd recommend "later" as being 2 seconds later). >> I think it's borderline whether L15 applies at all in a Barometer but can >> live with this. > > > The White Book tells us: > > 15.1 Board played in wrong section > When a pair moves to the wrong section, but a section which is part of > the same event > playing the same boards, and plays a board there, the result of the > board is retained for > both sides if neither side has previously played the board. > > They might consider extending this in future, to include the situation > under discussion where the same board is being played in the same section. > "is played" means bid and played? Then I don't need the white book, this is just the Law. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From schoderb@msn.com Fri Oct 1 16:42:44 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:42:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> Message-ID: Having snooped at this thread for some time and wallowed in it's artificially created complexity, applicable laws, judgments, and opinions I'm left with a feeling of sadness. Can someone please edify me --- was the supposed problem that the 1 NT was 15-17 the first time, and was 14-16 the second time? Is there anyone who reads this in English as not differing? "...if any call differs IN ANY WAY (all italics mine)..." (Thanks Sven for your lucid statement on this re ANY in Law 15, it shows a deep insight into how the game is played). But, that was not the problem at all! Did the TD jump to move the players before reading the law? I find that it says "...a CONTESTANT is playing a board not designated for him to play IN THE CURRENT ROUND....." It addresses the board, not the opponents, does it not? The contestants involved were ALL designated to play the board in the current round. The law is mute about whom they were to play it against. Why can't the 3 and 5 East/West play it against the 5 and 3 North/South? This is barometer scoring would not this satisfy those who are so strongly for getting bridge results? -- particularly when this field is defined as of mostly equal strength? You can even add 15A1 to your reasoning as an example where a score stands even though played against the wrong opponents and which happens with some frequency. Or is the scoring system used unable to handle random changes in pair numbers? What would you do if the correct pairs had sat in the wrong seats (NS and EW) - as frequently happens in Howell games? Careful reading of simple English works from time to time. I'd be happy to defend that solution against any AC, and doubt very much that it would be appealed. I'd also take some action against the provider of the guide cards which allegedly didn't have a table number on them for the move. that's almost as bad as having the wrong movement (read Lille WBF)! I think Herman is right, however, to ask an AC to review his solution, one which I find abysmally wrong. (that is if I remember correctly that he had the board played with the proper opponents, having for some exotic reason decided that 14-16 equals 15-17, and later decided to adjust the result or some such thing on a bridge judgemental basis, and to spread out the responsibility for trying to horseshoe poor application of the law by convening an AC.) If my understanding of the facts is wrong - I of course offer Herman my abject apologies in advance since my change in personality to a pussycat. Kojak From: "Herman De Wael" To: Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > > > >>And how many players should he consult? > > > > > > A TD should consult as much as is necessary for him to believe in > > whatever > > ruling he gives. Maybe one other, maybe a dozen. It's a TD's job to > > give > > rulings - not to abdicate responsibility. If you can't stand the > > heat.... > > > > > > > >>And how many should he leave > >>out in order to be left with an appeal committee. There were 32 high > >>level players in this room, 8 of which were now in the case itself, > >>and all others have played the board as well. Rather give it to an AC > >>straight away. > > > > > > Not an option. > > > > OK Tim, then how do you solve the following problem: > There are 32 players in the field. 4 of them were at the table, 2 > others actually made the same 'unethical' call. All others have played > the board, though none with a strong no-trump. Most have overcalled > with the south hand, so they have a different auction as well. You can > ask a player, explain the whole thing, and get an opinion. You > probably know what that opinion is going to be, it won't be 2Di. So > you could easily follow your instinct and rule against the player. You > know however that he too is an ethical player and he'll want to appeal > this. So you do one more. You find one more player, explain the facts > (another 5 minutes gone) and he too says pass is a LA. By now you have > completely lost track of all the board movements and the round is at > an end and the players are getting away. The break is coming up, the > ideal time to do the appeal if there is going to be any. Now you have > to make up your mind (well actually I was there already 10 minutes > ago) - do you give this ruling and ask him to appeal, or do you call > this appeal myself. You have the right to do so, remember. > You need some time as well to select your committee. By now your break > time is over and you'll be stuck with the appeal overnight. > > Well, I decided to do it otherwise. I would not waste time consulting > players that I would have to choose among the second best (keeping the > best for my appeal committee) but I selected the players of the AC > right away. So I did not make a thought-through ruling. I believe such > is my right and as such, this IS an option. > > And then of course I am NOT going to say to this AC, "my opinion is > ...", since I never formed a definite opinion. > > > > Tim > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 1 16:44:31 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:44:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <415D7602.9000304@hdw.be> References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <415D7602.9000304@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 1 Oct 2004, at 16:21, Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't need any consultation to decide that pass is a LA. Clearly this is a geographical difference. The EBU White Book tells us: 121.5.9 You must not give a judgement ruling without consulting first. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 1 16:49:56 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:49:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: <415D767B.505@hdw.be> References: <897EFDE6-13BB-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <415D767B.505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8AC54DEA-13C1-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 1 Oct 2004, at 16:23, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >> The White Book tells us: >> 15.1 Board played in wrong section >> When a pair moves to the wrong section, but a section which is part >> of the same event >> playing the same boards, and plays a board there, the result of the >> board is retained for >> both sides if neither side has previously played the board. >> They might consider extending this in future, to include the >> situation under discussion where the same board is being played in >> the same section. > > "is played" means bid and played? "Is played" is not a phrase used in the quotation above. > Then I don't need the white book, this is just the Law. You seem not to have given and opinion on the substantive point I made. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 1 17:04:49 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:04:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: <8AC54DEA-13C1-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <897EFDE6-13BB-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <415D767B.505@hdw.be> <8AC54DEA-13C1-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <415D8021.7020900@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2004, at 16:23, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>> >>> The White Book tells us: >>> 15.1 Board played in wrong section >>> When a pair moves to the wrong section, but a section which is part >>> of the same event >>> playing the same boards, and plays a board there, the result of the >>> board is retained for >>> both sides if neither side has previously played the board. >>> They might consider extending this in future, to include the >>> situation under discussion where the same board is being played in >>> the same section. >> >> >> "is played" means bid and played? > > > "Is played" is not a phrase used in the quotation above. > >> Then I don't need the white book, this is just the Law. > > > You seem not to have given and opinion on the substantive point I made. > What substantive point? You quote a regulation which is a- not of application (Wales <> EBU), although probably the WBU have stated somewhere a similar regulation b- not of application, since it speaks of boards "played" (in the title) and "plays", but not of boards "being bid" c- not of application, since it speaks of "in different section" which it is not d- (as far as it concerns boards that have been finished) exactly like the Law. So what opinion do you want me to give? That it would be better if we could let the board be played out? Have I not stated that already 200 times in the past 20 years? So please tell me what more you want from me? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 1 17:08:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:08:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <415D7602.9000304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <415D80E5.6050903@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2004, at 16:21, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I don't need any consultation to decide that pass is a LA. > > > Clearly this is a geographical difference. > > The EBU White Book tells us: > > 121.5.9 > You must not give a judgement ruling > without consulting first. > but I did not give a ruling, did I? And I did not say that I needed no consultation to give a ruling. I said I did not need consultation to decide this. But that is not important. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Oct 1 17:14:19 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:14:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816F6F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > I also don't see why you had to limit your consultation to the players = > present. There's a long list available of players who are available to = > consult with by phone. >=20 not when you have the camrose teams of all five nations present there. and besides - that only takes even longer. when it's precisely the idea that the player should be allowed to=20 defend his action against his peers which is the crux of this matter. I don't need any consultation to decide that pass is a LA. But I don't=20 want to do that unless the player can defend himself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- You can say you don't want to consult by phone which is fine, but saying there aren't people available is rubbish. Looking at the list of players I can't spot _any_ of the English referees or senior TDs playing. =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 1 17:15:53 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:15:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <415D82B9.5090606@hdw.be> Hello Bill, thanks for your interest. Can I clear up a few little points? WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Having snooped at this thread for some time and wallowed in it's > artificially created complexity, applicable laws, judgments, and opinions > I'm left with a feeling of sadness. Can someone please edify me --- was > the supposed problem that the 1 NT was 15-17 the first time, and was 14-16 > the second time? No, that was, at the table, not a problem. That was the first replay of the board, and that was solved with Av+/Av+. It was the second replay that caused the most problems, and of course the 1NT was the same value there, it was after all also the same pair. > Is there anyone who reads this in English as not differing? > "...if any call differs IN ANY WAY (all italics mine)..." (Thanks Sven for > your lucid statement on this re ANY in Law 15, it shows a deep insight into > how the game is played). But, that was not the problem at all! > Well, my point about this is that ANY can not mean "ANY", since then even a pass by a different player is different. I'm not saying that 14-16 iso 15-17 should always be accepted, but I'm not saying either that it can never be acceptable. Most players want to play the board, and who am I to stand in their way? > Did the TD jump to move the players before reading the law? > > I find that it says "...a CONTESTANT is playing a board not designated for > him to play IN THE CURRENT ROUND....." It addresses the board, not the > opponents, does it not? The contestants involved were ALL designated to play > the board in the current round. The law is mute about whom they were to play > it against. Why can't the 3 and 5 East/West play it against the 5 and 3 > North/South? This is barometer scoring would not this satisfy those who are > so strongly for getting bridge results? -- particularly when this field is > defined as of mostly equal strength? You can even add 15A1 to your reasoning > as an example where a score stands even though played against the wrong > opponents and which happens with some frequency. Or is the scoring system > used unable to handle random changes in pair numbers? What would you do if > the correct pairs had sat in the wrong seats (NS and EW) - as frequently > happens in Howell games? > Certainly the scoring software can deal with this. But if L15 is not applicable to this situation, then what law is? Suppose it is finished. If L15 is not of application, then I cannot either apply L15A which states that the board shall be scored. So I believe L15C is of application here, even if slightly badly worded. > Careful reading of simple English works from time to time. I'd be happy to > defend that solution against any AC, and doubt very much that it would be > appealed. > Well, some people might be angry if you let them play against T.Forrester 7 boards in stead of six. > I'd also take some action against the provider of the guide cards which > allegedly didn't have a table number on them for the move. that's almost as > bad as having the wrong movement (read Lille WBF)! > I did, I got a beer off him. > I think Herman is right, however, to ask an AC to review his solution, one > which I find abysmally wrong. (that is if I remember correctly that he had > the board played with the proper opponents, having for some exotic reason > decided that 14-16 equals 15-17, and later decided to adjust the result or > some such thing on a bridge judgemental basis, and to spread out the > responsibility for trying to horseshoe poor application of the law by > convening an AC.) > The AC only dealt with the appropriateness of the 2Di call. > If my understanding of the facts is wrong - I of course offer Herman my > abject apologies in advance since my change in personality to a pussycat. > Only some facts, Kojak, your input re L15 is appreciated. And we all agree that to let them play it out is the best solution. > Kojak > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 1 18:15:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:15:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4a7da$46936370$6900a8c0@WINXP> > WILLIAM SCHODER > Having snooped at this thread for some time and wallowed in it's > opinions artificially created complexity, applicable laws,=20 > judgments, and I'm left with a feeling of sadness. Can someone=20 > please edify me --- was the supposed problem that the 1 NT was=20 > 15-17 the first time, and was 14-16 the second time? Is there=20 > anyone who reads this in English as not differing? > "...if any call differs IN ANY WAY (all italics mine)..."=20 > (Thanks Sven for your lucid statement on this re ANY in Law 15, > it shows a deep insight into how the game is played). But, that > was not the problem at all! My impression from this thread is that that was precisely the problem. Law 15 says: "if any call differs in any way from the corresponding call = in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board".=20 Now exactly what is an auction?=20 An auction comprises calls using the words "Pass", "Double", "Redouble" = or one of the denominations "Clubs", "Diamonds", "Hearts", "Spades" or "NoTrump" prefixed by a number in the range one through seven. Anything else (manners, remarks, whatever) is NOT part of any auction it = is extraneous matter which may result in information to be ruled as being unauthorized for some or all the players at the table. The commentaries to the laws of 1987 states: In Law 15C2 the Director must treat as "different" any bid which is straightforwardly different in the denomination or level at which it is made, and also any bid which corresponds in its denomination and level = but which has a significantly different meaning than it did in the first auction; the same considerations apply to Pass, Double, Redouble where = these calls occur at the same stage as in the first auction..... (End quote). Note that the commentaries use the term *significantly different = meaning* here. Apparently the intention was to leave the judgment to the Director whether the possible difference in the meaning of a literally identical = call was sufficiently significant to have the board cancelled. True: Law 15C2 in the 1987 laws did not say "differs in any way ..." it simply stated "If any call differs from the corresponding call ..."=20 What is the effect of the added clause "in any way"?=20 One answer is obvious: If we require not only the two auctions but also = all extraneous matters to be identical we have a problem: =20 The players "know" that they are in an extraordinary situation and their minds cannot possibly be unaffected by this fact, they are faced with different opponents, they know what calls to be expected from partner = etc. etc.=20 There will always be some extraneous matter that makes the second = auction different from the first so with this requirement we can never have two identical auctions. This can certainly not be the intention of Law 15 or it would simply = have stated that the board must be cancelled for the involved players. I am personally convinced that the clause was added to cover just the situation where literally identical calls have significantly different meanings, not to require all extraneous matters to correspond as well. Now why not simply apply the understanding given for the 1987 laws and extend the applicable commentaries to the 1997 laws? "The Director must = rule whether the meaning of a literally identical call is significantly = different from when the call was made in the first auction". An opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is no doubt significantly different from the same bid in a natural system, but is an announced 1NT range of 14-16 significantly different from 15-17 when all other = criteria for the opening bid of 1NT are identical in the two systems?=20 AFAIK we do allow a player to use his bridge judgment and open a good 14 = HCP hand or a lousy 18HCP hand in 1NT even when the announced range is 15-17 = so why should we automatically consider the range 14-16 to be significantly different from the range 15-17? That does not make sense to me. But if the Director after all finds that the difference really has been significant it must be because player(s) must have based some = decision(s) during the second auction or subsequent play on knowledge from that call = in the first auction. This knowledge is UI and should be treated as such by = the Director! =20 Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 1 18:49:28 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:49:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> <415D82B9.5090606@hdw.be> Message-ID: <415D98A8.50202@hdw.be> Sorry Kojak, but even all the reverence I can award you is not evnough to excuse you for this mail. WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Dear Herman. > > As usual you miss the point. Law 15C is not applicable. It (Law 15C) I have missed no points. I agree that the wording of L15C means it is not applicable to this case. Then please tell me which law deals with this problem. And don't believe that you have done so in the text below, you have NOT. > clearly, specifically, throughout, and in English that anyone can read and > understand refers to contestants and their relationship to boards during the > CURRENT ROUND. THERE WAS NEVER A WRONG BOARD DURING THIS MESS. My reference > to Law 15A was to try to get you to start thinking about what you are doing, > not applying it directly, THOUGH IT'S EFFECT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME. You > decide that the Law 15C is "...slightly badly worded...." because it doesn't > fit what you want it to fit. Poppycock! (not exactly the word that first > came to mind). I sense unwillingness to see things clearly, use good > judgment, and apply common sense for which you are tasked when assigned as a > TD. You also nicely find that you have the right to make the word ANY > whatever suits your fancy, but that isn't even applicable to your basic > mistake in this case. Well, you used the word ... poppycock. If you want to tell me what I should have done, then please do so with text. If I want to apply the solution from L15C, then I have just as much right to do so as you have when you want to solve it. At least my solution is the one the lawmakers have provided for a very similar case. Your solutioin appears no-where. So don't you start telling me off for doing something wrong. And I don't wish to heed my words here. > Why apply a Law which does not deal with the > situation? Because apparently there is no law which does deal with this situation. > What you did was the same as applying Law 55 in place of Law 56 > when a defender leads out of turn. The only Law even remotely connected to > what you were faced with is Law 5B, and that does not provide for a > rectification or penalty, which is why some organizations have provided > guidance on what to do with many types of situations which are not covered > by Law. Interesting that you have no comment to make on my sentence about > errors in Howell movement seatings -- can you quote me the Law for doing > that? I have absolutely no idea what you want me to do. > > We don't "all agree" that letting them play it out is the "best" solution. > It should be the ONLY one. > It should, but it is not. L15C is another solution. If you say that it should be the onnly one, then you are mereley saying that it is the best solution. My thoughts exactly. BTW, I was not CTD of the WBF when the laws were not changed in 1996. Why did you not try and influence the lawgivers when you apparently feel so strongly about this one? > The catharsis of facing up to being wrong is what I highly recommend for > your future development as a TD. I, and many other TDs have been wrong, said > so, learned from it, and thereby gained the respect of their peers and most > importantly - the players. Making a big thread on BLML out of the > aftereffects of a basic mistake that should not have happened may give you > great glee, and the opportunity to declaim and pontificate, but it's really > akin to what cats do after defecating. Also, I feel getting a beer is a most > unprofessional result for a TD when faced by incompetence. Your > responsibilities do not include imbibing. > I don't think this paragraph meets the requirements of simple courtesy to warrant a reply. > Kojak (the yet-to-be-fully-formed pussycat) > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From schoderb@msn.com Fri Oct 1 23:23:30 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:23:30 -0400 Subject: Fw: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > sorry Herman, you completely missed the point. > You answer my question of why apply a law which does not deal with this > situation by stating "Because apparently there is no law which does deal > with this situation." That kind of circular reasoning is beyond my lowly > powers of comprehension. Could it be that the lawmakers might have > expected you to use your noodle? > > I do, in fact give you some advice in my previous last paragraph, which > you apparently reject. So be it, but I think that your silence thereon > "doth protest too much" or some such words from the famous Belgian writer, > Shakespeare. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > > > Sorry Kojak, > > but even all the reverence I can award you is not evnough to excuse > > you for this mail. > > > > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > > > Dear Herman. > > > > > > As usual you miss the point. Law 15C is not applicable. It (Law 15C) > > > > I have missed no points. I agree that the wording of L15C means it is > > not applicable to this case. Then please tell me which law deals with > > this problem. And don't believe that you have done so in the text > > below, you have NOT. > > > > > clearly, specifically, throughout, and in English that anyone can read > > > and > > > understand refers to contestants and their relationship to boards > > > during > > > the > > > CURRENT ROUND. THERE WAS NEVER A WRONG BOARD DURING THIS MESS. My > > > reference > > > to Law 15A was to try to get you to start thinking about what you are > > > doing, > > > not applying it directly, THOUGH IT'S EFFECT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME. > > > You > > > decide that the Law 15C is "...slightly badly worded...." because it > > > doesn't > > > fit what you want it to fit. Poppycock! (not exactly the word that > > > first > > > came to mind). I sense unwillingness to see things clearly, use good > > > judgment, and apply common sense for which you are tasked when > > > assigned > > > as a > > > TD. You also nicely find that you have the right to make the word ANY > > > whatever suits your fancy, but that isn't even applicable to your > > > basic > > > mistake in this case. > > > > Well, you used the word ... poppycock. If you want to tell me what I > > should have done, then please do so with text. If I want to apply the > > solution from L15C, then I have just as much right to do so as you > > have when you want to solve it. At least my solution is the one the > > lawmakers have provided for a very similar case. Your solutioin > > appears no-where. So don't you start telling me off for doing > > something wrong. And I don't wish to heed my words here. > > > > > > > Why apply a Law which does not deal with the > > > situation? > > > B> ecause apparently there is no law which does deal with this situation. > > > > > What you did was the same as applying Law 55 in place of Law 56 > > > when a defender leads out of turn. The only Law even remotely > > > connected > > > to > > > what you were faced with is Law 5B, and that does not provide for a > > > rectification or penalty, which is why some organizations have > > > provided > > > guidance on what to do with many types of situations which are not > > > covered > > > by Law. Interesting that you have no comment to make on my sentence > > > about > > > errors in Howell movement seatings -- can you quote me the Law for > > > doing > > > that? > > > > I have absolutely no idea what you want me to do. > > > > > > > > We don't "all agree" that letting them play it out is the "best" > > > solution. > > > It should be the ONLY one. > > > > > > > It should, but it is not. L15C is another solution. If you say that it > > should be the onnly one, then you are mereley saying that it is the > > best solution. My thoughts exactly. > > BTW, I was not CTD of the WBF when the laws were not changed in 1996. > > Why did you not try and influence the lawgivers when you apparently > > feel so strongly about this one? > > > > > The catharsis of facing up to being wrong is what I highly recommend > > > for > > > your future development as a TD. I, and many other TDs have been > > > wrong, > > > said > > > so, learned from it, and thereby gained the respect of their peers and > > > most > > > importantly - the players. Making a big thread on BLML out of the > > > aftereffects of a basic mistake that should not have happened may give > > > you > > > great glee, and the opportunity to declaim and pontificate, but it's > > > really > > > akin to what cats do after defecating. Also, I feel getting a beer is > > > a > > > most > > > unprofessional result for a TD when faced by incompetence. Your > > > responsibilities do not include imbibing. > > > > > > > I don't think this paragraph meets the requirements of simple courtesy > > to warrant a reply. > > > > > Kojak (the yet-to-be-fully-formed pussycat) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.hdw.be > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 1 23:28:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:28:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Myxomatosis In-Reply-To: <009101c4a793$3a5051f0$f862893e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RJH asserted: [snip] >>Kaplan subsequently carefully stated in a Bridge >>World editorial that the use of "tournaments" meant >>that TDs need not strictly stick to the Laws in >>local duplicates. Grattan asserted: >+=+ Probably he did not possess a dictionary. > < 'Tournament' : a contest in a game of skill >between a number of competitors.> > ~ G ~ +=+ RJH notes: While convalescing from a recent period in hospital, I had a rare pleasure of playing "daytime bridge" at the Canberra Bridge Club. That local duplicate session was *not* a game of skill. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 2 00:15:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:15:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAM SCHODER [mailto:schoderb@msn.com] > Sent: 2. oktober 2004 00:14 > To: Sven Pran > Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 >=20 > An excellent presentation. However, please remember in Herman's case = the > clause that is in 15C "...a contestant is playing a board not = designated > for > him to play in the current round..." which was NOT the case in a > barometer. > This tells me that 15C did not apply, since he(they) was(were) in fact > playing a designated board. The purpose of Law 15 has to do with the = play > of a wrong board, NOT the play of wrong opponents. We have plenty of = case > law where we find that the Law book does not directly address itself = to > what > happened. I find much value in what you posted about ANY, etc., but = would > strongly recommend that extending it to judgment of whatever a > "significant > difference" means is a dangerous thing to do, and brings on the = problems > that arose in this case. >=20 > Kojak For what it is worth: I have previously presented how we deal with this kind of incidents in Norway. Remember that barometer has been THE normal way here of running events for pairs for at least some 40 years. To my knowledge barometer = is first mentioned in Norwegian literature in 1945 in a reference to = Swedish tournament styles (incidentally with a very critical view on the = principle). We have for years handled incorrectly seated pairs according to Law 15 = the same way as Herman apparently did but I have since last summer become = very much in real doubts both on the legality and also on the suitability of = such procedures. My discussion in this thread has been centered on how to apply Law 15 = when this law is applicable or when/if we for other reasons want to apply Law = 15. However, after much consideration I am convinced that we do not need Law = 15 at all to handle incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. Once the incorrectly seated pair has started on their auction before the error is discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them = complete the round as they started it (and then have them continue according to = the original schedule from the round thereafter). The pair who as a = consequence finds their seats occupied will then be instructed just for this round = to take the seats which should have been occupied by the incorrectly seated pair, seats which as a consequence appear vacant. This solution creates the absolute minimum of disturbance to the = tournament and can easily be handled by any scoring computer software. The only = real disadvantage I can imagine is if any of the four involved pairs is exceptionally strong or weak so that the disturbed balance could have a significant impact on the final results. Regards Sven From schoderb@msn.com Sat Oct 2 12:52:22 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 07:52:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Bravo, that's what I mean by using your noodle! The only thing that I would change is that I would do it as you say for only the one board, and then make the switch to the correct seats. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 7:15 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAM SCHODER [mailto:schoderb@msn.com] > Sent: 2. oktober 2004 00:14 > To: Sven Pran > Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > An excellent presentation. However, please remember in Herman's case the > clause that is in 15C "...a contestant is playing a board not designated > for > him to play in the current round..." which was NOT the case in a > barometer. > This tells me that 15C did not apply, since he(they) was(were) in fact > playing a designated board. The purpose of Law 15 has to do with the play > of a wrong board, NOT the play of wrong opponents. We have plenty of case > law where we find that the Law book does not directly address itself to > what > happened. I find much value in what you posted about ANY, etc., but would > strongly recommend that extending it to judgment of whatever a > "significant > difference" means is a dangerous thing to do, and brings on the problems > that arose in this case. > > Kojak For what it is worth: I have previously presented how we deal with this kind of incidents in Norway. Remember that barometer has been THE normal way here of running events for pairs for at least some 40 years. To my knowledge barometer is first mentioned in Norwegian literature in 1945 in a reference to Swedish tournament styles (incidentally with a very critical view on the principle). We have for years handled incorrectly seated pairs according to Law 15 the same way as Herman apparently did but I have since last summer become very much in real doubts both on the legality and also on the suitability of such procedures. My discussion in this thread has been centered on how to apply Law 15 when this law is applicable or when/if we for other reasons want to apply Law 15. However, after much consideration I am convinced that we do not need Law 15 at all to handle incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. Once the incorrectly seated pair has started on their auction before the error is discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them complete the round as they started it (and then have them continue according to the original schedule from the round thereafter). The pair who as a consequence finds their seats occupied will then be instructed just for this round to take the seats which should have been occupied by the incorrectly seated pair, seats which as a consequence appear vacant. This solution creates the absolute minimum of disturbance to the tournament and can easily be handled by any scoring computer software. The only real disadvantage I can imagine is if any of the four involved pairs is exceptionally strong or weak so that the disturbed balance could have a significant impact on the final results. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 2 13:35:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:35:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4a87c$3d7b0520$6900a8c0@WINXP> > WILLIAM SCHODER > Bravo, that's what I mean by using your noodle!=20 > The only thing that I would change is that I would=20 > do it as you say for only the one board, and then > make the switch to the correct seats. Changing a pair for the whole round causes little problem for the = scoring. Changing a pair in the middle of a round will often cause more trouble = both during the round itself and also when that round is subsequently scored. Actually the way "round" is defined in the laws I doubt that changing a = pair in the middle of a round is really legal (except in an emergency when = the director inserts a substitute for a player who could not complete the = round for whatever accepted reason). Regards Sven ..................... (I had written): .............. > However, after much consideration I am convinced that=20 > we do not need Law 15 at all to handle incorrectly=20 > seated pairs in barometer events. Once the incorrectly > seated pair has started on their auction before the error > is discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in > letting them complete the round as they started it=20 > (and then have them continue according to the original > schedule from the round thereafter). The pair who as a > consequence finds their seats occupied will then be=20 > instructed just for this round to take the seats which > should have been occupied by the incorrectly seated > pair, seats which as a consequence appear vacant. >=20 > This solution creates the absolute minimum of disturbance > to the tournament and can easily be handled by any scoring > computer software. The only real disadvantage I can imagine > is if any of the four involved pairs is exceptionally strong > or weak so that the disturbed balance could have a > significant impact on the final results. From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 2 14:21:45 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:21:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816F6F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816F6F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <1HR8NgAptqXBFwA$@asimere.com> In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816F6F@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes > >> I also don't see why you had to limit your consultation to the players >> present. There's a long list available of players who are available to >> consult with by phone. >> > >not when you have the camrose teams of all five nations present there. >and besides - that only takes even longer. >when it's precisely the idea that the player should be allowed to >defend his action against his peers which is the crux of this matter. >I don't need any consultation to decide that pass is a LA. But I don't >want to do that unless the player can defend himself. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >You can say you don't want to consult by phone which is fine, but >saying there aren't people available is rubbish. Looking at the list >of players I can't spot _any_ of the English referees or senior TDs >playing. I think it's a mistake not to make a ruling. Very occasionally I *will* make a ruling and then take it to appeal myself. Even so, the ruling I make is the best I can do at the time, and I'd have consulted a couple of times before I rule. If one is playing barometer it's much easier to consult. John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 2 14:28:17 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:28:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: WILLIAM SCHODER [mailto:schoderb@msn.com] >> Sent: 2. oktober 2004 00:14 >> To: Sven Pran >> Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 >> >> An excellent presentation. However, please remember in Herman's case the >> clause that is in 15C "...a contestant is playing a board not designated >> for >> him to play in the current round..." which was NOT the case in a >> barometer. >> This tells me that 15C did not apply, since he(they) was(were) in fact >> playing a designated board. The purpose of Law 15 has to do with the play >> of a wrong board, NOT the play of wrong opponents. We have plenty of case >> law where we find that the Law book does not directly address itself to >> what >> happened. I find much value in what you posted about ANY, etc., but would >> strongly recommend that extending it to judgment of whatever a >> "significant >> difference" means is a dangerous thing to do, and brings on the problems >> that arose in this case. It is an interesting thought that "scheduled" would imply not only the board but also the opponents. After all that is what the schedule is. I'm inclined to move the players, although I can see the huge advantages in not so doing. John >> >> Kojak [Sven] > >For what it is worth: > >I have previously presented how we deal with this kind of incidents in >Norway. snip >However, after much consideration I am convinced that we do not need Law 15 >at all to handle incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. Once the >incorrectly seated pair has started on their auction before the error is >discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them complete >the round as they started it (and then have them continue according to the >original schedule from the round thereafter). The pair who as a consequence >finds their seats occupied will then be instructed just for this round to >take the seats which should have been occupied by the incorrectly seated >pair, seats which as a consequence appear vacant. We can do it just for the one board; why unbalance the movement more than necessary? > >This solution creates the absolute minimum of disturbance to the tournament >and can easily be handled by any scoring computer software. The only real >disadvantage I can imagine is if any of the four involved pairs is >exceptionally strong or weak so that the disturbed balance could have a >significant impact on the final results. I do not feel that we should take any account of this. It's no different from being dealt a 9 top trick 3NT against Meckwell, and Mrs Guggenheim misplaying an 11 trick double squeeze 4H against me. So I gain both ways - who could tell at the point when I was about to withdraw the cards from the board? John > >Regards Sven > From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 2 14:29:43 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:29:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000601c4a87c$3d7b0520$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4a87c$3d7b0520$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000601c4a87c$3d7b0520$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> WILLIAM SCHODER >> Bravo, that's what I mean by using your noodle! >> The only thing that I would change is that I would >> do it as you say for only the one board, and then >> make the switch to the correct seats. > >Changing a pair for the whole round causes little problem for the scoring. >Changing a pair in the middle of a round will often cause more trouble both >during the round itself and also when that round is subsequently scored. > >Actually the way "round" is defined in the laws I doubt that changing a pair >in the middle of a round is really legal (except in an emergency when the >director inserts a substitute for a player who could not complete the round >for whatever accepted reason). Knowingly to allow a pair to start a board contrary to the "schedule" cannot be legal. To allow them to continue may be legal. John > >Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 2 14:35:16 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:35:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <7X+$5HBU6qXBFwhn@asimere.com> In article <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 1 Oct 2004, at 13:54, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Well, I decided to do it otherwise. I would not waste time consulting >> players that I would have to choose among the second best (keeping the >> best for my appeal committee) > >Why do you assume you'll need an AC? Isn't the idea to give your best >ruling, so that you hopefully don't need an appeal committee? > >I also don't see why you had to limit your consultation to the players >present. There's a long list available of players who are available to >consult with by phone. Herman, the English TD's are all going to howl you down I'm afraid. We are all taught, and all believe, that the TD takes as much time as he needs to make his ruling and the appeal will be held if necessary. Timing considerations do not apply (viz my 2003 Brighton appeal on the last round before the cut for the Swiss teams. I spent as much time as necessary on the ruling; and fetched an appeal, which we then heard shortly thereafter. Max Bavin held up the qualification announcements for the best part of an hour while this went on) > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 2 14:36:43 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:36:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <415D5383.7000000@hdw.be> <846E91F9-13BA-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <415D7602.9000304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <$nx+FQBr7qXBFwCU@asimere.com> In article , Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 1 Oct 2004, at 16:21, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I don't need any consultation to decide that pass is a LA. > >Clearly this is a geographical difference. > >The EBU White Book tells us: > >121.5.9 >You must not give a judgement ruling >without consulting first. Mmm. It doesn't always happen, but I agree it's correct. > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 2 14:57:07 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 15:57:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c4a887$b4c27270$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ......... > >Changing a pair for the whole round causes little > >problem for the scoring. > >Changing a pair in the middle of a round will often > >cause more trouble both during the round itself and > >also when that round is subsequently scored. > > > >Actually the way "round" is defined in the laws I=20 > >doubt that changing a pair in the middle of a round > >is really legal (except in an emergency when the > >director inserts a substitute for a player who could > >not complete the round for whatever accepted reason). >=20 > Knowingly to allow a pair to start a board contrary to=20 > the "schedule" cannot be legal. To allow them to continue > may be legal. John Oh yes. There is nothing in the laws (that I am aware of) that forbids a pair being incorrectly seated to complete a round playing all the boards scheduled for that round including those boards they had not yet started when the error was discovered. One of the complications if we shall restore correct positions in the = middle of the round is that the two affected tables may have started playing different boards or that all copies of the board being played = incorrectly at the first table might already be in use when the error is discovered so = that the second table would have to wait until they could get their copy of = this particular board which they would have to play first (before any other = board in that round). And in this case the first table would then have to wait = on the second table completing their first board before we could switch the incorrectly seated pairs back and continue with the round.=20 Sven From toddz@att.net Sat Oct 2 16:15:44 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 11:15:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20041002111354.01bd0ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 07:15 PM 10/1/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them > complete the round as they started it (and then have them continue > according to the original schedule from the round thereafter). Do you do anything particular if the original schedule would have the pair re-encounter the opponents they have just accidentally played? -Todd From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 2 16:53:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:53:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20041002111354.01bd0ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <000901c4a897$f29e86a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Todd > M. Zimnoch > Sent: 2. oktober 2004 17:16 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 >=20 > At 07:15 PM 10/1/2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them > > complete the round as they started it (and then have them continue > > according to the original schedule from the round thereafter). >=20 > Do you do anything particular if the original schedule would have > the pair re-encounter the opponents they have just accidentally = played? No In a full round robin barometer you cannot change the seating in any = round without creating some "double meets" and some "never meet". Sven From john@jsnichols.com Sat Oct 2 18:00:16 2004 From: john@jsnichols.com (John S. Nichols) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:00:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: <000201c4a8a1$4df35450$6401a8c0@JSN2001> My understanding of ACBL regulations is that: If your agreed 1NT opening range extends below 10 HCP or is more than 5 = HCP wide then you are not allowed to use any conventions after the 1NT = opening. If your agreement is to play 10-12 then opening with 9 when your agreed/announced range is 10-12 is not a psych--The bid is not a gross misrepresentation. It is, however, considered strong evidence that your agreed range includes some hands with less than 10 HCP and therefore you = may not use conventional responses to ANY 1NT opening. Opening 1NT on a 3-count is certainly a gross misrepresentation of your hand. That makes it a psych and therefore legal. I think the TD was = wrong. -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Wayne Burrows Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:56 PM To: 'blml' Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche Hi=20 Playing online in an ACBL tourney I opened 1NT in 3rd seat with a pick-up partner on a 3-count. We were playing 10-12 1NT and the vulnerability was favourable. The director later tried to tell me that this psyche was illegal. I can't see this. Does anyone know of a relevant regulation? TIA Wayne _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb@msn.com Sat Oct 2 20:27:48 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 15:27:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000701c4a887$b4c27270$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven -- I see your point. My contention is that you try to restore the game to what it was planned to be as quickly as possible. For instance, unless you have other overriding considerations, I would not like to give the players a number of opportunities to complain about playing against the "wrong" opponents. When it is possible to reestablish the proper seating. Particularly in a barometer I would like to get it back "on track" affecting only the board in question. Of course I would apply Law 15C, which is an attempt to salvage the auction by having it be the same when the right guys arrive, when in a matchpoint game. Kojak From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 9:57 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 John (MadDog) Probst ........ > >Changing a pair for the whole round causes little > >problem for the scoring. > >Changing a pair in the middle of a round will often > >cause more trouble both during the round itself and > >also when that round is subsequently scored. > > > >Actually the way "round" is defined in the laws I > >doubt that changing a pair in the middle of a round > >is really legal (except in an emergency when the > >director inserts a substitute for a player who could > >not complete the round for whatever accepted reason). > > Knowingly to allow a pair to start a board contrary to > the "schedule" cannot be legal. To allow them to continue > may be legal. John Oh yes. There is nothing in the laws (that I am aware of) that forbids a pair being incorrectly seated to complete a round playing all the boards scheduled for that round including those boards they had not yet started when the error was discovered. One of the complications if we shall restore correct positions in the middle of the round is that the two affected tables may have started playing different boards or that all copies of the board being played incorrectly at the first table might already be in use when the error is discovered so that the second table would have to wait until they could get their copy of this particular board which they would have to play first (before any other board in that round). And in this case the first table would then have to wait on the second table completing their first board before we could switch the incorrectly seated pairs back and continue with the round. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Oct 2 21:22:13 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:22:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041002161058.02ac40a0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:15 PM 10/1/04, Sven wrote: >However, after much consideration I am convinced that we do not need >Law 15 >at all to handle incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. Once the >incorrectly seated pair has started on their auction before the error is >discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them complete >the round as they started it (and then have them continue according to the >original schedule from the round thereafter). The pair who as a >consequence >finds their seats occupied will then be instructed just for this round to >take the seats which should have been occupied by the incorrectly seated >pair, seats which as a consequence appear vacant. > >This solution creates the absolute minimum of disturbance to the >tournament >and can easily be handled by any scoring computer software. The only real >disadvantage I can imagine is if any of the four involved pairs is >exceptionally strong or weak so that the disturbed balance could have a >significant impact on the final results. And if that might be so, it's not all that much more disruptive to let them return to their correct positions after they've played only the one board. Especially since the pair who has to make the unscheduled switch presumably arrived at their assigned seats after the start of the round, and thus cannot complain if the business results in their being asked to take a late play. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 2 23:53:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 00:53:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041002161058.02ac40a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000c01c4a8d2$9e486680$6900a8c0@WINXP> ............... Eric Landau: > And if that might be so, it's not all that much more disruptive to let > them return to their correct positions after they've played only the > one board. Especially since the pair who has to make the unscheduled > switch presumably arrived at their assigned seats after the start of > the round, and thus cannot complain if the business results in their > being asked to take a late play. True, but there are some important complications here: 1: Changing pairs in the middle of a round is probably not legal (See the definition of "round") 2: Unless both affected tables start with the same board the switchback cannot be made that easy. (I shall not be bothered to elaborate on this). 3: Splitting a round with different pairs playing the different boards at the same table will create extra problems for the scoring and extra disturbance for the neighboring tables. 4: There is no possibility for late plays in barometer: The same boards are played simultaneously during the same round at all tables, scored and the results are published immediately after each round. (The term "barometer" for these events is derived from the feature that the accumulated score for each participant is continuously updated during the tournament. Originally this was implemented with a column for each participant and a marker that was moved up and down to reflect the accumulated score). Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Oct 3 02:13:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 11:13:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000c01c4a8d2$9e486680$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven asserted: [snip] >>4: There is no possibility for late plays in barometer: The same >>boards are played simultaneously during the same round at all tables, >>scored and the results are published immediately after each round. Motto of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II: >The difficult we do immediately. >The impossible takes a little longer. RJH suggests: 1. Use Law 90B4 to prohibit the two pairs involved in a barometered late play from comparing scores with their future opponents. 2. Temporarily barometer the score of the late play board as Ave/Ave. 3. Modify the temporary score appropriately after the late play. If a barometered event can have its results altered by an appeal, why not permit a barometered event to have its results altered by a late play? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Oct 3 06:35:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 06:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: <000701c4a7c3$e408a690$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > I'm not being extreme - I'm just demonstrating that I understand what > > the words "in any way" mean :) > > And I am afraid that you have just demonstrated you don't? No Sven - I understand, even if the commentaries do not! If a call at the first table is made after a break in tempo it cannot be *UI* to the other side. When the same call is made *in tempo* at the second table it can not be considered AI either. OK, we can call it extraneous info, the director is summoned under L16b. This will lead a TD to cancel the board (if the hesitation is considered significant) in exactly the same way as if it was treated as germane under L15. Are you are seriously suggesting that "1N - (slow pass)" is the same as "1N (in tempo pass)" when it comes to deciding whether the information available to the 1N bidder from the 2 auctions differs? Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Oct 3 09:01:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:01:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <415FB1F6.9080001@hdw.be> Look fellas, you're all missing the point here. Pairs A and B are seated at a table. The are playing board 27. Pair A is seated erroneously, pair C should be there. Pair A is scheduled to play board 27 against pair D. The bidding has started and now the error is discovered. What do you do with pairs A and B? Do you allow them to play the board out or not? Well, if this is a Howell tournament, we are all agreeing that L15C tells us to take pair A off the table and to conduct 2 new auctions: one with pairs B and C, and one with A and D. In these new auctions, A and B are obliged to repeat their calls, and C and D must bid normally. Now some clever fool has discovered that in Barometer tournaments, L15C seems not to be of application. There is no other Law that applies. The WBF have not indicated that there should be a different treatment regarding the timing of the round in which A and D are supposed to meet. There is no reason whatsoever why the treatment should be different. So why not apply the same Law? Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do would be to allow A and B to continue their auction and play their contract. In addition, it is sensible to have C and D play the board against one another. But what is sensible and what is prescribed by the WBF often do not agree. In Norway, apparently, they have written a regulation which says that the TD must do the sensible thing and not L15C. OK, such a regulation might be illegal when it concerns Howells, but it is (or seems to be) not illegal when applied to Barometers. But there are so many regulations which might appear illegal and we do anyway. So if your SO writed down a regulation telling you to do the sensible thing even in Howells, I will not yell at them. But do not yell at the TD, who, when faced with the problem, and who has no regulation to guide him, applies the solution from L15C. There is NO Law, there is NO regulation, and you lambast a TD who tries one solution rather than another one? Sven Pran wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: WILLIAM SCHODER [mailto:schoderb@msn.com] >>Sent: 2. oktober 2004 00:14 >>To: Sven Pran >>Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 >> >>An excellent presentation. However, please remember in Herman's case the >>clause that is in 15C "...a contestant is playing a board not designated >>for >>him to play in the current round..." which was NOT the case in a >>barometer. >>This tells me that 15C did not apply, since he(they) was(were) in fact >>playing a designated board. The purpose of Law 15 has to do with the play >>of a wrong board, NOT the play of wrong opponents. We have plenty of case >>law where we find that the Law book does not directly address itself to >>what >>happened. I find much value in what you posted about ANY, etc., but would >>strongly recommend that extending it to judgment of whatever a >>"significant >>difference" means is a dangerous thing to do, and brings on the problems >>that arose in this case. >> >>Kojak > > > For what it is worth: > > I have previously presented how we deal with this kind of incidents in > Norway. Remember that barometer has been THE normal way here of running > events for pairs for at least some 40 years. To my knowledge barometer is > first mentioned in Norwegian literature in 1945 in a reference to Swedish > tournament styles (incidentally with a very critical view on the principle). > > We have for years handled incorrectly seated pairs according to Law 15 the > same way as Herman apparently did but I have since last summer become very > much in real doubts both on the legality and also on the suitability of such > procedures. > > My discussion in this thread has been centered on how to apply Law 15 when > this law is applicable or when/if we for other reasons want to apply Law 15. > > However, after much consideration I am convinced that we do not need Law 15 > at all to handle incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. Once the > incorrectly seated pair has started on their auction before the error is > discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them complete > the round as they started it (and then have them continue according to the > original schedule from the round thereafter). The pair who as a consequence > finds their seats occupied will then be instructed just for this round to > take the seats which should have been occupied by the incorrectly seated > pair, seats which as a consequence appear vacant. > > This solution creates the absolute minimum of disturbance to the tournament > and can easily be handled by any scoring computer software. The only real > disadvantage I can imagine is if any of the four involved pairs is > exceptionally strong or weak so that the disturbed balance could have a > significant impact on the final results. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 3 10:33:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 11:33:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4a92c$10e58930$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven asserted: > > [snip] > > >>4: There is no possibility for late plays in barometer: The same > >>boards are played simultaneously during the same round at all tables, > >>scored and the results are published immediately after each round. > > Motto of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II: > > >The difficult we do immediately. > >The impossible takes a little longer. > > RJH suggests: > > 1. Use Law 90B4 to prohibit the two pairs involved in a barometered > late play from comparing scores with their future opponents. > > 2. Temporarily barometer the score of the late play board as Ave/Ave. > > 3. Modify the temporary score appropriately after the late play. > > If a barometered event can have its results altered by an appeal, why > not permit a barometered event to have its results altered by a late > play? Because there is no way the alleged advantage can justify the complications and delay for the tournament. As a service both to players and to kibitzers we publish all hands and all results both on huge overheads, on PC screens and for each pair their results and standings on paper directly to where they are seated in the following round; usually within ten minutes after each round, should we cater for late plays we would have to suspend this service on affected rounds. That would simply not be accepted by the players. (Those who watched the Norwegian bridge festival on BBO late July may have noticed on the camera how we distributed feedbacks to each table usually while they were bidding the first board in the following rounds!) Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 3 10:40:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 11:40:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4a92d$04c1aac0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > West-Meads > Sven wrote: >=20 > > > I'm not being extreme - I'm just demonstrating that I understand = what > > > the words "in any way" mean :) > > > > And I am afraid that you have just demonstrated you don't? >=20 > No Sven - I understand, even if the commentaries do not! If a call at = the > first table is made after a break in tempo it cannot be *UI* to the = other > side. When the same call is made *in tempo* at the second table it = can > not be considered AI either. OK, we can call it extraneous info, the > director is summoned under L16b. This will lead a TD to cancel the = board > (if the hesitation is considered significant) in exactly the same way = as > if it was treated as germane under L15. >=20 > Are you are seriously suggesting that "1N - (slow pass)" is the same = as > "1N (in tempo pass)" when it comes to deciding whether the information > available to the 1N bidder from the 2 auctions differs? Yes - it is the same auction. (With the presence of more or less extraneous information which is NOT = part of the auction but which certainly could result in a Law 16 ruling) Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 3 11:52:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:52:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <415FB1F6.9080001@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c4a937$09e51500$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Look fellas, you're all missing the point here. >=20 > Pairs A and B are seated at a table. The are playing board 27. Pair A > is seated erroneously, pair C should be there. Pair A is scheduled to > play board 27 against pair D. >=20 > The bidding has started and now the error is discovered. >=20 > What do you do with pairs A and B? Do you allow them to play the board > out or not? >=20 > Well, if this is a Howell tournament, we are all agreeing that L15C > tells us to take pair A off the table and to conduct 2 new auctions: > one with pairs B and C, and one with A and D. In these new auctions, A > and B are obliged to repeat their calls, and C and D must bid = normally. It seems to me that now YOU are mixing up a bit: When A is transferred = to his correct position they will not be scheduled to play board 27 against pair D! We are discussing Howell this time, remember? Either A will already have played board 27 in a previous round in which = case what just happened is a null for that pair, or they are scheduled to = play board 27 in a later round in which case they will be subject to law 15C = when they eventually meet the pair against which they are scheduled to play = board 27. (This will definitely not be pair D!) The important question is now:=20 Does Law 15 apply to the situation for pairs C and B in the situation = above? And the answer to this question should probably have some impact also on = how to treat incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events! Literally Law 15 does NOT seem to apply here because pair B certainly = was not involved in playing a board not designated for them to play in the current round! (The affected board WAS designated for them to play in = this round). But on reading Law 15C carefully it seems to me that the intention of = the entire Law 15 is that is shall apply not only when the wrong board was played by the correct players but also when the correct board was played = by the wrong players. That is: Law 15 seems intended for any situation = where the combination of the two pairs meeting and the board(s) played is not according to schedule. If this is indeed the case then Law 15C could have had a better wording; something like: "If, during the auction period, the Director discovers = that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round or is playing this board against opponents not designated = for him to meet in this round then he shall cancel the auction, ........." With this wording there would be no problem applying Law 15C to the situation for pairs C and B above, a situation for which Law 15C = certainly must have been intended? And Law 15 would without discussion be = applicable also to incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. > Now some clever fool has discovered that in Barometer tournaments, > L15C seems not to be of application.=20 I am not sure if this was intended as a compliment? It doesn't look that way! (And for some curious reason I feel being a target)=20 ...........................=20 > Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do would be to allow A and > B to continue their auction and play their contract. In addition, it > is sensible to have C and D play the board against one another. But > what is sensible and what is prescribed by the WBF often do not agree. This is the sensible solution IF we decide that Law 15 is not = applicable. But is this question settled yet? =20 > In Norway, apparently, they have written a regulation which says that > the TD must do the sensible thing and not L15C.=20 No Herman, sorry but I must "accuse" you of not having read what I = wrote: We have decades of experience with barometer, and we have a tradition of applying Laws 15A1 and 15C on incorrectly seated pairs. (The other parts = of Law 15 can obviously never be applicable to barometer events)=20 There was a discussion on blml earlier this summer where the question = came up in another context: Is Law 15C applicable on incorrectly seated = players in a barometer event?=20 If I remember correct the consensus seemed to be that it cannot, but = anyway that discussion started me thinking. Eventually I tended towards the solution that in barometer events it would be best to let the players complete the current round as they were incorrectly seated and then = bring them back to schedule from the next round. (This was mainly based on the impression that L15 was inapplicable since the boards involved were designated for that round (for all pairs). As you probably understand = from my discussion further up I am not so sure about this understanding of = L15 any longer). But a change in our practice here is not yet incorporated in our instructions for Directors, and I am still not sure whether it will be. = In fact I have been asked to prepare a summary to the Norwegian LC on this matter and so far I don't even know what will be my suggestion. Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 3 12:44:04 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:44:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> <415FB1F6.9080001@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4a93f$8be71eb0$56984c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > Look fellas, you're all missing the point here. > +=+ I was trying to ignore all this before this call to arms resounded through the camp. +=+ > > Now some clever fool has discovered that in > Barometer tournaments, L15C seems not to > be of application. There is no other Law that > applies. The WBF have not indicated that there > should be a different treatment regarding the > timing of the round in which A and D are > supposed to meet. There is no reason whatsoever > why the treatment should be different. So why > not apply the same Law? > +=+ Law 15C is clearly stated to apply if a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round. The board in play in this case is a board both pairs at the table are designated to play. So 15C does not apply. The Director has no authority to apply it. So the Director has to find an authority in the Laws for relevant remedial action.+=+ > > Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do > would be to allow A and B to continue their > auction and play their contract. In addition, it > is sensible to have C and D play the board > against one another. But what is sensible and > what is prescribed by the WBF often do not > agree. > +=+ A libellous statement. The WBF has not prescribed. The problem is created by the fact that the SO has not covered the situation by regulation. Since the law is silent it is open to the SO to regulate. It looks like a 78D item to me. However, the Director still has the problem. He has discretion to act under Law 12. The first matter to settle is whether only one of the pairs at the table is offending or whether they share the responsibility for the violation of the instruction given under Law 8A1. If there is a non-offending side, then 12A1 applies; if not, then 12A2. (We have to allow that play of a board by the wrong opponents is not 'normal play'.) I think C and D will not play the board against each other - it may be unfair to them to expect them to do so; they are each due average plus and who are we to judge their respective strengths? My inclination would be that the procedural panalty on the offending side(s) at the first table should at least balance the excess points to be distributed among C & D. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Oct 3 13:04:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:04:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000701c4a937$09e51500$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c4a937$09e51500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <415FEABB.2060306@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Look fellas, you're all missing the point here. >> >> >>Well, if this is a Howell tournament, we are all agreeing that L15C >>tells us to take pair A off the table and to conduct 2 new auctions: >>one with pairs B and C, and one with A and D. In these new auctions, A >>and B are obliged to repeat their calls, and C and D must bid normally. > > > It seems to me that now YOU are mixing up a bit: When A is transferred to > his correct position they will not be scheduled to play board 27 against > pair D! We are discussing Howell this time, remember? > Well, Sven, it won't be pair 5, as in Cardiff, it will be pair 357 for all I care. But that will still be a pair D, won't it? So what's the difference? > Either A will already have played board 27 in a previous round in which case > what just happened is a null for that pair, or they are scheduled to play > board 27 in a later round in which case they will be subject to law 15C when > they eventually meet the pair against which they are scheduled to play board > 27. (This will definitely not be pair D!) > Of course the case in which pair A ghas already played board 27 is not the one we are talking about. Nor is it the less likely case in which pair A were not scheduled to play board 27 at all. All other cases involve pair A having to play board 27 against some pair which I have chosen to call D. Does it really matter whether they are scheduled to play them in this round or in some other one? > The important question is now: > > Does Law 15 apply to the situation for pairs C and B in the situation above? > > > And the answer to this question should probably have some impact also on how > to treat incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events! > > Literally Law 15 does NOT seem to apply here because pair B certainly was > not involved in playing a board not designated for them to play in the > current round! (The affected board WAS designated for them to play in this > round). > But that is also the case in the Howell. Are you suggesting that for pair B L15C is not applicable? Surely then that is the worst worded law in the book - one which has no application whatsoever! > But on reading Law 15C carefully it seems to me that the intention of the > entire Law 15 is that is shall apply not only when the wrong board was > played by the correct players but also when the correct board was played by > the wrong players. That is: Law 15 seems intended for any situation where > the combination of the two pairs meeting and the board(s) played is not > according to schedule. > Which is precisely my point! > If this is indeed the case then Law 15C could have had a better wording; > something like: "If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that > a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the > current round or is playing this board against opponents not designated for > him to meet in this round then he shall cancel the auction, ........." > indeed it should, and that is why I apply it as well. If you intend to reead it differently, then the law is silent on the solution. SO you could choose either solution. At least my interpretation has the advantage that the law appears to be complete. > With this wording there would be no problem applying Law 15C to the > situation for pairs C and B above, a situation for which Law 15C certainly > must have been intended? And Law 15 would without discussion be applicable > also to incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. > > >>Now some clever fool has discovered that in Barometer tournaments, >>L15C seems not to be of application. > > > I am not sure if this was intended as a compliment? It doesn't look that > way! (And for some curious reason I feel being a target) > No Sven, you were not. The clever fool was Anne. I'm not saying that she's wrong, she certainly has discovered a hole in the laws. > ........................... > >>Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do would be to allow A and >>B to continue their auction and play their contract. In addition, it >>is sensible to have C and D play the board against one another. But >>what is sensible and what is prescribed by the WBF often do not agree. > > > This is the sensible solution IF we decide that Law 15 is not applicable. > But is this question settled yet? > Well, it is the sensible solution. Point. Only the WBF have decided that a less sensible solution (which is certainly a workable solution) is the one that we have to apply. So we do. > >>In Norway, apparently, they have written a regulation which says that >>the TD must do the sensible thing and not L15C. > > > No Herman, sorry but I must "accuse" you of not having read what I wrote: > > We have decades of experience with barometer, and we have a tradition of > applying Laws 15A1 and 15C on incorrectly seated pairs. (The other parts of > Law 15 can obviously never be applicable to barometer events) > Well, L15C is maybe not of application, but it is certainly a possible solution to the problem. > There was a discussion on blml earlier this summer where the question came > up in another context: Is Law 15C applicable on incorrectly seated players > in a barometer event? > > If I remember correct the consensus seemed to be that it cannot, but anyway > that discussion started me thinking. Eventually I tended towards the > solution that in barometer events it would be best to let the players > complete the current round as they were incorrectly seated and then bring > them back to schedule from the next round. (This was mainly based on the > impression that L15 was inapplicable since the boards involved were > designated for that round (for all pairs). As you probably understand from > my discussion further up I am not so sure about this understanding of L15 > any longer). > Well, I have agreed for a long time that it is a preferrable solution. But not just in barometer events, since it has nothing to do with the movement, just with the problems L15C causes, which are absent if you simply let the board be played out. The reason why the sensible solution seems more logical in barometer is because you have pairs C and D who are available to play board 27 in this same round. In Howell movements, it is not always possible to have pairs C and D complete the full change. But also in barometer you don't often have the opportunity to seat pairs C and D during the current round. > But a change in our practice here is not yet incorporated in our > instructions for Directors, and I am still not sure whether it will be. In > fact I have been asked to prepare a summary to the Norwegian LC on this > matter and so far I don't even know what will be my suggestion. > I suggest that you keep to the sensible solution, but write it in a regulation somewhere. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ooga@shaw.ca Sun Oct 3 13:32:01 2004 From: ooga@shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:32:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] 'Let's call it a field goal and move on' syndrome Message-ID: <415FF141.1010101@shaw.ca> None vul, South dealer Final round Swiss match between top two teams Qxx AKxxxxx xx x x Jxxx Qx J Qxxxx KJxx KTxxx AKxxx AQxx Txx Ax Jxx W N E S 1S 2N* 4S 5C P P X END 2N explained as "hearts and a minor" (North asked before bidding 4S) TD summoned before opening lead Actual agreement: minors. Result: 5CE*-1, 100 to N-S TD called back, will look at the deal. Returns with "+3/-3" L86A ruling after watching board played at other= =20 table (6CE*-3). South player objects, asks which Law is being applied here, strongly= =20 suspects L86A does not apply. Busy TD brushes off protests and instructs that play continue. Frustrated South player boots next board, -400 in 3NT when any idiot= =20 could have ensured a worst-case -100 with chances to make. When done match but before comparing scores, asks TD for a L40C/12C2= =20 ruling of +450; TD (knowing this will turn +3 into -2 for NOS) agrees= . Opinions? (We lost the match 27-nil, opponents scored it 16-9, thinking our 3NT= -4=20 vs 110 was a -290 swing instead of a +510. "Anything else I can do f= or=20 you?" I said with a smile.) --=20 =2E-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------=88----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/alphapts.htm | | (Bridge Base Online Alphabet Points Tournament Series) | `----------------------------------------------------------=B4 From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Sun Oct 3 13:39:46 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:39:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000701c4a937$09e51500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <415FEABB.2060306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001501c4a946$10e5ff90$12330952@AnnesComputer> >No Sven, you were not. The clever fool was Anne. I'm not saying that she's wrong, she certainly has discovered a hole in the laws. erm........... Not sure that I appreciate your thinking of me as a fool Herman. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > Sven Pran wrote: > >>>Herman De Wael >>>Look fellas, you're all missing the point here. >>> >>> >>>Well, if this is a Howell tournament, we are all agreeing that L15C >>>tells us to take pair A off the table and to conduct 2 new auctions: >>>one with pairs B and C, and one with A and D. In these new auctions, A >>>and B are obliged to repeat their calls, and C and D must bid normally. >> >> >> It seems to me that now YOU are mixing up a bit: When A is transferred to >> his correct position they will not be scheduled to play board 27 against >> pair D! We are discussing Howell this time, remember? >> > > Well, Sven, it won't be pair 5, as in Cardiff, it will be pair 357 for all > I care. But that will still be a pair D, won't it? So what's the > difference? > >> Either A will already have played board 27 in a previous round in which >> case >> what just happened is a null for that pair, or they are scheduled to play >> board 27 in a later round in which case they will be subject to law 15C >> when >> they eventually meet the pair against which they are scheduled to play >> board >> 27. (This will definitely not be pair D!) >> > > Of course the case in which pair A ghas already played board 27 is not the > one we are talking about. Nor is it the less likely case in which pair A > were not scheduled to play board 27 at all. All other cases involve pair A > having to play board 27 against some pair which I have chosen to call D. > Does it really matter whether they are scheduled to play them in this > round or in some other one? > >> The important question is now: Does Law 15 apply to the situation for >> pairs C and B in the situation above? >> >> >> And the answer to this question should probably have some impact also on >> how >> to treat incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events! >> >> Literally Law 15 does NOT seem to apply here because pair B certainly was >> not involved in playing a board not designated for them to play in the >> current round! (The affected board WAS designated for them to play in >> this >> round). >> > > But that is also the case in the Howell. Are you suggesting that for pair > B L15C is not applicable? Surely then that is the worst worded law in the > book - one which has no application whatsoever! > >> But on reading Law 15C carefully it seems to me that the intention of the >> entire Law 15 is that is shall apply not only when the wrong board was >> played by the correct players but also when the correct board was played >> by >> the wrong players. That is: Law 15 seems intended for any situation where >> the combination of the two pairs meeting and the board(s) played is not >> according to schedule. >> > > Which is precisely my point! > >> If this is indeed the case then Law 15C could have had a better wording; >> something like: "If, during the auction period, the Director discovers >> that >> a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the >> current round or is playing this board against opponents not designated >> for >> him to meet in this round then he shall cancel the auction, ........." >> > > indeed it should, and that is why I apply it as well. If you intend to > reead it differently, then the law is silent on the solution. SO you could > choose either solution. At least my interpretation has the advantage that > the law appears to be complete. > >> With this wording there would be no problem applying Law 15C to the >> situation for pairs C and B above, a situation for which Law 15C >> certainly >> must have been intended? And Law 15 would without discussion be >> applicable >> also to incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. >> >> >>>Now some clever fool has discovered that in Barometer tournaments, >>>L15C seems not to be of application. >> >> >> I am not sure if this was intended as a compliment? It doesn't look that >> way! (And for some curious reason I feel being a target) > > No Sven, you were not. The clever fool was Anne. I'm not saying that she's > wrong, she certainly has discovered a hole in the laws. > >> ........................... >>>Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do would be to allow A and >>>B to continue their auction and play their contract. In addition, it >>>is sensible to have C and D play the board against one another. But >>>what is sensible and what is prescribed by the WBF often do not agree. >> >> >> This is the sensible solution IF we decide that Law 15 is not applicable. >> But is this question settled yet? >> > > Well, it is the sensible solution. Point. Only the WBF have decided that a > less sensible solution (which is certainly a workable solution) is the one > that we have to apply. So we do. > >> >>>In Norway, apparently, they have written a regulation which says that >>>the TD must do the sensible thing and not L15C. >> >> >> No Herman, sorry but I must "accuse" you of not having read what I wrote: >> >> We have decades of experience with barometer, and we have a tradition of >> applying Laws 15A1 and 15C on incorrectly seated pairs. (The other parts >> of >> Law 15 can obviously never be applicable to barometer events) > > Well, L15C is maybe not of application, but it is certainly a possible > solution to the problem. > >> There was a discussion on blml earlier this summer where the question >> came >> up in another context: Is Law 15C applicable on incorrectly seated >> players >> in a barometer event? If I remember correct the consensus seemed to be >> that it cannot, but anyway >> that discussion started me thinking. Eventually I tended towards the >> solution that in barometer events it would be best to let the players >> complete the current round as they were incorrectly seated and then bring >> them back to schedule from the next round. (This was mainly based on the >> impression that L15 was inapplicable since the boards involved were >> designated for that round (for all pairs). As you probably understand >> from >> my discussion further up I am not so sure about this understanding of L15 >> any longer). >> > > Well, I have agreed for a long time that it is a preferrable solution. But > not just in barometer events, since it has nothing to do with the > movement, just with the problems L15C causes, which are absent if you > simply let the board be played out. The reason why the sensible solution > seems more logical in barometer is because you have pairs C and D who are > available to play board 27 in this same round. In Howell movements, it is > not always possible to have pairs C and D complete the full change. But > also in barometer you don't often have the opportunity to seat pairs C and > D during the current round. > >> But a change in our practice here is not yet incorporated in our >> instructions for Directors, and I am still not sure whether it will be. >> In >> fact I have been asked to prepare a summary to the Norwegian LC on this >> matter and so far I don't even know what will be my suggestion. >> > > I suggest that you keep to the sensible solution, but write it in a > regulation somewhere. > >> Sven >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > -- > 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 Sun Oct 3 14:25:58 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:25:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <415FEABB.2060306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............... > > The important question is now: > > > > Does Law 15 apply to the situation for=20 > > pairs C and B in the situation above? > > > > > > And the answer to this question should=20 > > probably have some impact also on how > > to treat incorrectly seated pairs in=20 > > barometer events! > > Literally Law 15 does NOT seem to apply=20 > > here because pair B certainly was not > > involved in playing a board not designated > > for them to play in the current round!=20 > > (The affected board WAS designated for=20 > > them to play in this round). > > >=20 > But that is also the case in the Howell.=20 > Are you suggesting that for pair B L15C=20 > is not applicable? Surely then that is=20 > the worst worded law in the book - one=20 > which has no application whatsoever! YES, I am saying that IF we focus on Law 15 only to apply on the = condition that the board played was NOT designated for the pair to play in the = CURRENT round, THEN law 15 is inapplicable for pair B in this case. The board was indeed designated for pair B in the current round, but it = was not designated for pair A who incorrectly took the seats against pair B. Law 15C instructs the Director to cancel the auction that has taken = place so far between pairs A and B and replace the incorrectly seated pair A with pair C who was scheduled against pair B in this round.=20 To me it is obvious from the procedures being described in Law 15C that = this law now instructs the Director to arrange another auction between pairs = B and C and unless the new auction proceeds identically to the original auction between pairs A and B up to the point where it was interrupted = then the Director must cancel this board for pairs B and C. But this use of Law 15C can only be correct (legal) if we understand = that Law 15C is applicable also when a pair has started an auction on a board designated for that pair IN THE CURRENT ROUND but with opponents that = was NOT designated for that pair to meet in this round. Any other interpretation of Law 15 makes this law inapplicable in = situations where I trust no Director would even think of questioning its = applicability! I should very much appreciate some commentary from Grattan and/or other representatives of WBFLC here!!!!! Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Oct 3 14:43:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 09:43:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <47073DB4-1542-11D9-ACDF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Oct 1, 2004, at 19:15 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > This solution creates the absolute minimum of disturbance to the > tournament > and can easily be handled by any scoring computer software. The only > real > disadvantage I can imagine is if any of the four involved pairs is > exceptionally strong or weak so that the disturbed balance could have a > significant impact on the final results. I'm no expert on barometer movements, but it seems to me that one effect of this is that each of these four pairs will play one opposing pair - whom they were originally scheduled to play once - twice, and the other opposing pair not at all. I don't suppose this is a big deal, though, is it? :-) From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Oct 3 14:50:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:50:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4160039C.5010806@hdw.be> Sven touches on another point: If A and B start the board, but A has to play it against D and B against C, then surely the same law should apply to A and to B. Now we all agree that L15C applies when A meet D in an later round. Then it also has to apply to B and C, who play it in this round. So it should apply to B, regardless of whether A has to play the board this round, an later round, or not at all. So why should it not apply to A and D in this round as well. Or to put it another way, surely it cannot maater whether A and B are playing the board at the table that B is supposed to be at, or at the table A is supposed to be at, or at a third table. L15C simply has to apply to A and D in the barometer as well, or it applies never at all. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>>The important question is now: >>> >>>Does Law 15 apply to the situation for >>>pairs C and B in the situation above? >>> >>> >>>And the answer to this question should >>>probably have some impact also on how >>>to treat incorrectly seated pairs in >>>barometer events! >>>Literally Law 15 does NOT seem to apply >>>here because pair B certainly was not >>>involved in playing a board not designated >>>for them to play in the current round! >>>(The affected board WAS designated for >>>them to play in this round). >>> >> >>But that is also the case in the Howell. >>Are you suggesting that for pair B L15C >>is not applicable? Surely then that is >>the worst worded law in the book - one >>which has no application whatsoever! > > > YES, I am saying that IF we focus on Law 15 only to apply on the condition > that the board played was NOT designated for the pair to play in the CURRENT > round, THEN law 15 is inapplicable for pair B in this case. > > The board was indeed designated for pair B in the current round, but it was > not designated for pair A who incorrectly took the seats against pair B. > > Law 15C instructs the Director to cancel the auction that has taken place so > far between pairs A and B and replace the incorrectly seated pair A with > pair C who was scheduled against pair B in this round. > > To me it is obvious from the procedures being described in Law 15C that this > law now instructs the Director to arrange another auction between pairs B > and C and unless the new auction proceeds identically to the original > auction between pairs A and B up to the point where it was interrupted then > the Director must cancel this board for pairs B and C. > > But this use of Law 15C can only be correct (legal) if we understand that > Law 15C is applicable also when a pair has started an auction on a board > designated for that pair IN THE CURRENT ROUND but with opponents that was > NOT designated for that pair to meet in this round. > > Any other interpretation of Law 15 makes this law inapplicable in situations > where I trust no Director would even think of questioning its applicability! > > I should very much appreciate some commentary from Grattan and/or other > representatives of WBFLC here!!!!! > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 3 14:50:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:50:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <47073DB4-1542-11D9-ACDF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001101c4a94f$fd0b6730$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ............. > I'm no expert on barometer movements, but it seems to me that one > effect of this is that each of these four pairs will play one opposing > pair - whom they were originally scheduled to play once - twice, and > the other opposing pair not at all. I don't suppose this is a big = deal, > though, is it? :-) You are correct, and curiously enough this can be a big deal if the = field is extremely varied; comprising both experts and newbies in the game of = bridge. In a high quality tournament the unbalance will be far less important! Regards Sven=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Oct 3 14:52:53 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:52:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000001c4a93f$8be71eb0$56984c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> <415FB1F6.9080001@hdw.be> <000001c4a93f$8be71eb0$56984c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41600435.9090400@hdw.be> Sorry Grattan, you are totally on the wrong track here. Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do >>would be to allow A and B to continue their >>auction and play their contract. In addition, it >>is sensible to have C and D play the board >>against one another. But what is sensible and >>what is prescribed by the WBF often do not >>agree. >> > > +=+ A libellous statement. The WBF has not > prescribed. The problem is created by the fact > that the SO has not covered the situation by > regulation. Since the law is silent it is open to the > SO to regulate. It looks like a 78D item to me. This is the first time in 20 years that this case is brought to blml. Surely the problem has occured before. I find it libellous to each and every one of us that WE should have thought of the case when even the WBFLC have not thought about it. Don't go shedding YOUR responsability, Grattan. > However, the Director still has the problem. > He has discretion to act under Law 12. The first > matter to settle is whether only one of the pairs > at the table is offending or whether they share the > responsibility for the violation of the instruction > given under Law 8A1. If there is a non-offending > side, then 12A1 applies; if not, then 12A2. (We > have to allow that play of a board by the wrong > opponents is not 'normal play'.) > I think C and D will not play the board against > each other - it may be unfair to them to expect > them to do so; they are each due average plus > and who are we to judge their respective strengths? > My inclination would be that the procedural > panalty on the offending side(s) at the first table > should at least balance the excess points to be > distributed among C & D. > ~ G ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Oct 3 15:00:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:00:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Adjustments and Penalties [was Cardiff Ruling 9] In-Reply-To: <000001c4a93f$8be71eb0$56984c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <99357234-1544-11D9-ACDF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Oct 3, 2004, at 07:44 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > My inclination would be that the procedural > panalty on the offending side(s) at the first table > should at least balance the excess points to be > distributed among C & D. This bothers me. The law clearly distinguishes between penalties and score adjustments. They are different things with different purposes. Why should they match? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Oct 3 15:05:33 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:05:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <000201c4a8a1$4df35450$6401a8c0@JSN2001> Message-ID: <4A81B4D0-1545-11D9-ACDF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Oct 2, 2004, at 13:00 US/Eastern, John S. Nichols wrote: > Opening 1NT on a 3-count is certainly a gross misrepresentation of your > hand. That makes it a psych and therefore legal. I think the TD was > wrong. So do I. Law 40 *prohibits* making psyches of natural bids illegal. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Oct 3 15:15:37 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:15:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Myxomatosis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, Oct 1, 2004, at 18:28 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > While convalescing from a recent period in hospital, > I had a rare pleasure of playing "daytime bridge" at > the Canberra Bridge Club. That local duplicate > session was *not* a game of skill. Sure it was - though the skill involved may have been "shooting fish in a barrel" or some such. :-) From identifdep_op831273122581361@smithbarney.com Sun Oct 3 22:50:33 2004 From: identifdep_op831273122581361@smithbarney.com (Smith Barney) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:50:33 -0100 Subject: [blml] Protect your Smith Barney account [Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:44:33 +0500] Message-ID: <20041003210630.CB17579B@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020106070507040604000005 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Weather in 1904 in 1967 Dragonball I don't feel like Movies How's your? London Tatiana Grigorieva Yes, we have this I'd like That's definetly not you. over there in 1854 I'll call back! to deal with you Radio in 1858 It's nice Programs Melboune Cup in 1980 Santa Claus Study: Most still not ANALYSIS NYTimes

--------------020106070507040604000005 Content-Type: image/gif; name="disparate.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="disparate.GIF" R0lGODlhkAJZAfVAAAcFAAAAMwAAZgAAmQAA/wAzMwAzZgAzmTMAMzMAZjMAmTMzZjMzmTNmZjNmmWYzZmYzmWZmZmZmmWZmzGaZmWaZzJlmmZlmzJmZmZmZzJnMmZnMzJnM/5n//8wAAMwzM8xmZsyZM8yZZsyZ mcyZzMyZ/8zMmczMzMzM/8z/zMz///8AAP8AM/8zAP8zM/9mZv9mmf+ZM//Mmf/MzP/M////zP///wAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAABAALAAAAAB/AlABAAb/QJtwSCwaj8ikcslsOp/Q qHRKrVqv2Kx2y+16v+CweEwum8/otHrNbrvf8Lh8Tq/b7/i8fs/v+/+AgYKDhIWGh0kqNTNCKHI1NJEn KCkoNYiYmZqbnJ1vKBAQEg4SGQmOcCgSEgKjq62onrKztLW2nRkBBieTEAYCGXIzEAkQKCgnEAICDrfO z9DR0mopyydEyhI2JyonNEglMynfNJAoM94qKsgz5ekqkSpDNCrt10MOrUQo1kMo3d+EiKMx49ylId5O MCoCr12KhvC8oaMxDhIRbsimadzIseOaE7+M5FO1LBYRFcuMJRMQoBWrXwJgpsSwDIEEVBkKLLs5BEIA /21Edg4xxcwfq5YJdipSJgBCkZUGJPhKKoBqVVY7A6pixdOj169gw0LJsOwgQgEqyOozQhOYvBM7+UGY dPUEWQkqsAbc5iDpPSGsnPpL2kwIDZYCLi5zwAvriRpYgQ5BKaHgTl6TWGXAGmxyq3JiQ4se7ZVf0SKd JSQ1aUMF01jLMgy7J9SGVBvKBA9d2zOB5G39hNT4leBvjeDV9FVL2nlIgtTAikjAYFq3jVysSWvfzr0T DawCuBnxyVvIiQS/5Nk4LADDCQxDUprPUMPBgt/XT+NjhoIe2Z9EkBDZPFXFIkEBTtGgTEt/2RBAZw4E QMJT16gFnxDPdafhhhwW8v/dMrHtZYMDvwRgklQlCRdbES3hlw1q5dmWEnjNCeEACiSk2FpwI+ozw41V CbCXAdBdeJ1x+QiJG34dNunkk3O0hUBMRqIYnXnGVKUePxkG1ZR0+glxF5ilYLCZXwhJUINpzf1Swnpq OZLXmgYEAIF6XWo2hAQNooAenwJkB+WghBZKRgZJfmkbSWjZWJlOKah4ZXwGFLZnVQ6IIop82JQXp43M KLNAYaYxExgqCjpClm9CXIkVKQeyliSrhtZq661VqBcgiPIwNkOdwdQAAT3LBHTYg0XUdmlTq7wSYz74 TSkAJK2IkqScAiCQD5qN4AXYihJ+i4C14RUxwzIGLIT/67rsthtgdvwgWwpuy1ynDXsLoURkss+GeR2t PQVgqZjWbEZES82glJgNy5wiRF57OTYvvc3xKZKd7massa2rHBGTU/PCZcAI8yaH6jITBoWgdAZYZwNN A/eIX1vJ1KjWJWUBt5YqkT5s1YV9NXeOcD3FuPHRSHdHVoNCKBMMBJ2BuDANdaKicI02JIUftDBGwLLL WI0wFxHsBaPlt+3ZoIqIKLQkQMpOG6FBc1wnbffdo50X6D7F2tZZLjsnFZAKSRnZqr9cFQFzEXU3MqUo TAZ2XLmtqRZofUxn8MuFrBiu9t7fxoz36KRPc27L94CSYV4pE96ozvcc1zKLMb5I/4RqEuzlmsCT5NcU XJ77rtZfIs91pxGqBZMXM/TUoAJNCHSauxGWrMDCChmVrv32iLj2yioM2jBDBMxgIE/H2zAFQQnLr6g2 jZfUoLnWOCHG0wngCaBTbCiQP3aaUmtFcwB3GZGYb0EBdF9aGuYtw7CgBStYgQcg6AII9ox7GMwgH2Yg j3X0zh+TMJZ6aMALZDgCGZNYCA1QKB7hYMYbLjzGPUh4jknwQlcoVNd6CvLCx5ykhDBkiDsmQQIZ2vAk OOIFQlbQggc+MIIRfKCgNEjFKlrxCifwwBMj6ILrNRGCHmDaFcdIRkLpsAwoWIELoPiBCELwempUoxjL SMc6av9HWKIbg/UoyETr7dEDa3SjHQdJSNHAhUljUEgM1Ya9I4pvjoWMpCQ3gb9MeUsUC0zKXL7jAEao wJIkEIX8pNKsbTTrb8YQTqae54ARZMoBhmPiJGdJy1kQ8BeACk/+HJAcb7gNRAb4EIgcADiqNONAQFHY uaS2gEldr5bQjOYh4MIMXizDZCt5kCVisjyVMCUFTMFMSt6zuXx0xk9occyHGmg9abrznX7ITUCch85r wKUwy1kJKlCgkw/9rSpD+YkyUmYaGpCoM5O7xwThydCG0mF5rFHYNfgBlLIFB1/5GMG3JGMaCexLfCyZ ASvusbx7tNOhKE2pGj6kgaek6AT/4zKPTtSykMmBwlUC8Jp5UrKW5EAUHwG4BwRVStSijiEwI0xBQj9X GIk6oABWK0nyCAY6rtiOSyK9ksJQ8UyjevWrWYDLTzKAAcEZwGEo+AVZXSc/ayTjF5BJ23owZRf+leSt aPEFMPD3u2ucFKyADexYYIJLal4jBVRJV0lMA5OWgAJZ5pFJAYCCQBCpwir9gGILBMvZzirBLqv4GwYC kgyLZYA+lYMAMcuCggyIqJJQI0IGVEtW17JiA6u4USPa6Nne+lYLJEFkFJbxpt8a97hXEBaIIAmF8CH3 udB9Aqx0ZYUMTDG62M2udrfL3e5697vgDa94x0ve8pr3vOhN/69618ve9rr3vfCNr3znS9/62ve++M2v fvfL3/76978ADrCAB0zgAhv4wAhOsIIXzOAGO/jBEI6whNMLgApbGABiuDCGobDhInQ4CRq28IRHzIUP C8HEWzAxip3Q4RV72AguBkSMSczdFc+YCjaeQouZkGND3JjG2XXxh0XsYSLbAMMVfjGIj5xkJu/YyUh2 MhJ6fGIjIznKRq7ykJUM4yafmAgtJvKFh5DlK284y1IGM5OBDE8hk/nNcP7ymo8QYy/bWc5HJvOTuRzn PMPZznsONJ/jvGc/b9nPeA6zngndZy+z2Z1uRrScVYxnOju60ocWdJ/1rGE1e/rQk1YyqP89DeNP03nT Zya1obn840dHMtKULnKqeXznRifa1qUetJYxbWpSF3rTuKZyrEc9a0a7+p2wDjGnQ/2EYku62IWmsq+b 7OxMK/vWuc42oseM7T+r+szXlvSxoQnrKYuaw7z2drfFXWl1u/vZ7X5xpLXd419Xu9enHrc0hX1ufOt6 1cE2drzZDfB3Z5rPUc43vfNt73QzW+D6riWKY71tMDt70NHGd8a1vW5qfxviea6zwD1ucIiDeuMRl3i4 La5iEV9c1o4mdqKTPGpOc9vmBYf3sjne5ZYnHMo7T7PDn31piqf86M3eRKuRznSCF2LpTY/4paNO9apb /epYz7rWt87/9a57/etgD7vYx072spv97GhPu9rXzva2u/3tcI+73OdO97rb/e54z7ve9873vvv974AP vOADG2I0szjpOCYD1FN848Vb2vBLmPeUC68hx+vB8lnAfJc1onkzdH7gXvg8HiT/eaOjG9i6Fr3GVK9w NKj+17dgfRhEL/vId4L0VZA24kGP+tqvy/eoVzwWYG8L4HfBxlMvs9DNjOqiK7/nPlczzeUt6+qzvM6A dr7H0Qx53oec2rXmNvN5TvQ7b1/7qib4za8c9Mn7fMfTn770pY9+IRed/lPXco65f/03K5/7ySd/0Gd9 UDZmMqd//hdmIudthudyCYhzLFd+czBx/7i2bU8Wfr5WgRQ4covWbj9Xcd1WcyFobh0Igk53goDmbkMG exuYbjGnaSYYb9aWgSQYg+BWgpS2giPHbwFXg+xWax1XZYQGgycnbURocv52gyAXbCiXghqIg8GnBqb3 ci6oca0XgwM3bKy2bqjmfeJGhTr3cLzXgB9ng+lXgDHXbz1Ychg3dOp3hfe2hjpnel8oh+nXgtimhUhY h3z4b3o4hwD3h31YhoJohv6Wcyfoem3odAengpEHhL2nhnkYiYfIcWB4gHTYcxVYcAd4hsh3cY3IgSBG ch54hZoYhpNoh3hoiD9GhjQYgWEYimL4hpYYhCEng6Q4iKpYiqAnZv+SmIhn8H6+2HpxSHxpRnzrd20U CIPXZ2WQV4ibCG6ddnioCG1leIYWOGtGJ43r13skt4LT+G/H6IYXSIipt4XvZn2rGGjf+IqGpozi2I1W 6H/0uGs5R3kLx4cUF32IyI3dlwaZyIhJyIW8CIyXWGrMGIWe+IvR6IVKEIcP14mUWIiyiJBw6IY+2IWo +GUo14+1WIUXuYgeGYuVWJBLpo+2Bn+8KILEuJLo6JIlCQdT2IsDiYUF2XgwOX8EqYsyyJBDB4qmeI/z iJH19osVuWW6B5FZGJIi+HOYeI7ueJALSYOCuHEUyWM5iZT1WJV+eIhASY456ZBl0IInJ4cQWW3/LPiK yHiNR0iJNvmTS6iR1WiLPfmSc7aNIPeBjfaVKGhwSsmRDTlzCleENFmCUOiXDleWiWmEoqiL0caX8wZ+ GtiRQFiZcvCJpwiSs1hmDpiFAMiSNfeZMDeKLDmOe9l4NzeX2UiUKwd0fCmB5IeAL/eP9iibGKmamCaA BLhs0vh4evl9+9iZipmbE6eb/QeLM9dwODeb+cebHBmATjma4AibCul2xid8VnCdu7d61Dh4wycIjlea wYg0uOedV9CceYCeD0mbnkeepKmd5hmf8jmf9OmdqwiMowcG8Jlhtnd6OoaT+Nmf5+mQ+4mdgVCgFjd7 v1liinedOSiOd2CM/98JkIrYkjrWBGBIod15ktkpBeV5oO05e/wZovqpk2I5gdWZe1JYofnooRh6omMA da04of6JcIOAoDB6oSJKol+glae5nsVpfliGfsfpmiZZpEB3pMGJl6NZm20Ijhf4makmmgPopPeYhimZ gNFXlFoqlwhopceZjGnYmuIndGD6nDmogJkJpsJpatn3iApof/yIpsv5gOMnpbaJnHTqfkjKoCO4k4Y4 aYr2pyS5mRYqi+tIl7S4kw+qmaTXljbqqHsImEIYglxaqULZooyJm5D4bZCaoLkZlY1pgS44nNkmoZBq mYKJqaoakVG5lreZYqJIh1epmtCYiktZkrBqqP+3qZzouKsfOpLuCIKQSanWmI6XCoiFyZM8OKmRyqt3 uImIGJaZGppMmZFh+alPOZT7OJVx6afleKTMmotHuawJeYrJ+qt22ay5yomD6YPlapfEepPGaouZqJTa yKG0GpRWho22CpXOOq0oWZPW+pGSp5HDSZmeSIq+2pTyGnp1GKcNGG7DiIkU+3wmKKfJCX8LKKyg6aUm CqXfarHhmJfq1q0qyYpd+a/o6atFOp2B+qzvWLL0irC+OYxsCKXP6JOLKobaypbtyIUdWbMi2qj4ebD4 KpbMuKA8+Y5jiIVDK7TmZozH2qICK6/hirJbuYu5ZrHmCqGuKqoWOoshuZH/VIi0mhmgt9qzmZqx1ziS CRm13cqfRruvXgmXTbu0AomNVWuRRLuoARmdDBd82wpsDQut0dm3r8mGYXuqYOuuYmu1i9uHBZuU2QqW BoutA0uoEvmVcSutlGug0fq1ocqpk5pxj5q2bmaqg/qsM8a6gNqJu6qyUquWapmsiDq2m/qYoIu3bwmJ c8u507aqweu4Tyu8jdm5pduEbxuwPWqKtImnSdt+SbprAZmn1Ru4a2q9j0e9ktuvbEquenqH90edckmZ xumzd0uA/yim2AuzsEhszTl+hgudu8m9+BukcOqvVoqxbuu72ZhwnUm9pcl/hYKj/EtGCMwJC1x1DRyg /9sjntvxwEynnqFHwU+Smh2CwfXZwR78wSAcwiI8wqQzoyTMXxycwAR6wu+VwilqwiwMXeC7sV9qpsDZ v2PKjYSrm2IapzHcWeGqvoXKqqkatcObmM37w0a1u+8auXCrwjZru1CsxAzFxMbrrJ47xeOKjBZMxVWs uzNcvNY2je/3kKzGsPHrxV+1qWooxjHZsZkrxSmqxpA2tkOpqFmsudT6uXS8xCpYjE6csIFZg+S6tC7c x3bDmU7pjGr6tvD7hewpZT7cyAY4x4h8yZicyZq8yZzcyZ78yaAcyqI8yqRcyqZ8yqicyqq8yqzcyq78 yrAcy7I8y7Rcy7Z8y7icy/+6vMu83Mu+fAYEIAbBLATDDAfFPATHTMyHkMxKwMzOvATBzMzQPM1XQADW TAbSzHfPrMxWUMzZ3AbebATf7AfjzATlfATR3AXnTM2ivM02sM5JEM51IM9EAM94YM9IgM/vzM1aoM/o TMrRPMzWHNAC/c7HPNDIXM8JTc/XzM8Nvc/8jMwPHdDEHM4Ivc8TbdD1/NAYjdHJfNEQHdIbfdAZ3dAc 7c0nnc4ircwZ7dEKHdIgXdEQXdAnLdEkbdEordI6rdE8Lc4pPdODZ9IOLdHcTM8v3dEOzdAMXQTybNIF DdQyPdNPrdRRvdQwLc4JfdU8LdRFndUC/dQb3dVb7dX/Q13UUw3WaF3WXA3VE/3VEa3WVR3UZF3WUJ3P Wd3RO53ONI3UR33XTU3Xac3Ufj3YQy3N7hzYdX3Yb63Vgf3XgC3WiY3VkO3YB03YfQ3XgufYWg3THG3Z eg3Un43XK13RVs3WhK3ULb3ZA13S/yzYkz3Xo/3XF03ZsI3YtP3arh3ZYl3ZdH3Xpy3XuL3Zvv3Yof3Z e63Sdq3awd3Ynm3ZCm3Ykq3b0v3buT3Vtf3Yu33d1Y3dYK3cuU3dgafZKB3cvS3cRm3U4H3bjD3XqV3a vB3dzF3YR33Wi63eyC3dbh3Z7x3f6y3SpU3daw14TZ3fFG3T2u3c543g7c3ejR3T/9fs3iP93Tcd4cTN 1D/d3aQt3v5t4GFt3Sxt4RPO3RFt1SEu0xj+wf6sHSmuzuCsCSsed6sd4zI+4zRe4zZ+4zie4zq+4zze 4z7+40Ae5EI+5EQ+5CP84mLR2WkQ08Cs5IPA5L8c5VI+5VRe5VZ+5Vie5Vq+5Vze5V7+5WAe5mI+5mRe 5mZ+5mie5mq+5mze5m7+5nAe53IeFoWXi5YMwaLbobJK5zscyfFIa63JPffpoiR4yOcJoIburRo6oMfn pzKmx1Ewu3gus9ia6IyeCQ7KoSra6Nt5kpZelytKo3uuBZ/e6XduxqCuxZTOr4dQ6qI+6rFZo6Qu64VO B8sIvP87u6c1XMniu3OVPL70K2/aJ7IIab/3G+x9yn+MXMZnCoE2+brHGH6+2H1G2K/nN6eBi6U0nL33 J2ZE+pw1XKW6jr+e2rI5TJE87O1vaqcYx8i+ScDE6cgQW2SOaLiHmbCyW+8dx8V72JTMa3JpOaqt6rrw yqijeO976ZaB+YKzurK0K8REd5gZa8SEaalXDLgS37bAi8SsCrC/K7Y/e+obKqmorqwXb/JyrKhcC6DI +reD7saka+93PL7/CsA257/C6pEfe6hNjMWXW/L2CrAsj7i1+4dc6ZZ2G7oeW6/zbo5eaJWEHKnNCvOr jrMZmcfOa7kcf/Kvi8ZAuvCDrOj/vi71bRyUKG+yeHv0GLrxzFqdtQq59du3S8/1dM9scyvAz0v2zh65 qemyZ4v2G7mY0Jbrf6aMFMu3yz7Dbwm13Qv3/Vm4Eon0QcuEZKzwQDvwMeuPdq7BY5+2P9ine6zvydm4 RF/3w5q1W5iynO70PEfxgC+wfBz4Z697mwuhEny1Q4y1cQzB06uw5If1nm+ifz6R58v6tv+Rsx+biar0 ymn0DMm0Llu7gZj69bj6dijzsh/7sA/4Ow+tYg/8MTu4fB/130+QuHvH3b++TKq1Zr/zh7vymu7y4nqw tT+voc/4nx+ZQq+uoav6jg4ENiFAODQekUVicrlEOp1PqPJZ/7RNqVnr1drserVKbFUbNW+55fA52XW3 meD0NjpnH8dzfZg8lDPVqOre7MQA9fLuCvsQ0cwSywYhHSPXDq/+ADID3QYvPe/YxupI0UxPUeFEvzRN JzFbxYgkWx+hauliLSkjcf10O4F/HYUVZUmLCTVpbz1/ZxlZgRXlli+lraXTSteE94iRoZ9lyQkby9uW ndUX48TN2U+zjebxct/Zm3TrQVHn683BouOO165UBxEmVLiQYUOHDyFGlDiRYkWLFzEWzLiRY0eP8jo6 +ziSZEmTJ1GmVLmS5beWL2EyNIZRZEybN3Hm1LmT50JvPYGujLfxZ1CjR5EmVbqUaVOnT/+hRpU6lWpV q1exZtW6lWtXr1/BhhU7lmxZs2fRplW7lm1bt2/hxpU7l25du3fx5tW7l29fv38BBxY8mHBhw4cRJ1a8 mHFjx48hR5Y8mXJly5cxZ9a8mXNnz59BhxY9mnRp06dRp1a9mnVr169hx5Y9m3Zt27dx59a9m3dMdTVF A+89XC63hsLJIie+XHK/43CVM5fOGHiobEP5CdSOjkusoeCo0Zu2nfus364AZvcl6F776e+9Vn+zitO+ UZWuGRQ16tUtPvrx2+OddvKAz0Cr5MvCOQGv+WObgFwBScGBGKxwJjgspPBBDI070EOpErSnIG7Cy/A/ jeBJR0UTMXT/iUQNq4kQwg9pXCpEO/7hYxMFf3Pwu3tKfHE+Ci8c55nrKLkPPIBqbBKpG50rcEcRUZwR xiGxnDBLl3hZJ0lOrHRSzCdlvDDGLenTUsZUJhFSTSq5JFLOgZTUsMUx8czJOP/OCcUgAv9ckEB9AvQz PwCjabC+PBkN6jxWcLSvmRS7MeZHbSD1Qj1vsuPuGPc4DCi9ohotNTMvTU1V1YdQXdXVV/2RENZZaa3V 1ltxzVXXXXnt1ddfgQ1W2GGJLdbYY5FNVtllmW3W2WehjVbaaamt1tprsc1W22257dbbb8ENV9xxyS3X 3HPRTVfdddlt19134Y1X3nnprdfee/HN/1ffffnt199/AQ5Y4IEJLtjggxFOWOGFGW7Y4YchjljiiSmu 2OKLMc5Y44057tjjj0EOWeSRSS7Z5JNRZooDFVDooGUUWGbZ5ZdRgNnmmlmGmYOZa+5ZZpx1blkFnjsY umeebZ45Zw5QYPpnFVRgemaeV37Z5Zhp5hlroHVG2meaY5ba6JqLJrrnpLlm2umXoZaa7J6rdvlqtGm2 Oeebo/YaaKWDLvvoseume+mm0W47a7h/nvvnurfGe+ezv+Y7aqGJBhzpxQdf++rJp0bcarsPB/runPOG fG/Rxa7c7MjTJvxpzt+uOW626db6Zsf1Frxvyy0/G3PZXWcb9rpnV/88dNC5Lt303znnffXTb1Y7aYUC n1vyl92Wm/TPo97+euRhLppszKsGfW6mQZd58beZx/5z8dG+uvz2wR86Z/GVnr9wwtMXunrdf5Y9/8VP Z94T3QFxBj/84Ux/T+Mf1tT3v/a5TIDwS1wBobe1xtlvfGBrIO3QB0H/Ic16B6Tg+wwoPwMib4MKJN/2 HBhC862Pdtc7odwGeMHuZRBvt+PgCBkIQxAeMIIkBKD7cGhB7unvey283wtNCLOUTZGKVbTiFbGYRS1C jAYzeMEXbTCDLYqFBkVQQRkVUgMhqMAGaESFG23ARiGoUQhwpGMbi3DHLchRjnq0Ah3deEYbgED/BCEA wQnmUoMXrICRjVzBC8Z4lhrA0Yx4RAgdMVlHNVKSj0WgpCXlmEdPejKUnyxCCFqwAhakkpEygMsMHBlL RpoyklmhwR3lSIM+znGUeSwjGwNphVDm0pcn4MAabeBHTR4El5X0ZAhUKcsVgECZRhFjRxYpTUdes5ZZ UWMGDnCCUIqyjn9E5hYggAKIQGABGdjCL4VQAgkgMpfD3IIfbymEE6yAlYxcZTQRmZQZNIACHYHlIxv5 xYQysptcYWcJLFkDEhRBnEWQYh0DOlEbSCADG4BoMmkQ0DZuIKA1EGkGKhBHNIpUCBJwwEfnqM5kCkGj HDgBGv0oAzHSQAYn/zDBDAJqgnEahQQCSClHZgBINb5gktzkZkOtooISOMAB8xQCBARwgAUs4AACgEAN KmCABBgABRgYgAEUYIADGEACJcjAAs56ARuAUwFtlUACDgABFZyAqwrAQAYEsAC52uAEWvWqBCSQ1rSi YAFuHUAC8AoBvC7AAWlNgAMwcAB3YsABEDCAWheQ0hmEQKS0hAkFBJBaDNhAAJhNbWpZuwAbFFUADEjt Bl4rAApc4LUTsIFt9SkAC0ygtal1QBFe8FSobgUCGECBVW1QAQnY4AIOQMEJMAsBRDa3uic4gQIQmYAN QKACIT0ABrS70QxAwAF0dIBcN5AAFFi3CAaAwP8FMlDdAZCgss41gHQdgN0FSGAAEphvAv6agMSmNAMO eKt27evdGBjFAqm1gG05cFgHpJYBrHXADFRrWwGUILUVaABvGSABrGIAuDbAbQVQKwAJLMCoQmDqcr2C WRsYoARslMBE0WuCDSgAwBlwaQUwUILnIpKjHGVjZ+2bASJDd6MB1W5z21gB8NLRpdiVgE0T8FYO1IC3 DlgAk49rg8oaIAM1QK8DyGoD9voUBCDtSWqvOdHW2oDE02UtBFC7ASFgWACDpbEYQdxZAcRTuMQVYw0C a2Pl4vgqjFXAAAasTsyqoALulOcFBpDkE7jVnWreLmcHCwHEVuC6MyBvHeP/vGPsDhYDbJYjBLSrYhJg FwMJkGsFFgAB8MrZwBtdawZUwNnEqtOlu5bBUHUigNVaYc8nEIBvWcuACgggoBsuqgWEUNsiYLXF1sbA tovQYhhMmtJVebWLh51f6mbAu+HcNCIxgAGbptcAF+DoCRpc2BPUQNDzVKMKHHwC9D73mEKAs5FV/NLM 6lu+VTUyW8mqAnY22K8KIC9WgY1S9obAi64Eile3gPIMg9vDEhCAoH/L7RqzdtHhhkCLM+zvmrO2ATau ZrunIgG5qlHoNXBABWqAUhtwYAHXVYAAwFuBC6gzvRytLNRXe4EDJGAA8x2sEODaThUIfY4nSIACNAtn /2MKIMzcNusCLu2ABGgUzhEG9gLYCoGuLhaVImimThog7RpwgAGQPq61KdBFr6IWAslMbYYLGnOIotYB xIUobylA3OlaGwIz8CK7gS4VYvaynD9f4yR3aQo9mjaOqjcnGs3MUlqqIAM8tgIcy2h6loA4t0VtPKRT a23Z0rj3M+f9a2eQ4dxigLi59eIXQR96qJgS2q2XCBrhuUxU1ICP2JfjBcT6Ue7z0pk04CzMz2kUGmzA Aom3wbmFsIELFDTzYbwAA1jMAHnClLoPmECeJ4ABSKACSKDCSID5dgqMpC9cgMq2Oswh0G0B0YX3WM4h JqDxJDADNXADObADPfADQQwwBEVwBEmwBDkiCAAAIf5waHFnaHVtZWF5bG5sZmR4ZmlyY3ZzY3hnZ2J3 a3FzdWJwem1teGx4bGZseXRiYXB4Y3Vsa3R2cm5teHNycmwAO3== --------------020106070507040604000005-- From decla@siteowners.com Mon Oct 4 01:58:22 2004 From: decla@siteowners.com (lenard west) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:58:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Certain student loans eliminated Message-ID: <60E7A6FF.C5A6EDA@siteowners.com> Get rid of all card payments.
Cancel debts and never make another payment?

Discharge debts quickly, painlessly, legally. For the rest of the story about canceling debt, go to our elimination pages


post office list in top link
One of them furnishes a person with food for an entire day. The old gentleman stared at Rob a moment and then laid down his magazine and took the box in his hands, examining the tablets curiously
Are these patented? he asked From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Oct 3 23:36:43 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:36:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Swiss Teams current teams 1 & 2 playing each other Vul all North S JT8 H AK8x D Qx C AJ9x West East S Ax S Qxx H Jx H T9x D AKJxxx D xxxx C Qxx C Kxx South S K97xx H Qxxx D x C Txx Bidding W N E S 1D Dbl 2D 2S 2NT P** P 3H all pass Result 3H+1 ** Pause - agreed on Td is called goes away comes back and changes the score to 2NT making. E/W appeal N/S and E/W are both decent players. North said he paused considering West's 2NT as he knew west did not have the values for such a bid. He concluded it must be based on a long 6 card diamond suit and decided not to double. With an extra diamond he would have doubled. South said that initially he had a choice of double, 3D or 2S. 3D he felt promised more. Double indicated equal length. He bid 2S planing to bid hearts if he got another opportunity. He felt he was entitled to bid 3H's as pd should have 4 hearts and his values were outside of diamonds. He said that 3H's was not without risk, as pd may have doubled with clubs 3325 shape and may have been thinking of doubling 2NT. What is your ruling ?? Karel From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 4 00:26:02 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:26:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.0.1.1.1.20041002111354.01bd0ec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <00ae01c4a9a0$595c4fe0$059868d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > ...we can have an almost perfect > solution in letting them complete the > round as they started it (and then have > them continue according to the original > schedule from the round thereafter). [Nigel] IMO Sven's solution is good. 1. It seems OK to let the wrongly seated pair play *just one board* against the wrong opponents (and the other affected pair don't object, to let them play the same board against wrong opponents); but, if the scoring program can cope and you can afford a slight delay, it seems better that the rest of the boards are played against the right opponents. 2. As for all almost all innovations since 1940, TFLB does no cater for Barometer scoring; Surely this is another case where sponsoring organisations might be grateful if the WBFLC were to provide default rules to spare them the duty of concocting their own. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 29-Sep-04 From schoderb@msn.com Mon Oct 4 03:21:07 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:21:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000701c4a937$09e51500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <415FEABB.2060306@hdw.be> Message-ID: I'm beat! I quit this waste of my time! Having again read Herman's babblings about what the laws "really" (according to him) mean, what he thinks the laws say in English, and what he wants the laws to be in the future, I'm tired of my attempts to elucidate to him. Whenever he doesn't like something it ipso facto becomes wrong and needs to be corrected. That he might be wrong is anathema. He has rights! Many of his "interpretations" are in conflict with what is written, but that doesn't slow him down. He knows! Hopefully some of you, as Sven for instance, are using your good senses to see that: 1. The laws do not, (and should not, in my opinion), cover all possible deviations of procedure and aberrations that can occur at a bridge table. Or this would have to even cover "two cokes" to the waitress heard as "2 clubs" at the table (Yes, there are still places where bidding is vocal). Or how about mistakes or actions during written bidding - which is used for over some 2 million players of our duplicate game? 2. There has been a continued and destructive (again in my opinion) movement by Zones and some NBOs to misapply the laws to want them to be able to justify pet peeves, or solve so-called insoluble problems. This is usually accomplished by having in-house savants pontificate on what the laws "really" mean or should be. Examples: Law 92 A clearly limits the AC to '....a review of any ruling made at his table by the director....." It does not (ACBL'ers please note) mean that when an appeal is filed the case goes to the AC as though the TD's ruling does not exist, and the AC will rule as they see fit rather than review the TDs ruling. They might come to the same ruling as the TD, but that is circumstantial, and has nothing to do with REVIEWING the TDs ruling. This is, of course, in direct conflict with the Law, and the guidance of the WBF in the Code of Practice. Or, let's change the claims law because we have had a single case (in my years of experience at the highest levels of tournaments) where we don't like what the law caused to happen. Let's make sure that you play the best you can on every hand (why not every trick?) at all times regardless if that is to your benefit or not --why we might have to write better regulations to keep the bad guys from throwing to their opponents! And, or course, God forbid that playing poorly could be result in winning! -- We can't have that, can we? (Somebody, I'm sure, can tell me how you differentiate between intentional bad bridge and stupidity.) 3. Where the Laws do not provide a specific recipe for handling an aberration or infraction (remember to be an INFRACTION OF LAW there has to be a Law that IS INFRACTED!) we just look around what feels good, and use that. And I could go on and on and bore you with details. 4. In too many cases it's sad that the promulgators expected at least average intelligence and common sense from those who use these laws while performing the duties of a TD. And that is not to say there are not cogent and prescient reasons for changing/rewording/clarifying some of the laws -- it is just to say that most of the points that need the hardest work have not even been realized or addressed. 5. Amen, shalom, and peace be with you. I find my remaining years of dedication to the game and hard work ahead in the Review of the Laws seriously interfered with by trying to make silk purses...... PS No need to reply, Herman - I am fully au courant with your self-image. However, should you be interested, I did interject my comments to the original message enclosed by KKKK for your reading pleasure. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>Herman De Wael > >>Look fellas, you're all missing the point here. > >> > >> > >>Well, if this is a Howell tournament, we are all agreeing that L15C > >>tells us to take pair A off the table and to conduct 2 new auctions: > >>one with pairs B and C, and one with A and D. In these new auctions, A > >>and B are obliged to repeat their calls, and C and D must bid normally. KKKK In a Howell , other than possible relay tables, the boards for different tables for the current round are not the same -- it is for this reason, and not who the opponents are, that 15C applies. Were you using a Howell movement (such as the endless Howell used in WBF Pairs Championships and many other NBO and Zonal events) Law 15C would NOT apply since the boards are the same for each table in the same round. KKKK > > > > > > It seems to me that now YOU are mixing up a bit: When A is transferred > > to > > his correct position they will not be scheduled to play board 27 against > > pair D! We are discussing Howell this time, remember? > > > > Well, Sven, it won't be pair 5, as in Cardiff, it will be pair 357 for > all I care. But that will still be a pair D, won't it? So what's the > difference? KKKK The difference is that the boards being played at both tables DURING THE CURRENT ROUND ARE THE SAME. KKKK > > > Either A will already have played board 27 in a previous round in which > > case > > what just happened is a null for that pair, or they are scheduled to > > play > > board 27 in a later round in which case they will be subject to law 15C > > when > > they eventually meet the pair against which they are scheduled to play > > board > > 27. (This will definitely not be pair D!) KKKK This shows atleast some understanding of why 15C exists -- it talks about the boards, does it not? KKKK > > > > Of course the case in which pair A ghas already played board 27 is not > the one we are talking about. Nor is it the less likely case in which > pair A were not scheduled to play board 27 at all. All other cases > involve pair A having to play board 27 against some pair which I have > chosen to call D. Does it really matter whether they are scheduled to > play them in this round or in some other one? > KKKK ditto. KKKK > > The important question is now: > > > > Does Law 15 apply to the situation for pairs C and B in the situation > > above? > > > > > > And the answer to this question should probably have some impact also on > > how > > to treat incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events! > > > > Literally Law 15 does NOT seem to apply here because pair B certainly > > was > > not involved in playing a board not designated for them to play in the > > current round! (The affected board WAS designated for them to play in > > this > > round). > > > > But that is also the case in the Howell. Are you suggesting that for > pair B L15C is not applicable? Surely then that is the worst worded > law in the book - one which has no application whatsoever! > > > But on reading Law 15C carefully it seems to me that the intention of > > the > > entire Law 15 is that is shall apply not only when the wrong board was > > played by the correct players but also when the correct board was played > > by > > the wrong players. That is: Law 15 seems intended for any situation > > where > > the combination of the two pairs meeting and the board(s) played is not > > according to schedule. > > > > Which is precisely my point! > > > If this is indeed the case then Law 15C could have had a better wording; > > something like: "If, during the auction period, the Director discovers > > that > > a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the > > current round or is playing this board against opponents not designated > > for > > him to meet in this round then he shall cancel the auction, ........." KKKK This is not a "better wording." It is a change of what the Law means, and one that I strongly reject. KKKK > > > > indeed it should, and that is why I apply it as well. If you intend to > reead it differently, then the law is silent on the solution. SO you > could choose either solution. At least my interpretation has the > advantage that the law appears to be complete. KKKK Complete only it what you have mistakenly decided it should be. KKKK > > > With this wording there would be no problem applying Law 15C to the > > situation for pairs C and B above, a situation for which Law 15C > > certainly > > must have been intended? And Law 15 would without discussion be > > applicable > > also to incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. > > > > > >>Now some clever fool has discovered that in Barometer tournaments, > >>L15C seems not to be of application. > > > > > > I am not sure if this was intended as a compliment? It doesn't look that > > way! (And for some curious reason I feel being a target) > > > > No Sven, you were not. The clever fool was Anne. I'm not saying that > she's wrong, she certainly has discovered a hole in the laws. > KKKK there are fools, and there are fools. Anne doesn't appear to be one > of them, but those who may so indicate probably fit the bill better than > Anne in any case when they leave themselves open to libel and slander. > KKKK > > ........................... > > > >>Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do would be to allow A and > >>B to continue their auction and play their contract. In addition, it > >>is sensible to have C and D play the board against one another. But > >>what is sensible and what is prescribed by the WBF often do not agree. KKKK What an unfounded attack and calumny! Had I the power, I would make you justify such a ludicrous statement with a minimum of at least an apology. KKKK > > > > > > This is the sensible solution IF we decide that Law 15 is not > > applicable. > > But is this question settled yet? > > > > Well, it is the sensible solution. Point. Only the WBF have decided > that a less sensible solution (which is certainly a workable solution) > is the one that we have to apply. So we do. KKKK what the he-l are you talking about? KKKK > > > > >>In Norway, apparently, they have written a regulation which says that > >>the TD must do the sensible thing and not L15C. > > > > > > No Herman, sorry but I must "accuse" you of not having read what I > > wrote: > > > > We have decades of experience with barometer, and we have a tradition of > > applying Laws 15A1 and 15C on incorrectly seated pairs. (The other parts > > of > > Law 15 can obviously never be applicable to barometer events) > > > > Well, L15C is maybe not of application, but it is certainly a possible > solution to the problem. > > > There was a discussion on blml earlier this summer where the question > > came > > up in another context: Is Law 15C applicable on incorrectly seated > > players > > in a barometer event? > > > > If I remember correct the consensus seemed to be that it cannot, but > > anyway > > that discussion started me thinking. Eventually I tended towards the > > solution that in barometer events it would be best to let the players > > complete the current round as they were incorrectly seated and then > > bring > > them back to schedule from the next round. (This was mainly based on the > > impression that L15 was inapplicable since the boards involved were > > designated for that round (for all pairs). As you probably understand > > from > > my discussion further up I am not so sure about this understanding of > > L15 > > any longer). > > > > Well, I have agreed for a long time that it is a preferrable solution. > But not just in barometer events, since it has nothing to do with the > movement, just with the problems L15C causes, which are absent if you > simply let the board be played out. The reason why the sensible > solution seems more logical in barometer is because you have pairs C > and D who are available to play board 27 in this same round. In Howell > movements, it is not always possible to have pairs C and D complete > the full change. But also in barometer you don't often have the > opportunity to seat pairs C and D during the current round. > > > But a change in our practice here is not yet incorporated in our > > instructions for Directors, and I am still not sure whether it will be. > > In > > fact I have been asked to prepare a summary to the Norwegian LC on this > > matter and so far I don't even know what will be my suggestion. > > > > I suggest that you keep to the sensible solution, but write it in a > regulation somewhere. KKKK And whatever the regulating body finds to be the "sensible" solution rightly belongs in the their Regulations, and not in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 200?. KKKK > > > Sven KKKK FOR SVEN: I hope that what you suggest makes clear the difference between playing the wrong opponents and playing boards that you should not be meeting at this time. I think it is the problems caused by having to adjust, Average (+ or -), etc., when the boards are involved that is by far the most important problem to be able to resolve. Particularly when the auction differs IN ANY WAY. Kojak > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 4 06:51:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:51:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000501c4a92c$10e58930$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RJH asked: [snip] >>If a barometered event can have its results altered by an appeal, why >>not permit a barometered event to have its results altered by a late >>play? Sven asserted: >Because there is no way the alleged advantage can justify the >complications and delay for the tournament. > >As a service both to players and to kibitzers we publish all hands and >all results both on huge overheads, [snip] RJH notes: A parochial answer from Sven. Sven assumed that my question about "a barometered event" was a question about "a Norwegian-style barometered event". Many other NCBOs, such as Australia, run lower-key barometered events, in which only running totals are published. For such lower-key barometered events, it seems to me that the benefits of the event being determined by actual bridge play (rather that artificial adjusted scores) outweigh any minor scoring inconvenience for the TDs. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 4 07:17:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:17:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4a9d9$c42d3170$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............ > Many other NCBOs, such as Australia, run lower-key barometered events, > in which only running totals are published. For such lower-key > barometered events, it seems to me that the benefits of the event being > determined by actual bridge play (rather that artificial adjusted > scores) outweigh any minor scoring inconvenience for the TDs. So those NCBOs and their players have not yet discovered the features that really make barometer so appealing? Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 4 07:42:04 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:42:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c4a9dd$7d13c250$37ec403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 2:25 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 I should very much appreciate some commentary from Grattan and/or other representatives of WBFLC here!!!!! Sven +=+ I did comment. Herman responded with scorn but that is the least reason to change my view. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ *************************************** Repeat: < > Look fellas, you're all missing the point here. > +=+ I was trying to ignore all this before this call to arms resounded through the camp. +=+ > > Now some clever fool has discovered that in > Barometer tournaments, L15C seems not to > be of application. There is no other Law that > applies. The WBF have not indicated that there > should be a different treatment regarding the > timing of the round in which A and D are > supposed to meet. There is no reason whatsoever > why the treatment should be different. So why > not apply the same Law? > +=+ Law 15C is clearly stated to apply if a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round. The board in play in this case is a board both pairs at the table are designated to play. So 15C does not apply. The Director has no authority to apply it. So the Director has to find an authority in the Laws for relevant remedial action.+=+ > > Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do > would be to allow A and B to continue their > auction and play their contract. In addition, it > is sensible to have C and D play the board > against one another. But what is sensible and > what is prescribed by the WBF often do not > agree. > +=+ A libellous statement. The WBF has not prescribed. The problem is created by the fact that the SO has not covered the situation by regulation. Since the law is silent it is open to the SO to regulate. It looks like a 78D item to me. However, the Director still has the problem. He has discretion to act under Law 12. The first matter to settle is whether only one of the pairs at the table is offending or whether they share the responsibility for the violation of the instruction given under Law 8A1. If there is a non-offending side, then 12A1 applies; if not, then 12A2. (We have to allow that play of a board by the wrong opponents is not 'normal play'.) I think C and D will not play the board against each other - it may be unfair to them to expect them to do so; they are each due average plus and who are we to judge their respective strengths? My inclination would be that the procedural panalty on the offending side(s) at the first table should at least balance the excess points to be distributed among C & D. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 4 08:14:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:14:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4a9dd$7d13c250$37ec403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000801c4a9e1$d22bfb50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gesta@tiscali.co.uk > I should very much appreciate some commentary from > Grattan and/or other representatives of WBFLC here!!!!! >=20 > Sven >=20 >=20 > +=3D+ I did comment. Herman responded with scorn > but that is the least reason to change my view. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ You did indeed, but before I "discovered" and pointed out one particular situation: Howell or Mitchell movement Pair B is scheduled to play board X against pair A but accidentally pair = C sits down instead of pair A and they (pairs B and C) start the auction. The irregularity is discovered before the auction period ends. Pair C is scheduled to play this board against pair D in a later round. Law 15C clearly applies to Pairs C and D when they eventually meet to = play board X. But does Law 15C apply for Pairs A and B in this situation? Neither of = them has started the auction "on a board not designated for them to play in = the current round"! (Pair B started the auction against a pair which was not designated for them to meet in this round). This is the question on which I should appreciate some "official" = comment! (And if your comment is that L15C does NOT apply for pairs A and B here = then what?) =20 Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 4 08:18:00 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:18:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4a9dd$7d13c250$37ec403e@multivisionoem> References: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c4a9dd$7d13c250$37ec403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <4160F928.4050504@hdw.be> gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > +=+ I did comment. Herman responded with scorn > but that is the least reason to change my view. Well Grattan, then perhaps you need to re-read my comments. > > +=+ Law 15C is clearly stated to apply if a contestant > is playing a board not designated for him to play in the > current round. The board in play in this case is a > board both pairs at the table are designated to play. Yes Grattan, that is correct. > So 15C does not apply. The Director has no authority > to apply it. No Grattan, that is NOT correct. There is a problem, and the Director needs to solve it. He can apply L15C, or he can try the more sensible option. But neither the Lawbook nor the WBFLC have stated that the Director cannot apply the solution which is put down in L15C. > So the Director has to find an authority in the Laws > for relevant remedial action.+=+ > Exactly. And for the past 20 years he has done as I did. And last week Anne discovered the flaw in the Laws, and suddenly I'm the bad guy who can't read. Well, I refuse to give in until the WBF order me to apply the sensible solution. (At which time I'll lambast the WBF for giving out contradictory orders in far too similar cases). >>Now we all agree that the sensible thing to do >>would be to allow A and B to continue their >>auction and play their contract. In addition, it >>is sensible to have C and D play the board >>against one another. But what is sensible and >>what is prescribed by the WBF often do not >>agree. >> > > +=+ A libellous statement. The WBF has not > prescribed. Yes it has. L15C is a prescription issued by the WBF. > The problem is created by the fact > that the SO has not covered the situation by > regulation. Since the law is silent it is open to the > SO to regulate. It looks like a 78D item to me. As I said before, this case has come up 279 times in the past 20 years and only the Norwegian Federation has thought it necessary to provide "guidance", not even a regulation. Before Anne opened this can of worms, nobody (including our esteemed Mr Endicott) ever imagined there was a problem that the SO needed to solve. > However, the Director still has the problem. > He has discretion to act under Law 12. The first > matter to settle is whether only one of the pairs > at the table is offending or whether they share the > responsibility for the violation of the instruction > given under Law 8A1. If there is a non-offending > side, then 12A1 applies; if not, then 12A2. (We > have to allow that play of a board by the wrong > opponents is not 'normal play'.) > I think C and D will not play the board against > each other - it may be unfair to them to expect > them to do so; they are each due average plus > and who are we to judge their respective strengths? I feel that L5B gives the TD the power to order pairs C and D to play the board against one another, but this is a sidebar to the problem at hand. > My inclination would be that the procedural > panalty on the offending side(s) at the first table > should at least balance the excess points to be > distributed among C & D. The procedural penalties to A & B are to be judged according to the mistakes they made. I judged those mistakes to be minor enough to warrant Avg+. You are entitled to a different view. But a total of 200% to the 2 tables is not a necessity. > ~ G ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 4 08:44:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:44:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000801c4a9e1$d22bfb50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c4a9e1$d22bfb50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4160FF6E.3080005@hdw.be> Sven, don't bother. We have just heard from the secretary of the WBFLC and the former CTD of the WBF that we are fools who apply L15C. Let's just, from now on, write regulations that allow us to apply the more sensible solution, let's apply that one, and let's delete L15C from the Lawbook. Sven Pran wrote: >>gesta@tiscali.co.uk >>I should very much appreciate some commentary from >>Grattan and/or other representatives of WBFLC here!!!!! >> >>Sven >> >> >>+=+ I did comment. Herman responded with scorn >>but that is the least reason to change my view. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > You did indeed, but before I "discovered" and pointed out one particular > situation: > > Howell or Mitchell movement > > Pair B is scheduled to play board X against pair A but accidentally pair C > sits down instead of pair A and they (pairs B and C) start the auction. > > The irregularity is discovered before the auction period ends. > > Pair C is scheduled to play this board against pair D in a later round. > > Law 15C clearly applies to Pairs C and D when they eventually meet to play > board X. > > But does Law 15C apply for Pairs A and B in this situation? Neither of them > has started the auction "on a board not designated for them to play in the > current round"! (Pair B started the auction against a pair which was not > designated for them to meet in this round). > > This is the question on which I should appreciate some "official" comment! > > (And if your comment is that L15C does NOT apply for pairs A and B here then > what?) > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 4 09:01:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:01:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <4160FF6E.3080005@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c4a9e8$5006b460$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven, don't bother. > We have just heard from the secretary of the WBFLC and the former CTD > of the WBF that we are fools who apply L15C. Let's just, from now on, > write regulations that allow us to apply the more sensible solution, > let's apply that one, and let's delete L15C from the Lawbook. I do bother! Honestly I believe that Grattan when he wrote his comment overlooked the consequence that literally taken L15C would apply to only one of the new auctions in Howell or Mitchell and that the laws have no provision on = how to handle the table where the board was indeed scheduled but where the incorrect pair was seated. I cannot imagine this to having been the intention when they wrote Law 15, furthermore I find it possible to read = Law 15 the way I suspect that it has been intended all the time since L15C = was changed in 1997. Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Oct 4 09:09:23 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:09:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c4a9dd$7d13c250$37ec403e@multivisionoem> <4160F928.4050504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001801c4a9ea$985debf0$58ebf1c3@LNV> > > +=+ I did comment. Herman responded with scorn > > but that is the least reason to change my view. Herman: > Well Grattan, then perhaps you need to re-read my comments. > > > > > +=+ Law 15C is clearly stated to apply if a contestant > > is playing a board not designated for him to play in the > > current round. The board in play in this case is a > > board both pairs at the table are designated to play. > > Yes Grattan, that is correct. > > > So 15C does not apply. The Director has no authority > > to apply it. > > No Grattan, that is NOT correct. A very strange statement Herman. Could we ask for some logic in your reasoning? Reading 15C there can only be one conclusion: it doesn't apply. Which means that the TD can't use 15C to solve this problem. You are clearly wrong here. Which leaves us with a not yet solved problem. And no other clear law to help the TD. And the suggestion in L15 that we should not cosinder this to be a real problem, it not being addressed. My sympathy goes to the TD who lets the board be played. Could we leave Cardiff now? ton From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 4 09:30:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:30:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001801c4a9ea$985debf0$58ebf1c3@LNV> References: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c4a9dd$7d13c250$37ec403e@multivisionoem> <4160F928.4050504@hdw.be> <001801c4a9ea$985debf0$58ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <41610A20.8050706@hdw.be> Hello Ton, I'm glad that you do take some time on little insignificant problems which blml blows up to huge elephants. Ton Kooijman wrote: >>>+=+ I did comment. Herman responded with scorn >>>but that is the least reason to change my view. > > > > Herman: > > >>Well Grattan, then perhaps you need to re-read my comments. >> >> >>>+=+ Law 15C is clearly stated to apply if a contestant >>>is playing a board not designated for him to play in the >>>current round. The board in play in this case is a >>>board both pairs at the table are designated to play. >> >>Yes Grattan, that is correct. >> >> >>>So 15C does not apply. The Director has no authority >>>to apply it. >> >>No Grattan, that is NOT correct. > > > > > A very strange statement Herman. Could we ask for some logic in your > reasoning? L15C is stated as if X then Y. We agree that X is not true. But it is a fallacy to deduce from that that Y is false too. I believe the TD is entitled to choose the solution that L15C offers, also to the problem in question. And nothing anyone will say will change that opinion. Since it is manifestly correct. > Reading 15C there can only be one conclusion: it doesn't apply. yes. > Which means that the TD can't use 15C to solve this problem. no. > You are clearly wrong here. no. see above. > > Which leaves us with a not yet solved problem. And no other clear law to > help the TD. that is true. > And the suggestion in L15 that we should not cosinder this to be a real > problem, it not being addressed. > My sympathy goes to the TD who lets the board be played. > Which is what I shall do in future. If only to get you guys off my back. But also because I consider it to be the better solution. In fact, I intend to use the same solution in Howell case. And yes, I know I will go against the laws there. So sue me. > Could we leave Cardiff now? > yes, please. > > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 4 09:26:47 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:26:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000201c4a9d9$c42d3170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003601c4a9ed$630323f0$5d814c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 7:17 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > So those NCBOs and their players have > not yet discovered the features that > really make barometer so appealing? > > Sven > +=+ Without the smiley this has a parochial air. +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 4 09:35:00 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000701c4a937$09e51500$6900a8c0@WINXP> <415FEABB.2060306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003701c4a9ed$63e805b0$5d814c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Herman De Wael" Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > I'm beat! I quit this waste of my time! Having again > read Herman's babblings about what the laws "really" > (according to him) mean, what he thinks the > laws say in English, and what he wants the laws to be << +=+ My heart bleeds for my good friend.- over so many years he has built up a single-minded view of the laws and of the game they express. Sadly he lives in a world of much diversity. But he has a great quality as a sounding board to test out my thoughts on expressing the laws more simply and in about 90% plus we agree and for the rest we have always over these many years found our way to a mutual accommodation. Let me see if there is any gloss I can add to what he says in this latest. < "should not cover all possible deviations" They cannot anticipate explicitly every twist that players will devise. They should provide general powers to deal with the unforeseen. << "movement by Zones/NBOs to misapply the laws" On the surface dangerously close to the Herman position that the laws are what he says they are.... but he doesn't mean it like that. He is probably less enthusiastic than I am about giving powers of regulation where authorities wish to do their own thing - but then he has not spent the time that I have on a Zonal Laws Committee in a Zone where 40 diverse NBOs each have their own ideas about how things should be done. Where we do create powers of regulation it is essential to set in the laws a default position for the benefit of directors who receive minimal help from their NBOs, a condition which is too easily not appreciated by those who work in mature bridge societies. The law book is the only refreshment sure to reach the parts that others do not reach..... << "promulgators expected ...... " I wish I could believe that promulgators were clear in their expectations. All too often we each went away with a view of what had been decided, only to find when Edgar's drafting appeared that it was not what any one of our various differing expectations had anticipated. And, of course, it continues today - some of my drafts, honestly seeking to follow my notes of meetings, have raised eyebrows around the subcommittee table (causing Kojak anxiety when they are discussed by colleagues with their colleagues before we have the product of a subcommittee consensus). << "some of the points that need the hardest work have not even been realized" No doubt true. But we have asked every NBO and every Zone to tell us their needs; the exercise this time has extended to a worldwide consultation and has not been confined almost entirely within a single reclusive society. And, of course :-), we have enjoyed the wisdom of the strongest opinions in the game on what the laws should be. Our subcommittee chairman must feel he is on the back of a steer in a rodeo. Or perhaps on the backs of our hobby horses !! << May the Highest bless us every one, we who are the humble servants of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. but enough ..... I must get back to my task of preparing paper for Istanbul! From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Oct 4 09:30:44 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:30:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000b01c4a9e8$5006b460$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003f01c4a9ef$b0a9ea60$58ebf1c3@LNV> > Herman De Wael > Sven, don't bother. > We have just heard from the secretary of the WBFLC and the former CTD > of the WBF that we are fools who apply L15C. Let's just, from now on, > write regulations that allow us to apply the more sensible solution, > let's apply that one, and let's delete L15C from the Lawbook. I do bother! ((((( Good for you. ))))) Honestly I believe that Grattan when he wrote his comment overlooked the consequence that literally taken L15C would apply to only one of the new auctions in Howell or Mitchell and that the laws have no provision on how to handle the table where the board was indeed scheduled but where the incorrect pair was seated. I cannot imagine this to having been the intention when they wrote Law 15, furthermore I find it possible to read Law 15 the way I suspect that it has been intended all the time since L15C was changed in 1997. Sven (((((( That is a feeling we have to take seriously, but I do not see support for it in the laws. The idea behind present L15 is to have boards being played as much as possible. When a pair is seated at the wrong table, playing a wrong board, another pair is 'damaged' not being able to play this board anymore. That is what L15C wants to solve. No more, no less. What problem do we have when a pair is playing the right board agianst a wrong opponent? A marginal one. The best guarantee to get a real result is to continue playing, don't you think? ton )))))) From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 4 11:09:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:09:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <003f01c4a9ef$b0a9ea60$58ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000c01c4a9fa$3b38c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ........... > I do bother! >=20 > ((((( Good for you. ))))) >=20 >=20 > Honestly I believe that Grattan when he wrote his comment overlooked = the > consequence that literally taken L15C would apply to only one of the = new > auctions in Howell or Mitchell and that the laws have no provision on = how > to > handle the table where the board was indeed scheduled but where the > incorrect pair was seated. I cannot imagine this to having been the > intention when they wrote Law 15, furthermore I find it possible to = read > Law > 15 the way I suspect that it has been intended all the time since L15C = was > changed in 1997. >=20 > Sven >=20 >=20 > (((((( That is a feeling we have to take seriously, but I do not see > support for it in the laws. The idea behind present L15 is to have = boards > being played as much as possible. When a pair is seated at the wrong > table, > playing a wrong board, another pair is 'damaged' not being able to = play > this > board anymore. > That is what L15C wants to solve. No more, no less. > What problem do we have when a pair is playing the right board agianst = a > wrong opponent? A marginal one. The best guarantee to get a real = result is > to continue playing, don't you think? Sure, but don't you see the problem when pair C is incorrectly seated against B? Literally Law 15C applies for pair C but not for pair B! The Director is apparently bound by law 15C to cancel the auction that = has occurred between C and B and apply the remainder of Law 15C when = eventually pair C is scheduled to play that board with pair D as opponents. But does Law 15C instruct the Director to cancel the auction for pair B, have pair A (correctly) take the seats previously occupied by pair C and start another auction? Or is Law 15C now inapplicable because neither pair A nor pair B had = started an auction on a board not designated for (any of) them to play in the current round?=20 Forget anything about barometer; just consider the effects on the table = (in Howell or Mitchell) where a designated pair was starting a designated = board but alas against an incorrect opponent. The more I read Law 15C the more it appears self-contradicting unless we shall understand it to also apply to a combination of a correct board started by a correct pair against an incorrectly seated pair! There seems to be at least one deficiency in Law 15C: It speaks about "A second auction begins" while in fact there will almost always be a need = for TWO "second auctions"; one for each of the originally involved pairs. In addition it is not clear whether Law 15C applies for the pair that started a board designated for them in the current round but with = incorrect opponents, and if it does not apply how the Director should handle that = part of the irregularity. Sven From dpb3@fastmail.fm Mon Oct 4 12:48:06 2004 From: dpb3@fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 07:48:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <20041004071902.32480.80304.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041004071902.32480.80304.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1096890486.12534.205700863@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Swiss Teams current teams 1 & 2 playing each other > Vul all > > North > S JT8 > H AK8x > D Qx > C AJ9x > > West East > S Ax S Qxx > H Jx H T9x > D AKJxxx D xxxx > C Qxx C Kxx > > South > S K97xx > H Qxxx > D x > C Txx > > Bidding > > W N E S > 1D Dbl 2D 2S > 2NT P** P 3H > all pass > > Result 3H+1 > > ** Pause - agreed on > Td is called goes away comes back and changes the score to 2NT making. > E/W > appeal > > N/S and E/W are both decent players. North said he paused considering > West's 2NT as he knew west did not have the values for such a bid. He > concluded it must be based on a long 6 card diamond suit and decided not > to > double. With an extra diamond he would have doubled. > > South said that initially he had a choice of double, 3D or 2S. 3D he > felt > promised more. Double indicated equal length. He bid 2S planing to bid > hearts if he got another opportunity. He felt he was entitled to bid > 3H's > as pd should have 4 hearts and his values were outside of diamonds. He > said > that 3H's was not without risk, as pd may have doubled with clubs 3325 > shape > and may have been thinking of doubling 2NT. > > What is your ruling ?? I would bid 3H, and I suspect most players would--double fit in the majors, diamond stiff opposite little or nothing in diamonds--but pass meets the LA test IMHO (if barely), so I agree with the ruling. I wouldn't like having to make it, especially if I know N and S to be ethical players, but everyone at a certain level knows that hesitating brings about exactly this kind of difficulty. It doesn't matter to the ruling, but what is North's hesitation anyway? His read of West's hand certainly figures to be right, but, given that read, does he really plan to get richer defending 3D than 2NT, which is what he will be doing if he doubles and partner sits? David Babcock Florida USA From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 4 13:11:53 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:11:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <415FEABB.2060306@hdw.be> <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041004080629.02b54870@pop.starpower.net> At 09:25 AM 10/3/04, Sven wrote: >YES, I am saying that IF we focus on Law 15 only to apply on the condition >that the board played was NOT designated for the pair to play in the >CURRENT >round, THEN law 15 is inapplicable for pair B in this case. > >The board was indeed designated for pair B in the current round, but >it was >not designated for pair A who incorrectly took the seats against pair B. > >Law 15C instructs the Director to cancel the auction that has taken >place so >far between pairs A and B and replace the incorrectly seated pair A with >pair C who was scheduled against pair B in this round. > >To me it is obvious from the procedures being described in Law 15C >that this >law now instructs the Director to arrange another auction between pairs B >and C and unless the new auction proceeds identically to the original >auction between pairs A and B up to the point where it was interrupted >then >the Director must cancel this board for pairs B and C. > >But this use of Law 15C can only be correct (legal) if we understand that >Law 15C is applicable also when a pair has started an auction on a board >designated for that pair IN THE CURRENT ROUND but with opponents that was >NOT designated for that pair to meet in this round. > >Any other interpretation of Law 15 makes this law inapplicable in >situations >where I trust no Director would even think of questioning its >applicability! I don't see that. The opposite of "a contestant is playing a board not designated" isn't "a contestant is playing a board designated"; it is "no contestant is playing a board not designated". The straightforward interpretation of L15C is that it applies unless *both* pairs at the table were due to play the board in the current round. So we can easily find it inapplicable in this case without affecting its applicability in the vast majority of situations in which we routinely use it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Oct 4 13:57:52 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:57:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816F80@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Swiss Teams current teams 1 & 2 playing each other Vul all North S JT8 H AK8x D Qx C AJ9x West East S Ax S Qxx H Jx H T9x D AKJxxx D xxxx C Qxx C Kxx South S K97xx H Qxxx D x C Txx Bidding W N E S 1D Dbl 2D 2S 2NT P** P 3H all pass Result 3H+1 ** Pause - agreed on Td is called goes away comes back and changes the score to 2NT making. = E/W appeal N/S and E/W are both decent players. North said he paused considering West's 2NT as he knew west did not have the values for such a bid. He concluded it must be based on a long 6 card diamond suit and decided not = to double. With an extra diamond he would have doubled. South said that initially he had a choice of double, 3D or 2S. 3D he = felt promised more. Double indicated equal length. He bid 2S planing to bid hearts if he got another opportunity. He felt he was entitled to bid = 3H's as pd should have 4 hearts and his values were outside of diamonds. He = said that 3H's was not without risk, as pd may have doubled with clubs 3325 = shape and may have been thinking of doubling 2NT. What is your ruling ?? Karel -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------- I certainly don't rule 2NT making, as I can only see 7 tricks and a = really bizarre defence to let 8 make (after the SJ lead - or a top heart lead - North = only has to=20 throw-losers-keep-winners to beat it). I would probably let the table result stand, but I don't feel hugely = strongly about it and could possibly be persuaded out of it. From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 4 14:03:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:03:36 +0200 Subject: FW: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 Message-ID: <001001c4aa12$8f7e2a40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sorry, I noticed sending this personally to Eric rather than to blml at = the moment I pressed "Send". My apologies to Eric who will receive this = twice. Sven -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no]=20 Sent: 4. oktober 2004 15:02 To: 'Eric Landau' Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 Eric Landau ................ > >But this use of Law 15C can only be correct (legal) if we understand = that > >Law 15C is applicable also when a pair has started an auction on a = board > >designated for that pair IN THE CURRENT ROUND but with opponents that = was > >NOT designated for that pair to meet in this round. > > > >Any other interpretation of Law 15 makes this law inapplicable in > >situations > >where I trust no Director would even think of questioning its > >applicability! >=20 > I don't see that. The opposite of "a contestant is playing a board = not > designated" isn't "a contestant is playing a board designated"; it is > "no contestant is playing a board not designated". The = straightforward > interpretation of L15C is that it applies unless *both* pairs at the > table were due to play the board in the current round. So we can > easily find it inapplicable in this case without affecting its > applicability in the vast majority of situations in which we routinely > use it. OK. So in your opinion (which I could agree, it conforms not too remotely to some of my ideas I believe) is that Law 15C applies to all (normally = four) affected pairs when at least one pair begins the auction on a board NOT designated for that pair in the current round? The opposite of that is then that Law 15C does NOT apply when both pairs = at a table has started the auction on a board which is designated for BOTH = of them to play in the current round but at different tables, not against = each other? (At least one of the pairs is incorrectly seated). The consequence of this must be that the Director in such cases is left = with two options, neither of which has any direct foundation in the laws as = far as I can see: 1: Cancel the board and assign an artificial adjusted score if the = players have not yet completed the auction when the error is discovered. 2: Let the players complete the board as seated once they have started = it regardless of when during the auction or play periods the error was discovered.=20 In both cases we shall be left with two other pairs that have no = opponents against which to play this board, and the obvious consequence seems to = be that they should instead play the board against each other. Based on the principle that artificial adjusted scores shall never be = used when there is any possibility to have a board played (more or less) in = the regular way I shall prefer alternative 2 above. However, I am still anxious to hear some sort of an official commentary = from anyone representing WBFLC in any way. (I take the most recent comment = from Grattan that I have seen to be that alternative 2 above is THE = solution.)=20 (There is of course a third alternative for the Director: Ignore the conditions literally specified in Law 15 as being inconclusive and apply = Law 15C anyway) Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 4 10:22:15 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:22:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <001001c4a94c$85431070$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c4a9dd$7d13c250$37ec403e@multivisionoem> <4160F928.4050504@hdw.be> <001801c4a9ea$985debf0$58ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000601c4aa24$4c8b5200$04b187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > Could we leave Cardiff now? > > > ton > +=+ Strangely [ :-) ] it seems Bill, ton, and I are within a metre or two of each other on this one. And I am only too pleased to 'leave' a subject I had struggled hard to stay away from. Just one comment. If at the beginning of the tournament the TD had requested all pairs to check on each round that they had the right opponents, this would have been enough to make both pairs offenders. I would then have found it easy to award each Ave minus with Ave plus to the two pairs who were unable to play the board through no fault of their own. ~ G ~ +=+ ps: I may have deleted your email the first time around, ton, since I was vigorously deleting everything that read 'Cardiff' rather than 'Caerdydd'. [ :-) AJ] From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 4 16:34:33 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:34:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816F80@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <004001c4aa27$a672bbc0$6c9868d5@jeushtlj> [Karen] Swiss Teams teams 1 v 2 Vul all North S JT8 H AK8x D Qx C AJ9x West East S Ax S Qxx H Jx H T9x D AKJxxx D xxxx C Qxx C Kxx South S K97xx H Qxxx D x C Txx W N E S 1D Dbl 2D 2S 2NT P** P 3H all pass Result 3H+1 ** Pause - agreed on Td is called goes away comes back and changes the score to 2NT making. E/W appeal N/S and E/W are both decent players. North said he paused considering West's 2NT as he knew west did not have the values for such a bid. He concluded it must be based on a long 6 card diamond suit and decided not to double. With an extra diamond he would have doubled. South said that initially he had a choice of double, 3D or 2S. 3D he felt promised more. Double indicated equal length. He bid 2S planing to bid hearts if he got another opportunity. He felt he was entitled to bid 3H's as pd should have 4 hearts and his values were outside of diamonds. He said that 3H's was not without risk, as pd may have doubled with clubs 3325 shape and may have been thinking of doubling 2NT. What is your ruling ?? [Nigel] IMO, North and South are telling the truth. Nevertheless, North's hesitation suggests a sound double, which makes it safer for South to bid. Pass is logical alternative. Hence, the AC should rule 2N-1. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 28-Sep-04 From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 4 16:46:00 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:46:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please Message-ID: <41617038.438b.0@esatclear.ie> +++ This case has alot of interesting points which hopefully the powers to be will be able to give me an opinion on. I hope more will reply to this thread as this is the sort of close case which really could be used to show how we as TD's should approach a case. David brings up the 2 points. He says he would bid 3H's (as would I) for the plus factors of the hand. I have posted this hand as a bidding problem (no pause) on another forum and already I have a few passes. My feeling is that the more experienced player will bid 3H's and the average player will pass (seeing only 5 points, vul, and bidding at the 3 level on a 4 card suit would probably scare most of them to death). So it is clear that the level of the player does matter. From a TD's point of view though this makes life real rough. In the actual case, the players involved were close to if not international standard. They were stronger by a decent margin than the rest of the room and the TD's. The test is would your peers bid 3H's. Well what if there aren't any peers ?? What if the TD and appeals committee as was the case just aren't qualified to answer the question ? Gamesmanship : Now comes a more interesting angle. East/West know the above facts. If E/W held the N/S cards they would also bid 3H's ... but there is an excellent chance infact almost certain that the result will be changed back by the TD to 2NT. Not only are the odds good but the odds of getting 2NT MAKING are also decent (a later post on that and hopefully some more direction as to what should be done). Now E/W are playing the appeals system. Everyone involved knows this is the case. Has anyone met this or similar and if so what can one do about it ?? David's - 2nd point is the pause. We have all been "surprised" by a bid. On top of this, if you are expecting a bid to be alerted and it isn't, it will cause a delay. If these two conditions happen together and the bid requires analysis it will take quite some time. E/W have both played good/bad 2NT. N/S expected this to be a good bad sequence. With no alert N was now put in the position of wondering what the liklihood of MI was. The pause was estimated at about 8 secs or so. Is this such an unusal length of time given the possibilities N had to consider ?? S also admitted that his 3H bid was influenced by the possibility of a good/bad NT misunderstanding. N/S were in the past involved in a good/bad 2NT case which they lost as the appeals committee felt they had not bid their hands in the light of a possible misunderstanding. What should we as TD's include as allowable factors in determining a pause or not ? K. >> Swiss Teams current teams 1 & 2 playing each other >> Vul all >> >> North >> S JT8 >> H AK8x >> D Qx >> C AJ9x >> >> West East >> S Ax S Qxx >> H Jx H T9x >> D AKJxxx D xxxx >> C Qxx C Kxx >> >> South >> S K97xx >> H Qxxx >> D x >> C Txx >> >> Bidding >> >> W N E S >> 1D Dbl 2D 2S >> 2NT P** P 3H >> all pass >> >> Result 3H+1 >> >> ** Pause - agreed on >> Td is called goes away comes back and changes the score to 2NT making. >> E/W >> appeal >> >> N/S and E/W are both decent players. North said he paused considering >> West's 2NT as he knew west did not have the values for such a bid. He >> concluded it must be based on a long 6 card diamond suit and decided not >> to >> double. With an extra diamond he would have doubled. >> >> South said that initially he had a choice of double, 3D or 2S. 3D he >> felt >> promised more. Double indicated equal length. He bid 2S planing to bid >> hearts if he got another opportunity. He felt he was entitled to bid >> 3H's >> as pd should have 4 hearts and his values were outside of diamonds. He >> said >> that 3H's was not without risk, as pd may have doubled with clubs 3325 >> shape >> and may have been thinking of doubling 2NT. >> >> What is your ruling ?? > >I would bid 3H, and I suspect most players would--double fit in the >majors, diamond stiff opposite little or nothing in diamonds--but pass >meets the LA test IMHO (if barely), so I agree with the ruling. I >wouldn't like having to make it, especially if I know N and S to be >ethical players, but everyone at a certain level knows that hesitating >brings about exactly this kind of difficulty. > >It doesn't matter to the ruling, but what is North's hesitation anyway? >His read of West's hand certainly figures to be right, but, given that >read, does he really plan to get richer defending 3D than 2NT, which is >what he will be doing if he doubles and partner sits? > >David Babcock >Florida USA > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- http://www.iol.ie From niuzzbp@yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 00:13:38 2004 From: niuzzbp@yahoo.com (Diann Santana) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:13:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] info Message-ID: <20041004223216.E7D0C53A@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020504050906040707050000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gundam Wing of WEATHER Study: Most still not Maps

come and see Santa Claus

--------------020504050906040707050000 Content-Type: image/gif; name="dolt.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="dolt.GIF" R0lGODlhZgK0AfMfAH4FAIAgAKAgAKBAAKBgAMBgAMCAAMCgAOCgAODAAODgAEBgwP//AP///wAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAABiArIBAAT/EMhJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgs Go/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdsvter/gsHhMLpvP6LR6zW673/C4fE6v2+/4vH7P7/v/gIGCg4SFhoeI iYqLjI2Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmam5ydnp+goaKjpKWmp6ipqqubDK6vsK4VsRaxsiK2DBi0s7a9tboTtxyv vbwhucDHwsEUw87LAL6s1GC5y8nQ0yDXyrDG2M3M0B7F2tEd3eff5L/r7NLZ1fNfz9rM4s/mH/r9zfvx 7kmwF3AcMXgFBxLc4K+dwnziFJ6bJZEivYtcFgKM9y/iQg32/4Zt3BeyIzCHIHX1c8fPo0iXKCvKvPAR o00sGiPKLIkM5kyDCXfqXElsJk9uQ02iJPiSYc2bUKXkpKn0YU+BQYE2/Bn0qVCgHK+y3Mq1qVOvUdMq mXryIbqD27IKjcsU4kGt8lq25RitLli+4HSqHYyE7di36dAZjlvWbkp3efUeVpz0L0J8gglrFmLYIdq7 GRZnbhzTG6+Xo0NXnssS7+pdqTfL1pHTZdUST0eahb1X7jtaZMv5NEp06Wuqs5MD+UiyOO7YzR3Dhigd +cmSsVsDxI4PK2CD3JWL31Ez8mencC97VYf52NS62dvrViYf/rRr8cfrZ5H7sm+xZ/kVoP99p43m339U UWadW+WFg9h+EEYo4YQUVmjhhRhmqOGGHHbo4YcghijiiCSWaOKJKKao4ooskhdfOKoxqJ6D+CHVF2N8 4UgXezLiUqNVpU33o4AybvQYb+0F1pmS+bW4VnbyNFikP+7hd96Uv9mW1485IsRjYuzNB+aQx3EJ2oJb Robgl05GsR5qXIGXGlNIjkBWcEGq91drAz2XYHWS8dlVkwu2FR1YYhZqZJtO9Gdbn0BKs2eQdfp4mKBx vnmkCrUBKlyhxJ3Q0T+RAnnUpD8tyugS/Vl3C0molrqppZ4NJyhajq7w3m2BluacncHA6turtq553KpN tGposMTW583/mbRGiueeuOqoKoDkmHNlnmaqCZq2zLpKHaakIfuEspAFK2lC3uYYIwk8skktlDgyaAJb zUabJZXXvqtSRfiqKSW55h6BbjuyJKwSrykxR6iSph0cJ8HPwisYsQsDC+qgomascKbMvjUwpQUbITHA Hmc88ayxQrvXtUS+i5TFaKqM7bwkf/pxvul2R3DMJSeRK1b/9umpyysjbVxmS/b2qca9Hah0zNvusq6k oxpDXLExVR00D29mLczV2835qNMzyywryCG1HJ6+iParNs4tl0P2nbuVOnJYX7P6pXlw1odavQgqPW/I aUYZprwNK6413OVO+fChv/k6eIGE902E/5n2Ps635JVXejOmGAtM4+leW2mZ18OWybhqYq9D+qj3Za75 7bjnrvvuvPfu++/ABy/88MQXb/zxyCev/PLMN+/889BHL/301Fdv/fXYZ6/99tx37/334Icv/vjkl2/+ +einr/767K/SwPvwZ6TE+xnQ3/548MefhcipL9ouAPbDQADvp58BVgFwUvuTbh5kwAo0kBAPa8m2IniH B9Ivf/mzgP40mEEJYPCBAAQhG0R4LnW9LD/NoRgFSEhCQFCQGzBMhAHj98EGbnACNWyAB2t4gRvCoYXJ MiHRPnOqwuFQhxoAoh9eyA+aWE2GSDyiA6OoQQBOkYpWDOEKsejBLP82AYMc7KAIbHhDEHKxfmI8YhrR c7XVJUY78SHjBam4RjX6MIRK7AIT7VaLJyKijFg0ow4DeEcpGnKLWmQCD+1YyA4MMIc7NGQeF7lDMErw WES0FQO5CEk8WpKRj/wgDVRWtrZ9rnPpWNt3kuRHLEFKbnsI5RQFGMlaCjCKd0RiHn9Ax16mQJaS1KX9 JonIQwILky8KXI96yElcDtOXxWSmGmeQL1JBamzWbCMMs3nNObVybE7kZiD0R0Zp1jKUz/zkIXcpBHSi gJDN7KIVdUkCd97rV+cBDtMWMsNADjKe0+TgLGWQTSFesyvg1Fc+LOLEhjJUO4Z4pkAnmkh0CrP/jonM 6PzU6ckzegCeE6UnPT8gyi02Ei5daxK45qZRW0aynCa1KEddUNCDttEjdfvmQp0Rmm/aNKE/BYREB3rF DsI0nWHEaBFAmtR6OjOkg9SiR83Z0kpOFSTs4trTNgZTKXY1pqA8KacSirjtPNSIfeSps2TnULWmFaiD uCBVwzpHf9qyn5Q8AjBvOQKmFpOcYo1mVQVrN2XCcmOl+apUAcrXwVKTrEGF68VU+lAD7fStbj3rHuOA UcUiNZiC7edGAypPY5IUmneF51WjWUaiMgSb0oFPw2DnWtIClrB2xaMDH9vNyNqUaU3MrIHOCtfI4jSi gCxpS1VrSXsud7W8/8zhRWfqyF4qN6O7lO50lRqxpPiPQN41kiBL2km6mpegkPXtcW8aXMm2kjltzaw2 4+pP8p5Rpqal4X2h6wOjMpe/jQUrUdnpX2cG1jTTSXDFAkNRZs5RwEnd74FRUFNW/tbCqZSvuzBTFiGJ c7MENJmfWMDOEJsYxA02sYpZeoISr/jFMEbWda1AmcN6jj5JvKqLY8yKHZtsRw9SYHhrwkIA8wHFf4oh I5qb10qm+LwxNTIZfLw5gwLVxnnLKhpzrAgk97S9UBRleUlrWih3dMJloPIQXvVGlEpLmYR9MgR5S1zf CsKHqK0iYwOM2y/WccanbWqZS8uBmQLaX21mI/9eMCXHf0K4qI1Wg5d9Ol87C7WFgnzuBiwo5XZet8mB Pi9TJ/npQ8MumYn+SmKbad8Z5xXUNC1IKY+7wCuFLMlsjW+YVOkHIJrRpY4dNJqHkGc1GxOYnyXmsTt9 Y9HNLcsE6ept8ztV1VIzXGRzb4VxkW23ejO+xu32naHL6WVv2qPUVaR13/nUgYqU0CBwrsUs2ystr7q2 D3ZtIUWL3t5qszri7NVl1UvpfWq41+Ter7m5nGNj28DV3C10u//axZF+lKPpdjPaWAbtiHjW0fhOo3Tp bM31/junupbvcMFd6ZPTV+IOFvlqlThsHvj10fGeOGgdbeSb29FOcqnaqYr/WFXRKtaqdGU2MtK7Jc1O rrKMQczFdEqIwDb6k5gGsMNlsNe5hrroF0V6deNM9tcSHUw++9xGPg52hm996f7+dnHR6t65G6XgVK96 kVPscznzGwnWxmFtLx5aA5OZ4boVfNnfajMjGqnjf+G04TU6Q3dXvt/dlnu4+XjlL9t96ikvBCTL+/dO jnnMeh35mXcsU0AO+pamh7WQtTSjyX5XvOheJOpJL3tdpbflLmcv5y/cVvhiVuV/LDCTzRl7iEec2IA1 MJUjPWApF5iRPXk8AhWcIDn/3KKwl/zbsepvVAY/yMcf8kSC7uG683gKk2b3++f/gvHTn/72v7/+978f /1NTIf4tIEL5x3+V4H9uIjWsE3T/s3cEeBMD6CKnk33gRWQ6pnSXQC+RoF3lBmt4lluxZIFV9lM802bV smUmiAoYCAnapWmrh1dXtHh08IA5wGYslmqIBWzepwUAOIOmMG3n5IEVV1SvBwWGlnHnJmg4CG8Nd3VG RoPOtlVPiIMZBH4xR33LcQU7iFyT53OyRIXB5gSvZoCI14KplYRV2HpSlkB0d4Mrw4TphHGlZoT84SUI tFBqiGCwpTcjAXV0ckpWkYVf0IGEJm/CFGVm+ATFBoKF91dh94UrtIjPYTY0U4Nt52SUB4TVp4jDx3IH VRWUhSROOHADp2FFI3xr+P9D4hdlpfdUQ6UF8uZUZTZMQehFIfCKPmJwUMOGLOhVe7ZvmPgC0OFTVoZC nldyjLcyZeJ+enBSeKVOfiVRMogDzjd9OndOs2h9cFhz3pEzLEMybPdxySWGKZAbwkh8hlNhQ4FNr6VZ yogHYvV3ibd6waSNRtB3ngSLUliIPPd1qchtTQOFOfONe/ZzViWHugJc4DaMaeNt4JSOSSOCDGVyFZR1 IVeQ/kWQVNB1OYh4R/WGhDeEjhhOkzWJGxeLdnV0jPgDfXh86yKRqYaOx0iO7GiOE5lwFcmCzGUFgQdv rJeItkVqZPaLftR4qAIzuOh1lph4GplbeMaDdTZfCsn/bb9nZeK2cshHk3awgrgVe5ZnUjqpeqj3kRa5 V9kFlr3HJPsyLmnZMuPFZNMoRmEZa8VllXdjd8XHkOVnii3nkJ33kG+gldSGdQoHj1NwfQVZAla4Ttj4 WR0lgbTnIEySQnzWVF4IaVVYA1JXe3Y4QXqSl505d3z5WwnTgJxBBNFYBoBYGKSZlZr4BqkpYqsZg63p mmRwh7F5m+IjjlDwmi1WbbOJm5Kgm0GkKv1jlEd4gsDpPr+pkkAmdFF3hwzIBhMEjDZ2Cbm0XT74g4dW hAN5BqdpA04oJ3AXKkYUnWswnTHAm+OGWs3HiG/Zgd1pBt+JmVTJjYpGMRT5B8GI/xuncHNtSW0OtluP GJ9AwJ30mI8aqXjVdZ3PhzDdWG8ByWogJ3YRJqHWsI7w0p/59npw+YtWN6GH2ANhaJB8xpU/eHHOKJxu 8aABwqJg12rZKHMkKipDqX21IXyzZptPqZnqp4UEunxx5mvANp9jBIm9CYnJpnVGekwuemr0NpnY1Yq7 SFEHqmQ7FXBziSjiZmkYKlx2CXx6J6EblG+E6Yj+uZwwYItjVI0VdY34mJTzFoU26I2YuKHLpnAwOFay hpXtCHBPuYlQaWfqiQYM2qEv5aEzp3NEuqZrNKNUdVRuelqN2qDcp0L3SSkCyXcyqqL8uafBN5N92Y7j maXGsv8IcNhYpzp4kJagBcqm99hXbAqNUsWPEqZ0ROmXLPoRmaqqHXqWY6UuZWV8yiiRexSanfikh9CI ZpiTQSqAvLdUebaRJ9iR0yWWX+hit3qKN6irA2mnISqlN1A04rqJJkes98KSx2Kfy6iouYeRSdhIqwit QamqMLdw8YhmO0mLIdlb/+iHzTYpkhdQS2l5gTRKLXmwGTasoAp0xAV6lIZwXjmWhSiwTWaiismp9WeW GOtSp+eq4QejlNol1JE4EROZw9CWyjepyhWXctmJCUtWo+iSSualLkuz4xZGEjuk2Cl+E0uwjhoDhtmY b+quZSipyvqzGyY401Jj2VBkdqr/VNSFtJ0qmsTZfTGLh2C2fua3tclZmtDHCIPatZ2wqKgptviDptJZ nWa7tmzLbiHLBPxDII4pW2Noc2jbtllAtgTVnDnKmTeSQHoLpeFKKDuoo5iQXKIWh4IZo38WuK2KE/WZ N2o5p4smuGmKpy4ysy0rCoibs2TouS0ofY17t0vguDQVuQyjrhNDOfR6uUgpNF0qlaPQqxwarZUIp4cY VdBXqD6WmL+GokwoGbaXNLZ2lHECUuD6qvO4s9P2trQRu6MaCnI1Tx6boOBIr94qoopbpWjYs8n7sWho I/skN8WbKFzRvf81pqOnsbqJkKvEYfRxpfyitntZaz16syJV/72T16yaSkv7WgM+KX8Ll6QftaS3SFtN WrJupG91FaWspb5kZ6hFUbNYCpF392HnilkVzKV98GATSkkc2J1l6sDyeniwapLypLsWqKY28gsIyESS uSfINrEdycBel0fYFpXpB3VXmaENK6hQdKJjCUpQynZUSrqwqrLUiMJZpMI5p8QWWDbbqK01wyf8NlQ1 bMA6y0c0KLOfqpdfHL2BWqrJSsP6i7v52L8VisS16KrO+8BQRb36ypG1CnSQp7qbQnRXbMZxrMVTilXA WiR5F6p8qrljjIxhG4h8vKxu3K1lqnraC4M9ycTRp3W2m6ciucC4eiasu8UV1bOg5ccjHP9ORsPBX3y1 B5e1hxwrCYiKR1yiIrxugzfKN5CvQlmvHLu/+Lq/+orDefhmqTvFN5ZlWXymACpst9xHgQymPVyzomrI xgrEL5eJQGqJvLe9EIzJM6CVLHucoEvCC6p7vrpW5CyyZwMxDDbLi/y5UyrOravBqfzDd9fMsmuzqGzK rHnE9vWC1wzF2QmSABx92De0FKqYT3y0bxy32PG3ClSp77rOBf3H+6zNzsy1QVUM94xhL6u1SavReEse iMjGF/rREWK6B0TSJS3SW2C4KN3SLq2K8pORKo3LL02oUlsYL4xr4vtd3hzJNd0GJt0CiTOBO80vPW23 U0uSFEa/qjD/oqNbX/7Ms9+MxlgQ1AcpgtiWdpwJirFBtuXmwyPGH5rBvr26uCtbsTwUllU6WlhYn5q8 yWj1FHr71QxbBIk8CXsMxwat17AnoLk7x9v81L1roRxqtGLahG6dKlolp2zJiqAc0R4Zuma8S3cNqFCR 16GcknyNs3XLi7WMzStsXdX8vWco2jWnhkRXvnvDwP1c1mDEzd1sEfa7YA1Jv+NLe1hrnbIceFmclM5K 04/4v7/kx2uKpI2obLl8T5I4RCqVmcipXx/Mntn80PZIygSXkFu60c6seZvQ2n33hpvqekddtDnAwjlH yZFa3Cacfc6mT0xakpcoxL2d3GoMLXRJ/4qjOMGkKM1ji838K4+qeMm86rEZC8WIGasj5cSGDdVR7DDd R8WTwq1d+cl9bK9bSa6eJ89JbcGrnQm/fa8AZZ7vTN1vfODIPNiUHFXTO3YkbscjeakQ+h+Ynbzgyqq0 vLAdvd8ZrOOIzAkfDs6Z/bpU3azjLMDfqnTffdy7LMnMlq2aotSoMuOPTeGinMygqg/luOOkSjKtLHq+ udnVfeQVWN9Ay8tW/tzSzct0TEcjDln9ujbk+4/FzK7H/NBtbo5eHM1irOfcXYBfTrFnvYRR/U+BTtEm ANsbe4mlBtABXskhO9S1cyC317fwMOdQBo/uTNHrdTSrXNf23MyV7f/Kk6m+Nx6XblnNhn7gjHnTCMpY BCbQh7nTJks7Dr21qjNYWAzVN0nEf5zhN7VSGg7W4JBrHv3TBhPSxj5/Vp3sybPszP7s0K5uJb4WbC3k 0b5krP5jtxfWHG3twn3tybc/z8nSaVfO7+zsYm2p8ZwhKTrqYopzAO7J6y20Zva4bX3RwXxqnkOBnU1j 8M2JGPKsN2za0J2imR6Ya0zw6M7ocEuVnVwUqS0Y+amDFKblmOmU3nl5jrWKBdt1mJ1fvazx326Zq0rQ yrvxhl2hwus0tqbYjGahlQnTQgjSNLrhBosDoa69Yz7wVC1tTAmEG/qhTmXw067ooz3l4Kvw4sv/8iiU 1S6vziALn+FNthjd7ea3MJ2SJcNO7ANiVu/Lo5E5BhN/k5lWfRGL6eSNnPFG3G1s3NaspBZ+wHySSasT O0yslNH642ttpQ5bjAH398W47vqtzFNJfoLfBV5Y9kH+3+wMyaMm2gE+tHuf9tY4T0porZMvxerqKe69 64faYL545zUPmvpdrjjufsWqNjqMrjYNYYovxE+Wvgr/jKA89Ysp9SCY5CncxAfdjA0OKNXyNyN4u58f cuGY7Vnb90NZWaeP5zDs689swfLp6u2q2bFP4Bx/kTZ8wi3O/ZUoVyuOy/24dHfcOLZjD7sawaSe6NGr /BZWrlHnYWen3Z83/+4rmWbxyvPxyPg/rp1iBgGtAUplBRdvXrWdOlAkRxPTpFANyzNru8/FGICxKTy/ cZrzlYKo2At23Mw4qeLP6eLpOlFdlEe1QkXULVe7BXdrwGfZfEYTYx+lh/1uIl9td3JVZK71aDjKzt+r A2lRcerz+Pu56qm54toR8qqAJJI5nFHCu8NLK8OaIhuTEh0lkZQMfUI9Nd147ISNlWVhcaMlvLXLvcWM M2JKhMm1pf3hLRQuPusdPqETOc5TptmpBrK+RmV0reZ6Ph6cDq8dR5b92nZNTR96bQ1b1waFXydNnzzP 1zckL2f+7pdsiS85I+j809TMBTlz4sy0CeiMoP+lPMQmTsGWrYu2IY06GtE14R+0iOP2RfLhRSWllD1O ZZwE02U7mU662cvWEdvHmyd9/gQaVOhQokXzyTMqKOlSpk2dPoUaVepUqlWtdnp2VetWrl29fgUbVqzQ rGPNnkWbVu1atm3dvoUbV+7cpQrb9rzW6eNMSpZKlKUbWPBgwlwBj+2ms6bNvYlRlT1cWPJkogdF8gqp ZqA5pZTTRAYb5FGOvYr6xuT39yLh0klrtqZ22jPQTBfA+cMViDPo2STfio6ExkZjpAX99kY9dfQZ2Mj3 1Q7WuZd0XHAdJuMdPVwlGU+u2w1+I7ynKnlpQCw0kiLn7c7TFFfkvvJ07p3/JV7WZXwtZovZ62NH5g2Q SBKHP8aaaw6j8riR7T/cHlQjIAPlU+UoCoeizz70IlwvrkAGXOZDJCrSD5r//GNwPNOS86hBkC4RscT7 iBpONpleqwI+0nhyUbyYWoPJMfgu9A4Y7TbUjCLBmJmlukRWyMCCz/RYDQogh/RxwY2O0xC/6Nj7pcpY 2nlHnRRLEcLHLPCpB0023cSSyBBf1GSg/JT00KHrirRvRCmhLDKiPU17SRUhV/GmCeiQtCjCQff5ZB4z G8FJjFIinbRSTN2U87k77HSwoO9KUkvAzcQEVT9g8EPV1MyYu4fF2IQ0JdFUDVI0jn6ioTHTmSR9k1Ng /1t0UaWcbOw0KNu4pNMPYZIYxK0MmeWz2WcFMiZG7eIrLUEVFdx20VxVA3GoTRdpc9MyfaUnWGErTTYf UhkV1UmJpM3N2T6zPTHfaPn9V8pQ4akRXI1qRWnba6+dNkru2ENVr0nXZFfddt29OEuM2Y33HAkNvK3e T21pK5pNHiW3vwx5MxnCWYM81KNv+bJ1PYYmBBAOlI9C91JjfS1uFWqGfbfojmGpza6PT8014q1uzg3F PktyNVsSsTMDrxwdkxlhBveCLD0qfdlzZwsbhKSxeoJGqVuit7b4aLnn5ipODJ2+i2699+Y7WanXsrtv wQcn3Ky/AS88ccUXZ7xxx/8fx5dUtgJPKqvDIcc887fAA3yxHq28Up6wNSe99N4ut4prYodUfXUSRjc9 9qmmCdly/nDGHTMwUbeKd+VIM9hbFnmUVeF9KRM+qNcoX6zx22on6HnoFZJeW7Z8lwq4M11iTNa+XAQM +7SSN9c8TyjnG+JybfetvmnZL9enUSU/r2nrHbYaPfrNW45SQrWMVWn056X2MM1+hEMfxyAHpuPJSEbQ mcP9niW++hWIcwCDkKlAMyGcga5/xWsbFkR4qwzmzoJmS1YC4bXAicCPWtSx125ayEBl9ctjIjJSgMSE Q7x1zX8gTBg3hBgufzXMhTSE1K9a9LVQfM5MNuqRFaL/eBpaYS5sFnxdM0woKPAgcT5JQpq9BAElQM2J ZLCg4ghXBLMhOkhct2IgBIVCpoyNpmdpAl6wfsYxihnNeTPEIoF2xcH5UY2C+Uva4apmAjIKjB9c9GIQ ARgrS+WoeB+h1xEyecILJnGFe/Teii7FR6KpS4V0g90Lj8ckRsrRZpUTIzGmNLVPsapaJdpfK2jSxm/t 8ofWqkMmC8ir8uHEc2uLD0a0tjE73ih2SHQhCbukFFcuIWBkkaADU6aqTRRwIdlEUcEsOU4rtfF7mBxX JYT5sB7K4lzMRObQ3tYmjfnxlKgESBb1Sa2qNcx97XyIvxwZv31G8IwL++ZB8UfQ/zeJU0vEEaEjpFg8 yxQxRnVC6EKBgqk+Yixu9KxnHUG6scxVj3Ygux30wCg9MCqLmCErA0Jk2EADQg2FNGvmSnIKUbCRLaVK Q2kn9UFHn5VSgUdFCihJ6kcWNiSoJx1G7u4EDv3N52o3faEhaXqqgGEVbltSpjJDJ00OqYdpr+wV2lLi DmMmcyNuA+ky7yk7uiLvKof8ylzrule+Hg2vXtFrXwU7WOf8FbCERWxiFbtYxjY2jLlES2DlFz2AOtay l+1PXJYJRFGKdZuqxGxoRVs/uLSOL1lrXmIKCtrRMraDCN3dZahXWQoZdina8x/5ttEt4aUyXro9amsR Cck7tf9ytouzrWvyWEnUGuyzrKUQcFcoXAz+QqNyWGdyn1LIvw1wYNfNYmwhmxyOMO+DCc2MWUPi3dBs tDCSDYsrbZMQXOqKtk+brVf7FVUnbTC/4/1Red/Tvx4N0KaQ/Jh+mwJfpubtdFRyFnvJqt2m8PCGNhyR kc6D4QELWDjL2Sw3z2hEyipUecjiXoDPCdy0MREfQSLn1r4mRSjyhJymDfH1CElLn0J3cxCOxSL9FKUy BrSlHy7Uhw+WYjfWiV5xxKhrfPjRBje0j47Qo5rsccfpZup78GJwVaRKpx6TNXIQAzCXkNRI8IYXzZGs VZKZc95YbZKAXZLha+f4SyqHdF3/WeLoxHoW6HnG48qF/rFq9DQv+9JFyNgyo4g1OenUDCjNY+DtgM03 STtL+lU5o7CM3dVnnbJE0Hgh9LEU41wXw+mTYZaK7Th4TUvf967g7KGQSQRgf34XjyvRNC/rnM5gEvs4 oZZUR0ldIVIIrdkZE/YkAd3WpVISX6vFbizrO5dDDFSbq11Zt9ELW+OlwqG/9OGmh9eRio74ok/KRK+y TG1oD4vL9GaFW7285X2jwzolZmeSYArTtLQM1IBw1EwZqjIdCnV1NMYxj6qIU+OZFMGDdPg5sDzq4GJp 4+8iqp9B/ux53+Od8eB2mT9NsoHr2XANb9QsV36vQHXTJOer/3HEI2paJdK0Fup1FFpptFaOt7raOakn qplsNFTDTK0ONeWKpUvd0MIa4VSvMta1LjtkO87qWwf73Lru9bCX3exnR7vpMo4Yz029edL29bfTPveS 2vp3cs3xW8eK7XLTnXQGh7TPxasMwF9o7Btd7g/J58SeQ/fwYpl61sHespYLMsGEJyaRHu8T3P7I853V 5WMusvnQoO/rlhUbh7+UzYX3zpCXDtXSuvNIA6Oq85MUnrd2xPefj83yB2zvT04fleF/JfXBsEyqDkN6 QHASzu0r4Rh3+N/nB1jdud8RgSVRe2lcXKZ2V557WWN4DVOz0chfDfOXoXqsWDjDI9swdf/QSJxoK0hr vpQmjJpc0OqPCcVpbDoWa4klejEqirHGOy0VMzo1oYn7e7vIoaV9YZTXUr8wOrKrkzQ2aydW0otVQzew YrKJ4icnMzYo6zvhm7KOIw8AopiQGw40acF68zIXRLQ80ZZHm0DOqcCAurj2i0CHEQlv+6YeRDJ0w74h OhQq6DQ7y7O18yQWVEGbmJgpbLZBo8KRmkF+w8J/izLzyyptMzPDAEPY80J4I7IgrLT6khqoU6Nyyq2Y iT0SnDCncrmTgDF6exvVSjoVC7lpE6s0YjUCdDWSirz4EiYcJLblA7+7iTup0TWb4zVcg5UG/Dw35CwB MjZNykQzdIr/OzKlNJFCkrM3QoyNQPTEfmMuLoS+elnFXjtB11OoLrwlVuwq/4rFVxwlD6QktarEaGu3 fzEieOOEYoJBoAFFffPDURw5ZCw5jTm5Y+RC3SEk/jqucQMLgyO4NDy4MhyuA6s+nkvA7eFDRDEzi3sz qFIwWIFCPNxCQXu1ZlSgGCw5nUBFLbTBp6op33vFHay5Wuy//IutrXoVOvSPHJuil0AQJQSkO5OcsiHD DmOHikEbnHtBYilAUssIB3y6iDQmqSs+v0ucj6wu6hJJkDTJlNu6kjzJlSyZRaQrlWTJmJTJmaTJ5vvH sIDJWcTFmuTJwkrHukktuwmxvNMmfuzJ/6PEr9LSw6+iyJz7HN9CSsYppJZ6M80xyvnjFNGIExHUI9F7 rr15wDlivL97Kqg5spvcm6vsQKZLoIRcRR+bm5w8OrKEFoOCNPVxSa/grg0EPhBpldfrv9urv+7xmi+c Lw6xmb4UDLmUvMfJpz9YljNUp7zEL+frrrG5GemjvSb8xweUrqCEDe47Ge/DTLW0w+wZLBOETDRkyNYr GfaTObvctR2CTZybmZcpte1LxPKrpn+iTEzbvWK0yBkrpbFkEwDMN0EMKYh7ogYsxIKTvcmcNFcxTUY0 MQxcsz8RQm1ES3H8QEO5TeN4o9U7P4H0vwVJvI4KrkGssoo8RSw8tP9mdM/GDIzMXM1W4kbCAKrupLmH 0c42+731gshAPJ+ZWcJMtEz+ZDY/jM8aFM65fCj27LJIUTbFo88lOcz7zDCVkQxEvMwfXJbIxKCK6qFz 4yzCTEVPw5U51JmfXFB0UTalogdwrKOlBDNefLh31Lw7W9ENBbXfpApXdM1/ApWGm75GxBsThTvwLMwf LLYw9NHbaqgHNUJ9Yx4HXU6PWrYm7VCMoo81k0WUvKYwra5wE6hx242dXIRMC6s4c9OBoUO7RAR2Gsbw GyVnXBe2gdA8RMYKxdM/w9JoxDjMK1IyvUdqTMfv+xCWeak6zNFxBEBVk9SK+6lF0yJHdacpBbT/BmWq PgPUTnVH+fxU9dTPqYzA5BsMs7w5DJQl9IspmFvVA5E4nTuWP4TS3kPMs9LVPbtT7oG43CxO4xS5cNQU ostSBWSmsIzKwWJMKF3WZ4XWIAXSaKXWan1Va8XWbNXWbRUsJ0QM4wM4bhXXUnFRrTBIofRMbYDKcWXX s6hOJHM6ATxXdZ2hdvWrzIvOybzUQckzZ82T30g89NzKdBO1t9xJsBTWYe0wHRkcykOp/Jgeh6Qv8/w3 gGXL81SH0By9aUUO1hE/eUKuDO3PMIEjXbmuR3OKvYzNVvXLmrMf3hDM7yxQUdBYrgK6zJo5z/BYFCSl kOXR99u/1bOTpJE7/6OYxocUGULFz25MuIhJV4wVWIM1x0TizHclRpA9zZ5NHB1SvovaTUUhM46NqdqM NFqcTUMg2wMJTxRlB93sWvgTz3BV0KZEOo+iUgTcUwbcuQXcsqXMPsFxqrcFJg511eLSCg70QWvRwJWd 26WTWdBzRrfdvydDVYpFI2hsUFIVFo+1QlI0KjK4t3u9Qd3YRB3UtsY9if1UpNMFFNZ8VSKcMzlrroeT jQMloQSlMGcrOk7V2lI8zni8GGDLW/dAs5IdXOOqKQGVVgnkz0c0CEobUftaQ2tzu52SCdtVmEEtVyad MfqzR+trx921UbzNSmUUu0N0si/EM+qhtZSVxP9IA9OT4c56zRrqRVfIPV6RFbwh5TxPDSB8C9Q9VNjQ PVZjPF+V46bKlb9pGtntOlNDtUYzvU7oS9O4ezY2XbIT9UXpdTc3Esa6lLKjS8/vldE/C9jv1RTzFV1p 7KKq7adF4s0KxEZMZZbKc80ZdkKdo9XuvZJyrFTSjBqkXUEJRcWP29QATrVQTRcV7hjAox+qDVzNINHN iDVYxZqV9aYGHkKbu2JDcUqNVLUeRlL9bUhGQ11C4a0vO7WkM9YuM2CmtCS4ajX/tVfBataDreM8Fler 1eM+Fi0+9uNAFuRBJuRy0Ky2Mz2EpNevLORGLgpA9uIbIUoQHEe+s2BHrk//n9rXy/NGBFsvSE5dsR26 zTViNDafmrXks1DWqwicVU6dhD1cTUZHzEPUTdbeMx4LUPZdO+rFofFea/s2XWbGvLrc8dmPjb1dCFbg FxYzwPzQlfsGlzUgJqWzxZM2lpDcstLHac5ZeftWidE4KSVXayRZX0NfOY2Ko23e0tSw8lM0Ts6O5RlM /gFWw6RlS4VnUXZjcy3mTA1h6CRnkSm3c842fV6ItL3WBT5bY0DoWbm+oCnlXo7DDmZgNRs7nfok8D3O 5FE6x/2cUhtOuJlVmpW4TxWL8HnZgJTadKLhCgMyC1Tc/+TLC0QtrlzSLBSixagm/Y2g8uTfMTE3TR2F /0M74XmqyGRMznmTh6Re0wdNandF5k/2aSIqVCH+CdUFKOcFwq122YT4G0B8XEjFP8fF3iZz4Yt+4+AM WK5MqiZdayYuajBTYi4r4ZOO6kuOJsXl4ipm3mfOwCAUUdKqtekda2Cm3cJGp2RWUZbNvKL4xKHOIxyr 33Z567XxW919VJGLmzvGYoAUbPXlxKL9ov2FX5aWhvllZC2gxAOEXOKZaOnsO3desLTWsrhuTMzWMrl2 Yzmerqeua0MMaEW05HC75NEmt+I2XvM7022qYIpdU7bmZS5dMTjVPw35YH1xbNoGHttW2EKj0N7t7vId Kd8O4Fiu5ShOzOx62Amui/9G9db9CiTR/tHR/MbxJVaJ/kCeA4jzhuIWxeVQFMWoXSqhpGyhrhhgYSvg JRgZBFf+BkOXaSAuMlz3vSohlrD8rCAu1q95pWR1g+P4wVWWVd4RNwqMrkdibeWMnEHcZsp53TkCZu3h xeTB4GzLnfEbN0lhxvEdl0qD5vEfB/IgF/IhJ/IiN/IjR/IkV/IlZ/Imd/Inh/Iol/Ipp/Iqt/Irx/Is 1/It5/Iu9/IvB/MwF/MxJ/MyN/MzR/M0V3OgGIA1v6wAGIAAsFcD2IECcHPGKoA6Z9cB6AYBuPPE4vNq 8HNxpfNqsPM/J6xC13NxJYBuIABEJ6w8r4ZHH9cE2IH/BIB0xLJ0HMB0dg0AA0gAA5BzSz/0TK+rTw91 OdfjAMABBDB1ujKAA1B1QQb1Nn910wl0A5hxAij1W3+cAFAABqD0Rs51X8+cQXfkQO91Y2f2rxiAYW/2 wgkABND1IBeABHD1aO+bQrf1Hy90aNf2uWl0BZh1Hh8ABUiAcg/3uQkAdR/yOF/3eK8KOlcAeZeTAUCA bj9yBMABd7f33gj2ek9yATAAcP935OD3bG9yfNf3g6cMZG/ygHf4iTeKhKf4woh1f2fyhr94toB4Cih2 K7d0g+94sah2DAB2BuB4KGd1BlD4DiD5kp+KBCD5j5/yWi+BTpf5q1CAlw/zZ+cA/wWI+Z1/iiCY9pPn 8pCvAHQn+qpo+Tbndi9X9g0I9qFv+qQI9AMAAD4n9y8H+g2wdJ2/+qdo9CHQeC6/dlffdKt3gQVw+7df gAp4exKA+7p3ew6w+7gHgLnHALh3Ar6X+7ungLzne8LHe8LX+7ZHfMDf+7o/A8Y/fMPfAL/v+7yffMaH fLrH/M2n/MG3/MuX/B9QdH0fgNI3gJW/8m/fdLF/gsX3/MSP/NBvfMPnfNhXfNsHfNeffbsH/c+/fd3f /c7/e8EXAeAPfOJ/fd4/ftjP/OKv/eXvfMTvfeX/gQPYAXTvBqH3enQPgE0XdjNw/MB//R9o/vD3/Nlf /jKA/P/cR37QT//jP4fyL/zm13zbd//fR372J37zp//Y13sIWFICMFe9mW7eKxiKY5UwJ4oaJNu6LxzL M13bN57ruVAoaKI2cQ1hRdFxVNTQkhaPM5ScenRRZgcji0qrrEuVqn0euSRwFoMlq8Pu8e2XOh0Cuzs+ r9/z+35SD4LcHMGMGchhF9xHy1Bio1eZlyIl4uTN1eRj5dclUhucmCXTZpppJignmc4cQ8LAX6zsLG2t bcjAwWDrSdCW52gMKhEaJlgx25rkG7KQ5vMicbRiM+Py6NhxqrC2xvByqDZNQIpC4S16uvo6O8hAgYEJ L8O5ETDjyzDkWlM3lDi2at1w6FP/le/ewE9awDVzRKHUKm8PoSXjl1DGABXtNnLs6BGPgAEGBAH5Nc1g p2iJADpbdC1ltVV3CgYzKe1mzYsfWB4EleobT3w2CDCo8/Eo0qRKSbwzAMveyZo9lSCceC+lQqlUFzqB ODUrWG5RZcI8Zk1URZsSt1Fa0vWqiwFPl9Kta/fuSrhkUeb0KpTsIXB8baAKp/dv2K3+AL9MZvPJTjFs lR2+a/kyZqUNuY7VGrAL48p7Q++j5pngJVJ+80YFapjzZ7Fbs9Dei8Vv5ty6d9fyxxmg79dmJRuK9C/h Ww6+CXvSKZbl8tERjVs1LTvsxeS/zfLu7v27H+iLK8YETvG66dTo+qL3ax0TqviBZri3ZfZYFX3pbp2D 7+//P4ABCjgggQUaeCCCCSq4IIMNKhgchBFKOCGFFVp4IYYZarghhx16KKGDIYo4IoklmngiiimquCKL Lbr4IowxyjgjjTXaeCOOOeq4I489+vgjkEEKOSSRRRp5JJJJKrkkk006+SSUUUo5JZVVWnkllllquSWX XXr5JZhhijkmmWWaeSaaaaq5JpttuvkmnHHKOSedddp5J5556rknn336+SeggQo6KKGFGnooookquiij jTr6KKSRSjoppZVaeimmmWq6KaedevopqKGK+l0EACH+cGhxZ2h1bWVheWxubGZkeGZpcmN2c2N4Z2di dXR3anBiaGhleXNwdnBiZnhxamNtamt1dXhlb3NkbnRpc2N5emtlbmZ5dmNzdHVpZnRxaHhja3NvbwA7 --------------020504050906040707050000-- From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 5 00:18:31 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:18:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: fwd In-Reply-To: <200410021944.i92JikcI018304@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410021944.i92JikcI018304@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4161DA47.6010106@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > We have for years handled incorrectly seated pairs according to Law 15 the > same way as Herman apparently did It hardly seems fair to criticize Herman for handling things the same way, given the absence of regulation or applicable law. (I know, Sven is not the one doing the criticizing.) > However, after much consideration I am convinced that we do not need Law 15 > at all to handle incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. Once the > incorrectly seated pair has started on their auction before the error is > discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them complete > the round as they started it (and then have them continue according to the > original schedule from the round thereafter). The pair who as a consequence > finds their seats occupied will then be instructed just for this round to > take the seats which should have been occupied by the incorrectly seated > pair, seats which as a consequence appear vacant. This seems satisfactory if it doesn't create an inequity, i.e., a pair playing opponents who are much stronger or much weaker than the proper pair. In Herman's case, where the event was all-play-all, I wonder whether it might have been possible to play the round with A-B at one table, C-D at the other (i.e., the incorrectly-seated pairs). Then later, when A was scheduled to meet B, instead play A-C, B-D. Whether this was possible depends on the movement. Of course this idea is easier to think of after the fact than on the spur of the moment. If there are concerns about inequity, as when all-play-all is the aim but the movement won't allow simply switching pairs and rounds, it is probably better to play just the one board at the wrong table, then move everyone to the correct table. There also needs to be a deterrent against pairs who might deliberately try to sit down against weak opponents. (Don't tell me no one will try this!) Even in the actual case, where there is no question of evil motives, I am astonished Herman gave the pair who failed to move correctly avg+. Surely they were at least partly at fault for not checking the pairings. Personally, I consider them entirely at fault and would give avg-, but that is based on our customs here in North America, and customs in Wales may differ. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 5 00:29:15 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:29:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] 'Let's call it a field goal and move on' syndrome In-Reply-To: <200410041528.i94FSJCF013479@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410041528.i94FSJCF013479@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4161DCCB.7080805@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Bruce McIntyre > None vul, South dealer > Final round Swiss match between top two teams > > Qxx > AKxxxxx > xx > x x Jxxx > Qx J > Qxxxx KJxx > KTxxx AKxxx AQxx > Txx > Ax > Jxx > > W N E S > 1S > 2N* 4S 5C P > P X END > > 2N explained as "hearts and a minor" > (North asked before bidding 4S) > > TD summoned before opening lead > Actual agreement: minors. > > Result: 5CE*-1, 100 to N-S > > TD called back, will look at the deal. > > Returns with "+3/-3" L86A ruling after watching board played at other > table (6CE*-3). As others will no doubt say, this is bizarre. The board was played to a result, so there needs to be an _assigned_ adjusted score. I would want to inquire a bit about NS bidding agreements, but it looks to me as though NS would easily reach their normal 6H after a correct explanation, so unless there is something I'm not seeing, I'd assign 6H= to both sides. > Frustrated South player boots next board, -400 in 3NT when any idiot > could have ensured a worst-case -100 with chances to make. While morally the TD is probably to blame for this, I don't think there can be a score adjustment. The TD should apologize, though, and buy the player a beer. > When done match but before comparing scores, asks TD for a L40C/12C2 > ruling of +450; TD (knowing this will turn +3 into -2 for NOS) agrees. This is a legal ruling, though I don't think it is correct. Too bad NS didn't appeal. No doubt an AC would have time to analyze the play (or perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see why 6H shouldn't be bid and made). From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 5 00:43:13 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:43:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Third Seat Hesitations In-Reply-To: <200409151411.i8FEBJPM010431@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200409151411.i8FEBJPM010431@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4161E011.4020408@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Ron Johnson > Inexperienced players don't have a regular tempo and their > hesitations don't show anything beyond general anxiety. > > They also have no judgement. They couldn't transmit that > they're minimum or maximum for a sequence. They don't know. > > Anybody who thinks they can tell anything from an inexperienced > player's tempo hasn't played with an inexperienced player > recently. I've mentioned this experience before, but maybe it's worth posting again. Some while ago, I played a session with a "permanent beginner." Just as Ron said, he hesitated on _every_ decision -- well, except when there was a jump in front of him. Those he passed pretty fast. Despite that, there were exactly three occasions all night when I needed to take his tempo into account. While I suppose I might have missed a few others, his breaks that suggested one action over another were still a tiny fraction. Even after the deal, I usually didn't have a clue what he could have been thinking about. From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 5 00:49:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 01:49:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: fwd In-Reply-To: <4161DA47.6010106@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000601c4aa6c$ca495550$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner .............. > This seems satisfactory if it doesn't create an inequity, i.e., a pair > playing opponents who are much stronger or much weaker than the proper > pair. In Herman's case, where the event was all-play-all, I wonder > whether it might have been possible to play the round with A-B at one > table, C-D at the other (i.e., the incorrectly-seated pairs). Then > later, when A was scheduled to meet B, instead play A-C, B-D. Whether > this was possible depends on the movement. Of course this idea is > easier to think of after the fact than on the spur of the moment. This is not possible in a round robin barometer event where boards are scored and results published immediately after each round. The reason is that the four pairs A, B, C and D who meet each other (two and two) in = one round will never meet again (paired otherwise) in any same round. That = is to say: If A meets C and B meets D in the same round then A will meet B in = a different round from when C will meet D etc. It is possible in theory to play the outstanding boards as late plays = but that will upset the entire progress of barometer in that the affected = rounds cannot be scored until the late plays have been completed. The main advantage of barometer as experienced by the players is just the fact = that they receive feedback (including full display of all boards in that = round) on what they did in each round immediately after that round was = completed. Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Tue Oct 5 01:07:44 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:07:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] 'Let's call it a field goal and move on' syndrome In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:29:15 EDT." <4161DCCB.7080805@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200410050007.RAA01785@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > From: Bruce McIntyre > > None vul, South dealer > > Final round Swiss match between top two teams > > > > Qxx > > AKxxxxx > > xx > > x x Jxxx > > Qx J > > Qxxxx KJxx > > KTxxx AKxxx AQxx > > Txx > > Ax > > Jxx > > > > W N E S > > 1S > > 2N* 4S 5C P > > P X END > > > > 2N explained as "hearts and a minor" > > (North asked before bidding 4S) > > > > TD summoned before opening lead > > Actual agreement: minors. > > > > Result: 5CE*-1, 100 to N-S > > > > TD called back, will look at the deal. > > > > Returns with "+3/-3" L86A ruling after watching board played at other > > table (6CE*-3). How did they manage to go down three? (Or were they playing 6D?) > As others will no doubt say, this is bizarre. The board was played to a > result, so there needs to be an _assigned_ adjusted score. I would want > to inquire a bit about NS bidding agreements, but it looks to me as > though NS would easily reach their normal 6H after a correct > explanation, This is the part I'm having difficulty with. How would the bidding go? It gets a little tricky because we normally have to assume East explained the bid correctly to N/S but still bids under the impression that 2NT shows hearts and a minor. Assuming it goes 1S (2NT) 3H, East must assume that 3H is showing some sort of limit raise, so he may not jump around in the minors just yet. (If East had remembered the convention and explained it correctly, South's next call would have to be at the 5 level.) But even without East jumping around, I'm not sure it's "normal" for N/S to get to 6H. After 1S (2NT) 3H (pass?) 4H, North has no safety at the five level---they could be off three minor-suit tricks. So I think it's quite possible for the TD to rule that 6H is not "likely" or "at all probable". Furthermore, I'm not sure we can adjust to the result of 6H anyway. If N/S do bid to 6H, East will now have *authorized* information that he's forgotten the convention. So it's possible to rule that, if this happened, East would never let it sit, and the TD would adjust to N/S +800 for 7D*-4. (Or +500 for 7C*-3...) > > Frustrated South player boots next board, -400 in 3NT when any idiot > > could have ensured a worst-case -100 with chances to make. > > While morally the TD is probably to blame for this, I don't think there > can be a score adjustment. The TD should apologize, though, and buy the > player a beer. Maybe. But being able to maintain composure in the face of an unpleasant occurrence is a necessary bridge skill, and that goes just as much for unfavorable TD rulings as for disasters caused by one's partner's stupid bidding or by a very unfriendly layout in a 98% slam. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 5 03:00:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:00:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] TDs (generally) rule! In-Reply-To: <1HR8NgAptqXBFwA$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In the Cardiff Ruling 9 thread, John (MadDog) Probst generalised: >I think it's a mistake not to make a ruling. Very occasionally >I *will* make a ruling and then take it to appeal myself. Even >so, the ruling I make is the best I can do at the time, and I'd >have consulted a couple of times before I rule. RJH generalises: Every generalisation has its exceptions (including this one). If a TD discovers a "prima facie" case that a player might have been infracting the Law 74C5 injunction against peeking, then (in general) I believe that it is a mistake for a TD to make a ruling on the facts. Rather, I believe that the TD should (usually) use their Law 81C9 power to avoid a TD ruling. The TD should send the (usually) undetermined facts to a Conduct and Ethics Committee for the Committee to decide whether or not a Law 74C5 infraction has occurred. An "in camera" hearing by a Conduct and Ethics Committee provides better natural justice to the (possibly) innocent accused player. In my opinion, it is unnecessary for a TD to pillory an (apparently) unethical player under Law 74C5, since such a grave ruling requires a natural justice appeal anyway. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 5 03:25:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:25:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <41617038.438b.0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Karel asked: >Gamesmanship : > >Now comes a more interesting angle. East/West know >the above facts. If E/W held the N/S cards they >would also bid 3H's ... RJH notes: If E/W held the N/S cards, and were not constrained by the requirements of Law 73C, they would also bid 3H. The point is that N/S were indeed constrained by the requirements of Law 73C. Karel continued: >but there is an excellent chance, in fact almost >certain, that the result will be changed back by >the TD to 2NT. RJH notes: The almost certain ruling by the TD is due to the existence of Law 73C. Karel continued: >Not only are the odds good but the odds of getting >2NT MAKING are also decent (a later post on that >and hopefully some more direction as to what >should be done). RJH notes: If the TD adjusts the score to a result in a 2NT contract, then Law 12C2 and Law 12C3 require the TD and AC to assess the odds of 2NT *failing*. Karel continued: >Now E/W are playing the appeals system. Everyone >involved knows this is the case. Has anyone met >this or similar and if so what can one do about >it ?? Law 72A4: >>When these Laws provide the innocent side with an >>option after an irregularity committed by an >>opponent, it is appropriate to select that action >>most advantageous. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 5 03:58:01 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 03:58:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: fwd References: <200410021944.i92JikcI018304@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <4161DA47.6010106@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001101c4aa87$20c75de0$12330952@AnnesComputer> No - customs in Wales do not differ. I suspect reaon for the problem was that the printer had run out of ink, or the CTD had a busy scissors, and the guide card said N/S move to E/W and the "at table 5" was omitted. This was board 17 - so the third round - players had worked it out and got it right on round 2, but on round 3 they got it wrong because there was nobody there to turf them out. [AJ] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 12:18 AM Subject: [blml] Re: fwd >> From: "Sven Pran" >> We have for years handled incorrectly seated pairs according to Law 15 >> the >> same way as Herman apparently did > > It hardly seems fair to criticize Herman for handling things the same way, > given the absence of regulation or applicable law. (I know, Sven is not > the one doing the criticizing.) > >> However, after much consideration I am convinced that we do not need Law >> 15 >> at all to handle incorrectly seated pairs in barometer events. Once the >> incorrectly seated pair has started on their auction before the error is >> discovered we can have an almost perfect solution in letting them >> complete >> the round as they started it (and then have them continue according to >> the >> original schedule from the round thereafter). The pair who as a >> consequence >> finds their seats occupied will then be instructed just for this round to >> take the seats which should have been occupied by the incorrectly seated >> pair, seats which as a consequence appear vacant. > > This seems satisfactory if it doesn't create an inequity, i.e., a pair > playing opponents who are much stronger or much weaker than the proper > pair. In Herman's case, where the event was all-play-all, I wonder > whether it might have been possible to play the round with A-B at one > table, C-D at the other (i.e., the incorrectly-seated pairs). Then later, > when A was scheduled to meet B, instead play A-C, B-D. Whether this was > possible depends on the movement. Of course this idea is easier to think > of after the fact than on the spur of the moment. > > If there are concerns about inequity, as when all-play-all is the aim but > the movement won't allow simply switching pairs and rounds, it is probably > better to play just the one board at the wrong table, then move everyone > to the correct table. > > There also needs to be a deterrent against pairs who might deliberately > try to sit down against weak opponents. (Don't tell me no one will try > this!) Even in the actual case, where there is no question of evil > motives, I am astonished Herman gave the pair who failed to move correctly > avg+. Surely they were at least partly at fault for not checking the > pairings. Personally, I consider them entirely at fault and would give > avg-, but that is based on our customs here in North America, and customs > in Wales may differ. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 5 09:46:57 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:46:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: fwd In-Reply-To: <001101c4aa87$20c75de0$12330952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000301c4aab7$df514980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Anne Jones > No - customs in Wales do not differ. ............. > > Even in the actual case, where there is no question of evil > > motives, I am astonished Herman gave the pair who failed to=20 > > move correctly avg+. Surely they were at least partly at=20 > > fault for not checking the pairings. Personally, I consider > > them entirely at fault and would give avg-, but that is based > > on our customs here in North America, and customs in Wales=20 > > may differ. If it was possible to obtain a result on the board then it is never = correct to assign an artificial adjusted score so I must assume the board in question was cancelled? (My impression from Herman's tale was that the = board was indeed played?) If Herman considered the irregularity to be caused by incorrect or incomplete instructions then avg+ was the correct score. And with an incorrect or incomplete pilot card this is very close to being the case. Players are entitled to instructions clear enough not to be mistaken; = they shall not have to spend energy on finding out how the instructions are = to be understood. Avg- is of course the correct ruling for a pair which in spite of = correct and complete instructions moves to an incorrect position and thereby = causes a board they should play not to be played and scored. Regards Sven From wmevius@hotmail.com Tue Oct 5 12:25:47 2004 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:25:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please Message-ID: What a load of rubbish. NS think 2NT is good/bad, but it's not alerted and in fact it isn't good/bad. So those conclusions are take at NS own risk. And about EW playing the appeals system: this is simply a case where they think the 3H bid could have been influenced by the pause. And rightly so: 3H is not clear cut at any level (e.g. give North Jxx, Jxxx,KQ, AJx, 3H could be going for a reasonable number also 3NT would be making for EW). They have every right to get the TD to have a look at it. The TD would determine the facts: there clearly is UI which could have influenced the 3H bid. It's up to the TD to determine if there's an LA to 3H and he would take the level of the players into account. Personally I think pass is a LA with the South hand at any level in teams, in which case the score should be 2NT -1 (2NT making seems a bit too harsh), but it's close and I could be persuaded otherwise. >From: "Karel" >Reply-To: karel@esatclear.ie >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subject: Re: [blml] Need opinions on this one please >Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:46:00 +0100 > >+++ This case has alot of interesting points which hopefully the powers to >be >will be able to give me an opinion on. I hope more will reply to this >thread >as this is the sort of close case which really could be used to show how we >as TD's should approach a case. > >David brings up the 2 points. He says he would bid 3H's (as would I) for >the >plus factors of the hand. I have posted this hand as a bidding problem (no >pause) on another forum and already I have a few passes. My feeling is >that >the more experienced player will bid 3H's and the average player will pass >(seeing >only 5 points, vul, and bidding at the 3 level on a 4 card suit would >probably >scare most of them to death). > >So it is clear that the level of the player does matter. From a TD's point >of view though this makes life real rough. In the actual case, the players >involved were close to if not international standard. They were stronger >by >a decent margin than the rest of the room and the TD's. The test is would >your >peers bid 3H's. Well what if there aren't any peers ?? What if the TD and >appeals committee as was the case just aren't qualified to answer the >question >? > > >Gamesmanship : > >Now comes a more interesting angle. East/West know the above facts. If >E/W >held the N/S cards they would also bid 3H's ... but there is an excellent >chance >infact almost certain that the result will be changed back by the TD to >2NT. > Not only are the odds good but the odds of getting 2NT MAKING are also >decent >(a later post on that and hopefully some more direction as to what should >be >done). Now E/W are playing the appeals system. Everyone involved knows >this >is the case. Has anyone met this or similar and if so what can one do >about >it ?? > > >David's - 2nd point is the pause. We have all been "surprised" by a bid. >On >top of this, if you are expecting a bid to be alerted and it isn't, it will >cause a delay. If these two conditions happen together and the bid >requires >analysis it will take quite some time. E/W have both played good/bad 2NT. >N/S expected this to be a good bad sequence. With no alert N was now put >in >the position of wondering what the liklihood of MI was. The pause was >estimated >at about 8 secs or so. Is this such an unusal length of time given the >possibilities >N had to consider ?? > >S also admitted that his 3H bid was influenced by the possibility of a >good/bad >NT misunderstanding. N/S were in the past involved in a good/bad 2NT case >which >they lost as the appeals committee felt they had not bid their hands in the >light of a possible misunderstanding. What should we as TD's include as >allowable >factors in determining a pause or not ? > >K. > > >> Swiss Teams current teams 1 & 2 playing each other > >> Vul all > >> > >> North > >> S JT8 > >> H AK8x > >> D Qx > >> C AJ9x > >> > >> West East > >> S Ax S Qxx > >> H Jx H T9x > >> D AKJxxx D xxxx > >> C Qxx C Kxx > >> > >> South > >> S K97xx > >> H Qxxx > >> D x > >> C Txx > >> > >> Bidding > >> > >> W N E S > >> 1D Dbl 2D 2S > >> 2NT P** P 3H > >> all pass > >> > >> Result 3H+1 > >> > >> ** Pause - agreed on > >> Td is called goes away comes back and changes the score to 2NT making. > >> E/W > >> appeal > >> > >> N/S and E/W are both decent players. North said he paused considering > >> West's 2NT as he knew west did not have the values for such a bid. He > >> concluded it must be based on a long 6 card diamond suit and decided >not > > >> to > >> double. With an extra diamond he would have doubled. > >> > >> South said that initially he had a choice of double, 3D or 2S. 3D he > >> felt > >> promised more. Double indicated equal length. He bid 2S planing to >bid > > >> hearts if he got another opportunity. He felt he was entitled to bid > >> 3H's > >> as pd should have 4 hearts and his values were outside of diamonds. He > >> said > >> that 3H's was not without risk, as pd may have doubled with clubs 3325 > >> shape > >> and may have been thinking of doubling 2NT. > >> > >> What is your ruling ?? > > > >I would bid 3H, and I suspect most players would--double fit in the > >majors, diamond stiff opposite little or nothing in diamonds--but pass > >meets the LA test IMHO (if barely), so I agree with the ruling. I > >wouldn't like having to make it, especially if I know N and S to be > >ethical players, but everyone at a certain level knows that hesitating > >brings about exactly this kind of difficulty. > > > >It doesn't matter to the ruling, but what is North's hesitation anyway? > >His read of West's hand certainly figures to be right, but, given that > >read, does he really plan to get richer defending 3D than 2NT, which is > >what he will be doing if he doubles and partner sits? > > > >David Babcock > >Florida USA > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >-- >http://www.iol.ie > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Oct 5 12:56:51 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:56:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please Message-ID: <41628c03.6b8f.0@esatclear.ie> >I certainly don't rule 2NT making, as I can only see 7 tricks and a >really bizarre >defence to let 8 make (after the SJ lead - or a top heart lead - North >only has to >throw-losers-keep-winners to beat it). > >I would probably let the table result stand, but I don't feel hugely >strongly about it >and could possibly be persuaded out of it. +++ Francis is absolutely correct but read what occured. In actuality N/S did not even attempt to appeal the 3H bid. As per previous post, they knew that the chances of this very reasonable bid (I would estimate at their level automatic) would never be allowed as the "pause" would be concentrated on and not the other numerous factors. Again E/W also knew this. They agreed to the result being changed to 2NT. When the TD now said 2NT making they appealed as this is clearly ludicrous .... or is it ?? E/W came up with this argument. They would win the SJ with the A. Cash the DA and then play a club, appearing to look like a person requiring an entry to make a losing finesse and thus steal the 8th trick. N/S countered saying that this was a phenomenally dangerous and completely unecessary risk. If The CA goes up E/W are now down 4 for -400. 3H or 3S is making and maybe even 4H or 4S's for anything from 140 to 620. -100 will gain anything from 1 to 10 imps. They have won this board. The risk involved in trying to get 8 tricks is simply outweighed by the gain. Also why should the CA not be over the K?? They also cited that they play odd/even discards and that E/W knew where the SK was. They could count 1C,2H's and 3 or 4 spades. They also knew that 2NT must be based on D length to justify such a bid. Finally this whole play assumed N/S would not rise with the ace, (ie) required misdefence, which N/S maintained was not going to happen. Now 2 things happened. (1) E/W said this is 200% the way they would have played it. The committee was in effect forced into deciding would N/S duck at trick 3. They decided that N/S could duck and allowed 2NT to make. (2) the committee were not qualified to make this decision and were not directed to look at the overall picture. The decision they arrived at was reasonable GIVEN the bounds and the position they were forced into deciding on. Basically E/W played the appeal system - they claimed they would play the hand a particular way (which in reality N/S and E/W knew they would not do) and forced the committee to decide how capable N/S were in defence. Now the committee came back and said well N/S "might" duck, which indeed is true, we all make mistakes and awarded the best possible score to E/W. The fact of the matter is that this case was a travesty of justice, cleverly manoevered and exploited by E/W. Two questions (1) What would you do if you knew this was happening. RJ has already quoted some laws. Has anyone come across this, any suggestions with how to deal with it ?? (2) E/W were 200% adamant they would play a club at trick 3. Can the AC now rule 2NT - 4 ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 5 15:06:16 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:06:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: fwd References: <000301c4aab7$df514980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c4aae9$bf196170$f48387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:46 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Re: fwd ********************************** If it was possible to obtain a result on the board then it is never correct to assign an artificial adjusted score ********************************** +=+ I would want to qualify this statement marginally. I think the result has to be obtained through 'normal play of the board'; otherwise 12A2 kicks in before we get to 12C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam@irvine.com Tue Oct 5 17:18:15 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:18:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] 'Let's call it a field goal and move on' syndrome In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:07:44 PDT." <200410050007.RAA01785@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200410051618.JAA07105@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > > From: Bruce McIntyre > > > None vul, South dealer > > > Final round Swiss match between top two teams > > > > > > Qxx > > > AKxxxxx > > > xx > > > x x Jxxx > > > Qx J > > > Qxxxx KJxx > > > KTxxx AKxxx AQxx > > > Txx > > > Ax > > > Jxx > > > > > > W N E S > > > 1S > > > 2N* 4S 5C P > > > P X END > > > > > > 2N explained as "hearts and a minor" > > > (North asked before bidding 4S) > > > > > > TD summoned before opening lead > > > Actual agreement: minors. > > > As others will no doubt say, this is bizarre. The board was played to a > > result, so there needs to be an _assigned_ adjusted score. I would want > > to inquire a bit about NS bidding agreements, but it looks to me as > > though NS would easily reach their normal 6H after a correct > > explanation, > > This is the part I'm having difficulty with. How would the bidding > go? It gets a little tricky because we normally have to assume East > explained the bid correctly to N/S but still bids under the impression > that 2NT shows hearts and a minor. Assuming it goes 1S (2NT) 3H, East > must assume that 3H is showing some sort of limit raise, so he may not > jump around in the minors just yet. (If East had remembered the > convention and explained it correctly, South's next call would have to > be at the 5 level.) > > But even without East jumping around, I'm not sure it's "normal" for > N/S to get to 6H. After 1S (2NT) 3H (pass?) 4H, North has no safety > at the five level---they could be off three minor-suit tricks. So I > think it's quite possible for the TD to rule that 6H is not "likely" > or "at all probable". I wasn't thinking quite clearly when I wrote the above. In order to rule, the TD will have to find out what N/S's agreements are over a 2NT bid for minors. If they don't have any special agreements and 3H would be natural and forcing, what I wrote still applies. If they play some form of unusual vs. unusual, things are a little different. After 1S (2NT), North would bid 3 of a minor to show a good hand with hearts; South bids 3H; North bids 3S; now South knows about the double fit. However, he still has what he started with: a balanced minimum, so I'm still not convinced that they would get to six. The TD will also need to find out if N/S have an agreement about mandatory cue-bids, so that South would have to bid 4D over 3S despite his lack of interest in slam. Now North might be able to push to 6H. If N/S don't have this agreement, South would probably sign off (in which game, though?). All this is *still* assuming that East, who presumably thinks his partner has hearts and a minor and has four-card support for whichever minor his partner has, is going to stay quiet and let N/S do their slam exploration. So even with this revision, I'm still not at all convinced that the TD should adjust to the score for 6H (or a 7m save). -- Adam From Mailer-Daemon@he106war.uk.vianw.net Tue Oct 5 21:17:28 2004 From: Mailer-Daemon@he106war.uk.vianw.net (Mail Delivery System) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:17:28 +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: patrick@rarevols.co.uk This message has been rejected because it has a potentially executable attachment "message_part2.pif" This form of attachment has been used by recent viruses or other malware. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [82.33.169.102] (helo=rarevols.co.uk) by he106war.uk.vianw.net with esmtp (Exim 4.04) id 1CEvkP-0003Mv-00 for patrick@rarevols.co.uk; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:17:22 +0100 From: blml@rtflb.org To: patrick@rarevols.co.uk Subject: Re: Thanks! Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:17:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_00007834.000014BD" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_00007834.000014BD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See the attached file for details. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_00007834.000014BD Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="message_part2.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="message_part2.pif" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuAAAAKvnXsbvhjCV74Ywle+GMJVsmj6V44YwlQeZOpX2hjCV74YxlbiGMJVsjm2V 4oYwlQeZO5XqhjCVV4A2le6GMJVSaWNo74YwlQAAAAAAAAAAQ29tcHJlc3NlZCBieSBQZXRp dGUgKGMpMTk5OSBJYW4gTHVjay4AAFBFAABMAQMA6ZtBQAAAAAAAAAAA4AAPAQsBBgAASAAA APAAAAAAAABCcAEAABAAAABgAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAIABAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/HEBAK8BAAAAYAEA EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LnBldGl0ZQAAUAEAABAAAAA8AAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAABg AQAQAAAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAKsDAAAAcAEAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABgAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgC AAAjWZWUi0QkBIPEKo2QNAAAAIPECGoQi9hmBS0AUFJqAIsb/xNq//9TDEVSUk9SIQBDb3Jy dXB0IERhdGEhALgAcEEAaNFrQABk/zUAAAAAZIklAAAAAGacYFBoAABAAIs8JIswZoHHgAeN dAYIiTiLXhBQVmoCaIAIAABXahNqBlZqBGiACAAAV//Tg+4IWfOlWWaDx2iBxsIAAADzpf/T WI2QuAEAAIsKD7rxH3MWiwQk/Yvwi/gDcgQDegjzpYPCDPzr4oPCEIta9IXbdNiLBCSLevgD +FKNNAHrF1hYWFp0xOkc////AtJ1B4oWg+7/EtLDgfsAAAEAcw5oYMD//2hg/P//tgXrIoH7 AAAEAHMOaICB//9ogPn//7YH6wxoAIP//2gA+///tghqADLSS6QzyYP7AH6k6Kr///9yF6Qw X/9L6+1B6Jv///8TyeiU////cvLDM+3o6f///4PpA3MGiwQkQesji8EPts7odf///xPASXX2 g/D/O0QkBIPVATtEJAiD1QCJBCToV////xPJ6FD///8TyXUI6Kb///+DwQIDzVYr2Y00OPOk XuuDLovAuA4AgNxKAAD8XwEAICUBAKlGAAAAEAAArxIAAN5PAQAmDwAAAGAAALQBAACVVwEA 5BIAAABwAAA4ugEAAAAAAMYTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABicwEAiHIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG1z AQCUcgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAenMBAKhyAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACGcwEAsHIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJFzAQC4cgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnMBAMByAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMhy AQDWcgEAAAAAAOJyAQDwcgEAAHMBABJzAQAAAAAAJHMBAAAAAAALAACAAAAAAEBzAQAAAAAA VHMBAAAAAAAAAE1lc3NhZ2VCb3hBAAAAd3NwcmludGZBAAAARXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAAABMb2Fk TGlicmFyeUEAAAAAR2V0UHJvY0FkZHJlc3MAAAAAVmlydHVhbFByb3RlY3QAAAAASW50ZXJu ZXRHZXRDb25uZWN0ZWRTdGF0ZQAAAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAAAAUmVnT3BlbktleUEA VVNFUjMyLmRsbABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAV0lOSU5FVC5kbGwAV1MyXzMyLmRsbABpcGhscGFw aS5kbGwAQURWQVBJMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVACNL LeCo9fUqAN2XrU+vUqlvABioluG9wPiQAMukUQTRgwCWAAh8qPCIC46DGwsqdsh4rZIAff8q c3UyNDah4RiNMLEZ5wLoY+8nAGEAAACf0B59LFAEyC92WUGoz7dMAENKSTV9SfNMFsaLNcr/ Fv1JH7pmAAz4ST+5Lje4ADBpaxfaVNyoKVsn6WaIgGsa2xs1XVso89/0VBJZEQgX5bEWjCwK qlyNQcKD7RjLg3xeEl8VcPcISg3wx0DdLWFWA1+QEk6COEiI9CmEAHeOVp81jodfBoA8bgTL ukUA8PSqislLA8oDo/220qcHaQa/vM2/RlJdDancS8uEx0LEhVW8lAcAn2XWp8YU3gGVd5/w rGdAQTSKGzbUfpTtxgpweFp0NfaVLQU4RZJQikZ++nALsQw8A2oXYVErIyhKZD2rHA29DFJQ ACWwproYIpZZyW0kw88Vq7fAJtzrbCK931+m5uVEwtKGp6zcLHTNSZTO8IsSJk/mGkz94/HU gF+O9FqBx24MIOl8X88RU1+p9LJotlZpzVZfWWS2/3IKl3eGgym+14JqOdlGpM3aIpS5KQSm nmCwR7hG3La+JUXw+KOiSrSNvpSl9cvtqp+YRcDGxmgowiP+VQp02W2wDRRq9g86LaCVElpe smugpDsZcpSnPM2teZUv2AijvJj8pLhQqTaCkxAVw4EdYaiKohdLr2nLQG1Q+CcmMQU0Y9oy LFAQ1HKvGtZcAK6iJukK3oJM8rIDNUlgl+duAIUVbILFtJs4AnhLdPUsdDl2vKJo+V1KN8Rn 5F2FAOSZjm6qHl6hsFKXITMx1F0b3W+RR5ewnlJ2ijs2S3+6t9ExQ0HbEIP4tAbDmz4tTVz7 +dsaefWquHZqzscNQkXH2JoeWqO+HRaHfX0yCgXD+LwP2fnyv/0BEGyJVmR5MQtfQysE8+IU W2XfJsUlTX/OV+wgyi27Ru/m0QRHEBXtRqv7oFbAZDyFk6EgcArlmkn3ljcfmkFE4p1uD/ox WeO00ACBAo36ZfsBFbrKQo6+D8SHFHEobC435RAFV3o6AmwP7h9PYYlAqyjkqRfhchhx3h32 DFhXsKSFkyyXJYcVCwhoyxZVCpQsiOKLXjr6yGiuSFhl2aipTFS6Grt9o1Av3ZCM85bYI+fA 8KiRk+dcg4p2KvmB3VJxT77x2sFrFEUR401jiIcNWm+BWkhtEWS5xIk9Z1sg2Ce1WFgX0gBR sgQZSak1T3AkCdZJxzljSgEfDNpLSEFFqhcm+tdYUCPLFtWHkFsXyzUDE4UQZ1m15HaK/50n 1CoBq2Vd8hRXEoV8fQdZDL9hwVprCrSsBLn+rgcOm9GDgDqhkiMtjGsCqVSLyz+9ngstKZLF tAlWBYpHlkqqxX985aMuleq+uK5jVU2k3MncgXMw8vp1VHhVxZW/cU8Cjocec1ZTbWXYaWRX d6rUage4iBa7Vbtmp6PgUUQauljiMD8BysbzEn7rIObYhKNRVLLr6zUHvpgv2XA8j1tmS/fT g9/51fz+koj5CWTe3gAfmIPlbU09+/EqBFN4Pz0urYYRt3+zUMFAkt23Ya3zleTkX7/XQyiZ rDKo3DgBbL3fwj/ONGHF0ZQSKiLLvi5sXtqrsBNPDpFo0S9apBvopVxHGxtJ2ShT1ygoqMe4 M5z/Kt94SEISqPIyuOeUahnOejNTlEso1j8WzBMhGkboBvIX03YUEXdCST3CoZKdnX9dgQBK IQiLE4sQ00KN/XgYuZQV8iI0Gvk7J3Pg0e1heEDgbbXinPsTao/fSdjYJNaS19wgI8V0+KL1 wgqBv+LFtDP4QSFVizkytEgbjyHppNcS9C7HV2oQiUPi7zHC0lf+eMlU6whh6ISeQh0Qm+Tw DIA30DHBPID2CYT7QgYh4AMQ/QCI+gVEh3oi9A8R6RQI7hGE00IuJ8g70IoJa46hlPS+U0/9 TUyNcnWBdyifheqKg0zoIh4x/jkDFZrgFj656KQo3T6s3+IcZdOZCD3OuAQ6xibNyGM/Mo5+ D50GDMy1FopoIW8Pwps/+sNx0vLIKMOOZcrIshqwl8RZqdRqiaBzIHYDc38L+90eZo9pgI+k B5Lp+rgH11918NtvrhrsqdQXQfIrqrt5NVNh73UedLnMws8uNX2SSjxqOBUqz/d5KN5ZKbqH boRPpgOjUKHeI2NRxSoiRWwjCNHPfGKC8eHjhg9VEYAw9FaNu8sRsFeq/jwmDs80hqP5pJmh Aq1pF+ybAsVXG5aA8LXaRIUsI2XgpavSjIsipFg3RDPfnw6txK280umBEKEUpw3qoVWjLvb+ bWqv/PeAHVUAY3BsOGjc15UE/VNv0pNHi04SsrMq8EVrtK8ofwCW/cDRC6TIbG+7kpVuWRAV SzW8zvtjfQwBLl0rXHxjeH3GIUzGs0lVNzLEC5Fq00kw0wNzGPGknSNWCAQTjrxMpPQ9JXOm gB6BDEpOOwwDcQ6OBjY9jMGJInlc6kh/ZcGR0mBhlf0og2/1YxjBsxxE1a4M2ZgzJuzirUjC 9LMKxsV3Gm06RYVxAIMQVFk9hZbPF7BTNQ+psFa/SMJtrwHHYAASxQWfwB6ho1BQ2N2+0F5c OvkHpAW4nMKGmSw5qECCBRaKnGRqbF9zZTSHfqxLlTqh31bqSktIZEOnKapSDbkRwrBhCng5 UiEBxcN4xeqjPTMr7dqPaOGKeh/wFezpNjKsTR1Ee6r79p0UHqn/1SfpWbEN7kKu8P3wOojn ba4huqWVO3+YFYTXeV1XkorMlnnvKGLr64BURLpNMiyJ2sxvpVrvLEX0UatcQ+QUiXKyhtK6 3CWN8ylugubFaopS2mb4HPyEALSScfn3JB4uuvAtgAr9lF+Z9SDWWM6qavPuoKb1JSimf/Mu j0YSA3mCGTCyyImKBKj4dDu+yu5hdMw8QB2TWmXahdMCa5aSZZu1qa9AmqglbXQI1v95Ssbc Qp/l3MvXi6KMTER/Nyzj+qKEQKZBB2TgOqoOtI8NNcTwtYfxqQWQEV1ESjqWPkOikCfhYSsg Vp1+dG2dLhft6Xwf3OzN9Whf7UoZBy3Mjuk/BTjyXhbpvGjMFihaccBcQJjtRg8hMNUyubjk FQqOAoVRH+Py+B1YEjtZaT3HDuMPi82wfFG0BP5nusv+yVOqpUb6HDuTBiAooQ5s3sd/TAMK roRKpChG69cOBEOGOqMOoX8UVlLevoCyvR4nbHjmhoG0mY2HElSO0ZUoOZaoJu3h5B8gPrZe wcwWqIMQ21F1DvGUQROTF69wkEAoBLQCF6gYSdrNDiV8kVok20BYckan3kE6vET7qEDsQVF9 ZIUGbyEp1T6hkbnc8W3VZaSl4K64VzU+d/OLyhg5AqykIWLqoQGbrCIMiFN4+LEI2TZ/FEKl GHx5vIFVfs+Pi9m5xdMUc8ig8TOqljK9E3jEr+uK04Oq/WdL/qQL73RDT4gxEd2sgwBMDoeT BUALehFBdg5lvyBWNPWKcrjIEoUx0Nj6rzNk2ee0gAl92qlUo+NCswUMDX3ipRsYitqIti8K /s9RIgLOE0c+CHv+nUI6or0ljMzIJYEHW1klZTbUxzORtMEKZhFTVFnkoq/glKRAqdD7pKZO XftGIhTcuvg1x7FayLmqu3teiVsn368OqDRz/PrKUuwOt4n1M1I73n/2oehFjkecmwLrL2yu kp2Jx99E8kAH/65NmTzc3hQEiAanzQX0koFreHV/oEjylVs93Sv1nkdRugr9wb9zSNEKrq8t JPdBzywrspUPFnOSSmfJgYBN27A5TCsOvTmBn699vMQVFnY6gms+Yc0FU9XqYJtA5fdQFacc fi/qIKAA5sZULkiLKB5siiPBnIXw0IOL6Mlj28jKgPhtkRTrnOun0+IbebC+RzMy0CMSlmED k0w15bLDS9rAQT/DsDsj8WPfGfXy2buuik5i9P5hO9Rm+QrfgPO0XZ7Zk7vlVFudLwVkBW13 M3W+jYf37AMrrTTzDgxEuzLjSB98BQI8mVDcRo4KVHVTxlRWWsV/bPKASKNgi280HsaS800i /iQiTRBzkZAijmoUBAu1BhrpsO22pkYSiFsQ+Yajm6pF+UiJ0Ff/YpeUt6fQGZvzYyne3/Uq qECfj+4kpw46tcjxsYr9wEPPKpOvqFkfeTEkdlSUdJH6WlR6fW23VpFXXOyYn98gvDJHWvzZ PDulzAsDdP6D/l1EZYtWe5stM99zPXQQV94mXbQJ9fE9XMqpkxC8gR0OXN3WKosbMyIxIiN+ Ter1r8tzfo+DF5nDAHBqqVMzQ9ghnxqCiNVGvb69zgLjVJ7RiNYXiMy/LyGlsNXW91hCBoH6 xeRvpGxPinSYNkVFkQ87kEeIWKD1r6ZYrVYHaMUmKmydtEjILihVY0v4F+C3BsKCzG51o5r/ x7tscbmaToDQATpSxaLRwOmfVxJh+79fv5J0Sd2pgs4iyWCrwzmEp19DW0Xy8cPif+0Ih0pu +SsghezWhw0MZhBphY02c6q7hLqEXIMUM0w5dxC5RUranc9b5nNAmYdoLvVcU0hMsv8onuaZ 1eXqHYcE9RvshDM+q24OPdA8DrflTv+n3eFCnLvVtASq/IWEAvhUNIeomzpOkev3o8tfLU7R 2Jje0Cyt4r7dsxTN6ueT9okxtwEgfwmT7wB9jry7NaCe2IfpJm7fsfyGXJ2+mSdEi15LR1w+ yAQz32aMRxA7+TqQ7tW6qRT60pB0EvsuT03t4Q3J7wvImVmmXPEGfUD+IWSqvgFr4BdMin2o 6QiwQ6m0SZ50A8GVoyHrxdnsDilfWYkfjJ+cJJgtXQSchpbRp/h+aAITeSQeUYq/o7V8bYKa CORrQlXb6L9rQq3Y6lGydhhgGy1UNarlimuVVTqKQv1VrRUkRdYiHphy0WWijssLCEbBuKZe mWJ4WeI2mcUZqWdbyoQrqghR5pYo4qSFGuriiN4pTyixpofU9kQ5nwILLES76SGywpIZQvxY yNKuX9I0ru3HJk4hr/PQxDNFa8aI2SmiFaeI1PclM1QVoOQdbhfG0RNAFRcFeSt2CCA2Mq3A YEExT/1c2spTstpx1L7BCUCxjo3LI/bCuMzRX9P24BxJrexz0yuAEbqxIWg3Y1/4SF+TpVWO cpjQc2vYVblcDCcAWKPUcR8gbR5/2x8xEbDnnBiXbgXAdblgfY9YhSdabYbaqTLwnqpg6aEH pY3zWinaYAPLUza6RVJ9UGO5iQ9JaN86OtaTKyicytspTFwJhN94K+tCKajsrOEy+xng4ChM SnFnGVQqMqx4tw1YBtHIuOfn8apRS+n7zpKHcn/gp66kDZCJ8vGUq+upYKwd7eUj0r6f0Qdl G+fk/IEQKr3pIEWAS7MNiC5ba3pt3mbsnqAzU8xCaUNLkHiQT9lXDZAf2QcNkC/BSUh8fVl2 ouYL+/QvYciYyQKXfoL6u70U9nQXIpupdoNLKuDjUBxnGeYOk80oB6vRQK7R8wZe0gCTmqcr WwcPLZ421ZoL76agVVQ1v+yWmpS1HOWdPSv361MGYcuhYOpicyv6vLKnVx53WVDR0w9y9mnN b1foK/AhAKl0sE6KBXpKBYhg7N9x+TGvZFZedrbTFMGBQdijUSp+EPCrd8c7OX2kU4vxcwHF rCzNTsKgEz31XRK/uRTGTb5K6b6PE9YFYrVMnTn9MTrJne5AmVQQmEhiD6sJWQiqo0EHrcWV x24CNhx9UaZnUKoqSd4k3tuAcocoWjJQhSkq3LOpNvFm8jTlw5PhTZ2pNLXTsU6N9hAFbgDM MQhi4Wox4RSW2ZbymmyCeZ40ntOSTZqmNKbLqtjxllIETRe9T7OSMr3kNr0ctZqVfVeoonDl Pei63yxa5ktESoOvNHMVUfhjDnyE3h0fkNIWPiLGRBR+ENoruDUvy8TP4Qr1X4WJdO0fTfae Ykzo1/P0hQKhhhUZmQ6Fc6EOT/WNXYw08emJx2wlouitoDa1l2+NVBgTIsVhsSmzUTLaCyja cUqdqosCQpNl3zMa1Hd2Kv2dtjyh5+atHMmaxWnRpt0Zmg5/Dybu8seT8k3+9jTK08pNxt40 wtPCTc7GN7rrj175MblmvRyJmqF/lmVLtSt+OKZ4fhj2mLVS459PHIbqo2BNrynPOeVkm4+q puFiw/L4+Foipj5WSu11HZxAau+WHaEA5efmaRXFl+MA7SLSjM8JpQsACwiJc+4rZf+hoNx6 GYho4bVGtML6xrHQmu8HJgZnkBcM6yIdiulII6TfJeAl2b4i1CTai1EaDqJN04QIQFVRvDF9 oHKvDhxzxIgucbVmKHv4ohHuvXRmUuJBmI/xQEemGujgZBEStuTWbWGZC+kcTnpBUpFaSk2l 1QdvDDv5zuDHYjNCAiloMyIDCiNEaujU/jq6ZASYDYcgGtdYCt8oGx+AKJh19fF9At+ug6o8 VVaKLWiaZjewuB3YRuImLGJiKC5DKoVF3pnMMNlwnsLHdMXLVdYdeZDgAvZeh3zNNgp3atFC fT9ApypgiZ967DlaYEASkzs/PBpRoaMYqy+yAtUpqd81UbHmZ4NfooBxqDKCzwVApGQnS1vD j3QgQurfgqPaUgen7sL7C7kZYtuXTKzZXJolF7OWVaSFbB96C/6G+IJ1QcF18GSF/sTzC7d2 FPeBM9WP6rLr2USbtoxKBFdFH80vERvU7rt/yhaDKl+nLOfZuvTjypjFm5DlUO0a7qhSgfsq S6TSqEAW7LQc0exrVIQ8yMyWu2QrwWmsjAY6MaLixlOYWEjnA9io5ZNFNcwV2uHBq/a2iVQM RV+BBk3hFzQpGSMEKV3hlM87OqPDqhLJkxdCFRYLPd+YdFNqrAlEifi38o8BpCKAcaDGufRk qh8YvSZuiFBjuD96YXlrCe51/otcwiNYoNEBS8r9hmTIav/Zy+ZIg8VCpXX9xGloGUu38Ago qB6pYFdaDJWrXHvoahFgVG/+RCK5T0WJBGVYGApiWMbIDKQAcwR47oixZepbr4yrPp2E6iKj R4UobWHDuG6J6ea5+KiPC6UgEJKjAZilJkboKNCs1qRIc87JcbTUEd4Cqt8kEupcQH42ggpx PWkqCWGjJsWfIUbexFbqujB/rta69tSS+rzV9vYtULbSqB4OUCVURgPOFAIykROubT8Oysci xoHEhVaVkyC0WtS1AhrX2Gk229N6QG5NVlrUBHxVGnJo+G74fzfxcerJI+IktzTQTPdYfPub dS5wiPsUmBtXVIWvx6i6g7LscUcurudXlkO1TQFbdZsDkLFHTYcpQFYMrTCEWngNyw9q0x0W +gvp1FssOscE2t+g9LpZXQlyUvvNhbgCSA6M/l849LIQZEPE9iNxFEICZyZUWisXd7xc9iIU mBgDxtGEr3UeTjbk3H6/Ue3E3rY30YJSokrvkZMN/7JV0AeyZRVRPQo1+FC4VLE+Afst5OJa 2Zf2uVY6pw49PUw8iL+ZXJWVeOiSfqZmpbXZm+AiVuCfZ6QR/qj6hB0UOiiOt1YFlKlgPB4G 19nChcc/DoqgSBw4GrRVd0LHJhZQ8V86pgSbERHCVO1X9EYoASf5CWkOegfSCWc+tEAdhQmL /ruoZ+zk+HV9bdai8eFSDqJckhiaupUqCcRpFM/l+CB9hijcsojL25/NHHJNFXAz4eotFyHj q3WU3NzUV65uB2MkndlVxGS2cqTO30376D5WcAXB0oIC331GIBiCe/I0BYT/M4ge0It4NUmT Lh9JDD/rKG5XgXBXDPVJ+Wi9d2iqqL64eEiAfovUThlgB00JnylW5aaiQ8oL5FsiQbcmJSTB K2YAqhLJjHce4bqppdFn97ciBr1oIWgOCPw8uM9Ds9LXvfOjkPXjOttTIa92Ty7kYsPO76Jg 3UH6lqChStyMRGOHG6nDJZDHrKOY/ScA2FScVte3KKT1yBh07rVaCwfhfM7nlqmhnZ2MmhZd GmQKD+i3MOcea3jtwVzxPwcslWoVFj5BuYiEn6vSLApq/56JnRtXfla3yIWsfi2Q5RCf4B8F bBSUdh3FQ0n5qUAbCCqRdRy4WBupp6n0tftlf4B7p+qvp6Nsb3QGymCgKshM8NsGAIDuHq7H XOSGMeUcEX9xSHmT4gkCB8z1y0o3g0mMjJSJPZpw4lNqqTMkJKZIGtKcMEKIFQjSoByyBQI2 KOks64BeiuoLINkictuCyM4IUqDTIDaJv7zOgFVBKoz7fq+g6hUu9RVraEnX7Uuyg//qJlUB 9OYCSGCloF0/7uX7xR0KyOVf2Yy9Ul2Rcb3F2XhaGNsA7ROn1+vBpToMQ8GFlTVFq5r4A1/k v2/VWCrkSbKS3O3uIq+SgCmknYLqu7qw1tw71SO7g5dfT08l4Lf1YIBixWkUYgBBCnHHQHNE VwBzMsxFUQeVKNETbT4VjKuMbaAzbIVkQbayAQHbEtpusOJ7uIdIfoCiUwIKSjx7bb7MALlH NDAC28cpA5Ev+2K7NV8BdqYlXu5N1C4dDX4a+hQ68dU2g4M+GnA6V/uOBHBC8Zd3yclK0adQ L/5GUe7HK4rqDSCCx4KI0zKXQ7kClzbECu9YDDShvD6oP+rqHVS1Tde7KvLy9fJOnxQu013+ w0HK0O/YJ99E9QSmM/gXjElo146rlK+YquTjMDHfScl0571APdz6261Bqu9FrWagZEoSjxqH aEmoFXoqMt+HSzRXaU8w3Ey1PWqvsULMWxGIElZSKIAjR/inq+ObtRqVDUfpN/mH+XXcVemt bkRk2/21pF1eApwqWyCeVf58OvaqeQUCOUwMgo6XzbxOq8S9hMdKBq82q/r7WCFgGURggKyr vnlY4h7idmjfg5N4MRXOiKJRCoObKmIoZvCyUyl4smQRYxykIRBnK9TbZQE9pX4CMixOVear vKR3YpWI1X+yYn9a5lTgsKxzMRXbIeWg1r/4rQSAS2MRVFD55vSxIP3JVcm1fWRfGoENf4b8 3nYc97wENx9S8Or48yLfOb2E8OgYcidtqDALVB4Nllma13mbGBXUjVSWi3VmK0DrDimPR/bt VbXlaYWZwo/quiXEgREusghRmXvle2Sd7AFGha2ChcCW/FZAPSA2eplnP22V1ORB/Ol2X3Lt zaUBmNkp+Tf3ONd+VItALu69irAeohY0IuuvOa8t7Jb5tFV5ghfGBF8QpUl2Ohhe2bptSzNs kxcz+Degj/MLBjKNJiuw5Qw+VDkClcvveyni06yrIRjwkh/ELT71G49cDqQHXy2csJKbt1w1 Ql1wrXVtpizj8vL6SO1Eo8Zukif7/VTajaFqBfqJWa6TjOhxGcgrGg6rsZRawg1Gb9C7+Qky UK+LVImHG1LwCOCtHRZiJ17imMTDqHabG4pF/UKr3/lVVnVUU3NookMSKhET+pMlMddPKY39 fAiFcHdXtx7LYkvQ6kn0eryRPhX6SkEUO9VJBlVewgBJrtwydXGJwskBg/X41egqlkEhoODu QkHhXRvU3rf1dqNwNX0MT6+8lYd8rGpJ7jasrv4lyxCAIgXGqRSropWDKLiN3qOWTqeoDwvl xSmRMvPOu8COuwF8g/J99PCeBLNRaE0OYiQngO9s4WdX3nOfgLzrVrJIMvYZp03BIVzbfVZ6 eYo+u/moDr0FezXC8jPzziIlKlkgFk+fg05VPstAltPa4hybdvaqEFaWfoMCCcSAAYAAj4CM SwZGRXwCPfnHBYZD7QbjCMw3ABFg2DOfpG08vATgYr7qISMphuQgGZEvD80LFVcTJ2JPcv6k sbHTlMMYtV+dUHqMrQyrLH/lFKpDbQxfltaoqZYWmCwY+umEl+8qCW5gKWVJOqJ6p1U71fvJ EXp1Ste2pWP8sq7g5caqCsf7bkQrtYa6sfIjWr+MEfw++SaqzWq5rrhVbl1rQl61C7/pjMay UWrKdNxDfa7Bfv6XAV0fHO5OrqpXDh+E017rBgYYjgS9B4TDp6V3WvidCJ1YfBOUhHVl6v+q WzL/rshHUKrVX+49trro2Iu75t9BvUHFe07XZqZKirrDOg25/0277f6NXAHqlkieVP7IQ0xl wSv/2vqAvMrhYfEfnp+OD/SII3fyloDVjwnTjEYvqj17fmHlIyLJNf8N+PcgQ+8ugVgrSR5Y EDFVAQxwlOifngcBE31+FQ97en95WkzmsMO1YDDql0vPd4QBPrXVz8uiqqZ8Vd/XsNPNAqRo Y41g4XOcHHlSKoNAfU1RU4gqbxMhy0ujowZV8oSKxY3IFgqjB43Ck9vss7IxQkRS09fGtbyg XJdkK0VVU8tyy5C2oDePNVIrGQ9vK1mtJAtAv3Mpz1vzGsfB+oNU49NwDK8OGMWf0mpnNCGX AzrQvHq/fSsdZZCCTuBf9f6OQVwpejKlT11elvFdK2SrEu44mryjO2OvAB+XifV9oR2ScT0H HjRXKVJIF18gH/QVaEqg5kCe5dIN9BIrma+hkrM1XGDD839vNuQk/htAjmQeV8torFRdVYt3 hxXW0N1IHUhN0XEKIt2u9sZp9hD/9ytjGPV2/ttww6ir4LzZL/uNJn9pIgMbAuF/eIIR7MGf I/0D/XQ+CVqXshwdoEwDxToONy8yQ0MVw41mp2sWiQVCOQgmDjJSEZZXbOA+Tvspg+6gGkA6 vmZ5N4CiyIqdAq2g/nZNTLbXbCSIrifSfZl8a3UhP9aT/5qLoonIu+jByqjlaDDFrm0uMol/ LjUxgHy6RTE+TOFfkl6LO4JCsBYtx3S6BTElX8H1dyyubfwoXyNFfooaEioZbZdBc42NE5B3 3MFVpt/0Q9xtdGv0or0zZTwQELXLhQC6EoWtTcp1gAtEwVXy+7LhfbxJ3Hq9PTFrmKJ3dd1V sIuuKDC9FyEF5Wlk2+BMoylcSy0FHSvAeA5XuwZEFAI+G/zSSGl0oH8C2orke0hQcyEeAH2j 7+kbPMuVA1ijGOyRyJWA/uc2+FgbbzkJRtQIiHu0AaoSQLgtwLwbrTXOaqwmoEytracz/lpX l5kAEGFYZ5PZFjlrrLfGVNF7U6to15dp4qRHtYZVKICNUCD6CCeJOTWqpxoXH23uJyypF21Y pRU9gW2vIlHZq1PpOiZHIrLCGaeVFE6KIYMh2SL/f4KIMVvCVOjI2aCd9ZjaQVPqu6eWpVkk 7O2Wi+i9V85Dr9DhpN7yUo7nW6o9qSUzRI2X0NIzj7OcVbo2lXLeCMkj5KDceoMDKuyvYV8V LgXqvRfrmoyenCpGBxxEWWK0jGadmPdUPYp/FG2fWiB3PJskiiFCkQdZn37oytWXAUJywtqQ ALTKA1jIHCzCwuqOSVEOL5SW//Iidh1mKupsqS8ciNqA3foVGlAbtJeUexf5b39oqFq33sqS C9wQ/6Vn/AbJAWOn9mZAa8Z0IWfDK5yQKJGEI0qwenBHo8ZoP4A4wrEOR8La5vQiwbzadIMl VbZe6OdygBl3hCQHjwrpNWWqTSAPVLbSQGqWKPU/Yur+PS9pMPxPukkol2r8WWSgu6VQ2bE8 llNbWdhd9magfUlZVtbIVHVn93umOCVhT6PeIgp3kiKfMu9vL10DllLhX/4VLkOUgHsLh839 0hXufLN3baGPDRPndDX17CDDGT0FqTtHHrBXRxOOajjk/qPgqcBTnK4FKO/wtPMxCMUCucCL Ctz89p2IsyfHgMnCMWODb6G0px5MoUt52UrpwhIH5IcW75t/iOnUTGJSZfqlGHfbCjwTgQdl gh5RZzcT5rkDKkkPs3Jj6paAH0PbUNsMqIR0tOvvZ1A3cchdef6ks9ZVz479lNGopaG8qlv/ ATy1YIGNLJEiaGOpRVxj19TVechBD9VliaCK6XZtf9y675p3K8RqfUQT0uEHPpwOq2jzaCjS H67cCu2BEZwtRIJ4BLxwxcIcqp8k5AA/cMSyZ1TzWChFOgj5VbDSo4O+fVdVzaJhYZq67LWl GrmFy11WwhVWtMf0IT7kgI78q/RFO75lIkl0vbk0h0kMNeAj7zicbncVFTZUkLV5XL13ZK4t RYeq9QIUkhtRICi/+hAoRTnBPxW6CsqqsBJlGkjj1+rcq5irGfQfEUA7qJh/87CV80K0E1WE fIOS4kkfg9ah8iQY/ZXdFlyNXNpxqQBEBinMZf8Z58i+1HJYUZ0Cgqso6qpYQZLhnVI6KKND WkI1RWu0qq94/hEOd/Jw8PDXin3wX+iinm69glpoWlY/vxTUUArWZyOgaSNPb07uSyw7X7ly VQnXjPfFloy+Dj64djfyA7wiJyru1fQ0JQ7caSuXzV9HyU9D9BTM31vrjJufV1Nv5D37gfWB 06JlZ4wn1PzW+xakCFnnUlNqPxBAjtcHsu+ux6pdNz7VpKbvyimDAaHZv1XfuKDVzh3UanP+ cRXbnGyKgxnxinKJggsFaAciCkYg66WL634dJPkAZCAvZV+w712pnxOFJ12jLvd9FAUN21LN +EALuKQLQsJ/bReFTAm9PMRU/dwLNTpBO/p7xFKv8sS+vPqrRR/3AycpCY8XZgEo6GYsgknL oEPy9ouPfep1MwyMiANoPLonBQjYVnNd3GJlA6PuLmgPN/k3U1ra39GIKOwcKqMTu34PgMLI NBq66FaGikuASTL0sR89SPnRKlj3SQwxXB4gCu/rLW7y0idivmkAFtPf7pmQ4JO/hsMaW1xk vnlf2gquRKUEv705HgdkehC18avyW9V/uOVv1dRdzaEUHyD3ScsViFDMj049rnFtKPsNf3vV X23NtpDuMSRJIXALG0C0Zg7r96cqpqwXmAKnaIlfdc6112iXRaqlTIcHt9D9BFTO2TaCxlJ6 Roq+YfNVgRhWCunu8/AjyoGQzlSlui6e+lS1kMXTJvPoNpdPIm/eRaaAX9V7nWBAA6kS4krv uffr/HEKYYL7ImwPINuXS4j+6nHqERaLA19Kk1sk5bjaplpWjE6tdqArjS/uEh/HLITzb0Mo Tx2QFeK31bBEUhIQKJDvrbSobdFKmpWvj49tC+pFRBtlHr78tEmpvuEWJPIMsruhZ/19lCfI FxMKAq7W/psC1EjmfQexlu2N+FMjJUD9Fxp/Pl0dC/G0zYhEjPmHS8rK/gn8BFn4VDwqJJdg EouJjvXeDR7CJVkUFgvpe4VXQAB4ISMBmkLvEhSNB5YU/BYGlHmymkhI/zwGn+V/6b5hVgoi YZ2gjWWfU9xnukrWxw+7ZVqjR1kP+mts5GD73zydDrurPLFdd7AY3waCXwajeSa+o8PFT6jn 9RVt3YSF6p+G40lFB56NtEnQcPBFQi+COGF1KsyjeTrw3UMJ8IEzqPgp6FVQ9kEVtEAZjzZM 4mIpbiu4bGLPgmtolWim8WMukWBHuUBdmL2P67CqgSr01JFpyNVXU/MhRhWocWSIc05fWE2a DCsElnEZQmcNV+2lm7YhHYaAv4qojGWptq2g+6hI2n2gftWXrkA2Wj+DD7xnwYoGxqDyqBLa Liulw2TrJAYiqg5KfgMri++gtxMRRLXztjqJ/60UQPNQ8hFK44oE7+IG9F63+MWEvPxginmU EvXBZVi9bgVhzub/AAmmtH/dGatWhwryhQq919TeLD4FLgiOr86/CQBC8XYLxY24+M3XWNco gkMgJfwl+ATbZsJBqVOmEXhd7SrdKAYa4nkF93vwCGLjq3n+qgoC4gUEzwa8lEM172Fm+/gp 1HX83AbzfmiaeFUzOnf6XEoMEu7dJlzxilZQhRGoswYiEwqKtP6aqHFPt5eW+FNLksCnS65I f70rz6yaIKM4JbXhMSM6aTNOuGlFo48EQLi26/uRWy2d+C3TjeBCPms29UToVDQGYmouKqKb LGCt5KJCLOnokGxFIzYkRhEWKCZecNuorMBoWaODWVCIa/2//FGAOEPVz4gZvnKucSAXT9ff l5BpXYVIYfz08/vKejX/KEGec8KKlweaGexudPPffvJLonWXzSo4HtCMsRx8cK7UsxNvSxpl ZvQ7c0lBbV/c/rk0FzUIq/7R6/LWvRjX+Y2b1d4oFWR23c+eyC48moPIAjjwgohpImMMeIB1 mnFoTS4gzqyhh8goKyCf8jcLU+TyxpjlcuFpnaaptZqxaI3Xdz48Bob8FIWLFb1u3c+paqBm 68gbbJqCiJBqIPuI9QnPpsvHhogXPCOCsqgLyBk7If6iZApbZKHn5q0cyZrFadGm3RmaDjXd z4rs+oWLFb3w3c+p9KDIrtX0YBBOKHZBKQGDbhYWjvx0Uz9jc6stK3tM6J6+C11CewrIF19D KhoPJOkjrev7S9vQgIPhaTGuq6SkQhjnoBXIpcr0OAo7ppf7gYFFjt5obF9mk91ZV6FRlX2O dZBFTkaLdc12d2Iqt/sYZ60m0cVayqa+xjlWBH3kegiPUbbxS/qWilpG+yhYq0eKCTX0lK1X Vthkoxp4sUcgv6YWCEpaIkt/X3D1JUC2uZcpOVmHaKoUryt/iiKAiyXHDI7LDgWy+/GAszy5 7IWBcJLStVKZ+7aKkjboGE6mfY9mwkmmCr/FHhd19EzxdUmonzwDRLjFd4SDgwXbzbNdSQc7 IqLPcCyTkoc8PBD/+qTTKFgNPLJewqITJ271KtUEkep9qceiiLzw+RCr/3Kq4aCt9XCoO27c 63kdJx5pvI6R6FG7nFnnkE56C28mXhrFC8X6IacFSAxMJCMYOTY0ANNOwMx4ajWMNJbTmE1a QDQw0yBNMgI0HsnoiSbE9JqUaZymqKSasGlEpigcmerSIgDaSQymOiKa2GnwpsbcmqZpqKac jJl86ySO05hNolo0qNPcTcLoMhA6SRqSFD9MDowmkTIgJMrT3E2OhDT60+pNytIyKk9JUOBq OH5hANgZymWOTHUkgxTDk+5N6fk0/tPnTd3iNNbTyU3PwjTD06FNyc07H1lG4hi2tEjz8/MA 6+vr6+Pj4+MA6+vr6/Pz8/MAy8vLy8PDw/kA9fXx8fX1+fkA5eXh4eXl+fkA9fXx8fX1+fkA BU5MTkhOTE4FQE5MX1yNsJEhgV0ojuHAEBQOKzcAMDl7PysqOCRtdaAGHR8cHc0iSkyLgxEI Dng4UDN2Gn59bk6JwHAXEC0myEs2Oh3wFXmOgWZ+MGZgZGkha2VhfZqFbGZjcQvQ5MGB7Kqb dcRVnxCCx5WVhYCDXIa8sBS0rbDAo6wZKaWnc5CIfrgVxkuaiLMC8fUNi0gKEt5bQLSbUKoS g8xMCMUEutDiLWrx8RtFJSQ4uK0ShxutxuC7fMIWH+XHvklbcBUimXxh9+U8mmWixToMSxmh HwUviIhkO1xag9Dh2KuwOai3VKjNopfYQMXb3B5teuP1KCLhpdXjHWE1BLUUVRrgSwMBChcd DwABZw89LPR48WdvZ4+aD2DUUljHVEZ1RegSPwVxfWl4Ebt7fG+AaL2fWC8dHp2VEoDFVJjQ aN0MuYXydJdrwD0ytbVRhqa9VFaKC+Ps5pf3BAvx1dnIWVDO+riNtYZe43aA0VXOqEattvy8 wEuPsoUa4BoWoxcVGIYMFEd4AYmRnUslzaxDOCUECBQTPy6rGtaFITMFWEknIb6ZCSjiKhIl UyZPtoBYT0hbXl11A1lNdTNHQqZQHR8CT7p5schHdJN3DsvJD0MwD+ECbAwSEml48yIOS5YB IZn4+uxn7yl3fwMZb0lyR7mkc0y7BbpJBbmPn562Emyh7wF3gRKGpq27uGnFk71cS5vfhruT g5WZ+Aj20NuqnKqi7YtntJup93vPyv/zuLsklPfjfvuSFfmVGiIyJBkJRh8/ERo77z7xQQDc ihuJFx+WZtI0ywpdzXzVJTcMc1IFzRMvC3RcQEMLZ3OJhvdvOgNwuV1q9IRANGpiAV9TtX4W U9VYb0mJhUGQtoGB1FueQlL5p4ziNiDb9/HkvFuKbd4DS775HpPTisyb+hipN3G/zmwzqrBK rzPfOMf86pJ9sbopOBgRprpVqjT7txu8pTNBPu/b6jr+YywdOQq4E1KLmGVLX45FTnRCfDJs oE+RXnRt4AxPZnvSK7+fFbTVo1Koh5Sx0SWmUBb0o98WzzuwKjAHhrqAPi5VpkftxUe/gnVL X3Cq4ejvs8StFO7voKcyaz8CMiXjFQPY4ltP67fTKgLrcc2dEvnt82Nl9+qMFu6IJV8UdVki mocPT3dwMBZ2s6K6fYvq17tqo/svd79gmVDve/GNmj2R0Zk68pOsoundlheN3iz5WcNvMlRx 9rjtY3fk/QpVz5nRIA/ULPEqKupoLmxPzHvSjCYx0S7PKidVYNihe0ILelNKlElUS1Rv3B38 CFCndmDWGFWi5w1ZplbDcEN6Y1Sn4uiO6Jsg6sX25FueWTPoHVEG0NvQWZ+hhc7q6f5RIj/I 4F/pwrVAODB5P43OtfvrDTzbg8y9G0hpcSJtXhsAQP8mY/VVg2j+HQopTB5b2ZUZEuQrVplV X94qQPSeBRVMB1F+4gLseBRQAF1COltdN19bEVJWUTJVS9zkSylEXlRQAFciAjLAoZp2AORw 4XSbIat4HHpO8AJmB6XpiGL3PYFu2MdjJtmRALbVgyp8KOUDg4NeZaDRXgAC4AU6YqegWSjL eRTI2QIj5ubfNbyQyuzZtBCDdMaQUK9xpIO6hUej0Le6m6uBVmJhiPGXpl2wq4Drv1W4lZlG AEWazf5ZDMhIBk9kTSJ+En+QeCpDDC1hbv4DdiuLLICAM9qjoCwj8CH/pRvKpaYvaMBMTeSP iUgfkNTPVc6vgPQISjWDR34X+nA7MoFMx9r+M6qNJ9ejMODh+GCuEPTkIbUWsmjUclRS2PpY dYaAM82i++oxMpDhjewNy8lHb0n7kqK1OEwbd1UztrATtCTCQGsirCpuowFNYKdm8vH3zagJ QOPpati3ALrsjwTaqahNAIhgo0UFbYEKGMCAC+q/WnD0lHLGlFnS6WVRr6ONQKeUy5mUs3wu QgFZoZCwLajARQrQlkggWU2YwQhLCYlAxn5DNlN7FSW9JeosMErHQDDyOjLbxjvpK6L7DEKr 0J3J6ucaT/36SrPbFW4XoswtUbPU80pzC4SVcWO7MR3ykSasugWKag3pGExJYNEIzlYLC1AZ MEIGX4HZg117d1UcMIecnr5tYZClnLQAaMsr0cb3FvL8/oJ6DfGCHyTougVBf6j4qlslCH9C IHudmf8NqfSN5AAgYb2SOxt9ZFYYcppSYCis9QQX37pZjNAqRSiZrg9VAKVLf5k4qMJDAHx5 rDdMfalLFzQBM4y1e5U3zSEaZgsx2dZaL4j1rWKQH6JTBsYjkWr+vBqSE0gUhdVWUPConbNf QcDtnnBlzADAFAivh5bVfhRoyhp8w5MQTQQ4NCzT4Gf0iMyawGm0pqicmnBkhA+YmHKsaaCm 1Mia/GjQMihgCxwlNAIALj5nKz0bFj0IMDYkLZhzSKhCOUzbmERyWGlMpnB0mmxpWKYkIJo8 aSimFBCaDGn4kgSATQAcNAjTNE0wLDQY02BNWFA0tNO4TaykNODT6E388DSY04RNgIA0hNOU TJBk+ZJsaVimQDCa6Gn4pgQYmjBpKKZQRJpMaViSoCZNtJg0jNP0TeCsNETTWE1oaDQYGQA2 EFiF7Gc/YcncssjETaxcNGjTdE2csDSg0NBk/NPITNQ8vJMQDk0AcDRY0zhN2IA0pMlQ2SZQ UJpQaXCmcHCacGlQplBQmlBpsKawsJqwadCm0NCa0GnwpvDwmvBp0IgyfUamPTiaS2lOpkFE ml9pWqZVUJpzaXameXyaZ2lipm1omptpnqaRlJqPYLGIk5fEBIWLjYX/QK78uq6tuQa0vrCw /bqA0U2sv0W7iq+iWdJ2jKLDfOHBydG3AoPOzs/0gqiRcwEj1+ayfYi5AoQODNFy1RcLDyg6 LAgofpgb2wAjKSYxDy4nLzR80Um3AHNcT0tbTlKi0VNLR8P6YGcCZHpwZnFlD1nNMNvukGeB koBipYaYLj325UoNng+tEWegi1RQ2kSx9Ybw2sZWwMhpillJ8vVOCOWNMjwZtVUqDjaJacAT Eg0JPK3ENTRpNAA5I2EaPCU8L74sM+DNgxsdGB3fFulAzy30YWIccWhrwOXtlaaxjJWQYZ4e hZerTZo6oA05uf4zTzxasQ2X8moqvaPD9MTStM79MTTHP0yzzv0xKDHP0/PFv0/PFrgBKTGN UWITs/db7VdmBviPudb0BM/UqGCZeaGvUJc8ub3xwbilrxewsLShxb9kM8upPo8bDG6kxzbE odqWWe9jKB7znyEWVtnfviWmN3pi1pCjNYcdn0jmoXdzZDdvmZ5suLDNM8WCk7Sns/Oa58wX vbGtruG3FvmbouXXwWUryvdcvZrQ9jzRR9zdaUqb+ppKxMQfoNL3+AVzz+M6K+ARUfn9hPCu QuE4CQ427UUUdPhQ0wRVYm3VyLefXKtpPxXt6jroZ+SzcW/vAUIlMGVpUWx+fkZBc1taU2om FXfyRmkMIC0cGhgaAhwSEBIcGpdCDnt2adzo9HF8sfM+fDxBanViCt8TX8cBi4yVCZMUhyK+ ugnadjh4jriVKuOAytfThXjr0xwd2QFj9nLIY8iJngbn+hz6pMj/8uLJ5kEGOiAgJ1QyNPAw QzFDmlqw1EtAV0xQVm9wbWXjaW5jMWFriZbnpHJ30nsZDBAOrR+1Be00BxvGqPDPt+USiRQu K316Djom01oiqTo9vjI3j1Y0+slCzm/C299NLOzx5O42Q/9rO7PLDySalpup8mSTrJPZq865 48q+PFrhPQt93WzlS0FFXVrHjVLuElLeasy48cd9PjwMuO7fC9v02gtnHIpwaSsrvjw7rRk+ nSAxdnTKp+OWlrga7DWHft65AK+66c2UysXBYZYsk1Ch063tEM1LG8PotqmNl4c6/JeB+tzE sf91nJX/zsMl6dLbyO7WzsOR8BnR+uPve849ho3W6uw16iTbaHTC8Ufr/LbEVSvbyCwCE99a HPUfFmFhejkYMi8x/hpwxvh1eoznlguW46xq4sfPflOlbCQbYVpG6UJWWAgAaUUXSUZM6yFC HgNA/5aUKCkRx1Z4Uq/aS2W7Rn89SpVcRMCgVfHc9XiY0szttoRb5QYVoqp6rfyk/esVW64N HdMNZjbatqNW6Hve0s0dypWGs3mG8aL2zDbQVP9y75TVU130whDz0lQIzkoBVPhC11EEAiUu KyBEBbpmPCpz8YEMfh8CHX+ynWEbMOy2Yj201Q8DqFABN92Dmhs3nVYZpxYcViaJbn7yrWRn nZHIrZ8VgVkvr2AizbCg4eW6BSu5gFHQxJDqBOGA+Q+f/Zznn7uEexA+wVyO2Cr8Hbfsdqn0 zMevKWXedwaxzIK4ePX0yfyx6qt04VQVGrDrogcHAD+C+p/kCWvjHgocgMAKFAYBdAdSHctz LWhyQAUGDwlkIgUQDdEMBHByOHp6zHVnxyZ0Hgk2DAv6oIQ6NUffuRVrkJxDZVOvddgAokS+ iYj1r3eohZxCJZmwEDC/tYqN5Sqp4ttFfYvJEYyCf6oimtYSnxr0hBXz69Wu/iOYg/r17e3k vLrVuvNQ19vTlVrnxI0f7f6kBuMgheCw5vQ68BtiziuLVDYiJK5V7ecuv95FFhIRfFgADxQc DQ8WBHMQZ/JgrLamxvqbq3wHMB1XfqCEUmRAU0NdREhXAHFMPkFEMEExOTIsNM3I6m0Ay7q+ 2s+2zMQG38HArq8a3usxAN+iopi4qoyx49W9o7y8rrZG9PWcppWuqVHoifzvd5357UGO9T8e qKrd1Mr1ZejKCyG11hDTeMJ/ya4FGVEXaCQaA2QJr3Cn0zZaAAD9ZRJRUk+Q7jUKwwsWwTxD GJAGVZFKQxB5ZgVqBHlBgii1gu1PizACRRB2Xamxqn3AP/5hQcwScRIxNfE7xGU1yCAyigsm nQSDIIqydwsgfLJxCyBGslsLML/kv9O+TTxTgWZutKBxmg2EUmbJjois48bT+XgcjqZ1tJ0/ sdjqX2MUyXWmLE6acGlHkqwtTVSMO2Nj3MkmplwvmhxpMKYsXJnUfiRl0/xNbsQ08MlwfSz7 fz49BPhyFfXx9qQMSPiIZRqfZ8XE3TF6BMh1doIETVQqNQGEvUIJFEfBeRRsFn547B1OZY/x xFE54uglgybqlwj1svdOgrfzuO0VD956k8kDfS4OFv14//p9CPtKxSwqAtjS1+j+RTV9MoAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0011_00007834.000014BD-- From lskelso@ihug.com.au Tue Oct 5 23:14:24 2004 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:14:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Intervention during the act of committing an irregularity? Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20041006075419.03b9f560@pop.ihug.com.au> Hi Could I have an opinion on the following two scenarios: a) In a slam investigation auction (using written bidding) a player bids 5NT (king ask) and as his partner begins to write down "5" he calls out "stop", thus preventing partner from making an insufficient bid. b) The dealer (using bidding boxes) sees his partner begin to remove a bid (not a green "pass" card) from the box, where upon he reaches across and prevents his partner from getting the biding cards any more than half-way out of the box. (Please assume that the intervention occurred before the point where regulation defines the partner's action as a call). How would you proceed as Director and what Laws would you base your ruling/decision upon? In other words are the above actions permitted or not permitted (legal or illegal)? Thanks Laurie Kelso (In Australia) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 6 00:15:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:15:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Intervention during the act of committing an irregularity? In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20041006075419.03b9f560@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: I would argue that actions undertaken to stop partner committing an irregularity are usually illegal under the general Law 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be **particularly careful** in positions in which variations may work to **the benefit** of their side....." In my opinion, Law 42B2 (which gives dummy a qualified right to prevent an irregularity by declarer) is merely a specific exception to the general Law 73D1. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Oct 6 01:29:08 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:29:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, 12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: "I ruff and have the rest." Option 1: Declarer knew the last two tricks are him. The intention and the statement are clear: the claim cannot be contested and both tricks go to declarer. Option two: A claim statement does not applies to the current trick (Law 68) but to subsequent ones. As declarer put C2 "before" saying I ruff, the card played to the current trick is C2 (Law 45C2). This trick belongs to defenders. Any difference if declarer says "I ruff..." before playing C2. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 6 01:40:22 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 01:40:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <47073DB4-1542-11D9-ACDF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000901c4a80c$7ec83360$6900a8c0@WINXP> <47073DB4-1542-11D9-ACDF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <47073DB4-1542-11D9-ACDF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Friday, Oct 1, 2004, at 19:15 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > >> This solution creates the absolute minimum of disturbance to the >> tournament >> and can easily be handled by any scoring computer software. The only >> real >> disadvantage I can imagine is if any of the four involved pairs is >> exceptionally strong or weak so that the disturbed balance could have a >> significant impact on the final results. > >I'm no expert on barometer movements, but it seems to me that one >effect of this is that each of these four pairs will play one opposing >pair - whom they were originally scheduled to play once - twice, and >the other opposing pair not at all. I don't suppose this is a big deal, >though, is it? :-) ok, now let's dive once more into the shark infested pond. In my more cynical moments I try to find in an infraction the action of a cheat. I ask myself "What would a cheat do here?". I've discussed this with Max and he thinks it's a sensible approach. let me give an example of a cheat. The example is where the cheat pulls 2 cards, one an honour and one not. She will always tell me she pulled the honour such that the other becomes a minor penalty card. So I spot a pair that I know are weak, *and* they're arguing. Because I'm a cheat I sit down against them, contrary to schedule, play a board (a whole round if Sven is CTD) and rack up a 70% score (much as expected). I don't care whether it's a Howell, a Mitchell or barometer. I'm just trying to improve my score. Do I understand that the law provides different scenarios in these cases? [rhetorical question] Oh yummy. I, as a cheat, will attempt further to profit. John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ohmss@videotron.ca Wed Oct 6 02:01:48 2004 From: ohmss@videotron.ca (Christian Chantigny) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:01:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4ab40$0ee79090$e9fa8242@Christian> The Law says he has to make a statement. He did. His statement is clear. He ruffs and the rest is his. Whatever card he played from his hand is irrelevant. We have to stick to the statement made, which cannot be contested. Two tricks to declarer. Christian I've stopped 2=A0652 spam messages. You can too! One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ -----Message d'origine----- De=A0: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] De la part de Laval Dubreuil Envoy=E9=A0: 5 octobre 2004 19:29 =C0=A0: BLML Objet=A0: [blml] Ruff and claim Hi BLMLrs, 12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: "I ruff and have the rest." Option 1: Declarer knew the last two tricks are him. The intention and the statement are clear: the claim cannot be contested and both tricks go to declarer. Option two: A claim statement does not applies to the current trick (Law 68) but to subsequent ones. As declarer put C2 "before" saying I ruff, the card played to the current trick is C2 (Law 45C2). This trick belongs to defenders. Any difference if declarer says "I ruff..." before playing C2. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Wed Oct 6 02:10:22 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:10:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:29:08 EDT." Message-ID: <200410060110.SAA09944@mailhub.irvine.com> Laval wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > 12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the > last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before > playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: > "I ruff and have the rest." > > Option 1: Declarer knew the last two tricks are him. > The intention and the statement are clear: the claim > cannot be contested and both tricks go to declarer. > > Option two: A claim statement does not applies to the > current trick (Law 68) I think we've debunked this misinterpretation. A statement that applies *only* to the current trick, and not to any subsequent trick, is not a claim by Law 68; but a statement that does refer to subsequent tricks is a claim, and it may include the current trick. So that should solve your problem: Option Two isn't an option. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 6 02:14:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:14:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Caerdydd hypothetical In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Cardiff Ruling 9 thread, John (MadDog) Probst's hypothetical: [snip] >So I spot a pair that I know are weak, *and* they're arguing. Because >I'm a cheat I sit down against them, contrary to schedule, play a board >(a whole round if Sven is CTD) and rack up a 70% score (much as >expected). I don't care whether it's a Howell, a Mitchell or barometer. >I'm just trying to improve my score. Do I understand that the law >provides different scenarios in these cases? [rhetorical question] > >Oh yummy. I, as a cheat, will attempt further to profit. John RJH notes: My understanding of Herman's voluble (and voluminous) postings on the Caerdydd incidents, is that a Director may have erred when creating the guide cards for the players. If, however, one hypothetically assumes that the Caerdydd (and Lille) incidents were *not* caused by a Director's error, then there are some clear infractions of Law by a MadDog hypothetical pair. Law 81B1 Law 81C3 Law 81C4 Law 90B8 And these infractions of Law can be rectified by the TD under the "could have known" provision of Law 72B1. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 6 08:39:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:39:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c4ab77$8f2e7160$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............ > In my more cynical moments I try to find in an infraction the action = of > a cheat. I ask myself "What would a cheat do here?". I've discussed = this > with Max and he thinks it's a sensible approach. >=20 > let me give an example of a cheat. The example is where the cheat = pulls > 2 cards, one an honour and one not. She will always tell me she pulled > the honour such that the other becomes a minor penalty card. I fail to see what the cheat expects to achieve by intentionally pulling = two cards. And I fail to see why it is cheating to designate the honour as the = played card under Law 58B2 when two cards were accidentally played = simultaneously. > So I spot a pair that I know are weak, *and* they're arguing. Because > I'm a cheat I sit down against them, contrary to schedule, play a = board > (a whole round if Sven is CTD) and rack up a 70% score (much as > expected). I don't care whether it's a Howell, a Mitchell or = barometer. > I'm just trying to improve my score. Do I understand that the law > provides different scenarios in these cases? [rhetorical question] And how many times do you think you can pull stunts like that before becoming noted? Sven From wvtjchk@yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 10:02:28 2004 From: wvtjchk@yahoo.com (Clarissa Livingston) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:02:28 +0400 Subject: [blml] re[2] Message-ID: <20041006082754.CFAAC5CA@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010002090305030209030007 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wimbledon I'd ruther not... in 1897 in 1919

How many days? Go

--------------010002090305030209030007 Content-Type: image/gif; name="leander.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="leander.GIF" R0lGODlhegJvAfFbAAcFAAAAgP8AAP//ACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAAB0AmwBAAL/hI+py+0Po5y02ouz3rz7D4biSJbmiabqyrbuC8fyTNf2jef6zvf+DwwKh8Si8YhMKpfMpvMJjUqn1Kr1is1qt9yu9wsOi8fksvmM TqvX7Lb7DY/L5/S6/Y7P6/f8vv8PGCg4SFhoeIiYqLjI2Oj4CBkpOUlZaXmJmam5ydnp+QkaKjpKWmp6 ipqqusra6voKGys7S1tre4ubq7vL2+v7CxwsPExcbHyMnKy8zNzs/AwdLT1NXW19jZ2tvc3d7V05EC4+ Tq5APrBwXu6gLp7e7n6wjjBPr85wLxHeAL9v34/u37gEAAe+g0cQoMCA5uoZKMhQ3rmE8b5hgejvIcKF //nwKeTY0SEAhx8lbnyQsWE/kBM1nsQYkaVBlytpxhx5EmdJne1MprRYBabPnkOJHqxpc6PIehCLdvTI rqDTlk157pQ5E6NNii+lJs0nEuiVsEyzmq2oMmNZtOuWnq1I9e3NhFHhyq2rdubCCPP66m2r12rSrXgZ AkYr9mJgqxHj2kW8d6jkyW4f/2S7mO/cyYIJe4TML3Naw3cp/z0dL2zkzz8TW6nc+nBe0J472+4MO6Bq rrRDF+a8m/Fm3potk8acGnXKy6Kdsh7uOkru0V9bHm0s1+j024Wb20O502t16MGn+i25tjXvp8KZq48+ ZXtk8ddX099+Pr11qN1JXv9FShwE94WnHHTtLQZgb/BBIZ9pRoWG3GwPcodbdrFNSFd/1tFnXn0C5jSe e8t5dyBtXRm4YBMNElYedcAZpJ+L+TW3X4a/OfgehKC1SGGAMXKGU4AU1JiiYpDt51iOz9kH44wucifb cTkqWVuUN/bIY3lRSoldhLqR6GSPRTpBVoFAFidhl2mudpt+XzbZG5VtwqlkknNlCWZpUNLpj5ZWijkm E6oNqOB1D87IJYhahUgeiotWVeJmeBaKaG2RJvoUeiQGisRuAAL6HHs/MnongSB+96GmqmJo6ZJXVnhk TpBGeianKuaZGY9YeTgYS+B5SqSNGhY4IXtCvsorY2L/isqhcMfaCm200k5LbbXWXottttpuy2233n4L brjijktuueaei2666q7LbrvuvgtvvPLOS2+99t6Lb7767stvv/7+C3DAAg9McMEGH4xwwgovzHDDDj8M ccQST0xxxRZfjHHGGm/McccefwxyyCKPTHLJAAiAcsoqr8xyyy6/DHPMMs9Mc80234xzzjrvzHPPPv8M dNBCD0100UYfjXTSSi/NdNNOPw111FJPTXXVVl+NddZab811115/DXbYYo9Ndtlmnz2zOGj/rPbabr8N d9xy83xOygCtTA7KA7Cct8rw4F1323aP07LgfPctwN14x9z33on//bLjjIdDc+OP/yNu9+GYX0643mpL Pnfooo/+tuGZew765X5TPrjkpgv+Ouuo81343ran3nrhudfusuG+y2766jBTfvvwsqs+O++aR3488LiT Dn300mf9+uqgB+986r9f33z3xyde++bWL7474M9jz3364RsvfvmDuw9/8uvLD/709t+Pv9PVu//96Y8r T7//8a9zehuezPYXQNThLnj1ox8DCRi5Az6vgQ9E3wSRh8EG5m+DHOxgz2BnvviFcHkBhF3zOOc/wAmQ ea4bod8yCMPeeY92DHxf/0TowsxZkIWtu6AHfwjEILpQe9mb3PmKOD4HKrCAvLthEjUYw9sR0Yfle2AM hefEK//msIA7lGH6sijEMIoRf58joRZFaMIp8q+HUNRZGbfouhlKsH0UBGPa7AjDOKrRi5rD4xj/CEi4 vfGJNUQjEqt4wh5SsXLEMyMTM7i9zn3OiXr8IB4RGLsLgpCNgeykJ+M2SEQu8oZyFOULrbfIO9rOkZwj YBeTV8G67ayQ8GvHEx+5SRx+cpe89Fosb+m/TN5ye6cE5ixJmcgB7lF+CEzgzayoxGF+r5KeM2Yvr4nN q/0SmMsUZgmTKTy2IfN65lOfModZTktqD52oHKApq5nNeMqzaguUpQJruDnIKVIdtANaPfVpz3t+MY2I C2jO+CnQgsJEioRzHATnCdGISnT/ohStqEUvitGManSjHO2oRz8K0pCKdKQkLalJT4pSiJpspSxtqUtf CtOYDqNQUqCpTM9gJ1Wtp0ZtScdo5KSTCZQKIZBC0EGe5RIduaNZCvkUQX4K1ZteADFdQlVSn2oSivzj HUf90EiC5FWsBvUhWb2qWK261bNK5KtTukxazVHWr5o1TkO9yaakWhd5aJUeAjkrchqikq7+alNHiutx 3krWwKZFrV+BkF/fc9jEjtWsiNUrWyaLVwukRrF1bQxiIbvYvepDqHQdamXr+iS54iNVj3WUev4aWr5e 1qaZZU1X78QTvRoWqGy9EIo0AlZ2YFa0p1WLTwubFajUya1x/3WsYilL1sJOFh20ra1gOeLT3Kp2uryl rm/14V0BDbey0IXLcWNDE8nSZbkxqeqvBLuj8b4psdW1LnHLitv0une82R1ufUcL3eYKOKj59a9PtjtV 5gb4uSBZbXmvOl/7ajZWuunvnCKLEgH/ly8DXjCFESxZqrIpwe0lL4OzaiINH3jBEhauf9GrXu3OFaiH UnAGWLWj73b2sn3VgIhVfF8IvzZTK+Zvix38Yrvq9rMjKnB7m8zYCjzZtCf2MHHtylvnLtnAQeZuiT/7 1g3XdsrF3fJaNWzjKWM4uBhQc5X5G98eg5jNbTYuk98M2xgn98wsPjKOtLKUxjonvaTS1f9RijJoZzHW QkblgJsenWjtIOVNd/WzpS+N6UxretOc7rQ2UgrqUIt61KQutalPjepUq3rVrEYpLTv46lbLuqP2fGgb EYrKfrTSoLvmoxd5Tb5cY67WmZymsbeZtj72b6H7VFwebT3raD8NmipkZQ6baWto/694vj7jOM/ZT2aW MoU2XKHxwvdPc0LykObGnrTfTbVmGtKHxCwm+HynRVw7EtnSVPcjn63HdSr7kqSE5LrVncZgo9De8G44 0+S9xC1ee5ovxPerR2lsdO973BpEpiIZrnAjLtDg9RY3NY+Ib4er/OHA090r51fCU4KwkMSj97EX93Jv dvzb986lCi//GUVmHhzcyDvfwtu48qQPzec6XDYYS/5vh7JO6prkdrdj/sqsW7NtVHeoDM3du6AX3YH6 xiCwu/5vpatdaKEM5s15WEuZT92Zz3w7Lo+tbdUtM4kBR/oz4z72oZP95LpbYirXjviatf3ue9+4wBlP TbrZvY5qpHkjtz73j38Q8EeHesJhWfh7Jn70Plv8rjnub2xz8oyKn7wtd4fPy4ez2lDMe+sD2vfBE5Ld uEwn6X/vxoL3W+FQ7/juD88+dhI99igforX/rnyzj/vzYr+1H4GP/a37ft3cbLm9OX5Q3k8x8ldk/hoP t/l2Rj317KY+PJF+/ezLP93N1vXpc41//yaW/fYGdWVBVk9uypZ/IMd/9bdJCxVwGNFK4SZ/DeiADwiB ESiBE0iBFWiBF4iBGaiBG8iBHVg0ngaCISiCI0iCJWiCYrYEKGiCJNYniuYqxSVdO7VUNXEqZqYs63Fd u9JY+dFbxmKDTtVlvRJoJzaE2AUqGZNnCvIYQSYpWMZk2JFWJoJaXMFV4QVfUMZXfDYbLDZka/YdVpiD TZiDc0ZnDzYysdJh5dVkX8aEMNhaAxZfs9WFopGECsZjXoZnWLhTeRVjHRYYVPZcv4UxoNVnQ8YmU7hl VNWCgehbSiaH5PFeu8WGd7iEVHhldVIcfVhkQIKIUVgyNCWFgOhddv8mW22FZRXGiCUmXeYlhWUoiae1 ia9YiqdoYkEiJzQiXzLmiJClghEDirwoioS2i024Y7eFXqu4iK1oiv7BhnsSYbOYir5BY1OSi9o1jFp2 hrcIjPB1YJPYhbdlKEpmhptlZOC1Zj/GJEWoiIZmjkiGjgPhjcRoMr8oj4E4Yl5oZOQYhCFmh5VYZ/v1 jj2mhGg2iiGQK0BmKfhIaNnoWt7IVWb2h5kCYzGohES2kL1Yh5O4VxWJJH2SZeIlXxYZixjyjCITZ1yW ZFkIZk8IV9VYjmSWiFt4Y3r4ju4VJ5eokJqFkJRFixDZj4I4iGk2ImFmY3yGYHACWC+WhkdpXkb/iZEy aVhEuZRuxpMfaWGYRZVzthyWyJRAeTEh4VTMOJHGgYA9wSxpsiGCNiQ1SBLCyFNkCZZWySInQpIXSYPs uIJ5qZd7yZd96Zd/CZgt4IGDSZiFaZiHiZiJqZiLyZiN6ZgSaHtgg3Zdk3KsF3zI95iZeUyYqTXk15nJ FGs4E5qaSZrhx5lYw3tfE3+bWZqtWU5oFztRNElU95qGN3UNRUkEVXNSNESzmU5ON0MMdXqRxEbERJuu 2ZpIhJtxdHTttJzvx3W+aXZft0IEJX3VOUl91G5SB0+3eZzXiZ272Z3fiZyaGZ3HeZ7OlJ5F552wpJzz s57sSZvrCZzuOZ+Z/xef9Nme8tl75Vma+ome+zlCAGqfJud3BFqg98d6CDqb5vR5DOqdj+ef/ylJ+xmf fCegosefAIih34mg1gR7FhqhIXpyIuqhlTmhmSmdENp8G6p3Jqp+JJSfMCpxHZqgCzejAaqjMZqihHmh Ccqi8EmjH/p+MiqgREp3QNqeOyp9TEqfN9qjGvijL0qj25ZtQ7qbTPo+zAOdjZSj+vd02bmltzme8wme ykmmAjSaUeqAU0qlgWNCYCd6y3mf/PRQVHSnWSqcEUdHL6qdXBShdZo9CYhCvJmkbIqo9CSZq5mojbpL pkc9jOqokwpIkWk1a0qpmfpHkjptlqqpnwqqmf8ZmKNKqqVqqqeKqqmqqkkwaQmyVOYhIltCLGpWYaZC XUu5qn3gj1hJGloYlZwFleuIk82VF1ool7k6BxmJVZT4q6KVHPvFq044jlvZZ8i6B8ralSpZi7KYZ7zq jotIrLhqrXmwq/q4kJ8RiWPVrbuKrl0JiOP6B8WyItsqZBgmrNXaKyNGhvCqB+UKrkhVjmrpgkTZkJrY JvwaCNjajAhCJaEIZ1DpXAvblAjrB9gqW0zYsNsYkjlJXrdKrxRLrjR5jNCKrw6rhiTLj7sYhccKsmrg r0/GXWMYhOvqHm/4hcWKry37Bq26EpT2UzumJnA5q7C6Dz4rrjqLtEmrtEv/y7RN67T3EqpRK7VTS7VV a7VXi7VZq7WBVGzjV3W4Zn/DSZwoF6i4BxPCljf6Jj5di7a6eXZ5mrZlGUl2+nogurWbumy9+bW6x7dd uqXg5n6Cl0uDW0o6F4AG6k7HB0fD903c806HerdhdKfdN0HUV3L7g6Lo07eCF3jTibjKJKGMm0eUy02i y7mMp7iR+0nDNnutm7qcy3XX5rqn43mFW59m5HGal3bLl3m017rYNn1y9E+0h6mqu0F7Snkw97qX27sR V6Omy7zDa6Qt2nPe53iw93yBy37bu7veVLzGS0Z8Om9CinDeY0GTB3OG66bbhGyTWbntt7Y8N7q867XS /1tF4OtJfeeZ6tl/vBa76La/rym/Cpq9GXq/hvdrXWS/r7t+A8VzC+y5+FupA8hvuiSdfEd8bjo+/BZr 7Cu/A8VHClzAnsm97MtKTCfBkrt9csrC3mbA7rZHF2fAp3t1iARAtWd+ANdP7UtxgHu7ctd4Kbyp1wui lkd+MFy+RtekE4dx1Ku+z7fE8UPCqCe6hgumSSzEY3REegt3yqu9hgp2mBS8/lbDfQtxLRy9vhu4Eby5 xXek4JfFHLS2AMxCcOt/EFE/0IZQYIuACTyoc1ubIUfAZ4u2Cdy2xCa3V3qacczIRvO9jQzJXMupkUzJ kuuplYzJmazJm0yBT+vJn/8MyqEsyqNMyoPgHY3okRG5jvC4KFToKIOlJVElY0oVq2Aiy2+xr9pqKDd4 KZQGFnYSsEFJhxp7sgRps0oJXODBWoXYk1Emg1c4HN/VksE1jek6rVBIrCjLsUh4rmlIszBphlV5jtbc rh72jbqMZAbbrX74k+j8ZsOaheiIkt56tBpDYfVYlQ8ZztEarnhBznPIYF7pzsjMlf3Mk6liIPeqWuaK X9y4jx0jYiY7Y6IolABJWwXJhyqWY4bRZuX8YBsdk1mG0Rm9Z+oKjpwlsx/DXKEYl9B8zKv8ypRSs9B4 VAJtg8ZM04F1ijQWzNMFVkFbjLLszB7TztfFrhPdWjT/govVqtALDdAd7dFYyc7LCIk5+6oE5okordOv NY8/+65HjYfaOoPi2M1LxpFX5s0su69NnZMxOMtiRY9yddUQdtIbCWNnGI5fPZRJuc/PqlYsrdTg3B4p DZJR7SUg/ddUHdc4rZIUmcov1YxcqIcpuZP+amKCDc96ds5olc4BTa1Tzdf5+NDi3IYBZq+TTdTBItGU vbE+adG9epXD7IVZCYeYSNJFybDNTI1y5tFNTc3Mkc3b/JU+eM+pDNNK1WD6Vda6KJZiiWgCO5ChssrP PbBGG1vBgs5APRFScQ9AWMpDYNPfLQ3hLd7QQN7ljd7p3WKczN7t7d7vDd/xLd/z/03f9W3f943f+a3f +83f/e3f/w3gAS7gA07gBW7gB47gCa7gC87gDe7gDw7hES7hE07hFW7hF47hGa7hG87hHe7hHw7iIS7i I07ihxkAJ47iKBMAKo7iKc4yLe7iKQPjKy4AND7jNF7jLd4yNz7jLw7jMsPjMf7jMq7jQa7jOR7kLJ7k L2PkMU7kRw4zTb7kN67kPB7lLm7jPY7kUP7kTr7lWq4yXi7gXO7kYr4yXk7mJx7man7mOP7ia+7mcc7m Sg7kc57jcO7mKi7jcB7mfE7kfk7nLiPncQ7oSB7lhZ7leW7obS7nTM7mZW7ngY7okQ7pg27gZm7nZj7p in7nT/9+5jFj6Xsu6Z5+5XlO6Ggu6qMe6qm+6KT+5q5e47A+6p8O64nu44qO6jue6asu62Je6Ywu6wGO 6byu68TO4oh+M5ru65F+63oe66Je5oLO7KRu44Xe6qUu7bg+7cXO7cDu7dXe7ay+7KbO7L8O6Jre3+hu 7N5+7bQu6ZwO6tOu7Nse6Jxu66xu7X5u75RO7/ne7sEe7vk+7s7u6Jku8LsO70LO7ziO7vzd8P5+7v2u 7zkz7Anf7yku765u8fBu6PK+8DNT8dkO8h6v7SXf6aW+8c0O8K2O5gZf4A+/8hov8V0+8wG/8g0P5n1O 7SKf7SEf8+wO8TD/719O5Ywu9EP/judWfvNzbu74Luw1P/QRz/HALvRAv/RTj/H2TvU8z+0kn/Pxvu8p X+dhr/J8DvVIP+vXPu8MX/TuPuBV//AKP/VmX/UAv/bY/uxu3/Fcr/JkH/V8f/Uj7/cHD+40k+YmH/hp /+oEDvcZ/+5n/+hQb/fbjvOPvuO3LvbdPvh17/Nlj/dW/+9YDupGH+xNz+51//I1v+y1rvpML/lRP/Cf n+qDD/qlL/NzH/TlDvm0n/a+fvmnr/vkjviK3+DKfvCsn/CbXjN3X/sC7/THbvPOr+q7D/h/X/uxL/1t DvzD3/sID/YHnuZW7/14vubiT/18D/Mt//wn3/zt7vrCL/gF/w/x0R/6wa/9ZW/63U/scf/6+f31BBAf TSR1tz0YWZK3WjzRvk3TPgz8wIPrHnUrPcozRZc+HTINVsqV4PxGCsaIReMRmVQumU3nExqVTqlV6xWb 1W65Xe8XHBaPyWXzGZ1Wr9lt9xse99rodfsdn9fv+X3/HzBQcJCwUO4QMVGukLHR8REyUnKS0lDxEjNT c5Oz0/MTNFR0lLTU9BQ1VXWVtdX1FTZWdpa21vYWN1d3l7fX9xc4WHiYuNj4GDlZeZm52fkZOlp6mrra +ho7W3ubu9v7GzxcfJy83PwcPV19nb3d/R0+Xn6evt7+Hj9ff5+/3/8fYECBAwkWNHgQYXBChQsZNnT4 EGJEiRMpVrR4EWNGjRs5dvT4EWRIkSNJljR5EmVKlStZtnT5EmZMmTNp1rR5E2dOnTt59vT5E2hQoUOJ FjV6FGlSpUuZNnX6FGpUqVOpVrV6FWtWrVu5dvX6FWxYsWPJljV7Fm1anQUAACH+cGhxZ2h1bWVheWxu aGN3c3JnY3Vpa3FrZWV3ZndnbGRwcHZ5dG5ldmFiemxxc2V2cnVhYmwAO3== --------------010002090305030209030007-- From HauffHJ@aol.com Wed Oct 6 03:49:06 2004 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:49:06 EDT Subject: [blml] New formula for lAW87-Neuberg obsolete-"qualified-mixed-MP-method" Message-ID: <9b.4f775f6f.2e94b722@aol.com> -------------------------------1097030946 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en New formula for Law 87. Neuberg becames obsolete. The =E2=80=9Equalified mi= xed MP=20 method=E2=80=9C =20 How to treat fouled boards is said in the WBF Law 87.=20 The director determines which scores were made in its correct form, and=20 which in the changed form. =E2=80=9EHe divides the score on that basis into= two groups,=20 and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations of the=20 sponsoring organisation.=E2=80=9C=20 By this, we have to show results of different deals in the same board. The=20 outcome is not just, because a player might have had a different place in t= he=20 ranking list, if he had played the other deal. In addition, sometimes the=20 original deal is played by weak players, and the fouled deal by the strong=20= ones.=20 There is one more negative point which is part of the system: is one of the= =20 groups smaller than the other, their members will get higher MP than in the= =20 bigger group.=20 .=20 All national organisations have set up their regulation, and most of them=20 use a formula to find a solution for the problem of harmonising the scores,= =20 that is to give them the same Top basis. Law87 is not used for boards which= show=20 up to 3 missing or fouled scores. There are special regulations made by the= =20 national organisations, which follow LAW 12 .=20 This expose is made to show better solutions than the existing ones. They=20 are based on modern computer technology and apparatus, which were not at ha= nd,=20 when the famous Neuberg formula was invented.=20 First we have to find the reasons for the existence of this Law 87 in order= =20 to to find an adequate solution. The answer is simple : Law87 was created t= o=20 save big tournament, where many tables play the same deal and where many=20 boards are fouled. There, the sponsoring organisation might not be able the= =20 establish a sound ranking list. =20 In consequence regulations should care to solve this poblem of big events;=20 they should not touch the weekly tournament of our home town club, where li= tte=20 fouling happens. They should provide=20 -a- regulations for events where groups are bigger then 12 tables=20 -b- less tables, by giving the same score to all (neutralising)=20 -c- less tables, by giving to everybody a score calculated conf.LAW 88 (=20 percentage of MP earned on boards actually played) .=20 Remains the problem how to solve the problem of harmonising.=20 Here we have to look at the abilities of modern scoring devices. There, you= =20 will find boardmasks shown in the display of a PC-engine, where MP are=20 calculated and shown right after the input of each score.=20 If you put in five scores in a board for 12 scores, the MP shown are based=20 on exacltly these five scores. In this temporarely situation of the inputti= ng,=20 the mask shows a ranking list for a group of five. Exacly this is needed fo= r=20 Law87 cases..=20 To bring these MP up to a 12 score basis, all you need to do is to =E2=80= =9Efill-up=E2=80=9C this board with scores lower than the already existent (fill-up-scores).=20 Any regulation for events where groups are bigger then 12 tables ( above=20 under -a- ) may use this feature. If you do this procedure, you can see the= MP=20 grow in the boardmask. There is no need to employ the Neuberg or similar=20 formulas any more.=20 But such harmonised Matchpoints still are unjust, as mentioned above.=20 There is another method which I like to call the qualified mixed MP Method,= =20 It gives more justice as any formula method. It secures the good result of=20= a=20 player within his group, but equalises the possible advantages given by the= =20 process of harmonising.=20 The method goes like this: =20 First step is to establish a separate ranking list for each group. There,=20 for each contestant could now be said: he is strong, medium or weak.=20 All players in all groups will basicly receive the same Matchpoints (by=20 giving the same score) and additional MP as follows: aany player qualified=20= as=20 strong will receive two MP-units, and any medium player one MP-unit.=20 The MP shall be calculated as a percentage of the Top-MP of the given event= .=20 =20 - - - - - - - - - - - =20 This is a contribution from Paul Hauff, Germany, 10/2004=20 _www.bridgeassistant.com_ (http://www.bridgeassistant.com) // =20 HauffHJ@aol.com -------------------------------1097030946 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
  New formula for Law 87. Neuberg becames obsolete. The=20 =E2=80=9Equalified mixed MP method=E2=80=9C=20

How to treat fouled boards is said in the WB= F Law=20 87.

The director determines which scores= were=20 made in its correct form, and which in the changed form. =E2=80=9EHe di= vides the=20 score on that basis into two groups, and rates each group separately as prov= ided=20 in the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.=E2=80=9C

By this, we have to show results of differen= t=20 deals in the same board. The outcome is not just, because a= =20 player might have had a different place in the ranking list, if he had playe= d=20 the other deal. In addition, sometimes the original deal is played by weak=20 players, and the fouled deal by the strong ones. There is one more negative=20 point which is part of the system: is one of the groups smaller than the oth= er,=20 their members will get higher MP than in the bigger group.

.

All national organisations have set up their= =20 regulation, and most of them use a formula to find a solution for the proble= m of=20 harmonising the scores, that is to give them the same Top basis. Law87 is no= t=20 used for boards which show up to 3 missing or fouled scores. There are speci= al=20 regulations made by the national organisations, which follow  LAW 12 .<= /P>

Th= is=20 expose is made to show better solutions than the existing ones. They are bas= ed=20 on modern computer technology and apparatus, which were not at hand, when th= e=20 famous Neuberg formula was invented.

First we have to find the reasons for the=20 existence of this Law 87 in order to to find an adequate solution. The answe= r is=20 simple : Law87 was created to save big tournament, where many tables play th= e=20 same deal and where many boards are fouled. There, the sponsoring organisati= on=20 might not be able the establish a sound ranking list.

In consequence regulations should care to so= lve=20 this poblem of big events; they should not touch the weekly tournament of ou= r=20 home town club, where litte fouling happens. They should provide

-a- regulations for events where gro= ups=20 are bigger then 12 tables

-b- less tables, by giving the same=20= score=20 to all (neutralising)

-c- less tables, by giving to everyb= ody a=20 score calculated conf.LAW 88 ( percentage of MP earned on boards=20 actually played) .

Remains the problem how to solve the problem= of=20 harmonising.

Here we have to look at the abilities of mod= ern=20 scoring devices. There, you will find boardmasks shown in the display of a=20 PC-engine, where MP are calculated and shown right after the input of each=20 score.

If you put in five scores in a board for 12=20 scores, the MP shown are based on exacltly these five scores. In this=20 temporarely situation of the inputting, the mask shows a ranking list for a=20 group of five. Exacly this is needed for Law87 cases..

To bring these MP up to a 12 score basis, al= l you=20 need to do is to =E2=80=9Efill-up=E2=80=9C this board with scores lower than= the already=20 existent (fill-up-scores).

Any regulation for events where groups are b= igger=20 then 12 tables ( above under -a- ) may use this feature. If you do this=20 procedure, you can see the MP grow in the boardmask. There is no need to emp= loy=20 the Neuberg or similar formulas any more.


But such harmonised Matchpoints still are un= just,=20 as mentioned above.

Th= ere is=20 another method which I like to call the qualified mixed MP Method,=20

It= gives=20 more justice as any formula method. It secures the good result of a player=20 within his group, but equalises the possible advantages given by the process= of=20 harmonising.

Th= e method=20 goes like this:

Fi= rst step=20 is to establish a separate ranking list for each group. There, for each=20 contestant could now be said: he is strong, medium or weak.

Al= l=20 players in all groups will basicly receive the same Matchpoints (by giving t= he=20 same score) and additional MP as follows: aany player qualified as strong wi= ll=20 receive two MP-units, and any medium player one MP-unit.

Th= e MP=20 shall be calculated as a percentage of the Top-MP of the given event.=20

- - - - - - - - - - -

This is a contribution from Paul Hauff, Germ= any,=20 10/2004

www.bridgeassistant.com &nb= sp;=20 //   HauffHJ@aol.com

-------------------------------1097030946-- From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 6 13:01:42 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:01:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041006075859.02b07eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:29 PM 10/5/04, Laval wrote: >12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the >last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before >playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: >"I ruff and have the rest." > >Option 1: Declarer knew the last two tricks are him. >The intention and the statement are clear: the claim >cannot be contested and both tricks go to declarer. > >Option two: A claim statement does not applies to the >current trick (Law 68) but to subsequent ones. As declarer >put C2 "before" saying I ruff, the card played to the current >trick is C2 (Law 45C2). This trick belongs to defenders. "I ruff and have the rest" is a valid and proper claim statement. Declarer ruffs and has the rest. WTP? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 6 16:01:06 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:01:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041006075859.02b07eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041006075859.02b07eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <416408B2.7070303@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:29 PM 10/5/04, Laval wrote: > >> 12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the >> last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before >> playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: >> "I ruff and have the rest." >> >> Option 1: Declarer knew the last two tricks are him. >> The intention and the statement are clear: the claim >> cannot be contested and both tricks go to declarer. >> >> Option two: A claim statement does not applies to the >> current trick (Law 68) but to subsequent ones. As declarer >> put C2 "before" saying I ruff, the card played to the current >> trick is C2 (Law 45C2). This trick belongs to defenders. > > > "I ruff and have the rest" is a valid and proper claim statement. > Declarer ruffs and has the rest. WTP? > Maybe the problem is that declarer believes clubs are trump! In that case, his statement "I ruff and have the rest" translates into "I play the C2 and then the S2" which sadly only yields one trick! As always, we need to get into the mind of the player before being able to rule on a claim! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ohmss@videotron.ca Wed Oct 6 16:58:12 2004 From: ohmss@videotron.ca (Christian Chantigny) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:58:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim In-Reply-To: <416408B2.7070303@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4abbd$4baa5800$e9fa8242@Christian> Herman, could we please get real just once? At trick twelve, with all trumps out but one (and in declarer's hand on top of that!), we should investigate whether declarer thought clubs were trump all along? You feel we should "get in his mind"? What I see here is just an attempt to turn another very simple case into another needless and endless dogfight. Honestly! Christian I've stopped 2=A0652 spam messages. You can too! One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ -----Message d'origine----- De=A0: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] De la part de Herman De Wael Envoy=E9=A0: 6 octobre 2004 10:01 =C0=A0: blml Objet=A0: Re: [blml] Ruff and claim Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:29 PM 10/5/04, Laval wrote: >=20 >> 12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the >> last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before >> playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: >> "I ruff and have the rest." >> >> Option 1: Declarer knew the last two tricks are him. >> The intention and the statement are clear: the claim >> cannot be contested and both tricks go to declarer. >> >> Option two: A claim statement does not applies to the >> current trick (Law 68) but to subsequent ones. As declarer >> put C2 "before" saying I ruff, the card played to the current >> trick is C2 (Law 45C2). This trick belongs to defenders. >=20 >=20 > "I ruff and have the rest" is a valid and proper claim statement. =20 > Declarer ruffs and has the rest. WTP? >=20 Maybe the problem is that declarer believes clubs are trump! In that case, his statement "I ruff and have the rest" translates into=20 "I play the C2 and then the S2" which sadly only yields one trick! As always, we need to get into the mind of the player before being=20 able to rule on a claim! >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 6 17:33:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the >last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before >playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: >"I ruff and have the rest." > >Option 1: Declarer knew the last two tricks are him. >The intention and the statement are clear: the claim >cannot be contested and both tricks go to declarer. Seems right. >Option two: A claim statement does not applies to the >current trick (Law 68) but to subsequent ones. As declarer >put C2 "before" saying I ruff, the card played to the current >trick is C2 (Law 45C2). This trick belongs to defenders. L68 does not say a claim statement does not apply to the current trick [it would be ridiculous if that was so, as a little thought makes clear]. What it says is that a statement that is only about the current trick is not a claim. >Any difference if declarer says "I ruff..." before playing >C2. The Law is clear: he has made a claim, which either is allowed or not. The judgement of the hand is up to the TD. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 6 17:43:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:43:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] New formula for lAW87-Neuberg obsolete-"qualified-mixed-MP-method" In-Reply-To: <9b.4f775f6f.2e94b722@aol.com> References: <9b.4f775f6f.2e94b722@aol.com> Message-ID: wrote >  New formula for Law 87. Neuberg becames obsolete. The „qualified mixed >MP method“ > >How to treat fouled boards is said in the WBF Law 87. > >The director determines which scores were made in its correct form, and >which in the changed form. „He divides the score on that basis into two >groups, and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations >of the sponsoring organisation.“ > >By this, we have to show results of different deals in the same board. >The outcome is not just, because a player might have had a different >place in the ranking list, if he had played the other deal. In >addition, sometimes the original deal is played by weak players, and >the fouled deal by the strong ones. There is one more negative point >which is part of the system: is one of the groups smaller than the >other, their members will get higher MP than in the bigger group. Yeah, sh*t happens. But luck in scores from events at other tables is part of the game. You just have a relatively fair system to deal with it, eg Neuberg, and that is good enough. >All national organisations have set up their regulation, and most of >them use a formula to find a solution for the problem of harmonising >the scores, that is to give them the same Top basis. Law87 is not used >for boards which show up to 3 missing or fouled scores. There are >special regulations made by the national organisations, which follow  >LAW 12 . L87 has no such exception, so it cannot be "not used". What you mean is that originally a lot of RAs changed form Neuberg to something else when the tables went down to 3. The EBU, for example, has no such minimum any more, but uses Neuberg anyway. >This expose is made to show better solutions than the existing ones. >They are based on modern computer technology and apparatus, which were >not at hand, when the famous Neuberg formula was invented. > >First we have to find the reasons for the existence of this Law 87 in >order to to find an adequate solution. The answer is simple : Law87 was >created to save big tournament, where many tables play the same deal >and where many boards are fouled. There, the sponsoring organisation >might not be able the establish a sound ranking list. I do not agree with this at all. L87 was provided to deal with a problem that applies in large and small tournaments. >In consequence regulations should care to solve this poblem of big >events; they should not touch the weekly tournament of our home town >club, where litte fouling happens. They should provide > >-a- regulations for events where groups are bigger then 12 tables > >-b- less tables, by giving the same score to all (neutralising) >-c- less tables, by giving to everybody a score calculated conf. >LAW 88 ( percentage of MP earned on boards actually played) . This seems to have no basis whatever. Ok, you may think the formula should be changed for different numbers of tables, but not using it because of small numbers of tables is unfair and unnecessary. >Remains the problem how to solve the problem of harmonising. > >Here we have to look at the abilities of modern scoring devices. There, >you will find boardmasks shown in the display of a PC-engine, where MP >are calculated and shown right after the input of each score. > >If you put in five scores in a board for 12 scores, the MP shown are >based on exacltly these five scores. In this temporarely situation of >the inputting, the mask shows a ranking list for a group of five. >Exacly this is needed for Law87 cases.. > >To bring these MP up to a 12 score basis, all you need to do is to „ >fill-up“ this board with scores lower than the already existent >(fill-up-scores). > >Any regulation for events where groups are bigger then 12 tables ( >above under -a- ) may use this feature. If you do this procedure, you >can see the MP grow in the boardmask. There is no need to employ the >Neuberg or similar formulas any more. This seems a far worse method than Neuberg: what is the point? >But such harmonised Matchpoints still are unjust, as mentioned above. > >There is another method which I like to call the qualified mixed MP >Method, > >It gives more justice as any formula method. It secures the good result >of a player within his group, but equalises the possible advantages >given by the process of harmonising. > >The method goes like this: >First step is to establish a separate ranking list for each group. >There, for each contestant could now be said: he is strong, medium or >weak. Oh no! That is not bridge! You cannot adjust scores on the abilities of players! >All players in all groups will basicly receive the same Matchpoints (by >giving the same score) and additional MP as follows: aany player >qualified as strong will receive two MP-units, and any medium player >one MP-unit. >The MP shall be calculated as a percentage of the Top-MP of the given >event. Why do we not just say that the best pair in the tournament wins the tournament? Then we do not have to play the boards and can all go off to the pub. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 6 23:42:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:42:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041006075859.02b07eb0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laval wrote: >>12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the >>last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before >>playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: >>"I ruff and have the rest." [snip] Eric wrote: >"I ruff and have the rest" is a valid and proper claim >statement. Declarer ruffs and has the rest. WTP? RJH writes: In my opinion, the problem is one of timing. First declarer played a card out of turn, then declarer stated a claim which was inconsistent with the played card out of turn. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 7 00:04:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:04:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] The ace of diamonds Message-ID: In the October 2004 Bridge World, Danny Kleinman wrote: [snip] >I tried to cash the ace of diamonds, but I didn't >succeed. Partner discarded - I mean ruffed with - the >three of spades. Aware of my partner's propensity for >revoking, I asked dutifully, "No diamonds, partner?" >as declarer followed with the six of diamonds. (Wise >organizations disallow such conversation between >defenders, but the American Contract Bridge League is >not one of them.) > >"None," answered partner. Then, without even waiting >for me to turn my card, he returned the five of >diamonds. Declarer called the director, who promptly >took away our fourth trick and ruled, "Making four." > >If I had known then what I know now, I would not have >tried to cash the ace of diamonds. Instead, I would >have *claimed*, showing my hand and saying, "I'll >take the ace of diamonds and concede the rest." RJH notes: If Danny had hypothetically claimed, and if I had been the hypothetical TD when the claim was disputed, I would still rule making four. Given his partner's "propensity for revoking", I would have ruled that it would be "careless or inferior, but not irrational" for the class of Danny's partner that that player would establish a revoke. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 7 00:11:22 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:11:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] Ruff and claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:42:17 +1000." Message-ID: <200410062311.QAA16917@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Laval wrote: > > >>12th trick, declarer's LHO lead a D. Declarer has the > >>last trump in hand (S2) and the last Club (C2). Before > >>playing from dummy, he puts C2 on table saying: > >>"I ruff and have the rest." > > [snip] > > Eric wrote: > > >"I ruff and have the rest" is a valid and proper claim > >statement. Declarer ruffs and has the rest. WTP? > > RJH writes: > > In my opinion, the problem is one of timing. First > declarer played a card out of turn, then declarer stated > a claim which was inconsistent with the played card out > of turn. The action of putting the C2 on the table was part of his claim. So the form of his claim was a bit nonstandard. Big deal. This is bridge, not second grade. We do not take away points for failing to dot i's. (The TD has the power to judge that declarer really did intend to play the wrong card out of turn, and then tried to cover it up by making a claim instead, if he judges that's what really happened.) -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 7 02:20:23 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:20:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] The ace of diamonds References: Message-ID: <001601c4ac0b$d31fa260$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Richard Hills: > > In the October 2004 Bridge World, Danny Kleinman wrote: > > [snip] > > >I tried to cash the ace of diamonds, but I didn't > >succeed. Partner discarded - I mean ruffed with - the > >three of spades. Aware of my partner's propensity for > >revoking, I asked dutifully, "No diamonds, partner?" > >as declarer followed with the six of diamonds. (Wise > >organizations disallow such conversation between > >defenders, but the American Contract Bridge League is > >not one of them.) > > > >"None," answered partner. Then, without even waiting > >for me to turn my card, he returned the five of > >diamonds. Declarer called the director, who promptly > >took away our fourth trick and ruled, "Making four." > > > >If I had known then what I know now, I would not have > >tried to cash the ace of diamonds. Instead, I would > >have *claimed*, showing my hand and saying, "I'll > >take the ace of diamonds and concede the rest." > > RJH notes: > > If Danny had hypothetically claimed, and if I had been > the hypothetical TD when the claim was disputed, I > would still rule making four. > > Given his partner's "propensity for revoking", I would > have ruled that it would be "careless or inferior, but > not irrational" for the class of Danny's partner that > that player would establish a revoke. > > :-) > Seriously, there is a problem with defenders' claims. I had a partner once who, down to two cards, blanked a king rather than discard an ace, giving the last two tricks to dummy's AQ. Had I claimed before partner could do that, no real-life TD would have ruled against me. Danny has told me of many such plays by "clients," and I notice that some pros (not Danny, who never claims, despite what he wrote) will often claim toward the end of a deal, perhaps as a guard against such an occurrence. My first thought was that when a defender claims her partner's cards should be exposed and played as declarer wishes. However, we could hardly require a revoke, as in Danny's example, so I modify my suggestion to add that a defender may not claim if partner has one or more trumps, with a one-trick penalty for a violation. As is always the case, there is no need for a "class of player" determination. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California M From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 7 01:37:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:37:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In a private email, Karel asked: >+++ Well that is a weighty undertaking - defining >sportsmanship ... any preview to the wording and what >that entails or will it be a broad statement with a >limited use ?? I mean take my scenario - its quite >hard to prove anything and be on safe ground invoking >such a sportsmanship law. > >K. RJH replies: I have a hobby-horse about sportsmanship as it is currently defined in Law 72B3: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." If I was the ruler of the WBF LC, I would rewrite Law 72B3 in the 2006 edition of the Laws to read: "One is obliged to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side as soon as one becomes aware of that inadvertent infraction (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." Of course, in my opinion, sportsmanship cannot be invoked and enforced, it is merely an Excelsior! goal for sporting players to aspire to. Unsporting players could successfully infract my proposed 2006 Law 72B3 by simply asserting that they *never* became aware of their inadvertent infraction My proposed reversal of Law 72B3 would merely make me (and others) more comfortable abiding by the Laws, since abiding by the current Law 72B3 makes me (and others) feel unsportsmanlike. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 7 02:25:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:25:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] The ace of diamonds In-Reply-To: <001601c4ac0b$d31fa260$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2004, at 21:20 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > I modify my suggestion to add that a defender may not claim if partner > has one or more trumps, with a one-trick penalty for a violation. > > As is always the case, there is no need for a "class of player" > determination. What of Mrs. Guggenheim, who has no clue how many trumps her partner has? Yeah, I realize she's never going to claim, but what if she did? From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Oct 7 03:25:25 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:25:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <200410051438.i95EclZd007781@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410051438.i95EclZd007781@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4164A915.9050001@cfa.harvard.edu> [Sorry; I messed up the subject line again. Better to leave it now, I expect.] SW> I wonder SW>whether it might have been possible to play the round with A-B at one SW>table, C-D at the other (i.e., the incorrectly-seated pairs). Then SW>later, when A was scheduled to meet B, instead play A-C, B-D. From: "Sven Pran" > This is not possible in a round robin barometer event where boards are > scored and results published immediately after each round. The reason is > that the four pairs A, B, C and D who meet each other (two and two) in one > round will never meet again (paired otherwise) in any same round. That is to > say: If A meets C and B meets D in the same round then A will meet B in a > different round from when C will meet D etc. I'm no movement expert, but is this obvious? I would think it would depend on the details of the movement. I guess it would be very lucky, though, for it to work out, so in general one cannot count on it. Would it be possible to make a larger but still modest modification, involving say one or two other pairs, to make this sort of idea work out? Even if possible in theory, it might not be easy to apply on the spur of the moment. On the other hand, directors are supposed to deal with accidents such as misplaced bye stands or relay tables, or adding an extra pair in round 2, and this problem seems to be of comparable difficulty. Herman: if you had decided to leave the pairs seated in the incorrect positions for the whole round, could you later have repaired the movement? (I am not in any way suggesting that you should have found this solution, if it even exists, in real time. I'm just curious whether it is possible in theory.) I agree with Sven that late plays in this sort of movement are wholly unacceptable. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Oct 7 03:38:55 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:38:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] 'Let's call it a field goal and move on' syndrome In-Reply-To: <200410051441.i95Efjio008060@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410051441.i95Efjio008060@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4164AC3F.6090104@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > But even without East jumping around, I'm not sure it's "normal" for > N/S to get to 6H. This is a question of bridge judgment on which a TD should consult, after finding out whether the players have relevant bidding agreements. And an AC can examine the matter in detail. My judgment is that a sound pair ought to get there -- at least having a 1 in 3 chance -- but I wouldn't be upset to be outvoted. The Europeans will now tell us how great L12C3 is. Unfortunately, they still have to estimate a percentage that 6H will be reached. > Furthermore, I'm not sure we can adjust to the result of 6H anyway. > If N/S do bid to 6H, East will now have *authorized* information that > he's forgotten the convention. Again this is a matter of TD/AC judgment. East will have seen NS bid to slam in what is supposed to be his partner's suit. What is the chance that he will realize he has partner's suit wrong? Don't your opponents ever wind up in the wrong suit after an artificial auction? (You and I, of course, never have that happen to us. :-) ) That said, if 12C3 were enabled, I think it would be right to include some percentage of 7Cx and 7Dx down whatever. I personally wouldn't make either one a large percentage. From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 7 03:38:01 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:38:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <4164A915.9050001@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410051438.i95EclZd007781@cfa.harvard.edu> <4164A915.9050001@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6nn$lpBJwKZBFwSO@asimere.com> In article <4164A915.9050001@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >[Sorry; I messed up the subject line again. Better to leave it now, I >expect.] >SW> I wonder >SW>whether it might have been possible to play the round with A-B at one >SW>table, C-D at the other (i.e., the incorrectly-seated pairs). Then >SW>later, when A was scheduled to meet B, instead play A-C, B-D. > >From: "Sven Pran" >> This is not possible in a round robin barometer event where boards are >> scored and results published immediately after each round. The reason is >> that the four pairs A, B, C and D who meet each other (two and two) in one >> round will never meet again (paired otherwise) in any same round. That is to >> say: If A meets C and B meets D in the same round then A will meet B in a >> different round from when C will meet D etc. > >I'm no movement expert, but is this obvious? I would think it would >depend on the details of the movement. I guess it would be very lucky, >though, for it to work out, so in general one cannot count on it. > >Would it be possible to make a larger but still modest modification, >involving say one or two other pairs, to make this sort of idea work >out? Even if possible in theory, it might not be easy to apply on the >spur of the moment. On the other hand, directors are supposed to deal >with accidents such as misplaced bye stands or relay tables, or adding >an extra pair in round 2, and this problem seems to be of comparable >difficulty. Herman: if you had decided to leave the pairs seated in the >incorrect positions for the whole round, could you later have repaired >the movement? (I am not in any way suggesting that you should have >found this solution, if it even exists, in real time. I'm just curious >whether it is possible in theory.) In a prime number flower movement I'm sure it won't work. In a non-prime movement where the two pairs are separated by a factor of the number of tables it might be. > >I agree with Sven that late plays in this sort of movement are wholly >unacceptable. > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Oct 7 03:49:00 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:49:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <200410051915.i95JFWGa000711@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410051915.i95JFWGa000711@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4164AE9C.7060908@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Karel" > What if the TD and > appeals committee as was the case just aren't qualified to answer the question Ideally the TD should have some phone numbers of top players to consult. If no top players are available, either by phone or on site, then the people available just have to do the best they can. In some cases the ruling will be wrong. If that disfavors a top pair, that's just a penalty good players have to accept for playing in a poor field. > David's - 2nd point is the pause. We have all been "surprised" by a bid. On > top of this, if you are expecting a bid to be alerted and it isn't, it will > cause a delay. If these two conditions happen together and the bid requires > analysis it will take quite some time. E/W have both played good/bad 2NT. > N/S expected this to be a good bad sequence. With no alert N was now put in > the position of wondering what the liklihood of MI was. The pause was estimated > at about 8 secs or so. Is this such an unusal length of time given the > possibilities N had to consider ?? Yes, it's an eternity. Seeing North's hand, I cannot imagine what he was thinking. Of course top players will see problems we lesser mortals never notice, but if they take time to analyze, they can still expect to put their partners under UI constraints. If the pause were one or two seconds, I'd be happy to rule it didn't suggest any LA over another ("not a break in tempo," as some say). But eight seconds is another matter. All the above are comments on the principles; I am not commenting on whether pass is a LA or not. From xzcv32@zbg.com Thu Oct 7 05:02:16 2004 From: xzcv32@zbg.com (liming) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:02:16 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Chairman =?GB2312?B?TWFvoa9z?= favorite Chinese handicrafts 1324asdgoodbncxm2asvn23nm Message-ID: ÎޱęĚâÎĵµ
Chairman MaoˇŻs favorite Chinese handicrafts
   The various handicrafts with Chinese characteristics of our company feature choice materials and state-of-the-art craftsmanship. These rare handicrafts are really worth collecting! Some types of handicrafts were once the treasures of imperial palace.
ˇˇWith credibility and quality, we deliver goods after payment. Welcome wholesale order, which will be given a favorable price (All prices are not to include transport charges).

home

From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 7 07:42:44 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:42:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <001001c4ab77$8f2e7160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c4ac39$00eaaeb0$c2a987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:39 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 And how many times do you think you can pull stunts like that before becoming noted? +=+ I am more concerned where the TD decides to order that two contestants meet each other twice. I do not think this is wise. It lays him open to angry criticism if one of the two pairs gets four tops instead of two - or something like that. The feelings of one of the two pairs may be much aroused merely because they are asked to play a pair twice that they perceive as strong. There may be a reaction among the remaining players in the field who are disadvantaged by the easy points given to the successful pair. The Director is interfering with the schedule of play. I do not believe it is the answer to put two innocent pairs in such a position. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 7 08:40:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:40:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <6nn$lpBJwKZBFwSO@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst > Steve Willner ............. > >From: "Sven Pran"=20 > >> This is not possible in a round robin barometer=20 > >> event where boards are scored and results published=20 > >> immediately after each round. The reason is that=20 > >> the four pairs A, B, C and D who meet each other=20 > >> (two and two) in one round will never meet again=20 > >> (paired otherwise) in any same round. That is to > >> say: If A meets C and B meets D in the same round=20 > >> then A will meet B in a different round from when > >> C will meet D etc. > > > >I'm no movement expert, but is this obvious? I would > >think it would depend on the details of the movement. =20 > >I guess it would be very lucky, though, for it to work=20 > >out, so in general one cannot count on it. ................. > In a prime number flower movement I'm sure it won't work.=20 > In a non-prime movement where the two pairs are separated > by a factor of the number of tables it might be. I am not going to bother you with a lot of calculations but the = fundamental requirements for a round robin schedule are: (The highest numbered pair remains seated at the same table during the = whole event, the other pairs "follow" the pair with the immediately lower = number except pair one which follows the highest numbered moving pair.) 1: The difference between the pair numbers at one table must never equal = the difference between pair numbers at any other table. 2: The difference between the pair numbers at any two tables must never = add up to one less than the total number of pairs. (The count of moving = pairs)=20 If you elaborate a bit on the above two fundamental conditions you = should find that four pairs can never share just two tables in more than one = round. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 7 08:57:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:57:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001101c4ac39$00eaaeb0$c2a987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000401c4ac43$4f930d00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott .............. > +=3D+ I am more concerned where the TD decides to order that two > contestants meet each other twice. I do not think this is wise. It > lays him open to angry criticism if one of the two pairs gets four > tops instead of two - or something like that. The feelings of one > of the two pairs may be much aroused merely because they are > asked to play a pair twice that they perceive as strong. There > may be a reaction among the remaining players in the field who > are disadvantaged by the easy points given to the successful pair. > The Director is interfering with the schedule of play. I do not > believe it is the answer to put two innocent pairs in such a > position. So may I humbly ask you to please make up your mind? In a barometer event, all players play the same two or more boards in = the same round, pair A (accidentally) in some round after the second sits = down at a wrong table and starts an auction against pair B. As a result Pairs C (who was scheduled to meet pair A) and pair D (who = was scheduled to meet pair B) have no opponents. Alternative 1: The Director applies Law 15C and interrupts the ongoing auction with A and B, seats these pairs correctly and monitors the new auctions between A and C as well as between B and D. (You have = previously stated that Law 15C does not apply) Alternative 2: The Director lets the incorrectly seated pair A complete = what they have started and orders pairs C and D to meet (irregularly) and = play bridge. (According to what you say above you do not prefer this = solution?) Alternative 3: Same as alternative 2 except that the Director awards = pairs C and D artificial assigned scores. I am surprised if this shall be an acceptable solution? Have I overlooked any possible alternative? Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 7 09:07:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:07:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <4164A915.9050001@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410051438.i95EclZd007781@cfa.harvard.edu> <4164A915.9050001@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4164F950.1090301@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: > [Sorry; I messed up the subject line again. Better to leave it now, I > expect.] > SW> I wonder > SW>whether it might have been possible to play the round with A-B at one > SW>table, C-D at the other (i.e., the incorrectly-seated pairs). Then > SW>later, when A was scheduled to meet B, instead play A-C, B-D. > > From: "Sven Pran" > >> This is not possible in a round robin barometer event where boards are >> scored and results published immediately after each round. The reason is >> that the four pairs A, B, C and D who meet each other (two and two) in >> one >> round will never meet again (paired otherwise) in any same round. That >> is to >> say: If A meets C and B meets D in the same round then A will meet B in a >> different round from when C will meet D etc. > > > I'm no movement expert, but is this obvious? I would think it would > depend on the details of the movement. I guess it would be very lucky, > though, for it to work out, so in general one cannot count on it. > I would imagine that it is indeed impossible. Given the way movements are constructed (generally), there is some constant difference between the pair numbers at any table. This would make it impossible, IMO, that a change during one round could be compensated by a change in some other round. > Would it be possible to make a larger but still modest modification, > involving say one or two other pairs, to make this sort of idea work > out? Even if possible in theory, it might not be easy to apply on the > spur of the moment. On the other hand, directors are supposed to deal > with accidents such as misplaced bye stands or relay tables, or adding > an extra pair in round 2, and this problem seems to be of comparable > difficulty. Herman: if you had decided to leave the pairs seated in the > incorrect positions for the whole round, could you later have repaired > the movement? (I am not in any way suggesting that you should have > found this solution, if it even exists, in real time. I'm just curious > whether it is possible in theory.) > I find it totally abhorrant to suggest that the pairs ought to stay for the whole round. All the arguments given against completing the board fall away when one looks at the alternative: artificial AS. But all those arguments are completely correct when considering the nexwt board. Yes, allow A and B to complete the board, but then let B and C play the others, and A and D as well. Whether or not to oblige D and C to play the one board against one another is something different. > I agree with Sven that late plays in this sort of movement are wholly > unacceptable. > If they are late plays, yes. If the players manage to complete the board within a reasonable time-frame, they should try. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ooga@shaw.ca Thu Oct 7 09:08:07 2004 From: ooga@shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:08:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? Message-ID: <4164F967.8090609@shaw.ca> Four table Howell, scoring is average IMPs. Short game, 7 rounds of= =20 three boards intent is to finish before 9:30 on a 7:00 start. (I won= 't=20 mention--at least not as an excuse--that in the eastern half of the r= oom=20 I had a seven-table round-robin club-level qualifying team=20 game--four-board rounds--to simultaneously distract me...) After round four of the Howell, I discovered while entering scores fr= om=20 pickups that table three had played the wrong set of boards, 16-18= =20 instead of 19-21. The N-S pair had met boards 16-18 in round one but had not played the= m=20 (my standby pair did not arrive until round three), nor (they were= =20 predealt) examined them--I know because they were happy to have the t= ime=20 to smoke. The E-W pair was scheduled to play the boards in round six. Let me stipluate that this is a rather poorly marked guide card,=20 especially since the default four boards per round is not being playe= d,=20 and that there is every chance I might have gotten the two movements= =20 interspersed and instructed the pairs game to move for round three wh= en=20 actually it was round four. In short, let's give the players the= =20 benefit of the 'fault' doubt since I should certainly have been check= ing=20 more closely at the start of each round. The experienced players wer= e=20 all playing in the team game--this was a stratified event with no LMs= . L15A1 is clear that the results obtained should stand, and I managed = to=20 tweak ACBLScore to accept this. Two questions remain: 1) What score should I give to the pair that sits down and is told by= =20 their opponents "we played these before, by mistake?" Average plus i= s=20 nine IMPs, remember... 2) In such a Howell, where a fill-in pair arrives late and the boards= =20 are not played, suppose the top two pairs have +63 and +60, but that = the=20 +63 pair played 21 boards, and the +60 pair had a sitout. Who wins, = the=20 most total IMPs or the highest IMP average? --=20 =2E-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------=88----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/alphapts.htm | | (Bridge Base Online Alphabet Points Tournament Series) | `----------------------------------------------------------=B4 From hermy@hdw.be Thu Oct 7 09:14:48 2004 From: hermy@hdw.be (HermY) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:14:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] ss Finland tournament Message-ID: <4164FAF8.80207@hdw.be> As we've been doing for the past 7 years, at the end of this month we shall see another edition of the ss Finland world simultaneous. We celebrate in this manner, the start of contract bridge, on 31 october 1925. If you want to play a simultaneous tournament with deals brought to the organiser by e-mail and post-factum scoring, then please contact me. The tournaments should be played between wednesday 27/10 and tuesday 2/11. aficionados of the fifth friday set of tournaments will realize that this is also a regular fifth friday tournament, and that it is the last one of the 2003-04 series of such tournaments. More info to be found at the Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 7 09:23:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:23:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? In-Reply-To: <4164F967.8090609@shaw.ca> References: <4164F967.8090609@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <4164FCE5.1010902@hdw.be> I shall not comment on the other happenings, just on one question: Bruce McIntyre wrote: > > The N-S pair had met boards 16-18 in round one but had not played them > (my standby pair did not arrive until round three), nor (they were > predealt) examined them--I know because they were happy to have the time > to smoke. > > The E-W pair was scheduled to play the boards in round six. > > > L15A1 is clear that the results obtained should stand, and I managed to > tweak ACBLScore to accept this. > I find it amazing that you should call this 'tweaking'. This should be a standard option in any scoring program. > Two questions remain: > > 1) What score should I give to the pair that sits down and is told by > their opponents "we played these before, by mistake?" Average plus is > nine IMPs, remember... > That is a matter for your regulations. > 2) In such a Howell, where a fill-in pair arrives late and the boards > are not played, suppose the top two pairs have +63 and +60, but that the > +63 pair played 21 boards, and the +60 pair had a sitout. Who wins, the > most total IMPs or the highest IMP average? > That is also a matter for your regulations. The interesting question is what to do when entering the scores. Whenever I have A meeting B when A should have met D, and B has met C, I always change the scorecard in my program such that C also meets D (regardless of whether they have actually played). I then enter Av+ to C and D if they have not played. But in the case above: A has met B, but it was supposed to be A meets bye and B meets C. Now the change on the guidecard has C meeting the bye. What to do now - should we simply have C being bye, or do we give C the Av+ they would have had if there had been no bye? And what's more - does the program allow you to have an extra line on the scorecard? Yet again a matter for the regulations, I'm afraid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Thu Oct 7 09:33:36 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:33:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6494@rama.micronas.com> Hmm, in the Netherlands, A+ would be 2 IMPs - it has been determined that 3 is really too much; whoever scores average 2 IMPS per deal belongs to the top. L86A stating that A+/A- is +3/-3 IMPs belongs to team play, and in fact A+/A- for average IMP is not defined by the laws. Concerning the questions: 1) I think you don't have much of a choice; the pair cannot play the deals through no fault of their own, so sou must award A+ on three deals. 2) I would say IMPs per deal, not total IMPs (so that the pair with 60 IMPs in 18 deals (avg 3.3) wins over 63 IMPs in 21 deals (avg 3). Also more in line with a pairs event. --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot at micronas.com > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Bruce McIntyre > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:08 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a > Howell--now what? >=20 >=20 > Four table Howell, scoring is average IMPs. Short game, 7 rounds of=20 > three boards intent is to finish before 9:30 on a 7:00 start.=20 > (I won't=20 > mention--at least not as an excuse--that in the eastern half=20 > of the room=20 > I had a seven-table round-robin club-level qualifying team=20 > game--four-board rounds--to simultaneously distract me...) >=20 > After round four of the Howell, I discovered while entering=20 > scores from=20 > pickups that table three had played the wrong set of boards, 16-18=20 > instead of 19-21. >=20 > The N-S pair had met boards 16-18 in round one but had not=20 > played them=20 > (my standby pair did not arrive until round three), nor (they were=20 > predealt) examined them--I know because they were happy to=20 > have the time=20 > to smoke. >=20 > The E-W pair was scheduled to play the boards in round six. >=20 > Let me stipluate that this is a rather poorly marked guide card,=20 > especially since the default four boards per round is not=20 > being played,=20 > and that there is every chance I might have gotten the two movements=20 > interspersed and instructed the pairs game to move for round=20 > three when=20 > actually it was round four. In short, let's give the players the=20 > benefit of the 'fault' doubt since I should certainly have=20 > been checking=20 > more closely at the start of each round. The experienced=20 > players were=20 > all playing in the team game--this was a stratified event with no LMs. >=20 > L15A1 is clear that the results obtained should stand, and I=20 > managed to=20 > tweak ACBLScore to accept this. >=20 > Two questions remain: >=20 > 1) What score should I give to the pair that sits down and is told by=20 > their opponents "we played these before, by mistake?" =20 > Average plus is=20 > nine IMPs, remember... >=20 > 2) In such a Howell, where a fill-in pair arrives late and the boards=20 > are not played, suppose the top two pairs have +63 and +60,=20 > but that the=20 > +63 pair played 21 boards, and the +60 pair had a sitout. =20 > Who wins, the=20 > most total IMPs or the highest IMP average? >=20 > --=20 > .-----------------------.----------------------------------. > | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | > | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | > | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | > | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| > }-----------------------=88----------------------------------{ > | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | > }----------------------------------------------------------{ > | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/IMPhome.htm | > | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | > }----------------------------------------------------------{ > | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/alphapts.htm | > | (Bridge Base Online Alphabet Points Tournament Series) | > `----------------------------------------------------------=B4 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From torsten.astrand@telia.com Thu Oct 7 11:24:37 2004 From: torsten.astrand@telia.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6494@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <00d701c4ac57$da2e0dc0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> Is this a way to solv 1-2-3 imps? Hello Ton, When we met at Malm=F6 I told yuo that I will send something about 1-2-3 = imps replacing 60/40 at teams. My proposal follows: ex 1 result imps N/S E/W 140 16 -16 140 16 -16 140 16 -16 140 16 -16 50 -6 6 50 -6 6 -50 -26 26 -50 -26 26 The whole range is 16 to -26 =3D 42 60% will be 42x0,6=3D25,2 =3D 26 40% will be 42x0,4=3D16,8 =3D 16 If N/S gets 60% they will have 0 imp counted from -26+26 equal to 60% E/W:s 40% will have -10 imps counted from -26+16 equal to 40%. Compared to 1 imp 2 imps 3 imps 60% gives 0 imp 8 16 24 40% gives -10 imps -8 -16 -24=20 ex 2 800 57 -57 690 39 -39 660 34 -34 630 27 -27 600 22 -22 200 -37 37 -100 -71 71 -100 -71 71 The range 57 to -71 =3D 128 128x0,6=3D77 128x0,4=3D51=20 compared to 1 imp 2 imps 3 imps =20 60% gives 6 imps 8 16 24 40% gives -20 imps -8 -16 -24 ex 3 300 78 -78 -150 14 -14 -150 14 -14 -170 8 -8 -170 8 -8 -170 8 -8 -630 -63 63 -660 -67 67 78+67=3D145 Compared to 1 imp 2 imps 3 imps 60% gives 87-67=3D20 8 16 24 40% gives 58-67=3D-9 -8 -16 -24 =20 =20 Maybe it should have been 7, 14, 21 imps to compare with if one result = is replaced by 60/40 =20 best wishes Torsten Astrand ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Sinot Martin" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:33 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a = Howell--now what? > Hmm, in the Netherlands, A+ would be 2 IMPs - it has been determined > that 3 is really too much; whoever scores average 2 IMPS per deal > belongs to the top. L86A stating that A+/A- is +3/-3 IMPs belongs > to team play, and in fact A+/A- for average IMP is not defined by > the laws. >=20 > Concerning the questions: > 1) I think you don't have much of a choice; the pair cannot play the > deals through no fault of their own, so sou must award A+ on three > deals. > 2) I would say IMPs per deal, not total IMPs (so that the pair with > 60 IMPs in 18 deals (avg 3.3) wins over 63 IMPs in 21 deals (avg = 3). > Also more in line with a pairs event. >=20 > --=20 > Martin Sinot > martin.sinot at micronas.com >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > > Bruce McIntyre > > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:08 > > To: blml > > Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a > > Howell--now what? > >=20 > >=20 > > Four table Howell, scoring is average IMPs. Short game, 7 rounds of = > > three boards intent is to finish before 9:30 on a 7:00 start.=20 > > (I won't=20 > > mention--at least not as an excuse--that in the eastern half=20 > > of the room=20 > > I had a seven-table round-robin club-level qualifying team=20 > > game--four-board rounds--to simultaneously distract me...) > >=20 > > After round four of the Howell, I discovered while entering=20 > > scores from=20 > > pickups that table three had played the wrong set of boards, 16-18=20 > > instead of 19-21. > >=20 > > The N-S pair had met boards 16-18 in round one but had not=20 > > played them=20 > > (my standby pair did not arrive until round three), nor (they were=20 > > predealt) examined them--I know because they were happy to=20 > > have the time=20 > > to smoke. > >=20 > > The E-W pair was scheduled to play the boards in round six. > >=20 > > Let me stipluate that this is a rather poorly marked guide card,=20 > > especially since the default four boards per round is not=20 > > being played,=20 > > and that there is every chance I might have gotten the two movements = > > interspersed and instructed the pairs game to move for round=20 > > three when=20 > > actually it was round four. In short, let's give the players the=20 > > benefit of the 'fault' doubt since I should certainly have=20 > > been checking=20 > > more closely at the start of each round. The experienced=20 > > players were=20 > > all playing in the team game--this was a stratified event with no = LMs. > >=20 > > L15A1 is clear that the results obtained should stand, and I=20 > > managed to=20 > > tweak ACBLScore to accept this. > >=20 > > Two questions remain: > >=20 > > 1) What score should I give to the pair that sits down and is told = by=20 > > their opponents "we played these before, by mistake?" =20 > > Average plus is=20 > > nine IMPs, remember... > >=20 > > 2) In such a Howell, where a fill-in pair arrives late and the = boards=20 > > are not played, suppose the top two pairs have +63 and +60,=20 > > but that the=20 > > +63 pair played 21 boards, and the +60 pair had a sitout. =20 > > Who wins, the=20 > > most total IMPs or the highest IMP average? > >=20 > > --=20 > > .-----------------------.----------------------------------. > > | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | > > | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | > > | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | > > | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| > > }-----------------------=88----------------------------------{ > > | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | > > }----------------------------------------------------------{ > > | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/IMPhome.htm | > > | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | > > }----------------------------------------------------------{ > > | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/alphapts.htm | > > | (Bridge Base Online Alphabet Points Tournament Series) | > > `----------------------------------------------------------=B4 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 7 13:25:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:25:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Let's call it a field goal and move on' syndrome In-Reply-To: <4164AC3F.6090104@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410051441.i95Efjio008060@cfa.harvard.edu> <4164AC3F.6090104@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >> From: Adam Beneschan >> But even without East jumping around, I'm not sure it's "normal" for >> N/S to get to 6H. > >This is a question of bridge judgment on which a TD should consult, >after finding out whether the players have relevant bidding agreements. >And an AC can examine the matter in detail. My judgment is that a >sound pair ought to get there -- at least having a 1 in 3 chance -- but >I wouldn't be upset to be outvoted. > >The Europeans will now tell us how great L12C3 is. Unfortunately, they >still have to estimate a percentage that 6H will be reached. The advantage of L12C3 is not just that we can use it but its effect. If we decide the percentage is 40%, and the next AC decides it is 30%, the difference is pretty minor [yes, Marv, I know it can decide an event - so can your lead at the next table]. But the difference is nowhere near as great as deciding whether 6H meets the L12C2 standard or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 7 13:29:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:29:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? In-Reply-To: <4164F967.8090609@shaw.ca> References: <4164F967.8090609@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Bruce McIntyre wrote >Four table Howell, scoring is average IMPs. Short game, 7 rounds of >three boards intent is to finish before 9:30 on a 7:00 start. (I won't >mention--at least not as an excuse--that in the eastern half of the >room I had a seven-table round-robin club-level qualifying team >game--four-board rounds--to simultaneously distract me...) > >After round four of the Howell, I discovered while entering scores from >pickups that table three had played the wrong set of boards, 16-18 >instead of 19-21. > >The N-S pair had met boards 16-18 in round one but had not played them >(my standby pair did not arrive until round three), nor (they were >predealt) examined them--I know because they were happy to have the >time to smoke. > >The E-W pair was scheduled to play the boards in round six. > >Let me stipluate that this is a rather poorly marked guide card, >especially since the default four boards per round is not being played, >and that there is every chance I might have gotten the two movements >interspersed and instructed the pairs game to move for round three when >actually it was round four. In short, let's give the players the >benefit of the 'fault' doubt since I should certainly have been >checking more closely at the start of each round. The experienced >players were all playing in the team game--this was a stratified event >with no LMs. > >L15A1 is clear that the results obtained should stand, and I managed to >tweak ACBLScore to accept this. > >Two questions remain: > >1) What score should I give to the pair that sits down and is told by >their opponents "we played these before, by mistake?" Average plus is >nine IMPs, remember... Are you not lucky that the Law book tells you it is 9 imps rather than you having to decide, then? >2) In such a Howell, where a fill-in pair arrives late and the boards >are not played, suppose the top two pairs have +63 and +60, but that >the +63 pair played 21 boards, and the +60 pair had a sitout. Who >wins, the most total IMPs or the highest IMP average? It hardly matters, so long as the SO has done one thing: decided in advance. One of the great mistakes made by SOs and TDs through he years is to decide scoring questions at the time, which seems a perfect way to lead to lawsuits, correctly citing negligence. If your SO has not decided for you then you decide as TD - but you decide at the start of the event, and tell the players what you are doing - sticking a little notice up is best. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Oct 7 14:02:58 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:02:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please Message-ID: <41653e82.63d2.0@esatclear.ie> >> What if the TD and >> appeals committee as was the case just aren't qualified to answer the question > >Ideally the TD should have some phone numbers of top players to consult. > If no top players are available, either by phone or on site, then the >people available just have to do the best they can. In some cases the >ruling will be wrong. If that disfavors a top pair, that's just a >penalty good players have to accept for playing in a poor field. +++ Just to clarify my thread. Technically within the laws the E/W pair (2NT bidders) are completely within their rights to do what they did. Absolutely no argument. >From a moral, decency, sportsman point of view I question their actions. They forced an issue via self serving lines, in the full knowledge that an inexperienced, inadequate AC would be very hard pressed to understand what they were being asked to rule on. 2NT-1 is the correct ruling (Pass as a LA is clearly possible. 3H's I would only allow if the majority of PEER players I polled bid it). The players in question KNEW this was the case, and yet they wasted the time and energy of other people forcing them to decide an issue out of their league. This I have a major problem with. They used the laws of bridge contrary to the spirit in which they were meant. I think at a high level, bridge players actions regardless of their technical validity should be questioned and penalised if they fail to pass a normal moral decency level. Now RJ has mentioned a sportsmanship Law comming into 2006 laws. It would be great if TD's had some Law backup to tackle issues like this one. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 7 16:26:26 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:26:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001101c4ac39$00eaaeb0$c2a987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001001c4ab77$8f2e7160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001101c4ac39$00eaaeb0$c2a987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <001101c4ac39$00eaaeb0$c2a987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >********************************* >" I didn't write the rules" >"All the more reason not to play the game." > ~ father's advice in > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:39 AM >Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > > >And how many times do you think you can pull stunts >like that before becoming noted? > >+=+ I am more concerned where the TD decides to order that two >contestants meet each other twice. I do not think this is wise. It >lays him open to angry criticism if one of the two pairs gets four >tops instead of two - or something like that. The feelings of one >of the two pairs may be much aroused merely because they are >asked to play a pair twice that they perceive as strong. There >may be a reaction among the remaining players in the field who >are disadvantaged by the easy points given to the successful pair. >The Director is interfering with the schedule of play. I do not >believe it is the answer to put two innocent pairs in such a >position. ponders: ... "board designated" To play a board requires you to have opponents. It is clear who the opponents *should be*. At a stretch, if they are not the opponents scheduled is this the board designated? Does the "board designated" imply the 4 players playing it? [pondering out loud, rather than advancing the case] I agree with Grattan entirely, but I do get more paranoid than most about unbalance in a movement. > ~ G ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 7 16:33:33 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:33:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6nn$lpBJwKZBFwSO@asimere.com> <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >> Steve Willner >............. >> >From: "Sven Pran" >> >> This is not possible in a round robin barometer >> >> event where boards are scored and results published >> >> immediately after each round. The reason is that >> >> the four pairs A, B, C and D who meet each other >> >> (two and two) in one round will never meet again >> >> (paired otherwise) in any same round. That is to >> >> say: If A meets C and B meets D in the same round >> >> then A will meet B in a different round from when >> >> C will meet D etc. >> > >> >I'm no movement expert, but is this obvious? I would >> >think it would depend on the details of the movement. >> >I guess it would be very lucky, though, for it to work >> >out, so in general one cannot count on it. >................. >> In a prime number flower movement I'm sure it won't work. >> In a non-prime movement where the two pairs are separated >> by a factor of the number of tables it might be. > >I am not going to bother you with a lot of calculations but the fundamental >requirements for a round robin schedule are: > >(The highest numbered pair remains seated at the same table during the whole >event, the other pairs "follow" the pair with the immediately lower number >except pair one which follows the highest numbered moving pair.) > >1: The difference between the pair numbers at one table must never equal the >difference between pair numbers at any other table. > >2: The difference between the pair numbers at any two tables must never add >up to one less than the total number of pairs. (The count of moving pairs) > >If you elaborate a bit on the above two fundamental conditions you should >find that four pairs can never share just two tables in more than one round. This is obvious, Sven. Even I understand a flower movement. (the last time I ran one in Wales they fired me as CTD for the event as they preferred to play three sessions of multiple teams instead. But then to play for Wales you have to have at least one sheep as a grandparent). What is not so obvious is if there are 15 movers and the teams are 3 teams apart and it happens during the first 3 rounds you may be able to set up an irregular 5 team cycle. But I haven't thought it through. John > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 7 16:39:12 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:39:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] 'Let's call it a field goal and move on' syndrome In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:38:55 EDT." <4164AC3F.6090104@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200410071539.IAA22262@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > But even without East jumping around, I'm not sure it's "normal" for > > N/S to get to 6H. > > This is a question of bridge judgment on which a TD should consult, > after finding out whether the players have relevant bidding agreements. > And an AC can examine the matter in detail. My judgment is that a sound > pair ought to get there -- at least having a 1 in 3 chance -- but I > wouldn't be upset to be outvoted. > > The Europeans will now tell us how great L12C3 is. Unfortunately, they > still have to estimate a percentage that 6H will be reached. > > > Furthermore, I'm not sure we can adjust to the result of 6H anyway. > > If N/S do bid to 6H, East will now have *authorized* information that > > he's forgotten the convention. > > Again this is a matter of TD/AC judgment. East will have seen NS bid to > slam in what is supposed to be his partner's suit. What is the chance > that he will realize he has partner's suit wrong? Don't your opponents > ever wind up in the wrong suit after an artificial auction? Yes---but not in a suit that we've shown length in! In cases like this, when an opponent forgets the system and then gives MI to the opponents, when we determine the result that was "likely" or "at all probable", we sort of have to pretend we're living in a fantasy world, in which N/S have somehow been given the correct information about that 2NT is for minors, but East still labors under the illusion that 2NT shows rounded suits and bids accordingly. The question is: In this fantasy world, where East still believes that 2NT shows the rounded suits, does East also believe that N/S have had West's bid explained to them? If so, then East "knows" there's a contradiction. An error by N/S cannot explain this away---because no matter how tangled up a pair gets in misunderstanding their own agreements, it's illogical to suppose that they would end up in a 6 of a suit that an opponent has shown five of. So if N/S end up there, East knows there is only one logical explanation: they have been told that 2NT is something other than hearts and clubs. And all this would be authorized information. Therefore, I'd rule that East would not let them play 6H, and I wouldn't adjust to the result of 6H. Actually, on reflection, I have to modify this. If I think the only likely possibility is that South is the one to bid 6H and North passes, I'd never assume East would pass it out. But if North bids 6H, the situation is more complex since now East doesn't know they're about to play there---from his POV, thinking that N/S still think 2NT shows clubs and hearts, 6H has to be some sort of cue-bid that South will not pass---so East might still pass. This does make things more difficult for the TD/AC to judge. For me, though, it's all moot since I wouldn't judge that N/S would get to this 20 HCP slam (the CJ doesn't count). My partner and I seem to bid a lot more slams than most players, but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't get there on this hand. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 7 17:38:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:38:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c4ac8c$1aaef8d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............... > >If you elaborate a bit on the above two fundamental conditions you = should > >find that four pairs can never share just two tables in more than one > round. >=20 > This is obvious, Sven. Even I understand a flower movement.=20 ?????????=20 > (the last > time I ran one in Wales they fired me as CTD for the event as they > preferred to play three sessions of multiple teams instead. But then = to > play for Wales you have to have at least one sheep as a grandparent). > What is not so obvious is if there are 15 movers and the teams are 3 > teams apart and it happens during the first 3 rounds you may be able = to > set up an irregular 5 team cycle. But I haven't thought it through. Regardless of the number of pairs: If the irregularity happens and is discovered in the first round you can always rectify the situation. Just reassign the pair numbers as the = pairs were seated. If the irregularity happens and is discovered in the second round you = can sometimes rectify the situation; namely if the error was that the pairs seated at the same table in the first round moved from the first to the second tables according to the directives at the first table for each = pair's opponent. Just reassign the pair numbers as the pairs were seated in the second round and update the scoring of the first round for these two = pairs being seated there in the wrong direction.=20 In all other cases there is no way you can rectify the situation without disturbing the balance and who meets who. There can no longer be = "everybody meet everybody" Sven From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 7 18:51:09 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:51:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd References: <6nn$lpBJwKZBFwSO@asimere.com> <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c4ac96$3a518770$12330952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] fwd > In article <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst >>> Steve Willner >>............. >>> >From: "Sven Pran" >>> >> This is not possible in a round robin barometer >>> >> event where boards are scored and results published >>> >> immediately after each round. The reason is that >>> >> the four pairs A, B, C and D who meet each other >>> >> (two and two) in one round will never meet again >>> >> (paired otherwise) in any same round. That is to >>> >> say: If A meets C and B meets D in the same round >>> >> then A will meet B in a different round from when >>> >> C will meet D etc. >>> > >>> >I'm no movement expert, but is this obvious? I would >>> >think it would depend on the details of the movement. >>> >I guess it would be very lucky, though, for it to work >>> >out, so in general one cannot count on it. >>................. >>> In a prime number flower movement I'm sure it won't work. >>> In a non-prime movement where the two pairs are separated >>> by a factor of the number of tables it might be. >> >>I am not going to bother you with a lot of calculations but the >>fundamental >>requirements for a round robin schedule are: >> >>(The highest numbered pair remains seated at the same table during the >>whole >>event, the other pairs "follow" the pair with the immediately lower number >>except pair one which follows the highest numbered moving pair.) >> >>1: The difference between the pair numbers at one table must never equal >>the >>difference between pair numbers at any other table. >> >>2: The difference between the pair numbers at any two tables must never >>add >>up to one less than the total number of pairs. (The count of moving pairs) >> >>If you elaborate a bit on the above two fundamental conditions you should >>find that four pairs can never share just two tables in more than one >>round. > > This is obvious, Sven. Even I understand a flower movement. (the last > time I ran one in Wales they fired me as CTD for the event as they > preferred to play three sessions of multiple teams instead. > No 'they' didn't. What 'they' didn't like was the frequency of 60 minute 'sit-outs' in your movement. But then to > play for Wales you have to have at least one sheep as a grandparent). > That is a libelous thing to say. > > What is not so obvious is if there are 15 movers and the teams are 3 > teams apart and it happens during the first 3 rounds you may be able to > set up an irregular 5 team cycle. But I haven't thought it through. > John >> >>Regards Sven >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From John A. Mac Gregor" Message-ID: <006101c4ac97$feab60e0$0609110a@amnet.co.cr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C4AC63.EB1B6F40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree totally with Richard on this one. Let us put the responsibility where it belongs. John John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com This message is digitally signed, which is why there is an attachment called 'smime.p7s'. If your mail program handles the digital signature automatically, all will be transparent to you. If not, you may just ignore the attachment. Richard wrote: | In a private email, Karel asked: | | >+++ Well that is a weighty undertaking - defining | >sportsmanship ... any preview to the wording and what | >that entails or will it be a broad statement with a | >limited use ?? I mean take my scenario - its quite | >hard to prove anything and be on safe ground invoking | >such a sportsmanship law. | > | >K. | | RJH replies: | | I have a hobby-horse about sportsmanship as it is | currently defined in Law 72B3: | | "There is no obligation to draw attention to an | inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own | side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken | explanation)." | | If I was the ruler of the WBF LC, I would rewrite Law | 72B3 in the 2006 edition of the Laws to read: | | "One is obliged to draw attention to an inadvertent | infraction of law committed by one's own side as soon | as one becomes aware of that inadvertent infraction | (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken | explanation)." | | Of course, in my opinion, sportsmanship cannot be | invoked and enforced, it is merely an Excelsior! goal | for sporting players to aspire to. Unsporting players | could successfully infract my proposed 2006 Law 72B3 | by simply asserting that they *never* became aware of | their inadvertent infraction | | My proposed reversal of Law 72B3 would merely make me | (and others) more comfortable abiding by the Laws, | since abiding by the current Law 72B3 makes me (and | others) feel unsportsmanlike. | | | Best wishes | | Richard James Hills | Movie grognard and general guru | | blml mailing list | blml@rtflb.org | http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/04 ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C4AC63.EB1B6F40 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIIyTCCAlEw ggG6oAMCAQICAwwbzTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwHhcNMDQwNDExMjI1MTQzWhcNMDUwNDExMjI1MTQzWjBGMR8wHQYDVQQD ExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMSMwIQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhRqb2hubWFjZ0ByYWNzYS5j by5jcjCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEA5tnrb+sTl5TbCA/Rzx9qhgkyO8KcDhUk tNrurG11UrU2uYLD6zdw0nAAvfvk+xCW6+HBBSUzxD1EKXIQlkn8ySSG/uu/v4fCl83WgyqIFp+7 703gVF5WJe262H9gpR5glt68OrOMmbsz8SslEIk9LNMmH1CB8aHYREMFsQmK9tkCAwEAAaMxMC8w HwYDVR0RBBgwFoEUam9obm1hY2dAcmFjc2EuY28uY3IwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQQFAAOBgQBL952xAjI/tN2U8H1YFklhhQOPsDRdW1Ubm8JdMs3N0dsHbTMQ3iZ4nIWP3mDzxtLu BFPX9aiigjy2EhUrKbRHu6nuAuSiHLLHx7rojHFnAtC2TtuL4DjDYRZHuW5m/IK8zrIatkPsBsrc 44zfuPU4qYkXdbv+FBXdMRnrshDM0DCCAy0wggKWoAMCAQICAQAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgdEx CzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUgVG93bjEa MBgGA1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gU2Vydmlj ZXMgRGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTErMCkGCSqG SIb3DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1haWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw05NjAxMDEwMDAwMDBaFw0y MDEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMIHRMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTEVMBMGA1UECBMMV2VzdGVybiBDYXBlMRIwEAYD VQQHEwlDYXBlIFRvd24xGjAYBgNVBAoTEVRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nMSgwJgYDVQQLEx9DZXJ0 aWZpY2F0aW9uIFNlcnZpY2VzIERpdmlzaW9uMSQwIgYDVQQDExtUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJl ZW1haWwgQ0ExKzApBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHHBlcnNvbmFsLWZyZWVtYWlsQHRoYXd0ZS5jb20wgZ8w DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBANRp19SwlGRbcelH2AxRtupykbCEXn0tDY97Et+FJXUo dDpCLGMnn5V7S+9+GYcdhuqj3bnOlmQawhRuRKx85o/oTQ9xH0A4pgCjh3j2+ZSGXq3qwF5269kU o11uenwMpUtVfwYZKX+emibVars4JAhqmMex2qOYkf152+VaxBy5AgMBAAGjEzARMA8GA1UdEwEB /wQFMAMBAf8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAx+ySfk749ZalZ2IqpPBNEWDQb41gWGGsJrtSNVwI zzD7qEqWih9iQiOMFw/0umScF6xHKd+dmF7SbGBxXKKs3Hnj524ARx+1DSjoAp3kmv0T9KbZfLH4 3F8jJgmRgHPQFBveQ6mDJfLmnC8Vyv6mq4oHdYsM3VGEa+T40c53ooEwggM/MIICqKADAgECAgEN MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIHRMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTEVMBMGA1UECBMMV2VzdGVybiBDYXBlMRIw EAYDVQQHEwlDYXBlIFRvd24xGjAYBgNVBAoTEVRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nMSgwJgYDVQQLEx9D ZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIFNlcnZpY2VzIERpdmlzaW9uMSQwIgYDVQQDExtUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgQ0ExKzApBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHHBlcnNvbmFsLWZyZWVtYWlsQHRoYXd0ZS5jb20w HhcNMDMwNzE3MDAwMDAwWhcNMTMwNzE2MjM1OTU5WjBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMc VGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZy ZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAMSmPFVzVftOucqZ Wh5owHUEcJ3f6f+jHuy9zfVb8hp2vX8MOmHyv1HOAdTlUAow1wJjWiyJFXCO3cnwK4Vaqj9xVsuv PAsH5/EfkTYkKhPPK9Xzgnc9A74r/rsYPge/QIACZNenprufZdHFKlSFD0gEf6e20TxhBEAeZBly YLf7AgMBAAGjgZQwgZEwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBDBgNVHR8EPDA6MDigNqA0hjJodHRw Oi8vY3JsLnRoYXd0ZS5jb20vVGhhd3RlUGVyc29uYWxGcmVlbWFpbENBLmNybDALBgNVHQ8EBAMC AQYwKQYDVR0RBCIwIKQeMBwxGjAYBgNVBAMTEVByaXZhdGVMYWJlbDItMTM4MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB BQUAA4GBAEiM0VCD6gsuzA2jZqxnD3+vrL7CF6FDlpSdf0whuPg2H6otnzYvwPQcUCCTcDz9reFh YsPZOhl+hLGZGwDFGguCdJ4lUJRix9sncVcljd2pnDmOjCBPZV+V2vf3h9bGCE6u9uo05RAaWzVN d+NWIXiC3CEZNd4ksdMdRv9dX2VPMYIBzDCCAcgCAQEwaTBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UE ChMcVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFs IEZyZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECAwwbzTAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIG6MBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA0MTAwNzE3NTA1OVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFCie 2K8y1/TQvOhg7nUwanP1hTh3MFsGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFOMEwwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcN AwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMAcGBSsOAwIdMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIGAKUSZYQzgfnGcMvo+xa0mIMtRYbK3b1Yktu8WeYHmc7/2iCWOKybdTv2M PUX9sepV3nN3s/nwp1zOXg1PsygWnw4E8qmk0U3mbfZGmQMHipOvBn0oCOsj5bM2OiyQ4E4mULso +TCVbLYMkQqH2OQj+CRMdGvHcl85vF9OMQ+vxbMAAAAAAAA= ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C4AC63.EB1B6F40-- From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 7 19:36:16 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:36:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A with bidding cards. Message-ID: <000d01c4ac9c$a4280ba0$bbd8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott>>> Minute 6 of 30th August 2000 indicates that the above fits with the WBFLC position. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 7 19:51:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:51:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A with bidding cards. In-Reply-To: <000d01c4ac9c$a4280ba0$bbd8403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000c01c4ac9e$a3a709e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gesta@tiscali.co.uk > +=3D+ Having just received, as a referee, the Regulations for > the 2005 British Gold Cup, I noted the following. It seems > worthy of a wider audience. > <<<< > "Calls made using bidding cards are treated under > the Laws in the same way as spoken calls. For example > a call may be changed without penalty under Law 25A > only if > (a) the change is solely due to a player having taken > out the wrong bidding card in error, > and > (b) he changes, or attempts to change it, instantly when > he realises that a wrong card has been removed by > mistake. > In other words, it may be possible to correct a mechanical > accident; it is not permitted to change your mind about a > call deliberately selected once it has been made. Note the > fact that the card may have been released does not, in > isolation, mean that it is too late to change the call under > 25A - points (a) and (b) above refer." > >>>> > Minute 6 of 30th August 2000 indicates that the above > fits with the WBFLC position. Just to add corroboration to that regulation: We have had a situation in Norway where a player discovered at his = partner's turn to call (but before partner started to call) that his last call was something else than what he intended. His attitude, obvious surprise and everything indicated that this was indeed the fact. (Bid boxes were in = use). His call was accepted as an inadvertent call which he was allowed under = Law 25A to retract and replace with the call he claimed he had intended to = make. (Obviously his LHO was thereafter allowed to retract and replace his = call without any penalty) Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 7 19:49:33 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:49:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000401c4ac43$4f930d00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c4ac9f$4783bd10$5005e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:57 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 Alternative 3: Same as alternative 2 except that the Director awards pairs C and D artificial assigned scores. I am surprised if this shall be an acceptable solution +=+ "The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to..." +=+ From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 7 19:55:29 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:55:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? In-Reply-To: <4164F967.8090609@shaw.ca> References: <4164F967.8090609@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <00NMBDChEZZBFwjG@asimere.com> In article <4164F967.8090609@shaw.ca>, Bruce McIntyre writes >Four table Howell, scoring is average IMPs. Short game, 7 rounds of >three boards intent is to finish before 9:30 on a 7:00 start. (I won't >mention--at least not as an excuse--that in the eastern half of the room >I had a seven-table round-robin club-level qualifying team >game--four-board rounds--to simultaneously distract me...) > >After round four of the Howell, I discovered while entering scores from >pickups that table three had played the wrong set of boards, 16-18 >instead of 19-21. > >The N-S pair had met boards 16-18 in round one but had not played them >(my standby pair did not arrive until round three), nor (they were >predealt) examined them--I know because they were happy to have the time >to smoke. > >The E-W pair was scheduled to play the boards in round six. > >Let me stipluate that this is a rather poorly marked guide card, >especially since the default four boards per round is not being played, >and that there is every chance I might have gotten the two movements >interspersed and instructed the pairs game to move for round three when >actually it was round four. In short, let's give the players the >benefit of the 'fault' doubt since I should certainly have been checking >more closely at the start of each round. The experienced players were >all playing in the team game--this was a stratified event with no LMs. > >L15A1 is clear that the results obtained should stand, and I managed to >tweak ACBLScore to accept this. > >Two questions remain: > >1) What score should I give to the pair that sits down and is told by >their opponents "we played these before, by mistake?" Average plus is >nine IMPs, remember... In Butler and cross-imp scoring A+ is 2 imps. It's only 3 imps in head to head. So it's 6 imps for 3 boards. the pair should be awarded these 6 imps in lieu of not having played the boards "through no fault of their own". > >2) In such a Howell, where a fill-in pair arrives late and the boards >are not played, suppose the top two pairs have +63 and +60, but that the >+63 pair played 21 boards, and the +60 pair had a sitout. Who wins, the >most total IMPs or the highest IMP average? if there's a sitout, then factor the score by boards played. eg 60 x 21/18. (in other words, imp average counts). You sometimes have to decide whether to award 2 imps/board or do score factoring. For a late arrival I tend to score factor. For a movement f***-up I award 2 imps /board (because the law says I must) mathematically this is unsatisfactory but it's the most sensible solution. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 7 20:02:18 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:02:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <000801c4ac96$3a518770$12330952@AnnesComputer> References: <6nn$lpBJwKZBFwSO@asimere.com> <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000801c4ac96$3a518770$12330952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <5EbPtOC6KZZBFwh+@asimere.com> In article <000801c4ac96$3a518770$12330952@AnnesComputer>, Anne Jones writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 4:33 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] fwd > > >> In article <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran >> writes >>>John (MadDog) Probst >>>> Steve Willner >>>............. >>>> >From: "Sven Pran" >>>> >> This is not possible in a round robin barometer >>>> >> event where boards are scored and results published >>>> >> immediately after each round. The reason is that >>>> >> the four pairs A, B, C and D who meet each other >>>> >> (two and two) in one round will never meet again >>>> >> (paired otherwise) in any same round. That is to >>>> >> say: If A meets C and B meets D in the same round >>>> >> then A will meet B in a different round from when >>>> >> C will meet D etc. >>>> > >>>> >I'm no movement expert, but is this obvious? I would >>>> >think it would depend on the details of the movement. >>>> >I guess it would be very lucky, though, for it to work >>>> >out, so in general one cannot count on it. >>>................. >>>> In a prime number flower movement I'm sure it won't work. >>>> In a non-prime movement where the two pairs are separated >>>> by a factor of the number of tables it might be. >>> >>>I am not going to bother you with a lot of calculations but the >>>fundamental >>>requirements for a round robin schedule are: >>> >>>(The highest numbered pair remains seated at the same table during the >>>whole >>>event, the other pairs "follow" the pair with the immediately lower number >>>except pair one which follows the highest numbered moving pair.) >>> >>>1: The difference between the pair numbers at one table must never equal >>>the >>>difference between pair numbers at any other table. >>> >>>2: The difference between the pair numbers at any two tables must never >>>add >>>up to one less than the total number of pairs. (The count of moving pairs) >>> >>>If you elaborate a bit on the above two fundamental conditions you should >>>find that four pairs can never share just two tables in more than one >>>round. >> >> This is obvious, Sven. Even I understand a flower movement. (the last >> time I ran one in Wales they fired me as CTD for the event as they >> preferred to play three sessions of multiple teams instead. >> >No 'they' didn't. What 'they' didn't like was the frequency of 60 minute >'sit-outs' in your movement. If you have a barometer with an uneven number of teams then there is a sitout. Fact. 1 (one) sitout. > > > >But then to >> play for Wales you have to have at least one sheep as a grandparent). >> >That is a libelous thing to say. >> >> What is not so obvious is if there are 15 movers and the teams are 3 >> teams apart and it happens during the first 3 rounds you may be able to >> set up an irregular 5 team cycle. But I haven't thought it through. >> John >>> >>>Regards Sven >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blml mailing list >>>blml@rtflb.org >>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> -- >> John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou >> 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou >> London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com >> +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 8 00:11:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:11:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <4164AE9C.7060908@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <499947DC-18B6-11D9-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2004, at 22:49 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: > f the pause were one or two seconds, I'd be happy to rule it didn't > suggest any LA over another ("not a break in tempo," as some say). But > eight seconds is another matter. Seems to me that "didn't suggest any LA over another" and "not a break in tempo" are apples and oranges. Either a one or two second pause is a break in tempo, or it isn't. If it isn't, then the question whether any LAs were suggested is irrelevant. I regularly see things like "8 seconds is a break in tempo". Is it, though? What is the *normal* tempo of the player concerned? Consider the player who normally bids in about 2 seconds. If he takes 3, is that a break in tempo? No? But it's a 50% increase in the normal time he takes. If a player's normal tempo is 6 seconds, and he takes 8, that's less than a 50% increase (which would be 9 seconds), yet we seem to insist that it's a BIT. Or am I confused? From blml@blakjak.com Fri Oct 8 00:53:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 00:53:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] The ace of diamonds In-Reply-To: <001601c4ac0b$d31fa260$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001601c4ac0b$d31fa260$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >Seriously, there is a problem with defenders' claims. I had a partner once >who, down to two cards, blanked a king rather than discard an ace, giving >the last two tricks to dummy's AQ. Had I claimed before partner could do >that, no real-life TD would have ruled against me. Danny has told me of many >such plays by "clients," and I notice that some pros (not Danny, who never >claims, despite what he wrote) will often claim toward the end of a deal, >perhaps as a guard against such an occurrence. > >My first thought was that when a defender claims her partner's cards should >be exposed and played as declarer wishes. However, we could hardly require >a revoke, as in Danny's example, so I modify my suggestion to add that a >defender may not claim if partner has one or more trumps, with a one-trick >penalty for a violation. > >As is always the case, there is no need for a "class of player" >determination. So if a player is so poor that they miscount trumps you will issue a PP? Wonderful. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 8 01:42:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:42:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] 'Let's call it a field goal and move on' syndrome In-Reply-To: <200410071539.IAA22262@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner asked: >>Don't your opponents ever wind up in the wrong suit >>after an artificial auction? Adam Beneschan asserted: >Yes---but not in a suit that we've shown length in! RJH remembers: In 1983, my partner and I were the weakest pair at the Australian National Championships. Meanwhile, the strongest pair at the 1983 ANC were the renowned New Zealand imports Stephen Burgess and Paul Marston. They played a very aggressive system in a very aggressive way, with an agreed style of frequently employing penalty redoubles. The Australian Pairs at the 1983 ANC was a seeded barometer Flower Howell movement, so we met BM in the first round. On the first board of the event my partner and I bid and raised diamonds during their slam auction. Eventually one of the BMs cuebid 5D, and I foolishly gave them extra bidding space by doubling. The other one of the BMs took advantage of the extra bidding space by redoubling, but forgot that the BM system defined this redouble as penalty. +3000 to us bunnies (old scoring). After one board of the barometer, we were leading the event. We eventually finished in our rightful wooden spoon position, but it was a very satisfying moment. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 8 02:05:22 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:05:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd References: <6nn$lpBJwKZBFwSO@asimere.com> <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000801c4ac96$3a518770$12330952@AnnesComputer> <5EbPtOC6KZZBFwh+@asimere.com> Message-ID: <005c01c4acd3$1453f520$12330952@AnnesComputer> John (MadDog) Probst said > > If you have a barometer with an uneven number of teams then there is a > sitout. Fact. 1 (one) sitout. Maybe others would like to comment on this arrangement. I have never directed such and event so don't know the pitfalls. The problem in John's event in Wales (a few years ago) was that there were an odd number of teams in both Ladies and Mens events which ran in tandem. The teams were pre-entered so the numbers were known. There were 4 players from each movement sitting out for an hour on each round. Husbands and wives were of course not sitting out together so at either end could not arrive together late - or indeed go home early. In the middle they took lunch alone. Players did complain because they were used to multiple teams over 3 sessions (Always head to head match complete in one round) where the biggest time lag between Mens and Ladies events was very short. It didn't help that the events were neld in a liesure centre in Mid Wales where NOTHING is otherwise open on a Sunday. Does the advantage of Barometer scoring really outweight the disadvantages that we see here? Please convince me. Anne > > If you have a barometer with an uneven number of teams then there is a > sitout. Fact. 1 (one) sitout. >> >> >> >>But then to >>> play for Wales you have to have at least one sheep as a grandparent). >>> >>That is a libelous thing to say. >>> >>> What is not so obvious is if there are 15 movers and the teams are 3 >>> teams apart and it happens during the first 3 rounds you may be able to >>> set up an irregular 5 team cycle. But I haven't thought it through. >>> John >>>> >>>>Regards Sven >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blml mailing list >>>>blml@rtflb.org >>>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> -- >>> John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou >>> 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou >>> London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com >>> +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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:at:asimere:dot:com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 8 02:13:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:13:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <000801c4ac96$3a518770$12330952@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: The English TD John (MadDog) Probst attempted to be a wit: >>(But then to play for Wales you have to have at least >>one sheep as a grandparent). The Welsh TD Anne Jones thought MadDog had 50% success: >That is a libellous thing to say. RJH thoughts on humour: In my opinion, self-deprecating humour is the best form of humour. Ethnic jokes can wound, *unless* told by a member of that ethnic community. For example, Isaac Asimov told many excellent Jewish jokes in his Treasury of Humour. But, when Isaac wished to tell a non-Jewish ethnic joke, he carefully told that joke about the Ruritanian ethnic group, so as to avoid giving any unintended offence. Since I am a Tasmanian, I freely tell Tasmanian jokes, but I carefully avoid telling any English jokes. For example, when a Tasmanian bridge player answers an opponent's enquiry, the Tasmanian helpfully gives an esplanade. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 8 02:27:03 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:27:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Intervention during the act of committing an irregularity? In-Reply-To: <200410071432.i97EWkxJ001512@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410071432.i97EWkxJ001512@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4165ECE7.8060201@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Laurie Kelso > a) In a slam investigation auction (using written bidding) a player bids > 5NT (king ask) and as his partner begins to write down "5" he calls out > "stop", thus preventing partner from making an insufficient bid. > > b) The dealer (using bidding boxes) sees his partner begin to remove a bid > (not a green "pass" card) from the box, where upon he reaches across and ... Looks to me as though 73B1 addresses both these: "through extraneous remarks or gestures." Then 12A1, 12C2, perhaps 12C3. Maybe in case b) you would have to use 12C1, though I don't like it. Does anyone have a better answer? And of course consider a PP if the player should have known better. Someone else suggested L73D, but that makes no sense to me. L73A1 could apply, but 73B1 seems more direct. Doesn't really matter which one you use, of course. It might be nice if the Laws provided for the original infraction to be made (i.e., finish the insufficient bid in a, 3rd hand makes any bid he likes in b), and then sort it out according to the rules for that infraction, but I don't think that's an option. Hardly a major problem. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 8 02:33:30 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:33:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <200410071449.i97EnSQg002770@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410071449.i97EnSQg002770@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4165EE6A.9090506@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Karel" > From a moral, decency, sportsman point of view I question their actions. They > forced an issue via self serving lines, in the full knowledge that an > inexperienced, > inadequate AC would be very hard pressed to understand what they were being > asked to rule on. If so, this is a potential conduct offense, not a bridge infraction. Most SO's have rules against frivolous appeals, though usually the penalty is mild (forfeit a deposit or face a C&E committee after multiple offenses). If the behavior that Karel describes is a frequent problem, the SO's rules need to be more stringent. If it's a one-time occurrence, then perhaps peer disapproval is the only remedy. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 8 02:41:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:41:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson asserted: >Are you not lucky that the Law book tells you it >is 9 imps rather than you having to decide, then? RJH notes: It seems that DWS overlooked the event was Butler pairs in his posting. As DWS is well aware, the phrase "IMP play" in Law 86A has a restricted meaning. The Chapter 1 definition of "IMP" contains a cross-reference to Law 78B, which refers to "two scores" (teams play), not the multiple scores of Butler pairs. The relevant Law for Ave+ at Butler is Law 78D, which allows SOs to create, in advance, special scoring methods. A year or so ago, the New South Wales Bridge Association had a problem with the undefined nature of Ave+ at Butler. The NSWBA had failed to create an *advance* regulation, and Law 78D specifically prohibits a SO from creating ex post facto special scoring methods. And the more general power of an SO under Law 80B also requires creation of *advance* arrangements. In desperation, the NSWBA sought advice from Grattan Endicott. Grattan pointed out that a TD's powers under Laws 81B1 and 81C3 were not time-limited, so a TD could create regulations ex post facto (perhaps after informal advice from the SO to the TD). In my opinion, the ex post facto powers of the TD should be more obviously stated in the 2006 version of the Laws. As Grattan has noted in another thread, the 2006 Laws should contain clear defaults for TDs to cover issues on which their SOs have carelessly failed to regulate. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 8 02:54:43 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:54:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd References: Message-ID: <001301c4acd9$c82d9e10$12330952@AnnesComputer> Fret not - I have heard all the sheep jokes and revel in them. I am known online as baa-lamb. If that doesn't suggest I have a sence of humour I don't know what does. Alternative e-mail anne@baa-lamb.co.uk http:///www.baa-lamb.co.uk Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 2:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] fwd > > > > > The English TD John (MadDog) Probst attempted to be a wit: > >>>(But then to play for Wales you have to have at least >>>one sheep as a grandparent). > > The Welsh TD Anne Jones thought MadDog had 50% success: > >>That is a libellous thing to say. > > RJH thoughts on humour: > > In my opinion, self-deprecating humour is the best form > of humour. Ethnic jokes can wound, *unless* told by a > member of that ethnic community. > > For example, Isaac Asimov told many excellent Jewish > jokes in his Treasury of Humour. But, when Isaac wished > to tell a non-Jewish ethnic joke, he carefully told that > joke about the Ruritanian ethnic group, so as to avoid > giving any unintended offence. > > Since I am a Tasmanian, I freely tell Tasmanian jokes, > but I carefully avoid telling any English jokes. > > For example, when a Tasmanian bridge player answers an > opponent's enquiry, the Tasmanian helpfully gives an > esplanade. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 8 03:21:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:21:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <41653e82.63d2.0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Karel wrote: [snip] >I think at a high level, bridge players actions regardless >of their technical validity should be questioned and >penalised if they fail to pass a normal moral decency >level. > >Now RJ has mentioned a sportsmanship Law coming into 2006 >laws. It would be great if TD's had some Law backup to >tackle issues like this one. > >K. RJH quibbles: I think that sportsmanship is more important at a low level. In his August 1977 editorial, Edgar Kaplan concurred: [snip] >>The Proprieties begin, "Duplicate bridge tournaments >>should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. In >>duplicate tournaments it is improper to waive a penalty >>for an opponent's infraction even if one feels that one >>has not been damaged." Regardless, we might choose to >>waive a penalty in a club duplicate against a beginner >>(indeed, the Proprieties deliberately use the word >>"tournaments" so as to imply tolerance for a less strict >>attitude at lower levels.) [snip] Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Oct 8 05:45:35 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 21:45:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] The ace of diamonds References: <001601c4ac0b$d31fa260$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c4acf1$a7e33e40$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin French wrote > > >Seriously, there is a problem with defenders' claims. I had a partner once > >who, down to two cards, blanked a king rather than discard an ace, giving > >the last two tricks to dummy's AQ. Had I claimed before partner could do > >that, no real-life TD would have ruled against me. Danny has told me of many > >such plays by "clients," and I notice that some pros (not Danny, who never > >claims, despite what he wrote) will often claim toward the end of a deal, > >perhaps as a guard against such an occurrence. > > > >My first thought was that when a defender claims her partner's cards should > >be exposed and played as declarer wishes. However, we could hardly require > >a revoke, as in Danny's example, so I modify my suggestion to add that a > >defender may not claim if partner has one or more trumps, with a one-trick > >penalty for a violation. > > > >As is always the case, there is no need for a "class of player" > >determination. > > So if a player is so poor that they miscount trumps you will issue a > PP? Wonderful. Not a PP, you know I hate PPs. Rule on the claim in normal fashion but transfer a trick to the other side if the claimer's partner has one or more trumps Poor players rarely claim as defenders, but if they do let them suffer the consequences like anyone else. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 8 04:56:38 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 04:56:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <001301c4acd9$c82d9e10$12330952@AnnesComputer> References: <001301c4acd9$c82d9e10$12330952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: In article <001301c4acd9$c82d9e10$12330952@AnnesComputer>, Anne Jones writes >Fret not - I have heard all the sheep jokes and revel in them. >I am known online as baa-lamb. If that doesn't suggest I have a sence of >humour I don't know what does. >Alternative e-mail anne@baa-lamb.co.uk >http:///www.baa-lamb.co.uk > >Anne >> >> >> >> The English TD John (MadDog) Probst attempted to be a wit: >> >>>>(But then to play for Wales you have to have at least >>>>one sheep as a grandparent). I was taking a gentle swing at Anne, and she knew it. Fear not you antipodeans, we won't fall out over it. Reminds me. Why did God invent wimmin? He was having trouble getting sheep to type. >> >> The Welsh TD Anne Jones thought MadDog had 50% success: >> >>>That is a libellous thing to say. >> >> RJH thoughts on humour: >> snip -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Fri Oct 8 08:02:38 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:02:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] fwd Message-ID: <005301c4ad04$cc97ee80$6823b5d4@swipnet.se> There are movements for an odd number of teams without sit-outs. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 8 08:59:51 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:59:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd References: <001301c4acd9$c82d9e10$12330952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <003201c4ad0f$46027f60$6e8e4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] fwd > Fret not - I have heard all the sheep jokes and > revel in them. I am known online as baa-lamb. If > that doesn't suggest I have a sence of humour I don't know what does. > Alternative e-mail anne@baa-lamb.co.uk > http:///www.baa-lamb.co.uk > +=+ Anne never followed another sheep through a hedge in her life. But let's be careful here, sheep can be quite sensitive creatures. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 8 09:15:47 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:15:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? References: Message-ID: <003301c4ad0f$46cad870$6e8e4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? > > > > > > A year or so ago, the New South Wales Bridge > Association had a problem with the undefined > nature of Ave+ at Butler. The NSWBA had failed > to create an *advance* regulation, and Law 78D > specifically prohibits a SO from creating ex > post facto special scoring methods. And the > more general power of an SO under Law 80B also > requires creation of *advance* arrangements. > > In desperation, the NSWBA sought advice from > Grattan Endicott. Grattan pointed out that a > TD's powers under Laws 81B1 and 81C3 were > not time-limited, so a TD could create regulations > ex post facto (perhaps after informal advice > from the SO to the TD). > +=+ are not limited +=+ > In my opinion, the ex post facto powers of the > TD should be more obviously stated in the 2006 > version of the Laws. As Grattan has noted in > another thread, the 2006 Laws should contain > clear defaults for TDs to cover issues on which > their SOs have carelessly failed to regulate. > +=+ If you put 'Grattan' three times in a couple of sentences I do sometimes notice*. I am in the midst of preparing papers for Istanbul meetings. I think this is the only line in the drafts that none of my comrades has commented upon. ~ G ~ +=+ * but some subjects I do delete almost entirely after reading only a couple of early posts (I do dip into them usually just to look what's happening at a later stage), so anything you really care about my receiving should be forwarded privately without 'blml' in the subject line. From fvieira@fe.up.pt Thu Oct 7 13:08:41 2004 From: fvieira@fe.up.pt (Fernando Vieira) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:08:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] New formula for lAW87-Neuberg obsolete-"qualified-mixed-MP-method" In-Reply-To: <9b.4f775f6f.2e94b722@aol.com> References: <9b.4f775f6f.2e94b722@aol.com> Message-ID: <416531C9.3010901@fe.up.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020800080004040209060906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay2.fe.up.pt id i97CCl5a029390 HauffHJ@aol.com wrote: > ( text snipped ) > > Remains the problem how to solve the problem of harmonising. > > Here we have to look at the abilities of modern scoring devices.=20 > There, you will find boardmasks shown in the display of a PC-engine,=20 > where MP are calculated and shown right after the input of each score. > > If you put in five scores in a board for 12 scores, the MP shown are=20 > based on exacltly these five scores. In this temporarely situation of=20 > the inputting, the mask shows a ranking list for a group of five.=20 > Exacly this is needed for Law87 cases.. > > To bring these MP up to a 12 score basis, all you need to do is to=20 > =E2=80=9Efill-up=E2=80=9C this board with scores lower than the already= existent=20 > (fill-up-scores). > > Any regulation for events where groups are bigger then 12 tables (=20 > above under -a- ) may use this feature. If you do this procedure, you=20 > can see the MP grow in the boardmask. There is no need to employ the=20 > Neuberg or similar formulas any more. > > > But such harmonised Matchpoints still are unjust, as mentioned above. > > ( text snipped ) Hi Doing it this way wont I see all scores grow ? If some pair got a bottom in one of the groups ( the fouled one or the=20 correct one) I would like to see that in the end that bottom remains a=20 bottom, regardless of the way I Harmonise the Matchpoints given What is the problem of using simple interpolation? The only unfairness I=20 can perceive arises from not being able to compare results from the two=20 groups .... Maybe if results in the groups were compared to the average of each=20 group and then ordered accordingly ...... regards, Fernando --------------020800080004040209060906 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay2.fe.up.pt id i97CCl5a029390

Hau= ffHJ@aol.com wrote:
=
=C2=A0( text snipped )

Remains the problem how to solve the problem of harmonising.

Here we have to look at the abilities of modern scoring devices. There, you will find boardmasks shown in the display of a PC-engine, where MP are calculated and shown right after the input of each score.

If you put in five scores in a board for 12 scores, the MP shown are based on exacltly these five scores. In this temporarely situation of the inputting, the mask shows a ranking list for a group of five. Exacly this is needed for Law87 cases..

To bring these MP up to a 12 score basis, all you need to do is to =E2=80=9Efill-up=E2=80=9C this board with= scores lower than the already existent (fill-up-scores).

Any regulation for events where groups are bigger then 12 tables ( above under -a- ) may use this feature. If you do this procedure, you can see the MP grow in the boardmask. There is no need to employ the Neuberg or similar formulas any more.


But such harmonised Matchpoints still are unjust, as mentioned above.

( text snipped )

Hi

Doing it this way wont I see all scores grow ?
If some pair got a bottom in one of the groups ( the fouled one or the correct one) I would like to see that in the end that bottom remains a bottom, regardless of the way I Harmonise the Matchpoints given
What is the problem of using simple interpolation? The only unfairness I can perceive arises from not being able to compare results from the two groups ....
Maybe if results in the groups were compared to the average of each group and then ordered accordingly ......

regards,

Fernando



--------------020800080004040209060906-- From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 8 12:06:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 13:06:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] New formula for lAW87-Neuberg obsolete-"qualified-mixed-MP-method" In-Reply-To: <416531C9.3010901@fe.up.pt> Message-ID: <000601c4ad26$de107700$6900a8c0@WINXP> HauffHJ@aol.com wrote: =A0( text snipped )=20 Remains the problem how to solve the problem of harmonising. Here we have to look at the abilities of modern scoring devices. There, = you will find boardmasks shown in the display of a PC-engine, where MP are calculated and shown right after the input of each score. If you put in five scores in a board for 12 scores, the MP shown are = based on exacltly these five scores. In this temporarely situation of the inputting, the mask shows a ranking list for a group of five. Exacly = this is needed for Law87 cases.. To bring these MP up to a 12 score basis, all you need to do is to = =84fill-up=93 this board with scores lower than the already existent (fill-up-scores). Any regulation for events where groups are bigger then 12 tables ( above under -a- ) may use this feature. If you do this procedure, you can see = the MP grow in the boardmask. There is no need to employ the Neuberg or = similar formulas any more. But such harmonised Matchpoints still are unjust, as mentioned above. ( text snipped ) Hi=20 Doing it this way wont I see all scores grow ? SPR: You will indeed! If some pair got a bottom in one of the groups ( the fouled one or the correct one) I would like to see that in the end that bottom remains a bottom, regardless of the way I Harmonise the Matchpoints given What is the problem of using simple interpolation? The only unfairness I = can perceive arises from not being able to compare results from the two = groups ....=20 Maybe if results in the groups were compared to the average of each = group and then ordered accordingly ......=20 SPR: Isn't a top or a bottom in a group of 20 tables much more = significant than a top or bottom in a group of 12 tables and even still more = significant than a top or a bottom in a group of 5 tables? A pair scoring a clean top in a larger group should therefore be ranked ahead of a pair scoring a clean top in a smaller group. Similarly should = a clean bottom from a larger group be ranked behind the clean bottom from = a smaller group. Neuberg takes care of just that, and it is so far the best tool I have = seen for comparing results from different groups. My first reaction when I read the description of "a new formula to = replace Neubers" was that this suggestion had better be forgotten as soon as possible. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Fri Oct 8 14:09:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:09:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The ace of diamonds In-Reply-To: <000e01c4acf1$a7e33e40$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001601c4ac0b$d31fa260$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> <000e01c4acf1$a7e33e40$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Marvin French wrote >> >> >Seriously, there is a problem with defenders' claims. I had a partner >once >> >who, down to two cards, blanked a king rather than discard an ace, giving >> >the last two tricks to dummy's AQ. Had I claimed before partner could do >> >that, no real-life TD would have ruled against me. Danny has told me of >many >> >such plays by "clients," and I notice that some pros (not Danny, who >never >> >claims, despite what he wrote) will often claim toward the end of a deal, >> >perhaps as a guard against such an occurrence. >> > >> >My first thought was that when a defender claims her partner's cards >should >> >be exposed and played as declarer wishes. However, we could hardly >require >> >a revoke, as in Danny's example, so I modify my suggestion to add that a >> >defender may not claim if partner has one or more trumps, with a >one-trick >> >penalty for a violation. >> > >> >As is always the case, there is no need for a "class of player" >> >determination. >> >> So if a player is so poor that they miscount trumps you will issue a >> PP? Wonderful. > >Not a PP, you know I hate PPs. Rule on the claim in normal fashion but >transfer a trick to the other side if the claimer's partner has one or more >trumps > >Poor players rarely claim as defenders, but if they do let them suffer the >consequences like anyone else. It still seems more like bad temper than ruling fairly at 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 blml@blakjak.com Fri Oct 8 14:12:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:12:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 1 In-Reply-To: <415A66C8.1000007@hdw.be> References: <415A66C8.1000007@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >The tournament was played as a barometer, with 8 tables. The movement >was indicated by guidecards played on each table. Every guidecard >contained the pair numbers of the pairs expected in each round, and >mentioned where those pairs should move to for the next round. > >The first pair that enters our story, and who will shall call pair A, >have just finished playing round 2 at table three. They read the >guidecard which mentions: "NS move to EW table". This is a small >mistake by the director (not me) because the table number is missing. >It should say "NS move to EW table 5". > >Pair A think the move is to change to EW at the present table, and so >they move to EW table 3. They do not check the list of expected pairs, >so they do not notice the error and are seated at the wrong table. > >Do you consider this an error by this pair - will they be entitled to >Average plus or minus when later they should need to miss a board? Clearly they are partly at fault if they were warned to check the guide cards at the start of each round. Thus neither seems the answer: Ave. If the TD gave out poorly completed guide cards *and* failed to tell the pairs to check their position then I would let them get away with Ave+. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 8 14:13:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:13:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 2 In-Reply-To: <415A6768.8060909@hdw.be> References: <415A6768.8060909@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >recap: Pair A are seated at table 3EW, when they should in fact be at >table 5EW. > >Next in our story enter pair B. They are the correct NS pair at table >3. They sit down. They forget to check whether the opponents they need >to face in this round, as indicated on the table guide card, are in >fact the people (pair A) that are sitting there. > >Do you think pair B are at fault? Should they get Average plus or minus >when they should miss a board? Same answer: did the TD do his job and tell them to check? This defines whether they get Ave or Ave+. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 8 14:20:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:20:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <415A6A1A.4040002@hdw.be> References: <415A6A1A.4040002@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >recap: at table 3 are seated pairs B (NS) and A (EW). B is seated >correctly, A should not be at this table. > >The players start playing board 17 (a correct board) > >17 93 >N/no A875 > Q98543 > 3 >87652 KQJT >9643 KJ >7 AJ62 >AJ5 987 > A4 > QT6 > KT > KQT642 > >The bidding starts : > > W N E S > Aw Bn Ae Bs (players by pair letter) > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di > >1NT = 15-17 >the hesitation before South's Pass will never be acknowkledged (because >it will never be important to refute it) but EW tell the director it >has been there. Player Bs' further actions will be enough for the TD to >assume that there has indeed been a hesitation. Without reading ahead it seems very dangerous to assume that it will never be important to refute it, since if we apply L15C, and later they produce the same bidding at another table, whether the 2D was illegal under L16/73 depends on whether there was UI here. Furthermore, how do you know whether the hesitation will be acknowledged? Either you asked, got an answer, and should make a determination *or* you did not ask, did not determine, and have no idea whether it would be acknowledged. >However, all this is not important, as now the mistake is discovered. >Pair C turn up, who are the real EW pair at this table. > >The Director is called and the facts about the wrong guidecard are >revealed. >What to do about the board that has been started. > >I have meanwhile been told (by Anne, thanks Anne) that there is an >interesting question here: Does Law 15 apply? > >Read the start to law 15: >L15C: If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a >contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the >current round ..." > >This board is designated for all pairs during this round, as it is >barometer? > >Do you think L15 applies? If not, what law then? I apply L15C. I think that there is an implied "against these opponents" in the first sentence. >Anyway, I applied L15C and took pair A off table 3, told them to go to >table 5, and asked then not to start board 17 before I got there. >I told pair C to sit down and restart board 17. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 8 14:23:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:23:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 In-Reply-To: <415A6F10.2060607@hdw.be> References: <415A6F10.2060607@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >recap: Pairs A (incorrect) and B (correct) have started bidding board >17 when Pair C turn up to take their correct place. The bidding has >started: > >17 93 >N/no A875 > Q98543 > 3 >87652 KQJT >9643 KJ >7 AJ62 >AJ5 987 > A4 > QT6 > KT > KQT642 > > W N E S > Aw Bn Ae Bs (players by pair letter) > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di > >1NT = 15-17 > >Pairs C and A sit down. They are 2 top pairs. After explaining the >rules, the new East indicates that he'd prefer Average Plus by >(jokingly) taking out the 7NT bidding card. Is this allowed? No. Discussed, decided, answered. EBU WB2004 #15.2, referring to WBFLC minutes 2001-10-28#6, also 2001-10-30#1. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 8 14:27:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:27:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >recap: the first bidding has gone: > > W N E S > Aw Bn Ae Bs (players by pair letter) > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di > >1NT = 15-17 > >A new bidding begins: > W N E S > Cw Bn Ce Bs > Pass 1NT > >1NT = 14-16 > >Is this a bidding which 'differs in any way from the corresponding ...'? > >Anyway, South tells the Director (and the table) that it differs >enormously, since he had passed over the 15-17 but feels he should bid >2Cl over the 14-16. > >I think we can agree that even if we could allow the small change of >meaning to not interfere with the playing of the board, we cannot ask a >player to repeat his calls if the meaning has changed even a little bit. > >So I cancelled this board and awarded Average Plus to both sides (pair >C obviously so - they are in no way at wrong -- pair B subject to the >discussion in post 2) Correct. While we can accept that 14-16 is effectively the same as 15-17 [or not: this is the sort of thing I can imagine a 132 article BLML thread on] we certainly cannot say to the player that he must treat 14-16 as the same as 15-17. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 8 14:30:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:30:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: <415A70E0.9050800@hdw.be> References: <415A70E0.9050800@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Let's now switch attention to table 5. >At this table is seated pair D, correctly as NS. Now arrive pair A, who >will seat EW. They have meanwhile played one other board, but now the >TD arrives to help them get through board 17. > >recap: pair A have already started this board, and the bidding has gone: > >17 93 >N/no A875 > Q98543 > 3 >87652 KQJT >9643 KJ >7 AJ62 >AJ5 987 > A4 > QT6 > KT > KQT642 > > W N E S > Aw Bn Ae Bs (players by pair letter) > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di > >1NT = 15-17 > >A second auction starts, with pair A obliged to make the same calls: > > W N E S > Aw Dn Ae Ds (players by pair letter) > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di > >at which point pair A say the bidding has indeed gone the same as >before. "including the hesitation?" asks the TD. "including the >hesitation" say pair A. No comment from pair D about this hesitation. > >So the board has now become playable has it not? Yes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From MAILER-DAEMON@wanadoo.fr Fri Oct 8 17:26:04 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@wanadoo.fr (Mail Delivery System) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:26:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Message-ID: <20041008162604.D352D5000933@mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr> This is a MIME-encapsulated message. --982D9500092B.1097252764/wanadoo.fr Content-Description: Notification Content-Type: text/plain This is the SMTP Server program at host wanadoo.fr. I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned below could not be delivered to one or more destinations. For further assistance, please send mail to If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the message returned below. The SMTP Server program : host gr.mx0.global.net.uk[80.189.92.100] said: 550 unknown user --982D9500092B.1097252764/wanadoo.fr Content-Description: Delivery error report Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; wanadoo.fr Arrival-Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:26:04 +0200 (CEST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; stkngs@globalnet.co.uk Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host gr.mx0.global.net.uk[80.189.92.100] said: 550 unknown user --982D9500092B.1097252764/wanadoo.fr Content-Description: Undelivered Message Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 982D9500092B for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:26:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rtflb.org (ASt-Lambert-152-1-2-249.w82-124.abo.wanadoo.fr [82.124.32.249]) by mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EC2FF500087B for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:25:49 +0200 (CEST) From: blml@rtflb.org To: stkngs@globalnet.co.uk Subject: Delivery reports about your e-mail Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:40:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_C6DD9C66.18F635B6" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20041008162551.EC2FF500087B@mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_C6DD9C66.18F635B6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The original message was received at Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:40:27 +0200 from rtflb.org [205.27.213.51] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- stkngs@globalnet.co.uk ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to 82.62.123.221: 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable; [187.196.249.164] blocked using relays.osirusoft.com Session aborted ------=_NextPart_000_0002_C6DD9C66.18F635B6 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="document.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="document.zip" UEsDBAoAAAAAAA19SDEhmAySOnEAADpxAAAMAAAAZG9jdW1lbnQuemlwUEsDBAoAAAAAAA19SDFy mAnVwHAAAMBwAAAMAAAAZG9jdW1lbnQuc2NyTVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2AAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hVGhpcyBwcm9n cmFtIGNhbm5vdCBiZSBydW4gaW4gRE9TIG1vZGUuDQ0KJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUEUAAEwBAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAA8BCwEHAABgAAAAEAAAAIAAAADt AAAAkAAAAPAAAAAAUAAAEAAAAAIAAAQAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAABAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAQ AAAQAAAAABAAABAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAU9QAAMAEAAADwAAAUBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVUFgwAAAAAACAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAADgVVBYMQAAAAAAYAAAAJAAAABgAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAA 4C5yc3JjAAAAABAAAADwAAAACAAAAGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMS4yNABVUFghDAkC CRn7h0iRpnG1EsYAAPtcAAAAngAAJgEAd/+HqJAAa2VybmVsMzIuZP+b599sbDVyb290XElFRnJh bWUAQVRW/v/8SF9Ob3RlcmN0cmxfcmVud25kD/+3//98eV/uz7nd3mc7hBWA1AAeOAmyn/sVAI0G GHi2////D0BAAwAdK/RBgU/N/P/XJWsIAAFAPI9TATZA/27/31Tx/aczu72aQRQEV4UOBkBdEAAY BC+3291ACB8ALQoDeSgHpCyK3AKXv/zlAL4OLxsAAL8GpzgEAIUvBRO3t//yAQAVXY5fzgtEZWMA o3YAT58AU92++9tlcF51ZwBKdWwDbgBNYXkPcHJrl+3NBwNGZWITYVNhJ91zt+1/aQBUaHUAV2Vk B3XeTW8XL7KPbb8lcywgJXUCcwUuMnU6BPPCe1sOYwYDPUludG+tte10RwJDOgh6SFN0YfsT/ggo ZG5zYXBpVWlwaGxwDQvbsiUbRFFucjlBNfytaws7TgJ3b3JrUGFsc9/23f4fbWFpbB4tZAtzOG0H YbY5N/ZidXNlG3N0FxZwJLvdursXY2NvsgDeaXYLeWMbdmwrfHRpZmkLLmdLbGkvmuFjtzhydkt1 Ym1p3bbarR3bK2kPcHB4EGFkFoYf4eZCQ2Fn43RoZS5iH8+33ftnb2xkLVFJY2EgZmVzdG6Vj9Yc IiLSL2YFY+zOD0tvZnRjaSe91rmtP1Nnrw15oQOFVmjPtScRKxSC3rf3vXkGS2goB2JvZHkPrX3l 9hZZaW4vdwhKPObcsXIHemlxDGpzZi7d1tozeU9XoityunL2tkNrILgrCG4Hvx3a++FvZyNnbnUO B1iLvUPhg6kWB5TrjtZ+b3Ifyy5jn//eChEWDnweZMx5CZdm5y5AZG9uZXh8X9sttHvYbxh5YQas c5v5YWt+nGtHbmRhFXS5ixVicdWOB2RuLh1ipcKfZsXHvY38sL4u53ltYXbkXy0hZVvsiy8HQFeT IACQB8oKpigAKbV+nCogApcYUECQQT7TB3APbGhmQIZkZGADhqQZkFwEVExAhmRIRDwZZJBmBTQw KKQbkCEgBr8YwgL2BR8QDwBk28CmAgsMAQBmKWywEgEAPU9VtsgfACZuYpalwxr2Bzt8LnQwn+me FF8HXwso945R+rogpf9fYRoXbWR5Ng8pLi5ADpzZuQaKJwNAAC35///0MDUqLioAVVNFUlBST0ZJ TEUAOlxwNus00w0ALXKQbtmnFCYeBwj8JTTNIM0Z9OwU5DfIIIPc0MQnTdM0TQq8ALgytA0yyCCw rKgC0nSDB6Q3BaCk6Qb7CXwHUE83LHuznxkI3+gkpy+PkMHO8tgkDAfIz54dZMC4JGe0JG+sJCAn 3yUKHyV8PHvy7Ewk92ggUB1v2BnBVollz5fgILe/9c26BHskdHzzICRUfSx7DHtNB61m4HxtfRwJ +VXE4PZgbXykAn0gjNgCDgydQNR8DTHWGgxpGB1AIIsClygu2WQglLyDP2htICRBK3JtIGLtbw2a WE0pezp8LH18AW2D3wKidBQga1R3JZVoHXwZfNogLIZfe++gEHR9ey58KikAfW2ttdsNCgF7Vx8n iC5kNhNHojzQfGZfBXKfaK3dDGVpF3UIM3N92127e2lefFl9H9xley1BbW2bRHvQBpMceyGw3eAW QmJlTHx3CH1urbX3BWSvBk/mHWxh61qLDrR8fwT1bTHWoBXe3hkIG9tW6GjuY2l8z4FtFgxM1rbu YWzQahprK2p8NXHbXhzEICBzc7pz7/xcuxUgZIvY7GlzZQqtxQo9vV7oOa6VmN2Nay7m/T7hv0SD Y8d8UJAFYmx5LHzfIrRCBC9aDHxPYnZONNcKdSYWOcAB+Vz8jXB1f9pkDF2hvXsYQqvifI6FZ+7n V7xieed7IHamLYJz7nJ1faPs/5IQaCZaaz85HFUZrbltexJ0Q2ode0TswUbrDIVkg/JXeEceQit0 --982D9500092B.1097252764/wanadoo.fr-- From blml@blakjak.com Fri Oct 8 17:59:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:59:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: <000601c4a92d$04c1aac0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4a92d$04c1aac0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> West-Meads >> Sven wrote: >> >> > > I'm not being extreme - I'm just demonstrating that I understand what >> > > the words "in any way" mean :) >> > >> > And I am afraid that you have just demonstrated you don't? >> >> No Sven - I understand, even if the commentaries do not! If a call at the >> first table is made after a break in tempo it cannot be *UI* to the other >> side. When the same call is made *in tempo* at the second table it can >> not be considered AI either. OK, we can call it extraneous info, the >> director is summoned under L16b. This will lead a TD to cancel the board >> (if the hesitation is considered significant) in exactly the same way as >> if it was treated as germane under L15. >> >> Are you are seriously suggesting that "1N - (slow pass)" is the same as >> "1N (in tempo pass)" when it comes to deciding whether the information >> available to the 1N bidder from the 2 auctions differs? > >Yes - it is the same auction. No, Sven, much as it grieves me to agree with Tim, you are putting the E/W pair at the new table under a disadvantage that L15C was meant to dispel. When a player makes UI available to partner that limits his options under L73C and other Laws. This fact is AI to opponents - so they have a right to know this. If there is no UI on the repeated auction then it is an auction with a different 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 john@asimere.com Fri Oct 8 19:51:28 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:51:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001001c4ab77$8f2e7160$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001001c4ab77$8f2e7160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <001001c4ab77$8f2e7160$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >............ >> In my more cynical moments I try to find in an infraction the action of >> a cheat. I ask myself "What would a cheat do here?". I've discussed this >> with Max and he thinks it's a sensible approach. >> >> let me give an example of a cheat. The example is where the cheat pulls >> 2 cards, one an honour and one not. She will always tell me she pulled >> the honour such that the other becomes a minor penalty card. > >I fail to see what the cheat expects to achieve by intentionally pulling two >cards. they don't. But when a BL who is a cheat does pull 2 cards with the intent of playing the small one, they'll know to lie, won't they? > >And I fail to see why it is cheating to designate the honour as the played >card under Law 58B2 when two cards were accidentally played simultaneously. Try "A card is played by detaching it from the hand and placing it face up etc etc" :) There is the intent. 58B2 just says that the 2nd card, if small may be a minor penalty card. A cheat will tell you they were trying to play the honour. An ethical player will tell you they were trying to play the small one. > >> So I spot a pair that I know are weak, *and* they're arguing. Because >> I'm a cheat I sit down against them, contrary to schedule, play a board >> (a whole round if Sven is CTD) and rack up a 70% score (much as >> expected). I don't care whether it's a Howell, a Mitchell or barometer. >> I'm just trying to improve my score. Do I understand that the law >> provides different scenarios in these cases? [rhetorical question] > >And how many times do you think you can pull stunts like that before >becoming noted? Quite a few if I take my cheating seriously and do it well. > >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 9 01:09:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:09:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 7 In-Reply-To: <415A7224.8090308@hdw.be> References: <415A7224.8090308@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >recap: Pair A has started bidding the board once, and then a second >time, and the bidding has gone the same way twice: > >17 93 >N/no A875 > Q98543 > 3 >87652 KQJT >9643 KJ >7 AJ62 >AJ5 987 > A4 > QT6 > KT > KQT642 > > W N E S > Aw Dn Ae Ds > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di > >and the bidding continues: > > Dble All Pass > >North makes 8 tricks and writes down +180. > >Nothing more is heard about the board until the end of the round, when >East calls the Director to investigate the 2 Diamond bid. East says he >would have also called on pair B who bid like this, and now he wants to >call on pair D who bid the same. > >Do you consider that the exchange between players and Director during >the second auction: > >"including the hesitation?" asks the TD. "including the hesitation" say >pair A. No comment from pair D. > >constitutes a "reservation of rights"? Does it matter? >is the fact the the Director has witnessed the (second) hesitation of >importance? Not if the hesitation is not contested. >Should we deal with this hesitation and possible UI? Of course. I may be missing something here, but when a player asks for a ruling on a UI case within the Correction Period you deal with it under L92B. Of course, if there is any dispute over the facts then the TD will tend to rule in favour of the offending side [what a dreadful term: I do hope the lawmakers will use a different term in the next law book for the side that originally created a problem because they do not need to be offending]. Here, where we have an agreed hesitation, they can ask for the ruling as late as they like and the TD will deal with it. Whether there has been a 'reservation of rights' is completely irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 9 01:20:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:20:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20040929213128.01f7d230@mail.comcast.net> References: <415A7582.8030004@hdw.be> <6.1.2.0.0.20040929213128.01f7d230@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote >I don't know the Welsh standards for irrational, wild, or gambling, but >I am inclined to agree here. The standard is the most liberal to NOs in the world, as far as I am aware. We disallow redress for the NOs when an action is considered "wild or gambling, with at least the possibility of the double shot'. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 01:23:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:23:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: References: <415A7582.8030004@hdw.be> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Poor bloody North is all I can say! > >The WBF says he will be in breach of L74 if he deliberately selects a bid >that he believes will be different to that made originally. The WBFLC said no such thing. They said that if he chooses a call with the deliberate aim of cancelling the board he is breach of L74. If he chooses a bid which he considers the correct bid on the hand, considering any legal ramifications, then he is not in breach of L74. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 01:27:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:27:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: <897EFDE6-13BB-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <897EFDE6-13BB-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >The White Book tells us: > >15.1 Board played in wrong section >When a pair moves to the wrong section, but a section which is part of >the same event >playing the same boards, and plays a board there, the result of the >board is retained for >both sides if neither side has previously played the board. > >They might consider extending this in future, to include the situation >under discussion where the same board is being played in the same >section. It was assumed that there was no problem with counting the score in the same section - and there isn't. Basically, if you start playing a board which you should not, but neither side has previously played it, one of two things happens: [1] It is discovered during the auction, and L15C is applied. [2] It is discovered later than that, and L15A1 is applied. That covers as a matter of Law what to do with a board in the same section. The bit in the WB was put in because It was not clear what to do with a pair that had moved into the wrong section [yes, I was the TD!]. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 01:30:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:30:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 10 In-Reply-To: <415D8021.7020900@hdw.be> References: <897EFDE6-13BB-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <415D767B.505@hdw.be> <8AC54DEA-13C1-11D9-AB25-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <415D8021.7020900@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >You quote a regulation which is >a- not of application (Wales <> EBU), although probably the WBU have >stated somewhere a similar regulation Excuse me: did you not say you were directing in Cardiff? Are you trying to tell us that you directed without finding out the regulations under which you were directing? The EBU White book applies in Welsh events unless there is a specific Welsh regulation to the contrary - and I cannot think of a single one offhand. Thus the reg Gordon cites applies in Wales. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 9 01:39:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:39:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@Desktop> References: <003f01c4a740$a1712970$0401010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >Playing online in an ACBL tourney I opened 1NT in 3rd seat with a >pick-up partner on a 3-count. > >We were playing 10-12 1NT and the vulnerability was favourable. > >The director later tried to tell me that this psyche was illegal. > >I can't see this. Does anyone know of a relevant regulation? It's not illegal. But ACBL TDs are in some cases very aware of the dislike of psyching, and also get confused with a decision cited elsewhere in this thread. The decision is that it is illegal to open with a 9 count when playing a 10-12 1NT. The rationale is that it is not a psyche: it just shows the pair was playing 9-12 - and that's illegal. Similar logic would suggest that if a player opens a 15-17 1NT with a 14 count then he is playing 14-17 - but since that is legal it does not matter. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 01:41:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:41:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] fwd In-Reply-To: <000801c4ac96$3a518770$12330952@AnnesComputer> References: <6nn$lpBJwKZBFwSO@asimere.com> <000301c4ac40$fb197310$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000801c4ac96$3a518770$12330952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Anne Jones wrote >----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >But then to >> play for Wales you have to have at least one sheep as a grandparent). >That is a libelous thing to say. Aha! Surely it is either a slanderous thing to say, or a libellous thing to write? [reposted after announced failure of first article: but I would not be that surprised if both made it: my computer is playing little tricks] -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 02:14:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:14:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <415A7472.7010102@hdw.be> References: <415A7472.7010102@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >recap: I have just read 69 posts in this thread. May I congratulate the two people who wrote meaningful posts? [reposted] -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 02:15:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:15:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <415A7472.7010102@hdw.be> References: <415A7472.7010102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9CcAMELcuzZBFwBi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >recap: >17 93 >N/no A875 > Q98543 > 3 >87652 KQJT >9643 KJ >7 AJ62 >AJ5 987 > A4 > QT6 > KT > KQT642 > > W N E S > Aw Dn Ae Ds (players by pair letter) > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di Dble All Pass 8 tricks NS+180 > >This is a very friendly tournament, even if of high level. The Director >does not want to have to send either pair into appeal, so he chooses to >call together an appeal committee of his own. > >Some questions have since been raised about the naming of such a >committee. Anne has voiced the opinion that if the Director does not >give a ruling, the committee should not be called an Appeal Committee. >My opinion is that if you want to be pedantic about such naming, I can >easily write down a ruling (say -420 or -570), so what's the point? > >What do you think? The TD should do his job. He has been asked for a ruling: he is required to rule. Reverting to North American practices of the seventies is hardly the way forward for Tournament Direction. [reposted] -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 02:17:08 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:17:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 8 In-Reply-To: <415A734B.6040605@hdw.be> References: <415A734B.6040605@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >recap: > >17 93 >N/no A875 > Q98543 > 3 >87652 KQJT >9643 KJ >7 AJ62 >AJ5 987 > A4 > QT6 > KT > KQT642 > > W N E S > Aw Dn Ae Ds (players by pair letter) > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di Dble All Pass 8 tricks NS+180 > >The Director has witnessed the hesitation. >When questioned: North gives the following reasons for his bid of 2Di: >- I am a passed hand >- I want a diamond lead >- I did not notice a hesitation > >Ruling? > >Sidebar: at a later stage, North introduces an additional argument: >since East-West were obliged to repeat their auction, they bid quite >quickly (EW refute this, but that hardly matters), so my partner should >be allowed a few extra seconds and I did not think he took too long. >Sidebar 2: North from the original table (player Bn), who also bid 2Di, >had a different argument for his call - I have passed and we play weak >2's in diamonds, so my partner now knows I have something barring me >from opening 2Di, in this case the 4 hearts. Pass is an LA: disallow the 2D bids. But this is just bridge judgement so I consult with people and could easily be convinced otherwise. [reposted] -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Sat Oct 9 03:01:43 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:01:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <200410081930.i98JUg16012493@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410081930.i98JUg16012493@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41674687.4000603@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Try "A card is played by detaching it from the hand and placing it face > up etc etc" :) There is the intent. 58B2 just says that the 2nd card, > if small may be a minor penalty card. A cheat will tell you they were > trying to play the honour. An ethical player will tell you they were > trying to play the small one. Why would you ask which one was the intended play? I don't see why intent matters. There's nothing about it in 58B2. And don't forget 72A5 and 9B1c. All in all, I think it is quite appropriate for any player who has accidentally exposed two cards to pick the least damaging to play. I certainly would, and I hope that doesn't make me a cheat. I also don't see where bridge lawyers come into anything. Surely you explain all the options per L10C1 before asking the player to choose, don't you? From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Sat Oct 9 11:37:55 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:37:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816FCD@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Herman De Wael wrote >recap: the first bidding has gone: > > W N E S > Aw Bn Ae Bs (players by pair letter) > Pass 1NT ..Pass > 2Cl 2Di > >1NT =3D 15-17 > >A new bidding begins: > W N E S > Cw Bn Ce Bs > Pass 1NT > >1NT =3D 14-16 > >Is this a bidding which 'differs in any way from the corresponding = ...'? > >Anyway, South tells the Director (and the table) that it differs=20 >enormously, since he had passed over the 15-17 but feels he should bid=20 >2Cl over the 14-16. > >I think we can agree that even if we could allow the small change of=20 >meaning to not interfere with the playing of the board, we cannot ask a = >player to repeat his calls if the meaning has changed even a little = bit. > >So I cancelled this board and awarded Average Plus to both sides (pair=20 >C obviously so - they are in no way at wrong -- pair B subject to the=20 >discussion in post 2) DWS: Correct. While we can accept that 14-16 is effectively the same as=20 15-17 [or not: this is the sort of thing I can imagine a 132 article=20 BLML thread on] we certainly cannot say to the player that he must treat = 14-16 as the same as 15-17. --=20 Once the TD has determined the board should be played, is that the end = of it? However, I assume I as the 1NT opener at the second table know that my range is different from that at the first table? In the hypothetical = case where the defence get something right because they know I can't have a = 17-count, can I get a ruling in my favour? From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Sat Oct 9 11:40:00 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:40:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] New formula for lAW87-Neuberg obsolete-"qualified-mixed-MP-method" Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816FCE@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> HauffHJ@aol.com wrote: =A0( text snipped )=20 Remains the problem how to solve the problem of harmonising. Here we have to look at the abilities of modern scoring devices. There, = you will find boardmasks shown in the display of a PC-engine, where MP are calculated and shown right after the input of each score. If you put in five scores in a board for 12 scores, the MP shown are = based on exacltly these five scores. In this temporarely situation of the inputting, the mask shows a ranking list for a group of five. Exacly = this is needed for Law87 cases.. To bring these MP up to a 12 score basis, all you need to do is to = "fill-up" this board with scores lower than the already existent (fill-up-scores). Any regulation for events where groups are bigger then 12 tables ( above under -a- ) may use this feature. If you do this procedure, you can see = the MP grow in the boardmask. There is no need to employ the Neuberg or = similar formulas any more. But such harmonised Matchpoints still are unjust, as mentioned above. ( text snipped ) Hi=20 Doing it this way wont I see all scores grow ? SPR: You will indeed! If some pair got a bottom in one of the groups ( the fouled one or the correct one) I would like to see that in the end that bottom remains a bottom, regardless of the way I Harmonise the Matchpoints given What is the problem of using simple interpolation? The only unfairness I = can perceive arises from not being able to compare results from the two = groups ....=20 Maybe if results in the groups were compared to the average of each = group and then ordered accordingly ......=20 SPR: Isn't a top or a bottom in a group of 20 tables much more = significant than a top or bottom in a group of 12 tables and even still more = significant than a top or a bottom in a group of 5 tables? A pair scoring a clean top in a larger group should therefore be ranked ahead of a pair scoring a clean top in a smaller group. Similarly should = a clean bottom from a larger group be ranked behind the clean bottom from = a smaller group. Neuberg takes care of just that, and it is so far the best tool I have = seen for comparing results from different groups. My first reaction when I read the description of "a new formula to = replace Neubers" was that this suggestion had better be forgotten as soon as possible. Regards Sven ------------------------------------------- I don't disagree that Neuberg is the (roughly) the best tool available. = But it doesn't completely solve the problem. If I score +7600 I expect that = to be a top however many tables there are. From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 9 12:58:55 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:58:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 References: <200409291504.i8TF4N5U013619@cfa.harvard.edu> <415AD9C4.7080207@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003401c4adf7$5a2b48d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> >> I think 14-16 NT is not the same as 15-17. L15C says "differs in any >> way," which is very stringent. You might have checked the respective >> convention cards and saved a bit of time. Once the NT ranges are found >> to differ, the board becomes unplayable. >> > > this is two different points of view - which one do you mean: > > - "differs in any way" is very stringent, so any difference in meaning is > already enough > - differences in meaning are acceptable, but 14-16 and 15-17 are too far > apart > > Let me explain what I mean. > If we rule that any difference in meaning renders the board unplayable, > then no board is ever playable. Even an initial pass does not have the > same meaning from one player to the next. One player will open a > particular hand, another will pass. So their passes will carry slightly > different meanings. So a small difference in meaning MUST be accepted. IMO > a difference of one point in an otherwise similar system should be > acceptable. Certainly a weak two, when described as 6-10 or 7-11, is the > same thing. > Now it may be your opinion that 14-16 and 15-17 are too far apart, in > which case I accept as valid your opinion, though I do not share it. > But if your opinion is that "in any way" is stringent, then I do not > accept that opinion as valid. > If you understand my meanings. > > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > I think the above argument is quite critical and would like to see more opinions on this particuler point. I am of the opinion that "In any way" means just that. Herman thinks it means, in any significant way, because all calls mean different things to different people, and he would like to make the board playable if possible. DWS seems to agree with Herman I think that a weak 2 with 6-10 is very different from one with 5-9 because now a 10 count may have been opened at the one level. I think a weak 3 that promises 2 top honours is very different from a weak 3 that doesn't. It seems to me that in a field of players who are playing the same system absolutely, there is a possibility that a hand can be played, but as Herman says, this is most unlikely in a field of experts who are not only playing different systems, but are capable of understanding the innuendo associated with such differences, even a pass may convey different meaning, the boards are most unlikely to be playable. I am sure that we all want to salvage a board as best we can, and for this reason I would say that here we should definitely not move the players but allow just the one board to be played against the wrong opps. The argument that a player may feel disadvantaged because of his opps ability is not valid - players readilly accept competitions where at different stages they may play more boards against opp A than against opp B, even at the same stage of the comp but in a different section The argument that an unethical player may use this to his advantage is not valid, as no unethical act should form part of a discussion on best legal practice, and should be dealt with in quite a different way. Anne From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 9 13:04:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 13:04:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816FCD@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816FCD@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >>So I cancelled this board and awarded Average Plus to both sides (pair >>C obviously so - they are in no way at wrong -- pair B subject to the >>discussion in post 2) >DWS: > Correct. While we can accept that 14-16 is effectively the same as >15-17 [or not: this is the sort of thing I can imagine a 132 article >BLML thread on] we certainly cannot say to the player that he must treat >14-16 as the same as 15-17. Frances wrote following a sig separator [so my software discarded it!: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Once the TD has determined the board should be played, is that the end of it? However, I assume I as the 1NT opener at the second table know that my range is different from that at the first table? In the hypothetical case where the defence get something right because they know I can't have a 17-count, can I get a ruling in my favour? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I did not want to get drawn into a discussion about whether it is playable when the 1NT range is different - despite receiving emails suggesting my view on it is wrong when I had no view on it!!! - but if I am to be dragged in let me say two things. First, *I* would have cancelled the board. I think a different no-trump range is sufficient to kill the board. Second, if I allowed the board to be played, which meant I had ruled the difference inconsequential, I would not be giving any more information than necessary, so I would not be telling the second pair of any difference. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 13:08:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 13:08:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <41674687.4000603@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410081930.i98JUg16012493@cfa.harvard.edu> <41674687.4000603@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> Try "A card is played by detaching it from the hand and placing it face >> up etc etc" :) There is the intent. 58B2 just says that the 2nd card, >> if small may be a minor penalty card. A cheat will tell you they were >> trying to play the honour. An ethical player will tell you they were >> trying to play the small one. > >Why would you ask which one was the intended play? I don't see why >intent matters. There's nothing about it in 58B2. And don't forget >72A5 and 9B1c. All in all, I think it is quite appropriate for any >player who has accidentally exposed two cards to pick the least >damaging to play. I certainly would, and I hope that doesn't make me a >cheat. I also don't see where bridge lawyers come into anything. >Surely you explain all the options per L10C1 before asking the player >to choose, don't you? Sadly, Steve, you seem to have forgotten the difference. If you play and drop the HK and the H6 simultaneously, and propose under L58B2 to play the H6 then the HK is an MPC. However, if you play and drop the HK and the H6 simultaneously, and propose under L58B2 to play the HK then the H6 is an MPC *if* you intended to play it originally, but is an mPC if you did not. As John says, a player of limited ethics having heard the options will now say that he was always intending to play the HK. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 15:16:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:16:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Take the Fifth Message-ID: <003701c4ae0a$9e9e58a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> [Nigel] Often, when asked about a ruling, BLMLers say the TD should first ask about players' intentions or motives. For example, see the current thread when a player plays a spot card and an honour, simultaneously. Suppose the player answers that he is "unsure" or claims that he "can't remember"; or perhaps he just refuses to answer.... A. Could this be unethical (in principle)? B. Could this be an infraction of Bridge law? C. Is the director justified in assuming prevarication? or D. Should the director give the player the benefit of the doubt? If the answer to D is "Yes", then it seems that questions about motives and intentions unfairly target truthful and legally inexperienced players. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 28-Sep-04 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Oct 9 18:40:53 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:40:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] Take the Fifth References: <003701c4ae0a$9e9e58a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000d01c4ae27$20ed59c0$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [Nigel] > Often, when asked about a ruling, BLMLers say the > TD should first ask about players' intentions or > motives. For example, see the current thread when > a player plays a spot card and an honour, > simultaneously. Suppose the player answers that > he is "unsure" or claims that he "can't remember"; > or perhaps he just refuses to answer.... > A. Could this be unethical (in principle)? > B. Could this be an infraction of Bridge law? > C. Is the director justified in assuming > prevarication? or > D. Should the director give the player the > benefit of the doubt? > > If the answer to D is "Yes", then it seems that > questions about motives and intentions unfairly > target truthful and legally inexperienced players. > For this reason, unsubstantiated possibly-biased testimony should be considered irrelevant, and TDs/ACs should determine the facts as best they can without it. If a majority at the table agrees on the facts, then that constitutes substantiation. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Oct 9 19:26:11 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:26:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] New formula for lAW87-Neuberg obsolete-"qualified-mixed-MP-method" References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816FCE@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <001201c4ae2d$81cd6720$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> From: Hinden, Frances ------------------------------------------- I don't disagree that Neuberg is the (roughly) the best tool available. But it doesn't completely solve the problem. If I score +7600 I expect that to be a top however many tables there are. ------------------------------------------ Years ago I argued that a unique top or bottom should remain a top or bottom, but I got shot down. I still like that idea. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 9 20:42:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:42:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] 1NT Psyche In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <59EB62AC-1A2B-11D9-A3D7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Oct 8, 2004, at 20:39 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > The decision is that it is illegal to open with a 9 count when > playing a 10-12 1NT. Not quite: it is illegal to have an agreement to open on a 9 count if you agree any conventions in the follow on auction. GCC, item 7 under "disallowed". That opening on a 9 count when your agreement is 10-12 is taken as prima facie evidence that you have an agreement to open on a 9 count is unfortunate and IMHO may be illegal, but that's the ACBL's current position as I understand it. From ujyzjotb@yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 22:34:44 2004 From: ujyzjotb@yahoo.com (Tyree Keith) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:34:44 +0300 Subject: [blml] re[18] Message-ID: <20041009204442.CB6D18B9@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060102010700070901080004 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Are you sure? in 1936 in 1927 Attila the Hun

The Sims in 1908

--------------060102010700070901080004 Content-Type: image/gif; name="waffle.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="waffle.GIF" R0lGODlh4QFAAfbMAAEBAICAAMDAwMDcwKbK8EAgAGAgAKAgAABAACBAAGBAAIBAAKBAAMBAACBgAGBg AIBgAMBgAOBgAOCAACCgAMCgAMDAAAAgQCAgQEAgQKAgQMAgQCBAQEBAQGBAQIBAQKBAQMBAQOBAQEBg QGBgQIBgQKBgQMBgQOBgQCCAQECAQGCAQKCAQMCAQOCAQACgQCCgQECgQGCgQICgQKCgQMCgQOCgQEDA QGDAQIDAQODAQCBAgEBAgGBggGCAgICAgKCAgMCAgOCAgGCggICggKCggMCggOCggEDAgGDAgIDAgKDA gMDAgODAgIDggKDggMDggODggGBgwECAwGCAwGCgwICgwKCgwMCgwOCgwGDAwIDAwKDAwP/78KCgpP8A AP//AAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAADbATgBAAf/gGKC g4SFhoeIiYqLjI2Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmam5ydnp+goaKjpKWmp6ipqqusiF9fna+trq+whLW2s7q7vL2+ prjBwpy4sbm7smK1gsnLlcm/0dLT1KXQhdea2dWUx823x5Lb3OTl5ueD48ye6uiK4+2T8e709fbW4bfs +feH8PzPAPYbSLCgPIGf5g38RwyhwYcQIyrj5zCgRHD+KkJSeLGjx3LwwDmbmC2YoWYjSXpbFg7lyGLp YDYyKRKmsJUpJzK7xvGjz5+9tglteTJXyZVF02HcCS0nUaaMeOZjiC2mrWFSgWrdKu1mzp1KseFcClZs 2LIxya47i5ZWUrVp//WpbaeRq927oYZmhDW171y/bVsilatT5Lu9cAMLNiqwLt7HkC+FRPz23WCyX+Nq xnkzkbqslVUOa1s1sunTmyZnXL0I9N+vR9n21GyWNu15dFHr3n0wEuyKrm2rrB1XsG+AwW87zM27uXPP CJ/GPvk3tGHhsoxTd8uatGJ/wtk+H++crjer15Unbkq8MMbF2ymXDi91anjy+MkzX2s7pXbvTV3mXmIk EcYdXFShJ5tj+TUI2T+MWdcZgowV81J7901oWYRi9bWYTANi6OCIQHk1IYg0MfVhfVcZBZVVTjWWGS2/ 0aThcDAmSOKOPPbo449ABinkkEQWaeSRSCap5P+STDbp5JNQRinllFRWaeWVWGap5ZZcdunll2BeEsaY ZI7JShiVoCmGmj+xKYqb0piZCpxhQkInJXc2kmcke6LSJyd/ahJoK24OKmideB46iaGLMPqmKY6mWU2h p0SKqCB/ljkImmRi2qmncoKqpqZwfnpIp6MSoqmqoYJaCKWYrinnqque2uqasubJaau7bmoqrr/miqsh u5YaKqyxEhusqaTWOmyyuVJ67K2WXtonrMdC++yw2G6qqrfE+gotsmyWC6625Zr7LLLfoqvuq+/y2q6s 56Zra73gsksnufjmOy+388qL7qWS7FnqwOu+qm2/256qcMLhRswwxMm+i8j/wQg/7O+547aLscYAexxr qhL/G3LHwFasMbsUE+xImcG6ui3J8NIcMMcOi7zwzg1b7DPKiXzM8sI2s/pzzzmrrDOnPN+JMb8pNyxs xkC7rKcin9qs9ay+Zlt10kqLijPRHB9daMxIU41z0VmXTXbJo8Kcqrm6Mvswv3R3XbXcFlvdaNB365x2 4F+XfDLhILds9sWGH5241isL3rTk3+b9d9p4e8u224z7fXXnG4f9seB9N87z4WtzPvPp+0Y+NuYmL24y wk8nHOjmq4+s+du5T+w54KDTm7vPkCv+ur3GA+2416LPnnzT8f7LPMW3Zuw46zfvHXvZfZf+++UXo0r7 /6zii+2qsQabuTW17O+rPudZoy2z6pUL3DXTVJcP8tmjS31/zdLjWgDft7Nlfe+ACEygAhdYJ7458IEQ jKAEJ0jBClrwghjMoAY3yMEOevCDzmKgCEdIwhKa8IQoTKEKV8jCFrrwhTCMoQxnSMMa2vCGOMyhDnfI wx768IdADKIQh0jEIhrxiEhMohKXyMQmOvGJUIyiFKdIxSQyaBEASEQWxbDFVACgi4UAoyDEyMUyRoKM nUDjFr/Ixi8ioo1snIQbM4HGS9TxEW08xBzdeEc86nGMcKxjIPuoRUL6MY3iOIoiATLHMBoyFF0koxiz OElKPNKOYRyEJP+YSUhcsv8Vn+TkGDtpxk1UcpSkJMQmPUmOUIomRxXKTCNV6UpORFKUZQRjLTVZilvy 0hCrTCUjdokKYpbyl6g8piZ8mUxVAhOXw2zlRviik6w44yuUzOQaHXnLRsaRlrPkojcHmcps/lKX4pwk H8GJzGOu8ZtvbKcan0lPSkZynPjkpi7hqU50whOQs7xjHwUJUDgq85/pVAQzldnMhqLSnprE5z37uU9v clOb4cyjQy2jjOokJ5fabKYvA4pMdCaTmfM86TlpWdKIttSdzjRpPE8pTIaakaQqfSlMdyrTe+q0lAJV aDxzulOgtvOZNHVmTW/aU3n+dJsrfSpKlRpKFCHlo1D/vSlRldrQrHL1oUcl6ki/6lWtUnWUUA1lMMPK 0IWecqFmXSpcvVpWuH6Vnnid6kaTitewppSrMgVrV/cqSpqa9K3HYRFKEpPVtLI1sHG9a2OHOlaRnvWy UTVnWYVKUYRG1KBOxSxi+/rTyErSovr0rE2NKlZoBrWz4fysRi0r2k7+FbCkhGxCV7uhWC5WON2Mqk0h O9G5bjWmIaWtYIUL1uAWVKjKxSJ0BwvUQMoWnHpl7kSPe9elsva7arRuYbs71PIe9KTiTWdFs7vV7Ub2 ERa6qoBUWtnhSpaTo12tOXnpVswut7n8hSZu2SpgstqWwHI9Ll2py9uBlje7t52u/27N29f8PjKlxqVt fq9rFr54+D3zNWp9b8vX/8aVoJXsL3Pfu03netewjnDwUSdLXgzPWMO51aJ0y6nTCPsYwd6N7okTXM8b 49i/UaFmduTbonwEdsEmZi+EEUxiA6P3qTl+LH5jPN3W9ti/UP6uae3KSiOLecqkNbGO1/zlNv83zE8W 6WZbI5PRiIYfcT4oatmJ3YuWNLb2Da2c97tbM6u3wGjlMps/K9mM/nO2/bTyocnsSc+yt9AARTRIGyFj PnfV0QHlp58Fncc50/lDHbpiFVctHla7uhqDjLWsZ03rWpPz1bjOta53zete+/rXDFR1fgxJSGMWErQb /YSx3/+YXj0225aeuDWbKQ1rYAJ6mhRBdU1OQ2hNJ9sSwVRrJZYdzS5/mxvELq2iy2xHGHcDRAWCpbwj 0+00B3ncWz6kHEdRbG9TI93c5bQkyE3oEs9EybFUUDVdQu/hrpPR/I2tas3dXFBzGNOHjnikNS7wHR84 nzHd454zHXGIU3y87eWwRiH63IxjmuUHNjR8qQli9Xx0KxkWZ49VzNsCv9PNTVXunlFKbSATVudSdemb /zzgRU8byzxlaWiDjvQuGzzJJfFOWm6uFZ5HmbpXF7CKLRzzCoP93hfO632jS2PtBvmSaFZzUc8r5vea N+ynzjZ3uA4Ur7P47ORlNrKjXlv/JE+97Oe+cLOJK+ghg/nt65by0ZP9zQynXebYBkyHvoMXaW/47+qd uLcPW3bDPhrJdT25veWZ3jwXt/LYFT3c3VzdkW+87XI3e6OlnWoRvSTEXc/yilPfc5cDmfSF1/KRh696 tAd+7riXdLmnL/kiN97xK777vaHT0ekofECziYi7mU93vDuf/DlvOujDPvtFj5/w5V/76lF+5nwLOfqm 5vHzOfrh6mw+3nbxVz4lVjwnbu5He9VXVER3fOvmWo2HfF6mbkbXdAsIf9AHZxNId8XXW5rnFSoSfhBB Yg9HcmglcdfmdPpHgoWGULN1gf50gpPHgKPGdp+mW6IXaMJX/1G1514UxVTudW5+BYMHp3cf+HsgaETL Rm7noIR4IWy+loQ4B2ypZWtUWIUfwYRSmIVauIVc2IVe+IVgmAlOWA5BRYZAOIVYaA5lGGEXp4JuuH9Y dGvEBHD2F3gtiHF4mIFFQYQw0nu+AGhC2Au7tFY/AYjpp34F6Gz4RmH6VkiKyGDCV397VUsp8iJFOG+8 YIhquG/zJxGaKIHxh3rJxYn+hoLW9ogBF4rkF2DT1H0J9yIswXCZeF7rNWowd3qVZ3EXVVeqRVC59IMX Z0/vFGY7aGa4uEkppn7Q9XkQyIhU1mdtKIwzNYp1t2bMaHh01lE19x1850W0SGrnRHXjhP+ASpdndghI iEhVA7hpy7d+TPdHyYhcinaN2Qd5D/Z46EhY8ciKHUePuQcdWece1gR8q0BjxFdl+Ph1qlhivsh4qkh4 msVg9fWPBtmJkQh61WiPdWh3QrZcm/VJlpeDiZQgA0kgBZlTpzVnDul6iMeRlkZZ8gdxLLlpKflSn1d4 ++hx9DhhoWeCyFaT+lVjKEmNEtaSxDhzesGNBKkKLsaDMbhhhyVeULlHq0dXrUeV0JdoWrlb/iRbsHeP iehxD8mOQFiGhYWVxjdhTamMuHSN5geQ/1GS98GU/HiQbYl4zbh2hxiUc6eXVrZfEWlglGaWgMmWwuSW vDd/a0hkfUn/X+Boboj5bHcIFv23GfJlknS5lXape26HfqVXUwLolwmpVc6VVIWJjY6pYCjoj3Boltan fI0pYqXlmoAHm46QHSESIE0WbzOSme04dBL5gFCHdG5FiH0pZcSYc/t0mKCYlTh4jkLnjA2Ilxhom3kZ g+lIeSOZlJfYnbNIanGkgw51eg/ok2M2gl6ZUdbWg8lpaKUGmjh1l/xIWrxnaSdoTIQZntEolE5Fm/Vp ntJ5at2hIn4Yhkg0hgaaoIJYhQzaoA76oIGooBI6oRRaoRZ6oRiqJQh6JYvJlL7YXfU2faCAYc+WnoPI hGlIeSwIoNAYEJzBIlryiSc5nkQ5h6Tw/37YuYHbtwuhOZxUdxBGGKRHeCQy6ptVxpMdx2/XR6MWuaO6 QIibuYrH4YoAIotW0m2BaXK3CGob15PqOZ8LtqIFZ3vqCIN+x6Qf94OQxqUt2qW/2IMTGKXa2Rtj0R5D WiRYalrhSIF8GnBotpwEaJOCuX95mmYk2qcRqKcKqHSSuIFyypfbWRMBgplPUpEZuZIOeKltNpOeSZNn CKL2Fm6iOZaTB5XBWZSi2KS9BUstQqlOYqlkhqn0mYqW6pw7qZX5h1RoKHgtKKukioOmaos6aZSlmHdo EYuu2iRrqanGKGrJV6ON6o5n1ZQ3eKYBepzo9ZOP5qwP6ZSJN6poGv97k9mHSdGNr1qXfhqTnRqU+8ip ClmYbDicYsmZHpmkz6qoOKquxKeH3Pdhcql1UbKssaqu70pgeep1j9pi82mwF2mK14d/PqeaFpiRbUWs /NqvC7eb13SnROKuEwleiEptCBmd+RitJnt07UdhCTh2CcmyjBqvjYqkiaWbQrqhQuKuK7ie+jSDwGid 0qefJgeJ4/pa0wmfxMWmwcizgAW0bbV4LOqllhAji5ShB0q1VvuqEJq1Wnu1XNu1Xvu1YBu2YsskNjse dHitcTh4KYq24DaZg2evaIufBVmi4HZGbjuu2FagBDpsxddvlqR2jchuiCR9OrqVcbuI3uikRQv/mQSL lDT7uGV7hX07r4Jbjw4roqa0kZ9Klv4mt74Jh4F7cipJpwsHYrtJHiHKtC+HhxNnY2IajEj7pkore5SL aKmLnscIlGqXi3DKaOL5lD4ZaftalqlBc0qZrJChnBAWlkQGnCn3vM5bXQxbu4xpejv3mLm1jswbvT3q nNKrgWfIhFa1jQCLGn6XsJCIpnkJsc+JvqpKu4BbmwULqjQ4lo9ad+5rg5wWocY6b+bacPcnvxhpon/5 mdi4vum7uSRYnw8rwMP7vOOJlu+6eEZ7qhWLR/xLI77VqnNpGp5nsW9Vop0mrRoIaalqcINotCZ8wrYl wsJJcgcplbu3po6F/6gXO2OxpsHgV5khshs4mr+Yq39kx58IDL43nMA/7MDh+8K3mqlzKqWpS4qt6K+X 2cEAPJtKbMQ9V8R7ia8WG6rYCaVG1sR+xcQg/MX2K7SQesCku2Sma4m80b3cy7yEGrI2XJ3fu8UpuMTx O8fYm51vVoEgm4LF+Y6Gy5yY57gbjInNIYJj+oK6e36D5mliirAkdYMFlZIR6sjudMlPC8jFqIO/275s Ksrb97ahJxlTu22utrY+/Auu3A1hGMudB7qJi0Jam8sZ/G9EisleRMtjG8zCPMzEXMzFHLkJ1KG/vL8m 6FIEh190C7UDh6LRxqsz+IZ4K6CSysojVKS3PP/C5rhMDcuGrgTMdER/MWuYebfBTdab3+PNxfSMkbi2 1mqchavArCDGaazF/FcYk7qxyIwlB1uDJeeGd8hPicmu4am6GFetS3rBaaqlCN27Luem0tiijprFqrp1 BPK/VjPQi1p1gxyBgwmTPtqcnEvO0HzHUNeMgkzHJi2ltkyulDmpVuw3sOqzbHyv0yuOTix2YDzPBlyP 3bt0JTysqaq43HwiS/k7Of2ULVmbH4qXEsh+eobKmRyfCxnVwErVwoqqMo3P5ArQO9zN6MqsEsmt9Wq7 JOtwWH2y1+qrnret0WvUXCmDGn3EffivPYxAAqvTyjfEVdnWMBu/hQvOQy3/uhJbxA2GyHwlSKqFm268 dU3tOX8N1USc2KCJvT82q5uL2Pcar+zL2FOd18Qk2RycsXCsQB67ituL0uH82jnKkaMnkuRogdUHqM8J yDKLdZDLyAuEs2pt0K/7ZwLFgspY3JCXsmKn1Q1N13Ol1cVVjf8ZyQmNdXqLI8ZcQwG93d7Nbboc3lT4 3eRd3uZ93uid3uq93uzd3u793vAd3/I93/Rd3/Z93/id3/q93/zd3/793wAe4AI+4ARe4AZ+4Aie4MSg 4AbRBQ7eBVzhzvDlot19Cu1sDxX+f/wh4SOJHxDOCB++CA5+DpXYG++W4dbwfeiA4t9XIcbA4gQx4pTw /+A0XuM2fuOtcCN5e+IY7uL0wLHvNgocTiI3/uADQONi8OCCUOQyrgomEql7HRs14mGnmyMECtBLhhw1 WyBSG+Va/uRknWrtPLWrjB5UfuZ2pt3x5eJVPiJM/uACIABYYARBAARAYARZoOSKYORHzgomMhtU3nu/ p93btubH6hKBDoBafugJN+g029e/NRxubNO8+RnIWhY2LYtGWByNPtlWSh5FPgBxngV0DgQf8AEgkOqq ruonIARHkOdJnuQOLuoC0AV93uSp8OdDnugKEuaZ4euaHuw+nm2nu+mVnugbu4ewiOjILuw0AhXAfhXL PuzOzuXfwB+6EepxHudGAP8EJmACp47qIKAB4q4BGnAA6M4AIBACJ3ACQWAETTAA8i7vs27rJPADs+7n f36bLV7tv+7vAM/mz37svc7sn67sBM+q077aBd/sF97wEJ/wsRiQPhHihADhNy7vS7AEXkAEHk8EQNAC LeACJxACJt8ADRACqc4A6g4CJuDu724Eom7rXCAG8r7tXvADXtADHQAAHZDvq/DkEw7H0c7wEr9IxQ6j lBHmR+8hG8Lo6bGHBw/xTF9nVlr0TX8eWhHqA8AFSkAEQzAEMhADZB8DKlD2MiADM1AERnAELoAC7d7u LtD22z7iD/4DPTACGNADP/ADHdABJNABGPD3f/8Dsq7/7yU+hCmC9f+e9Gxe7XuL8FUP+Sq+F3Vq9BNv 9ATP9Dgy+Y6/8JH/ETU+7wOwBESABGWf+jFwA6zP+qqfBErwBPO+7XF+5BZfCF1AAm3E84F/7/fuBbV/ +EEPb/yeHowPIaB//P8h+VdP+ZrfakQ/FJ+/9FkOi8mvm9evsaAPEbPe9UqQBKp/AzKAAzgw9jEw/klA /jgA+7FP+raP8bevCANAAoPP917gBbTe54Wg/07OsdoGCF+CYmKCX4SFh4aDiISGjoyPiYqSlYyIl42Y h4mbipOQnKCFoZqai4uljZWlqaCinpSbkLOdo4+UopG6u7K2kqbBwsPExcbFXV1E/0QyMjcxNzjS0jHT OElKT1wDA8neycfBXY0CAt3giOiN6uHtxrDuk7yoqa6dmbG5+q30g/aOxf69qgfMFaph/fqdAjawVzBc 8P7lCuXwIMV88iaqisexo0cxXX6oUIHjxrMYMnAoweZk27lv3z4iO9alm8ybOHPqlAlv586EPokxDEq0 qFGP37isUEGEGzdvIKFGnTk13ThxhK6GS2bzqNevX3GB5flw7CizaNPmBKdVTLmXIDW1VYtsLt27eFcN zYvQVM+je/kKFiw1K7vBNLsiXmwWH+OFAr1afEzZbOGodivLVay5s+fPoEMvPnw4dM3MolOrXs26NTHS qD2fdv9Nu7bt25Rhs56Nu7fv38B31pQb2zPn4MiTK1c+fF1xzbyXS59OvXVzq6u5Pq/Ovbt3tZfjdoSJ LIrWuVdRXyVA4On39/Djgw2/vd04bwOaNDlyxMURw+LJZdg37LEXnXwIJqhgPPSt1UUW+vHnggsoSIAC CkekJ14XBXbooYc1DbDgiCSWSJyAW8H0DYRH2DAhhReiMGET933YISI2FiiGeyb26CN8pKWYn35NnDMA hETydwSRM46TI3s4Pjngj1RWOV2QxnhDZJEqdplMkzd2uMWTHhJyjpVopukblq/h91J9Xcw4wIdbbKFF nTniqSOPavbpp2oHwhnTMJd10d//ESKSSYBW7G1BRRUEjEnAjsf9aemljB0YIKGcoZOeVN4cep8YBUqa lYdbVFHFmFosqh2msMZK2HHPJUMjOQJsZygKNtSoqJ2RVnGnjoPKauyx87EpTBdR3ErODz94kesAXkAr LThNuNArSI1KemeddWohrqrgjulSpcimq+5NDb6mnzrJCACEBwVggEEBAOSbAAkCiJHtthxGKmmkAotL gKqQEnBnFVS4VN+6EEe8LHrIvPtpTQI0YUQHBbjAQgEjrABAD/7652u5dXLBBcGprgruwVQsiq7ENNd8 4joVOxsiVxoDUIINJiSwhBIIePGgf+Z1IYDKTHNRjgB4WvFo/6StpmoFezPbrLXEyorDY01eGFFOFkAU AIQLH3TwhAwAXCFGFtrSmEU5XtRtxN38cVEnucAenHB7D28teKzXZZUlvAR40UMPJeBrgAEAXKCCAxyM A7cNROJ9txEt2OC53lqQO2wVUwyc9eCoy3paW5mxBVdUS/9AAgccTLFDAhAoMPJ9E9rAn4svvuj53o8m LPXVHZaW+vKwrk7egF4a1k17P1wQsxQPgFEBAD9403vw4GtrAxdWIOxyFchjfSbz7BPu1FNehugUW+bM yV4PGFhhBQ8BgGFBAf36krbCJzzPVUtVPhhT+QYGkvW174GW4sYTlvC+CloQLvKqlhV+0P8BDHRgBwAI gA4ekIH09Ad4wfOcCl1QBC/ozwvsgSF7DEapwOnkLxDMoWoGIAAlKGEJFOTh+562NCGqQwA9GAEGAGCv ewGgAAUgWVb6MyEZpXCFYruCtARwhVwFq1UNtGFOAvMOevjFMQHJBA6FERlMeIIuB5lMOMiow6Pw0Ic+ BCIQuaFHPQ6pSIYDyVu+0QMAeCEdR7DihcCnQhsYwQtcuIIWvZAoHdVQLXJsBxnpyEY1xoOO88CkPwjy STTW8ShKw6Mqf9jHPjJhPzoL5IYoabhEVpGAvnMkJCcpIta153RFUYg7OIkTUyLElMZszCWIecw1nnIt 6xDANPCIgxz/rBKPS2CCizK0LAAByJYUwmWLHlk3o63DQ8AkSkKcCZmHQGSUnLAEPAviGHieESgEiSc+ iGmPOEpkme88yzO/UhMlpEQlSpAGHq2Zg4b+0EXbwgyhtHSEFkwoAotkpA2C4AUiSIs46UlnUNaZzDe6 U5/zvIVDZqHGfdzTpPnUyD3WuAuTCnSUsZgpOweqk4JaoxnSSII0TPIMGeTABjJSz326wCQXnOCpFApB CGIkIxS04KochaQDNyPGYpK0pJtcqTxVQU+NjPWlZBVrRdB41rK+sa3x5OlYfDoNoMYgBjDIKwzuWk2k ugA9tvrdiyokAamGQAQikGpin8rYE1xV/1oieo1IffLVY4QVpWnF7FmEedZ2ZvazGWGrWkNJkc66Ua4E HUBCg2oNGKRgr3d9xlEn9I0IadSphpXqBna7gdyC4LcgMMFTjRBZyXb1JuvUJDJHC1q3ejYwzoWrZpsJ 2s3Ws56oTe1qrUGNu0LDuziowYQkRED/7Ae3IeDtBjTAXg0A973CPUG/cGYKTYFFmMqNSHOZa92emNam 0q1uJzXrXIFuJLto6YJBD2oN7+p1rzIQ72DBVwP+CIBzKEhsCH7bXva+F7gfAMEJ/pqY4/KkjWXUr0oJ zF8Dr/ikMOUvP1tcYJseGMFB6cITflqSZzw4ryiR8ItaUAMjMIEJff/E8Al+G2LguvfDv2UACC6UBRRx VZQ7pW4tAvziV5CVpZERC5ej20labIQhrDAwM3GMlB3XFRo4+DEMnhFeq9Igm3r0YRKSMIQh/KAFJzDB AqDMYUJP9QRNsLImtnrfj1SWpPIIrWkFgtMBS/qdLo10M+cxT1gY5J9ZZjNHasLdaODAuw4GMkpk0OdW e3ckzTCCEJZM6A+717AXSvQxGC3qXienJkKdhqlPglcYUOAFqkZ1sVMwEhWgRD9C8G2tQWBYEeS6Prz2 tbbXpFpho+TUDy62nH98V1ZLQz8ukCoKcivV3+aWqhJwVjGyve1614auPU6JuO/64Nfm9QYMNvX/qXFg hP7ESMNTjRGMqIoCRGNbefaO+G66zWNxy5mv1bQGsWWgBCNU8QQMh7cELDTeI2ThYfaVuMpTU5MlcDcl PsY4dzXuXWw4JVsEjJGFZLSk8GRpsisP+mgG4PKZc3fPDcVBM77N8Se8jqktetEEwumfnvt8K0AXutbz kownBDsaQJ15bK+hBChkLQtR753VJ+qOlG/97Yj5BtGHYJKhelcG2NiGrpKxJB6a+Od/h7vgiwKqAey4 3NmAH8Tr+zykyOUHuQrj4Ccf9+IKcn6Lt0y/qkUt2fUy65QPfY4BG3id9LIH0YoWBowWLcmL/vVpKdym 6HIVL3QAWgLwAgBy/4WBH4ihbq6HvfBTy7rSb4odGiKEAH7QA6MhUQwdIMGOMNCv6A8A8sEfvvaJEqjW EapN6+jl5knQgej/gBsgIQHJumDI5VcrgG7fvvw/UijAcqp1uY/sOKh1/Q4IgAT5En38AhKQl3rL1z1i 4HlmYnzz14ASRV9tojTMN19yYS+5wkHkxz0dAADl1wPlly/dg3rlgH348QO7t4AOmIL01zXngTHSUk7H kXv2YnscmC9MtEQciESygwHdgHtZ8TT4s4HzBXoqWIT1ZzhKgzHRUi3Q0gMkMIBuYTRegIM1aDRMtIHq xz0C0EE9ICLLF4VI5EHMZy8nuCOZV4Ro6BzFp/98ddN8L8h80rKB0bd8JLBE+GNIAJgvVkgCUwh5UAgO Msh8HaSBHlR+HRBZ9JaGiogd6RBZ1VIti5MrG7iHHlhIGJCHHJiATHSF1JeAvncVT0N+U9h7Jsg9Twh5 bGGGDLiIolc4s5GEArBE3WOHAsA9hXSLA0CFHsg9tseH6UdJL1h+dfiBHRgtg0Qt5nRJrLiM4cc6coGF sXiFu2eCJkgCuQgAddh7H4UZ1OiBS2SI2eh/dRMvzUc3kZd9zMiK3acJpRiE+cKDJlhIhxh9SvOIXOEF 6reB1GiII4N66OcWS5grdhF/6aiC67gOG8iBU8iBITEyJNA94OCBcjiIP+D/QbtnLx1gj/AySJxSkOnY LulQSLsziVFYGF3QQcN4ib3XAfjDQx+lHj/nkR9pf+Qgi1Gof8FQSPyie/+3ekojS+NxdTJphBRjCm8R DgA4fq/yd3LHJ0OpiMhnfAoIL81IE1zxPkL5lA4YlTiRiukAOwdoeYwnP2+yil8RBmFgCmjpDmsZD235 HW95DHFJG3NJJbJXHMlnH/W4RaXRlIqnIoKBloKZloRAmIOploRpDIfZDosJl4kpl4/ZGo05FnXJcp1S X0ihNO7nd61DlvFTLHQxl4P5mJXplpEJmcNXmkahmqBxkEjhku93dW5Slp95hkdxmoggmI3AmuHAm8Hg /5togZueIZyfAZw7YZyV4ZptRzcvSIHEUUG1GT93wZpxiZzDYJ2FSZyhuRra2RnYeRPfOXRraJXUkntb ZHkXIz/RCRXRoxa8WZ3diZqmuRjhiRf1yRf32RH5yRdH2E0uaI604pe0uZ7tmRa+SZrxqZgJqgn7eZwL ihgNGpoPmhMRihdcqYZ7WU6jgjOngXkEapXuOaHZiZiIqZu7iaAm+puGOZm5yaJtmaKjeZ2jeZoxKqMw eqMMqpuR+aIzCpkpKgaTGaQrKpyHiaDZ+aMtiqRAOqS4WaF3caGIYJ7mqFRYKZ0yYZtB8Z3wKZqJCZ8M qqBAmqRfeqRHqqOGKaYyqv+iJ0oMSNqlP2qkZbqm8jmiciqnPVqZcDqibpqnS5qkN7qjIvoY/+hN6XCU Y0mWA5pjIcoRdemlaNqndFoMbUqaOVqnuVmpaYqplkqiu6mpYdqingqcjcqnkQqpbGqpkwqqoUqjO2ob g1oVh6OeXYJKizqfmjqqqvqguFqqS+qmntqrmdqpJRqshbmqwqqqvCoMTfqWu5qsnFqsyIqsy+qrz/qp tNGfYwmd5GGW32eggdqs75mWEwquM4qjJ1quxMmlyqqdzFqtShqtB0qk1Iqq8fmuppqr8hqt8GobSoOe A4mon5kcWsqq+lqiyEmukgqotlqwziqt1dqrzXqv6zr/scnqqAmbqphamsy6rMdqHQSYkUslPVVam8vx rQTbsKB6sCcrsQ+LneqqppnKsQZrrAlLsSxrsQqKs3SqsfOKqreBMR4IWZ5JoNxaGQe6qaaKp/jamyur tLzqtDDLsCxbqTKronwarzYbsS67sZzKswxbnbjBFcvXAwJJtFiKG92psLf6skmboORKo/qqpOkKqE0K plVrraWqs1b7m0irt2q5tl0LtVMbqKbhJs6znt2hmisLr2DLuGC6qpRasG/KpouLskibt1dLqjbruDRL uXWKsJ0rtfzKnmYLH2zbt3QrpL/6sBJbrpfrusG6p6K7upjbpZ3Lrly7tosZr7YrmbkoGrd666QWarag 6Zg1eq4m2qN+irw8+q7Kq7xx6qejKqqTaq+bW6YvSqbSu6f1yqLIu7PHy7fAir1MurHOK67eO7XZQbxn q5WnJLyfwb5F675aA7+yQbz0u232G78f+h7o+r8AHMACPMAEXMAGfMAInMAKvMAM3MAO/MD7m2CIS1D9 m79pEsEWnMGMGr4a3MEe/MEgzBqBAAAh/nR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0 d3NscHBscW5vY2F4bmhnbmlmd3h0dGNhbXVkcWdvdW5wc2Z0eW9jbWtrdXNmaWViYnlvZmNxdmliawA7 --------------060102010700070901080004-- From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Oct 9 21:49:57 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:49:57 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001101c4ac39$00eaaeb0$c2a987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ I am more concerned where the TD decides to order that two > contestants meet each other twice. I do not think this is wise. It > lays him open to angry criticism if one of the two pairs gets four > tops instead of two - or something like that. The feelings of one > of the two pairs may be much aroused merely because they are > asked to play a pair twice that they perceive as strong. There > may be a reaction among the remaining players in the field who > are disadvantaged by the easy points given to the successful pair. > The Director is interfering with the schedule of play. I do not > believe it is the answer to put two innocent pairs in such a > position. It's certainly not desirable to have a pair playthe same opponent twice. On the other hand, lateplays and missed boards aren't desirable either. In my experience, at least at the club level, the "reaction a mong the players" is stronger to having extra sitouts or having to stay late for results than it is to any concerns about the balance of the movement. That may change in high level events - but in high level events you wouldn't expect many fish. The director creates the schedule of play. At what point is he "no longer allowed to change his mind," and it becaomes "interfering" if he chooses to create a new schedule of play? "As soon as the original movement is announced" doesn't quite cut it - because there are routine alterations that are made in the event of late-arriving pairs, and well known fixes for various movement problems such as having the bye stand in the wrong place in a relay mitchell. GRB From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 9 23:46:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 23:46:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 In-Reply-To: <003401c4adf7$5a2b48d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> References: <200409291504.i8TF4N5U013619@cfa.harvard.edu> <415AD9C4.7080207@hdw.be> <003401c4adf7$5a2b48d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Anne Jones wrote >I think the above argument is quite critical and would like to see more >opinions on this particuler point. >I am of the opinion that "In any way" means just that. >Herman thinks it means, in any significant way, because all calls mean >different things to different people, and he would like to make the >board playable if possible. >DWS seems to agree with Herman Not so: I merely tried to avoid getting involved in an argument I had no wish to join and wished merely to consider the rest of the ruling. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Roman_Fausnaugh@macconnect.com Sun Oct 10 00:50:58 2004 From: Roman_Fausnaugh@macconnect.com (Reiley Chermak) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:50:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fwd: I need your help... Message-ID: <20041009230436.7C07096F@rhubarb.custard.org> And the sea is precisely their best vehicle, the only med= ium through which these giants (against which terrestrial animals, such as= elephants or rhinoceroses, are as nothing) can be produced or developed.=20=




Çîálïs defi= netely better then Víägrå
..can last for 2 days
..You can have alcohol with Cì@lís
..improves sexual performances twice better then Vïågrà= ;
..it costs much cheaper than Pfízer Vîagrâ
Get ÇÎÅLÌS (SÛPËR VÏ= ÂGRÅ) here







Discontinue It had been so much talked of, even through the Atlantic cable, that jeste= rs pretended that this slender fly had stopped a telegram on its passage a= nd was making the most of it! That there really was something could not be= doubted, and the incredulous were invited to put their finger on the woun= d of the Scotia. The legends of ancient times were even revived!!=20 From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 9 23:50:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 23:50:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] New formula for lAW87-Neuberg obsolete-"qualified-mixed-MP-method" In-Reply-To: <001201c4ae2d$81cd6720$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816FCE@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <001201c4ae2d$81cd6720$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >From: Hinden, Frances > >------------------------------------------- >I don't disagree that Neuberg is the (roughly) the best tool available. But >it doesn't completely solve the problem. If I score +7600 I expect that to >be a top >however many tables there are. >------------------------------------------ > >Years ago I argued that a unique top or bottom should remain a top or >bottom, but I got shot down. I still like that idea. I am very surprised at you: I would expect pedants [as you and I both are] to be the people to whom it is anathema to make boards of unfair comparisons. To get a top in a 12 table field means to beat 11 other pairs. It cannot be right to get a top by beating 10 other pairs. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 9 23:57:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 23:57:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Take the Fifth In-Reply-To: <000d01c4ae27$20ed59c0$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003701c4ae0a$9e9e58a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <000d01c4ae27$20ed59c0$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote > >From: "Nigel Guthrie" > >> [Nigel] >> Often, when asked about a ruling, BLMLers say the >> TD should first ask about players' intentions or >> motives. For example, see the current thread when >> a player plays a spot card and an honour, >> simultaneously. Suppose the player answers that >> he is "unsure" or claims that he "can't remember"; >> or perhaps he just refuses to answer.... >> A. Could this be unethical (in principle)? >> B. Could this be an infraction of Bridge law? >> C. Is the director justified in assuming >> prevarication? or >> D. Should the director give the player the >> benefit of the doubt? >> >> If the answer to D is "Yes", then it seems that >> questions about motives and intentions unfairly >> target truthful and legally inexperienced players. >> >For this reason, unsubstantiated possibly-biased testimony should be >considered irrelevant, and TDs/ACs should determine the facts as best they >can without it. If a majority at the table agrees on the facts, then that >constitutes substantiation. That's awful, and impractical. In practice you never get black-or-white positions, except from players of doubtful ethics, and usually know what has happened. To rule wrongly according to some unnecessary precept is not the way to go. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Sun Oct 10 03:05:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 03:05:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 In-Reply-To: References: <200409291504.i8TF4N5U013619@cfa.harvard.edu> <415AD9C4.7080207@hdw.be> <003401c4adf7$5a2b48d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <41DfhsEUjJaBFwak@asimere.com> In article , David Stevenson writes >Anne Jones wrote > >>I think the above argument is quite critical and would like to see more >>opinions on this particuler point. >>I am of the opinion that "In any way" means just that. >>Herman thinks it means, in any significant way, because all calls mean >>different things to different people, and he would like to make the >>board playable if possible. >>DWS seems to agree with Herman mmm. I think one can interpret "in any way" as being field dependent. I would allow 14-16 vs 15-17 in the Japanese ladies circle, but not a late round of the Young Chelsea Championship. I would do so for the reason that Herman puts forward. The Japanese ladies are here to play bridge. The YC Championship *has* to be a level playing field. > > Not so: I merely tried to avoid getting involved in an argument I had >no wish to join and wished merely to consider the rest of the ruling. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Sun Oct 10 03:30:34 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 03:30:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 References: <200409291504.i8TF4N5U013619@cfa.harvard.edu> <415AD9C4.7080207@hdw.be> <003401c4adf7$5a2b48d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> <41DfhsEUjJaBFwak@asimere.com> Message-ID: <002701c4ae71$2bec9940$12330952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 > In article , David Stevenson > writes >>Anne Jones wrote >> >>>I think the above argument is quite critical and would like to see more >>>opinions on this particuler point. >>>I am of the opinion that "In any way" means just that. >>>Herman thinks it means, in any significant way, because all calls mean >>>different things to different people, and he would like to make the >>>board playable if possible. >>>DWS seems to agree with Herman > > mmm. I think one can interpret "in any way" as being field dependent. I > would allow 14-16 vs 15-17 in the Japanese ladies circle, but not a late > round of the Young Chelsea Championship. I would do so for the reason > that Herman puts forward. The Japanese ladies are here to play bridge. > The YC Championship *has* to be a level playing field. > I would have thought that all players are "here to play Bridge" but not so. In the event in question one player said he was inconvenienced by the variation and requested his 60% and one player tried to open 7NT for the same purpose. The player who tried to open 7NT asked for a ruling on the board and even though he didn't get one, thought he had attended an appeal. It's a funny old litigious world ! Anne From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 10 10:02:42 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:02:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 References: <200409291504.i8TF4N5U013619@cfa.harvard.edu> <415AD9C4.7080207@hdw.be> <003401c4adf7$5a2b48d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> <41DfhsEUjJaBFwak@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000b01c4aead$b0e772f0$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 > > mmm. I think one can interpret "in any way" as > being field dependent. I would allow 14-16 vs 15-17 > in the Japanese ladies circle, but not a late round of > the Young Chelsea Championship. << +=+ A puzzling statement. I had thought that ladies' bridge and Japanese bridge were played under the same laws as bridge at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club. I think it is unacceptably discriminatory to treat them differently, and certainly a violation of the laws of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 10 09:49:38 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:49:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 > > > >I think we can agree that even if we could allow the small change of > >meaning to not interfere with the playing of the board, we cannot ask a > >player to repeat his calls if the meaning has changed even a little bit. > > > >So I cancelled this board and awarded Average Plus to both sides (pair > >C obviously so - they are in no way at wrong -- pair B subject to the > >discussion in post 2) > > Correct. While we can accept that 14-16 is effectively the same as > 15-17 [or not: this is the sort of thing I can imagine a 132 article > BLML thread on] we certainly cannot say to the player that he must treat > 14-16 as the same as 15-17. > +=+ What I read here left me to worry what is being said. I assume that no-one who is involved in any way with the guidance or training of Tournament Directors could be suggesting that a 14-16 no-trump does not differ *in any way* from a 15-17 no-trump. I trust there is no suggestion that the board would not be not cancelled before the next player had to take any action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Oct 10 11:26:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:26:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <41690E57.5040705@hdw.be> gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> >> Correct. While we can accept that 14-16 is effectively the same as >>15-17 [or not: this is the sort of thing I can imagine a 132 article >>BLML thread on] we certainly cannot say to the player that he must treat >>14-16 as the same as 15-17. >> > > +=+ What I read here left me to worry what is being said. > I assume that no-one who is involved in any way with the > guidance or training of Tournament Directors could be > suggesting that a 14-16 no-trump does not differ *in any > way* from a 15-17 no-trump. I trust there is no suggestion > that the board would not be not cancelled before the next > player had to take any action. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Sorry Grattan, but your insistence worries me. Are you saying that "in any way" needs to be interpreted as strict as some have suggested? Or are you saying that while some leniency may be accepted, it is inconceivable that the leniency goes as far as David and I are suggesting? If one pair substitutes a weak 2He for another pair's weak 2He, do you suggest we look at both pairs' CC and cancel the board if one says 5-10 and the other 6-11? If both CC's are marked 6-11, do you suggest we question both pairs and ask them the maximum allowed holdings in the other suits? Do we cancel if one says that an outside King is allowed, while the other says QJ is the maximum? And so on. Don't you see that some leniency needs to be acceptable? Or else L15C is dead letter? Don't you then accept that John allows his Japanese Ladies to get away with exchanging a 14-16 NT for a 15-17 one? Don't you accept that it is within my rights to allow Tony Forrester to do so? I may be wrong in going this far, and you may criticise me for it, and I accept that we need to draw some lines and preferably common ones (that's what blml is all about). I even accept that we tell oneanother here that we should not allow this change. But, as I said, what worries me is your insistence - not as a director but presumably under your hat of WBFLC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 10 13:29:29 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:29:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4aead$b0e772f0$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> References: <200409291504.i8TF4N5U013619@cfa.harvard.edu> <415AD9C4.7080207@hdw.be> <003401c4adf7$5a2b48d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> <41DfhsEUjJaBFwak@asimere.com> <000b01c4aead$b0e772f0$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: In article <000b01c4aead$b0e772f0$f3d8403e@multivisionoem>, gesta@tiscali.co.uk writes > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. >".In former days, everyone found the >assumption of innocence so easy; today >we find fatally easy the assumption of >guilt." [Amanda Cross] >#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 3:05 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 > > >> >> mmm. I think one can interpret "in any way" as >> being field dependent. I would allow 14-16 vs 15-17 >> in the Japanese ladies circle, but not a late round of >> the Young Chelsea Championship. ><< >+=+ A puzzling statement. I had thought that ladies' bridge >and Japanese bridge were played under the same laws as >bridge at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club. I think it is >unacceptably discriminatory to treat them differently, and >certainly a violation of the laws of the game. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Japanese ladies are pretty much incapable of telling the difference between 14-16 and 15-17. For them it is the same meaning. [shades of class of player involved] So I can interpret this way for them and save them a board (as Herman would like to). For a stronger field this is not so. cheers John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Sun Oct 10 13:55:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:55:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 4 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4aead$b0e772f0$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> References: <200409291504.i8TF4N5U013619@cfa.harvard.edu> <415AD9C4.7080207@hdw.be> <003401c4adf7$5a2b48d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> <41DfhsEUjJaBFwak@asimere.com> <000b01c4aead$b0e772f0$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: Grattan wrote >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> mmm. I think one can interpret "in any way" as >> being field dependent. I would allow 14-16 vs 15-17 >> in the Japanese ladies circle, but not a late round of >> the Young Chelsea Championship. >+=+ A puzzling statement. I had thought that ladies' bridge >and Japanese bridge were played under the same laws as >bridge at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club. I think it is >unacceptably discriminatory to treat them differently, and >certainly a violation of the laws of the game. The Laws are subject to judgement in a lot of areas. It may be wrong to treat 14-16 and 15-17 as the same, but it is certainly a judgement. To say it is discriminatory is true, but discrimination is built into the Laws, see the "class of player involved" footnote, the definition of Logical Alternative which, throughout the world tends to refer to a person's peers. To suggest they are not played under the same Laws is wrong. They are played under the same Laws even when judgements of different players differ. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sun Oct 10 13:59:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:59:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> Message-ID: wrote > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. >".In former days, everyone found the >assumption of innocence so easy; today >we find fatally easy the assumption of >guilt." [Amanda Cross] >#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 2:27 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 > > >> > >> >I think we can agree that even if we could allow the small change of >> >meaning to not interfere with the playing of the board, we cannot ask a >> >player to repeat his calls if the meaning has changed even a little bit. >> > >> >So I cancelled this board and awarded Average Plus to both sides (pair >> >C obviously so - they are in no way at wrong -- pair B subject to the >> >discussion in post 2) >> >> Correct. While we can accept that 14-16 is effectively the same as >> 15-17 [or not: this is the sort of thing I can imagine a 132 article >> BLML thread on] we certainly cannot say to the player that he must treat >> 14-16 as the same as 15-17. >> >+=+ What I read here left me to worry what is being said. >I assume that no-one who is involved in any way with the >guidance or training of Tournament Directors could be >suggesting that a 14-16 no-trump does not differ *in any >way* from a 15-17 no-trump. I trust there is no suggestion >that the board would not be not cancelled before the next >player had to take any action. It is nice of you to trust that no-one would do such a thing, Grattan, but it is quite clear from some of the replies that some people would. If we take the words literally then as others have demonstrated the board is *always* unplayable since no two pairs play identical methods. Even if there has been a sole pass then since people open with slightly different values it would be unplayable if we took "in any way" literally. If this is really what the WBFLC meant then they would have said the board must be cancelled. In practice TDs and ACs take a more practical view of the world of bridge. How far would they go in deciding what differs "in any way"? I do not know, but it is, like so much of the laws of bridge, a matter for 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 svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 10 16:23:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:23:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4aedd$09d4e850$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > I apply L15C. I think that there is an implied "against these > opponents" in the first sentence. On a request from the Norwegian LC I have "struggled" with this question = for several months in order to prepare a report for their consideration. There are curious consequences whether we decide to let Law 15C apply or = not and after seeing most of the views that have been presented here on blml = I have finally landed on the firm statements from Grattan that L15C is to = be understood literally as it has been written, i.e. there is no implied "against the correct opponents". The consequence is that I have suggested the procedure to be followed = when during the auction (or play) at a table one of the contestants is = discovered being incorrectly seated is to let them complete the affected board as started, award the two pairs that thus have no opponents on this board = A+, and restore the correct positions when that board is completed at the = table where the irregularity occurred. This is not the only possible solution and in fact not the solution I originally favored, but I have accepted the arguments leading up to it. (Arguments which I shall not bother blml by repeating them here, they = are all available on hours of back entries in the blml archives). Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 10 16:28:18 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:28:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c4aedd$c4dd7630$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ................. > >at which point pair A say the bidding has indeed gone the same as > >before. "including the hesitation?" asks the TD. "including the > >hesitation" say pair A. No comment from pair D about this hesitation. > > > >So the board has now become playable has it not? >=20 > Yes. Hesitation is NOT part of any auction so any remarks on hesitations = during an auction are extraneous and irrelevant for the purpose of establishing whether the auction is identical to a separate auction. (That the existence or absence of hesitation can be UI is a separate = matter) Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 10 16:32:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:32:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c4aede$57500050$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote ............. > >Yes - it is the same auction. > > No, Sven, much as it grieves me to agree with Tim, you are putting the > E/W pair at the new table under a disadvantage that L15C was meant to > dispel. > > When a player makes UI available to partner that limits his options > under L73C and other Laws. This fact is AI to opponents - so they have > a right to know this. > > If there is no UI on the repeated auction then it is an auction with a > different meaning. We do agree that there can be (and probably is UI present, but I do not agree that the existence or absence of UI during an auction is relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the auction is identical to a separate auction. Hesitations are in no way "part of an auction". Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 10 16:48:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:48:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] New formula for lAW87-Neuberg obsolete-"qualified-mixed-MP-method" In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101816FCE@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000501c4aee0$9063e670$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS ............... > A pair scoring a clean top in a larger group should therefore be = ranked > ahead of a pair scoring a clean top in a smaller group. Similarly = should a > clean bottom from a larger group be ranked behind the clean bottom = from a > smaller group. >=20 > Neuberg takes care of just that, and it is so far the best tool I have > seen > for comparing results from different groups. >=20 > My first reaction when I read the description of "a new formula to = replace > Neubers" was that this suggestion had better be forgotten as soon as > possible. >=20 > Regards Sven >=20 > ------------------------------------------- > I don't disagree that Neuberg is the (roughly) the best tool = available. > But > it doesn't completely solve the problem. If I score +7600 I expect = that > to be a top > however many tables there are. If you alone score +7600 in a group of 5 tables and extrapolate your = result to a group of 50 tables there is a significant possibility that you = would not be alone with +7600 in the larger group. Therefore the +4 MP score you get in the group of 5 tables does not extrapolate to +49 MP but "only" to +40 MP in a group of 50 tables. This caters for the probability that your "high" score will be shared with 9 other pairs.=20 Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Sun Oct 10 16:55:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:55:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: <000401c4aede$57500050$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4aede$57500050$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >............. >> >Yes - it is the same auction. >> >> No, Sven, much as it grieves me to agree with Tim, you are putting the >> E/W pair at the new table under a disadvantage that L15C was meant to >> dispel. >> >> When a player makes UI available to partner that limits his options >> under L73C and other Laws. This fact is AI to opponents - so they have >> a right to know this. >> >> If there is no UI on the repeated auction then it is an auction with a >> different meaning. > >We do agree that there can be (and probably is UI present, but I do not >agree that the existence or absence of UI during an auction is relevant for >the purpose of deciding whether the auction is identical to a separate >auction. > >Hesitations are in no way "part of an auction". Indeed. Suppose an auction goes 1H 1S 4H ..X P 4S Now, for this to be a legal auction, pass must not be an LA for the original overcaller. Compare 1H 1S 4H X P 4S If the original overcaller judges to bid 4S even though he knows others would pass this is perfectly legal in the absence of UI. Perhaps he knows his partner defends badly! The trouble is that when you talk about two auctions "not differing in anyway" the 4S bid does - well, it is certainly as big a difference as between 14-16 and 15-17 anyway. Now compare 1H 1S 4H ..X and 1H 1S 4H X In effect the difference is again as great because of its effect on the auction. Would I think you could treat them as no different? Probably in the Japanese ladies, who would not take any notice of the hesitation, but not in the Friday YC where they know the effects of the UI Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 10 17:58:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:58:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4aeea$5d0c6450$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > >We do agree that there can be (and probably is UI present, but I do = not > >agree that the existence or absence of UI during an auction is = relevant > for > >the purpose of deciding whether the auction is identical to a = separate > >auction. > > > >Hesitations are in no way "part of an auction". >=20 > Indeed. >=20 > Suppose an auction goes >=20 > 1H 1S 4H ..X > P 4S >=20 > Now, for this to be a legal auction, pass must not be an LA for the > original overcaller. >=20 > Compare >=20 > 1H 1S 4H X > P 4S >=20 > If the original overcaller judges to bid 4S even though he knows > others would pass this is perfectly legal in the absence of UI. = Perhaps > he knows his partner defends badly! >=20 > The trouble is that when you talk about two auctions "not differing = in > anyway" the 4S bid does - well, it is certainly as big a difference as > between 14-16 and 15-17 anyway. >=20 > Now compare >=20 > 1H 1S 4H ..X >=20 > and >=20 > 1H 1S 4H X >=20 > In effect the difference is again as great because of its effect on > the auction. >=20 > Would I think you could treat them as no different? Probably in = the > Japanese ladies, who would not take any notice of the hesitation, but > not in the Friday YC where they know the effects of the UI Laws. I would rule that the auctions are identical, but with more or less UI attached. And I would consider it part of the Director's duty to after = the play judge whether the existing UI could in any way have influenced = actions in such a way that he should apply Law 16. The main problem is that if we drag extraneous information into the = question of the auctions being identical or not we cannot ignore some extraneous information, we must take all of it into consideration. For instance: = The time of day has obviously changed, the players are obviously a bit more tired, the knowledge that they are in fact making a second auction as prescribed in L15C itself makes the conditions for the second auction different from the first and so on. We can always find some extraneous information that makes the two = auctions "different". Should we not leave it to the Director to judge whether = such extraneous information is essential or not for the purpose of applying = Law 16 and for the application of Law 15C limit ourselves to verifying the = items that is indeed part of the auction and nothing else? Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 10 20:20:29 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:20:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> <41690E57.5040705@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 > gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > >> > >> Correct. While we can accept that 14-16 is effectively > >> the same as 15-17 [or not: this is the sort of thing I can > >> imagine a 132 article BLML thread on] we certainly > >> cannot say to the player that he must treat 14-16 as the > >> .same as 15-17. > >> > > > > +=+ What I read here left me to worry what is being said. > > I assume that no-one who is involved in any way with the > > guidance or training of Tournament Directors could be > > suggesting that a 14-16 no-trump does not differ *in any > > way* from a 15-17 no-trump. I trust there is no suggestion > > that the board would not be not cancelled before the next > > player had to take any action. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Sorry Grattan, but your insistence worries me. > > Are you saying that "in any way" needs to be interpreted as > strict as some have suggested? Or are you saying that while > some leniency may be accepted, it is inconceivable that the > leniency goes as far as David and I are suggesting? > +=+ I have not read the whole of the thread. It seemed to be rather boring. But I do say that Law 15C requires the Director to act on a requirement that the board must be cancelled "if any call differs *in any way* from the corresponding call in the first auction". The law requires the Director to work on a basis of fact and does not allow even the most self-important director the luxury of exercising judgement in this respect.. The Director is bound by the Laws as they are written and in breach of his duty if he does other than so apply them, whether the occasion of his apostasy is a pretty Japanese lady or the possibly prettier Tony Forrester. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 10 21:23:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:23:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000701c4af06$f5cacdf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ......................... > > > I assume that no-one who is involved in any way with the > > > guidance or training of Tournament Directors could be > > > suggesting that a 14-16 no-trump does not differ *in any > > > way* from a 15-17 no-trump. I trust there is no suggestion > > > that the board would not be not cancelled before the next > > > player had to take any action. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ ................ > But I do say that Law 15C requires the Director > to act on a requirement that the board must be cancelled "if any > call differs *in any way* from the corresponding call in the first > auction". The law requires the Director to work on a basis of > fact and does not allow even the most self-important director > the luxury of exercising judgement in this respect.=20 Are you also saying that for instance an opening bid of 1H "differs in = any way" from another opening bid of 1H when the first bid is declared to = show 5 hearts and 12-18 HCP while the second is declared to show 5 hearts and = 12-19 HCP? Such a difference will be apparent from the fact that the first = pair opens 2C (artificial strong) with 19 HCP while the second pair requires = 20 HCP? What if the first pair has declared the range as (11)12-19 while the = second pair has declared the range as 12-19? (There is still a difference!) Regards Sven From schoderb@msn.com Sun Oct 10 21:54:58 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:54:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 3 References: <000201c4aedd$09d4e850$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: I fully agree that you are doing the correct thinking and taking the correct actions when we have someone at the wrong table playing boards that should not be played by an affected pair during that round. So, if I read you correctly, you would apply Law 15C when they are playing something not designated for that round, but you would use your common sense when playing a barometer, as you had indicated in a previous posting. Anyhow, I hope so. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:23 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 3 > David Stevenson ........... > I apply L15C. I think that there is an implied "against these > opponents" in the first sentence. On a request from the Norwegian LC I have "struggled" with this question for several months in order to prepare a report for their consideration. There are curious consequences whether we decide to let Law 15C apply or not and after seeing most of the views that have been presented here on blml I have finally landed on the firm statements from Grattan that L15C is to be understood literally as it has been written, i.e. there is no implied "against the correct opponents". The consequence is that I have suggested the procedure to be followed when during the auction (or play) at a table one of the contestants is discovered being incorrectly seated is to let them complete the affected board as started, award the two pairs that thus have no opponents on this board A+, and restore the correct positions when that board is completed at the table where the irregularity occurred. This is not the only possible solution and in fact not the solution I originally favored, but I have accepted the arguments leading up to it. (Arguments which I shall not bother blml by repeating them here, they are all available on hours of back entries in the blml archives). Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 10 22:49:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:49:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c4af13$14cd3a10$6900a8c0@WINXP> WILLIAM SCHODER > I fully agree that you are doing the correct thinking and taking the > correct > actions when we have someone at the wrong table playing boards that = should > not be played by an affected pair during that round. So, if I read = you > correctly, you would apply Law 15C when they are playing something not > designated for that round, but you would use your common sense when > playing > a barometer, as you had indicated in a previous posting. Anyhow, I = hope > so. >=20 > Kojak ............... Sven: > On a request from the Norwegian LC I have "struggled"=20 > with this question for several months in order to=20 > prepare a report for their consideration. Let us assume that pair A incorrectly sits down and starts the auction = on board X against pair B instead of playing board Y against pair C at the correct table. Pair A have occupied the seats designated for Pair D in = this round: My suggestions can be summarized as follows: Howell or Mitchell: Law 15C applies with Pair B and D playing board X as scheduled.=20 a) Pair A had already played board X in a previous round; what happened = for pair A in this round is void. b) Pair A is scheduled to play board X against pair E in a later round; = Law 15C is applied when they eventually starts on board X. Barometer (Series): Law 15C does not apply, Pair A and B complete board = X, pairs C and D receives A+ on this board. Thereafter pair A (and pair D) = is seated correctly and the round is completed as scheduled for pairs A = against C and B against D. And finally one case not covered by the previous discussions: Barometer, = the pairs at a table (correctly or incorrectly seated) begins the auction on board Z which is scheduled to be played in a later round: Law 15C applies; the auction is cancelled and the involved pairs are = seated correctly for this round if they were incorrectly seated. In the round when board Z is eventually scheduled to be played Law 15C = is applied for each of the two pairs that had incorrectly started their auctions on this board.=20 Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 11 00:06:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:06:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 15C and Law 40E1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the thread Cardiff Ruling 5, David Stevenson asserted: [big snip] >no two pairs play identical methods. [big snip] RJH asks: What never? No never. What never? Hardly ever. Law 40E1 states: >>The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention >>card on which partners are to list their conventions >>and other agreements and may establish regulations for >>its use, including a requirement that both members of a >>partnership employ the same system (such a regulation >>must not restrict style and judgement, only method). RJH asks: A decade ago, I indoctrinated four other players with my Symmetric Relay methods. We played in interchangeable partnerships as a team-of-five in several major teams events at the Canberra Bridge Club. However, while the five of us used identical methods, we had differing style and judgement. Does the Law 15C "differs in any way" criterion apply only to methods, or does the criterion additionally apply to style and judgement? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml@blakjak.com Mon Oct 11 00:16:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:16:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> <41690E57.5040705@hdw.be> <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ I have not read the whole of the thread. It seemed to be >rather boring. But I do say that Law 15C requires the Director >to act on a requirement that the board must be cancelled "if any >call differs *in any way* from the corresponding call in the first >auction". The law requires the Director to work on a basis of >fact and does not allow even the most self-important director >the luxury of exercising judgement in this respect.. The Director >is bound by the Laws as they are written and in breach of his >duty if he does other than so apply them, whether the occasion >of his apostasy is a pretty Japanese lady or the possibly prettier >Tony Forrester. So, you would always cancel - yes? No call by a different pair is ever exactly the same as far as meaning is concerned. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Oct 11 00:19:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:19:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: <000601c4aeea$5d0c6450$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4aeea$5d0c6450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >> >We do agree that there can be (and probably is UI present, but I do not >> >agree that the existence or absence of UI during an auction is relevant >> for >> >the purpose of deciding whether the auction is identical to a separate >> >auction. >> > >> >Hesitations are in no way "part of an auction". >> >> Indeed. >> >> Suppose an auction goes >> >> 1H 1S 4H ..X >> P 4S >> >> Now, for this to be a legal auction, pass must not be an LA for the >> original overcaller. >> >> Compare >> >> 1H 1S 4H X >> P 4S >> >> If the original overcaller judges to bid 4S even though he knows >> others would pass this is perfectly legal in the absence of UI. Perhaps >> he knows his partner defends badly! >> >> The trouble is that when you talk about two auctions "not differing in >> anyway" the 4S bid does - well, it is certainly as big a difference as >> between 14-16 and 15-17 anyway. >> >> Now compare >> >> 1H 1S 4H ..X >> >> and >> >> 1H 1S 4H X >> >> In effect the difference is again as great because of its effect on >> the auction. >> >> Would I think you could treat them as no different? Probably in the >> Japanese ladies, who would not take any notice of the hesitation, but >> not in the Friday YC where they know the effects of the UI Laws. > >I would rule that the auctions are identical, but with more or less UI >attached. And I would consider it part of the Director's duty to after the >play judge whether the existing UI could in any way have influenced actions >in such a way that he should apply Law 16. Not everyone ignores the Laws. What about the effects on players who religiously follow L73C? >The main problem is that if we drag extraneous information into the question >of the auctions being identical or not we cannot ignore some extraneous >information, we must take all of it into consideration. For instance: The >time of day has obviously changed, the players are obviously a bit more >tired, the knowledge that they are in fact making a second auction as >prescribed in L15C itself makes the conditions for the second auction >different from the first and so on. > >We can always find some extraneous information that makes the two auctions >"different". Should we not leave it to the Director to judge whether such >extraneous information is essential or not for the purpose of applying Law >16 and for the application of Law 15C limit ourselves to verifying the items >that is indeed part of the auction and nothing else? OK, but you have now accepted a large change [and Grattan will not accept a trivial change!]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 11 03:37:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:37:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <4165EE6A.9090506@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In reply to Karel, Steve Willner wrote: >If so, this is a potential conduct offense, not a >bridge infraction. Most SO's have rules against >frivolous appeals, though usually the penalty is >mild (forfeit a deposit or face a C&E committee >after multiple offenses). If the behavior that >Karel describes is a frequent problem, the SO's >rules need to be more stringent. If it's a one- >time occurrence, then perhaps peer disapproval is >the only remedy. RJH queries: I do not see how acting in accordance with the Laws of Bridge can be a conduct offence. The Proprieties of the Laws of Bridge *define* what is (and is not) a conduct offence. Edgar Kaplan discussed this issue in one of his editorials, saying that you might think less of the unsporting player as a human being, but you must not *penalise* that legal (but unsporting) player. If an unsporting player appeals, and bamboozles an AC into reversing a TD's ruling in their favour, how can the unsporting player's *successful* appeal be deemed to be a *frivolous* appeal? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 11 04:00:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:00:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) Message-ID: >From the Cardiff Ruling 4 thread: Anne Jones asserted: [big snip] >>The argument that an unethical player may use this to his >>advantage is not valid, as no unethical act should form >>part of a discussion on best legal practice, and should >>be dealt with in quite a different way. Grattan Endicott (in response to another blmler) asserted: >+=+ A puzzling statement. I had thought that ladies' bridge >and Japanese bridge were played under the same laws as >bridge at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club. I think it is >unacceptably discriminatory to treat them differently, and >certainly a violation of the laws of the game. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ On the whole, I reject Anne's bipolar methodology for the reason that Grattan uses. Law 72B1 states: "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." As TD, it matters not whether I deem a player to be ethical or unethical - I apply Law 72B1 (when applicable) equally to them both. As I recall, Sven and DWS have a similar philosophical divergence on the use of Law 72B1. As I recall, DWS is more or less in my camp. As I recall, Sven seems to be of the opinion that the addition of the phrase "could have known" to Law 72B1 in a recent revision of the Laws did not alter the intent of Law 72B1 - Sven retained the opinion that using Law 72B1 remained tantamount to an accusation of cheating. A bipolar Sven approach to Law 72B1, which Sven uses only on whom he is convinced is a villain, has (I believe) unintended consequences. In my opinion, a TD who fails to use "could have known" powers on all and sundry actually *increases* the number of villainous acts, since villains sometimes escape a Law 72B1 ruling which the letter of the Law would permit. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 11 05:24:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:24:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Willner read Law 58B2: >>Why would you ask which one was the intended >>play? I don't see why intent matters. There's >>nothing about it in 58B2. And don't forget >>72A5 and 9B1c. All in all, I think it is quite >>appropriate for any player who has accidentally >>exposed two cards to pick the least damaging to >>play. I certainly would, and I hope that >>doesn't make me a cheat. I also don't see >>where bridge lawyers come into anything. >>Surely you explain all the options per L10C1 >>before asking the player to choose, don't you? David Stevenson misread Law 58B2: >Sadly, Steve, you seem to have forgotten the >difference. If you play and drop the HK and the >H6 simultaneously, and propose under L58B2 to >play the H6 then the HK is an MPC. > >However, if you play and drop the HK and the H6 >simultaneously, and propose under L58B2 to play >the HK then the H6 is an MPC *if* you intended >to play it originally, but is an mPC if you did >not. > >As John says, a player of limited ethics having >heard the options will now say that he was >always intending to play the HK. RJH rereads the exact option granted by Law 58B2: Law 58B2 uses the present tense phrase "proposes to play", *not* the past tense phrase "intended to play". Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 11 05:49:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:49:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <000401c4aede$57500050$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran begged to differ: >>We do agree that there can be (and probably >>is UI present, but I do not agree that the >>existence or absence of UI during an auction >>is relevant for the purpose of deciding >>whether the auction is identical to a >>separate auction. >> >>Hesitations are in no way "part of an >>auction". Fowler, "Modern English Usage": >_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the >question'. The fallacy of founding a >conclusion on a basis that as much needs >to be proved as the conclusion itself. > >*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety >of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are >that capital punishment is necessary >because without it murders would increase, >and that democracy must be the best form >of government because the majority are >always right. RJH rhetorical: The first definition of "Auction" in the Chapter 1 Definitions states: "Auction - 1. The *process* of determining the contract by means of successive calls." How is it possible to merely beg the question that UI to a player (which constrains their choice of logical alternatives) is not part of the *process* of determining the contract? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 07:25:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:25:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4af5b$24eea1c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ................ > Law 72B1 states: >=20 > "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have > known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity > would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall > require the auction and play to continue, afterwards > awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the > offending side gained an advantage through the > irregularity." ................ > A bipolar Sven approach to Law 72B1, which Sven uses only on > whom he is convinced is a villain, has (I believe) unintended > consequences. In my opinion, a TD who fails to use "could > have known" powers on all and sundry actually *increases* the > number of villainous acts, since villains sometimes escape a > Law 72B1 ruling which the letter of the Law would permit. I do reject using L72B1 as if it were written: "Whenever the Director deems that a player could have been guilty of an offense..." In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable AFTER the Director has = established (using other laws in the book) that a player is guilty of an offense, = not to establish him as an offender. Just showing motive and possibility is not enough. Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 07:30:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:30:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c4af5b$d8fcfe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............. > RJH rhetorical: > > The first definition of "Auction" in the > Chapter 1 Definitions states: > > "Auction - 1. The *process* of determining > the contract by means of successive calls." > > How is it possible to merely beg the question > that UI to a player (which constrains their > choice of logical alternatives) is not part > of the *process* of determining the contract? Because "by means of successive calls" does not include any extraneous information whether considered UI or AI. Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 11 07:50:01 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:50:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> <41690E57.5040705@hdw.be> <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000d01c4af5e$dc339090$7d9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 > Grattan Endicott wrote > > >+=+ I have not read the whole of the thread. It seemed to be > >rather boring. But I do say that Law 15C requires the Director > >to act on a requirement that the board must be cancelled "if any > >call differs *in any way* from the corresponding call in the first > >auction". The law requires the Director to work on a basis of > >fact and does not allow even the most self-important director > >the luxury of exercising judgement in this respect.. The Director > >is bound by the Laws as they are written and in breach of his > >duty if he does other than so apply them, whether the occasion > >of his apostasy is a pretty Japanese lady or the possibly prettier > >Tony Forrester. > > So, you would always cancel - yes? No call by a different pair is > ever exactly the same as far as meaning is concerned. > +=+ In order to cancel the Director must perceive the difference. A matter of style or judgement would likely not be within his perception, I believe, but if the meaning were 11-13 instead of 12-14 that would be within his perception. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 11 09:01:18 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:01:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: Message-ID: <004b01c4af68$e205d870$9875893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > RJH rereads the exact option granted by Law 58B2: > > Law 58B2 uses the present tense phrase "proposes > to play", *not* the past tense phrase "intended > to play". > +=+ At which point he is free to exercise the option regardless of earlier intent. Your point, Richard. ~ G ~ +=+ p.s. did all of this grow from one typical Hermanesque ruling? I can't wait for another .... which is to say I'm off and away now. From identdep_op3798841@suntrust.com Mon Oct 11 10:24:54 2004 From: identdep_op3798841@suntrust.com (SunTrust bank) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:24:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Please Confirm Your SunTrust Bank Internet Banking Identity Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030708000101070807070000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Take it easy! Those who say O-Town NCAA Basketball Pamela Anderson No, not now. Black and White Did you make When is the next? Windows 2000 it's your fault. Eminem In fact Just a moment! it's for you. how much let's part friends New York Mets Celebrity in 1972 Grinch When the in 1893 London in 2007

--------------030708000101070807070000 Content-Type: image/gif; name="access.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="access.GIF" R0lGODlhigLAAfN0AAAAAMDAwMDcwCAgQEBAQGBgQODAQGBggICAgODggP/78KCgpAAA/////wAAAAAA ACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAACGArUBAAT/sMlJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgs Go/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdsvter/gsHhMLpvP6JtizW67Fem4fE6vZ9mJfN6QMPj/gH96eWx2hoeI iYopeHuBj5CRgoRri5aXmJlljZKdnp2UcJqjpKWmRQqOkYODb2+sepJ6lae1tre4Jmt9j62Fum2DkAm0 ucbHyLWpvH6zvzLBqnzEydXW13WpgKE+nIKi2OHi41jazcWoy+fk7O3uRubUTrvr7/b3+DHaxOBR6vL5 AgocyGEZwCsG+xFcyPDeMoV3CDWcSHHcsy8XK2rcqAwiRnQc/0OKHEmypMmTKFOqXMmypUt8bV7KnDlR wAIEBQoQKHAAQQABNgIsGEq0qFGiHmkqXQpFAYIBAKJKlTrgAFBoBaZq3Sp1AdOvYJsoIBCVwIIAaIVm jYpghoKsAxAQhSr1ANEDUb2G3ct3CF4AByAqWABVr76sASiszasYgOG+kCPfCFA2aQMEANpCI0AA3Nip jxc4lky6dAzMgDVQ1iyDM4XPXSkEGPDYtO3bJNYS0DDWqwIBbQRclfB7jXDhbir8Bi5gwO4JsBlPWO0G +cXibIS/Br4culAEcn/CMY49+3LLuNO/I8s2qYIAcGY75+x8OGHO+AnM5xx6wPzU0LEnnf8E8uWnn3/O 9XQVYftVRcFTzg1QQHxkIRhVVYMd6F9+CMaFnnogirMYAGYlloFTU9EGjk1Q2TUUXZVNYBNZBSwwXAPR jebdAiP2hJNUBCQmwF9lmUjgU4B5JVpcPwkQAJJCARAXknX92FmIWL6DWooEyOVRdAdcgJmRRA4owZgW 5FgbgVMNt+UAQDUXmwX6jVeYBaINBYCJb07A2YdZBmqMnFwlaCRxAhZwAV56vaXVlRNgtqaaF1AmlZGE jjabVKwFCGcDSwpGG2GivCnKAZAKquo1onFFFQHDRaeoBYwSl5WAmT2o42u4rtmApVEZGV1bm7KVpn5A oXYocQegFdj/mVSJchOgq1ZrygK4FmqirIvq+BZtMA4ATq3K9XpBq1HFKiCxMHaK6Kd/0QbcBqZaay82 GcK41ZXc0uptAXBumasE5L42oq/A7jndVIkVOzCvnwpMol3zWlDvvRhbo5a+sfVbAbnfChfuVQUHCFql DEsggIBh/trusZ86rFUBy14WbcY4WyMAAtmGCWa32wKcWJmalWzryXgyjMABdHlI4MvlfmqzqwMse3HO WB8zGIy7/exv0FU3kGnYRuNobtKXLkabbFBDbF+2QPZzddZ0WzLUBuh2zTLQtoY9dVRhSprmwShLJRzS T3MK843v8cjxoXPXLfkhrm1Al9518Y2j/9DE6bvzrtARbkHCQKk9nMPumi21chnOCe2F1E4uOxn6ccCe z3t/3beR6AJWNqVoB/vrVKyhvvivNW9ubKQ3z+78HGQlLyNdeiU6uMKb+202VVDV7KjrsqWsQJkmZpq6 As7BgSoGrT4W+fPw007ijR/H2ACRz73mnyhjaQ/qVpMSXQUSZqKE8St3FBAAiQgmrnNJCXLNi58Ex8Ae s9APRQ+cALrWpqtOAYxx2fLV2QbYpqPN6U30IxdmEKCQz7SMeReaoAzFQCUSFQA8S2MPBydAJCY5i0Si YFFmDtU70L2nhiQ6y4qIJoqEqSg6JbIJXib0uijOCIjeEZC8ZsjFLv88ST+FQgD9cFRD/wDOTR2iYt8Q REQNdSh9PHzjw7BlxrA5JVx0eZbKeHYhMwLmRgx6oxq7SMhyOOkm4FEib76TSPgksEk/Uc5xLtikSTrp RpZ0Uj+Wg5YVITKRY8TRd3qiyNdUUjiRLKQqV8nKVrrylbCMpSxnScta2vKWuMylLnfJy1768pfADKYw h0nMYhrzmMhMpjKXycxmOvOZ0IymNKdJzWpa85rYzKY2t8nNbnrzm+AMpzjHSc5ymvOc6EynOtfJzna6 853wjKc850nPetrznvjEDVdkoBUSuAoAMXCVPwfaAIDmszQGpUBCW7DQgp6goQ/FAEQh6gGKdsD/oiDA 6EFDQlGNErQCHt1ASDMq0QuM1AInRSkKUrrRhlh0oVJBaUwlANCogFQDMJ1ATW1605vyNKc0nelUVErU oPLUoTN1qEJNelSlNjSpSD3qUFtakpfq9KpYpWlQS8pVrW7Vq1nVKVC9ClSr9hSsTk2oQce6VLCuta1K Lahaw0rVkZj1qWh1Kk6bita50nWiZ9VrUUG6FbiSta1+DSxi/9pXutaVo1zFK2HfyoGkjpWtcWUsVjva VcfKlbKHzaxhF5tX0MaVpY8VyF0La9TQVrSxsHWsZN1q2c5mVaiw3altNyvWfmY2samFrEnzqlmWmha4 s9UscQU7WN6Slqym//Usc83q1uDadbilza5oPXvcsCZXu8uNLne1W9bxYhe4zD2tdUUCWLgiV7zKVSty FSta+eZ2t++9r3nV+9vbune9HGXtZCdb0+X2lq8xne9ot5vgA/dWpr51cHfry9TyKrSpl/0pgDdMUg57 WKQfDrGIR0ziEpv4xChOsYpXzOIWu/jFMI6xjGdM4xrb+MY4zrGOd8zjHvv4x0AOspCHTOQiG/nISE6y kumwTx2gVrosePIIpMzPKlA5BHzdLpQ/cOUtS7TLdQDzhaGKZYFaubkB9bJhxVzZGrA5ymeewZOpzNnX qvmsqEWvC4wr5z3TVwRvNrCbsdtnQQ820BlAdP+ii6BoHDQazW2eMqEjbWhC5/nOJuBzleEM6Q6r4NF2 DiyZPzvgq1q2wRQe81vJDFXdtnbRrMate7Ns6iyPutWkTvSo+1pbqdoUprTWKq55K1Sp5nrMPu2or209 YGDn9NS/NmqB14zbWDs7wgSW9lSPLeyfGhvaa931tsct1wc7W8JLtTaDQezfW6tUw7ctdrALjWfv+pe2 907vusWab/vmW6b/nrZztVzu2F6W3wbGbHU3m+F/XzjgXy14Wu3N667q2eCJ9Td/N/5dYPf7v50F7cER LvFwf3y//ZX4aTMecJZHfMFrJvl3VW5h1zq5qJKt88A5HtuY7zy9M9fvwKP/q3Ob63vCiq1zzkdL9Ekr mK1NTzXBl27pnlJ94TyXrc9ne/FUuxziPxc5pa/udatT3OgvpfXIwatcfVeanwIue3OR/vWi19zmQU85 svkbdLIfvecVnvSrMRt1UVMc6uStt+Dhu3G0Gxzs+xY61kMq68Y3/u7TpfTeCZ/4nhf+y4gHfHsPL3hH M521yvbt2r/uc+iqXtW71nvlBd7kpGvb26+XbuVnTVnOf3bbrb875sMdYeoa3eHEn+rqzz76lNe+67kW ++0V7Pjfxv7cQLc66s/+94syn+lz5z30aZBc4+se5P01Pua5j9PnVnf8xd0t4NkedtG/XfbuH76gzc94 //T2H/3+p2Whh1Fdd3XQN4BmV3qWh3THh3XO92dVB3nEVX7n1QMU6H7xd3LCFnIYyIBT14Gm1nYZWH96 B35ERXZ+Z3ekt4Ik+IEYiHydN3mMpYItWIAJuIDcF3Xm54DZB4KX54MwR32+Z4LhdX8w0HxCqIFZt4FO B4DxtWg7h2GKB3CPp4R2p3QPJ3XGlnAAyIAmV4X753DMV3dOmF00KINiWHE/6HmIRYb75XFa6IYlmHFF J3vUN4F4NmGg5n2HZmsIJoXxJnD7B2+8pnCxh3HRJlvztlMT5YehB2GCGIjT1oiCeIhQl4gIeGsItlcK V1qJ+GqIuHKdGH3UxnVqh/9qCbZshkdsGIZ7aZd8bodqoEhqj0iLoOeIa6h1zeZgs2gHe2gPv4gJwRgE w8iHR7gUxXgNo+gOyegDzdh6nwZzLDFvJAF890CNW/CMqvYC1rhk3viN4BiOHDaM2shl5dhpJxFo53gD n7gS6xhqafZRfkaMYTYHy6iASfCO1qCPmneM8shQQsCPPyCQPHCP6HgEBGkItSWJ0vZg6YZ7pdZtDTl2 3AZhD2lueyeR29iLG8mL44aLd0huqliH8nWBrpZtGdmLrPZf8qZRj2iJJQeSQneS11dtf+iK4TeLy6hu DwmLcxVt8mZbJbmKJxkGfiV8YBiTGriFb6dx1KVxK9f/b+qHck+HflGZlF+IbzkZki8XfEuZgzLXlFun e2t3lTUHiC4YcVW5eGjIhW1ZcpPnlBdngFuXkPQ2ljg3hQ+Yf1jGfjEodz9nlZFnggGohT44hHgJdvxX hDmJf4FZgb33Z76Hgg7Yd4nZgHsZhQrIdc/FlVQJXusHBjSoc5zJgnjXl/MHmKrpdjAIgQ5ZmKU5gYQo dYoXm6xZanUImlbJeGYXmUFImDeYeSLIhrgJhd3XiSTJgp7plt2XmWNwhuSmm4e3fR3ZfqlJmW2YexHI Xa0GbyWpfHo5lD14ftXnnMUpgGyJlfdHe2mFbd5FnZp5eXEHloMXhtWHnOmZmcuZ/5aFF5pfcIadGZ4v aJ/WWYIjuJpQVphQSJf5qX8GSoA4KHnACWm2uZYg9pPrKY3YeYfGaZ68iVQHmpuGOXT0GYYK6p9eAKAk upuH2aEW95t82aIvKo0kCJsCqpp5B6LSiZl+x5iQh6LpFoK0yX46GKDDOYd/+W4hupk3ynq16FNP+Jii OXR6yKLfV5k0KoFlGG9KuIroGYV0N2tcan2gCaFl6W/qJ4dOGpZS2piWF6VaiaZw6qVA96GVKJUzmovC iaQJ6phxigbdSXvQ5pAlym1PNWx5maBoiZGESnDHZomBOokRyait9Z2x2I5opomSeovWd6ieapFPx5S2 l5L0pf+porinjXqetIWJi2iRyEaAN0mUEniPlAiqRlhN5WiXNqCrusplZtCrv2SQ/ngGvDoFwDqs8tSN 5HesgBoF2KgFzyqO0jqt1Fqt1cJmIrpS2nqr3GpnzZithHVzA4mP/eiiTZB2u9qt8idpB8muXZmiKfCt 7AaP5Rqv7bqtgGZ6QwCu0eis5MqNnIav6UoG2MqO82qMCLsCzQew7jpo+/qvAvsE/DqP/Rqx5FcGjAiJ tRaAPxmrsFqJy2apcdmqGUmTMtmeqYeSUUWpLBmyjapbGVuRH4mpuAapUqhuV1irYreSUUWJ17aRL3mz Q+mzL6typBqz2ceT7+aIzyaqOtr/s7tondZoihdIBKJaVkfZmXX3lHKon9dZm2eKcDaIpTRHcmJKtlep lGibhGrZhG2rlVPYcGmLtfSJlAgIt2nrle/acs4Fh0uYhXwKl/q5tfOanHoKrCk4k4opmcGJqsJJeTCa pNLHuDH6hlt6mqa5hNhJhA7auEVKnIn7pb15n0QomLxZoZhbnge6hl37edt5mXoakKU6m75JtpYpo6r6 oV+7upObpaR4pGyLo9AIiqw3noEnoViIu8u3YLtnXpu6uT7ao3Naux7qpsRLWmE7pImaqKjLaHlIvauW vbfLcNr5u3QYbPh5YM3bu2QJvpTrp9CbYZNro9zZu65Lukb6/5anKoo/y4Q6Cr2iK707KlgDOJ9xaL8a abuuyYP31r1W67m5Nb9AOKHb61oimr7MacFMWrnRe7nG27nF64Ejqro1eoPL24Iwyp6fS388eLpNCrr9 2J9t+Jb3q5dQOsCIC8Feq8CRi7+AecE9HLpzmZ6I+aNLmrlda7w4zMLHacIeXMNYiKHCG7kCPMIEDLsL K8MryroL/KZCasWI66RVusUcx7VfKbbxOarNKbdjW6dl+rrBW4vHtaZo+55XarQ0jMaSx5RwiJRsF8Jm e8cuWbfE6cV8DLh+HMcedYB+mreya22b6nghiamvmpItuafK6ol6Zqoid4o/K16yaKX1tf+oQfuJoWyo QSiLlxiJhWirXLyx2SayE0l/iMqyf7Wox7uCcoy+MqvKIDjJd2rDs6uzmsCsmJYxUmbMquW7BWoMwgoE ysxezLyuCFW6qIkMmWwE0Rxg0UrNCHWIZWat4jzO5FzOG7GH22zOfPGL6azOYMHO7ixLSDvLVNvF8cxF h1zCTHzPhATCKNzO/DwThpjPVRvQqiS/jfWdtWzQ/TzB7GmuDD1Dnfu0BR3R+Jx/HXekFi1B8huJtTq8 Gy1MAB3SqjLSJJ0lJn3SKr3SLN3SLv3SMB3TMj3TNF3TNn3TOJ3TOr3TPN3TPv3TQB3UQj3URF3URn3U SJ3USs1O/+T/o1hQrFaAhCl9r/l6ze9b1UbJFAvLjPX6sBDdsDuwyFjdsGL2zPnozacA1dOsjF0tu189 1mF9sPRq1WW91kiwg7ig1rBciJxVs+J5tDfZv6J2fdEX2HvNsjP71yubo7zYbZ/aXt04z4YqbrG61722 iYQ6s64MjZNokyxH2RqmtEv7qSprsp4qyw3ZscQ3qZyL2YeFvqLdyy/5qKB9kQyLyHX8tmULhnRsiH6p tqxLuOoJt4xth3gqzLrNoWcM3Fl5wtmLx4iXXxY8xGzqxYJ7uC9Hx/wpc0kcgwXcoWpqhdX9lIEMkLJa aQAMX9Ir1mKJxMi7o/Er1xaKhxmsxVf9/8HSyaAoTGwarJxBPMHuPcVSSt4wzLxAiKLrTcSibLjBiIQM PKqTqeDtCn+B+5oA/qi8e8wLScLW7c8UGpwert8crle1e7cGWuCfqb27J8AEzqfja9+3qao9PJ5luboU a5rKmt7hJWDAl+PVydkWXr312cIDDHo8rItpucYbnMZK/nuzB59FKMWeqdwubsDOx+PeCXsuS57Y7eRq V4MDGuRAXLk1nqQ3LqFInroNOFK5idcmjrmhG6GABblWOnNt3OT37YX5nadqHKRMOOW//ebgncFKzOeX C6R+DsYEuuYSvraNjqxoTt9Mzprja+BLLuQOGps9ysqNOdEPLuSiS//BoL7CcZ7okWziGAzqWPyXL56n gm5VJxrmCBrqNC6YZm7eiTnQrQm/i4vkqS58YfpVfnvCXwzeilzBenvibTnlcXzHjgynqP7fXSrIdjzC ZZ7H017sQujC473cTmnr+nvmzunjC12Rsq2yv+d0hD2GmFiK/Lu/qGy96OZ5lHzn2JeqKknKi8WzOqmK UdvpQd7fO+6FJNvK2wjKho3vvpyD2PjRleyo6X7v+f7Y7J7LEH/XFVHcChk/U70IHQ+vdm2PHK8UH5+N JV+Qz9PNS73yLN/yEa27ATuwFwuxX3HyzLTVuC7zd2mvNG/PLm+xDZ4DyahoeN3MPx+Rpu3KsOj/qo2d 9H0NkUBbquZus5lIyrg4y/QM2/7u2NdrqrXW9OXWdxveqarN9FAL9kdr7uB0lM9NiC1Ot2Marsmd6LLp 7M7e3OL96dcOv99+3WVcl8Ppx1cuyFmbxsNOTipK6peuxADadKnenFzexLO+3VQM4rir5vj94WkoxAMa 68eMq26rz7TuqkVcyAHP4FLvtlTH4oZOmpYv+jw6m4Yc+qgfo64vyuGUs+CZvxqa5cAbfL5P68kH2q/u ervfaQoqfit++UcX/Ho/9oKdc1Auy56vrtKkoiM45pPe+Lq5mBdfwZ9b9C3ewaEv+duPh2yemuZPp2Qc u9+U+N69+B7I/Ybp//3FPd9XHObjH8Cv78OYDwGgNTmtrFbrmum+Ju8jw/I0s1HlQPeFY3mma/vGc33n e79noYKiS8cECnoAxpZoRDySlKynMzpsQktLq3aoPFZP2Oz22uRqzeqpmigGb7GdeRh9t59/e37f/wcM FAxcIqNI4+BiOqwqTFR0Y0RhyyrEKNvAQCwSY1yB/HC82nSaehKVfEFFHbtjLcW0lHLp9HwcW0291bN1 e42bHBQeJi42PkZOVq5VzmwGZPaLBnqutr7Gztbe5kbqxvyumeYb3ykPR09XX2dvtyHdhnf3JpaXnsfP 19/n7/f/BxhQ4ECCBQ0eRJhQ4UKGDR0+hBhR4v9EihUtXsSYUeNGjh09fgQZUuRIkiVNnkSZUuVKli1d voQZU+ZMmjVt3sSZU+dOnj19/gQaVOhQokWNHkWaVOlSpk2dPoUaVepUqlWtXsWaVetWrl29fgUbVuxY smXNnkWblqMltvPO7QGFri0PtrII1X0bRdwPQzny8mW2CBrdSM7K/sWG2Fy7FXD7wKHnV3KMc4r11qMh mC+4d3sP77M8WV2jzeRU0dKRN/CN0MGETdPsA5hoGa2dNrLXixOSTXE07cZzWResFqJkUTFiXF5j4ryE l0FOurhgFcrhSS8VXS+cuLrs6v7y6g0pU7x7/1q+ijyb3tAzGR8eP7gmMrH/r54SDqyOFzT6g0f6YpQU wmiji0mY26+wWvQz5BP3WnENPz0Qoe40AwOccMDLKKzEuQr5i2wNKDCEEMBE8ojQiyQ404q5DVH778HZ 1pgxGBd9Q5GSFzXMkTvsRDzQsAxDfOQ7IXTs60gl6wNxtQ6XNOzHIH3R8MY3FJRRyPm2DMtFE4m0D8IZ SZRQSyAXYdK5PKx8DjgdS9xOS/sgM5M4HF2DMkY7ebRwzTrhAzMyNjVbcc4sOUMTD9uU8tJG9eaic8Qi cwERUSHvBBJO7AhVE4YEa2yUQQ5hvDSND3/rc8S62GMivOUuze5RFSlcFdYnOb0yVzn7myvKDHNr0Uwn /yPdFc5dpaQSyRw1PS1NYz3lBVRhLU2RHgT7KyxPQX3FclpJSe02GmdbhZUKcDGlrFIpwgw2ltqSJfbD Hm0E98xKvaxRVza/tFXdMpMNN1U+Z+GRWIIL5pZebw/+Nj+Al11RyVBC+BFdhfdLst0ni7X3XlyZjZRE MSF+0Bv/CKyXwU5DLULZes88lcXqUJwj0WdHvVfAEvs6uWFns51NZC4bxhMr3DoxUj70LjlwPRabg3pk dZkVWOnuJjWvY3ffYxq862rlhGmLfcSlPFts1m06fMlzpDq2Df6F1UBpMRW63NBmOG+15OJn0az83jvw bNkB/D7BD5etcGOAVUtxxP8fhzxyySenvHLLL8c8c80357xzzz8HPXTRRye9dNNPRz111VdnvXXXX4c9 dtlnp71222/HPXfdd+e9d99/Bz544Ycnvnjjj0c+eeWXZ775lxjoA/oJpC+J+mqsx54B7HewfnodqNde exmk736G8MPPofzyzW9g/WfOFx8H9b8fxH2n5vfeBvC7sZ+G/n/4XzG2l7/2WSCALzig/whYQBgkEATd c+ACeQC9/kVQgQ3cgAUtiMFhbDAo+GPgBUO4DQ8asH7Z2J8Eyce9PawwgxxM3wtvUEINuBCBf6igDPXX QgFOhYLkEx/6Chi/Ee4vhe07IhGPaEAlmnCIQDRiCMH/Fz8hZpCISDQiEGvovStWkYLT62IXkVjDJhLQ fT8kY/aSmD80klGKEmRgG+PIRQiW0YlY3KIdXSjHMaYwi2CcYhSfmEZAwnCBXhyjGdmYSCa+sZBMVOMd V/hFIS4RkoSk40yoqEgwwvGNSQSlJHVoQy3OsZGO9KMLUsnGUvpxj07c5CLN+EpZOvKBtDSlKV3JyTLi L5Z7JCUs4SfKTupSmLLs5SmDyUpl8jIG8BtgHGm5S1SuMpfLpOYyR+hMZm6zJdZc4yhNSEkuDrGcX9Qh Ma1pSxvecYviZCcnrylPYtoSloe8YS3bWc57ylOb/TRmPGsJx3CiU5/cFGhB3zlP/28u1JPYLKI/AQrC faISoOZ8JkHd6RJw1rOe5JwkRkGqSj0iVKB4fOgDJ7pSVlYSkycNJC4bWk2XWnGA4WToO1epzWFuM6bq FKNFD4rQnkYTirHMpzvPx8ug4rSdXlyqNzsa0TNCFafPY6k9JUpOc6JzpBycqlE3mkuHEjWrFV0fT1n6 VBmuU6NCTehYIZpTEA5VqGE9a1aVelFPblShyMzrQPkq1bXmUZVypSdHz7pPSy7RsWOF61wlCteFSlaQ xbRsYHUZUnhGlptTlaZPK9tPtQoWmOo0a2jFale2DjWHo03kTgMbRNji1bXp1Ck2K8qSbE4StPR8LHDD iNRSFv/Rqs28ZHLjub3hKrW5H/VqQ6vIzufe1bkYTeNqcRlJQE6XtqnlKVcnq0Q7UneKDexpIzOb0z76 tLoo7S5THZo9KTbxij6hYfVEkt998Dch/vVBfgHMEWgW2MAHRnCCFbxgBjfYwQ+GcIQlPGEKV9jCF8Zw hjW8YQ532MMLBsqAQSJigkx3ISa2RoHfd99ksFh+zoNxjGU8YxrX2MY3xnGOdbxjHvfYxz8GcpCFPGQi F9nIR0ZykpW8ZCY32clPhnKUpTxlKlfZylfGcpa1vGUud9nLXwYzS/BSN9k8g3FCcRwOkLUQcZUmGWd2 DDmSxpoxP+Rfi1nGR96SsRkUbs//TysGnzETotakOV35aFRq7sEYIik6zx758+D6/IdIS3rQRbt0yQjz ZkS/TM2LJpzJ3qadhwEsbhuSFcVYFjUcXWc4qHp1KnLBijl7DWxxs07XWG01WvkoOThLm9pYnevv4Ppo YFha0+q2NFJLLE673k6qVU3osJ0h2XfmGH1Sdog3FVs83ziFyOjAJynhLV89e9XQxMQdlNFsZqrqVLej dSKfbYzb/MqUzg527nd37FP0pvaF2i0ncQv8WdoKWsBxkaqYtcxjnu52g95zqKml41+4wlS8TE0tbRVr X3p79pjelDee9WtcQ/t4mRJNNUGzPGEn37bLHDYkcldc5v7a/5a9PX6uGJEt2+BYNdEAzY2LZ01qCxpY gnTOrojNC0/XCjnFbb4LEaU8Z/ZWeZ1cbmmq7UJoLaeU0CsGdDJ/C+liX9mzn66nrbepOT2bktpBjul4 KBxQrT47yeOdJqQlneZzE3nbpw6oqt8a5f2K+8oTXjaNE4hcsyq2p8o+Np47nmi/PrTeRz61jIlK6R97 186AvjA5tIfRO//PuIvWNavnfGDOgLnQtxb4xX9c7UKjeOwTr/XaV03w+24T3P6usJszTPVI133Wda7p mvs9M/Lekdw35Y6idxxvJrs9x6HerOy/PurfL37JN5b8qzt96ZWXfbfCX/7BIx70HoKXuv+xv/Ho2575 l+95o42f9q2p39CUDrgCQZe+g7t+Kxk+07VPYbqvM7912TuA+zeaK8DRWxb40xpNow5zi7eFg7574xjj a7jBScBoqb6DU5GbQ7dyGzhp6b+yyze+yba2Wb+qEQ8ZBBPTgxauyRqmizUdtEBto7pqcxvvcBpV0bX4 AJVek7wQDDYLPBtYkDYRtEFNuZo9cTyxyT8a/JojFIIipBvWCzsq5MJY0UGlKzVJcBuzEYn/ow1QEwQ2 tB04zAY5LAo69IzBeA0ds0NkyBexgLPFMTQ23MPX+UPQ+LYwQ8REVMRFZMQfqzNH079GRERsu0Otk8Qw W7NJg7hL/LL/ipk1YJs7TvSyEnRA/OM6UcwyvJg9dRtEVNwxSiQ8glk5V+SyTSEzvLNEWtQy6di+UuxD XUxFGOlFDQTGTnS9exvAYkxEVSyS/es4ZYTGaJTGaaTGarTGa8TGbNTGbeTGbvTGbwTHcBTHcSTHcjTH c0THdFTHdWTHdnTHd4THeJTHeaTHerTHe8THfNTHfeTHfiwyBABIgEQHBBAEgtwAg0QGg0RIHlhIEGhI fXhIH4hIh5yAiSTHhbTIHchIG9jIiqwBhOzIhOyDkOwHkpyBkDRJcGzIlDzJPUDJj7QAlhwGmYQBmpwH m6TIlnTHlYxJgaRIn+xJhQTKmGwAoQTJ/6I8yqIkSg0IyKB0SJ8kSKAEyaFkSqr0SKjESKn0yKfMyoiM Squcyolsyqv0yqX8SqLEyqrESKRES6nUyrCsSqXkSrNUy7rsRp6Uy7zsya3MS4V0Aag0S7+Uy6RkyqXU S74EzME0TMN8yLRUzK0UzMKEzMWczJwkTMasyMjETLYcTKGszL4UzMhMSq2sTLCky748zcPERry8TMTc zLJ0TdRETdiUTcmUTc3MSdUkzMb8zL/kS99UzcfUyda8zdQczc18zN38zeP8Tctszt68y4OMTdtUzuAM y8QUTqucTt6MTbjkSoEcy+pEysT0yrEcT+CkTfM8yPCkzOL8TOaszf/QfE21xM7yJE/6dMrolEziFE/c nM75vErgrE3k9E/ufIHqZE4DNdDUtM32hE8F7U4Ajc/3ZFAIlc7SRM72vMa1/M/tZFACzczeFMsM9dDs zE0LTU75vND6dM4W1c0QHdAIpdAZdU8Epc4O7cwZZVFuDEiqVM8MNU/TzE+lJM3nhNHzfEoZRdK5PFHG jEroDFHvXFEF1U62FM2/ZE8aldIaldKVHMoexdLkjMst9ccc2EicLFMZO9M0NTKLrFI2hdM4ldM5pdM6 tdM7xdM81dM95dM+9dM/BdRAFdRBJdRCNdRDRdREVdRFZdRGddRHhdT76JVmzI5qs8RJFQewgQv/TNVE SHTDUFw70Mi8octBc+iVSf2EVgSeO0O24rCbmGvDWHW2TpXVMrOYzshFoqMMB/HUWp3AU+QxOnBB2HNV feu/T6OGualEZL2HW11WupvDXZ24XmVWb/kZIhtBAixW/sjEAHE1ivEYYVXWT3S3YfFA+XiXW72EmcE8 IiQNcXUT75gYI5w45APXt0NG5PDBeX2O7VNV4eFCbb1XblWFIny3tfGT9DM8eJPFCsQW4LvDpnO4Vjk+ 9uuCprOZyas6A0ENc6GRikXGNQk3Wns5JwtYC2nVKqkNMpG+W9G/RMtYE7QW7+tUiW0ShHlBmuGXCkEb BMyVmL3Zq+vWkm2y6WwllZQ1u+fb2IdJQfG7wiZ5m9Cz2cyoldjA2KCNGsgbQjJsBWHFmbPDQk/o2XAd VqAhWibzWnxD2lDgVH8lmXlLmFWsN5ADW5od1Ya1laslPod9vZSdvhwMW+WD2LiTmbMF1ldsNHwxFhVc Wmc7manNE40d3Lqd29Aj1t3zRZzFXIi1WZaVNAzR28n1vsYTPSXT1FhJ20q9VCOJPKblmq09V9Q9EaAt PQp0Fbd7151tmYyFXbtRQ3n13df1P8sT2mRTv9cdk0KM1FwNh39dXqBwXtZwu+f9nUOk3uvF3uzV3u3l 3u6diggAACH+dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0 ZnVkbHpkZXJmenF5bG9rYXpvcmJmeWxndnJpd3hzcnlwc295c29mb3Z5anNtZW1lYWpoc3dzbWRrADs= --------------030708000101070807070000-- From hgpftip@yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 10:48:27 2004 From: hgpftip@yahoo.com (Grant Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:48:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] re[15] Message-ID: <20041011085253.4E5EDDEC@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030309080906050803040009 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cheats why do driving at? Blair Witch Project

How are you? Can you give me

--------------030309080906050803040009 Content-Type: image/gif; name="mcgowan.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="mcgowan.GIF" R0lGODlhZAK/AfNBAAcHAIAAAEAgAGAgAKAgAMAgAOAgAP8AAAD/AAAA/wD//wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAABWArUBAAT/EMhJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgs Go/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdsvter/gsHhMLpvP6LR6zW673/C4fE6v2+/4vH7P7/v/gIGCg4SFhoeI iYqLjI2Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmam5ydnp+goaKjpKWmp6ipqqusra6vsLGys7S1tre4ubq7vL2+v8DBwsPE xcbHyMnKy8zNzs/Q0dLT1NXW19jZ2tvc3d7f4OHi4+Tl5ufo6errMAfu7wcT8PHz7hX1EvEW+BT18Pv8 5vX7x64glHcX7MlTuJAhAIQD9eVz+JAhwYj3IPYzyPGJxo0Y/xsmlFiR5ESSH0tmNEmPosmOMI+kfPkx 5cSQOFXm1CnvJMiYQI3MBCjRZk+fI4tS5Mn0IdJ8QZshQEBhapmaREVyMMrTZk2XWp1GjTW1LNWqZTWk nWCVjMaXXZcmxfB26VeWIeGOZbW2Qlu1Z9O8nftUA9e6NB0OxahXjYLHkCPvPfK3aofKaBDqRdzhsEW7 isEypvO4AuTJRDBLCAyYjWa6nxvvDOs1NN6Vsh0rsHAatRDWq/2aRUscQN/jZ5EDlym3MNeVWcMWbgr3 +ZrSvHf7DoKZ9d/vgZEXN5t8reoiz+/Sna1+52KApLVnnxBZfunT9SX01o+dvvb9qHVXnP9x4XlX4ICV Jbgces1R91V007XnHmzxYYBdf/fh9598+vnH34a99RdgeBmIx9aBJ6ao4moLogebQBFZx09D/hD1D4z3 VHjBhfZtuCOH9lGAIZAcTvbdBVaBh6CBKxI44HY/WlgkACFOSWWQ/Jnmo4dQJolkeU0quaKCT0KppZRC 7sZjlB1mmaabcPrmpXBjMsnikk+eZ+aVaLq5Jps9nsknl9vNieeddR6K6KJ7vjkfnH/OR6SgIooo54Jt mbgoeJnayWijccY5ZKgeFlkpoYN22WJarJqnHFWdxlqenlBaaiuIpKIKaaC6guqrEPXll52awfapZaVV Wvrrssw26+z/s9BGK+201FZr7bXYZqvtttx26+234IYr7rjklmvuueimq+667Lbr7rvwxiuvD7TSOu+4 LYLQlwX23gtuvx4AXI2yIBBsTY0n2YNwRlvBqI8/F2XQIA77kiDwK8GCaPAHG3MA4DZG2SaxbHehJLJh udUAa74fXAzLx6n20HE1IUNH2M0DudegdTaASSeBBTJZcXf7xgrKrUHMTLNosyX84kg6NxbxDj6f6Gqn Vm9KppNAY/3JqUlbmc170vUU8s5Rr8fzDCjm6enWXMfNNdyeXCglsh866h+yACq9NEoQglRbyhE29/DE bJdJt5haW00eoy5LIhmgGm/Zt+W8xtzN/2CBQzVdUyObvFnZN5A3tKdxw834z592YjDeMY8q6q69gmwR zp6DvnbCOO5Des+sQ/728E26PQrBGW9Je65pZv7Na7iLVThLASkkY9OJ84u66sS3Lrwok+st6PKavyk7 JJE7AX3nEFNf3cmg8z61yl8anyhbS3r3/dGkvj4p+ZRy3h9YViYtpIdpZRscTg7TObZhanXcq5rcTBcm AlbifMyDXaqQlzm/1UFPFjTgzhSDOwVKxyvRi8Fw0NIqWbGIU8BZ4QuDNqsQSm58VwKSqDqIIfJ5kA4V k5sYDqiUpLjPZtPLmY2epazLhU+DfJPdfn4oh5Vp7wybaZ9tBhexhf+VpCUlQxxqhPWhKO5NYzkkkqky RCwqwkGCj9Pa1WZopyD6K1sSnCDdjNO4ruXxjtdq26eIZpnUCTJ9gPzV9mLISPxp75A2TOSyTLdHQgaH OBCMpCR91cjiqSZT44HkJq31QE8ux1CGrOAoq1XKQZ4SVora4yqddR5XXbKWndSUEGfJLBnS8YUzvKJw VkbMGvIyFAGR3/uMeLbeEYRwxzRIF+EHn6eh7Ijxi2ZMzoY9Im5AQhXR5mS4+bsvWjN0ExJnVNLTNDCe 851dVOc6xfg5sTTzmy7ZnTzXoU8U1pNnXITmPs/RT7v8DqBy6d1AOVJQmrAHcUQU6ELF0VDcKDT/fkoB XIwm2pHdkS2JDHNOA8PhRl4y8IQlBM0JsUmNYp2xjRw1ohJp8z5qhnOlGc3G68Qntn3OSJnOFIgWrZfM L0pUGTslVEljSq2kApCp4XLqoITFxjLyaopLhSo6pHo+yWSoVJMLa0+12hGuOg9pfvof88haVrGpVYPD 2qH42AoUs6KKg1NVa/no2lYL6Q2uaZVr7fhqELsKVqnKi91YCbuOJo4PsFLUa1YZC47LPfY/muNRYgFL 2bbC7IlsXGMbxarZxXb2tKhNrWpXy9rWuva1sI2tbM81WVVQ0o6zfQJV8wYMS+Y2CnwbbC4+qcnfAsFK GOwFcY3rBLyuFRfL/wVa1rIGptOJB7fMxaFpevUxzTZvSC4to/luZdkc7m0NvtWjI520QsYlqVXZ9Zhp FctbqirPbnfFXKQim6zEmuG2wTuSI7cmJkQa129gA+B+pwTXSOUVsTydbxeIJsrWydKW8fUAggXo4CZ6 +Ltinat5D7vXMRAXjjSs8J28lmH5diC5HZ4UWgfbYGLlV8RkwOX+fqleRLG4xRrYsK5izCXO+u+v95Ws hLmg4x7/jMAoMvCB3QphR8Guq8h16/+wHGE1NFl1hUzQ/aT8W+R1mT433qAAedumBHM5zWiIriFZPKs+ YhjI8tXhmdVsZVxl9qU9SjKbaxzn21LYisG5Lv+F/UjmKXfXiWpEo3mTF740jle0k+6veBHRaDx7obaU 6LSnuQDqSYh61FoodSR8ierrwKzVsI61rGdN61rb+ta4zrWud83rXvv618AOtrCHTexiG/vYyE62spfN 7GbLgpI8dnY4gnhqaS8jvdaetv6yXQ5QPhLKBnpVMLkNXTsWuL1VgyC5dwHCtkFZlXxcN7sJqMsTD1Pe 8253KlUpZ3zb4o9zU/GPvedvWKxu3z0+OKILPotO9jHhhywew/nyyihn0scClvjETxHHaLewa+P+uLg3 TvKSm/zkKE+5ylfO8pa7/OUwj/nRlqxbmvOgY6qW+YtzPoRXFwHnNhcBz7P/PXSZ4XgJQUdB0aW9dB1w FulJP0HTmz11HDxdCVXPQNZjTca8YvrIIw67VftcOTb/KNL6PVagXl3VuB6LSkUGrdvJ3jy4CzfZ/F2w 2V+66Tfb1+w99e4O9c4nrzK4SnRvk9fzu2Xw/umsUff1myF1dEL78K163hGSz4y3mUHxr0Kq8l33PNXQ oxnfWO1z5ZV8djiX3liBTXPySiz7NeYKxhyGfAbl/VXBXt3yYHU9ftkUd85neQNXtn0aMX/Z5se9u+sm fOwzyPrik3j4j7K+748f5MZfNvWhwj2cux55yfNQ9TSuPp9JLPbsT5++e/W890U8+adi8MP+rj+RiQ// //X3f+/up3vPF3ryZ3qzo3h253/Xx3kGyGsztlaC13+lxX9Q5Gf/91z+ZzcVGGLdt1nnp3hSdFiW10N3 12oPSHuZNlqblmlnJ2mgBVOkZSo752EqaGl953NZ8lnQh1XgtYI2eEbiBVNHp3M3xwRbR4RuUH43cIRI mAaVlgRM2IRngINE8IRSeIVYmIVauIVc2IVe+IVgGIZiOIZkWIZmeIZomIZquIZs2IZu+IZwGIdyOId0 WId2eId4mId6uId82Id++IeAGIiCOIiEWIiGeIioBTE28lNGtUWKyExT0z4WNRM/pUUxQon0lIeWSCMz somNyIicGFSPCFSheBGb6P+J5lSIqHiKnjhUWSSJQIUYDtOKkjhUG6WKEDFNhkOJMoVPsZFRwIgblzhT 85OKC3GLhPhMJfMi0FSMwug00GiM0XhRyFiNvZiMoxiLpUgya2OKskgjzyiNkJiLXgSOuJiNsKiN1xg6 XoSK04hQC5OO0TiItqiO21hTKbOK2WiO4riIuliJ+oSH3viLnQGKzniJAVWMA5kbB1mK/EiP3ziPDQMa YtSQNzI/C8mNmWiMDXkJAiAAWrWQDzlTI9mPS8SORnWSvEOM5GSNohAAG2lStPiI9RiOKHmTOEKTM1kj NUkK8BAAUKWPOimPJamS1ziLnZiOltiTHUkJBdCU0UT/lDt5kE1pkWH0ie7zj9VjkAEJCQLwDkCJiJdA AAUAkmJ5lujykWhpCTB5AGa5lpLQlm8Jl5EQAANAl3iZlyo3AGFZEDnZTA0FkOWIlY64i6LIiEMpmLU4 mKCYkhI5iQmJkdQokqRoj7EIjBcFlTfgDn3JT5R5j/molFIJi+44lYepjKPoiliJkJH4meOIie04mgRZ mYQpOvEolEc1A5wpTUhpm/voj70Zm4rIlKb5l1uZmMN5m7hJVBNDnKnpnMFImzVZnMaZmzMwl56Jmrbp kuGonQ+pkLzIiSw5m98ZkdzZmluEkI+JjP94k/PomuL4mVQpi9G5LjxJn8Pont75/56AeU3NaZ78SZ5F qZX5+YkmyY/tyUwFCp/oWZ/z6YjraS73KaAR+o7MWZ+ESZtFyZ6wyaEUiY8umZEKIyMAKpofiqAd6qGY maDmqJk0IAAF0JnscJEcyUX+mZT7aKKK6YuMGUaT2Z8lKZIj+p85+pwnaqFZCZk+uoy36KIzYAAxCQ4X WZ1GCZz0KZnCiaMM+ZvS6I7ryaIoOqRW2aPKmRjk2aBKmpWH+YxOKgMwSQAdRY7weaAamqE2yYxyuqWD 2aV7+qVMqqLyc6NY+opm6qApeo93ao37aZ95+ou+6Z8oqVAuqp0aCUZHWqHneZXiCY2NCY6S6hmaWqP5 NKqWuv+dzJifbcotlGqqmEqnU0qqUNOd0+Spg8qdVSqRYLqqkPqpI5SeYZqkG7Wmp7qS2kCWBVCWXJCR rEmNtpqKpylUy6mlxLqadKqoZYqO+ImTWlmdRZqllMmt4MqsQPCVBhAKULqbW6Csy1qREbWptVmbakql xJqYBUmq24qm03qUInqvkVmYZ7qq+3qoPdCWd/kJ53oAMnoFYBqKHvCgj/qu1DqO1Qitx1mv8fqhCfWn 6xicmSmujrms5akZOtqxUQoDBJCwm3CwKBuUXaktAfCyAYCdZMWl5CIABCCzTNWngoCzofCU1nlMnRoI ULqynwCTBXCH7gCnp8CzcCgAREv/CjGrl5DQllL7CFQbh1HbClkLBDr7scP6mI3pmkSpTA0LlWNboPnq saDZq0HLqxBKthZLOLrYpCMrryuZqhdwtc9Ds167sUt6qPzqrx5ltl6arwHajD2Zphlroy16totosTkB sFcqn4tqAnrrCl/pljxQuEF7uGvLqoF7oV0Lt4LKlW57OIHJt6rJmhZ1t4ULmZDrmAHrqPJqtyfAtKnQ lk8rAw/LupD6qxNbohHZmhNZldnqu3Rbsmgrq7DJuJV7U6Ubu725oa6ap81aDC87BOhZrXwqugsqvLOJ t6Pbvfa6uGpbvL+btmFbpiMwvs66qA4bqQLbKMTLvatbq0gK/6gRy6P2K7CvaqUm4LH4ak6DGrBlK6bo G04XiqgMXKfc2wHZewsEoLmbG579y4qXKrby6LjBCo/A6jTgibfu+rX5G8LNa7wIPJE3kcKWucFk+rMT MADoSguZq7Q7MLeter+MK6q+WcBjKqaVyrxA7I8B3I0pSrEYW6gC/KqhOaIK/Lc9/Le3KgLugLtaawBW HAMNqrpMir88vK7s2K6YOsBz+sA3msCNS6Fj3LYAiqdA7KvrmKaJihoky8EJeprAS6seHMadS6CXCaIl QLhvm7itWqGEDJwGSr3xK6zUMADISgPOuLp+K6As2p5/OcXwyrbu6oqFOlKti8Yc+8IhZf+rnFy8qDu/ zfq8I1Cww3CuGJDFH3DIFwy6iSubp3zLbCzL8LquXlxPn2zKWjq2W5zLr/u9Jzy7hqq8FMCXFACTrKwL MImyTrsCstyRuSrM3YqZu0zC1ZvNibq9PIq42Aqrd6rLAxzGIwyx6nzHLUvBFXG0xiDD1Py61qyxgYrO RonEPxzHDeyn5HyM4RzL4wzIQdq1JhzQhkudlPy/IMAQAWAAz+wLWwuTsPwMyiwMTwnPeVvRWuvQCGs7 MBwMulsBjnwAEX0LejvBIV0MFy0MMlzFEvDQM7wLnemzHL1xmXsABtCWMw0M57q7KAcxQJ0LIuxvPgsP NswLHwmzxwr/Dzc9cTztDhpN06441CUX1VPdC05bzCmX0+VKDFtdD0/NcC2LC2Hd0y0HpWOtC2Etc1vb DGtdtXI913Rd13Z913id13q913zd137914Ad2II92IRd2IZ92Iitcgmw2IydABPg2ADQ2JIN2RYw2Y19 AZb92JFt2Yv92JONAZzd2aE92plN2oxd2aZ92qCd2p2N2Z/dAaFNAazd2hIg2Zq92ZyN26n9AZldAaPt 2bOt2rx92bVd27H927792smN3MntCsQN3JRt3LS9Ac+93NGt27It3MsN29oN3ag93dKd3dNd3eJ93bid AcL93N2N3dJt3qu93uHt3dvd3tYt3vJ9/94coN7wTd7AXd7+7QHp3d38zd71Td+uTdvVPeClMOACDt8H 7t4MPt4ODt7ovd/rHeH/fd8Znt0VvuHgbeHu/eDoXeD9bd8eHt0JHuImPt8b7tskbuDU/eEyTuEEXuIs fuII7uCjoOCb/eIawN88LuE0ruIi/t3mreAofuFKTuORPeItnuRDruMtfts4fuTXneA+TuQ1ruFbLts+ 3uVfPuMQ3uBRTuHkTdw8Hgq27eRcXuFiTuRQfuQhEOFmrt2UHedGnudUruJXLuBt/ud67uIvzuCDnuU/ ruMpzuRNPuVpDuZ9XuZ4/t6PPukwfgqNTuncLebUfeIiQOdWPt6SHv/oGq7loV7qRR7jZn7qui3nU97q bs7ndo7oYS7lq17ZX17jQU7mmN7onrDmw63og87rGU7qps7oAV7slQ7jwP7qkg7rtF7rXi7qvY3st97s r37nsm7syz7tqn7fvm7kkS7fws4J357pxI7r427gy87soq7uTH7mIA7Zz97t0O3s677lY/7mip7m6V7u 5Y3t+57l887tt67fiJ7o4d7jqeDvqH7uCH/u9J3u/87c9Y7ksf7uud3pE57rA6/e1J7x1Z7sh37wAR7w Vf7rDD/b9X7tw97gqsDwI+/wF3/vFS/xIt/laI7xIF/k897uK2/t5k7l1U7wYA7oD27vAM/n1q3/3CBA 9J7+80c/8Rb+8jY/7g/f9Kpt846+5Nhe6vx+7Bqv8/tu9VnP7s2O6dTO8kBf9Isu7j1/9Gjf8iQv5KRO 8+Re9T1/9Sjf3hB/80Bu517P8Sg+AhY/9xB/2fYe7RPv6je/9uBu9Ltu9eCe8N4u+JTv2quA9yaf7BJv 8Ha/9XUO6qcO81ge9omf9sx++sX9+EbP9vQ+6tle+QMf9X+O8Gbf+LEA86hP90u/91Cf3/Hu83s+8/mu 9EGP+q7P+sUO6Yyf/CFv+6Ad7M/O/LU/87fv/M4t5XHP4W3O709O9tTP+Elf8LHf8DH/+uZ/++Hv+ppf /EPf7ry+/k/f6n+//+6f3wkWT/7kj/Hafu/zDwFAglTTxPRKu2f3PisTSVOrTjFcVXd8YS7N5Jk+OzfH MXtlcUg6H1H1Q9WQqODSuSz2dlNq1XrFZrVZ48fUvSmlwOEQCQqax0x1swdmsuDQL518S1fX0VD3bIej MgrEK6obA4l5Q3xaG4QivNuapKy0vKREk9Lk3OhM4+RDw0tsG/1ETfwUTS1V1NyBzcxb9RgFuiV1tZKN 3dX1+/XSZdVZFQs8rsNkbnZ+ho6Wnqautr7Gztbe5u72/gYPFx8nLzc/R09XX2dvd3+Hj5efd2+1v8fP 19/n7/f/BxhQ4ECCBQ0ePEhPoR6EDR0+hBhR4v9EihUtVlyY8dVFjh09fgQZUuRIfxpNnkSZUuVKli1d voQZU+ZMmjVt3sSZU+dOnj19/gQaVOhQokWNHkWaVOlSpk2dPoUaVepUqlWtXsWaVetWrl29fgUbVuxY smXNnkWbVu1atm3dvoUbV+5cunXt3sWbV+9evn39/gUcWPBgwoUNH0acWPFixo0dP4YcWfJkypUtX8ac WfNmzp09fwYdWvRo0qVNn0adWvVq1q1dv4YdW/Zs2rVt38adW/du3r19/wYeXPhw4sWNH0eeXPly5s2d P4ceXfp06tWtX8eeXft27t29fwcfXvx48uXNn0efXv169u3dv4cfX/58+vUW7d/Hn1//fv79/f8HMEAB BySwQMEiAAAh/nBocWdodW1lYXlsbmxmZHhmaXJjdnNjeGdnYndrZm5xZHV4d2ZuZm96dnNydGtqcHJl emdreHlzcGVrZGFybWVxZGt4amZsa2p3bnd3Znppbnd0eHNjamJwYXduaGJza2kAOw== --------------030309080906050803040009-- From blml@blakjak.com Mon Oct 11 12:32:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:32:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <000d01c4af5e$dc339090$7d9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> <41690E57.5040705@hdw.be> <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000d01c4af5e$dc339090$7d9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >********************************* >" I didn't write the rules" >"All the more reason not to play the game." > ~ father's advice in > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 12:16 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 > > >> Grattan Endicott wrote >> >> >+=+ I have not read the whole of the thread. It seemed to be >> >rather boring. But I do say that Law 15C requires the Director >> >to act on a requirement that the board must be cancelled "if any >> >call differs *in any way* from the corresponding call in the first >> >auction". The law requires the Director to work on a basis of >> >fact and does not allow even the most self-important director >> >the luxury of exercising judgement in this respect.. The Director >> >is bound by the Laws as they are written and in breach of his >> >duty if he does other than so apply them, whether the occasion >> >of his apostasy is a pretty Japanese lady or the possibly prettier >> >Tony Forrester. >> >> So, you would always cancel - yes? No call by a different pair is >> ever exactly the same as far as meaning is concerned. >> >+=+ In order to cancel the Director must perceive the >difference. A matter of style or judgement would likely >not be within his perception, I believe, but if the meaning >were 11-13 instead of 12-14 that would be within his >perception. Exactly my point - the TD makes a judgement. Yet, in an earlier post, you said the TD should not make a 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 Mon Oct 11 12:34:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:34:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Steve Willner read Law 58B2: > >>>Why would you ask which one was the intended >>>play? I don't see why intent matters. There's >>>nothing about it in 58B2. And don't forget >>>72A5 and 9B1c. All in all, I think it is quite >>>appropriate for any player who has accidentally >>>exposed two cards to pick the least damaging to >>>play. I certainly would, and I hope that >>>doesn't make me a cheat. I also don't see >>>where bridge lawyers come into anything. >>>Surely you explain all the options per L10C1 >>>before asking the player to choose, don't you? > >David Stevenson misread Law 58B2: > >>Sadly, Steve, you seem to have forgotten the >>difference. If you play and drop the HK and the >>H6 simultaneously, and propose under L58B2 to >>play the H6 then the HK is an MPC. >> >>However, if you play and drop the HK and the H6 >>simultaneously, and propose under L58B2 to play >>the HK then the H6 is an MPC *if* you intended >>to play it originally, but is an mPC if you did >>not. >> >>As John says, a player of limited ethics having >>heard the options will now say that he was >>always intending to play the HK. > >RJH rereads the exact option granted by Law 58B2: > >Law 58B2 uses the present tense phrase "proposes >to play", *not* the past tense phrase "intended >to play". Now isn't it strange that I, too, can read the Laws? However, unlike Richard, I take the trouble to read the *correct* Law. Try L50B this 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 Mon Oct 11 12:35:26 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:35:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <004b01c4af68$e205d870$9875893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <004b01c4af68$e205d870$9875893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >********************************* >" I didn't write the rules" >"All the more reason not to play the game." > ~ father's advice in > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:24 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > >> >> RJH rereads the exact option granted by Law 58B2: >> >> Law 58B2 uses the present tense phrase "proposes >> to play", *not* the past tense phrase "intended >> to play". >> >+=+ At which point he is free to exercise the >option regardless of earlier intent. > Your point, Richard. Unlike you to read the wrong Law, Grattan. Of course he can pick which one: but whether the remaining card is an MPC or an mPC is dependent on L50B, not L58. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Oct 11 12:38:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:38:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: <000001c4af5b$24eea1c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c4af5b$24eea1c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <8WEAJyJwCnaBFwYp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >................ >> Law 72B1 states: >> >> "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have >> known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity >> would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall >> require the auction and play to continue, afterwards >> awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the >> offending side gained an advantage through the >> irregularity." >................ >> A bipolar Sven approach to Law 72B1, which Sven uses only on >> whom he is convinced is a villain, has (I believe) unintended >> consequences. In my opinion, a TD who fails to use "could >> have known" powers on all and sundry actually *increases* the >> number of villainous acts, since villains sometimes escape a >> Law 72B1 ruling which the letter of the Law would permit. > >I do reject using L72B1 as if it were written: > >"Whenever the Director deems that a player could have been guilty of an >offense..." > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable AFTER the Director has established >(using other laws in the book) that a player is guilty of an offense, not to >establish him as an offender. > >Just showing motive and possibility is not enough. Sad, really. We finally get a method of dealing with cheats without the possibility of lawsuits. But we have to use it. Not many cheats? Probably not - but we all know there are a lot of players of limited ethics, and L72B1 allows us to deal width them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Oct 11 12:39:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:39:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <000101c4af5b$d8fcfe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c4af5b$d8fcfe00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >............. >> RJH rhetorical: >> >> The first definition of "Auction" in the >> Chapter 1 Definitions states: >> >> "Auction - 1. The *process* of determining >> the contract by means of successive calls." >> >> How is it possible to merely beg the question >> that UI to a player (which constrains their >> choice of logical alternatives) is not part >> of the *process* of determining the contract? > >Because "by means of successive calls" does not include any extraneous >information whether considered UI or AI. Constraints are placed on those calls, by system or UI. you have accepted that system is part of the equation: why should UI not be? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Oct 11 13:34:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: <000301c4aedd$c4dd7630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Hesitation is NOT part of any auction Perhaps this is a function of how you play your bridge. If I am asking someone "how would you bid my hand" I wouldn't dream of excluding AI from a hesitation as part of the auction. The person I am consulting needs to know what info is available. Of course I am a somewhat warped individual who also wants to know who my partner is and who my opps are before offering views on this sort of question. I understand that "technicians" (hack, spit) pay no attention to this sort of info. I must admit that this distinction seems particularly prevalent amongst "money" players. To give an example a friend asked me and a colleague what do you bid with x,Axx,AKTxx,QTxx after 1D-(p)-1S-(P)-2C-(p)-2H-(X)-?. Both of us asked, without any real thought, who is my partner? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Oct 11 13:34:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <000d01c4af5e$dc339090$7d9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > So, you would always cancel - yes? No call by a different pair is > > ever exactly the same as far as meaning is concerned. > > > +=+ In order to cancel the Director must perceive the > difference. A matter of style or judgement would likely > not be within his perception, I believe, but if the meaning > were 11-13 instead of 12-14 that would be within his > perception. While I agree that we must recognise that TDs are not required to have such perception I would hope that were a contestant to draw attention to differences in style/judgment this would also lead to the board being cancelled. In the Japanese ladies club it is quite possible that a 15-17 1N opening is played with sufficient homogeneity (or perceived homogeneity) that the auction can be allowed to stand. In a higher standard event it is likely that players will be sufficiently aware of frequency of 5cM/6cm/off-shape /shaded value NT approaches of other participants to draw inferences about the hand. Tim From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 14:43:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:43:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: <8WEAJyJwCnaBFwYp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000601c4af98$394e2950$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ (Sven): > >I do reject using L72B1 as if it were written: > > > >"Whenever the Director deems that a player could have been guilty of = an > >offense..." > > > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable AFTER the Director has > established > >(using other laws in the book) that a player is guilty of an offense, = not > to > >establish him as an offender. > > > >Just showing motive and possibility is not enough. >=20 > Sad, really. We finally get a method of dealing with cheats = without > the possibility of lawsuits. But we have to use it. >=20 > Not many cheats? Probably not - but we all know there are a lot of > players of limited ethics, and L72B1 allows us to deal width them. You found a button and sewed a vest on it? Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 14:51:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:51:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c4af99$6c6cc020$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .............. > Now isn't it strange that I, too, can read the Laws? However, = unlike > Richard, I take the trouble to read the *correct* Law. >=20 > Try L50B this time. Really David, this is not up to your standards? Don't you agree that law 58B is the first law to apply when a player = somehow in the process of leading or playing to a trick exposes more than one = card simultaneously? According to this law the player in question must = designate which of the visible cards he selects as the card to play, there is no question of which card (if any of them) he originally intended to play. And only after the player in question has made his choice this law = directs us to Law 50 when the offender is a defender. You cannot bypass Law 58B = in this process. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 14:59:32 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:59:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c4af9a$8a5dbd40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............... > >> "Auction - 1. The *process* of determining > >> the contract by means of successive calls." > >> > >> How is it possible to merely beg the question > >> that UI to a player (which constrains their > >> choice of logical alternatives) is not part > >> of the *process* of determining the contract? > > > >Because "by means of successive calls" does not include any extraneous > >information whether considered UI or AI. > > Constraints are placed on those calls, by system or UI. you have > accepted that system is part of the equation: why should UI not be? HUH? I have accepted that the meaning of a call is part of the equation because this is explicitly stipulated in Law 15C as commented by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen in their "commentaries" to the similar law from 1987. Extraneous information is extraneous information and must be dealt with as such (Law 16); I see no way this can be dragged in as part of an auction. (But of course the Director may rule that extraneous information has had some impact. I do not say that the existence of extraneous information as such shall be completely ignored, only that it cannot be considered part of the equation when comparing the two auctions for equality) Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 15:02:05 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:02:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c4af9a$e4271f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ................. > Unlike you to read the wrong Law, Grattan. Of course he can pick > which one: but whether the remaining card is an MPC or an mPC is > dependent on L50B, not L58. Of course. Has anybody claimed anything else in this thread? If so I have failed to notice it. Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 15:05:30 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:05:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c4af9b$5ddaf980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: >=20 > > Hesitation is NOT part of any auction >=20 > Perhaps this is a function of how you play your bridge. If I am = asking > someone "how would you bid my hand" I wouldn't dream of excluding AI = from > a hesitation as part of the auction. The person I am consulting needs = to > know what info is available. >=20 > Of course I am a somewhat warped individual who also wants to know who = my > partner is and who my opps are before offering views on this sort of > question. I understand that "technicians" (hack, spit) pay no = attention > to this sort of info. I must admit that this distinction seems > particularly prevalent amongst "money" players. To give an example a > friend asked me and a colleague what do you bid with x,Axx,AKTxx,QTxx > after 1D-(p)-1S-(P)-2C-(p)-2H-(X)-?. Both of us asked, without any = real > thought, who is my partner? >=20 > Tim Of course how you call can depend on many factors. I fail to see your = point: Do you with this example claim that "who is your partner" is part of the auction? Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 15:11:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:11:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c4af9c$28f23f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Grattan wrote: ......... > > +=3D+ In order to cancel the Director must perceive the > > difference. A matter of style or judgement would likely > > not be within his perception, I believe, but if the meaning > > were 11-13 instead of 12-14 that would be within his > > perception. >=20 > While I agree that we must recognise that TDs are not required to have > such perception I would hope that were a contestant to draw attention = to > differences in style/judgment this would also lead to the board being > cancelled. When I have had to administer a Law 15C case I have been fully aware of = the possibility that any call can be made with a meaning different from when = the same call was made in the original auction. However when literally the calls are identical, the system declarations = give no clue that there is a fundamental difference and the players do not = call attention to possible minor differences I see absolutely no reason for a "hunting mission" with the purpose of finding cause for canceling the = board. Sven From john@asimere.com Mon Oct 11 15:09:54 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:09:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> <41690E57.5040705@hdw.be> <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000d01c4af5e$dc339090$7d9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >Grattan Endicott wrote >> >>from Grattan Endicott >>grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >>[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >>********************************* >>" I didn't write the rules" >>"All the more reason not to play the game." >> ~ father's advice in >> 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "David Stevenson" >>To: >>Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 12:16 AM >>Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 >> >> >>> Grattan Endicott wrote >>> >>> >+=+ I have not read the whole of the thread. It seemed to be >>> >rather boring. But I do say that Law 15C requires the Director >>> >to act on a requirement that the board must be cancelled "if any >>> >call differs *in any way* from the corresponding call in the first >>> >auction". The law requires the Director to work on a basis of >>> >fact and does not allow even the most self-important director >>> >the luxury of exercising judgement in this respect.. The Director >>> >is bound by the Laws as they are written and in breach of his >>> >duty if he does other than so apply them, whether the occasion >>> >of his apostasy is a pretty Japanese lady or the possibly prettier >>> >Tony Forrester. >>> >>> So, you would always cancel - yes? No call by a different pair is >>> ever exactly the same as far as meaning is concerned. >>> >>+=+ In order to cancel the Director must perceive the >>difference. A matter of style or judgement would likely >>not be within his perception, I believe, but if the meaning >>were 11-13 instead of 12-14 that would be within his >>perception. > > Exactly my point - the TD makes a judgement. Yet, in an earlier post, >you said the TD should not make a judgement. ... and in my perception the Japanese ladies can't tell the difference but the YC Championship can. john > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 11 16:26:35 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:26:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) References: <000601c4af98$394e2950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001a01c4afa8$e9c67340$8075893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:43 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable > >AFTER the Director has established (using > >other laws in the book) that a player is guilty > > of an offense, not to establish him as an > > offender. > > > >Just showing motive and possibility is not > >enough. > +=+ I probably need to read the extended thread to know who is saying what here. However I can speak with absolute authority as to the *intention* of the words "could have known at the time of his irregularity" in Law 72B1. These words were proposed by me, in a letter to Edgar K, following other related correspondence with Edgar and discussion with Roy Higson - then English CTD, being the Director who raised with me his unwillingness to make a ruling that branded a player a cheat and laid Roy open to a writ. The intention was to remove from the procedure any consideration of cheating, creating law under which a player who committed an irregularity would receive an adjusted score if the Director recognized a real possibility that the player might feel he had a fair expectation of gain rather than loss through the irregularity. The Director did not need to be of the opinion that the player could foresee exactly how things would turn out, it was enough that the Director thought he could be speculating on the course of events in committing the irregularity. The word 'likely' implies that the player could be estimating over 50% probability of gain. If, in another sphere, it was believed a competitor was cheating, it would be a sure thing, would it not, that he thought he was more likely to gain than to lose by his infringement? . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Mon Oct 11 17:14:58 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:14:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) References: <000601c4af98$394e2950$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001a01c4afa8$e9c67340$8075893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: To add to Grattan's expose, it has come in handy many times in my experience since 1987. I was partly involved in getting the process started when Edgar K, upholding a ruling of mine in a WBF Championship in Brasil prior to 1987, made the public comment when publishing the AC finding that the "...TD must have had some feeling that there was intent of getting an advantage..." (or some such words) in order to use the extant Law. This could easily have been construed to mean that I was accusing the player of cheating -- and opened the door to possible litigation. I have frequently been able to use the words "I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying that you were aware that you might gain an advantage, but the situation is such that someone, not necessarily you, "could have known at the time of his irregularity" that it would devolve to their benefit to take such an action, and therefore the opponents are entitled to protection. In Brasil, I forced the AC to remain in public while I made my declaimer to his words (not very popular with them, of course), and leaving the room Edgar stopped me and said we've got to address this topic in the l987 review. Grattan's posting adds the concern felt by others to close this loophole. I'm strongly in favor of retaining these words in the present review. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************* > " I didn't write the rules" > "All the more reason not to play the game." > ~ father's advice in > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:43 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff > Ruling 4) > > > > > > > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable > > >AFTER the Director has established (using > > >other laws in the book) that a player is guilty > > > of an offense, not to establish him as an > > > offender. > > > > > >Just showing motive and possibility is not > > >enough. > > > +=+ I probably need to read the extended > thread to know who is saying what here. > However I can speak with absolute > authority as to the *intention* of the words > "could have known at the time of his > irregularity" in Law 72B1. These words > were proposed by me, in a letter to Edgar K, > following other related correspondence with > Edgar and discussion with Roy Higson - then > English CTD, being the Director who raised > with me his unwillingness to make a ruling > that branded a player a cheat and laid Roy > open to a writ. > The intention was to remove from the > procedure any consideration of cheating, > creating law under which a player who > committed an irregularity would receive an > adjusted score if the Director recognized > a real possibility that the player might feel > he had a fair expectation of gain rather than > loss through the irregularity. The Director > did not need to be of the opinion that the > player could foresee exactly how things > would turn out, it was enough that the > Director thought he could be speculating > on the course of events in committing the > irregularity. The word 'likely' implies that > the player could be estimating over 50% > probability of gain. > If, in another sphere, it was believed a > competitor was cheating, it would be a sure > thing, would it not, that he thought he was > more likely to gain than to lose by his > infringement? > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ooga@shaw.ca Mon Oct 11 21:32:31 2004 From: ooga@shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:32:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416AEDDF.1090900@shaw.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > David Stevenson asserted: >=20 >=20 >>Are you not lucky that the Law book tells you it >>is 9 imps rather than you having to decide, then? >=20 >=20 > RJH notes: >=20 > It seems that DWS overlooked the event was Butler > pairs in his posting. As DWS is well aware, the > phrase "IMP play" in Law 86A has a restricted > meaning. The Chapter 1 definition of "IMP" > contains a cross-reference to Law 78B, which > refers to "two scores" (teams play), not the > multiple scores of Butler pairs. >=20 > The relevant Law for Ave+ at Butler is Law 78D, > which allows SOs to create, in advance, special > scoring methods. Actually, the event was not Butler-ized, it was cross-IMPs, scored= =20 OKB/BBO style in average IMPs. It seems reasonable to assume that if= =20 AVG+ at Butler is not governed by L86A, then L86A should not apply to= =20 average or total cross-IMPs either. Thanks to the advice given in th= is=20 thread, I ran a cross-IMPs Calcutta this weekend and specified in the= =20 CoCs that AVG+/AVG- would be +/- 2 IMPs. Didn't need to use it, but = it=20 was good to have. If matters such as this are for the sponsoring organization to decide= ,=20 the next question becomes: how do we define sponsoring organization? = To=20 define the ACBL as an SO (in North America) seems at odds with L80,= =20 because it is the local organization, a District or Unit Board, that= =20 does most of the work described there. For example, if the ACBL were= to=20 publish a regulation that AVG+ in IMP Pairs is plus FIVE IMPs, would = a=20 local organization be within its rights to publish contrary regulatio= ns? (ACBLScore restricts AVG+/- to +/- 3 IMPs.) --=20 =2E-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------=88----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/alphapts.htm | | (Bridge Base Online Alphabet Points Tournament Series) | `----------------------------------------------------------=B4 From john@asimere.com Mon Oct 11 22:13:47 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:13:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Table completes a full round of wrong boards in a Howell--now what? In-Reply-To: <416AEDDF.1090900@shaw.ca> References: <416AEDDF.1090900@shaw.ca> Message-ID: In article <416AEDDF.1090900@shaw.ca>, Bruce McIntyre writes >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> David Stevenson asserted: >> >> >>>Are you not lucky that the Law book tells you it >>>is 9 imps rather than you having to decide, then? >> >> snip > >Actually, the event was not Butler-ized, it was cross-IMPs, scored >OKB/BBO style in average IMPs. It seems reasonable to assume that if >AVG+ at Butler is not governed by L86A, then L86A should not apply to >average or total cross-IMPs either. Thanks to the advice given in this >thread, I ran a cross-IMPs Calcutta this weekend and specified in the >CoCs that AVG+/AVG- would be +/- 2 IMPs. Didn't need to use it, but it >was good to have. I can make an unassailable case that A+ should be 3/root(2) imps at cross-imps (which means 2 imps is close enough). I can make a strong case for Butler as well, although I think the figure is probably closer to 2.5 imps than 2 imps. John snip > For example, if the ACBL were to >publish a regulation that AVG+ in IMP Pairs is plus FIVE IMPs, would a >local organization be within its rights to publish contrary regulations? > >(ACBLScore restricts AVG+/- to +/- 3 IMPs.) > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 11 22:36:50 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:36:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4afda$6b19c9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> The information from Grattan and William below is rather clarifying but = I should still appreciate a clear statement whether I am correct in my understanding that Law 72B1, extremely helpful as it is, can only be = used "against" a party who has already been found to having caused some irregularity. Or is the Director free to rule something like: "We can all see that = there is an irregularity here. We cannot tell from the available facts how the irregularity was actually caused or who most probably the offender is as there are several possibilities both for 'how' and for 'whom'. However, = I will use Law 72B1 and judge that you (one particular player) 'could have known that this irregularity would be likely to damage your opponents' = so I rule that you are the offender who caused this irregularity". Or a direct question: Can law 72B1 be used to decide that a particular = party is "the offender"? That is not what Law 72B1 says. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > WILLIAM SCHODER > Sent: 11. oktober 2004 18:15 > To: blml; Grattan Endicott > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) >=20 > To add to Grattan's expose, it has come in handy many times in my > experience > since 1987. I was partly involved in getting the process started when > Edgar K, upholding a ruling of mine in a WBF Championship in Brasil = prior > to > 1987, made the public comment when publishing the AC finding that the > "...TD > must have had some feeling that there was intent of getting an > advantage..." > (or some such words) in order to use the extant Law. This could = easily > have > been construed to mean that I was accusing the player of cheating -- = and > opened the door to possible litigation. I have frequently been able to = use > the words "I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying that you were = aware > that you might gain an advantage, but the situation is such that = someone, > not necessarily you, "could have known at the time of his = irregularity" > that > it would devolve to their benefit to take such an action, and = therefore > the > opponents are entitled to protection. In Brasil, I forced the AC to = remain > in public while I made my declaimer to his words (not very popular = with > them, of course), and leaving the room Edgar stopped me and said we've = got > to address this topic in the l987 review. Grattan's posting adds the > concern felt by others to close this loophole. I'm strongly in favor = of > retaining these words in the present review. >=20 > Kojak > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:26 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) >=20 >=20 > > > > from Grattan Endicott > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > ********************************* > > " I didn't write the rules" > > "All the more reason not to play the game." > > ~ father's advice in > > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sven Pran" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:43 PM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff > > Ruling 4) > > > > > > > > > > > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable > > > >AFTER the Director has established (using > > > >other laws in the book) that a player is guilty > > > > of an offense, not to establish him as an > > > > offender. > > > > > > > >Just showing motive and possibility is not > > > >enough. > > > > > +=3D+ I probably need to read the extended > > thread to know who is saying what here. > > However I can speak with absolute > > authority as to the *intention* of the words > > "could have known at the time of his > > irregularity" in Law 72B1. These words > > were proposed by me, in a letter to Edgar K, > > following other related correspondence with > > Edgar and discussion with Roy Higson - then > > English CTD, being the Director who raised > > with me his unwillingness to make a ruling > > that branded a player a cheat and laid Roy > > open to a writ. > > The intention was to remove from the > > procedure any consideration of cheating, > > creating law under which a player who > > committed an irregularity would receive an > > adjusted score if the Director recognized > > a real possibility that the player might feel > > he had a fair expectation of gain rather than > > loss through the irregularity. The Director > > did not need to be of the opinion that the > > player could foresee exactly how things > > would turn out, it was enough that the > > Director thought he could be speculating > > on the course of events in committing the > > irregularity. The word 'likely' implies that > > the player could be estimating over 50% > > probability of gain. > > If, in another sphere, it was believed a > > competitor was cheating, it would be a sure > > thing, would it not, that he thought he was > > more likely to gain than to lose by his > > infringement? > > . ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 11 22:39:56 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:39:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> <41690E57.5040705@hdw.be> <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000d01c4af5e$dc339090$7d9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000d01c4afdb$0d13b330$3006e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott >+=+ In order to cancel the Director must perceive the > >difference. A matter of style or judgement would likely > >not be within his perception, I believe, but if the meaning > >were 11-13 instead of 12-14 that would be within his > >perception. > > Exactly my point - the TD makes a judgement. > Yet, in an earlier post, you said the TD should > not make a judgement. > +=+ My dear David, Do get with it. No judgement. Solely a decision as to fact. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Mon Oct 11 23:49:47 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:49:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) References: <000001c4afda$6b19c9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Try this on for size. An irregularity occurs - and by the definition of irregularity "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in these Laws" someone is the offending side and someone is the non-offending side. Law 72B1 says now that this irregularity is to be rectified with an adjusted score if the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. The words "could have known" were inserted to make it clear that no intent, nefarious or otherwise, is placed upon the person(s) in committing the irregularity, but simply that no advantage can be gained by doing so. This wording was carefully crafted, agreed to by legal authorities, and protects the user of the Laws from litigation. Of course, as you state, there has to be an irregularity determined before these provisions apply. Does this help? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:36 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) The information from Grattan and William below is rather clarifying but I should still appreciate a clear statement whether I am correct in my understanding that Law 72B1, extremely helpful as it is, can only be used "against" a party who has already been found to having caused some irregularity. Or is the Director free to rule something like: "We can all see that there is an irregularity here. We cannot tell from the available facts how the irregularity was actually caused or who most probably the offender is as there are several possibilities both for 'how' and for 'whom'. However, I will use Law 72B1 and judge that you (one particular player) 'could have known that this irregularity would be likely to damage your opponents' so I rule that you are the offender who caused this irregularity". Or a direct question: Can law 72B1 be used to decide that a particular party is "the offender"? That is not what Law 72B1 says. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > WILLIAM SCHODER > Sent: 11. oktober 2004 18:15 > To: blml; Grattan Endicott > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > To add to Grattan's expose, it has come in handy many times in my > experience > since 1987. I was partly involved in getting the process started when > Edgar K, upholding a ruling of mine in a WBF Championship in Brasil prior > to > 1987, made the public comment when publishing the AC finding that the > "...TD > must have had some feeling that there was intent of getting an > advantage..." > (or some such words) in order to use the extant Law. This could easily > have > been construed to mean that I was accusing the player of cheating -- and > opened the door to possible litigation. I have frequently been able to use > the words "I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying that you were aware > that you might gain an advantage, but the situation is such that someone, > not necessarily you, "could have known at the time of his irregularity" > that > it would devolve to their benefit to take such an action, and therefore > the > opponents are entitled to protection. In Brasil, I forced the AC to remain > in public while I made my declaimer to his words (not very popular with > them, of course), and leaving the room Edgar stopped me and said we've got > to address this topic in the l987 review. Grattan's posting adds the > concern felt by others to close this loophole. I'm strongly in favor of > retaining these words in the present review. > > Kojak > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:26 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > > > > > from Grattan Endicott > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > ********************************* > > " I didn't write the rules" > > "All the more reason not to play the game." > > ~ father's advice in > > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sven Pran" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:43 PM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff > > Ruling 4) > > > > > > > > > > > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable > > > >AFTER the Director has established (using > > > >other laws in the book) that a player is guilty > > > > of an offense, not to establish him as an > > > > offender. > > > > > > > >Just showing motive and possibility is not > > > >enough. > > > > > +=+ I probably need to read the extended > > thread to know who is saying what here. > > However I can speak with absolute > > authority as to the *intention* of the words > > "could have known at the time of his > > irregularity" in Law 72B1. These words > > were proposed by me, in a letter to Edgar K, > > following other related correspondence with > > Edgar and discussion with Roy Higson - then > > English CTD, being the Director who raised > > with me his unwillingness to make a ruling > > that branded a player a cheat and laid Roy > > open to a writ. > > The intention was to remove from the > > procedure any consideration of cheating, > > creating law under which a player who > > committed an irregularity would receive an > > adjusted score if the Director recognized > > a real possibility that the player might feel > > he had a fair expectation of gain rather than > > loss through the irregularity. The Director > > did not need to be of the opinion that the > > player could foresee exactly how things > > would turn out, it was enough that the > > Director thought he could be speculating > > on the course of events in committing the > > irregularity. The word 'likely' implies that > > the player could be estimating over 50% > > probability of gain. > > If, in another sphere, it was believed a > > competitor was cheating, it would be a sure > > thing, would it not, that he thought he was > > more likely to gain than to lose by his > > infringement? > > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 12 03:54:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:54:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Define sponsoring organisation In-Reply-To: <416AEDDF.1090900@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >From "Table completes..." thread, Bruce McIntyre asked: >If matters such as this are for the sponsoring >organization to decide, the next question becomes: how >do we define sponsoring organization? To define the >ACBL as an SO (in North America) seems at odds with >L80, because it is the local organization, a District >or Unit Board, that does most of the work described >there. RJH opinion: In Australia, the view is that there is a hierarchy of sponsoring organisations. The WBF creates Laws and Interpretations, leaving gaps for Zonal options (for example, on queries about pard's revoke when defending) The South Pacific Zone disapproves of some WBF Laws and Interpretations, but is bound by the hierarchically higher WBF (until the WBF changes its mind on 1st January 2006). The South Pacific Zone selected options, including adopting the option permitting queries on revokes by defenders. However, the South Pacific Zone did not create a uniform compulsory Alert regulation. The Australian Bridge Federation wanted to prohibit queries on revokes by defenders, but was bound by the decision of the hierarchically higher South Pacific Zone. However, the ABF exploited the opportunity to promulgate an Alert regulation which is significantly different from the New Zealand Alert regulation. But the ABF did not create a uniform set of bidding system rules to apply to all Australian events. The Bridge Federation of the Australian Capital Territory thought that alerting Stayman was silly, but was bound by the hierarchically higher ABF. However, BFACT did adopt more liberal bidding system rules than the bidding system rules that the Tasmanian Bridge Association adopted. Bruce McIntyre asked: >For example, if the ACBL were to publish a regulation >that AVG+ in IMP Pairs is plus FIVE IMPs, would a local >organization be within its rights to publish contrary >regulations? RJH opinion: That depends on the scope of the ACBL regulation. If the regulation merely stated that the ACBL International Trials would be an IMP Pairs, with that particular event having Ave+ of five imps, then local SOs can freely vary for their own events. But if an ACBL regulation has a scope which requires all ACBL players to obey that reg, then any action nullifying that reg is ultra vires to the local organisation's powers. Historical note -> In about 1830 the South Carolina legislature nullified legislation passed by the United States Congress. The then President, Andrew Jackson, took vigorous action to counter the tail wagging the dog. This delayed the catastrophe of the American Civil War for thirty years, which is the prime reason that the Statue of Liberty is a universal icon of hope. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 12 05:06:01 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:06:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: <000001c4afda$6b19c9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c4afda$6b19c9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c4afda$6b19c9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >The information from Grattan and William below is rather clarifying but I >should still appreciate a clear statement whether I am correct in my >understanding that Law 72B1, extremely helpful as it is, can only be used >"against" a party who has already been found to having caused some >irregularity. > >Or is the Director free to rule something like: "We can all see that there >is an irregularity here. We cannot tell from the available facts how the >irregularity was actually caused or who most probably the offender is as >there are several possibilities both for 'how' and for 'whom'. However, I >will use Law 72B1 and judge that you (one particular player) 'could have >known that this irregularity would be likely to damage your opponents' so I >rule that you are the offender who caused this irregularity". > >Or a direct question: Can law 72B1 be used to decide that a particular party >is "the offender"? > >That is not what Law 72B1 says. I agree with you Sven, but I do think 72B1 can be used a lot more often than it is used. I always get howled down when I want to use it when a player corrects an unestablished revoke. ... but if I were a cheat and wanted to cause problems for opponents it is one of the things I could do. Revoke, and then correct it (knowing I'm not paying out to the penalty card). It causes horrendous problems for the opponents. john > >Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> WILLIAM SCHODER >> Sent: 11. oktober 2004 18:15 >> To: blml; Grattan Endicott >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) >> >> To add to Grattan's expose, it has come in handy many times in my >> experience >> since 1987. I was partly involved in getting the process started when >> Edgar K, upholding a ruling of mine in a WBF Championship in Brasil prior >> to >> 1987, made the public comment when publishing the AC finding that the >> "...TD >> must have had some feeling that there was intent of getting an >> advantage..." >> (or some such words) in order to use the extant Law. This could easily >> have >> been construed to mean that I was accusing the player of cheating -- and >> opened the door to possible litigation. I have frequently been able to use >> the words "I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying that you were aware >> that you might gain an advantage, but the situation is such that someone, >> not necessarily you, "could have known at the time of his irregularity" >> that >> it would devolve to their benefit to take such an action, and therefore >> the >> opponents are entitled to protection. In Brasil, I forced the AC to remain >> in public while I made my declaimer to his words (not very popular with >> them, of course), and leaving the room Edgar stopped me and said we've got >> to address this topic in the l987 review. Grattan's posting adds the >> concern felt by others to close this loophole. I'm strongly in favor of >> retaining these words in the present review. >> >> Kojak >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:26 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) >> >> >> > >> > from Grattan Endicott >> > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >> > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >> > ********************************* >> > " I didn't write the rules" >> > "All the more reason not to play the game." >> > ~ father's advice in >> > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Sven Pran" >> > To: "blml" >> > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:43 PM >> > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff >> > Ruling 4) >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable >> > > >AFTER the Director has established (using >> > > >other laws in the book) that a player is guilty >> > > > of an offense, not to establish him as an >> > > > offender. >> > > > >> > > >Just showing motive and possibility is not >> > > >enough. >> > > >> > +=+ I probably need to read the extended >> > thread to know who is saying what here. >> > However I can speak with absolute >> > authority as to the *intention* of the words >> > "could have known at the time of his >> > irregularity" in Law 72B1. These words >> > were proposed by me, in a letter to Edgar K, >> > following other related correspondence with >> > Edgar and discussion with Roy Higson - then >> > English CTD, being the Director who raised >> > with me his unwillingness to make a ruling >> > that branded a player a cheat and laid Roy >> > open to a writ. >> > The intention was to remove from the >> > procedure any consideration of cheating, >> > creating law under which a player who >> > committed an irregularity would receive an >> > adjusted score if the Director recognized >> > a real possibility that the player might feel >> > he had a fair expectation of gain rather than >> > loss through the irregularity. The Director >> > did not need to be of the opinion that the >> > player could foresee exactly how things >> > would turn out, it was enough that the >> > Director thought he could be speculating >> > on the course of events in committing the >> > irregularity. The word 'likely' implies that >> > the player could be estimating over 50% >> > probability of gain. >> > If, in another sphere, it was believed a >> > competitor was cheating, it would be a sure >> > thing, would it not, that he thought he was >> > more likely to gain than to lose by his >> > infringement? >> > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 12 06:35:35 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:35:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >I agree with you Sven, but I do think 72B1 can be >used a lot more often than it is used. I always get >howled down when I want to use it when a player >corrects an unestablished revoke. ... but if I were >a cheat and wanted to cause problems for opponents >it is one of the things I could do. Revoke, and >then correct it (knowing I'm not paying out to the >penalty card). It causes horrendous problems for >the opponents. RJH: I have faced zero horrendous *technical* problems when an opponent has perpetrated an unestablished revoke. But I agree that a bunny might often face horrendous *psychological* problems (due to being distracted by the TD summoning) if a coffee-housing expert opponent deliberately perpetrated an unestablished revoke. There are more ways than one to skin a cat burglar. I do not need Law 72B1 to penalise an "accidental" unestablished revoke by a coffee-housing expert. Rather, I would rule: (a) Only an expert who was not paying sufficient attention to the game would ever revoke (Law 74B1). (b) The consequent unnecessary summoning of the TD interfered with the bunny's enjoyment of the game (Law 74A2). (c) An exceptional adjustment of the score (Law 12A1). (d) An exceptional PP on the coffee-housing expert (Law 90B7). :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From nre@hotmail.com Tue Oct 12 08:57:16 2004 From: nre@hotmail.com (nre@hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:57:16 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Promote your product Message-ID:

Promote your product!

  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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ˇ¤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 email marketing company

copyrightˇ¤2004-2005 all reserved


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

From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 12 09:06:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:06:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4b032$565e23c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > WILLIAM SCHODER > Try this on for size. An irregularity occurs - and by the definition = of > irregularity "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in = these > Laws" someone is the offending side and someone is the non-offending = side. > Law 72B1 says now that this irregularity is to be rectified with an > adjusted > score if the offending side gained an advantage through the = irregularity. > The words "could have known" were inserted to make it clear that no > intent, > nefarious or otherwise, is placed upon the person(s) in committing the > irregularity, but simply that no advantage can be gained by doing so. = This > wording was carefully crafted, agreed to by legal authorities, and > protects > the user of the Laws from litigation. Of course, as you state, there = has > to > be an irregularity determined before these provisions apply. Does = this > help? >=20 > Kojak Sorry no. I have no problem with L72B1 once the "offender" in an irregularity has been established, but there are irregularities where = you cannot readily tell who is the offender. Example: The players at a table summon the Director because they have counted 10 cards in South, 14 cards in East and 15 cards in West. There are no hand records available and when trying to reconstruct the board it appears = that all four hands must have been mixed up beyond recognition. (I have had = an experience like that in one of the clubs I direct). This was a Howell event and as it happens the board has even been = through a "sit out" round before this was discovered and has also been resting on = a table waiting to be played in a later round. The irregularity is clear, but who is the offender? There have been arguments here on blml that the Director can use L72B1 = and rule that the offender is the last player to handle the fouled hand = (except that in this case there is more than one). Or apparently he can rule = that the pair having an opportunity during their sit-out "could have been the offender". My personal view is that the Director cannot use L72B1 for the purpose = of deciding who is an offender, only to make a ruling subsequent to establishing from other facts who is the offender?=20 In my case the board could have been fouled by either of the two pairs = last to play the board, by the sit-out pair who could have inspected the = board during their sit-out or even by any of the pairs who had already played = the board and during the lunch break had an opportunity to take another look = at the board. Sven >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:36 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) >=20 >=20 > The information from Grattan and William below is rather clarifying = but I > should still appreciate a clear statement whether I am correct in my > understanding that Law 72B1, extremely helpful as it is, can only be = used > "against" a party who has already been found to having caused some > irregularity. >=20 > Or is the Director free to rule something like: "We can all see that = there > is an irregularity here. We cannot tell from the available facts how = the > irregularity was actually caused or who most probably the offender is = as > there are several possibilities both for 'how' and for 'whom'. = However, I > will use Law 72B1 and judge that you (one particular player) 'could = have > known that this irregularity would be likely to damage your opponents' = so > I > rule that you are the offender who caused this irregularity". >=20 > Or a direct question: Can law 72B1 be used to decide that a particular > party > is "the offender"? >=20 > That is not what Law 72B1 says. >=20 > Sven >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf = Of > > WILLIAM SCHODER > > Sent: 11. oktober 2004 18:15 > > To: blml; Grattan Endicott > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > > > To add to Grattan's expose, it has come in handy many times in my > > experience > > since 1987. I was partly involved in getting the process started = when > > Edgar K, upholding a ruling of mine in a WBF Championship in Brasil > prior > > to > > 1987, made the public comment when publishing the AC finding that = the > > "...TD > > must have had some feeling that there was intent of getting an > > advantage..." > > (or some such words) in order to use the extant Law. This could = easily > > have > > been construed to mean that I was accusing the player of cheating -- = and > > opened the door to possible litigation. I have frequently been able = to > use > > the words "I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying that you were > aware > > that you might gain an advantage, but the situation is such that > someone, > > not necessarily you, "could have known at the time of his = irregularity" > > that > > it would devolve to their benefit to take such an action, and = therefore > > the > > opponents are entitled to protection. In Brasil, I forced the AC to > remain > > in public while I made my declaimer to his words (not very popular = with > > them, of course), and leaving the room Edgar stopped me and said = we've > got > > to address this topic in the l987 review. Grattan's posting adds = the > > concern felt by others to close this loophole. I'm strongly in favor = of > > retaining these words in the present review. > > > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > > > > > > > > > from Grattan Endicott > > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > > > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > > ********************************* > > > " I didn't write the rules" > > > "All the more reason not to play the game." > > > ~ father's advice in > > > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > To: "blml" > > > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:43 PM > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff > > > Ruling 4) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable > > > > >AFTER the Director has established (using > > > > >other laws in the book) that a player is guilty > > > > > of an offense, not to establish him as an > > > > > offender. > > > > > > > > > >Just showing motive and possibility is not > > > > >enough. > > > > > > > +=3D+ I probably need to read the extended > > > thread to know who is saying what here. > > > However I can speak with absolute > > > authority as to the *intention* of the words > > > "could have known at the time of his > > > irregularity" in Law 72B1. These words > > > were proposed by me, in a letter to Edgar K, > > > following other related correspondence with > > > Edgar and discussion with Roy Higson - then > > > English CTD, being the Director who raised > > > with me his unwillingness to make a ruling > > > that branded a player a cheat and laid Roy > > > open to a writ. > > > The intention was to remove from the > > > procedure any consideration of cheating, > > > creating law under which a player who > > > committed an irregularity would receive an > > > adjusted score if the Director recognized > > > a real possibility that the player might feel > > > he had a fair expectation of gain rather than > > > loss through the irregularity. The Director > > > did not need to be of the opinion that the > > > player could foresee exactly how things > > > would turn out, it was enough that the > > > Director thought he could be speculating > > > on the course of events in committing the > > > irregularity. The word 'likely' implies that > > > the player could be estimating over 50% > > > probability of gain. > > > If, in another sphere, it was believed a > > > competitor was cheating, it would be a sure > > > thing, would it not, that he thought he was > > > more likely to gain than to lose by his > > > infringement? > > > . ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 12 09:23:23 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:23:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) References: <000001c4afda$6b19c9c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004101c4b03a$7bab9290$1ebd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " I didn't write the rules" "All the more reason not to play the game." ~ father's advice in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > Try this on for size. An irregularity occurs - and by the > definition of irregularity "A deviation from the correct > procedures set forth in these Laws" someone is the > offending side and someone is the non-offending side. > Law 72B1 says now that this irregularity is to be rectified > with an adjusted score if the offending side gained an > advantage through the irregularity. The words "could > have known" were inserted to make it clear that no intent, > nefarious or otherwise, is placed upon the person(s) in > committing the irregularity, but simply that no advantage > can be gained by doing so. This wording was carefully > crafted, agreed to by legal authorities, and protects > the user of the Laws from litigation. Of course, as you > state, there has to be an irregularity determined before > these provisions apply. Does this > help? > > Kojak > +=+ To supplement the above 72B1 is not for identifying an offender; it is a tool for dealing with someone who has committed an irregularity in circumstances which the Director perceives as calling for the relief that 72B1 affords him - where otherwise he could face the problem that Roy Higson found an unacceptable burden. I do not follow the suggestion of an irregularity where there is no 'offender'. If an irregularity occurs for which no-one at the table is responsible then the players at the table are innocent parties; in a team match there are situations where one of the contestants offends through a prior action of a player at its other table - card turned face up in the board, cards misplaced in the pockets of the board. If the offender is identified 72B1 is available in such a case (did the offender get a dreadful result?) Within the last four months I have become aware of a problem that the current 'could have known' text does not deal with adequately. Initially I shall discuss the problem with Bill Schoder privately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb@msn.com Tue Oct 12 12:15:21 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:15:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) References: <000501c4b032$565e23c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: To Sven in particular. Sorry, I did not completely understand your problem with Law 72B1. I assumed that there was no disagreement that this law does not establish WHO the offenders/non-offenders are. It is a tool to be used AFTER the irregularity has been determined and the owner thereof assigned. To properly answer your question it would help to leave 72B1 out of mind in making that determination. There is a myriad of cases where it is difficult to impossible to determine who committed the irregularity, some of which have been written in this thread, before going to this useful tool (72B1) to make an adjustment. Some are easier than others. For example, in the unestablished revoke it is not too difficult to determine the WHO - it's the owner of the card which is a revoke that is the "offender" for improper procedure. It is difficult to find how this gained an advantage, but that's why we have TDs (and ACs to review the TDs rulings) is it not? But, when the Ace of Spades arrives face up from the other table, and they have had a disaster on this deal, it is not the time for the TD to duck. When the hand has been made unplayable, as in the example of the Howell where the board did not resemble the proper deal it started with, you may never be able to arrive at a conclusion -- BUT you can immediately arrive at the conclusion that the handling and security of the boards needs to be improved! I think looking for a recipe answer to these situations is too simplistic an approach, -- at least I've never been able to find one that fit the facts of the highly differing incidents. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:06 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > WILLIAM SCHODER > Try this on for size. An irregularity occurs - and by the definition of > irregularity "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in these > Laws" someone is the offending side and someone is the non-offending side. > Law 72B1 says now that this irregularity is to be rectified with an > adjusted > score if the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. > The words "could have known" were inserted to make it clear that no > intent, > nefarious or otherwise, is placed upon the person(s) in committing the > irregularity, but simply that no advantage can be gained by doing so. This > wording was carefully crafted, agreed to by legal authorities, and > protects > the user of the Laws from litigation. Of course, as you state, there has > to > be an irregularity determined before these provisions apply. Does this > help? > > Kojak Sorry no. I have no problem with L72B1 once the "offender" in an irregularity has been established, but there are irregularities where you cannot readily tell who is the offender. Example: The players at a table summon the Director because they have counted 10 cards in South, 14 cards in East and 15 cards in West. There are no hand records available and when trying to reconstruct the board it appears that all four hands must have been mixed up beyond recognition. (I have had an experience like that in one of the clubs I direct). This was a Howell event and as it happens the board has even been through a "sit out" round before this was discovered and has also been resting on a table waiting to be played in a later round. The irregularity is clear, but who is the offender? There have been arguments here on blml that the Director can use L72B1 and rule that the offender is the last player to handle the fouled hand (except that in this case there is more than one). Or apparently he can rule that the pair having an opportunity during their sit-out "could have been the offender". My personal view is that the Director cannot use L72B1 for the purpose of deciding who is an offender, only to make a ruling subsequent to establishing from other facts who is the offender? In my case the board could have been fouled by either of the two pairs last to play the board, by the sit-out pair who could have inspected the board during their sit-out or even by any of the pairs who had already played the board and during the lunch break had an opportunity to take another look at the board. Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:36 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > > The information from Grattan and William below is rather clarifying but I > should still appreciate a clear statement whether I am correct in my > understanding that Law 72B1, extremely helpful as it is, can only be used > "against" a party who has already been found to having caused some > irregularity. > > Or is the Director free to rule something like: "We can all see that there > is an irregularity here. We cannot tell from the available facts how the > irregularity was actually caused or who most probably the offender is as > there are several possibilities both for 'how' and for 'whom'. However, I > will use Law 72B1 and judge that you (one particular player) 'could have > known that this irregularity would be likely to damage your opponents' so > I > rule that you are the offender who caused this irregularity". > > Or a direct question: Can law 72B1 be used to decide that a particular > party > is "the offender"? > > That is not what Law 72B1 says. > > Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > > WILLIAM SCHODER > > Sent: 11. oktober 2004 18:15 > > To: blml; Grattan Endicott > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > > > To add to Grattan's expose, it has come in handy many times in my > > experience > > since 1987. I was partly involved in getting the process started when > > Edgar K, upholding a ruling of mine in a WBF Championship in Brasil > prior > > to > > 1987, made the public comment when publishing the AC finding that the > > "...TD > > must have had some feeling that there was intent of getting an > > advantage..." > > (or some such words) in order to use the extant Law. This could easily > > have > > been construed to mean that I was accusing the player of cheating -- and > > opened the door to possible litigation. I have frequently been able to > use > > the words "I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying that you were > aware > > that you might gain an advantage, but the situation is such that > someone, > > not necessarily you, "could have known at the time of his irregularity" > > that > > it would devolve to their benefit to take such an action, and therefore > > the > > opponents are entitled to protection. In Brasil, I forced the AC to > remain > > in public while I made my declaimer to his words (not very popular with > > them, of course), and leaving the room Edgar stopped me and said we've > got > > to address this topic in the l987 review. Grattan's posting adds the > > concern felt by others to close this loophole. I'm strongly in favor of > > retaining these words in the present review. > > > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) > > > > > > > > > > from Grattan Endicott > > > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > > > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > > ********************************* > > > " I didn't write the rules" > > > "All the more reason not to play the game." > > > ~ father's advice in > > > 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > To: "blml" > > > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:43 PM > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff > > > Ruling 4) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In my opinion Law 72B1 is only applicable > > > > >AFTER the Director has established (using > > > > >other laws in the book) that a player is guilty > > > > > of an offense, not to establish him as an > > > > > offender. > > > > > > > > > >Just showing motive and possibility is not > > > > >enough. > > > > > > > +=+ I probably need to read the extended > > > thread to know who is saying what here. > > > However I can speak with absolute > > > authority as to the *intention* of the words > > > "could have known at the time of his > > > irregularity" in Law 72B1. These words > > > were proposed by me, in a letter to Edgar K, > > > following other related correspondence with > > > Edgar and discussion with Roy Higson - then > > > English CTD, being the Director who raised > > > with me his unwillingness to make a ruling > > > that branded a player a cheat and laid Roy > > > open to a writ. > > > The intention was to remove from the > > > procedure any consideration of cheating, > > > creating law under which a player who > > > committed an irregularity would receive an > > > adjusted score if the Director recognized > > > a real possibility that the player might feel > > > he had a fair expectation of gain rather than > > > loss through the irregularity. The Director > > > did not need to be of the opinion that the > > > player could foresee exactly how things > > > would turn out, it was enough that the > > > Director thought he could be speculating > > > on the course of events in committing the > > > irregularity. The word 'likely' implies that > > > the player could be estimating over 50% > > > probability of gain. > > > If, in another sphere, it was believed a > > > competitor was cheating, it would be a sure > > > thing, would it not, that he thought he was > > > more likely to gain than to lose by his > > > infringement? > > > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 12 13:09:12 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:09:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <200410081930.i98JUg16012493@cfa.harvard.edu> <41674687.4000603@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041012080215.02f21010@pop.starpower.net> At 08:08 AM 10/9/04, David wrote: >Steve Willner wrote >>>From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >>>Try "A card is played by detaching it from the hand and placing it face >>>up etc etc" :) There is the intent. 58B2 just says that the 2nd card, >>>if small may be a minor penalty card. A cheat will tell you they were >>>trying to play the honour. An ethical player will tell you they were >>>trying to play the small one. >> >>Why would you ask which one was the intended play? I don't see why >>intent matters. There's nothing about it in 58B2. And don't forget >>72A5 and 9B1c. All in all, I think it is quite appropriate for any >>player who has accidentally exposed two cards to pick the least >>damaging to play. I certainly would, and I hope that doesn't make me >>a cheat. I also don't see where bridge lawyers come into anything. >>Surely you explain all the options per L10C1 before asking the player >>to choose, don't you? > > Sadly, Steve, you seem to have forgotten the difference. If you > play and drop the HK and the H6 simultaneously, and propose under > L58B2 to play the H6 then the HK is an MPC. > > However, if you play and drop the HK and the H6 simultaneously, and > propose under L58B2 to play the HK then the H6 is an MPC *if* you > intended to play it originally, but is an mPC if you did not. As > John says, a player of limited ethics having heard the options will > now say that he was always intending to play the HK. Steve's point is that there is no ethical issue involved. L58B2 says that once the position (two cards from hand visible) is reached, the player "designates the card he proposes to play". There is nothing to suggest any obligation to "propose" the card he intended to play originally (before the two cards came out of his hand together), nor that there's anything inappropriate about choosing to play the other one after considering the potential L58B2 consequences of both plays. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 12 13:41:24 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:41:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041012083306.02f356e0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:34 AM 10/11/04, David wrote: >>RJH rereads the exact option granted by Law 58B2: >> >>Law 58B2 uses the present tense phrase "proposes >>to play", *not* the past tense phrase "intended >>to play". > > Now isn't it strange that I, too, can read the Laws? However, > unlike Richard, I take the trouble to read the *correct* Law. > > Try L50B this time. Doesn't work for me. L58B applies to "two or more cards [led or played] simultaneously". L50B applies to "a single card... exposed". They are disjoint, prescribing the establishment of a penalty card under two different sets of circumstances. It seems obvious to me that the cross-reference to L50 in L58B pertains to the disposition of the penalty card once established, not to a second (and possibly conflicting) set of criteria for establishing it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Oct 12 16:35:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: <000a01c4af9b$5ddaf980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Of course how you call can depend on many factors. I fail to see your > point: Do you with this example claim that "who is your partner" is part > of the auction? Of course not. But it is clear that the *ANSWER* will affect the meaning of the next bid. This despite the playing of the same system. What I am really saying is that the "Auction" is the totality of calls, pauses, meanings, inferences etc that go to making me decide how to play the hand. As I said before I don't really care if you rule that the "Auction" is the same for L15c but the hand unplayable due to L16b2 while I just cancel the hand under 15C. The important thing is that the board is not played when information of possible significance is available to the players. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Oct 12 16:35:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4af9c$28f23f20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > However when literally the calls are identical, the system declarations > give no clue that there is a fundamental difference and the players do > not call attention to possible minor differences I see absolutely no > reason for a "hunting mission" with the purpose of finding cause for > canceling the board. Nor me - but I would hope to investigate, to the best of my bridge ability, the reasons why I feel confident in allowing the board to be played. Tim From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Oct 12 19:59:37 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:59:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12 Oct 2004, at 16:35, Tim West-Meads wrote: > What I am > really saying is that the "Auction" is the totality of calls, pauses, > meanings, inferences etc that go to making me decide how to play the > hand. The Law Book defines it as: Auction 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. 2. The aggregate of calls made -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From almwpdktvzm@hotmail.com Tue Oct 12 21:19:34 2004 From: almwpdktvzm@hotmail.com (Maureen Keen) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:19:34 -0300 Subject: [blml] re[9]: Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060401070801080402010007 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Try to connect you we are here Songs Is it serious?

I wish Jennifer Lopez

--------------060401070801080402010007 Content-Type: image/gif; name="concert.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="concert.GIF" R0lGODlhHAAIAPN+AAQCAIAAAMDAwMDcwECggGCggGDAgIDAgIDAwKDAwP/78P8AAAAA/////wAAAAAA ACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAAAjApwAAAT/sMlJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgs Go/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdsvter/gsGdBLo/K6AyaXFmzKe6Je5620BeXux7PodvnfXEae3VwhIAY dx+Ii36Jh2YdkHyBa4+TkQ2YlIaMYiFuAo17f2iicqGdZaebpxKHbZtkrmpztJq2l3q6sKiyt7ikG4qS hHmYwMeTw46xv6/IqsSfo6tjkKWZwaa+q6zR0L3hrZVrt3TJy9nY4+DtwrW5g+rShMnr4sqpzuTbh670 qJWbVSygvwUA9x1MOImhvW7u4pnjx42iMYu9ZBF8d5FXRY8d/znquYcxZEmE+CB9awhxpMCC1phtqrdS 0MKWe2qK04hSps2DMXGa1CiKp0OVIAvpQyr0Dsl6/5b+FPkQqEur015K3DjPnICvAuTdxKqz50KwaNG+ S6swbVivbgd+dIqRrcKzaOW5DeW27Ky8UyG+DVrSrqWWfdPC/At44rrBXCfshasYb+Kyhglrxfd07TnH Y+mOHd1Vc1yPnZOaFY3480fSa1FvRfjVmdrHoC2Ctb079om7vilCNjubJHDZFE5vltqZr9R6VIt6RbxY W7XI1wczHE7LOT6adZGnvNebeWCg5GvrRgFcLOLz68WXVrr82mvm4kOZs3QX08k31aW2FP9k43AHHn5U XcUZagIOKJ1mZ4Fi0HxMSVNbbghKtQtU9NUnX4bxLbSfKf2x1NRhFDYoHDckvnZccL/c8yJpGx4YWInN YOUehfa4FhN81KnmHjsegmhkkCK2uAqOUSWXz5GLQfYgQrnNqFArxmGIpI4+btRelaxFxONIwOwzY3Ap sSbBcDkWuSWUNCpJ2zbcdWdiBWwCCZt9BFnjDZj3IYnMU1YCuuN07XRJnIJizkamg4Kl6Kiakpnk5plo HpigX5o1KhlYbWoKwkTo+GNnoDCq1JyWaCoYJ31MXnmnTzmlYyiAcOp4ZmMourlniMBe5aplfXnApoys DjQliy4mK6v/KV958uGWrvbTapiUFRtgtPBZuyCDlxmL6UvjHsTcqfIMW+55haKqrGemWnSuoHr++g6e 3M4li7zJ5RtUuXIdhWuCWQFr8HPf+rruVIeiI3CnyUIVXq7zYZYoRhNf626mEmdMVMdQCaxicaLqWmqu C/eKnq8EK/VxYRyqdyIjz1C8lcXxcpiTqNIerDOjNc98sskqk4zTf5S++TPN3hY5K5ZpohtoP1DbzAvO Wladac9KL30yT5wQ/WyFkoIM9rRCO6b1pWSLPWfUMaeJ7T9ZblxxN+qx2pCiZTobccvQYpbYl6o+POy0 ZmbLK3Ycp60v3SwDzjjkGsrMUd9P91i2/4T/dg4h4JZzzLW9Xv9VstKqIg3wcYi0+/mZ3lIe+ayfOlz3 1KyLmSdjtBKXHd6RYuBv4FByDfDw3ljuHcL42o5522jL/l3Ccg+9plOhs3yZchckxoG2+FYW/va3jS/+ BtyDcH75DZwvPPjdu/+p/O3Tn4H38bOff3kW4P8++fq7n/0A2Jn0rcl+ByRg9uoHv8g58IEQjKAEJ0jB ClrwghjMoAY3yMEOevCDIAyhCEdIwhKa8IQoTKEKV8jCFrrwhTCMoQxnSMMa2vCGOMyhDnfIwx768IdA DKIQPxCAIhqxAkW8QBIbYMQmBkADS7TAESngxCdSsYpWlAAWpzgBLP8qMYtSrGIXt/hFDGzRilykoha9 eEU2kjGMTdyAGJHoRDqacYlvXKMbz6jHOdLRj32MYiDTGMZCtpGQghwjE9l4xzpesYxjjOMgI6nEQaYR kIuUZAsuGcVErvGTj2zkF7PISVKCcZGQ/KMdV6nKUHryjrAUpRRBSUlaGlKRobRlG3NZylq2MpGdPGUs cylHYfoyk7hM5i2T2UtdfhKYxrSlIF8ZTGJC05hojKY0TUlMFXiymob8ZjQJmUluslKcy1SmLjWpTlS6 kwOvfOcsv+lMcKaSmaeMJzTbGUxhShKd8swAQOGpzYEOdJnT9Kc57XjQbtrTlfkEIzADykRnqhP/jxHd 5DizCcmGdjGgT8RoLD3q0UZmFIraZKVKkbhOi4p0mPj0QDwt6s6Q5rOmCqXpSikK027isqTbbCcoqWnT dF50oRAtJktBqtOZznQF+uRoOHNayYTidKRU9elTfyrRlPL0nj79qDRdKlWwvpOcZg1rTeWZxJcmlaBG 7alQr7rTt9LUrY8E6kSFitGU7pWtTY2qV1EQVbKus6C0lGphQYrNrKI0qCjF5FzziNSyQtSP+zykXzc7 0sQOlap51Coj/+jIxWZWoJY1bWMZi1pAEjWSr1XjWMvJTkdqFgaq7ehoZ0lXvF7WtjtNKBetus0pbnWy iGWmYb9KW7TSVq5q/8XjZ6fLy8FS9Lh33aglrcvOr/r2mbtd6UOPisibKpe5sFWoc02Q26nOVayoNGd7 mVvSh46XunBNqxZXaVmuova9xwSwaRUp39FiF6hx9W5ZsVtP7fK0rUg163cV3NWl/lSncJQlVB0cW+Ka Ebb+1W10HYtPzK4WvSMWKH+X69QKKzXB2d1vH0MMXaMyeLHuBbBosVpGD0u4v4F16IpRXFcMk8CgJz4t byF73QjHNrhAvu+E9evUQkY5wg51MXLPmVUt07XGUJZpQbt80heH2bBKPnOHy8xUhgbZrkYeQTMPy89x WtOUXcVyfTOL5JPe2MGVzDBjsVxnZbZYy3P28v+U49xkMbd2lw3Obyv1mOVIg9XHZ/Vym3855uqqNQWS ba6mXfpYzbL5qK3VZEMZyUc4lvaNjc0mJlv95FCTVpzd5Sx6Wy3a8KJ41if+r0mJatsnmxrXuQYuZke5 XTyXt7tDjLa0p03talv72tjOtra3ze1ue/vb4A63uMdN7nKb+9zoTre6183udrv73fDe4HrjTW8L8roD vgaxoOkogDOGVsP4trWr551ewd57lGMmNrQDPGlRE1wuYQvHJSbeDWUQcb0LL/hmiT1wL2a8nJB+ib+P e/Db/vEWRuz3yJ3YmZSLOd/HfurIO17FlhfxHilH+b8jSRKXN5vBGhpYMGz/5btwHKUUDQJuenG+8/TC Uef+FoXPn+6KqVMj52j5eBPTsnCWn5zfonAL1hGox9RsPevOPTtYuj52lQcA6tsjaKwtp/avQNvqXy87 2oGON145Qx9IP4prkr71gQOj7m6P9c3zzvNwIZPqbRzZFfDevrTfHO5Pv6bOmf52EVAe8pEfZejwfnY8 dT70R1484/W++kz2XPWuNz3fhz74TnSp9r54i21eDvulg57nmY/o6YEf2cP3PvYiP/6MT54Mcqa891a/ fCMlj/zWLtD50t8367vX+hA8m+7Zb3j1n0581BdkgdqA2Ftwb/TIfE700HQ73JuPa5XTgvTK177rMZ/8 /+G3/vPj53qldH/+131yZ3MFWH5lN33md4DsNVz4l4ALqICMR3kAqAzIshrYMQsb6H4ciCvvF3wEKH8G GIDPJ1z8F1nOZnwSCAYXOICvJ3xSN3x4t0ATCAIXuH+P1ng7eIMO+ICnl3ORF4MNWIHKl4O2VzedEAuD kYS2hwvb8XIzOEZ2B33hp38uB3sRKCA+J4Ql+AUvqIX5p4BZSINjyIDed4YBaIQteIMfR34ncEReSIFs GINVd4Rq+ITxEIXQcCEa6Dt+8oeE13mqt3jRp4aHSIhmWIBISElzWIRiEIaL+BSJeAr9NDKNCIdouIk5 mIgPt3I4eHMWiIhi2IZTt/+FDRKCQ5d7qPANfMiKuACLDmhciuh/nWiFQYhnUFdyJ9iCmagFkniHbTh+ XZiLw6iJFzeMtziJxXdrGbdymFh6X1h9wUiGv7iKe2gICeGKsmh0feiNAZeL9jeDtkiK5SiOPuhwhXdr NniNWFCN6bh6xShr0XiMoteM1keHkJh4Srd//hOOb0d/yliKdqhxWDcKhOKBlOAlAGI6ehgJqoh6XkeM 5kiAxpiObSc/0niP/VeQ8diAp1iL9Uh9y0iJBImP/VOFW+hNY1iS+uiGW2SD2TiT3uiQUIiNeniTEVl+ XliJKEmNIjmNyDiUkXiGITmQ53iH5DiSnleRKOmS6JP/bPYohZvIkWvIk5eXeCKgioQRiHbyIJizjThZ TMzog1AJk0splNPojpNnlAH5kmZphVeZj2mIlCZZllX5k2xJl0RpfvAIlLPHlR0oHV8JhWFpCGOplzLj k3xJkSaYh2sJmVsAgBFofRY5gu64l0iIcVfImW8ZjpfJkqZ4aIvplngJcqMidLnnGjfpC625e624k+kY miH3exRJgpD4k33pgi15fJTpm8CZmZIplL/JiL1pi3o5nD9olf8nWKVpnFPZjTkpGLeHgcJBlY05lyup WSkImugjk17weY9Iabb5mMIZnbkpfttXmzyIXJ/5kXJmjqLXndaYgA/3d4H3GPqJ/3TX6Z3Z+XjM15zb iZ0QFIHveUikxYK7iJ5zqZsIl6APeki7CKHp2ZRIKXwSiH0HOop8Byvvhzs2OZ05s5zMuXywpaDsqJYV CqACAY0kwY9qR5TrSKDJeHAwepDdc0b8o47jCYp1WUA62o5BaoBv2D/Yk4FF5y4QYjcr+nk3mpUyaqBN 16BU2gVBCp6WJKT2eZ4kOXIsuJGpNp6fgkU7yqPKCZ/OeKA5ynLZU5zWFTIJ+TawyZ/8MIh3GYNgCokz +nP5d5YC4XjGYkD9kgwB9J3Ux0CAOqiFuj9lmpIIBEAi0KiMiqXzI6kMJECUaj6UaqmcukCLmj+GqgEN FD774/+oiTqooVpvqrqqrNqqrvqqsBqrsjqr2UYAtnqrtkqruppDuNoAuPqrubqrwgpDwOqrwFqsw5qs KvSrEnCsyKqs0FpCvyoAzgqshxqt2PpA01qt05qp2fqtEMStzlqoAAAAE1Cu5RoC6Xqu6Gqu4PquTyCu 1hpA7SoB7uquHnCv57qv8NqvTCCvuOo++NoA5qqv+UoBBkuw/rqwSQCwtno+64qwCbsBA2uvEVuxDJux QQCwEMsBGHsBH2uv/KqxJCsEfXGrpxGxGhCyCHuwJfuyP6BAp8CyFvCx61qw7RqyNAuzPAsD1aotO1uz A3uvE6uzQduzSHsCDrsbKkuwQ1v/r/w6tCI7siCbtFbbAg4brBibsPhasU2rsFK7skd7tWSLAVmLq1vb sgo7tWwrtGpLsWUbtyBwtmi7tmnbtVRbtXmbAWMrt2RLtwGbrka7r18Lty7rt4hLAdxKreIqAIULsn37 tny7tolbuY0rr976uB67s5pbuX97rGmBuZt7Ap0buZ77suMaF4v7FJ37AeiKAaZ7uiQLul8RsMb6s3wb u2ILtZQru3GbutTKuATQrD8LDK1LAjm7t75rtcA7vFkbOsdbAryru8vbr817uxzrCtFLunhbvZ+busS7 tLQguNRLsRfrvd9LuxPwvLfAuylAvt2Lvkkrr5Ihvu3buyiQ/7Px6wQKIL+12riKm716qwKvWwHl2wMH MAD+W20cG6zYW7wXu735arNSoAC2qsALHG0N7MCY67hdK8EdULgH3AMDcKsYfAMMkMIqXAEpnAEqvMIW 8MItTAEzHMMMoAE1zMI3PAEyLMM83MM7bMNAHMQ6PMQ5/MMv/AFHXMRAfAFJLMQ+DMU2vAEwLMQY0MNO 3MRQjMU8kLooe6vr27hf8cFbq7/sqr8fDLkF7AQJgKsnLANGHMRLjMRVLAFx/MNZTMVETMNEfMd2PMRZ DMiBbMRMHMUcMMd0zMVMPMiGTMdTjMN1jMRb/MR8rMWVbMk64MUPi7Ki0MGOe8ZCm7wWi//G7KrGIBwE CPCrb+wCkVzFiIzHRRzLf/zIkHzFfbzHtPzHuPzKh4zLklzJHcDLvLzIudwArUzJswzJS4zMxnzExyzL sDwEzUsAwgsWnkzGoTy9aEzG27zGT2AAwLrKKhDJPBzNtgzNLGzOzRzMvrzO6lzM7szHJYDI5NzM7SzP LnzPOpzM+NzPs+zM+rzOzhzP9hzI/szPCL2x4EvNuVq71wzKBmzGoyzRTtvN3sy/zpoALTDMCV3MHE3Q H03Q/jzMy7zLAV3LeXzOeozSvdzRJb3PdUzSN5zDLUzT92zTHn3SObC4CdQ+9ovNES3KFU3RFu2+IaAA A5DUSr3UTN3/1E791FDdxhk9zjot0rkc0jUc0laN0DINz1oNz1t90GD9zir90vuMzzhdyzid1QHN1jld BOL6KWcLFl6bzWvczWdc1CUg1YDb14Cr0SeA1W19yx4ww18dxzYtyFZd0orN0mJ91vmszJgM0nts1rDs yoOdzIYtx5nt0pVNyF0c131N1wZs1xFMyhNt0Xvt16wNuP07z1Xd1WSdx19tz6Cty5YM0IzcyJE91rP9 27atyFz92ZAdzW6N0pvNz7It0ow92TiAuYCLFnUd1NqM2kOt2iTA16293dWKAK8N24Xd2R1ty8y80ik9 3pdc3ujNzuet0r3t3o4N0MJtzsnN0pR8/9zv3djAHdrcHbCkLbmpLcFFfdEgMAAGcOAInuAKvuAM3uAO XgDd/d0mINjmvd6xXM/wPdKDzduPHd7t/eG+HdZindjqTdkWHs/3zdkV7twnvgP93a1jXNrUTeC5O+BT AM7A6t0rQOHxHduc7ePwvdxhXduPLeQg3uHp3chpXdwCLd4mfuL4vdVEXgMv/rB0bd15TeOwO+AjvAOp /Ks6vtE6beQfndjs3d5k7stTjt6vzNHCfNJ+nNCW/c9OvuQibueLXdWZ3N9psc2m3bdc3uU5UMK4Guas TM/7Ld9XrM4Y3uF4ntMmDd4GbcUVfuSOruLAPOKNbuFmTulyrttIwP/dbuHnMy7gXA4FhG6rhg4Dx4zp 7/3LsM7Yla7hs17QSN7S5I3Orx7iQ+7qsJ7nRs7krc7ktt7iPiC8dNsXeF3qgH7qGK3qEg7Ht33H8x3n c7zp9HzLin3tJD7fGV7IJT7JT2zt7Rzlsa7mwa7pzs3tP87iPIAW2avsgT7v9E7RTADOq14Dk03tHL7v 5d7m/57kKZ7ruO3tlp7kSgzafvzmbF7fuh7i2a7eEV/wHH7sMpsYem3K9e7sTIAA+Z7B1nbx0o3lWb7x 9d4EChDtIL9tBETqf27y9E5BiD3zNF/zNn/zOJ/zOr/zPN/zPv/zQB/0Ow8FHM/sMB/zK1+5RW9w9Ee/ 9Ekft06v8U2f8U/vt/MuvVNv1FVPtie/Aia/9VZ/9CwQ6GAvt1mv9SNA9WV/tWdP8iKw7GvP9m3v8m/v 9nHPs3MP93Uv1HePtHmv9+rK932P939v9xOM9oOf+Iq/+Izf+I7/+JAf+ZI/+RsQAQAh/mFzdXh0bW91 emFnbnJqc3FhcGhiaGVzc3lqYnF6bHNsa213Znh6b2xnc2tyb3RhdnZucXV4ADt= --------------060401070801080402010007-- From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 12 21:30:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:30:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4b09a$44d1aa60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > WILLIAM SCHODER > To Sven in particular. Sorry, I did not completely=20 > understand your problem with Law 72B1. I assumed=20 > that there was no disagreement that this law does > not establish WHO the offenders/non-offenders are. =20 > It is a tool to be used AFTER the irregularity has=20 > been determined and the owner thereof assigned. Thanks! Both you and Grattan have made this point very clear now. The reason I = have raised the question was that I some time ago in another thread here on = blml have been through a very agitated discussion against a view that I in no = way could accept: Any irregularity needs an offender, and if we cannot = determine by other means who is the offender we can always use L72B1 and judge who = we consider most likely to be the offender from who probably had most to = gain from that irregularity. I feel that my view has received some kind of an official approval! Regards Sven From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 12 23:05:57 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:05:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <200410111444.i9BEi8wc020347@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410111444.i9BEi8wc020347@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <416C5545.9070601@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > Sadly, Steve, you seem to have forgotten the difference. If you play > and drop the HK and the H6 simultaneously, and propose under L58B2 to > play the H6 then the HK is an MPC. > > However, if you play and drop the HK and the H6 simultaneously, and > propose under L58B2 to play the HK then the H6 is an MPC *if* you > intended to play it originally, but is an mPC if you did not. I see what you are thinking, but I don't agree. (What else is new?) You are presumably using L50B, but the way I read it, the phrase in parentheses ("as in playing two cards to a trick") tells us that the H6 will be a mPC regardless of which card was originally intended. That is to say, the player's intent was never to play two cards. Compare the examples where the spot card becomes a MPC: in those, it was the player's intent to play that one card. Didn't BLML have a long thread on this very subject a few years ago? Was there ever a WBFLC minute on the subject? From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 12 23:11:26 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:11:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <200410111537.i9BFbxVI020671@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410111537.i9BFbxVI020671@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <416C568E.5010704@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > The consequence is that I have suggested the procedure to be followed when > during the auction (or play) at a table one of the contestants is discovered > being incorrectly seated is to let them complete the affected board as > started, award the two pairs that thus have no opponents on this board A+, > and restore the correct positions when that board is completed at the table > where the irregularity occurred. Is there some reason not to have the two pairs with no opponents playing each other? Of course you can't do it where there is no board available for them to play, but in a barometer, they should be able to play the same board they are otherwise missing. In other movements, usually there won't be an available board, but in rare cases you might find one. If boards are duplicated across sections, you might be able to borrow the one they are missing. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 12 23:18:33 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:18:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <200410111547.i9BFlLW6020764@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410111547.i9BFlLW6020764@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <416C5839.5090602@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > I do not see how acting in accordance with the Laws > of Bridge can be a conduct offence. The Proprieties > of the Laws of Bridge *define* what is (and is not) > a conduct offence. We know the Proprieties are not a complete list of conduct offenses, or at least they aren't very specific. For example, I think most of us agree that loud arguments or abuse are conduct offenses, but you won't find those things specifically mentioned in the Laws. We can, of course, use L74A1 or A2, but most SO's spell out the prohibition and penalty explicitly. Similarly, filing frivolous appeals violates L74A2. SO's may spell out the criteria for frivolous appeals and how they will be penalized. > If an unsporting player appeals, and bamboozles an AC > into reversing a TD's ruling in their favour, how can > the unsporting player's *successful* appeal be deemed > to be a *frivolous* appeal? This is up to the C&E committee to decide, should the situation arise. The fact that the appeal was successful would no doubt provide what the lawyers call a "meritorious defense," but that isn't the same thing as saying it's an automatic win. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 12 23:32:30 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:32:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200410121355.i9CDtMJr011059@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410121355.i9CDtMJr011059@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <416C5B7E.1020002@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Bruce McIntyre > If matters such as this are for the sponsoring organization to decide, > the next question becomes: how do we define sponsoring organization? In ACBL territory, clubs are the SO for their own games, and the ACBL is the SO for tournaments. The latter include "Sectional Tournaments at Clubs" and similar events. There are a (very) few regulations of the form "Every ACBL sanctioned club must...," but except for those, clubs are free to decide everything for themselves. This includes convention card rules, alert rules, convention regulations, scoring, etc. In practice, most clubs adopt the ACBL rules, but there is nothing other than customer satisfaction requiring them to do so. For tournaments, the ACBL as SO delegates some but not all its authority to the local tournament committee. For example, the TC cannot change the alert rules or convention card rules, but it can decide the event starting times and the flight breakpoints. One exception to the above is that the USBF is the SO for international qualifying events. In practice, they adopt the ACBL rules, but I don't believe they are required to do so. And of course non-ACBL clubs (such as ABA clubs or non-affiliated clubs) can ignore most of the ACBL rules completely. They are supposed to accept the Zonal options, but in practice, there is nothing that could be done if they refuse. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 12 23:36:58 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:36:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: <200410121402.i9CE2TBo011126@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410121402.i9CE2TBo011126@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <416C5C8A.4040202@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > ... but if I were a cheat and > wanted to cause problems for opponents it is one of the things I could > do. Revoke, and then correct it (knowing I'm not paying out to the > penalty card). It causes horrendous problems for the opponents. Huh? Could you explain further? Why should an unestablished revoke cause the opponents any problem? As to Sven's problem, I don't think anyone ever suggested using L72B1 to decide whether an irregularity had occurred or who was responsible. The suggestion in the earlier thread was to use it _after_ you decided who was the most likely culprit in fouling the board. The difference of opinion was solely over how much evidence was needed to rule against a particular player or side. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 01:12:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:12:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <416C5839.5090602@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >We know the Proprieties are not a complete list of >conduct offenses, or at least they aren't very >specific. For example, I think most of us agree >that loud arguments or abuse are conduct offenses, >but you won't find those things specifically >mentioned in the Laws. We can, of course, use L74A1 >or A2, but most SO's spell out the prohibition and >penalty explicitly. [snip] RJH: In my opinion, there is a huge theoretical and practical gulf between these two propositions: (a) The Proprieties are not a complete list of conduct offences, so a player who has fully complied with the Law might be penalised for misconduct, such as "unsportingly" (but successfully) appealing. An example of such a successful "unsporting" appeal occurred in the ACBL some years ago when the Kantar- Sontag partnership exploited a technicality in the ACBL Alert regulation. But while the ACBL is oft a foolish organisation, it was not idiotic enough to penalise Kantar-Sontag for their competitiveness in trying to win within the ACBL's own mandated framework of regulations. or (b) An SO may add preferred locally specific detail clarifying the application and enforcement of The Proprieties. If I was TD, I do not need a clarifying SO regulation to rule that "loud arguments or abuse" are an infraction of The Proprieties. In my opinion, Law 74A1, "A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times" is sufficiently explicit. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 13 01:48:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: <000601c4b09a$44d1aa60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Both you and Grattan have made this point very clear now. The reason I > have raised the question was that I some time ago in another thread here > on blml have been through a very agitated discussion against a view that > I in no way could accept: Any irregularity needs an offender, and This is, of course, the absolute truth. If there is an I there is an O - and contrariwise. > if we cannot determine by other means who is the offender we can always > use L72B1 and judge who we consider most likely to be the offender from This is, of course, garbage. We do not use this (or any other) law to judge who is an offender - we use judgment modulated probability theory. Having come to an independent judgement as to the most likely offender (ie the F***ing cheat who turned one of his cards over in the box after getting a bad score in a team game) we can THEN use L27b1 to adjust against the "0.2% innocent" party. And yes Sven, I accept that Norwegian players are the model of purity and innocence and I will never have to rule this way against them. Other Europeans are all too likely to have voted for subservience and deserve whatever they get. Tim From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 13 02:53:40 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:53:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: <416C5C8A.4040202@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410121402.i9CE2TBo011126@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <416C5C8A.4040202@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <416C5C8A.4040202@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> ... but if I were a cheat and >> wanted to cause problems for opponents it is one of the things I could >> do. Revoke, and then correct it (knowing I'm not paying out to the >> penalty card). It causes horrendous problems for the opponents. > >Huh? Could you explain further? Why should an unestablished revoke >cause the opponents any problem? I'm happily playing 4H on a 4-4 fit and cheating RHO shows out (discarding a diamond from 3 small) when I lead from dummy winning in hand giving the impression of a 4-1 break. So I now count the hand. I lead another card from hand and he says "Oh dear I've revoked" before his partner plays. "Pigs!" NYPD etc chaos. He then wins the previous trick and plays the small diamond. Now count the hand. > >As to Sven's problem, I don't think anyone ever suggested using L72B1 to >decide whether an irregularity had occurred or who was responsible. The >suggestion in the earlier thread was to use it _after_ you decided who >was the most likely culprit in fouling the board. The difference of >opinion was solely over how much evidence was needed to rule against a >particular player or side. > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 13 02:59:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:59:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <416C568E.5010704@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410111537.i9BFbxVI020671@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <416C568E.5010704@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <416C568E.5010704@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Sven Pran" >> The consequence is that I have suggested the procedure to be followed when >> during the auction (or play) at a table one of the contestants is discovered >> being incorrectly seated is to let them complete the affected board as >> started, award the two pairs that thus have no opponents on this board A+, >> and restore the correct positions when that board is completed at the table >> where the irregularity occurred. > >Is there some reason not to have the two pairs with no opponents playing >each other? Of course you can't do it where there is no board available >for them to play, but in a barometer, they should be able to play the >same board they are otherwise missing. In other movements, usually >there won't be an available board, but in rare cases you might find one. > If boards are duplicated across sections, you might be able to >borrow the one they are missing. 81C4? john > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 03:46:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:46:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven's thesis: >>Of course how you call can depend on many factors. I >>fail to see your point: Do you with this example claim >>that "who is your partner" is part of the auction? Tim's antithesis: >Of course not. But it is clear that the *ANSWER* will >affect the meaning of the next bid. This despite the >playing of the same system. RJH's synthesis: What is an auction? What is a system? As I noted earlier in this thread, the Laws define an auction as a *process* of determining the contract. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >>process, n. State of going on or being carried on, >>series of connected actions or changes Therefore, Sven's thesis that Law 16 future constraints on an auction are not part of the process of contract determination seems to me to be a false reading of the definition of "auction" in Chapter 1 of the Laws. (Perhaps because English is a second language for Sven.) On the other hand, I believe that Tim's antithesis is a misreading of the definition of *system* (or, to use the Lawful descriptions of system, "Partnership Agreements" and "Partnership Understandings"). In my opinion, the same system may be common to several partnerships. But, if one partner's range of logical alternatives are different to another partner's range of logical alternatives, then the two partnerships are *not* playing the same system. That is, in my opinion, Tim's argument that "who is your partner?" could be a Law 15C criterion when "what is your system?" is *not* a Law 15C criterion, is a paradox because it is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, with my regular partner Dorothy Jesner I do *not* write the name "Acol" at the top of my system card. Rather, the description "Dorothy Acol" appears. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 06:19:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:19:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: <000601c4b09a$44d1aa60$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven refuses to accept: [snip] >a view that I in no way could accept: Any irregularity needs an >offender, and if we cannot determine by other means who is the >offender we can always use L72B1 and judge who we consider most >likely to be the offender from who probably had most to gain >from that irregularity. > >I feel that my view has received some kind of an official >approval! RJH yes-and-no: Yes, Law 72B1 does not determine whether an irregularity has occurred. Yes, Law 72B1 merely states that there may be additional rectification of damage caused by an irregularity above and beyond the normally prescribed penalty for an irregularity. No, I do not agree that the officially approved interpretation of Law 72B1 *necessarily* supports Sven's laissez-faire attitude to deciding who caused an irregularity. Rather, as TD I use Law 85B to determine any ambiguity about who caused an irregularity. In my opinion, the criterion for the exercising of a ruling under Law 85B is the civil law principle of "balance of probabilities", not the criminal law principle of "beyond reasonable doubt". In my opinion, the question "Cui bono?" (Who benefits?) should definitely be one of the factors weighed in the balance, when determining whether or not a team which gained 13 imps on a fouled board was the offending side. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 13 06:57:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:57:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <416C5545.9070601@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >You are presumably using L50B, but the way I read >it, the phrase in parentheses ("as in playing two >cards to a trick") tells us that the H6 will be a >mPC regardless of which card was originally >intended. That is to say, the player's intent was >never to play two cards. Compare the examples >where the spot card becomes a MPC: in those, it >was the player's intent to play that one card. > >Didn't BLML have a long thread on this very >subject a few years ago? > >Was there ever a WBFLC minute on the subject? RJH: According to the EBU White Book, the WBF has not yet issued a formal interpretation of Law 58B2. However, a WBF interpretation of Law 51 may shed some light. WBFLC minutes 12 January 2000, item 7: >>Law 51 (Two Penalty Cards) >> >>This Law defines what to do with two [or more] >>penalty cards but the relevant parts of Law 50 >>still apply. RJH: This minute states: (a) Law 51 is used *before* proceeding to Law 50. (b) Only the *relevant* parts of Law 50 apply. By analogy, it seems that the argument of David Stevenson - stating Law 50B overrides Law 58B2 - is untenable. I join Steve Willner in arguing that: (c) Law 58B2 is used *before* proceeding to Law 50B. (d) Only the *relevant* parts of Law 50B apply. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From herman.dewael@antwerpen.be Wed Oct 13 08:13:58 2004 From: herman.dewael@antwerpen.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:13:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: References: <200410111537.i9BFbxVI020671@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <416C568E.5010704@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <416CD5B6.8010008@antwerpen.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>Is there some reason not to have the two pairs with no opponents playing >>each other? Of course you can't do it where there is no board available >>for them to play, but in a barometer, they should be able to play the >>same board they are otherwise missing. In other movements, usually >>there won't be an available board, but in rare cases you might find one. >> If boards are duplicated across sections, you might be able to >>borrow the one they are missing. > > > 81C4? john > 5B! herman -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 09:00:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:00:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <416C568E.5010704@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000101c4b0fa$af5ee180$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ............. > Is there some reason not to have the two pairs with no opponents = playing > each other? =20 My original idea included just that, but yes, there are several reasons against it so I dropped the idea. IMO the most important reasons are: A formal: Nobody should be forced against their will to play a round or = part of a round (contrary to schedule) against an opponent whom they have = already met or is scheduled to meet in a later round. A practical: Most computer scoring programs will not have any problem = with my suggested procedure, but having the two pairs without opponents play = each other will probably in many cases complicate things dramatically. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 09:16:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:16:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 72B1 (was Cardiff Ruling 4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4b0fc$fc7dda50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ............. > Having come to an independent judgement as to the most likely offender = (ie > the F***ing cheat who turned one of his cards over in the box after > getting a bad score in a team game) we can THEN use L27b1 to adjust > against the "0.2% innocent" party. There is one question that keeps nagging me whenever I see the argument = of a cheat who (probably) have turned one (or more) of his cards over when returning them to the box: How do players outside Norway remove their cards from the box and count = them to verify that they have exactly 13? I have countless experiences of finding "boxed" cards (yes, I learned an expression I have never heard before during my 55 years with bridge!), = but I have yet to experience any situation where a boxed card will jeopardize = the board. The way we handle the cards it appears that we automatically take care = not to have any possibly boxed cards becoming exposed should there be any.=20 No problem!=20 =20 > And yes Sven, I accept that Norwegian players are the model of purity = and > innocence and I will never have to rule this way against them. Other > Europeans are all too likely to have voted for subservience and = deserve > whatever they get. Thanks. It is a fact that we do not feel na=EFve as Directors; our = communities are so small and transparent that we feel pretty confident any cheat = will be revealed, maybe not the first time but certainly within very few = attempts simply because of too much unexplainable success. We just do not accept = the word "cheat" used in any complaint or discussion without solid evidence. = Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 09:25:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:25:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c4b0fe$35ebbcc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........... > What is an auction? > What is a system? >=20 > As I noted earlier in this thread, the Laws define an > auction as a *process* of determining the contract. No, this is incorrect. You left out the most important part of the definition - the words: "by means of successive calls" > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >=20 > >>process, n. State of going on or being carried on, > >>series of connected actions or changes >=20 > Therefore, Sven's thesis that Law 16 future constraints > on an auction are not part of the process of contract > determination seems to me to be a false reading of the > definition of "auction" in Chapter 1 of the Laws. > (Perhaps because English is a second language for Sven.) I don't think so: I believe my English is good enough to understand perfectly well the following definition exactly as it is intended: "The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls". There is no room here for anything else than calls to be part of an = auction. Sven From herman.dewael@antwerpen.be Wed Oct 13 09:35:49 2004 From: herman.dewael@antwerpen.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:35:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <000101c4b0fa$af5ee180$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c4b0fa$af5ee180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <416CE8E5.7060807@antwerpen.be> Well Sven, you might be mistaken here: Sven Pran wrote: >>Steve Willner > > ............. > >>Is there some reason not to have the two pairs with no opponents playing >>each other? > > > My original idea included just that, but yes, there are several reasons > against it so I dropped the idea. IMO the most important reasons are: > > A formal: Nobody should be forced against their will to play a round or part > of a round (contrary to schedule) against an opponent whom they have already > met or is scheduled to meet in a later round. > Well, I happen to have remarked that most players prefer it when they get to play all the boards, regardless against whom. Moreover, they appreciate it when you take the time to figure out how, when and where they get to play that missing board. > A practical: Most computer scoring programs will not have any problem with > my suggested procedure, but having the two pairs without opponents play each > other will probably in many cases complicate things dramatically. > There too, you might be wrong. Typically, the intervention needed is one of changing A-D and C-B into A-B. So what do you do with D and C? What you typically do is also create a line that has C and D on it. Don't forget that you will need a line to input their Av+ if you don't have them play, so it's no extra work on the computer to have them play the board as well! > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 09:58:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:58:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <416CE8E5.7060807@antwerpen.be> Message-ID: <000401c4b102$d1f71b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ................... > > A practical: Most computer scoring programs will=20 > > not have any problem with my suggested procedure, > > but having the two pairs without opponents play > > each other will probably in many cases complicate > > things dramatically. > > >=20 > There too, you might be wrong. Typically, the intervention needed is > one of changing A-D and C-B into A-B. So what do you do with D and C? > What you typically do is also create a line that has C and D on it. > Don't forget that you will need a line to input their Av+ if you don't > have them play, so it's no extra work on the computer to have them > play the board as well! The problem is the definition of a round: "A part of a session played without progression of players". As a consequence computer scoring = programs need not have any provision for different pair combinations at a table during a single round and I doubt if any of them has. My suggestion results in the following procedure when entering the = results for pairs A-D at table X and C-B at table Y: For both tables the result on the board played by A-B is entered; then = at table X the score for C is overridden to A+, the same is done for D at = table Y. Sven From herman.dewael@antwerpen.be Wed Oct 13 10:32:11 2004 From: herman.dewael@antwerpen.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:32:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <000401c4b102$d1f71b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4b102$d1f71b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <416CF61B.4020302@antwerpen.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ................... > >>>A practical: Most computer scoring programs will >>>not have any problem with my suggested procedure, >>>but having the two pairs without opponents play >>>each other will probably in many cases complicate >>>things dramatically. >>> >> >>There too, you might be wrong. Typically, the intervention needed is >>one of changing A-D and C-B into A-B. So what do you do with D and C? >>What you typically do is also create a line that has C and D on it. >>Don't forget that you will need a line to input their Av+ if you don't >>have them play, so it's no extra work on the computer to have them >>play the board as well! > > > The problem is the definition of a round: "A part of a session played > without progression of players". As a consequence computer scoring programs > need not have any provision for different pair combinations at a table > during a single round and I doubt if any of them has. > I have not a single idea as to how the definition of a round can influence the entering of scores in a computer program. > My suggestion results in the following procedure when entering the results > for pairs A-D at table X and C-B at table Y: > > For both tables the result on the board played by A-B is entered; then at > table X the score for C is overridden to A+, the same is done for D at table > Y. > So you enter ths score for A-B twice? Are you certain the software recognises that this is just a single score? Now Sven, I was merely commenting on your assertion that "most" computer programs won't know how to deal with this. I have no knowledge of "most" but I do know of one program who takes the far easier route of changing the pair numbers. Anyway, you should agree that it is just as easy to enter Av+ for pairs C and D than +620. And if your software is totally unable to support the solution you yourself used to employ up till recently - then change the software, not your solution, I'd say! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt@T-Online.de Wed Oct 13 10:33:00 2004 From: PeterEidt@T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: 13 Oct 2004 09:33 GMT Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 3 Message-ID: <1CHfVh-0xOq120@fwd09.sul.t-online.com> Dear Sven, Sven Pran suggested: > > Herman De Wael > ................... > > > A practical: Most computer scoring programs will=20 > > > not have any problem with my suggested procedure, > > > but having the two pairs without opponents play > > > each other will probably in many cases complicate > > > things dramatically. > > > > >=20 > > There too, you might be wrong. Typically, the intervention needed is > > one of changing A-D and C-B into A-B. So what do you do with D and C? > > What you typically do is also create a line that has C and D on it. > > Don't forget that you will need a line to input their Av+ if you don't > > have them play, so it's no extra work on the computer to have them > > play the board as well! >=20 > The problem is the definition of a round: "A part of a session played > without progression of players". As a consequence computer scoring progr= ams > need not have any provision for different pair combinations at a table > during a single round and I doubt if any of them has. >=20 > My suggestion results in the following procedure when entering the result= s > for pairs A-D at table X and C-B at table Y: >=20 > For both tables the result on the board played by A-B is entered; then at > table X the score for C is overridden to A+, the same is done for D at ta= ble > Y. >=20 > Sven oh no, please ... when a scoring program does't allow the change of pairs in a calculated movement then this program ist IMHO deficient. May be your suggested method works when all pairs stay in their prescribed compass direction, but assume a movement with some arrow switching where you now have the calculated Movement A-D (at X) and B-C (at Y)?=20 Or assume that not only A play erroneous against B but at the same time C plays erroneous against D (because there were only 2 chairs left unoccupied)? Or you have a (very) late pair (say 2 rounds late) and you decide to let them play in your tournement as a rover pair? Every good scoring program that can deal with split-scores (as you suggested) should be able to deal with pairs that differ from the calculated movement. regards Peter Eidt Germany From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 10:53:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:53:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <416CF61B.4020302@antwerpen.be> Message-ID: <000501c4b10a$7e9379c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > ................... > > > >>>A practical: Most computer scoring programs will > >>>not have any problem with my suggested procedure, > >>>but having the two pairs without opponents play > >>>each other will probably in many cases complicate > >>>things dramatically. > >>> > >> > >>There too, you might be wrong. Typically, the intervention needed is > >>one of changing A-D and C-B into A-B. So what do you do with D and C? > >>What you typically do is also create a line that has C and D on it. > >>Don't forget that you will need a line to input their Av+ if you don't > >>have them play, so it's no extra work on the computer to have them > >>play the board as well! > > > > > > The problem is the definition of a round: "A part of a session played > > without progression of players". As a consequence computer scoring > programs > > need not have any provision for different pair combinations at a table > > during a single round and I doubt if any of them has. > > > > I have not a single idea as to how the definition of a round can > influence the entering of scores in a computer program. Because the scoring program does not need (and should not have) provisions for changing the pair numbers at a table within a single round other than exchanging the directions when needed. > > My suggestion results in the following procedure when entering the > results > > for pairs A-D at table X and C-B at table Y: > > > > For both tables the result on the board played by A-B is entered; then > at > > table X the score for C is overridden to A+, the same is done for D at > table > > Y. > > > > So you enter ths score for A-B twice? Are you certain the software > recognises that this is just a single score? Yes I do, and I am fully aware of the inaccuracy caused by the same score being registered twice. However I consider this a very minor inconvenience compared to the alternatives. Because of using Neuberg's formula it will amount to less than a matchpoint error for all affected players. > > Now Sven, I was merely commenting on your assertion that "most" > computer programs won't know how to deal with this. I have no > knowledge of "most" but I do know of one program who takes the far > easier route of changing the pair numbers. > Anyway, you should agree that it is just as easy to enter Av+ for > pairs C and D than +620. Sure it is, but I don't see your point. > And if your software is totally unable to support the solution you > yourself used to employ up till recently - then change the software, > not your solution, I'd say! Sure our software is able to handle the procedure we have been following until now. The major point is that this procedure is illegal! Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 11:00:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:00:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <1CHfVh-0xOq120@fwd09.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <000601c4b10b$85e069d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Peter Eidt ............. > oh no, please ... > > when a scoring program does't allow the change of pairs in a calculated > movement then this program ist IMHO deficient. May be your suggested > method works when all pairs stay in their prescribed compass direction, > but assume a movement with some arrow switching where you now have the > calculated Movement A-D (at X) and B-C (at Y)? > Or assume that not only A play erroneous against B but at the same time > C plays erroneous against D (because there were only 2 chairs left > unoccupied)? > Or you have a (very) late pair (say 2 rounds late) and you decide to > let them play in your tournement as a rover pair? > > Every good scoring program that can deal with split-scores (as you > suggested) should be able to deal with pairs that differ from the > calculated movement. I have not said that the scoring program cannot handle this, and in fact when incorrect pairs are seated at a table during the whole round there is no problem at all. But when you change the pairs at a table in the middle of a round then it takes some tricky activity to register the results. But please remember that we are discussing irregularities in barometer events, this discussion is completely irrelevant for Howell, Mitchell and any other possible event type where not every table play exactly the same boards during the same round. Sven From herman.dewael@antwerpen.be Wed Oct 13 11:43:10 2004 From: herman.dewael@antwerpen.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:43:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <000601c4b10b$85e069d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4b10b$85e069d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <416D06BE.2020706@antwerpen.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Peter Eidt > > ............. > >>oh no, please ... >> >>when a scoring program does't allow the change of pairs in a calculated >>movement then this program ist IMHO deficient. May be your suggested >>method works when all pairs stay in their prescribed compass direction, >>but assume a movement with some arrow switching where you now have the >>calculated Movement A-D (at X) and B-C (at Y)? >>Or assume that not only A play erroneous against B but at the same time >>C plays erroneous against D (because there were only 2 chairs left >>unoccupied)? >>Or you have a (very) late pair (say 2 rounds late) and you decide to >>let them play in your tournement as a rover pair? >> >>Every good scoring program that can deal with split-scores (as you >>suggested) should be able to deal with pairs that differ from the >>calculated movement. > > > I have not said that the scoring program cannot handle this, and in fact > when incorrect pairs are seated at a table during the whole round there is > no problem at all. > so, your program is only mildly inadequate! > But when you change the pairs at a table in the middle of a round then it > takes some tricky activity to register the results. > > But please remember that we are discussing irregularities in barometer > events, this discussion is completely irrelevant for Howell, Mitchell and > any other possible event type where not every table play exactly the same > boards during the same round. > No Sven, we are not. We are discussing computer programs and it should not matter whether this occurs in a barometer or a howell. After all, the same thing can occur in a Howell as well. No, I don't mean you have an option there, but it stille happens. If the board has been played (or if it is discovered during play) then you have this occurence. So our discussion is also active there. And Peter is right in saying that your program should be able to deal with this. And if it is not, then this is not worthy of discussion on blml. One faulty program should not influence the way this problem is treated in general. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From herman.dewael@antwerpen.be Wed Oct 13 11:45:27 2004 From: herman.dewael@antwerpen.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:45:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <000501c4b10a$7e9379c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c4b10a$7e9379c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <416D0747.5030602@antwerpen.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Because the scoring program does not need (and should not have) provisions > for changing the pair numbers at a table within a single round other than > exchanging the directions when needed. > As I said in another post, yes it should. When the board has been completed, you need to enter those results. >> >>So you enter ths score for A-B twice? Are you certain the software >>recognises that this is just a single score? > > > Yes I do, and I am fully aware of the inaccuracy caused by the same score > being registered twice. However I consider this a very minor inconvenience > compared to the alternatives. Because of using Neuberg's formula it will > amount to less than a matchpoint error for all affected players. > Yet again a fault in your program - why are we having this discussion? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 13 11:50:47 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:50:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 References: <000101c4b0fa$af5ee180$6900a8c0@WINXP> <416CE8E5.7060807@antwerpen.be> Message-ID: <002a01c4b112$7f5c4e60$12330952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 > > Well, I happen to have remarked that most players prefer it when they get > to play all the boards, regardless against whom. Moreover, they appreciate > it when you take the time to figure out how, when and where they get to > play that missing board. > As I said once before Herman - what you believe to be the case is evidently wrong. All the platers involved in Cardiff tried one way or another to get you to assign A+ on the board. (1NT is not the same as 1NT - can I open 7NT etc) > ALSO (and general - not to Herman specifically cos I know he can do these things) As Sven points out - the software should never be a problem - TDs should rule according to the Law and not the software. If it doesn't cope with your requirements you should score it by hand, and if a TD isn't capable of doing this she should have declined the employment of course.. Anne From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 13 12:52:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > > What I am > > really saying is that the "Auction" is the totality of calls, pauses, > > meanings, inferences etc that go to making me decide how to play the > > hand. > > The Law Book defines it as: > > Auction > 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive > calls. > 2. The aggregate of calls made Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts? I see nothing in the above definitions which excludes (or includes) tempo breaks and the meaning of calls from "the auction". It seems implicit in Law20 that the meaning is part of the auction (i.e. requests for an explanation of the auction get the meaning explained). Alerts must be included in any review so there seems some evidence that those too are part of the auction. I often hear people discussing bidding decisions use terms like "slow pass", "fast double". Whether such things are AI or UI will depend on who did them but to me there is no benefit in saying they are not part of the auction. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 13 12:52:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > > Sven's thesis: > > >>Of course how you call can depend on many factors. I > >>fail to see your point: Do you with this example claim > >>that "who is your partner" is part of the auction? > > Tim's antithesis: > > >Of course not. But it is clear that the *ANSWER* will > >affect the meaning of the next bid. This despite the > >playing of the same system. > > RJH's synthesis: > > What is an auction? > What is a system? > > As I noted earlier in this thread, the Laws define an > auction as a *process* of determining the contract. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > >>process, n. State of going on or being carried on, > >>series of connected actions or changes > > Therefore, Sven's thesis that Law 16 future constraints > on an auction are not part of the process of contract > determination seems to me to be a false reading of the > definition of "auction" in Chapter 1 of the Laws. > (Perhaps because English is a second language for Sven.) > > On the other hand, I believe that Tim's antithesis is a > misreading of the definition of *system* (or, to use the > Lawful descriptions of system, "Partnership Agreements" > and "Partnership Understandings"). Semantic note (based on Law40E). "System" excludes style and judgement (which are nevertheless disclosable) and is thus a narrower term than the totality of partnership understandings. I note that although "system" is used as a lawful term it is not defined. > In my opinion, the same system may be common to several > partnerships. But, if one partner's range of logical > alternatives are different to another partner's range of > logical alternatives, then the two partnerships are *not* > playing the same system. See above. > That is, in my opinion, Tim's argument that "who is your > partner?" could be a Law 15C criterion when "what is > your system?" is *not* a Law 15C criterion, is a paradox > because it is a contradiction in terms. That was not my argument. I believe that "who is your partner" could be a law15C criterion *in addition* to "what is your system?". By way of example: Tim is partnering Brian while Seb is playing with Steve. The auction goes 1D-(P)-1S-(p)-2C-(P)-2H-(X)-XX... In the original auction Tim XXed, in the replacement auction it was Seb. David (the opponent who passsed throughout) now knows that Seb is near maximum for his calls and quite probably 0454 because Tim would have to be insane to risk Brian playing a possibly fragile 2Hxx. Now I don't really care if we say that different systems are being used (although I'm not convinced). But I am sure that David has more information that he is entitled to and that the board should not be played. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 13:17:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:17:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c4b11e$97eb4510$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ................ > By way of example: Tim is partnering Brian while Seb is playing with > Steve. The auction goes 1D-(P)-1S-(p)-2C-(P)-2H-(X)-XX... > In the original auction Tim XXed, in the replacement auction it was Seb. > David (the opponent who passsed throughout) now knows that Seb is > near maximum for his calls and quite probably 0454 because Tim would have > to be insane to risk Brian playing a possibly fragile 2Hxx. > > Now I don't really care if we say that different systems are being > used (although I'm not convinced). But I am sure that David has more > information that he is entitled to and that the board should not be > played. Or that the board should be played because of identical auctions but that the Director should afterwards (at least if asked) give a ruling on whether Law 16B has been violated resulting in damage to opponents. With your logic you will always be able to find reasons why a board should not be played according to Law 15C. Do you really support the suggestion raised some time ago that Law 15C serves no purpose at all? Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 13:16:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:16:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 5 In-Reply-To: <000d01c4afdb$0d13b330$3006e150@multivisionoem> References: <415A6FEA.4090809@hdw.be> <000a01c4aead$afa57d10$f3d8403e@multivisionoem> <41690E57.5040705@hdw.be> <006901c4aefe$51acecb0$79a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000d01c4af5e$dc339090$7d9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000d01c4afdb$0d13b330$3006e150@multivisionoem> Message-ID: wrote > >Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. >".Like all young men, you greatly >exaggerate the difference between >one young woman and another." > [G. B. Shaw] >******************************************** >> >+=+ In order to cancel the Director must perceive the >> >difference. A matter of style or judgement would likely >> >not be within his perception, I believe, but if the meaning >> >were 11-13 instead of 12-14 that would be within his >> >perception. >> >> Exactly my point - the TD makes a judgement. >> Yet, in an earlier post, you said the TD should >> not make a judgement. >> >+=+ My dear David, > Do get with it. > No judgement. Solely a decision as to fact. "The Director must perceive the difference" Quote GGE. That is a judgement, not a matter of fact. The next Director along [or AC] may perceive the difference at a different point. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 13:19:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:19:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000301c4aedd$c4dd7630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Sven wrote: > >> Hesitation is NOT part of any auction > >Perhaps this is a function of how you play your bridge. If I am asking >someone "how would you bid my hand" I wouldn't dream of excluding AI from >a hesitation as part of the auction. The person I am consulting needs to >know what info is available. > >Of course I am a somewhat warped individual who also wants to know who my >partner is and who my opps are before offering views on this sort of >question. I understand that "technicians" (hack, spit) pay no attention >to this sort of info. I must admit that this distinction seems >particularly prevalent amongst "money" players. To give an example a >friend asked me and a colleague what do you bid with x,Axx,AKTxx,QTxx >after 1D-(p)-1S-(P)-2C-(p)-2H-(X)-?. Both of us asked, without any real >thought, who is my partner? I was asked last night for my rebid after 1C P 1D with AK Qxxx AK Kxxxx and duly asked the same question. If the player who asked me had said he was I would have bid 1H, but with the actual answer I bid 2NT. Incidentally, at the table a 4H rebid was found ...... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 13 13:21:42 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:21:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Define sponsoring organisation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <70EE891A-1D12-11D9-B4DC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 11, 2004, at 22:54 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > But if an ACBL regulation has a scope which requires all > ACBL players to obey that reg, then any action nullifying > that reg is ultra vires to the local organisation's > powers. Hm.. ACBL General Conditions of Contest: "Conditions of Contest for an event may not be changed at any level of play during the course of that event. Lack of knowledge does not constitute cause for exemption. These conditions apply to all events, and should be posted. There are General Conditions for specific event types that apply and there may be additional specific conditions for specific events. In cases where there is disagreement between these conditions and more specific ones, the more specific conditions will take precedence. Sponsoring organizations may, with ACBL approval only, amend these conditions for a specific event. Such amendments should appear in all printed tournament schedules and be posted prior to the start of event." Is a club game in which ACBL masterpoints may be awarded an "ACBL event"? The ACBL seems to think so, but I suspect if I suggested to any of the club TDs around here that these Conditions of Contest apply in their club games, I'd get at best a "huh?" in reply. From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 13:21:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:21:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >On 12 Oct 2004, at 16:35, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> What I am >> really saying is that the "Auction" is the totality of calls, pauses, >> meanings, inferences etc that go to making me decide how to play the >>hand. > >The Law Book defines it as: > >Auction > 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive >calls. > 2. The aggregate of calls made While the Law book defines it that way it is still an oversimplification since there are limits placed on the calls which can be made, so to determine that two auctions are the same means more than just the aggregate of calls is the same. After all, the law we are discussing says so explicitly. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 13 13:23:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:23:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041012080215.02f21010@pop.starpower.net> References: <200410081930.i98JUg16012493@cfa.harvard.edu> <41674687.4000603@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20041012080215.02f21010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:08 AM 10/9/04, David wrote: > >>Steve Willner wrote >>>>From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >>>>Try "A card is played by detaching it from the hand and placing it face >>>>up etc etc" :) There is the intent. 58B2 just says that the 2nd card, >>>>if small may be a minor penalty card. A cheat will tell you they were >>>>trying to play the honour. An ethical player will tell you they were >>>>trying to play the small one. >>> >>>Why would you ask which one was the intended play? I don't see why >>>intent matters. There's nothing about it in 58B2. And don't forget >>>72A5 and 9B1c. All in all, I think it is quite appropriate for any >>>player who has accidentally exposed two cards to pick the least >>>damaging to play. I certainly would, and I hope that doesn't make me >>>a cheat. I also don't see where bridge lawyers come into anything. >>>Surely you explain all the options per L10C1 before asking the player >>>to choose, don't you? >> >> Sadly, Steve, you seem to have forgotten the difference. If you >>play and drop the HK and the H6 simultaneously, and propose under >>L58B2 to play the H6 then the HK is an MPC. >> >> However, if you play and drop the HK and the H6 simultaneously, and >>propose under L58B2 to play the HK then the H6 is an MPC *if* you >>intended to play it originally, but is an mPC if you did not. As John >>says, a player of limited ethics having heard the options will now say >>that he was always intending to play the HK. > >Steve's point is that there is no ethical issue involved. L58B2 says >that once the position (two cards from hand visible) is reached, the >player "designates the card he proposes to play". There is nothing to >suggest any obligation to "propose" the card he intended to play >originally (before the two cards came out of his hand together), nor >that there's anything inappropriate about choosing to play the other >one after considering the potential L58B2 consequences of both plays. Steve can talk for himself. That's certainly what he said, and when he said "Why would you ask which one was the intended play?" he has forgotten L50. Forget ethics: just apply the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 13:24:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:24:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000901c4af9a$e4271f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4af9a$e4271f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >................. >> Unlike you to read the wrong Law, Grattan. Of course he can pick >> which one: but whether the remaining card is an MPC or an mPC is >> dependent on L50B, not L58. > >Of course. Has anybody claimed anything else in this thread? If so I have >failed to notice it. Then go and re-read the thread, Sven! -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 13 13:24:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:24:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000701c4af99$6c6cc020$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c4af99$6c6cc020$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >.............. >> Now isn't it strange that I, too, can read the Laws? However, unlike >> Richard, I take the trouble to read the *correct* Law. >> >> Try L50B this time. > >Really David, this is not up to your standards? > >Don't you agree that law 58B is the first law to apply when a player somehow >in the process of leading or playing to a trick exposes more than one card >simultaneously? According to this law the player in question must designate >which of the visible cards he selects as the card to play, there is no >question of which card (if any of them) he originally intended to play. > >And only after the player in question has made his choice this law directs >us to Law 50 when the offender is a defender. You cannot bypass Law 58B in >this process. Exactly. Carry on. Time to finish the ruling. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 13:25:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:25:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041012083306.02f356e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041012083306.02f356e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DMRMEGW7RbBFwRg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 07:34 AM 10/11/04, David wrote: > >>>RJH rereads the exact option granted by Law 58B2: >>> >>>Law 58B2 uses the present tense phrase "proposes >>>to play", *not* the past tense phrase "intended >>>to play". >> >> Now isn't it strange that I, too, can read the Laws? However, >>unlike Richard, I take the trouble to read the *correct* Law. >> >> Try L50B this time. > >Doesn't work for me. L58B applies to "two or more cards [led or >played] simultaneously". L50B applies to "a single card... exposed". >They are disjoint, prescribing the establishment of a penalty card >under two different sets of circumstances. It seems obvious to me that >the cross-reference to L50 in L58B pertains to the disposition of the >penalty card once established, not to a second (and possibly >conflicting) set of criteria for establishing it. Let's get this straight. You say that because of something else that happened, L50B does not apply as written, yes? And where does it say 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 13:27:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:27:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <416C5545.9070601@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5TfR4cGb8RbBFwwO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > > > > >Steve Willner: > >[snip] > >>You are presumably using L50B, but the way I read >>it, the phrase in parentheses ("as in playing two >>cards to a trick") tells us that the H6 will be a >>mPC regardless of which card was originally >>intended. That is to say, the player's intent was >>never to play two cards. Compare the examples >>where the spot card becomes a MPC: in those, it >>was the player's intent to play that one card. >> >>Didn't BLML have a long thread on this very >>subject a few years ago? >> >>Was there ever a WBFLC minute on the subject? > >RJH: > >According to the EBU White Book, the WBF has not >yet issued a formal interpretation of Law 58B2. >However, a WBF interpretation of Law 51 may shed >some light. > >WBFLC minutes 12 January 2000, item 7: > >>>Law 51 (Two Penalty Cards) >>> >>>This Law defines what to do with two [or more] >>>penalty cards but the relevant parts of Law 50 >>>still apply. > >RJH: > >This minute states: > >(a) Law 51 is used *before* proceeding to Law 50. >(b) Only the *relevant* parts of Law 50 apply. > >By analogy, it seems that the argument of David >Stevenson - stating Law 50B overrides Law 58B2 - is >untenable. I join Steve Willner in arguing that: > >(c) Law 58B2 is used *before* proceeding to Law 50B. >(d) Only the *relevant* parts of Law 50B apply. The relevant part is the bit which defines an mPC or MPC. Where does it say otherwise? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From HauffHJ@aol.com Tue Oct 12 18:34:49 2004 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:34:49 EDT Subject: [blml] Define sponsoring organisation Message-ID: <87.188bd1b9.2e9d6fb9@aol.com> -------------------------------1097602489 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Definition of "Sponsoring Organisation" (SO) Legal aspect: A person or group of persons or a juridical body which has the power to organise, finance and execute a duplicate contract bridge event. Practical aspect: a local club, a regional bridge organisation, a national organisation, and sponsor in cooperation with a bridge organisation. Albeith the creators of the Law may not have had the intent, Law 80 is somehow the Magna Carta of the bridge world and secures democracy. Any SO is independent and only bound to the LAW. By this, new methods , procedures and systems cannot be supressed. National or regional organisations must seek consent for their regulations for other SO by contractual means or by providing recommendations. The main instrument to make supplementary regulations work is the desire of the players to get "points" ( many other names) issued by the national body, which please the "Ego" and may or may not give access to higher rated tournaments. So they have to follow national rules. Players and organisations might be members of sponsoring organisations, and thus feel themselves bound to the regulations set up for duplicate contract bridge events. Paul Hauff, _www.bridgeassistant.com_ (http://www.bridgeassistant.com) provider of precision scoring software. Member of ACBL, EBU and three german Bridge-Clubs . -------------------------------1097602489 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Definition of "Sponsoring Organisation" (SO)
Legal aspect:
A person or group of persons or a juridical body which has the pow= er=20 to organise,
finance and execute a duplicate contract bridge event.
Practical aspect:
a local club, a regional bridge organisation, a national organisation,=20= and=20 sponsor in cooperation with a bridge organisation.
 
Albeith the creators of the Law may not have had the intent, Law 8= 0 is=20 somehow the
Magna Carta of the bridge world and  secures democracy. Any SO is=20 independent and only bound to the LAW. By this, new methods ,=20 procedures and systems cannot be supressed.
 
National or regional organisations must seek consent for their=20 regulations for other SO by
contractual means or by providing recommendations.
 
The main instrument to make supplementary  regulations=20 work is the desire of the players
to get "points"  ( many other names) issued by the national body,=20 which please the "Ego" and may or may not give access to  higher r= ated=20 tournaments. So they have to follow national rules.
Players and organisations might be members of sponsoring organisations,= and=20 thus feel themselves bound to the regulations set up for  duplicate=20 contract bridge events.
 
 
Paul Hauff,
provider of precision scoring software.<= /DIV>
Member of ACBL, EBU and three german Bridge-Clubs=
.
-------------------------------1097602489-- From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 13:29:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:29:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c4b120$3b3e8780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ............. > It seems implicit in Law20 that the meaning is part of the auction = (i.e. > requests for an explanation of the auction get the meaning explained). > Alerts must be included in any review so there seems some evidence = that > those too are part of the auction.=20 If alerts were part of the auction there had been no reason to add the explicit statement that "Alerts should be included in the restatement". > I often hear people discussing bidding > decisions use terms like "slow pass", "fast double". Whether such = things > are AI or UI will depend on who did them but to me there is no benefit = in > saying they are not part of the auction. On the contrary: Such added terms represent properties that are never measured when they occur so they can not be quantified afterwards. Is an auction with a pass after 2 seconds different from an auction with = a pass after 3 seconds? 4 seconds? Where will you draw the limit? I have often heard statements like: "He was thinking for at least 30 seconds", and then after a little while: "Well it was at least ten" when opponents say that "There was no hesitation at all". Let extraneous information remain extraneous information to be handled = under Law 16, and accept that the auction consists of successive calls and = nothing else. Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 13:43:58 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:43:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c4b122$503b8960$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............... > >Don't you agree that law 58B is the first law to apply when a player > somehow > >in the process of leading or playing to a trick exposes more than one > card > >simultaneously? According to this law the player in question must > designate > >which of the visible cards he selects as the card to play, there is no > >question of which card (if any of them) he originally intended to play. > > > >And only after the player in question has made his choice this law > directs > >us to Law 50 when the offender is a defender. You cannot bypass Law 58B > in > >this process. > > Exactly. Carry on. Time to finish the ruling. Good. This brings us directly to Law 50B: "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. ..." Do you agree: a) that I do not need to quote further from L50B, and b) that the card the offender designates as "not the played card" becomes a minor penalty card if it is below the rank of an honour? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 13:52:50 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:52:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c4b123$8d0715c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >................. > >> Unlike you to read the wrong Law, Grattan. Of course he can = pick > >> which one: but whether the remaining card is an MPC or an mPC is > >> dependent on L50B, not L58. > > > >Of course. Has anybody claimed anything else in this thread? If so I = have > >failed to notice it. >=20 > Then go and re-read the thread, Sven! I don't have the energy to engage myself in such a huge task! 8-) L58 and L50 are clear enough for me (and my pals) Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 14:27:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:27:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4b122$503b8960$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c4b122$503b8960$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1SYCIJOH1SbBFwhC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............... >> >Don't you agree that law 58B is the first law to apply when a player >> somehow >> >in the process of leading or playing to a trick exposes more than one >> card >> >simultaneously? According to this law the player in question must >> designate >> >which of the visible cards he selects as the card to play, there is no >> >question of which card (if any of them) he originally intended to play. >> > >> >And only after the player in question has made his choice this law >> directs >> >us to Law 50 when the offender is a defender. You cannot bypass Law 58B >> in >> >this process. >> >> Exactly. Carry on. Time to finish the ruling. > >Good. This brings us directly to Law 50B: "A single card below the rank of >an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or >in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. ..." > >Do you agree: a) that I do not need to quote further from L50B, >and b) that the card the offender designates as "not the played card" >becomes a minor penalty card if it is below the rank of an honour? No. If it was the card you intended to play it was not exposed inadvertently so this does not apply. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 14:26:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:26:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000e01c4b123$8d0715c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c4b123$8d0715c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> >................. >> >> Unlike you to read the wrong Law, Grattan. Of course he can pick >> >> which one: but whether the remaining card is an MPC or an mPC is >> >> dependent on L50B, not L58. >> > >> >Of course. Has anybody claimed anything else in this thread? If so I have >> >failed to notice it. >> >> Then go and re-read the thread, Sven! > >I don't have the energy to engage myself in such a huge task! 8-) > >L58 and L50 are clear enough for me (and my pals) While they are clear enough to me and my pals. If you play the D2 intentionally L58B gives a case where it may be changed - but it is still an MPC. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 13 15:30:44 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:30:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <000501c4b10a$7e9379c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <416CF61B.4020302@antwerpen.be> <000501c4b10a$7e9379c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000501c4b10a$7e9379c0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Herman De Wael >> > ................... >> > >> >>>A practical: Most computer scoring programs will >> >>>not have any problem with my suggested procedure, >> >>>but having the two pairs without opponents play >> >>>each other will probably in many cases complicate >> >>>things dramatically. >> >>> >> >> >> >>There too, you might be wrong. Typically, the intervention needed is >> >>one of changing A-D and C-B into A-B. So what do you do with D and C? >> >>What you typically do is also create a line that has C and D on it. >> >>Don't forget that you will need a line to input their Av+ if you don't >> >>have them play, so it's no extra work on the computer to have them >> >>play the board as well! >> > >> > >> > The problem is the definition of a round: "A part of a session played >> > without progression of players". As a consequence computer scoring >> programs >> > need not have any provision for different pair combinations at a table >> > during a single round and I doubt if any of them has. >> > >> >> I have not a single idea as to how the definition of a round can >> influence the entering of scores in a computer program. > >Because the scoring program does not need (and should not have) provisions >for changing the pair numbers at a table within a single round other than >exchanging the directions when needed. Rover movements where the Rover arrives late and the TD was asleep (so that the board is already being played by the bumped pair) are a very good case for allowing this. > >> > My suggestion results in the following procedure when entering the >> results >> > for pairs A-D at table X and C-B at table Y: >> > >> > For both tables the result on the board played by A-B is entered; then >> at >> > table X the score for C is overridden to A+, the same is done for D at >> table >> > Y. >> > >> >> So you enter ths score for A-B twice? Are you certain the software >> recognises that this is just a single score? > >Yes I do, and I am fully aware of the inaccuracy caused by the same score >being registered twice. However I consider this a very minor inconvenience >compared to the alternatives. Because of using Neuberg's formula it will >amount to less than a matchpoint error for all affected players. > >> >> Now Sven, I was merely commenting on your assertion that "most" >> computer programs won't know how to deal with this. I have no >> knowledge of "most" but I do know of one program who takes the far >> easier route of changing the pair numbers. >> Anyway, you should agree that it is just as easy to enter Av+ for >> pairs C and D than +620. > >Sure it is, but I don't see your point. > >> And if your software is totally unable to support the solution you >> yourself used to employ up till recently - then change the software, >> not your solution, I'd say! > >Sure our software is able to handle the procedure we have been following >until now. The major point is that this procedure is illegal! > >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 13 15:41:41 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:41:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Tim West- Meads writes >Gordon wrote: > >> > What I am >> > really saying is that the "Auction" is the totality of calls, pauses, >> > meanings, inferences etc that go to making me decide how to play the >> > hand. >> >> The Law Book defines it as: >> >> Auction >> 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive >> calls. >> 2. The aggregate of calls made > >Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts? I see nothing in the >above definitions which excludes (or includes) tempo breaks and the >meaning of calls from "the auction". > >It seems implicit in Law20 that the meaning is part of the auction (i.e. >requests for an explanation of the auction get the meaning explained). >Alerts must be included in any review so there seems some evidence that >those too are part of the auction. I often hear people discussing bidding >decisions use terms like "slow pass", "fast double". Whether such things >are AI or UI will depend on who did them but to me there is no benefit in >saying they are not part of the auction. > >Tim I believe the auction contains all alerts (why do we have a specification in the law for the restatement of auction), stops and agreed hesitations/change of tempi. It's how I would present an auction to someone if I wanted them to find a call.. The hesitations are necessary particularly when giving it to Tim because 3NT is seldom a LA. > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 13 15:47:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:47:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Define sponsoring organisation In-Reply-To: <70EE891A-1D12-11D9-B4DC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <70EE891A-1D12-11D9-B4DC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <8ZGe6xCHAUbBFwgx@asimere.com> In article <70EE891A-1D12-11D9-B4DC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Monday, Oct 11, 2004, at 22:54 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au >wrote: > >> But if an ACBL regulation has a scope which requires all >> ACBL players to obey that reg, then any action nullifying >> that reg is ultra vires to the local organisation's >> powers. > >Hm.. > >ACBL General Conditions of Contest: > >"Conditions of Contest for an event may not be changed at any level of >play during the course of that event. Lack of knowledge does not >constitute cause for exemption. > >These conditions apply to all events, and should be posted. There are >General Conditions for specific event types that apply and there may be >additional specific conditions for specific events. In cases where >there is disagreement between these conditions and more specific ones, >the more specific conditions will take precedence. > >Sponsoring organizations may, with ACBL approval only, amend these >conditions for a specific event. Such amendments should appear in all >printed tournament schedules and be posted prior to the start of event." > >Is a club game in which ACBL masterpoints may be awarded an "ACBL >event"? Yes > The ACBL seems to think so, but I suspect if I suggested to any >of the club TDs around here that these Conditions of Contest apply in >their club games, I'd get at best a "huh?" in reply. but the club has its amendments posted (even if its a tatty scrap of paper on the corner of the member notice board.) These are, in effect, standing orders > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 17:10:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:10:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <1SYCIJOH1SbBFwhC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000801c4b13f$189d3b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ................. > >Good. This brings us directly to Law 50B:=20 > >"A single card below the rank of an honour=20 > >and exposed inadvertently (as in playing=20 > >two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card > >accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. ..." > > > >Do you agree: a) that I do not need to quote=20 > >further from L50B, > >and b) that the card the offender designates=20 > >as "not the played card" becomes a minor=20 > >penalty card if it is below the rank of an=20 > >honour? >=20 > No. If it was the card you intended to play=20 > it was not exposed inadvertently so this does=20 > not apply. Law 58B2 says nothing about intent; this law simply gives the offender = the freedom to select (subsequent to the irregularity) which of the two (or more) cards exposed by being played simultaneously to a trick shall be = the card he designates as played. (Note: Law 58B2 does not in any way = indicate any obligation on the offender to say which card he intended to play!) Law 50B then clearly states (by the example) that any card having been exposed in this way except the card the offender selected as played = shall be considered exposed inadvertently.=20 I assume this must be taken as "unless evidence to the contrary is = apparent" but even such an exception is not in any way indicated in Law 50B, and I shall in fact really have a problem ruling that a player who plays two = cards to a trick did so intentionally. Frankly I cannot understand why you insist on ignoring the clarifying example given in Law 50B? Regards Sven=20 From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 13 18:27:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:27:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000801c4b13f$189d3b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <1SYCIJOH1SbBFwhC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000801c4b13f$189d3b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <81MwBgAVWWbBFwCQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >................. >> >Good. This brings us directly to Law 50B: >> >"A single card below the rank of an honour >> >and exposed inadvertently (as in playing >> >two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card >> >accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. ..." >> > >> >Do you agree: a) that I do not need to quote >> >further from L50B, >> >and b) that the card the offender designates >> >as "not the played card" becomes a minor >> >penalty card if it is below the rank of an >> >honour? >> >> No. If it was the card you intended to play >> it was not exposed inadvertently so this does >> not apply. > >Law 58B2 says nothing about intent; this law simply gives the offender the >freedom to select (subsequent to the irregularity) which of the two (or >more) cards exposed by being played simultaneously to a trick shall be the >card he designates as played. (Note: Law 58B2 does not in any way indicate >any obligation on the offender to say which card he intended to play!) > >Law 50B then clearly states (by the example) that any card having been >exposed in this way except the card the offender selected as played shall be >considered exposed inadvertently. Sorry, Sven, you cannot say "by example" to get you away from the actual wording. If you expose a card intentionally that's an MPC. If your original intent is to play the D9 and you expose the D9 either you play it or it is an MPC. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Oct 13 18:54:49 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:54:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <000401c4b102$d1f71b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4b102$d1f71b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 13 Oct 2004, at 09:58, Sven Pran wrote: > The problem is the definition of a round: "A part of a session played > without progression of players". As a consequence computer scoring > programs > need not have any provision for different pair combinations at a table > during a single round and I doubt if any of them has. I can't imagine many of them having any problem with it, any more than they have problems when single boards have failed to be arrow-switched. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 19:17:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:17:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <81MwBgAVWWbBFwCQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001101c4b150$dcb33a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ................. > Sorry, Sven, you cannot say "by example" to get you away from the > actual wording. If you expose a card intentionally that's an MPC. If > your original intent is to play the D9 and you expose the D9 either you > play it or it is an MPC. I am not attempting to get away from the actual wording! I am attempting to take Laws 58B2 and 50B literally because I find their wording very precise and reasonable. How do you read and understand the clause in Law 50B: "(As in playing two cards to a trick,...)? And where do you find an obligation on a player who has played two cards to a trick that he should disclose which of the two cards (if any of them) was the card he really intended to play? Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 13 19:25:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:25:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c4b152$0e93fa30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > > The problem is the definition of a round: "A part of a session = played > > without progression of players". As a consequence computer scoring > > programs > > need not have any provision for different pair combinations at a = table > > during a single round and I doubt if any of them has. >=20 > I can't imagine many of them having any problem with it, any more than > they have problems when single boards have failed to be = arrow-switched. Two pairs playing a board in the wrong direction is never any problem = for the scoring. There is usually a special indicator available to signal = that NS and EW have been exchanged for that board. The wrong pairs being seated at a table for a complete round is never = any problem for the scoring. The pairs to be seated are simply overridden. Replacing one of the pairs in the middle of a round can be a problem = because this is something which according to the bridge laws should never occur. Consequently with many scoring programs the pairs at a table are entered once per round, not once per board. Overriding this may require more or = less elaborate actions, sometimes even manual scoring. Sven From schoderb@msn.com Wed Oct 13 20:24:05 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:24:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 References: <001201c4b152$0e93fa30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: My God, Sven! Are you telling me that there are scoring programs that can't handle things that can be done manually? Try ACBLSCOR on for size. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:25 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 > Gordon Rainsford > > The problem is the definition of a round: "A part of a session played > > without progression of players". As a consequence computer scoring > > programs > > need not have any provision for different pair combinations at a table > > during a single round and I doubt if any of them has. > > I can't imagine many of them having any problem with it, any more than > they have problems when single boards have failed to be arrow-switched. Two pairs playing a board in the wrong direction is never any problem for the scoring. There is usually a special indicator available to signal that NS and EW have been exchanged for that board. The wrong pairs being seated at a table for a complete round is never any problem for the scoring. The pairs to be seated are simply overridden. Replacing one of the pairs in the middle of a round can be a problem because this is something which according to the bridge laws should never occur. Consequently with many scoring programs the pairs at a table are entered once per round, not once per board. Overriding this may require more or less elaborate actions, sometimes even manual scoring. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 13 20:58:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:58:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <4DMRMEGW7RbBFwRg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041012083306.02f356e0@pop.starpower.net> <4DMRMEGW7RbBFwRg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041013154840.02af0360@pop.starpower.net> At 08:25 AM 10/13/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >> >>Doesn't work for me. L58B applies to "two or more cards [led or >>played] simultaneously". L50B applies to "a single card... exposed". >>They are disjoint, prescribing the establishment of a penalty card >>under two different sets of circumstances. It seems obvious to me >>that the cross-reference to L50 in L58B pertains to the disposition >>of the penalty card once established, not to a second (and possibly >>conflicting) set of criteria for establishing it. > > Let's get this straight. You say that because of something else > that happened, L50B does not apply as written, yes? And where does > it say so? Obviously L50B applies. What does not apply, IMO, is the second clause of the second sentence. When we reach L50 via L58B, we have a card which has become a penalty card by being so designated per L58B2. That is not the same as becoming a penalty card by being "exposed through deliberate play". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 14 00:26:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:26:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <000301c4b0fe$35ebbcc0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary said: >>>>process, n. State of going on or being carried on, >>>>series of connected actions or changes RJH said: >>>Therefore, Sven's thesis that Law 16 future constraints >>>on an auction are not part of the process of contract >>>determination seems to me to be a false reading of the >>>definition of "auction" in Chapter 1 of the Laws. >>>(Perhaps because English is a second language for Sven.) Sven said: >>I don't think so: I believe my English is good enough to >>understand perfectly well the following definition exactly >>as it is intended: >> >>"The process of determining the contract by means of >>successive calls". >> >>There is no room here for anything else than calls to be >>part of an auction. Galadriel almost said: >Even the wisest cannot tell. For the auction shows many >things - calls that were, calls that are, and some calls >that have not yet come to pass. :-) RJH says: I would reformulate Sven's last statement -> "Because of the word 'process', there is room here for potential *future* calls, which have not yet come to pass (and/or Pass), to be part of an auction." The legality of potential future calls is affected by Law 73C and Law 16. If different partnerships have different potential future legal calls, then their auctions fail the "differs in any way" test of Law 15C. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 14 00:39:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:39:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001101c4b150$dcb33a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <81MwBgAVWWbBFwCQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001101c4b150$dcb33a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >................. >> Sorry, Sven, you cannot say "by example" to get you away from the >> actual wording. If you expose a card intentionally that's an MPC. If >> your original intent is to play the D9 and you expose the D9 either you >> play it or it is an MPC. > >I am not attempting to get away from the actual wording! I am attempting to >take Laws 58B2 and 50B literally because I find their wording very precise >and reasonable. > >How do you read and understand the clause in Law 50B: "(As in playing two >cards to a trick,...)? If you intend to play the DK and play the D9 simultaneously, then L58B2 gives you the choice: you choose the DK and the D9 is an mPC. But that does not affect the fact that if you played the D9 deliberately it cannot be an mPC. >And where do you find an obligation on a player who has played two cards to >a trick that he should disclose which of the two cards (if any of them) was >the card he really intended to play? When you apply the Laws and they require you to investigate and discover information [eg, whether there was a hesitation] that's what you do. Sure, players will occasionally lie. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 14 00:41:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:41:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041013154840.02af0360@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041012083306.02f356e0@pop.starpower.net> <4DMRMEGW7RbBFwRg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20041013154840.02af0360@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:25 AM 10/13/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>> >>>Doesn't work for me. L58B applies to "two or more cards [led or >>>played] simultaneously". L50B applies to "a single card... exposed". >>>They are disjoint, prescribing the establishment of a penalty card >>>under two different sets of circumstances. It seems obvious to me >>>that the cross-reference to L50 in L58B pertains to the disposition >>>of the penalty card once established, not to a second (and possibly >>>conflicting) set of criteria for establishing it. >> >> Let's get this straight. You say that because of something else >>that happened, L50B does not apply as written, yes? And where does it >>say so? > >Obviously L50B applies. What does not apply, IMO, is the second clause >of the second sentence. When we reach L50 via L58B, we have a card >which has become a penalty card by being so designated per L58B2. That >is not the same as becoming a penalty card by being "exposed through >deliberate play". When you decide to play the D9, take it out and put it on the table, that's deliberate play. The fact that L58B2 then allows you not to play that card in one situation does not affect that fact. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 14 01:16:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:16:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Willner: >We know the Proprieties are not a complete list of >conduct offenses, or at least they aren't very >specific. RJH: Rather than talk theory, let us look at a practical hand which I played last night in the walk-in pairs of the South Canberra Bridge club. Dlr: West Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST Me Pass Pass 1C 1S Dble Pass 2C 2S Pass Pass Pass Dummy 87 AT753 Q852 JT Me AKQT6 6 KT7 Q864 The play proceeds: Trick 1 -> C3 CT CK C4 Trick 2 -> CA C6 C2 CJ Trick 3 -> C5 C8 S9 H5 Trick 4 -> D9 D2 DJ DK Trick 5 -> SA S4 S7 S3 Trick 6 -> SK S5 S8 SJ Trick 7 -> SQ H9 H3 C7 What action should I take? What actions should I consider taking? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 14 02:10:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:10:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Semantics (was Cardiff Ruling 5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott defined: >>+=+ My dear David, >> Do get with it. >> No judgement. Solely a decision as to fact. David Stevenson quibbled: >"The Director must perceive the difference" Quote >GGE. That is a judgement, not a matter of fact. RJH requibbles: No, it is a Law 85 judgement about fact. In my opinion, it would be useful if David Stevenson read the EBU White Book's English in a straightforward way. In my opinion, while decisions pursuant to Law 85 are legally identical, they can be practically (and usefully) split up into two types: (a) TD judgmental decisions about hard facts, such as whether or not it is a fact that Law 15C has satisfied the criteria for its use. Shorthand description, "TD facts decision". (b) TD judgmental decisions about soft facts, such as whether or not it is a fact that a logical alternative exists. Shorthand description, "TD judgement decision". The EBU White Book should be interpreted to read: (c) A TD does not need to consult on a "TD facts decision". (d) A TD does need to consult on a "TD judgement decision". Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 14 09:45:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:45:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >................. > >> Sorry, Sven, you cannot say "by example" to get you away from = the > >> actual wording. If you expose a card intentionally that's an MPC. = If > >> your original intent is to play the D9 and you expose the D9 either = you > >> play it or it is an MPC. > > > >I am not attempting to get away from the actual wording! I am = attempting > to > >take Laws 58B2 and 50B literally because I find their wording very > precise > >and reasonable. > > > >How do you read and understand the clause in Law 50B: "(As in playing = two > >cards to a trick,...)? >=20 > If you intend to play the DK and play the D9 simultaneously, then > L58B2 gives you the choice: you choose the DK and the D9 is an mPC. >=20 > But that does not affect the fact that if you played the D9 > deliberately it cannot be an mPC. Nobody argues that D9 is a major penalty card if played deliberately. = The point in Law 58B is that it does not ask which card the player intended = to play, it asks which of the two (or more) cards he exposed he will decide = as the card he plays. Now please rule on this (Let it be stipulated that I am a very honest = player who do not know the laws and politely just answer you questions): I have in my hand the diamonds Queen, Jack, nine and eight and I expose = the Jack and the nine by playing them both (simultaneously) to a trick. If you (as is your duty) informs me that I have to select one of the two exposed cards as the card I want to play and also all consequences of my selection I answer that I select the Jack as the played card. If you ask me which card I really intended to play then: Case 1: I answer that it was my intention to play my Queen. Case 2: I answer that it was my intention to play my eight. Never mind any possible stupidity in any of these answers. You have been given the facts; now it is your call so just tell me how you would = apply, first Law 58B and then Law 50B. > >And where do you find an obligation on a player who has played two = cards > to > >a trick that he should disclose which of the two cards (if any of = them) > was > >the card he really intended to play? >=20 > When you apply the Laws and they require you to investigate and > discover information [eg, whether there was a hesitation] that's what > you do. Sure, players will occasionally lie When a player selects one of the cards he exposed by playing them simultaneously to a trick as the card he wants to have played (literally according to the prescription in Law 58B) how can you suspect him of = lying? What would be the actual lie? Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 14 09:53:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:53:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c4b1cb$4f9ca580$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........... > Rather than talk theory, let us look at a practical > hand which I played last night in the walk-in pairs > of the South Canberra Bridge club. >=20 > Dlr: West > Vul: None >=20 > The bidding has gone: >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST Me > Pass Pass 1C 1S > Dble Pass 2C 2S > Pass Pass Pass >=20 >=20 > Dummy > 87 > AT753 > Q852 > JT >=20 >=20 > Me > AKQT6 > 6 > KT7 > Q864 >=20 >=20 > The play proceeds: >=20 > Trick 1 -> C3 CT CK C4 > Trick 2 -> CA C6 C2 CJ > Trick 3 -> C5 C8 S9 H5 > Trick 4 -> D9 D2 DJ DK > Trick 5 -> SA S4 S7 S3 > Trick 6 -> SK S5 S8 SJ > Trick 7 -> SQ H9 H3 C7 >=20 >=20 > What action should I take? Lead a card to the subsequent trick in order to have the revoke = established. > What actions should I consider taking? If your opponents are beginners in the game of bridge (not likely from = the story) you just could consider helping them from committing a revoke, = but you have absolutely no obligation by any law to do so. Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Oct 14 10:17:28 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:17:28 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Sven Pran wrote: > Now please rule on this (Let it be stipulated that I am a very honest player > who do not know the laws and politely just answer you questions): > > I have in my hand the diamonds Queen, Jack, nine and eight and I expose the > Jack and the nine by playing them both (simultaneously) to a trick. > > If you (as is your duty) informs me that I have to select one of the two > exposed cards as the card I want to play and also all consequences of my > selection I answer that I select the Jack as the played card. > > If you ask me which card I really intended to play then: > > Case 1: I answer that it was my intention to play my Queen. > > Case 2: I answer that it was my intention to play my eight. How about if I rule that the jack and nine are both exposed cards which you dropped accidentally, therefore two penalty cards (L49) which are both major (L50B), and declarer shall designate which one shall be played (L51A)? If you answered aloud to the table that you intended to play the queen or eight, that card, named as being in your hand but not yet played, then becomes a third major penalty card, and that gets faced too and declarer chooses from among all three of them. --- But you won't let me do that, I hear you cry. You insist that defender has faced a card, in fact two cards, on the table, and HAS played them, his intention notwithstanding. In that case, we start by applying L58B2 to the jack and nine; when you say you intended to play the queen, you make the queen a major penalty card. You put it face up on the table. But you've already played to this trick so L51A doesn't come into play yet; I ask you again, which of the jack or the nine do you wish to designate as a played card? You designate one as played, the other becomes a penalty card, and because you have two penalty cards on the table, they are both major. GRB From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 14 11:19:28 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:19:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4b1d7$4a9f37d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > Now please rule on this (Let it be stipulated that I am a very = honest > player > > who do not know the laws and politely just answer you questions): > > > > I have in my hand the diamonds Queen, Jack, nine and eight and I = expose > the > > Jack and the nine by playing them both (simultaneously) to a trick. > > > > If you (as is your duty) informs me that I have to select one of the = two > > exposed cards as the card I want to play and also all consequences = of my > > selection I answer that I select the Jack as the played card. > > > > If you ask me which card I really intended to play then: > > > > Case 1: I answer that it was my intention to play my Queen. > > > > Case 2: I answer that it was my intention to play my eight. >=20 > How about if I rule that the jack and nine are both exposed cards = which > you dropped accidentally, therefore two penalty cards (L49) which are > both major (L50B), and declarer shall designate which one shall be = played > (L51A)? >=20 > If you answered aloud to the table that you intended to play the queen = or > eight, that card, named as being in your hand but not yet played, then > becomes a third major penalty card, and that gets faced too and = declarer > chooses from among all three of them. >=20 > --- >=20 > But you won't let me do that, I hear you cry. You insist that defender = has > faced a card, in fact two cards, on the table, and HAS played them, = his > intention notwithstanding. >=20 > In that case, we start by applying L58B2 to the jack and nine; when > you say you intended to play the queen, you make the queen a major = penalty > card. You put it face up on the table. But you've already played to = this > trick so L51A doesn't come into play yet; I ask you again, which of = the > jack or the nine do you wish to designate as a played card? You = designate > one as played, the other becomes a penalty card, and because you have = two > penalty cards on the table, they are both major. There is some logic here but remember that I did not say (offer) the statement that I indented to play the Queen, I honestly answered a = question by the Director! IMO that question is improper, the Director has no reason for asking it = so I claim that with your ruling we really have a Director's error and the = final ruling should be according to Law 82C. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 14 13:14:12 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:14:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041012083306.02f356e0@pop.starpower.net> <4DMRMEGW7RbBFwRg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20041013154840.02af0360@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041014080403.02a88ca0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:41 PM 10/13/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >> >>Obviously L50B applies. What does not apply, IMO, is the second >>clause of the second sentence. When we reach L50 via L58B, we have a >>card which has become a penalty card by being so designated per >>L58B2. That is not the same as becoming a penalty card by being >>"exposed through deliberate play". > > When you decide to play the D9, take it out and put it on the > table, that's deliberate play. The fact that L58B2 then allows you > not to play that card in one situation does not affect that fact. Even if you have decided to play the D9, when you take out the DQ9 and put them on the table, that's not a deliberate play. As I read it, a "deliberate play" occurs when the player exercises his L58B option to choose which card he will play. I'd like to believe that, as several others have suggested, if we were intended to make any distinction between the intended card and the accidental card, L58B would at least make some mention of it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 14 13:32:18 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:32:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: References: <000301c4b0fe$35ebbcc0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041014082143.02af9b80@pop.starpower.net> At 07:26 PM 10/13/04, richard.hills wrote: >RJH said: > > >>>Therefore, Sven's thesis that Law 16 future constraints > >>>on an auction are not part of the process of contract > >>>determination seems to me to be a false reading of the > >>>definition of "auction" in Chapter 1 of the Laws. > >>>(Perhaps because English is a second language for Sven.) > >Sven said: > > >>I don't think so: I believe my English is good enough to > >>understand perfectly well the following definition exactly > >>as it is intended: > >> > >>"The process of determining the contract by means of > >>successive calls". > >> > >>There is no room here for anything else than calls to be > >>part of an auction. > >Galadriel almost said: > > >Even the wisest cannot tell. For the auction shows many > >things - calls that were, calls that are, and some calls > >that have not yet come to pass. > >:-) > >RJH says: > >I would reformulate Sven's last statement -> > >"Because of the word 'process', there is room here for >potential *future* calls, which have not yet come to pass >(and/or Pass), to be part of an auction." > >The legality of potential future calls is affected by Law >73C and Law 16. If different partnerships have different >potential future legal calls, then their auctions fail the >"differs in any way" test of Law 15C. I started reading this thread with no particular opinion on the subject, but have become convinced that L15C is flawed. If we read "in any way" literally, that whole clause is redundant and should be deleted, along with the last sentence. Even the same call with the same agreed meaning, when made by two different people with two different partners, differs in *some* way. If we read "in any way" to mean "significantly enough, in the Director's judgment, to have a possible effect on [whatever]", the law should be changed to say what it means. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 14 14:08:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:08:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041014082143.02af9b80@pop.starpower.net> References: <000301c4b0fe$35ebbcc0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20041014082143.02af9b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <416E7A52.9020103@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I started reading this thread with no particular opinion on the subject, > but have become convinced that L15C is flawed. If we read "in any way" > literally, that whole clause is redundant and should be deleted, along > with the last sentence. Even the same call with the same agreed > meaning, when made by two different people with two different partners, > differs in *some* way. If we read "in any way" to mean "significantly > enough, in the Director's judgment, to have a possible effect on > [whatever]", the law should be changed to say what it means. > Exactly. Now can we not simply understand the law to mean this and move on? After all, there are far bigger holes in L15C. No I'm not even talking about barometer! Where does it state what the TD should do if the mistaken opponents are discovered during play? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From supprefnum245781@citibank.com Thu Oct 14 17:36:23 2004 From: supprefnum245781@citibank.com (CITI) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:36:23 +0500 Subject: [blml] CitiBank: important account notice [Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:39:23 +0100] Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020506080404090101050002 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

in 1821 my name is in 1942 come on in 1862 Can you give me Web It was nice Personals in 1893 The Olympics U.S. Postal Service When it was in 1806 come and see You might put BACK TO in 1866 First of all do not X Files ?? ???? Ford Free Games help me

--------------020506080404090101050002 Content-Type: image/gif; name="clearance.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="clearance.GIF" R0lGODlhYwKPAfS1AAECAAAAgMDAwMDcwKbK8AAAQOAgQAAggEBAgEBggGBggOBggICAgOCAgICAwKCg wOCgwKDAwP/78P8AAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAA AABiAosBAAX/YCWOZGmeowQ1S2u0bSOhdG3feK7vfO//wKBwSCwaj8ikcslsHiULw2RKrU5eEKd2y+16 v+CweEwum2tQq1ptyJ7f8Lh8Tq/b73CVdC3drxczeIKDhIWGh4iJO2lWBg0QgSIqUY1uipeYmZqbnJ0o jFQLliMEkRINflOWEgQPEQOesbKztLW2PqBXo5IPBwQluRNuAggJCAq3ycrLzM13uYAmDwgFBb8mDVZZ BAoJ3bDO4eLj5OU/UDDRwNTV1yYQ6Q0VAgkRDwmR5vr7/P22EgADnhjAzhqNgAArSHigQIEAfxAjSpzI SULBh4vyUdzIsaPHIBIGCGCowEGpEgMI/wwYECgkAWLVCjxQ6a5CypUfc+rcyRMFtwMxYx5wEAloNWQV CARdWi3CiIJOe0qdSpWfBAdMlyIAV9CBCAFGsxaIajFm1Kpo06qlJUGBWK2wwnpN+rapJKhr8+rdi+jB 0gMlHSgIi2BGV0kOEodNkNjkXbN8I0uefGZA2AJEUwxwW1iE3HUxaz62S7m06dNL/MacC+wBxgqHSZRt Z2L2WNS4c+vmUbDzjc+yC4pWiHe38ePIwz7IETuF8NrFkUufXjrocBTAnYeGDpm69+95hYK70Xy0QdCk watfz9N6juzmh9s+y76+/Ylh6dcoT3w7+tv3BSjgPgnEhA8O8PVH2/9/+g3o4IPJYNWdCQKMx59tr2mX HoQcdhiLAEs9kM9CBSgQSILzjcCSggB66OKLl1y1VAKu2FOQibCt9h8CBLSCgFMpwijkkITYVtcBcelY gltBAeULiw0SKeWUZ7RVVwEHYMRfUpcdZV6UVIYp5hfTiKWAOwmKoFpQy0E55ptweiGBAA4YU4xJ+RAQ wZ7XzaMAAgg4NoIAe0agUZyIJqrooow26uijkEYq6aSUVmrppZhm+kYAnHbq6aeghirqqKSWauqpqKaq 6qqsturqq7DGKuustNZq66245qrrrrymqumvwAYr7LDEFmvsscgmq+yyzDbr7LPQRivttNRWa+3/tdhm q+223Hbr7bfghivuuOSuBcC56ALgRLrqjtBuCe+yi+4P75ZrLxj1ipDvEfnuW4G/+/qLg8D83mswCQAr kTC8JyzMA8FGQHwwuALXOy+8F//7b782tJuuxvo2jHDG6pLMsAkmu+suySxbvLHH52LscswTC1uxyiHj nDPNJ9MQr84BIyz0xji7jHLRQxsNcs5L8+w00CvXTOzNS+98MtU+Q62vvEMj7XXVOncNMtYcV2102RJL XSnVZY/sMQoS/8x00CjTfDbTPYv9tsh4j61333urHSzbXG+9N9Zwaw323Hbj/TbPeYcdb8ZNX/33yx8v LjimbCeetOdZzx32/9dWFx242JLzXfnnqWvu+uZrq4625aCzvrrmp/v9tcOX9yw36XfbDnumdCtuce6R /6780Y6f7rzsjDve+u1mGz/8r/ICDDnmuvucOeMlr8yuzOFXD7b2x5fPvfjsT2825G1fLz9Hac9vfzn1 36///vz37///AAygAAdIwAIa8IAITKACF8jABjrwgRCMoAQnSMEKWvCCGMygBjfIwQ568IMgDKEIR0jC EprwhChMoQOzF4b8Ma8JLgxCDLcwwzjU0Afbe90NI4fDHuTwIzuE2/dwJ77x9fBhL1zX6GqgNCYEcQdP VNglojgwH9JLdTdoYhX7lsUlIiGGVOyYFFHHxf/F7bCGvHOiF2sXRjFqoY0Rm+IbrXhEHoaujExc4x3h WLsuwjAJaSRiEnWARixSznAyE1rLyhe/9ZVse5R7ZPsSd8jMte2QiswhJiP5MiZisnlPc1rM0pc1TiLt YibbJCSJVrfJaTKRpFTZIsc2r/hZspNuc5sRWwmzwuFSlnYLpSiD+cPvGZOVnYwl92YGyVEOknkf+53e Uvk0Mj7zdkpb3tasd74kVhOb2fSe4jQ2Ozx+k3rKk2bvuna2bGqzbuOEWdR2Js16km2N7jTeO98JuJFx U3RsBKhAkVnNb9bTkEnLp0Dtqc9rsnOc0jMd8Lb4UOGN7nkA1WJESzdRa5r/r5zdKyNIOUrSNC5spCMV 5EAxStKQUg91yBuoS1m6TzI2MXf8hOlCfXc5kKZNnSxtaeBu2k87VrRpvuzmR/VIPlOS7qIbrak3LRpU 12kUlU81aVFR2rFitnKjQkVoRImq1Ev2MaYvxWlU47lEspoVj7nEJk9b51M/JtJ8WV0pVR36z+LFNXgu 1CILcVe4cO50qqYzYvqG2DushsyVjN1qYQvrUcf6rnF4pecuGyu84CX2mFh0KUR7ecu+HtV9pE2ZDjGb zl26lXaGQ5xjBRtby77Wpm6U6wtn+7kfnrWyoZ3eQWVrUfflMa+PZSpUrRrQQZ4UtmWlKDrBqlYd/pa5 /1ttrm5lKdaWnlan20VsWLE7144+la3I9ahpoQldeb4ueeDVKl6Hq92ZgpW89k1uUeEb3c6G9rn+3at4 PbtUAeNXtDKtrmHTqtIC/5O/OT0ochE32vsqGLX7teZQITpez+bPrxLe7oJnVl+pcpiu/lyuVUM8Yg2n uL3VJSg+j4rZsbJYvTkVrolFzDDetfjE79MrdRP6YIcdb78GRe9CKWzi4h3Zwe/1ojIniUgdqw+uln3f VX0b1VralMuPDJgm4VdZL+/WzGK+8iep68zMPm7MjbyrOWEZ1y6rz6l3vekqq0w+WoaZym5+LPyIWTFC i9bMfE7mOhHNS3feOanLHP+rUQXBR91U2iOXnkOm6biETUPE03zRqGlA/QZS15cIotYLl+0T2dKsuhOm FuKr6bVmFdr61rjOta4HZOpY49DXx+0QHIHdwiub6w69BoKniR1scTAbDqnuIx6e7QxqE3KOV+x0qfE3 jmgHF9mYPidkYwvoP/8y0ZJcX27NLetMsm/K6S4ioHXZZ3Wr8s7TFOa7/1vu3qKvX80EuC2BSdpmO7qU rvwqRn82TFm/WeAF5++5o13JVaIS0ZI095ovuWerzRrbIV34aUXZ1xDvUZ0NBdo+iSvSka9V5cIlMsyd K2R6arfJGN6md8XbvUK7XOceXnDeknze7Na8vAzl6OT/5iljmk9XombwccuR3NP2IvG+Rs/6zhN8zboa mMAhtyPYJczkqUtc6Gi13OHEHl+rP13KVS+upAPM9p/zk6xDp3rRWyhWI5cXymGHonG1ntK0A5WvVT68 UjObePDuVu9b/+u33yrk+j1uvHkXsIcdv+ivWrfDLna6g02earlRHsF8H7BqT99OxdZ73aE3r2ZLCz0N R5K1Rczy23mr4rmyHsu47/rfyV5FhtfWq7mvcUlXCukhN/7z+RW1fEef8zljHuxjkDp7IQ94Pf508P3V Oo57zzevi37sFi6lirEvfrPXnP1HM36UsU74o98R8Gkn53Klz++5v53xirR+cpd6/5kHW783YfcHOvxH d6CngJPWgOFXeW7nfQzmfxA2ecOHYl0kf3HGeBe2O5yXcynVY/sXe463ec6HZRXYfdm3OyKnZPMFg99H f+GFVA9WgNr3ZGjHdEsXZIsHZjE4c7KFc+9HfNIVhOfHTkO1Yd8lgikGMWqWco93dEwYaBS4g0BnQ4P2 aA2XaFaIbq9HXhRHZnRGZQTTMt6zhYwkZ/vWhpFmRm0mbfeGem/ohRWXZk+nWhLnhV+GhwlXhfPWPo7G SEDIhorWbnXmf6SnXnDoh3BVLs9mbS0IbYkgiV9gidHibWrUDJj4gHbQiVwAis/SausiiuRgijnwcZqg irvWiv+u+IqwGItxNASBhGq0qFyyKClhBGxxI3i5iD22GIq5dYS/aCnsJm+CdngMF3CrpWbDNG5LxorF OCbiJnOB14PgpIA7hoKaOI1wUniKiF4dCI4VaHreGDt9OHdYOI7QhWC29YjnqCgct3antI5191lZxntI JY3xKCXk2E6HhXltV3sgiHj9KCb/aDt3l2ElqJAG+G0H+SZEl4UddWM6d2brRZGBF5GJcoxviH6kF4cK l4gX12at1Y0cKS2omJLagpIsWUCk+JIyOZM0WZM2eZM4mZM6uZM82ZM++ZNAGZRCOZREWZRGeZRImZRK uZRM2ZRO+ZRQGZVSOZVUWZVWaYz/2RNTKylDNpQJILaVnDaLvih82VYLYDkLfuVqdkUHUFgEmNiLV1eW 87eWZ5mK0tYTYGSQqraWmtZsXEkGcDmWdTSXw1iXxAiPQCSYySg5n3SM8TaHiahuksmYvqVxAbeMAqdl 0DhxRNOBYeiRjDZ78ceMyGiInFSSBDd0zzhvoRloEcdumNkwWHWHCJeZr/eYl1ma5Bab59ab69dxflOZ tBmZeMabk5mATWdyF4mNu1dkWKecy7mQTWeDL7dk5Kd6UghkE1l6JceDy0ljMTdznZd0PYdyPliD3kmF Fxle5pmN3ylTWedWZwieAcliOeaX1OeXVaWV7QiP7dl5EfiB/zcYVIEpgbhlfdeHgQwYYwJKjmqndHEH gFbIjgjIgKh3T84XZ+hngRdIluYldHyZnwm4n+7njrBXmOmIf55Xjn/XVUbYVjOWXrXIVTIan+34XPQ4 oeB3W3CXXoI4kA4lnQKpNQdoecrXox/ahPhJYK1Go0U3WJLZpPTWXfu4fD9YY4p3eoj4olzUnhvaYA3J oaZHWccXYwGoX4v4fyLYfB/lS/qIObMUo/+XWsiXXyz4o2Baf9VJjPCXliSapwoKXDwnoNGHdP1pbP2n oi2qgScmXzyaUQ6YqGeqf3NqfxkqXWjlpMGGoTpafAK4dxGIpFaKhHw6gH6afmA6o0FKpf+ESqg1iDyI moQ+Cp9iKqphqqiFKn4Jw4FOSH+P2mCu+qeLGpC4SoLcZ3j9map7+p/BhYJdGmHhyZ7PuaMRykoj5jwW aUbz92RI+EoIKq0EKaS0FK3ZSp2y2qkSindeSp8+SHkg6pw3OKm7h6zpyWPWuachyqSNyZmG2Jt3uFiG tHGNhWb5to9caIaSSm8hiajrSpn96q9kKGmVRJJdmEtlBz7hKGXKN2UFCLEmuaLkxppxiHe+yUNzmH/R RJyk6YYHJwaGyYmeqA8vKyAzu4re4Zn9ULP3obOYwLNm6bPb1iz8eJVEW7RGe7Qb4WsU9o1IC5GA9EV3 iZxNixtKC7X/Tnu1U7sPlglxDElOcJaGr1WcXxuypdmYaJhJvZSabIib+qahxVm2vjmxt3dOnFlr00hy euW20cpZUGevxMq3OPhiBZWtETuuDGmPfYt25pik7xmRvxqFTqehzVVOI4igknusmjeBo6qtfdd/RUqQ m9uPJPt8yrp4cpqrlSuGJvuptRqqeMphLOeoGahSmiq6A5ujjsqmQ7ShdJqpkQqjZdqrFYqnWkq286WH fgZa4AOtEuqNj8tdnhuXvPutgmq6tHqpmXur+rWpoZe66cp1zXu31Vo5F4uzBuo1qcupXcq6ilq7sLqt 1Bqq0Nlzmmu7jCpjPoev1RlMGYme+kuq//JJrtO0vtpHnQC5rAH2Y4gpi+rKaPMJmbLJjA9XsGs7tiX7 SxOLYhB8PgTLV4yFcdSEh7cLVIXrkjRZl0AbtWO0wlnrlp+4Cby4iS1Mi2c5tHUQazZ8bTO8wzzcwz78 w0AcxEI8xERcxEZ8xEicxEq8xEzcxE78xFAcxVI8xVRcxVZ8xVicxVo8P1nJs8wmkoOwWX53i56wi7gY omqTwoTpwpV4j4yow2F8mDH7xnJ8w46ixsSGx82KtXZJCJaHxlIbl3HcKOgDtv36tl7bb9ZrhxZnaMu4 mCU7j5kXb8pVcMYJt8j7b6a5smtVkoUMb3EKTl6VwXy4u8PZbhxbtv+FOyRO1l2Ea415uLrEWlDiSVAo Z35tqsL1maa0LKpEWKnvSTbiyo1fJsD3e5/m2rDXy8p7WKK+K3urc1WJ6qwDB7wJCqqBybw0ap6VO32I 26EDCqn6Obw7d7mzCr5h0khp2X4W6K7WfIIOmWELaKfwF2U71ojqmEVH6sx7y59fF8HiPKLnrHtd66Df pcYdoc4RDFkE3c5uCrvTHM+mO88MOoD2HM7PdzdgFnxu3JxPejUPTbwqV6cZ5aZYukibdKOgu8YQotDH tbTtfH+x6s0SXc1zpnh3etF/26oaCaQm6NHlnKzgy82yerFC7dO0O8fC1szbt3dMmoGqancVBn7/lPqD Fi1I98zTL8XONC2O0cuuEPpMb2XQA63SU3jGSz2sCixiFZ06nMrLU02DkHu8/mmo0cN8Ma2aGWmf96uE SqaD0DydfmutYO3X1/uu/gjQDnfIEvysLo2IihzWEz1+jL2GLhqxGOexlj2kdeixlZ2HxSSSw5myoryr wPmvBvuwbnjBGLzKE4PQCJ0bKAxBsG0spmjCAJTDZaDbd6yFvL3FwB3cwj3cxF3cxn3cyJ3cyr3czN3c zv3c0B3d0j3d1F3d1n3d2J3d2r3d3I1BFNAE3y0C4a0D420D5e0E510B4Z3eOcDeSeDe7o0C8S3ePjDf N/Dd9l0C9p3feMDf/+CS3uPt3zQQ4Dzg3wJuBAD+AwcOBAuu4EiQ3/h9BA3+3geU4PTN4CPQ4AYOBhbe AxNe4Fvw4TWw3xdOBCIu4RWu3utNAfjN4vTt4hkO4+pNAgRO4BfO4jUO3xEu3jKu3xke4zqe4+v94uWN 4z8u4zau3z1u5ETO4zQO5D/u5EOO5E0e5Spe5FS+4y3O4wG+5CXO5FJ+4yr+5DP+5Uvu5fEN5lfO5V9+ 5Ozd5Tn+30Ne5nQO43NO52Q+40m+42Vu5yaw4m3+51Ge5FY+5zbu53Xu5H1e4nl+54A+5oke6Yb+6JMe 6Ic+6JW+6IGu6ZcO6ZQ+6KAu5mY+4KGu6ZHu6f+CLul3zi2dfuqrnuqJHuGOvumFDuuNzui2LuqmbuGX Dt+wPuu6zuulbujDnuuSXuw+HuyWvuzMfuu4nuzOvue1nuwdfuLJ0urSzua/fuR6zuWIjuebjuMtnu1r buzAvudMfug9nufTnu1Yju3M3urlDu7HruvzDu/1ju91juTibuXyze/pPu2nXuhU/uzZou+E/uzSLusK 7+/N/uYOT+/Cruz1zuknUO3hbvDETvHnfvENz/EeX/EdL/IR/+oGH/IYn/HQjuzdgvAbD+4JT+7AHu2K Du0z3+4Pf+MjD/Eg3+ZFHuqfLuo1TvMc//JDj+xBf/Q57+ojjvQC/+1Ib/L/B4/pir7lUE7xAn/vYP7u XU7v3n71eL71Vf/1Mb7rzT7v917r5y32YZ7v3E7jZ+7ukD73AU/wWG7xL67kAA/3Pz/icV/2ZK/nMp/l 1o4thT8gh1/f6N0J853m4iLukB/5kj/5lF/5ln/5mJ/5mr/5nN/5nv/5oB/6oj/6pF/6pl/5apP49aHm X6D6es/hkY/g/9703V37tn/7uJ/7ur/7vN/7vv/7wB/8wj/8xF/8xn/8yJ/8yr/8zN/8zv/8TdvFCzyM XvDbe9GJtWgLM/iXl4jD/LK7sgOlgkzHfUz+1C+METFDzHr+QqD+5q9t0w//HSuX6H8IFCrLYfn+509F /9QW238EApU4kmUFjKi5rir7wi5MyvJ846Zr5/3Nn2g+FnBoLBqTyqCu6SwhY8QltAm4Qq+7E1Zk431T 3ZQwO9YKx96qV81cB91xNepM56rQa31bjt9pBYqF6Ql+udXJCfYRFeKRDRYl5iEWBvLx7QEtah7W6Thm /pFhspVBPp6+9QESgp1y1qQOrsK9UGJtPY12osJF+YDprlJCyu4yDRO3wIoxlykf+3Gh3tnaGUdPVftG 62rbUoeHK6ueXas6t3Ebd3dLwg4DPq+jZ7f75ue55y+Tw+P7RUOeunRPCJryd85frSWvAgoMCDAiu3H2 IJobBw5JGIYUFZraFLLixf9kJN8ca2bQ4z6Lu6SxQXhSH7+OCWFCy+kSpEqL5cplbMhSI7KD1S6l/NjS I5WHPrvgjPJtZD+UMW9h3IhVJ9GhtYCaqWgTp9WeDX/S4yn0pkFHJcvGWPhRaFJhS02utTe2Lc2daoPO dboNrmBaPG1SORuvJcxpeqm6RJt3qtm7CfF2rdt1rVvCSGueBGeWbtAaovhdg3oRKVhGcDFHBuy2sdSs qENXJRfptuXCRt+mZpwTUeJ+ZJXWqy2Z6VvLVZYfv3y3o+avVfcCB9389vaXXC/rtk14KzKtK6tTh+Y8 TV/m0MmT9orY7+rrmdWHLy64d/jWe9onhVtecQD4nXT/+SEnXnxiFShRgz61Bxhs55V2VXecQTahSNpB tJRyDyq2GUcUygdefDJtmJ6DuR3hHTHTIfhcZQXJxiKBJM0zmUz11SSaOTv66OGMxo3GW0kb9jfQkdy9 g1qObHUII3OkDClOjSzmeFxKTx7IY4gvJmmjEvvtJuV8bSmSS1qzDHhWmp9MxqZdEu4jymmG0IIJcdnA aRiTenKkWpTTVDcKLrPYeQsaQaoJipSGhomlo5MWlqiifcZCZ6MtcILSpqyZAWd06xVXaoumlgqMQ6gO xqqrr8Iaq6yz0ipmrbe2iauuu+ag6q6+JgHsqrwSW6yxxxIrLLKn0ress7U6lqyy/0NMy+yz12KbLbbR anvEad2CG66445Jbrrnnopuuuuuy266778Ibr7zz0luvvffim6+++/Lbr7//AhywwAMTXLDBByOcsMIL M9ywww9DHLHEE1NcscUXY5yxxhtz3LHHH4Mcssgjk1yyySejnLLKK7PcsssvwxyzzDPTXLPNN+Ocs847 89yzzz8DHbTQQxNdtNFHI5200ksz3bTTT0MdtdGdSl211e9eQuKUEw1LLWukKvoD1a3OUO3VZ+d7pmJ4 mpgr2c2+rWyAEb7dNtp3C4wkkeL4BnfdZvcNn95iAmM23ofLWzgreH2y36ZyIrro4mpDaKcduVga15Zp SD6QK/+mcYu46Msq/thnkMn1JIp0o8lgjDauvuKRlPk9uu2/lu16bNbxvrmXA5LZ+0qupSOk7NjNdbvy z5b+2tiB3ae773Eb+OilfZn3mvO1L989tLlntxV1p08vWm1QgjrlNiqq9d5RoXsf/6vN+/cM+1COx54U 6LcqLH/b5w9Ha5IfAWWVopns736wiR2V9leh7wwOegDcEQDtVsALmgp59fuNlYCku/840EkCXFP5jrIk BFkPgypkVdbe57Z39AlyLmzF8PgCwx9tYmyZAF0yHscmhjxvhUJ0mOGGaMQhFvGISiQg/JboxCdCMYpS nCIVq2jFK2Ixi1rcIhe76MUvgjH/jGIcIxnLaMYzohFVDFjjGsPFgFi9sQRxrFUc57gEO5oAj+rSY3H4 mEcR+DGN9LJjIJVQyB4cEpA5mGMi6ahGfTVykTiIpCDhhUdKTrJUjYwkI52FyRl8Ml2hfMEmK9mvS46A jSt4YxtJoMoKvNKVsARkK2dZyzqmUo63rGUqW8nKTtLSj7H8JS1deUtF5pGXsZTlMpEJS14as5PQdCYu j+lLQlpTmrsk5CyfeUlWrvKY3fRmNE3JLlSOU4++zCUy+bjOduKym8CUJTX/WEx51lOO7LxmO/fpTHbi 85/9tOc8AVrHeNJTnvHkZ0AVOtB5MhKhwJzmRAfa0FGaE1no/yxoPtMp0I5KtJ7uNKg9PdrQVfqzoykt JEJROk56clKl+azoTFMaUIiSFKQwWChBM9qujQI0pyYdaTDfedGXClWdOY2oO9kYUmq+sqW93KZLiUrO cBpVqRZ96lGHqlOoDjOoU+VpUafqU1Hq06QJxSlSZepVRVqVo2qValu1+tabltSuNk2oWO9q16eylaZ4 /Wpb1brUrZb0rOTiplvZetKk3rOlwhQqZLu61q8e1KL75OpebarVrOa1pqLtKlcd69jNPjSyfVUsuJz6 zbiW8558Das4PyrbZqp2q9MMZmWfOVhdpnO3mU3rVZNp2WgCNqm1XShTZwtNp4bzt21sLv9rN3ZIjFY3 uw27rna727FA7ta74h0vectr3vOiN73qXS972+ve98I3vvKdL33ra9/7ogsB+t3VfmGlXwTMoL8kEDB+ u/tf/gL4VQR+gYATvOACs3a/D5bVhItTYQYnGMLilXCGBwzgAxP4vxnm8IdHXGIPN/jAJRCxCFi8YhWT +MQtlrGLXVyB/uJYxhp+IodXAOIe39jBQi4xjYGc4xn7WMhIfjGSjxzkJjv5yVJ28o937MQUm4DKSp7y lrW85Ch7+MsdXvIIvMxlMpvZzFY+IpaZfOYg17jLcp5xnJMs5iyPOc1zvvObwbxmIYpYxWHu85gJzecH T1jNZc7zntX/rGc+/xnQjHbzow0NZ0snes+DNvKcYWziO3tax5FW4YJLrWkbPzrEgq4wqgsN5y0/Gctg tnGslXzhUeOaCrfGwa5z7esefFrXrv41sX1AayX0utjKXjazm+3sZ0P7BrjtIymT4NqmbpOpVk0mY/ka 7QvKVVZ6dam3uWnuck/2o9j9Nt7Q6UjiVjWqpERlt2VbbnizG4PgzSZkwVnMah4UvC/1N0rPHVSCezuX 8uatWeEK13XnO2fpdqhl3zlci4Ny3Mzc+MELm27BAjaito240SZe2oF7drQFTyxMOa7y1ZI2tCgfOcmJ ZnKQuju5mv2jwYnb87smHLF13Wu4a27zZrSCXOGX9SvNFWrUjhsTpq5lOVkfC/SiG31ops2tQGkK2sIm fNw/1zhmU351uma9aM2krbtxTtrrTl2X0PWmtsnNbamDNbYoD2/aozbxTEoM4n0/ut1ZgHWFCX7wQlMn J/m+MDuGAAAh/nR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0dHR0 Y3N6a291cGZndGxwaXpsaXJvcm9uY3hlbWlhdmZ6cnhheGt3ZXdxYmV1bXNnbWRoADt= --------------020506080404090101050002-- From david.barton@boltblue.com Thu Oct 14 16:52:45 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:52:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? Message-ID: <000f01c4b205$f96f0640$0307a8c0@PlusNet> At the club the other evening I was called at the following 2 card ending. A no trump contract with South declarer. H Q10 S 9 H K3 H J H 54 South played H4, West the H3. Dummy, unprompted, contributed the H10 and East claimed both the tricks with HJ and S9. The director was called and South explained that he had not nominated a card and indeed had not at that point made his mind up which card to play!!!!!! Presumably Declarer may substitute the HQ per L45D. The director should then consider an adjustment under L12A1. Assuming I am on track so far, my questions are:- (a) how many tricks to each side (b) Is L12C3 relevant (c) Is the class of player relevant. (this particular player MAY have finally arrived at the fact that playing the H10 can never be right. He would certainly get there by the time it reached an AC) (d) how would your ruling differ if E held the H9 instead of the S9. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.280 / Virus Database: 264.10.3 - Release Date: 12/10/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 14 17:08:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:08:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: <000f01c4b205$f96f0640$0307a8c0@PlusNet> References: <000f01c4b205$f96f0640$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <416EA461.6010202@hdw.be> The second one is easy: > (d) how would your ruling differ if E held the H9 instead of the S9. what's the difference? - in both cases declarer makes one trick if he plays the queen, and none if he does not. If West does not have the HK, then the cases differ, with this second one being different - it then does not matter which card dummy plays so the question is moot. David Barton wrote: > At the club the other evening I was called at the following 2 > card ending. A no trump contract with South declarer. > > H Q10 > S 9 > H K3 H J > > H 54 > > South played H4, West the H3. Dummy, unprompted, contributed > the H10 and East claimed both the tricks with HJ and S9. > The director was called and South explained that he had not nominated > a card and indeed had not at that point made his mind up which card > to play!!!!!! > > Presumably Declarer may substitute the HQ per L45D. The director > should then consider an adjustment under L12A1. > Why? Declarer has not named a card, so there is no card played. East has shown a card, which he can retract, but it is still AI to declarer. Just like there is no recourse for a declarer who plays upon mishearing a played card, there is no recourse here. There is no law which punishes dummy for playing a card not named, or misheard. And while there may be ways to get at cheating dummies, there was no ention of any wrongful intent by dummy in your story. Now if this were to happen to me as declarer, I would nominate the ten, but that's another matter entirely. > Assuming I am on track so far, my questions are:- > (a) how many tricks to each side one each. > (b) Is L12C3 relevant no, I don't think it is. Maybe it should be in some future edition of the laws, but at present there is no infraction. > (c) Is the class of player relevant. (this particular player MAY have > finally > arrived at the fact that playing the H10 can never be right. He would > certainly get there by the time it reached an AC) If the class of player were so high that he would always find the solution, then why did he not? > (d) how would your ruling differ if E held the H9 instead of the S9. > > ********************************** > David.Barton@BoltBlue.com > ********************************** > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 14 17:12:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <000701c4b11e$97eb4510$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads > ................ > > By way of example: Tim is partnering Brian while Seb is playing with > > Steve. The auction goes 1D-(P)-1S-(p)-2C-(P)-2H-(X)-XX... > > In the original auction Tim XXed, in the replacement auction it was > > Seb. > > David (the opponent who passsed throughout) now knows that Seb is > > near maximum for his calls and quite probably 0454 because Tim would > > have > > to be insane to risk Brian playing a possibly fragile 2Hxx. > > > > Now I don't really care if we say that different systems are being > > used (although I'm not convinced). But I am sure that David has more > > information that he is entitled to and that the board should not be > > played. > > Or that the board should be played because of identical auctions but > that the Director should afterwards (at least if asked) give a ruling on > whether Law 16B has been violated resulting in damage to opponents. L16B Sven! 3. Award an Adjusted Score forthwith award an artificial adjusted score. No waiting until later, no playing the board out. The TD has been made aware of the difference. > With your logic you will always be able to find reasons why a board > should not be played according to Law 15C. Do you really support the > suggestion raised some time ago that Law 15C serves no purpose at all? Don't be silly. I had reason in this instance because North was David - a good player who knows Seb, me, Steve and Brian. Had North been Emily she would not have the same inferences available and the board can be played. And yes I may err on the side of caution when deciding but if I get it wrong (allowing a board to be played when I shouldn't) I am going to have to adjust based on TD error. That will very probably mean 80%+ to both sides. I'm not allowed to cancel retrospectively with L15c. As I said before, L15c is often workable in ordinary club games and almost certainly unworkable in a high-standard game where players are familiar with eachother. From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 14 17:15:36 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:15:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:52:45 BST." <000f01c4b205$f96f0640$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <200410141615.JAA07659@mailhub.irvine.com> David Barton wrote: > At the club the other evening I was called at the following 2 > card ending. A no trump contract with South declarer. > > H Q10 > S 9 > H K3 H J > > H 54 > > South played H4, West the H3. Dummy, unprompted, contributed > the H10 and East claimed both the tricks with HJ and S9. > The director was called and South explained that he had not nominated > a card and indeed had not at that point made his mind up which card > to play!!!!!! > > Presumably Declarer may substitute the HQ per L45D. No, he probably can't. IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CLAIM, then under Law 45D, dummy's H10 must be withdrawn, and RHO withdraws his play without penalty. L45D then points to L16C2, which says that the information from the withdrawn HJ is UI for declarer, and thus declarer may not choose a logical alternative suggested by this info. Thus, if playing H10 is a logical alternative (it probably is, unless the bidding or something makes it impossible for East to hold HK), the HQ becomes an illegal play. So the H10 is withdrawn, the HJ is withdrawn, and then declarer is forced to play the H10 anyway. The claim changes things. I suspect that the correct ruling is that, because of the claim, play ceases, and cannot be resumed just because the claim was based on a prior irregularity. Then I think we have to go directly to L12C2, and determine what the most favorable likely result/most unfavorable result that was probable would have been, starting from the point after East plays the H3 (which is when the irregularity occurred). In this case, it should be deemed likely enough that declarer would insert the H10 that we would give two tricks to East---again, unless the bidding makes it impossible for East to hold HK. > The director > should then consider an adjustment under L12A1. > > Assuming I am on track so far, my questions are:- > (a) how many tricks to each side Two tricks to E-W. > (b) Is L12C3 relevant If this law were available, I don't think I'd use it---but others may differ. It may apply in a case where playing the HQ is "almost" obvious. > (c) Is the class of player relevant. (this particular player MAY have > finally > arrived at the fact that playing the H10 can never be right. He would > certainly get there by the time it reached an AC) IMHO it would have to be pretty obvious that the H10 was wrong. But what is obvious does depend on the class of player. > (d) how would your ruling differ if E held the H9 instead of the S9. E-W are always getting the last trick no matter what happens, in either case, so this shouldn't affect the ruling. -- Adam From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 14 17:34:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:34:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: <200410141615.JAA07659@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200410141615.JAA07659@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <416EAA7D.1060303@hdw.be> It seems I forgot one passage. Adam Beneschan wrote: > David Barton wrote: > > >>At the club the other evening I was called at the following 2 >>card ending. A no trump contract with South declarer. >> >> H Q10 >> S 9 >>H K3 H J >> >> H 54 >> >>South played H4, West the H3. Dummy, unprompted, contributed >>the H10 and East claimed both the tricks with HJ and S9. >>The director was called and South explained that he had not nominated >>a card and indeed had not at that point made his mind up which card >>to play!!!!!! >> >>Presumably Declarer may substitute the HQ per L45D. > > > No, he probably can't. IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CLAIM, then under Law > 45D, dummy's H10 must be withdrawn, and RHO withdraws his play without > penalty. L45D then points to L16C2, which says that the information > from the withdrawn HJ is UI for declarer, and thus declarer may not > choose a logical alternative suggested by this info. Thus, if playing > H10 is a logical alternative (it probably is, unless the bidding or > something makes it impossible for East to hold HK), the HQ becomes an > illegal play. So the H10 is withdrawn, the HJ is withdrawn, and then > declarer is forced to play the H10 anyway. > It all depends on whether you call the eventual play from dummy a 'subsequent' play or not. At the moment of the noticing of the infraction, no card has been played (named) yet from dummy. So the H10 has been illegally "played" and is retracted, East also retracts his HJ and now play is again where it was before. Declarer must now play a card from dummy, but he has UI (indeed, Adam) pointing to the HQ, so he has to play the H10, and east takes the last two tricks. But maybe indeed: > The claim changes things. I suspect that the correct ruling is that, > because of the claim, play ceases, and cannot be resumed just because > the claim was based on a prior irregularity. That is true. > Then I think we have to > go directly to L12C2, That is not. The claim laws do not point to L12, as we've seen many times before. > and determine what the most favorable likely > result/most unfavorable result that was probable would have been, that is true, L70A says something like that as well > starting from the point after East plays the H3 (which is when the > irregularity occurred). No, starting from the claim! IMO, this means going through all the motions again, but with East as the claimer being the one that loses the benefit of the doubt. So we should determine what would have happened: - Declarer would say he had not yet played - There would be a ruling and UI - The TD would rule that declarer must play the H10 - East will make both tricks All this is reasonably certain, so the benefit of the doubt does not enter it. Technically the claim changes some things, but not the final outcome. > In this case, it should be deemed likely > enough that declarer would insert the H10 that we would give two > tricks to East---again, unless the bidding makes it impossible for > East to hold HK. > But in that case Declarer would not be thinking. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 14 17:49:05 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:49:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:34:05 +0200." <416EAA7D.1060303@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200410141649.JAA07856@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > > No, he probably can't. IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CLAIM, then under Law > > 45D, dummy's H10 must be withdrawn, and RHO withdraws his play without > > penalty. L45D then points to L16C2, which says that the information > > from the withdrawn HJ is UI for declarer, and thus declarer may not > > choose a logical alternative suggested by this info. Thus, if playing > > H10 is a logical alternative (it probably is, unless the bidding or > > something makes it impossible for East to hold HK), the HQ becomes an > > illegal play. So the H10 is withdrawn, the HJ is withdrawn, and then > > declarer is forced to play the H10 anyway. > > > > It all depends on whether you call the eventual play from dummy a > 'subsequent' play or not. I don't see how this matters. The term "subsequent" isn't used in L16C; and the only place it's used in L45D has to do with withdrawing *declarer's* play after RHO withdraws a play. This can happen only if LHO leads to a trick, dummy plays a card that declarer didn't name, RHO plays, and declarer plays. This isn't the case here. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 14 18:12:30 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:12:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? References: <000f01c4b205$f96f0640$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <004801c4b210$fd2b22e0$209868d5@jeushtlj> [David Barton] > At the club the other evening I was > called at the following 2 card ending. > A no trump contract with South declarer. > H Q10 > S 9 > H K3 H J > H 54 > South played H4, West the H3. Dummy, > unprompted, contributed the H10 and > East claimed both the tricks with HJ > and S9. The director was called and > South explained that he had not > nominated a card and indeed had not > at that point made his mind up which > card to play!!!!!! > Presumably Declarer may substitute the > HQ per L45D. The director should then > consider an adjustment under L12A1. > Assuming I am on track so far, my > questions are:- > (a) how many tricks to each side > (b) Is L12C3 relevant > (c) Is the class of player relevant. (this particular player MAY have > finally arrived at the fact that > playing the H10 can never be right. > He would certainly get there by > the time it reached an AC) [Nigel] Whatever the class of player, dummy's HQ is the only "rational" play (using the dictionary definition of "rational") So IMO, the TD should rule a trick for declarer. But should also penalise North with a PP. [David Barton] > (d) how would your ruling differ if E > held the H9 instead of the S9. [Nigel] Great question, David! Now it is 50-50 guess. HQ is no longer the only *rational* play but in view of the premature claim, I feel the TD could rule the same way. The premature claim was caused by dummy's infraction, so perhaps the TD should rule that he cannot work out what might have happened without dummy's infraction and simply award both tricks to the defence. On second thoughts, that is how I think the TD should rule in the first place :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From david.barton@boltblue.com Thu Oct 14 21:50:07 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:50:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? References: <200410141615.JAA07659@mailhub.irvine.com> <416EAA7D.1060303@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c4b22f$666ddea0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> I have (at least) 2 problems with this. (1) L45D states "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name the card MUST be withdrawn if ........ and a defender MAY withdraw a card ......... This implies that the withdrawl of defender's card is optional and indeed if the defender has no other card to substitute he is not likely to accept such an option. If he does not withdraw his card there is no UI. If the defender's withdrawl is automatic then the law would/should be worded to that effect. (2) While for you or I there is no Logical Alternative to playing the HQ (since the H10 loses both the tricks on all layouts of the remaining 3 cards), what are the logical alternatives for a player who states he had not decided what card to play? ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another easy one? > It seems I forgot one passage. > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > David Barton wrote: > > > > > >>At the club the other evening I was called at the following 2 > >>card ending. A no trump contract with South declarer. > >> > >> H Q10 > >> S 9 > >>H K3 H J > >> > >> H 54 > >> > >>South played H4, West the H3. Dummy, unprompted, contributed > >>the H10 and East claimed both the tricks with HJ and S9. > >>The director was called and South explained that he had not nominated > >>a card and indeed had not at that point made his mind up which card > >>to play!!!!!! > >> > >>Presumably Declarer may substitute the HQ per L45D. > > > > > > No, he probably can't. IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CLAIM, then under Law > > 45D, dummy's H10 must be withdrawn, and RHO withdraws his play without > > penalty. L45D then points to L16C2, which says that the information > > from the withdrawn HJ is UI for declarer, and thus declarer may not > > choose a logical alternative suggested by this info. Thus, if playing > > H10 is a logical alternative (it probably is, unless the bidding or > > something makes it impossible for East to hold HK), the HQ becomes an > > illegal play. So the H10 is withdrawn, the HJ is withdrawn, and then > > declarer is forced to play the H10 anyway. > > > > It all depends on whether you call the eventual play from dummy a > 'subsequent' play or not. At the moment of the noticing of the > infraction, no card has been played (named) yet from dummy. > So the H10 has been illegally "played" and is retracted, East also > retracts his HJ and now play is again where it was before. Declarer > must now play a card from dummy, but he has UI (indeed, Adam) pointing > to the HQ, so he has to play the H10, and east takes the last two tricks. > > But maybe indeed: > > > The claim changes things. I suspect that the correct ruling is that, > > because of the claim, play ceases, and cannot be resumed just because > > the claim was based on a prior irregularity. > > That is true. > > > Then I think we have to > > go directly to L12C2, > > That is not. The claim laws do not point to L12, as we've seen many > times before. > > > and determine what the most favorable likely > > result/most unfavorable result that was probable would have been, > > that is true, L70A says something like that as well > > > starting from the point after East plays the H3 (which is when the > > irregularity occurred). > > No, starting from the claim! > IMO, this means going through all the motions again, but with East as > the claimer being the one that loses the benefit of the doubt. So we > should determine what would have happened: > - Declarer would say he had not yet played > - There would be a ruling and UI > - The TD would rule that declarer must play the H10 > - East will make both tricks > > All this is reasonably certain, so the benefit of the doubt does not > enter it. > Technically the claim changes some things, but not the final outcome. > > > In this case, it should be deemed likely > > enough that declarer would insert the H10 that we would give two > > tricks to East---again, unless the bidding makes it impossible for > > East to hold HK. > > > > But in that case Declarer would not be thinking. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 7.0.280 / Virus Database: 264.10.3 - Release Date: 12/10/2004 > > -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.280 / Virus Database: 264.10.3 - Release Date: 12/10/2004 From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 14 22:14:38 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:14:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:50:07 BST." <000401c4b22f$666ddea0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <200410142114.OAA09504@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > I have (at least) 2 problems with this. > > (1) L45D states "If dummy places in the played position > a card that declarer did not name the card MUST be withdrawn > if ........ and a defender MAY withdraw a card ......... > > This implies that the withdrawl of defender's card is optional and > indeed if the defender has no other card to substitute he is not > likely to accept such an option. If he does not withdraw his card > there is no UI. Nope, even if this were the only card I could legally play, I'd still withdraw it if the TD explained (correctly) to me that withdrawing the card would make it UI for declarer. Unfortunately, (1) TD's may miss this when explaining, and (2) even if they don't, a defender who is not well versed in the Laws may not understand why they should withdraw the card when they know it's the one they're going to play anyway. Really, for cases like this, the Laws ought to be worded such that if one player plays a card illegally, and LHO plays a card, and then the TD backs the play up to before the offender played his card, so that the offender has to make another play, LHO's card ought to be UI to declarer regardless of whether LHO withdraws it. Same for the auction. Otherwise there is a loophole in the Laws that allows an offender to possibly gain information they're not entitled to. > If the defender's withdrawl is automatic then the law would/should > be worded to that effect. It ought to be automatically UI one way or another. See above. > (2) While for you or I there is no Logical Alternative to playing the > HQ (since the H10 loses both the tricks on all layouts of the > remaining 3 cards), By the way, I had missed this fact when I posted originally, because I hadn't studied the position from a bridge point of view---I had put on my Bridge Lawyer hat, and the brim seems to have fallen below my eyes and impaired my vision. Yes, as long as there are three hearts and one spade out, the HQ is the only LA. > what are the logical alternatives for a player > who states he had not decided what card to play? I don't think it's relevant that declarer had not decided. Even if there is only one LA, that doesn't mean that a player should be able to figure it out in 0.2 seconds. Sometimes it takes me a fair amount of thinking before I figure out that only one bid or play makes sense. I didn't figure it out immediately when I saw the your first post. It probably would have taken me several seconds to figure it out. But the definition of "Logical Alternative" has nothing to do with how much time it takes to select a call or play. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 14 22:49:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:49:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: <200410142114.OAA09504@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000b01c4b237$9f9c9100$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan .............. > Nope, even if this were the only card I could legally play, I'd still > withdraw it if the TD explained (correctly) to me that withdrawing the > card would make it UI for declarer. Unfortunately, (1) TD's may miss > this when explaining, and (2) even if they don't, a defender who is > not well versed in the Laws may not understand why they should > withdraw the card when they know it's the one they're going to play > anyway. Really, for cases like this, the Laws ought to be worded such > that if one player plays a card illegally, and LHO plays a card, and > then the TD backs the play up to before the offender played his card, > so that the offender has to make another play, LHO's card ought to be > UI to declarer regardless of whether LHO withdraws it. Same for the > auction. Otherwise there is a loophole in the Laws that allows an > offender to possibly gain information they're not entitled to. When trying Norwegian candidates for authorization as Directors we have = a test case very similar to this incident (as I understand it). We rule = that any information about opponents' cards the declarer obtains from his own irregularity is UI to him; that is we do not for instance require a = defender to formally withdraw his card for this to be the effect. I am not going to examine the laws right now to verify that our rulings = in such cases is fully covered by the laws and I am not going to engage in = any discussion on this matter. But we shall continue to rule the same way! Regards Sven From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Oct 15 00:12:08 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:12:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, North Q J 8 K J 8 5 K 9 4 West J 4 3 East A K 6 5 7 4 2 Q 10 6 4 3 A 2 A 7 2 Q 10 8 6 3 9 South A Q 2 10 9 3 9 7 J 5 K 10 8 7 6 5 West North East South 2D P 2NT P 3D all Pass The agreement (on CC) is that E-W pair plays Flannery 2D (5H-4S, 11-14 HPC). E forgot and tells he bid 2NT as Feature on weak 2D (If my partner bid 3S, I play 3NT. If not, 3D or 4D.) Despite the lack of alert, W pretends he goes on playing Flannery; 3D shows 4-5-3-1. On 3D, East says he thought W had no Feature (minimum weak 2D) and Passed. Score: 3D = 110. Most pairs bid the game and went down. North called the TD and asked for a redress (misinformation - Law 75). The TD ruled: - N-S received misinformation: 2D was not alerted; - West did not use UI (2D not alerted); - N-S, probably, would not bid if 2D has been alerted as Flannery; - the bad N-S result does not come from misinformation; - the score stands (N-S are just unlucky). Your opinion. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City PS: I was not the TD, so I have no more information. From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 15 00:28:08 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:28:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:12:08 EDT." Message-ID: <200410142328.QAA10262@mailhub.irvine.com> Laval wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > North > Q J 8 > K J 8 5 > K 9 4 > West J 4 3 East > A K 6 5 7 4 2 > Q 10 6 4 3 A 2 > A 7 2 Q 10 8 6 3 > 9 South A Q 2 > 10 9 3 > 9 7 > J 5 > K 10 8 7 6 5 > > West North East South > 2D P 2NT P > 3D all Pass > The agreement (on CC) is that E-W pair plays Flannery 2D > (5H-4S, 11-14 HPC). E forgot and tells he bid 2NT as Feature on > weak 2D (If my partner bid 3S, I play 3NT. If not, 3D or 4D.) > Despite the lack of alert, W pretends he goes on playing > Flannery; 3D shows 4-5-3-1. On 3D, East says he thought W had > no Feature (minimum weak 2D) and Passed. Score: 3D = 110. > > Most pairs bid the game and went down. North called the TD and > asked for a redress (misinformation - Law 75). > The TD ruled: > - N-S received misinformation: 2D was not alerted; > - West did not use UI (2D not alerted); > - N-S, probably, would not bid if 2D has been alerted as Flannery; > - the bad N-S result does not come from misinformation; > - the score stands (N-S are just unlucky). One thing that wasn't mentioned: Did West alert 2NT, and was it explained? If not, this is further MI to N-S but probably not relevant since the TD already ruled that N-S would stay out of the auction regardless. If West alerted 2NT but was not asked to explain it, East really doesn't have any additional info, except possibly the info that West doesn't remember the ACBL alerting rules. If West alerted 2NT and explained it, then East has UI, and we have to judge whether he used the UI to decide whether to pass 3D. On the other hand, I don't know where else East is going to go. Just because they have a ton of trump doesn't mean they belong in game. So it's likely that I'd rule that there is no LA to pass by East. (Note for non-ACBLers: This 2NT response to Flannery is alertable. A conventional 2NT response to a weak 2 is not alertable, but I suspect that only a minority of ACBL players know this.) Anyway, I don't see a problem with the ruling. The problem here is that too many players seem to think that if their opponents have a convention screw-up, they're automatically entitled to a good score and they think there's been a travesty of justice when they don't get it, or especially when they get fixed for a bottom. Also, it's arguable that East's pass was the right action even if he had remembered they were playing Flannery. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 15 00:33:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:33:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <000301c4b1cb$4f9ca580$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RJH: >>Rather than talk theory, let us look at a practical >>hand which I played last night in the walk-in pairs >>of the South Canberra Bridge club. >> >>Dlr: West >>Vul: None >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST Me >>Pass Pass 1C 1S >>Dble Pass 2C 2S >>Pass Pass Pass >> >> >>Dummy >>87 >>AT753 >>Q852 >>JT >> >> >>Me >>AKQT6 >>6 >>KT7 >>Q864 >> >> >>The play proceeds: >> >>Trick 1 -> C3 CT CK C4 >>Trick 2 -> CA C6 C2 CJ >>Trick 3 -> C5 C8 S9 H5 >>Trick 4 -> D9 D2 DJ DK >>Trick 5 -> SA S4 S7 S3 >>Trick 6 -> SK S5 S8 SJ >>Trick 7 -> SQ H9 H3 C7 >> >> >>What action should I take? Sven: >Lead a card to the subsequent trick in order to have >the revoke established. RJH: Which is what I did. I led another top trump, the missing deuce now appeared, and a one trick penalty for the meaningless revoke gave me a top of +170. Sven: >If your opponents are beginners in the game of bridge >(not likely from the story) you just could consider >helping them from committing a revoke, but you have >absolutely no obligation by any law to do so. RJH: Absolutely no obligation by any Law? It could be argued that I infracted Law 74B1 (paying insufficient attention to the game), and consequently Law 90B2 (unduly slow play). At the conclusion of Trick 6, it was obvious for me to claim. I should have stated, "Drawing the last trump, conceding a trick to the ace of diamonds, nine tricks, +140." If so, the Trick 7 revoke would have been stillborn. So, would my "unsporting" behaviour in deliberately acting to establish an opponent's revoke allow a Steve Willnerish TD to rule that I had committed a conduct offence? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Oct 15 01:56:31 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:56:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling References: <200410142328.QAA10262@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <004901c4b252$9a376300$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > (Note for non-ACBLers: This 2NT response to Flannery is alertable. A > conventional 2NT response to a weak 2 is not alertable, but I suspect > that only a minority of ACBL players know this.) > This is news to me, Adam. I don't see where the non-Alertability of a 2NT response applies to weak twos only. The Alert Procedure says that 2NT in response to a 2D, 2H, or 2S opening, is "not Alertable if it asks for further [sic] clarification." Can you cite the language that says otherwise? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Oct 15 01:17:49 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:17:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling In-Reply-To: <200410142328.QAA10262@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: One thing that wasn't mentioned: Did West alert 2NT, and was it explained? If not, this is further MI to N-S but probably not relevant since the TD already ruled that N-S would stay out of the auction regardless. ___________________________________________________________________ Sorry. This I know: 2NT was alerted but nobody asked for. As you told, so many players think that 2NT is alertable on weak 2s (if Feature, Ogust, etc.). Laval From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 15 01:25:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:25:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <416E7A52.9020103@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau suggested; >>.....the law should be changed to say what it means. Herman De Wael asked: >Exactly. > >Now can we not simply understand the law to mean this >and move on? >After all, there are far bigger holes in L15C. >No I'm not even talking about barometer! > >Where does it state what the TD should do if the >mistaken opponents are discovered during play? RJH notes: It seems to me that Herman has not necessarily found a "big hole" in Law 15C. Rather, I suggest this is merely Law 15C including an unstated inference that it is to be read in conjunction with Law 15A and Law 15B. That is, C is a specific exception to the primacy of A and B. Therefore, in my opinion, A and B are relevant as soon as the opening lead has been faced. Another example of Kaplan's gnomic terseness, which will no doubt be rectified in the foreshadowed *plain* English edition of the Laws in 2006. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 15 01:33:35 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:33:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:56:31 PDT." <004901c4b252$9a376300$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200410150033.RAA10628@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > (Note for non-ACBLers: This 2NT response to Flannery is alertable. A > > conventional 2NT response to a weak 2 is not alertable, but I suspect > > that only a minority of ACBL players know this.) > > > This is news to me, Adam. I don't see where the non-Alertability of a 2NT > response applies to weak twos only. The Alert Procedure says that 2NT in > response to a 2D, 2H, or 2S opening, is "not Alertable if it asks for > further [sic] clarification." It appears that you're right. My mistake. I must have remembered an earlier incarnation of the Alert rules, but I should have looked it up. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 15 01:35:54 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:35:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:28:08 PDT." <200410142328.QAA10262@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200410150035.RAA10652@mailhub.irvine.com> Some corrections to what I wrote: > Laval wrote: > > > Hi BLMLrs, > > North > > Q J 8 > > K J 8 5 > > K 9 4 > > West J 4 3 East > > A K 6 5 7 4 2 > > Q 10 6 4 3 A 2 > > A 7 2 Q 10 8 6 3 > > 9 South A Q 2 > > 10 9 3 > > 9 7 > > J 5 > > K 10 8 7 6 5 > > > > West North East South > > 2D P 2NT P > > 3D all Pass > > The agreement (on CC) is that E-W pair plays Flannery 2D > > (5H-4S, 11-14 HPC). E forgot and tells he bid 2NT as Feature on > > weak 2D (If my partner bid 3S, I play 3NT. If not, 3D or 4D.) > > Despite the lack of alert, W pretends he goes on playing > > Flannery; 3D shows 4-5-3-1. On 3D, East says he thought W had > > no Feature (minimum weak 2D) and Passed. Score: 3D = 110. > > One thing that wasn't mentioned: Did West alert 2NT, and was it > explained? If not, this is further MI to N-S but probably not > relevant since the TD already ruled that N-S would stay out of the > auction regardless. I mistakenly thought a 2NT to Flannery was alertable, but it isn't. So there's no MI issue in this case. This part is still correct, though, even though the Alert isn't necessary: > If West alerted 2NT and explained it, then East has UI, and we have > to judge whether he used the UI to decide whether to pass 3D. On > the other hand, I don't know where else East is going to go. Just > because they have a ton of trump doesn't mean they belong in game. > So it's likely that I'd rule that there is no LA to pass by East. And it's also correct if West doesn't alert 2NT but explains it in response to a question. -- Adam From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 15 01:35:11 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:35:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> David Stevenson >> >................. >> >> Sorry, Sven, you cannot say "by example" to get you away from the >> >> actual wording. If you expose a card intentionally that's an MPC. If >> >> your original intent is to play the D9 and you expose the D9 either you >> >> play it or it is an MPC. >> > >> >I am not attempting to get away from the actual wording! I am attempting >> to >> >take Laws 58B2 and 50B literally because I find their wording very >> precise >> >and reasonable. >> > >> >How do you read and understand the clause in Law 50B: "(As in playing two >> >cards to a trick,...)? >> >> If you intend to play the DK and play the D9 simultaneously, then >> L58B2 gives you the choice: you choose the DK and the D9 is an mPC. >> >> But that does not affect the fact that if you played the D9 >> deliberately it cannot be an mPC. > >Nobody argues that D9 is a major penalty card if played deliberately. The >point in Law 58B is that it does not ask which card the player intended to >play, it asks which of the two (or more) cards he exposed he will decide as >the card he plays. > >Now please rule on this (Let it be stipulated that I am a very honest player >who do not know the laws and politely just answer you questions): > >I have in my hand the diamonds Queen, Jack, nine and eight and I expose the >Jack and the nine by playing them both (simultaneously) to a trick. > >If you (as is your duty) informs me that I have to select one of the two >exposed cards as the card I want to play and also all consequences of my >selection I answer that I select the Jack as the played card. > >If you ask me which card I really intended to play then: > >Case 1: I answer that it was my intention to play my Queen. > >Case 2: I answer that it was my intention to play my eight. In that case you let fall two cards and both become MPCs. The point of the original comment was that a naive player may blurt out to the TD "I was trying to play the nine" just to be helpful, whereas the cheat will say "I played the Jack" long before you get to explain the options. Now what should I do with the honest player? -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 15 01:41:24 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:41:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Steve Willner: > >>We know the Proprieties are not a complete list of >>conduct offenses, or at least they aren't very >>specific. > >RJH: > >Rather than talk theory, let us look at a practical >hand which I played last night in the walk-in pairs >of the South Canberra Bridge club. > >Dlr: West >Vul: None > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST Me >Pass Pass 1C 1S >Dble Pass 2C 2S >Pass Pass Pass > > >Dummy >87 >AT753 >Q852 >JT > > >Me >AKQT6 >6 >KT7 >Q864 > > >The play proceeds: > >Trick 1 -> C3 CT CK C4 >Trick 2 -> CA C6 C2 CJ >Trick 3 -> C5 C8 S9 H5 >Trick 4 -> D9 D2 DJ DK >Trick 5 -> SA S4 S7 S3 >Trick 6 -> SK S5 S8 SJ >Trick 7 -> SQ H9 H3 C7 > > >What action should I take? play another spade and get the revoke established. >What actions should I consider taking? telling your opponents to follow suit to the spade. (I'd keep the penalty card though) > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Movie grognard and general guru > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Oct 15 01:36:46 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:36:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Dlr: West >>Vul: None >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST Me >>Pass Pass 1C 1S >>Dble Pass 2C 2S >>Pass Pass Pass >> >> >>Dummy >>87 >>AT753 >>Q852 >>JT >> >> >>Me >>AKQT6 >>6 >>KT7 >>Q864 >> >> >>The play proceeds: >> >>Trick 1 -> C3 CT CK C4 >>Trick 2 -> CA C6 C2 CJ >>Trick 3 -> C5 C8 S9 H5 >>Trick 4 -> D9 D2 DJ DK >>Trick 5 -> SA S4 S7 S3 >>Trick 6 -> SK S5 S8 SJ >>Trick 7 -> SQ H9 H3 C7 +++ I dont know why you didnt claim, but from my own experience I try not to claim with any trump outstanding, especially against weaker opps. Make the claim crystal clear. I mean one can hardly argue you deliberately played out the cards in the knowledge that the opps would revoke. The case I posted, all parties concerned knew what the correct ruling should have been and yet the NOS Knowingly (and this is the whole point) forced the issue in a provable unsportsmanlike fashion. In your case you are introducing a new law forcing people to claim when they can and if they do not do so any damage caused by NOS is ignored. You are not forced to claim. If you play out the cards you cant know what the opps are going to do. By playing out the cards you also run the risk of you making a mistake or revoking. You cant predict the outcome with any certainty, whereas in my case, they tried a cheap shot knowingly to improve their score. If the opps were weak i would have paused, allowing the opps a few secs to find the missing trump and if they still couldn't do so, play to the next trick. Not claiming is not unsportsmanlike. If yoiu somehow KNEW the opponent was very likely to revoke, now it could be argued as unsportsmanlike. K. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 15 01:49:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:49:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling In-Reply-To: <200410142328.QAA10262@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laval: >>The agreement (on CC) is that E-W pair plays Flannery 2D >>(5H-4S, 11-14 HPC). E forgot and tells he bid 2NT as Feature >>on weak 2D (If my partner bid 3S, I play 3NT. If not, 3D or >>4D.) Despite the lack of alert, W pretends he goes on >>playing Flannery; 3D shows 4-5-3-1. Adam: >Anyway, I don't see a problem with the ruling. The problem >here is that too many players seem to think that if their >opponents have a convention screw-up, they're automatically >entitled to a good score and they think there's been a >travesty of justice when they don't get it, or especially >when they get fixed for a bottom. RJH: Agreed. Virtue has been rewarded. West impeccably obeyed Law 73C with his systemic 3D rebid, despite knowing he might then declare 3D in a 3-2 fit. As TD, I would use my Law 81C9 power to refer West's action to the selection committee which decides Bridge Sportsman of the Year. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From mikedod@gte.net Fri Oct 15 03:53:14 2004 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:53:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001801c4b262$24fce870$0100a8c0@MIKE> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > In article <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes >>> David Stevenson >>> >................. >>> >> Sorry, Sven, you cannot say "by example" to get you away from the >>> >> actual wording. If you expose a card intentionally that's an MPC. >>> >> If >>> >> your original intent is to play the D9 and you expose the D9 either >>> >> you >>> >> play it or it is an MPC. >>> > >>> >I am not attempting to get away from the actual wording! I am >>> >attempting >>> to >>> >take Laws 58B2 and 50B literally because I find their wording very >>> precise >>> >and reasonable. >>> > >>> >How do you read and understand the clause in Law 50B: "(As in playing >>> >two >>> >cards to a trick,...)? >>> >>> If you intend to play the DK and play the D9 simultaneously, then >>> L58B2 gives you the choice: you choose the DK and the D9 is an mPC. >>> >>> But that does not affect the fact that if you played the D9 >>> deliberately it cannot be an mPC. >> >>Nobody argues that D9 is a major penalty card if played deliberately. The >>point in Law 58B is that it does not ask which card the player intended to >>play, it asks which of the two (or more) cards he exposed he will decide >>as >>the card he plays. >> >>Now please rule on this (Let it be stipulated that I am a very honest >>player >>who do not know the laws and politely just answer you questions): >> >>I have in my hand the diamonds Queen, Jack, nine and eight and I expose >>the >>Jack and the nine by playing them both (simultaneously) to a trick. >> >>If you (as is your duty) informs me that I have to select one of the two >>exposed cards as the card I want to play and also all consequences of my >>selection I answer that I select the Jack as the played card. >> >>If you ask me which card I really intended to play then: >> >>Case 1: I answer that it was my intention to play my Queen. >> >>Case 2: I answer that it was my intention to play my eight. > > In that case you let fall two cards and both become MPCs. The point of > the original comment was that a naive player may blurt out to the TD "I > was trying to play the nine" just to be helpful, whereas the cheat will > say "I played the Jack" long before you get to explain the options. > > Now what should I do with the honest player? The answer is: DON'T ASK L58b2 doesn't ask which card was intended, only which card the player _now_ proposes to play. Not "proposed" at the time of the play. L50b specifically covers the L58 referral (two cards to a trick) and does not need intention. To me asking intention should lead to A+/A+ via L82. Otherwise intention is UI if revealed. Mike Dodson > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 15 04:21:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:21:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: [snip] >I mean one can hardly argue you deliberately played >out the cards in the knowledge that the opps would >revoke. RJH: But I did (unsportingly?) follow Law 72A4, and I did deliberately play a card which *established* that revoke. Karel: >The case I posted, all parties concerned knew what >the correct ruling should have been [snip] RJH: No, in the case that you posted all parties knew what the *sporting* ruling should have been. As you acknowledged earlier, the issue was what to do with a pair who uses a technicality to exploit the Laws in an unsporting way. In my opinion, Karel's original case (which started this thread) and my current case (now under discussion) are fully compatible. If the Laws permit a non- offending side to gain an inequitable and unsporting advantage, then the Laws permit a non-offending side to gain an inequitable and unsporting advantage. A TD *cannot* use The Proprieties to penalise such unsporting players for their Lawful gain of an advantage. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 15 09:10:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:10:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4b28e$6e041d00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > Sent: 15. oktober 2004 01:12 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling > > Hi BLMLrs, > North > Q J 8 > K J 8 5 > K 9 4 > West J 4 3 East > A K 6 5 7 4 2 > Q 10 6 4 3 A 2 > A 7 2 Q 10 8 6 3 > 9 South A Q 2 > 10 9 3 > 9 7 > J 5 > K 10 8 7 6 5 > > West North East South > 2D P 2NT P > 3D all Pass > The agreement (on CC) is that E-W pair plays Flannery 2D > (5H-4S, 11-14 HPC). E forgot and tells he bid 2NT as Feature on > weak 2D (If my partner bid 3S, I play 3NT. If not, 3D or 4D.) > Despite the lack of alert, W pretends he goes on playing > Flannery; 3D shows 4-5-3-1. On 3D, East says he thought W had > no Feature (minimum weak 2D) and Passed. Score: 3D = 110. > > Most pairs bid the game and went down. North called the TD and > asked for a redress (misinformation - Law 75). > The TD ruled: > - N-S received misinformation: 2D was not alerted; > - West did not use UI (2D not alerted); > - N-S, probably, would not bid if 2D has been alerted as Flannery; > - the bad N-S result does not come from misinformation; > - the score stands (N-S are just unlucky). > > Your opinion. >From the presented facts: No problem, result stands. Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 15 09:24:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:24:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4b290$5b3b8a80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > RJH: > > >>Rather than talk theory, let us look at a practical > >>hand which I played last night in the walk-in pairs > >>of the South Canberra Bridge club. > >> > >>Dlr: West > >>Vul: None > >> > >>The bidding has gone: > >> > >>WEST NORTH EAST Me > >>Pass Pass 1C 1S > >>Dble Pass 2C 2S > >>Pass Pass Pass > >> > >> > >>Dummy > >>87 > >>AT753 > >>Q852 > >>JT > >> > >> > >>Me > >>AKQT6 > >>6 > >>KT7 > >>Q864 > >> > >> > >>The play proceeds: > >> > >>Trick 1 -> C3 CT CK C4 > >>Trick 2 -> CA C6 C2 CJ > >>Trick 3 -> C5 C8 S9 H5 > >>Trick 4 -> D9 D2 DJ DK > >>Trick 5 -> SA S4 S7 S3 > >>Trick 6 -> SK S5 S8 SJ > >>Trick 7 -> SQ H9 H3 C7 > >> > >> > >>What action should I take? > > Sven: > > >Lead a card to the subsequent trick in order to have > >the revoke established. > > RJH: > > Which is what I did. I led another top trump, the > missing deuce now appeared, and a one trick penalty > for the meaningless revoke gave me a top of +170. > > Sven: > > >If your opponents are beginners in the game of bridge > >(not likely from the story) you just could consider > >helping them from committing a revoke, but you have > >absolutely no obligation by any law to do so. > > RJH: > > Absolutely no obligation by any Law? NO > It could be argued that I infracted Law 74B1 (paying > insufficient attention to the game), and consequently > Law 90B2 (unduly slow play). NEITHER > At the conclusion of Trick 6, it was obvious for me > to claim. I should have stated, "Drawing the last > trump, conceding a trick to the ace of diamonds, nine > tricks, +140." If so, the Trick 7 revoke would have > been stillborn. Including the necessary explanations your claim would probably take longer than simply playing off a few more tricks and then show that you have only high cards left with no outstanding trumps. No cause for Law 909B2. > So, would my "unsporting" behaviour in deliberately > acting to establish an opponent's revoke allow a Steve > Willnerish TD to rule that I had committed a conduct > offence? On the contrary no player has any obligation to prevent opponents from completing an offence in progress before calling attention to it. (And the Director MUST NOT interfere in any way on his own initiative while the offender still has available actions that may limit damage!) Rest peacefully! Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 15 09:30:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:30:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001801c4b262$24fce870$0100a8c0@MIKE> Message-ID: <000701c4b291$3ccf09e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> mike dodson ................ > >>If you ask me which card I really intended to play then: > >> > >>Case 1: I answer that it was my intention to play my Queen. > >> > >>Case 2: I answer that it was my intention to play my eight. > > > > In that case you let fall two cards and both become MPCs. The point of > > the original comment was that a naive player may blurt out to the TD "I > > was trying to play the nine" just to be helpful, whereas the cheat will > > say "I played the Jack" long before you get to explain the options. > > > > Now what should I do with the honest player? > > The answer is: DON'T ASK > > L58b2 doesn't ask which card was intended, only which card the player > _now_ > proposes to play. Not "proposed" at the time of the play. > > L50b specifically covers the L58 referral (two cards to a trick) and does > not need intention. > > To me asking intention should lead to A+/A+ via L82. Otherwise intention > is > UI if revealed. At last an entry from someone who really understands laws 58B2 and 50B! Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 15 09:44:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:44:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c4b293$3f9f07e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ................. > In that case you let fall two cards and both become MPCs. =20 You do not yet understand Law 58, do you? If I intend to play the Ace of spades but instead play the ace of clubs = I haven't "dropped" the Ace of clubs; I played it (by mistake but I still "played" it) If I intend to play one card but played two cards Law 58B2 gives me both = the obligation but also the freedom to select which of the two cards I wish = to play. There is no question anywhere of what was my original intention; I have exposed two cards in a process of playing a card, now I have the = choice of which of the two cards I select as actually played. > The point of > the original comment was that a naive player may blurt out to the TD = "I > was trying to play the nine" just to be helpful, whereas the cheat = will > say "I played the Jack" long before you get to explain the options. And a Director who allows this to happen has no choice but to award A+ = to both sides; most important he has violated Law 10C1 and deprived the offender his right under Law 58B2 to select the option less destructive = for his side. Law 82C is there for a reason! =20 Sven From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 15 10:57:49 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:57:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000801c4b293$3f9f07e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002f01c4b29d$6ddb8890$12330952@AnnesComputer> I wish this thread had been given a new header - it is nothing to do with Cardiff (non) Ruling 9 Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 John (MadDog) Probst ................. > In that case you let fall two cards and both become MPCs. You do not yet understand Law 58, do you? If I intend to play the Ace of spades but instead play the ace of clubs I haven't "dropped" the Ace of clubs; I played it (by mistake but I still "played" it) If I intend to play one card but played two cards Law 58B2 gives me both the obligation but also the freedom to select which of the two cards I wish to play. There is no question anywhere of what was my original intention; I have exposed two cards in a process of playing a card, now I have the choice of which of the two cards I select as actually played. > The point of > the original comment was that a naive player may blurt out to the TD "I > was trying to play the nine" just to be helpful, whereas the cheat will > say "I played the Jack" long before you get to explain the options. And a Director who allows this to happen has no choice but to award A+ to both sides; most important he has violated Law 10C1 and deprived the offender his right under Law 58B2 to select the option less destructive for his side. Law 82C is there for a reason! Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 15 11:13:50 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:13:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000801c4b293$3f9f07e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c4b293$3f9f07e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000801c4b293$3f9f07e0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >................. >> In that case you let fall two cards and both become MPCs. > >You do not yet understand Law 58, do you? > >If I intend to play the Ace of spades but instead play the ace of clubs I >haven't "dropped" the Ace of clubs; I played it (by mistake but I still >"played" it) > >If I intend to play one card but played two cards Law 58B2 gives me both the >obligation but also the freedom to select which of the two cards I wish to >play. There is no question anywhere of what was my original intention; I >have exposed two cards in a process of playing a card, now I have the choice >of which of the two cards I select as actually played. > >> The point of >> the original comment was that a naive player may blurt out to the TD "I >> was trying to play the nine" just to be helpful, whereas the cheat will >> say "I played the Jack" long before you get to explain the options. > >And a Director who allows this to happen has no choice but to award A+ to >both sides; most important he has violated Law 10C1 and deprived the >offender his right under Law 58B2 to select the option less destructive for >his side. I'm sorry but it does happen. It has happened. It's happened yo me. "I pulled 2 cards and I was trying to play the nine" Do you suggest I gag the player who says this half way through his sentence? What do I now do? My own view is that I treat the comment as extraneous and give him his options. ... and I have to do this to protect this player against what a cheat would do. John > >Law 82C is there for a reason! > >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 15 11:15:39 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:15:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: <200410142114.OAA09504@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200410142114.OAA09504@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2A1FDA6E-1E93-11D9-B006-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 14 Oct 2004, at 22:14, Adam Beneschan wrote: > By the way, I had missed this fact when I posted originally, because I > hadn't studied the position from a bridge point of view---I had put on > my Bridge Lawyer hat, and the brim seems to have fallen below my eyes > and impaired my vision. Yes, as long as there are three hearts and > one spade out, the HQ is the only LA. As long as declarer *knows* there are three hearts and one spade out. > > >> what are the logical alternatives for a player >> who states he had not decided what card to play? > > I don't think it's relevant that declarer had not decided. It is, inasmuch as it may indicate that declarer wasn't completely aware of the position. > Even if > there is only one LA, that doesn't mean that a player should be able > to figure it out in 0.2 seconds. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 15 11:53:28 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:53:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 58B2 and 50B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c4b2a5$34f843d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> In respect of the suggestion by Anne Jones I have changed the subject. John (MadDog) Probst ............. > >And a Director who allows this to happen has no choice but to award = A+ to > >both sides; most important he has violated Law 10C1 and deprived the > >offender his right under Law 58B2 to select the option less = destructive > for > >his side. >=20 > I'm sorry but it does happen. It has happened. It's happened yo me. = "I > pulled 2 cards and I was trying to play the nine" Do you suggest I = gag > the player who says this half way through his sentence? What do I now > do? My own view is that I treat the comment as extraneous and give = him > his options. ... and I have to do this to protect this player against > what a cheat would do. John I have no idea how any question of cheating can be relevant in a case = like this. Selecting a card as played under Law 58B2 is definitely not = "cheating" even if it should happen that you select a card different from the card = you originally intended to play. The offender who makes his choice, for instance with remarks like those above, without awaiting the Director's ruling including the explanation = of his options has (technically) violated Law 9C and in the case of a Law = 58B2 irregularity should be bound by his premature selection. (The Director = may cancel this selection and allow the offender his full rights under Law 58B2). The Director who without completely explaining all options available and their respective consequences before asking which card the offender = selects as played under Law 58B2, or even worse asks the offender which card he (originally) INTENDED to play has made a possibly serious error. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 15 13:17:45 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:17:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: <200410142114.OAA09504@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200410142114.OAA09504@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041015080849.02b80c50@pop.starpower.net> At 05:14 PM 10/14/04, Adam wrote: >David wrote: > > > (2) While for you or I there is no Logical Alternative to playing the > > HQ (since the H10 loses both the tricks on all layouts of the > > remaining 3 cards), > >By the way, I had missed this fact when I posted originally, because I >hadn't studied the position from a bridge point of view---I had put on >my Bridge Lawyer hat, and the brim seems to have fallen below my eyes >and impaired my vision. Yes, as long as there are three hearts and >one spade out, the HQ is the only LA. Quite so, but can we assume that this declarer knew that there were three hearts and one spade out? I hope the right answer (if it isn't just yes or no) depends solely on the facts of what transpired during the play of the hand to that point, not on someone's subjective assessment of the "class of player involved". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 15 13:34:22 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:34:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041015083019.02b82380@pop.starpower.net> At 07:12 PM 10/14/04, Laval wrote: > North > Q J 8 > K J 8 5 > K 9 4 > West J 4 3 East > A K 6 5 7 4 2 > Q 10 6 4 3 A 2 > A 7 2 Q 10 8 6 3 > 9 South A Q 2 > 10 9 3 > 9 7 > J 5 > K 10 8 7 6 5 > > West North East South > 2D P 2NT P > 3D all Pass > The agreement (on CC) is that E-W pair plays Flannery 2D > (5H-4S, 11-14 HPC). E forgot and tells he bid 2NT as Feature on > weak 2D (If my partner bid 3S, I play 3NT. If not, 3D or 4D.) > Despite the lack of alert, W pretends he goes on playing > Flannery; 3D shows 4-5-3-1. On 3D, East says he thought W had > no Feature (minimum weak 2D) and Passed. Score: 3D = 110. > > Most pairs bid the game and went down. North called the TD and > asked for a redress (misinformation - Law 75). > The TD ruled: > - N-S received misinformation: 2D was not alerted; > - West did not use UI (2D not alerted); > - N-S, probably, would not bid if 2D has been alerted as Flannery; > - the bad N-S result does not come from misinformation; > - the score stands (N-S are just unlucky). > > Your opinion. I fully agree with the TD. E-W did what the Law requires (which is pretty severe), and got atypically lucky -- they'd presumably have had the same auction had East been 3-5-2-3 instead of 3-2-5-3). There is nothing in TFLB that says that if you have a bidding misunderstanding you *must* wind up with a bad score. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From HubeyMckeithan@hawk.igs.net Fri Oct 15 16:01:57 2004 From: HubeyMckeithan@hawk.igs.net (Raoul Mccormic) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:01:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Best deal of the month Message-ID: <20041015140509.78B53877@rhubarb.custard.org> However, the solution of the problem submitted to me may = modify the form of the dilemma.=20













discontinue The Abraham Lincoln, propelled by her wonderful screw, went straight at th= e animal; Three seconds after reading the letter of the honourable Secreta= ry of Marine, I felt that my true vocation, the sole end of my life, was t= o chase this disturbing monster and purge it from the world!!!=20 From Tanya_Perruzza@microsoft.com Fri Oct 15 16:48:52 2004 From: Tanya_Perruzza@microsoft.com (Griselda Kobbe) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:48:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Fwd: work Message-ID: <20041015145206.856345CF@rhubarb.custard.org> The entire ship's crew were undergoing a nervous exciteme= nt, of which I can give no idea: they could not eat, they could not sleep = -- twenty times a day, a misconception or an optical illusion of some sail= or seated on the taff rail, would cause dreadful perspirations, and these = emotions, twenty times repeated, kept us in a state of excitement so viole= nt that a reaction was unavoidable!=20





Cïâlìs definetely = better then Vì@grå
..can last for 2 days
..You can have alcohol with Cíâlis
..improves sexual performances twice better then Víagrà ..it costs much cheaper than Pfïzër Vïagrã
Get ÇÏALÎS (SÚPËR VÌ&Atil= de;GRÄ) here










Discontinue The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republica= n form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and= on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislat= ure cannot be convened) against domestic violence. The question took quite= another shape: The person having the greatest number of votes shall be th= e President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors = appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have = an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediat= ely choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a ma= jority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in lik= e manner choose the President!!!=20 From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Sat Oct 16 00:07:03 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:07:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors Message-ID: Scoring: IMPs Vuln: None Standard : County division 1 Bidding; North East South West 2NT 3C 4H ...P P ? You hold x void KTxxx AKTxxxx What are your logical options? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Oct 16 00:48:59 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:48:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16 Oct 2004, at 00:07, Steve Wright wrote: > Scoring: IMPs > Vuln: None > Standard : County division 1 > > Bidding; > > North East South West > 2NT 3C 4H ...P > P ? > > You hold > > x void KTxxx AKTxxxx > > What are your logical options? I think it's far from clear what partner's pause suggests. Partner might have been thinking of bidding in support of me, or might have been thinking of doubling 4H to stop me bidding more, or maybe even thinking of bidding 4S. In any case I think it's clear to bid more with this extreme distribution, and 4NT is the bid that seems to show what I have. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From adam@tameware.com Sat Oct 16 03:05:05 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:05:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:07 AM +0100 10/16/04, Steve Wright wrote: >North East South West >2NT 3C 4H ...P >P ? > >You hold > >x void KTxxx AKTxxxx > >What are your logical options? 4NT seems clear cut to me. Any other call would be an extreme position. Some might bid 5C, but I don't think a player who intended to ignore the second suit would start with 3C. For what it's worth the hesitation is not relevant to the question of logical alternatives. I try to consider LAs without taking the UI into account. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Oct 16 03:25:37 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:25:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <200410131414.i9DEEt98022762@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410131414.i9DEEt98022762@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <417086A1.4020903@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > In my opinion, there is a huge theoretical and > practical gulf between these two propositions: > > (a) The Proprieties are not a complete list of > conduct offences, so a player who has fully complied > with the Law might be penalised for misconduct, such > as "unsportingly" (but successfully) appealing. > > or > > (b) An SO may add preferred locally specific detail > clarifying the application and enforcement of The > Proprieties. A theoretical difference I can buy, but practical difference there is none. SO's can do whatever they like, _especially_ when it comes to defining conduct offenses. > If I was TD, I do not need a clarifying SO regulation > to rule that "loud arguments or abuse" are an > infraction of The Proprieties. Indeed. Probably I should have used a different example. > An example of such a successful "unsporting" appeal > occurred in the ACBL some years ago when the Kantar- > Sontag partnership exploited a technicality in the > ACBL Alert regulation. This is an interesting case, and the AC got it wrong. (At minimum, they should have given an _assigned_ adjusted score.) I am not suggesting that controversial appeals -- especially successful ones -- should be punished willy-nilly. Indeed, if an SO finds that frivolous appeals are succeeding, its first duty is to improve the performance of its AC's. Nevertheless, if there is a real problem, the SO may in addition to other steps use its authority to oversee conduct and ethics. I would not suggest an actual punishment unless the rules are made clear in advance. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Oct 16 03:29:54 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:29:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <200410131426.i9DEQKgg023702@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410131426.i9DEQKgg023702@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <417087A2.70301@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Nobody should be forced against their will to play a round or part > of a round (contrary to schedule) against an opponent whom they have already > met or is scheduled to meet in a later round. I can understand exceptions for these cases, but in a large event, pairs will only meet a small fraction of other pairs. In such circumstances, why not let the otherwise idle pairs play? Of course one would never want to do this if it disrupts the movement, but if not...? > A practical: Most computer scoring programs will not have any problem with > my suggested procedure, but having the two pairs without opponents play each > other will probably in many cases complicate things dramatically. As others have said, I have no sympathy for this, at least in ordinary circumstances. If the movement or scoring is so complex that only computer scoring will suffice, then the TD is stuck, but ordinarily the correct scores can be entered by hand correction if necessary. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Oct 16 03:40:10 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:40:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <200410151433.i9FEXZ5U014220@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410151433.i9FEXZ5U014220@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41708A0A.3030605@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > If I intend to play one card but played two cards Law 58B2 gives me both the > obligation but also the freedom to select which of the two cards I wish to > play. The Brits agree with this. > There is no question anywhere of what was my original intention; I > have exposed two cards in a process of playing a card, now I have the choice > of which of the two cards I select as actually played. The Brits read L50B as saying where two cards are played simultaneously, one of them was exposed intentionally and the other by accident. They investigate to find out which was which. I find this reading of the law bizarre. It seems to me 50B is telling us to treat both cards as exposed accidentally. Nobody intentionally plays two cards to a trick. > And a Director who allows this to happen has no choice but to award A+ to > both sides; most important he has violated Law 10C1 and deprived the > offender his right under Law 58B2 to select the option less destructive for > his side. > > Law 82C is there for a reason! I agree with the 82C ruling, but why an _artificial_ score? Surely the Director should allow play to continue, then give an _assigned_ score (or perhaps two such scores) on the basis of what would have happened if he had avoided error. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Oct 16 04:04:00 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:04:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <200410141836.i9EIaACP008206@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410141836.i9EIaACP008206@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41708FA0.6050008@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > And yes I may err on the side of caution when deciding but if I get it > wrong (allowing a board to be played when I shouldn't) I am going to have > to adjust based on TD error. That will very probably mean 80%+ to both > sides. Why 80% and not an ordinary avg+? And under which Law? From adam@tameware.com Sat Oct 16 04:55:39 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:55:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted Message-ID: I've posted the case write-ups from the Summer NABC under my bridge laws page at http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ If you spot any typos please drop me a line and I'll pass the info on. I'll post my comments once I've written some. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 16 07:56:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:56:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Cardiff Ruling 3 In-Reply-To: <417087A2.70301@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000101c4b34d$446267d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Nobody should be forced against their will to play a round or part > > of a round (contrary to schedule) against an opponent whom they have > already > > met or is scheduled to meet in a later round. >=20 > I can understand exceptions for these cases, but in a large event, = pairs > will only meet a small fraction of other pairs. In such = circumstances, > why not let the otherwise idle pairs play? Of course one would never > want to do this if it disrupts the movement, but if not...? You are inventing situations! Barometer movements are used in two different types of schedules in = Norway: 1: Standard barometer which is the type we discuss in this thread. This = is always a full round robin with the number of rounds equal to the number = of competitors less one; everybody meet everybody. Example: The Norwegian championship for pairs runs 85 rounds with 86 pairs playing a total of = 170 boards. Here you cannot interfere with the schedule without creating = further irregularities in the schedule. 2: Swiss barometer for pairs where incorrectly seated pairs are taken = care of without any problem by simply manually entering the changed table positions in the affected round to the computer program. May we concentrate of the case that causes problems without dragging all sorts of irrelevant cases into the discussion please? Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 16 08:07:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:07:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <41708A0A.3030605@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c4b34e$c6e90f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ............. > > And a Director who allows this to happen has no choice but to award A+ > to > > both sides; most important he has violated Law 10C1 and deprived the > > offender his right under Law 58B2 to select the option less destructive > for > > his side. > > > > Law 82C is there for a reason! > > I agree with the 82C ruling, but why an _artificial_ score? Surely the > Director should allow play to continue, then give an _assigned_ score > (or perhaps two such scores) on the basis of what would have happened if > he had avoided error. I tend to agree, but I also believe the rationale behind Law 82C is that when a Director has "destroyed" a board then he is no longer in a position to make an indisputably fair judgment on "what could have happened if...". However, he is really in for problems if one of the affected pairs shows that they were in for a score of at least say 75% on the board at the time of the Director's error. (I had a 16B3 case once where the corresponding situation occurred!) Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Oct 16 11:26:34 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:26:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [snip] If the Laws permit a non- offending side to gain an inequitable and unsporting advantage, then the Laws permit a non-offending side to gain an inequitable and unsporting advantage. A TD *cannot* use The Proprieties to penalise such unsporting players for their Lawful gain of an advantage. +++ Well there will always be area's of grey involved. As I said technically under current laws the NOS in my case did absolutely nothing wrong and there is no technical case against them. They stated their case, bamboozled the AC and got an undeserved ruling. Purley from a sportsmanship, ethical, good example, ambassador of sport angle - their actions were appalling. I have lodged this case with the CBAI and it has been noted. Should similar actions be taken maybe then something can be done about it. BUT I feel for 2006 there should be some law added which allows the TD or later an AC to penalise such flagrant non sportsmanship abuse. K. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 16 16:23:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:23:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <416C5B7E.1020002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <53918E5C-1F87-11D9-9C8D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Oct 12, 2004, at 18:32 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: > In ACBL territory, clubs are the SO for their own games, and the ACBL > is the SO for tournaments. If I'm not mistaken (I may be, I don't have time to look it up right now), ACBL claims SO status for any game in which ACBL masterpoints are awarded. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 16 16:32:01 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:32:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Define sponsoring organisation In-Reply-To: <8ZGe6xCHAUbBFwgx@asimere.com> Message-ID: <8687F93E-1F88-11D9-9C8D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 13, 2004, at 10:47 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > but the club has its amendments posted ROFL!!!! Sorry, no, they don't. Not around here. One TD, when I told him that Memphis had told me that he's *supposed* to do that, said "I've been directing this club for 25 years, and I've never had to do that." From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Oct 16 19:45:32 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:45:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Re: References: <53918E5C-1F87-11D9-9C8D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002c01c4b3b0$525f2680$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" < > > On Tuesday, Oct 12, 2004, at 18:32 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: > > > In ACBL territory, clubs are the SO for their own games, and the ACBL > > is the SO for tournaments. > > If I'm not mistaken (I may be, I don't have time to look it up right > now), ACBL claims SO status for any game in which > ACBL masterpoints are awarded. > I asked Memphis about this some years ago, when a club was barring psychs. I was told that clubs must adhere to the ACBL version of the Laws as published, no exceptions, no "Elections." That says, in effect, that clubs are not SOs. The ACBLLC has discussed giving clubs more leeway, perhaps in the next edition of the Laws, but I don't believe anything came of that. It's all moot, however, as clubs can do anything they want in regard to the Laws (or regulations) without fear of action by Memphis. I am told that it would be impossible to enforce the supposed policy, so they don't try. This is baloney. All they need is a form letter telling a club that they have received information that the club is not adhering to the Laws (or regulations), and reminding them that the right to issue masterpoints may be revoked if any more complaints are received. Due process, of course, with the local Unit Board of Directors responsible for fact-finding before any such revocation is effected. If clubs are warned about this in advance, there may be few enforcement problems. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Oct 17 01:03:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <41708FA0.6050008@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > And yes I may err on the side of caution when deciding but if I get > > it wrong (allowing a board to be played when I shouldn't) I am going > > to have to adjust based on TD error. That will very probably mean > > 80%+ to both sides. > > Why 80% and not an ordinary avg+? And under which 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. The board has been played - so it will have to be an assigned score not an artificial one. The error took place during the auction (maybe quite early on). Extrapolating from that point will often (admitted not always) give sufficient plausibilities to take both sides well up the scale. BTW I was talking this situation through with a strong player had he said surely it was just "common sense" that the better the players and the better they knew eachother the more likely the TD would have to cancel the board. Tim From dvxgwnxymzk@hotmail.com Sun Oct 17 20:53:03 2004 From: dvxgwnxymzk@hotmail.com (Sandy Bauer) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:53:03 -0200 Subject: [blml] re[13] Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080103020505050206030001 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

in 1873 First or standart class? Magazines in 1889

Tennis South Park

--------------080103020505050206030001 Content-Type: image/gif; name="crevice.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="crevice.GIF" R0lGODlhnAGHAfJGAAcIgP8AAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAACXAYIBAAP/OLrc/jDKSau9OOvNu/9gKI5kaZ5oqq5s675wLM90bd94ru987//AoHBILBqPyKRyyWyuAtDAJeqsWq9YEdUS lWa/4HC4y+16xei0ekiumM/ruHwuM7vtpG0MGoFj9Rh8dH2DEHgTb3mALosKh1ZtgYKFDI+UloaYHZEv mJpLnGWNg59zpZWnGaEtlqlIqxSuabJqsokhtCO3C7lssBK7l790tsMavbihyELIy1nOYMWjHNCbysZJ zdi123HSkyDV1KvdRtrTpujE3eIN7cewfpDlvPSM8ir4lAPf7vp36k68m/LPEYpz4HQk5Gdv37iAjhY1 jAiR4EJUoypSLPir/9cwhAX9XVQE581IhuAeaUQl6eQDkyGtVbzWSNNAlB1pusSYMyM7mC8b0jKZAhDM i4cSfStHFNHRnRv68SzZdKpVUVWv1oP4NNNCKaeqSuT0yVVXgVuefm1zK6xap0D7qIWq6ufaSUcdJA2W SaROP2791pS48V/WvXqybnWZUHEyQXMBs8VTKrK+xnwL76JrkS65vDglp43bN+jY0ydHeiIb+nIrxJBJ LzbsemXLiFMxvw3tdW7Q3vgco505WOxffrlN0zZ6XC+61Xg1O4eemAzV5n7l2hbFELjgpjYtp3z+ebsH qbnHo7673rLWwtPFyyvPHulm6urruy9BZblu5v/wfeebZpEJBgN6s/0nmk/tFTibgQIO+B5fmRGYoHLX 6ecgSalhZ1CA6TGHl3wKHmjXfBR6mByBG/L2Xmv7ZXfhiwmOOM19DbaoxUcqKfNgiF6xKGGNnMnkWXFI LujfGfJ9+OOTQoLX24tlkVZZJK/tF1NUPJLlI4jSAcNHk8hhKFw4J8YXnIpawUbeehDCGMtkXjJoZZc2 lmhhPnjmVxKV9rjJ2ZCPqZNZeEmW2eZELkLZ6ENeBIPfYdap6ehNXN4oKWuXajQmo3CBqh2JKNpZapJM 0hMbnDTKFV9rccbVI315KkkQh2tuahSgMdmRS5GYRrlbqyn+VStHlLEFJqz/o9onG4ygzdrgj5G6JSqG arKKLUZi0mkooivqQqqCufY3I7QROmictCSaaSxozMYrG6Xjcpittvcudu+x4ulL5JZ1qUuuu/8+C62E 6+ZIqID76jpav+mFuLCRfuLXrJJDjptqweYBdBZK3wGXKsTpwitnmBKbLLK7tFZL8p4cnwkpv6ZeXLJi pMYsM5rzDrytsFWSCTOiL3snsqku63iyzsEeLPOVSBvsdM9F08Bes9wePOfEWXY77NbI9rmVkFizXCHP E/PU7cVnA+1s2jPkujZLLLa081hYtV0a2hvXDVeoen/w9d+uAr7Sx0d37ITiDr069+KMNy755IR7Eznl /51prPnmnHfu+eeghy766KSXbrrUmKfu0LWqt+76LKy/LvvskF9O++24F9F07rz3fkPsvgcvvNVFDm/8 8cgnr/zyzDfv/PPQRy/99NRXb/312Gev/fbcd+/99+CHL/745Jdv/vnop6/++uy37/778Mcv//z012// /fjnr//+/Pfv//8ADKAAB0jAAhrwgAhMoAIXyMAGOvCBEKTf7iKYwAlSsHEAyKAGMygGZ6AOHjtjwQZH uIIRahADJtzgD1KowgWw8IQDeCEAHCBDEk6ghhyEAA5tGIEd5nBmQ4GbxxCXMiG6MIUK8CEMK4BDCvhQ h0qc4QhqyAAqxvCFNHyiBP+i+IAoLjGLOwTiB93WMaEVcXBQNGESvfjDLiqxh1xsgBdJYMU1YvGKLARj E+EYxyqyUYp6rKPd4JazQSptc0xEIh7ZmMY3BjKMcuxjCARpRRk+8o5unGMk/5jJPRqSa4XMW9EQeUNF LpKRlxSkHTV5REdOEZOn5KElN+nJVNYylq70IyQzF6MzjvFmKiPlFk35xy+uUpK43OUxbwmCSs4ymW2E Zh47aUNYSlOV11QjL3tJNq0NUSnPEiYfZVnMaN4RllR8ZjZ5KAJnYlKd62whLbWpTkuqkpVgA2c4o6Wy xK2KXiF04jSluUx2zvKZB0UnMpuZ0HdaE5+tVGQ9z/n/0IWyrT/B5Ocvo8TRgn1goAQt6BcbSkyKghSi DDXpQOGJ0pBOdJostag/wZJRWfXTbElzWOAEqk2R/vClEnUoTBUKUhS4c6UVzWVE6UnUoBa1pTN1Wsk6 ajhv6bQdJxWqKV2qVaZmtagnOGpJn2pRkvaUq2RVqtf0iTONBlSqcO3oTn2qy7Fu1azkHOpXt5oCvMoz pEtVpk+lCFSv8hWV+ZyrXG/asJyyq2qpnGde76rSnvp1pNY0amUNmlS1XraNnwXkYME600G5da5nQZzG eMpOwBa2ml09aylJa4LQ1vWsnJRsC1+726aq9aInagtjpxrXqRExsredLG43K09m/zZStprVK2X36tnM DjOPlERsYgOa2uGmjKrG9S5YEepb2FKXtsn9a1+Zi9nzChawicxtYN8LXL11d6NwVa3mxqle15a3t+5F bzyj2c5ypre9C4XnbLU74P6u9bgeLW59wdsVNM5XtIO9MGjZu+HfNjisBtawaDmsW2MuOMHSbW1VUXff t7b4qlb9RGbJG+AcxvS3Mk0pRHlr47QiMbsehiZdP9nPFy+FrTB+2JlIS+PpOpWvDcbwh0HMYB4T1sdq BDJKSRywhRk5uO3a5jSYHNu/2paa9wzyR+Wb4TZ3NstWruVnxdhWm+I3vHcG74HR3Nz/wlDBIl6uFmvL Zv+mWP+99owzfOdM5yyBx7u+zLOEh1zin/q5xwKO54Ez3YFiVhqQjBbxNTd9ZaQe2sREfmyMVVUvMV+E tk0W9JOhy2fOcrrAVS7zny89Qy0b1rIclnKXASpcSbdalLCAta47PGsVP9eutKbyjpetzDO7mdrOTXXF Vr0doujXzo6xrqGd/GvlmtfUUF4vitGtXWujFdpQ/W5xv2y7eZ8WE+iNta2b3Wd2m9vB0a2uvyXpbmuX U9jE/fajJT3hCB8339QmdZvHDexb41rg/CZ4sCX+7kLjlML3BjO3t63kzEB84Agud7/hvfJoS3vQoo6y rFWe8nPTXM2LpdrCXRxyEe2cL+L/pvi+bw7qiE9chFsO9qALvnGZuzznxE4WfulN8n8CPd0xX3TThd5y Zwcc5tc+eMwV3XGPJ9xkVB+Z1H+u6pJbQsD6NvPW475EBl8c7GWXO8oxTW6b+13vWJdYNx0OL3AXO+oj 9wPclc5xult670H3gN2ZXuNRj33r8C1tkQ1fJ0FZx2AVNlmmD45hLou6jna/OzbzXnPA4/PMZH8wN/Gc ZKYd6tgiPXGud9/ueK8Z7wT19dA1fuoTCh/gwDwb7u8UStu/PfCjXf3kPR1o6Esex1g8vutzaVvto7qx bWs+upyvmjBrWPdlbWmhUz9J7GM3zqXvffE56H0Ca34nZvSb//Nl309Oh7jWJ4d37KdjzpVovCZlBrh9 APZj8DdsTKE04xdp2yUc/jeApGZ/tuRsFkgJTzcPZcRwFwVCbWNxX/d9/IV8F5Q5KbiCKsiCLrhWLxiD MjiDNFiDNniDOJiDOriDPNiDPviDQBiEQjiERFiERniESJiEStiCSzhAFtSErOV1YQBoFCOCwBOBYsYB kdd+Hfhpa0BfRxd9qEaFgAZ82oZs1QCB4Fc8uRdlF5BtF/h9vkcD6jdjwEeGdohz9xcSs/dNELZ/b5hx cDhlADheOUaH02eI9IWHWAaG/PdB+TeBfyh+1/V3Zph6iWiGNUB9WVd9Yyhu8LeFyUc0ff+4h6RYisjl dJ+4btOmhzDwf2E4YIX4bAroiGsoHJRYX8e1WlFYd7Aohoe1focoA6EWhkmnbJDXa6JIRsWCZKzGdqji dhWRjLdkeqMWilJIjEZnjKwYbY5XatbHUUTEeSInjT53eIFjdPU3cZSnidoIeRznif3FiCy3a7cWevuE jkeWePL2hxcWj2T3jUc3h6+4jZl3jFgnkJkXVeMIjcRBjue4dunYd11Xi3xXcYI4Ysu4iQZ5YwIIiuq4 jPhYZxK5j+ZYdY6FDTVWdCvJjphHhTqgkNyIcd4YkveYFw2pj+VodW3Hk8bAa51ocC+5kYgIj50oc144 i2EXjlOThZP/9nH2BpEu0YgV2Xr2WI8XOXwoiAMyeZCtmJDYxjdvhS4W1lggJ5UFQZW+2JJct5XxuEId eYBqiYHfiIHaxobEJYkpGZH8eILmFJfzx5IbCZM50JXYKFv0OHMkiFOM449np3M6iQ6KiJUaGZhxiHBv 6QOGKZfBiIwUuZiRBjBFhIY+yZcn+Q+TiZGKuYCruXju+I5M+ZbC6JmtSZSh6YBBhJb9OFyp+W9WmZUW SZurx5GgaWWUtpAz+Zqm6GrA0nMoqWfnl5RaZ5mX6WDDGAOEqZRDBpTaKY8m+Ig8B2m7CZkl+QtkZpRL CV0IOYiw2YXSKWTwGYvySYh3uQ1lGVVR/+mQI3GelNl4IAl211mQxWmTtYlwMBmgjBkQ9wmVCheZ+5lu m0mdhVig7vkC2ZmBl/eZdLmFyqmL+Ceej4l4pwmA2hmQHFptrmihgNmf8YmcLvppdumH4eeYDIp2zokP wlmVzEZ08cWdQBChLNqVmemX2Sijb8JwaTeeFAiW6Ml6MRqHR9kDQKqarJSYvgmcbrlimgKiIZpkpbkQ /8mi6Xml4CimcNmkdYl6YUqlOoqZhMdiNFqj5NmXe0aLa6mhZUqmWXehNjClZOpJVtqmUWqWT7mgDdeg 5dkIAcimv5mnguqSoImdK0p0uxSod8qoT5pfN2Wo+ImodPqPdvp4eP8KqWLKp8RppqFVqWuqp/OppLfH pYTqqSO6aUQqqgVKqpgqmBValKiqdJBkqbbKquAJnZzaqTaqm3UaqrqqlVeZq3tqm+0prE7qSHEkkxea pKPJf1DnpXuZEK7ZqxJqrQTpAo6XlCaqReJ6k/oJfiu2rT3ZrYoHfanqn+iZpruKdO83l47aqMCIpTtK QsM5is34MsznoA0zeG1YqwA6f16opgjaAr/YjpRqif+aorxIfiSHsRqiI6MndtWJmJyIlDHpcQk4qlN2 mLFJe9GYMSJqYbiXTOjnfjRJfClKrnWYryupjOj6Zh0amuVCsC3LWOJ3oiHrnauITBsYrcCqszn/e7J5 2LOjaIqd9y7eFYkVaHb9ipnraYunGnQlS6FOm6Mp60/geayTslF9eLUByp7AOKFjK6lv6wTQCjg8AKsI W2J9+rZzO4NPCIXi07d+Cz6AG7iEW7iGe7iIm7iKu7iM27iO+7iQG7mSO7mUW7mWe7mYm7mau7l/cIWc 6zyD+7nBE7pcGakZsJimSgekx6z0d50ya0ypK2/Ddh6JB2mBmbJse4kPOwSrG5xOV4nSZ7LMGShpmKiG eruRl2NbG7BJwEiXlrVe97r8OrwmmSnGS6PIu6oFuLyxKwTOW3mqaKB3KLx6+Ut2200vi7fQq4HcW427 671z9LzhK2zSe6lF/6qxuniXzPiTlMlMRfu/7xsEqBRgRque3fio5bt5xRpe+6sO1JhmgniB0wm1vKtJ pjevH0tgBjlhHxOJAsuHvGmU69iW/lqZFAy/1cqwuNpa7buvmSpVHQxZPqulqCm85xqknJmlS7BHF7zB Ldyq3xXDqLi/NEykAMmdChl7cQCoGXfE+gpl7sbBhSfDgAhcwDu9E8yjY+q7c6B9CUvC8TezACuSOCm0 cZqtVhyqTmyySeyjX+jFMPusT9yZOOueC5yXpBk2MqOvQTl3Q2m6OwzBgiWkvMeA6nq+TzmsDVdr0nnD ueqm76kG2IS0k7qwReuhuNltVRvCIIumfmyq3f/bBJOsVBi8vmGMtbd4hqqMn6kox2zMmb2ow1Xgv6Qc sYU8rrSXx5nMGB/Umwg8rR97xaFcBMP5kSR7yw9LxbKry6zcyivMxSi7oSdsBMX8XgNojR6bx2Zxvv74 h0/rrBlKx4tYs0eQbcZ8szeXwfeqsorMnIusvo2MxN9My9NMBMy7vQAcwQV8v7fIy0g6XN4MoZXMmtFb y/VcwckbvCFbjNm8y1AzlhFmNkaMoQOJeTDKunGL0Aldhoy3xRVLzsn3zkZaG0vGn+Ds0U8KcwGs0daH z6WKzb/o0FsK0dBZ03FM0VlMsZAcfUMKBsw7n+makfssy/kLle5s1PAcz2z/CcoOm9Hl/NMuGtSI1dCN Vn7/DKdSo732C80EaqZTCNVL68pTHdNyeiZnvMyCx8jK2sfhuo3D/NTLGNbP7Epfy8/YSqhHjcfJitOO LKxC+gVsG9VdPdZ1bMc32swjjdR7rdSvXK8bDNhQLdginM11naV3rdd6qdjHydi3CsZizc9MENmSjcMe G8XGitU0Xag39a0nDcxzHaxE3bzoXJOTXdoWfdpmPcWviouow9rSKpSOvdJSiolaXcIubMJabKrOucig p8Al/XSl7Nqevb5WYHZL+6vyLKE03M26fbYr+2otTdXWGHz2CtoonH5iS63ZjZXaDNDd3TLwPQoda8vI /6zSuHze9SuHITbC5dre9vXe330qFTLf1t3C9QfIPFDg6Y3dB0jC9YkNQuzdG4ujBE7c6E3Jwp3gFs6k hN20PCbTXAHgE44xyRaOZJ21CgvF9y3AG07bGO7hftZozIyFegZhauuKgT2+GR5BpAuxTq16L0yrjdvj ops7RF7kt3PkSL7kTN7kTv7kUB7lUj7lVF7lVn7lWJ7lWr7lXN7lXv7lYB7mYj7mZF7mZn7maJ7mar7m bN7mbv7mcB7n8BPkPfqdNkuAkaSNHJnnVySgQf7CdO4QgR6zNzDoqWjoDLVmWhh/a6Si/AzoOz05iA5F uiS3G3ZEet5pk/6X79hKAv+VSKnDWXU1T3DE5617TH6ER6QeUam+VKBu6kWH6ax+W6mOWapO666O66Uk 632e673e55Z2XXx+Sq2O6phu6xfJ65Ne6MAWWPNF6a0+xv/27LGk7B2Y0rHe6MtE7bjE7fzG7aWu7b9e UuOujLsO6+Tk7arZ7Y2+7Hlb7D1W64/nRpV+62tpR/h+78He65c+TOde7tZ+6/aOafjO7xop7gRf8OEO 8AK/awCP7Xzk6QbPkgVvjwrv8O6+A/tuYpx+6Nku65f+l/2+of9O7Axv8PIO69H+8Sqv7R3v7yPP6Ao/ 89BO7ysv7i5/8CeP8BnP7H3m6y+fXvAu8yGPh8lV8rD/FfC/Xuw5f/M4r3KbTe8xP+ywm6l2SVHbqfOw Pe+h3ey5HvS8nkVhj/LHbvQFVfIg//HxLvZO3/Q8r1zRCfNaL/MCT/M2T6ITz1RtL1RdP/SZtPSAj/NU T/QHb39Tv/RWj4BXpvRF3/JuT/aPz/SBiPiLP/RhzFN5fvWVf/eQH6N2zuISD/nAzvXDzvYNn/DGt6MV v/mf3148v/qldvqxP/BpL/FOJflphO62b+7tvtP6fvi2Xu6sP/U9PwNI5exnz/mlz3LU7vXHj/ewjfzs Pv0b38TUr7UvT+7Bvu+XpO7qnu7ev/bUnPphj2jIp/mr3vunbMKWz/uB//VPf+qz/+7ro6/zwm/u2S93 Ec/04D/6tY8Ao6vgzsaDi7bJgHxZd35VmhWV5omm6sq27rvBsunN9kreccfW+i8BCocNovGIfOWSJR8T trRNML2n0oo9ObPcbitq3XpR4NlUTBuT1Vk0+w2Py+f0uv2Oz+v3/L7/DxgoOEhYaHiImKi4yNjo+Aip R3VRlgJmUamylGnp1uO5cQbKSRmCc6aDCboTQaoa6TcZukqD9npDQkpGu6spOkpL5SqKW8MZNSwC2ycr K6T76QHNNM3ae8qDLcLrq/3MvawGQTHuM8VT/sGa63ydc64MYu0Mb/rFLo+vylGv5bR/a0fAa62MjWBH CaC5g//h2jCMoVDhOlT2iEX7R3EWiIjbJk3Tt9EgvHP9ahVMmO/hRG/ZNN4ambFkQyTpIErbV8pUSIP2 rHXCKDInOZ4hEPbsti3p0KDzgi1UuTLgMTE4Q1VkajXrzDAPa767mc2oT2XRToYlOrRlS13yfHrF2HNY RrM5r7Ik29Tu0bRbsSwF6zLk2bVP2/4sDJMs31oeeX09uVjnwouG57Yd6M9kXMArB/flmlCyRaNiIzpt Ohot54L1ktEtulrg5LsfmpVehYyoZLyPx3428nd3ZsWzZat1p7uJ6s15jzJWDjl2ZNfQ8Wrt3Elzc6lw ff8ewr2uceI3l4sfnvUyZ747Jyb/f6486NKkzZFW11oTO0HC5fXij/wdcLqZZh2BorVGVXEWdcZRYOax RlFqHaVUm3Pe/RLPgLFNuNiCAKGEWYDgaVhbcahhh0GIm4h022b6MJigh42VeJxg98XX1YMAcrjeQSam pJ6IQhZRCDheGHkEkscNySQQSs7xpF9yROldk1ZeUeQeVDr5QzVXfglmmGKOSWaZZp6JZppqrslmm26+ CWeccs5JZ5123olnnnruyWeffv4JaKCCDkpooYYeimiiii7KaKOOPgpppJJOSmmlll6Kaaaabsppp55+ Cmqooo5Kaqmmnopqqqquymqrrr4Ka6yyzkprrbbeimuuuu7K/2uvvh4iQLDCCoDCsC0Yq8Kwwha77AnK JqtstNEyi6wN1UIr7bQpPIttts06y20J13b7rQnSrqDttt6OG8G64bLhLbjBHluuudnKS6y99errLrsD rGvtvvi6q+67/PY7cL7iCpzwvAczrADA1ParcLsUV+wFxQs7jC7EGlvMMcgYN0ywyPfK4O/D8U4MccQX h7zAuRuPzDLDJ6tsMAMvw+zyx2r4HHPLOnuMsMj80ruzySu/kPLMJTdMLtA9+9u00zbLbPXNShc9tNRc vJvu1EjT/O+1YZfNc84uVI122mzPPHbA81bddM5aix031XMLbLfePAe979tjqD2u4G0ffP901xirvbbQ KTOOb9wzGEt3ywbffXjegS/rN9l9/w04zIZ38bjZQoeeuNOKG61D5aDjLXnHr3ebeeQFL4416pq7vTfv ZMOu+8Ss21F3uYZ3Lnzwbf8ee+rOy8786ih/W/zstYtd+Om6Z9/7yK5773i9o2fxvfTQw5087JA3/vrb ox+vPfrXD2876txHLz33wM//PNv33zG+/aVPeZI72+SIZj3+DfB2B+QY476HO4eZLoHbM16z/kc78yFO g3MIoAKf90EG5k5uv3Nf/EK4NQOGrmKla9/lLmhBCqqPejAU3ekw+LAUro8JHoSf76bXPQ/Sb4ggXGDN RsjBFr5MftX/eh8NHQhFGybwfhfLmgqx0MP4sSuLTyOhEeV3PhZ4jYAK3BnNmvhE/AUPWWiUIv6oyDXF LS1jJyRj/ewYNQnWEYxE5CMDxRhHOfpxeV3UIBtPOEFitTGCbxTfEnG2wyRwUY38m2QaW4fARsoQhRwM Yx8f6bxDbjKRtcPhAkE5SDhMsnkChF7IIvnFVvbxjn9kn9c65zlHds+Wq4shIz3Zygfu0Qrlw6Mfizk1 N96gepqkJCeNCUnMKZGWlEOkLknZST5Os4hxYGY2i+jNFaqugcxDJiBlOD4z/pKbW0TiKcPWztnFM5eg E+ITlMhCLfLtar6kJS9jKUt/CvSIhcQn/wgx905TBrSS/PybPXmIy28OknDYTCUwx4nRc1LSiZa75hdx OcrNedRkA7Mo8vAAtheis6H5VKhEa1lSOTpzoS+dpTiN+bkzXvGgLl2e0rjpU5uq8pZVlGVRJSpEEwZS o09DpVJbWk6R6hSWAlQpPQsJzXli9WtLBSUz57jQVbrSnWNdmlNv2E8j4tOZfjPpVsMq1beSD6wrlBgK 7SpUsZZ1mMm0q1f1GcWojtRq/wSZRQlpzowiFqF0hNxfp7hT/+0xnVQlGdYeu9FLwjSElW2rUPt6UW0e 9VekLa1pT4taEalztaxtrWtfC9vYyna2tK2tbW9L27nidre87a1vfzsL3OAKd7gPTa1xj4vc5Cp3ucxt rnOfC93oSne61K2uda+L3exqd7vc7a53vwve8Ip3vOQtr3nPG90EAAAh/nBocWdodW1lYXlsbmxmZHhm bmVocnlreGp6dWJ1YWNjbGZrY3l6b2JnaHR1b3hyYWp2cAA7 --------------080103020505050206030001-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 18 00:26:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:26:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rubensohl Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass 2H 3C(3) Pass Pass ? (1) 11-14 hcp, balanced (2) Alerted and explained, 10-14 hcp, both majors (5/4 shape or better) (3) Alerted and explained, transfer to diamonds, Rubensohl convention You, South, hold: T T942 A7654 QT8 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 18 00:57:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:57:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Wright: >Scoring: IMPs >Vuln: None >Standard : County division 1 > >Bidding; > >North East South West >2NT 3C 4H ...P >P ? > >You hold > >x void KTxxx AKTxxxx > >What are your logical options? RJH: The form of scoring is a significant factor is assessing logical alternatives. At matchpoint pairs there is no logical alternative to bidding 4NT, since -300 is a significantly better result than -420. At imps, -300 instead of -420 is only a four imp gain, while if 4H is failing due to bad breaks in the majors, then -300 instead of +50 is an eight imp loss. The question then is whether the imp benefit value of gaining a double-game swing when both 4H and 5-minor make, outweighs the imp cost value of a phantom save. My assessment is that a 4NT call brings a better return than Pass on a cost-benefit analysis. However, my further assessment is that Pass is a logical alternative (as it is the winning call for a significant minority of the time), even though Pass is a call that I would not normally select. In my opinion, the hesitation from pard demonstrably suggests that pard was thinking of bidding on. (Given RHO's guaranteed strength, and my ace + two kings, pard cannot have the values for any thinking about a penalty double.) So, once pard hesitates, I apply Law 73C, and call Pass rather than my preferred logical alternative call of 4NT. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 18 01:01:27 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:01:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rubensohl References: Message-ID: <002601c4b4a5$9d830730$12330952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:26 AM Subject: [blml] Rubensohl > > > > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1NT(1) Pass > Pass 2D(2) Pass 2H > 3C(3) Pass Pass 3H > (1) 11-14 hcp, balanced > (2) Alerted and explained, 10-14 hcp, both > majors (5/4 shape or better) > (3) Alerted and explained, transfer to > diamonds, Rubensohl convention > > You, South, hold: > > T > T942 > A7654 > QT8 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > Pard has a singleton D, prob 5/5/1/2 - 3H looks ok Anne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 18 01:23:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:23:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Need opinions on this one please In-Reply-To: <417086A1.4020903@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >A theoretical difference I can buy, but practical >difference there is none. SO's can do whatever they >like, _especially_ when it comes to defining conduct >offenses. RJH: In an earlier thread, I related how a Tasmanian bridge club defined all claiming as a conduct offence. Because of a ridiculous precedent set by former WBF luminary Ed Theus, Grattan Endicott argued that the Tasmanian bridge club's anti-claim regulation was legal. Ton Kooijman disagreed, arguing that such an interpretation of legality resulted in a reductio ad absurdum. I support the Ton view that it is not legal for an SO to arbitrarily create new categories of conduct offences. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 18 02:53:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:53:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you, Adam Wildavsky, for your hard work in making the New York City NABC appeals freely available to blmlers. As previously advised to blml, I have been editing two unofficial casebooks on the Reno NABC appeals, assisted by an unofficial panel of blmlers. The first casebook, on the 12 Reno regional appeals, has wrapped, and is now undergoing post-production indexing and conversion to pdf format by David Babcock. Thank you, David. Once complete, the casebook will be posted on David Stevenson's website. Thank you, David. However, eleventh-hour positions on the unofficial second casebook (the 24 Reno NABC+ appeals) are still available. Any blmler who wishes to take up an eleventh-hour place on the second unofficial panel, please send me a private email. The eleventh-hour deadline for commentary from the second unofficial panel will toll on Remembrance Day, November 11th. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 18 03:04:43 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 03:04:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rubensohl References: Message-ID: <001701c4b4b6$d607a7d0$12330952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:26 AM Subject: [blml] Rubensohl > > > > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1NT(1) Pass > Pass 2D(2) Pass 2H > 3C(3) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 11-14 hcp, balanced > (2) Alerted and explained, 10-14 hcp, both > majors (5/4 shape or better) > (3) Alerted and explained, transfer to > diamonds, Rubensohl convention > > You, South, hold: > > T > T942 > A7654 > QT8 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > b) I did consider Pass :-) > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 18 05:38:58 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:38:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted References: Message-ID: <004e01c4b4cc$6480b0a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Richard Hills: > > > Thank you, Adam Wildavsky, for your hard work in making > the New York City NABC appeals freely available to > blmlers. > And we must also thank (as Adam does on his website) Rick Beye, ACBL CTD, for approving this distribution, just as he supplied the Reno cases to BLML. In the absence of an "official" ACBL casebook, his cooperation is very welcome. Will Richard Hills be compiling an "unofficial" NYC casebook, duplicating the great job he is doing for the Reno appeals? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 18 05:31:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:31:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: <004e01c4b4cc$6480b0a0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marv asked: >Will Richard Hills be compiling an "unofficial" NYC >casebook, duplicating the great job he is doing for >the Reno appeals? RJH glows with pride: Thanks, Marv, for the compliment. It has made my day. But really, I did not think my editing of the unofficial Reno casebooks was a "job". Rather, I had so much fun writing and formatting that the unofficial editorship was pure recreation. Naturally, I would be eager to edit the unofficial NYC casebooks. However, it is possible that other blmlers would also like a chance at the pontifical platform that casebook editorship provides. So, if a different blmler (eg Adam Wildavsky) wishes to try their hand at unofficial editorship, I would be willing to demote myself to unofficial panellist. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam@tameware.com Mon Oct 18 06:24:31 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:24:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: <004e01c4b4cc$6480b0a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004e01c4b4cc$6480b0a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 9:38 PM -0700 10/17/04, Marvin French wrote: >And we must also thank (as Adam does on his website) Rick Beye, ACBL CTD, >for approving this distribution, just as he supplied the Reno cases to BLML. >In the absence of an "official" ACBL casebook, his cooperation is very >welcome. I'm told that the Reno casebook is at the printers. I expect that copies will be distributed in Orlando. The PDF is not yet available on the ACBL web site -- I don't know when it's scheduled to be posted. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@tameware.com Mon Oct 18 06:29:15 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:29:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:31 PM +1000 10/18/04, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >So, if a different blmler (eg Adam Wildavsky) wishes to >try their hand at unofficial editorship, I would be >willing to demote myself to unofficial panellist. Thanks for thinking of me, but I have my hands full as a commentator. I was thinking it might be interesting to try to produce a casebook on the "open source" model, perhaps using a wiki. I expect an editor would still be necessary, though, to prepare the final PDF if nothing else. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Oct 18 09:01:26 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:01:26 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Rubensohl Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCBFC@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: Imps Dlr: East Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass 2H 3C(3) Pass Pass ? (1) 11-14 hcp, balanced (2) Alerted and explained, 10-14 hcp, both majors (5/4 shape or better) (3) Alerted and explained, transfer to diamonds, Rubensohl convention You, South, hold: T T942 A7654 QT8 What call do you make? ----- This is a typicall LAW position. The opponents would be expected to hold 8 clubs. We probably have 9 hearts (we could have only 8). The total number of trumps is thus 17. I've got QTx in clubs and lack the heart Q and J. Thus the total number of tricks should be downgraded to 15.5. So the LAW is clear on one issue - it's wrong to bid 3 hearts. At Imps I would pass 3C. ----- What other calls do you consider making? ----- Double. But I won't at Imps. At other forms of scoring, I might very possibly double. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From david.barton@boltblue.com Mon Oct 18 10:01:20 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:01:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? References: <200410142114.OAA09504@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041015080849.02b80c50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c4b4f1$0a831fa0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> > >David wrote: > > > > > (2) While for you or I there is no Logical Alternative to playing the > > > HQ (since the H10 loses both the tricks on all layouts of the > > > remaining 3 cards), > > Adam wrote > >By the way, I had missed this fact when I posted originally, because I > >hadn't studied the position from a bridge point of view---I had put on > >my Bridge Lawyer hat, and the brim seems to have fallen below my eyes > >and impaired my vision. Yes, as long as there are three hearts and > >one spade out, the HQ is the only LA. Eric wrote > > Quite so, but can we assume that this declarer knew that there were > three hearts and one spade out? I hope the right answer (if it isn't > just yes or no) depends solely on the facts of what transpired during > the play of the hand to that point, not on someone's subjective > assessment of the "class of player involved". > On a really good day the player MAY have been able to work out that there was 3H and 1S left. He certainly hadn't attempted to do so at the point of the infraction. The real problem is that even if he had done so he is unlikely to make the next step and realise that this means he must play the Q. For players of this class (sorry Eric) playing the 10 is a real (as opposed to logical) alternative. So the question is can a law book "logical alternative" be 100% illogical? ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.280 / Virus Database: 264.11.1 - Release Date: 15/10/2004 From George_Conyer@mailandnews.com Mon Oct 18 12:23:17 2004 From: George_Conyer@mailandnews.com (Alvin Curatolo) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:23:17 -0300 Subject: [blml] did I send this to you? Message-ID: <20041018103258.59553C8F@rhubarb.custard.org> The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker a= nd other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment!!=20









discontinue The harpooner's family was originally from Quebec, and was already a tribe= of hardy fishermen when this town belonged to France!!! This boy was thir= ty years old, and his age to that of his master as fifteen to twenty?=20 From walt1@verizon.net Mon Oct 18 12:37:34 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (walt1@verizon.net) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 6:37:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted Message-ID: <20041018113734.FNOO3485.out003.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> > From: Adam Wildavsky > Date: 2004/10/18 Mon AM 12:29:15 CDT > To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > CC: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted > I was thinking it might be interesting to try to produce a casebook on the "open source" model, perhaps using a wiki. I expect an editor would still be necessary, though, to prepare the final PDF if nothing else. What is a wiki? Thanks Walt From henk@ripe.net Mon Oct 18 14:44:47 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:44:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: <20041018113734.FNOO3485.out003.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> References: <20041018113734.FNOO3485.out003.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 walt1@verizon.net wrote: > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > Date: 2004/10/18 Mon AM 12:29:15 CDT > > To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > CC: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted > > > > I was thinking it might be interesting to try to produce a casebook on > > the "open source" model, perhaps using a wiki. I expect an editor > > would still be necessary, though, to prepare the final PDF if nothing > > else. > > > > What is a wiki? See http://www.wiki.org A piece of software that allows users to create, edit and publish webpages from their browsers. It is ideally suited for project teams and such that have to maintain documentation that changes rapidly. For the casebook, the editor could create the pages with the hands and TD decision. Each of the contributors can then look at the page, press edit and enter their comments. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In a room with a window in the corner, I found truth. (Ian Curtis) From toddz@att.net Mon Oct 18 14:55:34 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:55:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: <20041018113734.FNOO3485.out003.verizon.net@outgoing.verizo n.net> References: <20041018113734.FNOO3485.out003.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20041018095146.01cadec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 07:37 AM 10/18/2004, walt1@verizon.net wrote: > What is a wiki? http://wiki.org Perhaps the best-known (or at least one of the biggest) currently on the web is http://wikipedia.org. -Todd From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 18 15:44:15 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:44:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Flannery rides again - ruling In-Reply-To: <000501c4b28e$6e041d00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2F0C660E-2114-11D9-B4C9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Oct 15, 2004, at 04:10 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > From the presented facts: No problem, result stands. I agree result stands. I'm not so sure about "no problem", though. I think the upset of the NOS in this case might be considered a problem. :-) From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Oct 18 16:48:04 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:48:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817040@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Scoring: IMPs Vuln: None Standard : County division 1 Bidding; North East South West 2NT 3C 4H ...P P ? You hold x void KTxxx AKTxxxx What are your logical options? --=20 Steve Wright Leicester, England -------------------------------------- I see no LA to 4NT. I might well consider a 5C bid to be illegal, by the way. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 18 12:28:24 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:28:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Switch. Message-ID: <000901c4b536$bc185830$8408e150@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817040@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <1098121565.6957.206717677@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:48:04 +0100, "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" said: > > Scoring: IMPs > Vuln: None > Standard : County division 1 > > Bidding; > > North East South West > 2NT 3C 4H ...P > P ? > > You hold > > x void KTxxx AKTxxxx > > What are your logical options? > > -- > Steve Wright > Leicester, England > -------------------------------------- > I see no LA to 4NT. > I might well consider a 5C bid to be illegal, by the way. > > (Sorry for the double post Frances.) I suspect that partner's hesitation is based on opener forgetting Texas. I can see no other reason for partner to have hesitated. It would not surprise me if partner's hand resembles xxx QJT9xxx xx x and he is praying for you to pass. ...Dave Kent From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 18 22:31:02 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:31:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817040@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <1098121565.6957.206717677@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <002d01c4b55b$ad17dc50$09d7403e@OWNERUXST0KSFN> Grattan Endicott gesta@tiscali.co.uk [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ******************************************** +=+ Have changed over PCs. Seems to be working OK 10/18 22.10 hours +=+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kent" To: Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 6:46 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:48:04 +0100, > "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" > said: > > > > Scoring: IMPs > > Vuln: None > > Standard : County division 1 > > > > Bidding; > > > > North East South West > > 2NT 3C 4H ...P > > P ? > > > > You hold > > > > x void KTxxx AKTxxxx > > > > What are your logical options? > > > > -- > > Steve Wright > > Leicester, England > > -------------------------------------- > > I see no LA to 4NT. > > I might well consider a 5C bid to be illegal, > > by the way. > > > ...Dave Kent < +=+ This looks right to me. I think Pass is more suggested than either 4NT or 5C and 5C somewhat more than 4NT. ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 19 00:27:28 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:27:28 -0700 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted References: <20041018113734.FNOO3485.out003.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> Message-ID: <008b01c4b56a$0af97d20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 walt1@verizon.net wrote: > > > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > > Date: 2004/10/18 Mon AM 12:29:15 CDT > > > To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > > CC: blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted > > > > > > > I was thinking it might be interesting to try to produce a casebook on > > > the "open source" model, perhaps using a wiki. I expect an editor > > > would still be necessary, though, to prepare the final PDF if nothing > > > else. > > > > > > > > What is a wiki? > > See http://www.wiki.org > > A piece of software that allows users to create, edit and publish webpages > from their browsers. It is ideally suited for project teams and such that > have to maintain documentation that changes rapidly. > > For the casebook, the editor could create the pages with the hands and TD > decision. Each of the contributors can then look at the page, press edit > and enter their comments. > I much prefer the Richard Hills approach, since he seems willing to shoulder this task. Were it not for that, a wiki might make sense, but the final product would be inferior. Casebooks need a Laws-knowledgeable editor like Richard, while a free-form free-for-all would be very difficult to follow. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From lfduko@dns.netis.com Tue Oct 19 00:18:23 2004 From: lfduko@dns.netis.com (lfduko@dns.netis.com) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:18:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Gerald VCSC Hot Morning Pick! tgbsiq Message-ID: <0815858243278386276147012722645@dns.netis.com> Gerald

NEWS: VocalScape Inc. Announces SoftPhone for Asterisk IP PBX Users. You can start earning money NOW ? without waiting for the fabled stock-market recovery. How? By discovering little-known, explosively profitable penny stocks that don't depend on a recovery to go up.

An exciting new hi-tech stock recently showed up on our radar, and since it promises to become one of our biggest winners yet, we wanted to tell you about it immediately.(fLfx23Bf(w62a

Name_of_stock:VOCALSCAPE INC.
Symbol:VCSC
Current:0.17
Low-projection:0.68
High-projection:0.98
RECOMMENDATION:STRONG_BUY

COMPANY OVERVIEW

VOCALSCAPE Networks, Inc.
is a Vancouver-based company receiving international attention for its development of IP Telephony and VoIP (Voice Over IP) Application Solutions and is a leading provider of Web-based Customer Service Solutions for the Internet.

Today companies use VOCALSCAPE for real-time Human Interaction and Information Delivery over the Internet. Using VOCALSCAPE technology, any company - local or regional, national or multi-national, single location or multi-site - can reap the benefits of increased interaction with their Online Web Visitors and Customers.

VOCALSCAPE is transforming the Web Experience from silent surfing to Live Chat conversations, enriched by browser interaction. VOCALSCAPE develops innovative technologies for companies that see the potential of the Internet and telephony to enhance their service offerings and build Meaningful Customer Relationships.

VOCALSCAPE is committed to making great technology; challenging the status quo, and building a 21st Century company that changes the way businesses communicate and interact through the Internet.

VocalScape is receiving attention from around the world for its development of IP Telephony and VoIP application solutions.

Mark our words: Keep following our recommendations on this rising star and in 8 months or less, your 5,000 investment could easily turn into 35,000

To invest in VOCALSCAPE INC.(VCSC)now, contact your-broker_asap

Again, the company we are recommending is VOCALSCAPE INC.

Name_of_stock:VOCALSCAPE INC.
Symbol:VCSC
Current:0.17
Low-projection:0.68
High-projection:0.98
RECOMMENDATION:STRONG_BUY


confirm D, is, claimer:This Newsletter goal is to give the in.vestor the necessary knowledge to make rational and profitable inves, tment decisions. This publication does not provide an analysis of a company's financial position and is not an offer to bu.y or sell secu. rities. Vocals.cape's fi.nancial position and all information should be verified with the company. In. vesting in sec, uriti.es is speculative and carries risk. It is recommended any investment in any sec,urity should be made only after cons. ulting with your invest.ment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or fin.ancial stateme.nts of the company. In comp.liance with section1.7b,_we disclose the hold.ing of VCS.C shares prior to the pub.lication of this report and the fact we have been paid 5000 by third pa, rty for sen, ding this re.port. sailboat tooth begrudge jun

From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 19 00:20:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:20:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rubensohl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In a private email, Adam Wildavsky asked: >Was it East or West who alerted and >explained? This is what actually happened -> Imps Dlr: East Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass 2H 3C(3) Pass Pass 3H Pass Pass Pass (1) 11-14 hcp, balanced (2) Alerted and explained, 10-14 hcp, both majors (5/4 shape or better) (3) Transfer to diamonds, Rubensohl convention, not alerted and not explained, because East had forgotten the convention The actual deal AK732 Q873 --- K962 865 QJ94 65 AKJ KQJT2 983 A54 J73 T T942 A7654 QT8 West was another blmler, so West waited until the defeat of the 3H contract had been concluded before summoning the TD and correcting the MI, as required by Law 75D2. As TD, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 19 01:28:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:28:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: <000601c4b4f1$0a831fa0$0307a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Barton asked: [snip] >So the question is can a law book "logical >alternative" be 100% illogical? RJH replies: Yes. In a previous thread, Grattan Endicott admitted that "logical alternative" is a misnomer, given that the majority of the WBF LC voted for this definition of LA in the WBF Code of Practice: >>A "logical alternative" is a different action >>that, amongst the class of players in question >>and using the methods of the partnership, >>would be given serious consideration by a >>significant proportion of such players, of >>whom it is reasonable to think some might >>adopt it. Grattan has suggested that the misnomer "logical alternative" might be replaced by a more descriptive term in the 2006 Laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 19 02:05:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:05:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 Message-ID: Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a casebook. Attached is NYC case N-01. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru * * * N-01 NY Prelim Draft 10/19/2004 Subject: Tempo DIC: Cukoff Event: LM Pairs - 1st Qualification Bd: 2 Josh Sher Dlr: East A63 Vul: NS KQ9762 --- Q1086 Roger Lord Jacqueline Sincoff J1074 Q852 3 AJ 543 AJ109 AKJ92 754 Clement Jackson K9 T854 KQ8762 3 West North East South --- --- Pass Pass 1S(1) 2H Dbl(2) 4D(3) Pass 4H Dbl(4) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Possibly weak with as few as 4 spades (2) Negative, possibly inviting in spades (3) Diamonds and Hearts (4) Agreed BIT The Facts: All agreed that East broke tempo before doubling 4H. EW agreed that double of 2H did not guarantee spades, and that the later double was for takeout. Director was called at the end of the auction. The Ruling: Pass was an LA to 4S. Score adjusted to 4H doubled, making four for +790 to NS. (Laws 16A, 17F1, 12C2). The Appeal: EW stated they play extended negative doubles. Although this was not on their current convention card for lack of room, they produced an older card showing this is part of their system. EW do not play penalty doubles. East said to be sure of defending, she must pass, although her double could be converted. Both her first and second double can be a spade raise. Their card showed light initial action in third seat, sound openings in first and second seats. East was thinking of passing to get a plus score. West's opening bid is canape. West said the information from the slow double is that he should pass because East may have been thinking of passing to go plus. The Decision: EW have a 25-year partnership. The committee believed that East's second double was not penalty. Everyone believed there was a break in tempo before the double of 4H. East said she did not bid 3H over 2H because she did not want to commit to the three level, yet she subsequently made a takeout double at the four level. Nobody on the Committee played this unusual system. However, after analysis, the Committee believed that the slowness of the double made it more likely that East had four spades and made 4S, as opposed to pass, a more attractive call. EW admitted that this system often forces them to guess the right strain at high levels; that they will start with a four card spade suit and guess what to do if doubled. Accordingly, the Committee did not feel that a pull to 5C was suggested by the break in tempo. However, since the slowness of the double makes 4S a more attractive call, the committee required West to pass. The Committee found that 4H would make four on most lines of play and defense and therefore upheld the Director's ruling. Dissenting Opinion (Mark Feldman): Given the EW partnership agreements, and specifically the T/O nature of doubles, the break in tempo did not demonstrably suggest defending rather than bidding on. The break in tempo could have been because her hand was more defensive oriented than was optimal. Furthermore, very few, if any, players of Roger Lord's caliber would elect to defend with his hand opposite a T/O double. Admittedly, sometimes the nature of the problem can be discerned by body language and/or the tone of the double. But there was no claim of this by the NS pair. So I favored allowing Lord to bid rather than Pass. Whether to allow him to bid 4S rather than 5C was less clear, since the tempo break did increase the likelihood of his partner (with whom he had some unusual understandings including that the initial Double might be with 4 spades) having four card spade support. My inclination was to allow "testing the waters" with 4S; but I would have forced a retreat to 5C if 4S was doubled. Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Chris Moll, Bob Schwartz, Jay Apfelbaum and Mark Feldman. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 19 05:24:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:24:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-12 Message-ID: Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a casebook. Attached is NYC case N-12. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru * * * N-12 NY Prelim Draft 10/19/2004 Subject: UI DIC: Putnam Event: Spingold - 1st Semifinal Bd: 31 Eric Rodwell Dlr: South K984 Vul: NS T AQJ7 Q854 Alfredo Versace Lorenzo Lauria JT76 Q3 J32 K9875 K95 T K62 AJT93 Jeff Meckstroth A52 AQ64 86432 7 West North East South --- --- --- Pass Pass 1D(1) 2NT 3C(2) 3D(3) 3H(4) Pass 3NT(5) Pass 4D Pass 5D Pass Pass Pass (1) Precision, 2+ diamonds (2) Diamond raise (3) Heart raise (4) Looking for a possible 4-4 spade fit (5) BIT The Facts: The final contract was 5D South making for NS +600. The director was called after the 4D bid. The bidding tray came back to North and East (following the 3NT bid) after at least a one minute BIT (also said to be at least 5 minutes). The Ruling: The table result stands. Since South was a passed hand, 3NT was not a possible contract. Other facts: This case was not screened. The Appeal: EW appealed. There was a very long hesitation. There are many hands for South where 3NT is the best contract (the appealing side provided two of them) and with the auction going this way, it was clear that South must be the one who took the time. EW wanted to provide testimony from people watching viewgraph on how (only East said the hesitation was 5 minutes). Statements Made by the Other Side: Passing 3NT was not an option opposite an unbalanced hand with at most 10 HCP (they open 11). The time it took for the tray to come back was not that long considering it was a complex competitive auction where either person could have been thinking. South said he thought, but it never took him 3 minutes to bid in his life. Other Facts: The committee asked for testimony from four people in the room who were not affiliated with the teams. One Vugraph operator told the director it took about 3 minutes. The other operator and one kibitzer did not have an opinion because they were not paying attention. The other kibitzer did not particularly notice a hesitation. The Decision: The committee concluded that there was a temporary break, but not an exceptionally long one. Because of that, they concluded that especially considering the players on that side of the screen, it was just as likely that West was considering sacrificing as South bidding. With the likelihood of either opponent thinking, the committee deemed there was no UI. No UI, no adjustment. Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Gail Greenberg, Eddie Wold, Steve Robinson, Mike Passell and Aaron Silverstein, scribe. From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 19 08:28:09 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:28:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4174C209.4040101@hdw.be> I agree with the dissenting opinion. If we believe that the double is negative, then the hesitation double suggests some penalty orientation, so passing ought to be the suggested alternative, and bidding on must be allowed. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial > casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for > a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I > will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC > cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a > casebook. Attached is NYC case N-01. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > * * * > > N-01 NY Prelim Draft 10/19/2004 > Subject: Tempo > DIC: Cukoff > Event: LM Pairs - 1st Qualification > > Bd: 2 Josh Sher > Dlr: East A63 > Vul: NS KQ9762 > --- > Q1086 > Roger Lord Jacqueline Sincoff > J1074 Q852 > 3 AJ > 543 AJ109 > AKJ92 754 > Clement Jackson > K9 > T854 > KQ8762 > 3 > > West North East South > --- --- Pass Pass > 1S(1) 2H Dbl(2) 4D(3) > Pass 4H Dbl(4) Pass > 4S Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Possibly weak with as few as 4 spades > (2) Negative, possibly inviting in spades > (3) Diamonds and Hearts > (4) Agreed BIT > > The Facts: All agreed that East broke tempo before > doubling 4H. EW agreed that double of 2H did not > guarantee spades, and that the later double was for > takeout. Director was called at the end of the > auction. > > The Ruling: Pass was an LA to 4S. Score adjusted to > 4H doubled, making four for +790 to NS. (Laws 16A, > 17F1, 12C2). > > The Appeal: EW stated they play extended negative > doubles. Although this was not on their current > convention card for lack of room, they produced an > older card showing this is part of their system. EW > do not play penalty doubles. East said to be sure > of defending, she must pass, although her double > could be converted. > > Both her first and second double can be a spade > raise. Their card showed light initial action in > third seat, sound openings in first and second seats. > East was thinking of passing to get a plus score. > West's opening bid is canape. West said the > information from the slow double is that he should > pass because East may have been thinking of passing > to go plus. > > The Decision: EW have a 25-year partnership. The > committee believed that East's second double was not > penalty. Everyone believed there was a break in > tempo before the double of 4H. East said she did not > bid 3H over 2H because she did not want to commit to > the three level, yet she subsequently made a takeout > double at the four level. > > Nobody on the Committee played this unusual system. > However, after analysis, the Committee believed that > the slowness of the double made it more likely that > East had four spades and made 4S, as opposed to pass, > a more attractive call. > > EW admitted that this system often forces them to > guess the right strain at high levels; that they will > start with a four card spade suit and guess what to > do if doubled. Accordingly, the Committee did not > feel that a pull to 5C was suggested by the break in > tempo. However, since the slowness of the double > makes 4S a more attractive call, the committee > required West to pass. The Committee found that 4H > would make four on most lines of play and defense and > therefore upheld the Director's ruling. > > Dissenting Opinion (Mark Feldman): Given the EW > partnership agreements, and specifically the T/O > nature of doubles, the break in tempo did not > demonstrably suggest defending rather than bidding > on. The break in tempo could have been because her > hand was more defensive oriented than was optimal. > Furthermore, very few, if any, players of Roger > Lord's caliber would elect to defend with his hand > opposite a T/O double. Admittedly, sometimes the > nature of the problem can be discerned by body > language and/or the tone of the double. But there was > no claim of this by the NS pair. So I favored > allowing Lord to bid rather than Pass. > > Whether to allow him to bid 4S rather than 5C was > less clear, since the tempo break did increase the > likelihood of his partner (with whom he had some > unusual understandings including that the initial > Double might be with 4 spades) having four card spade > support. My inclination was to allow "testing the > waters" with 4S; but I would have forced a retreat to > 5C if 4S was doubled. > > Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Chris Moll, > Bob Schwartz, Jay Apfelbaum and Mark Feldman. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From henk@ripe.net Tue Oct 19 09:02:47 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:02:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: <008b01c4b56a$0af97d20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <20041018113734.FNOO3485.out003.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> <008b01c4b56a$0af97d20$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" > > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 walt1@verizon.net wrote: > > > > > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > > > Date: 2004/10/18 Mon AM 12:29:15 CDT > > > > To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > > > CC: blml@rtflb.org > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking it might be interesting to try to produce a casebook on > > > > the "open source" model, perhaps using a wiki. I expect an editor > > > > would still be necessary, though, to prepare the final PDF if nothing > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is a wiki? > > > > See http://www.wiki.org > > > > A piece of software that allows users to create, edit and publish webpages > > from their browsers. It is ideally suited for project teams and such that > > have to maintain documentation that changes rapidly. > > > > For the casebook, the editor could create the pages with the hands and TD > > decision. Each of the contributors can then look at the page, press edit > > and enter their comments. > > > I much prefer the Richard Hills approach, since he seems willing to > shoulder this task. Were it not for that, a wiki might make sense, but > the final product would be inferior. Casebooks need a Laws-knowledgeable > editor like Richard, while a free-form free-for-all would be very > difficult to follow. I agree and I disagree. I agree that a case-book needs an editor who knows the laws and contributions from knowledgable people only. On the other hand, wiki is a useful tool to produce this: One sets up the wiki and only gives editing rights to the contributors to the book. The contributors can then enter their comments at their convenience. When everybody is done, the editor goes in and edits. It saves the editor the hassle of collecting contributions, copying information from emails to webpages and administrative work like that. The tool will make the editors life easier, it won't replace him. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In a room with a window in the corner, I found truth. (Ian Curtis) From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Oct 19 09:26:12 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:26:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817045@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:48:04 +0100, "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" said: >=20 > Scoring: IMPs > Vuln: None > Standard : County division 1 >=20 > Bidding; >=20 > North East South West > 2NT 3C 4H ...P > P ? >=20 > You hold >=20 > x void KTxxx AKTxxxx >=20 > What are your logical options? >=20 > --=20 > Steve Wright > Leicester, England > -------------------------------------- > I see no LA to 4NT. > I might well consider a 5C bid to be illegal, by the way. >=20 >=20 (Sorry for the double post Frances.) I suspect that partner's hesitation is based on opener forgetting Texas. I can see no other reason for partner to have hesitated. It would not surprise me if partner's hand resembles xxx QJT9xxx xx x and he is praying for you to pass. ...Dave Kent=20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- That's an interesting thought that hadn't occurred to me. It probably = hadn't occurred to the players at the table either, because 4H (Texas transfer to = spades) is almost unknown in the UK. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Oct 19 16:15:51 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-12 In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Oct 19, 2004 02:24:18 PM Message-ID: <200410191515.i9JFFpOh015247@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial > casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for > a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I > will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC > cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a > casebook. Attached is NYC case N-12. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > * * * > > N-12 NY Prelim Draft 10/19/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Putnam > Event: Spingold - 1st Semifinal > > Bd: 31 Eric Rodwell > Dlr: South K984 > Vul: NS T > AQJ7 > Q854 > Alfredo Versace Lorenzo Lauria > JT76 Q3 > J32 K9875 > K95 T > K62 AJT93 > Jeff Meckstroth > A52 > AQ64 > 86432 > 7 > > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1D(1) 2NT 3C(2) > 3D(3) 3H(4) Pass 3NT(5) > Pass 4D Pass 5D > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Precision, 2+ diamonds > (2) Diamond raise > (3) Heart raise > (4) Looking for a possible 4-4 spade fit > (5) BIT > > The Facts: The final contract was 5D South making for > NS +600. The director was called after the 4D bid. > > The bidding tray came back to North and East (following > the 3NT bid) after at least a one minute BIT (also said > to be at least 5 minutes). > > The Ruling: The table result stands. Since South was a > passed hand, 3NT was not a possible contract. Nonsense. This is Meckwell. They're famous for their (beyond) skinny 3NT contracts. I'll bet we can dig up 100 or more 3NT contracts with 22 or so HCP and no real long suit. > > Other facts: This case was not screened. > > The Appeal: EW appealed. There was a very long > hesitation. There are many hands for South where 3NT is > the best contract (the appealing side provided two of > them) and with the auction going this way, it was clear > that South must be the one who took the time. EW wanted > to provide testimony from people watching viewgraph on > how (only East said the hesitation was 5 minutes). > > Statements Made by the Other Side: Passing 3NT was not > an option opposite an unbalanced hand with at most 10 > HCP (they open 11). Indeed I'm slightly surprised Meckstroth didn't open this one. He's opened plenty of weaker hands. > The time it took for the tray to > come back was not that long considering it was a > complex competitive auction where either person could > have been thinking. South said he thought, but it never > took him 3 minutes to bid in his life. > > Other Facts: The committee asked for testimony from > four people in the room who were not affiliated with > the teams. One Vugraph operator told the director it > took about 3 minutes. The other operator and one > kibitzer did not have an opinion because they were not > paying attention. The other kibitzer did not > particularly notice a hesitation. > > The Decision: The committee concluded that there was a > temporary break, but not an exceptionally long one. ?? Regarless of who you believe as to timing (and I believe none of them -- people are utterly hopeless at estimating time) there was an absolutely clear break in tempo. > Because of that, they concluded that especially > considering the players on that side of the screen, it > was just as likely that West was considering sacrificing > as South bidding. With the likelihood of either opponent > thinking, the committee deemed there was no UI. No UI, > no adjustment. And this is the true heart of the case and I agree with it. On this auction it's easy to imagine that West could want to defend (doubled or undoubled) or save And if there's no UI, every other point made simply doesn't matter. > > Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Gail Greenberg, > Eddie Wold, Steve Robinson, Mike Passell and Aaron > Silverstein, scribe. > From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 19 21:37:01 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:37:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial >casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for >a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I >will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC >cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a >casebook. Attached is NYC case N-01. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Movie grognard and general guru N-01 whether a 4S call is allowable Given a *negative* double from a passed hand, even with the constraints that this pair apply, no "expert" bridge player is going to pass 4H doubled. Worst case is an "insurance" one off in both rooms. At rubber or imps the takeout is automatic, and even at pairs the worst case scenario is no lock. Hence Pass is not even a LA. John Probst -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 19 21:45:06 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:45:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-12 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial >casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for >a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I >will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC >cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a >casebook. Attached is NYC case N-12. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Movie grognard and general guru > >* * * > N-12 whether 3N should be left in. Leave 3NT in? "You must be joking". 3N may well suggest a maximum pass, but all it's doing is helping partner determine the final contract. The hesitations are immaterial. John Probst -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 19 23:57:50 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:57:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Henk: >I agree and I disagree. > >I agree that a case-book needs an editor who knows >the laws and contributions from knowledgable >people only. > >On the other hand, wiki is a useful tool to >produce this: One sets up the wiki and only gives >editing rights to the contributors to the book. >The contributors can then enter their comments at >their convenience. When everybody is done, the >editor goes in and edits. It saves the editor the >hassle of collecting contributions, copying >information from emails to webpages and >administrative work like that. > >The tool will make the editors life easier, it >won't replace him. RJH: I agree and I disagree. In my opinion, contributors should be unrestricted as to knowledge, just as blml is open to all. Being an unofficial casebook panellist is a great way to learn about the Law and its interpretation. Indeed, the only reason that Marv can describe me as a Laws-knowledgeable editor is because I have been willing to learn from my mistakes after my many idiotic postings to blml. Also, in my opinion, it is contributors whose lives should be made easier. My experience as a panellist on EBU casebooks, and as an unofficial editor of Reno casebooks, is that the biggest bottleneck delaying publication of those casebooks is caused by panellists finding difficulty in completing their comments. As unofficial editor, I am willing to put up with the inconvenience of copying emails to a Word doc, if it means that blmlers can easily contribute to a New York unofficial casebook simply by responding to a blml thread. (See the thirteen parallel blml threads that I am progressively starting.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 20 00:37:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:37:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-05 Message-ID: Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a casebook. Attached is NYC case N-05. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru * * * N-05 NY Prelim Draft 10/20/2004 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event: LM Pairs - 1st semifinal Bd: 23 Gene Freed Dlr: South J6 Vul: Both AJ5 JT942 T97 Steve Garner Howard Weinstein QT853 K92 KQ63 T72 A5 8 82 AKQ543 Betty Ann Kennedy A74 984 KQ763 J6 West North East South --- --- --- Pass 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass 2H Pass 2S Pass 4S(2) Pass Pass Pass (1) Game Forcing (2) Minimum The Facts: The contract was 4S down one after the lead of the DJ. The director was called at the end of the hand. The play was as follows: Declarer won the DA and ruffed a diamond at trick two. He now played the SK. Everyone agreed that South thought a while before playing low. Declarer now played the S9 from dummy and ducked it to North's jack. North returned a club and played another club when in with the HA, thus killing dummy's club suit. The Ruling: South's break in tempo before playing low on the first round of trumps demonstrably suggest that she holds the ace. When North was in with the SJ, it is necessary for him to cash his HA before it goes away if declarer had the SA. Because the UI suggested that it was safe to try and kill the club suit, the directors felt that cashing the HA was a logical alternative. The result was changed to 4S making four for +620 for EW. The Appeal: NS appealed. North stated that when West ruffed the diamond at trick two, it revealed that declarer did not have the SA, since if he did have it, he would just pull two trumps and run clubs, thus losing a spade and a heart. Therefore, he played his partner for the SA and continued a club to kill dummy. The Decision: A real possibility on this hand is that West had A108xx, Kxxx, Ax, Jx. If he does, then he might well pass the spade into the North hand in order to keep South off lead so that a heart can't be led through his king. Because of South's BIT, however, North had reason to believe that was not West's hand and that South had the SA. >From North's point of view, if West has the hypothetical hand above, then he must cash the HA to hold the contract to five. Since this is a logical alternative to the line of play suggested by the BIT, the committee imposed it (requiring North to take his HA when he was in) holding the contract to EW +620. An AWMW was given to the appellants. North was in a position to know from the UI that his partner had the SA. This made the return very easy. Without that information, the return is riskier. The committee believed that North was in a good position to figure out the ethical implication and the requirements for him, but he did not. Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Chris Willenken, Lou Reich, David Berkowitz and Ellen Melson. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 20 00:50:05 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:50:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 References: Message-ID: <001101c4b636$5c3b5ce0$069868d5@jeushtlj> > * * * > > N-01 NY Prelim Draft 10/19/2004 > Subject: Tempo > DIC: Cukoff > Event: LM Pairs - 1st Qualification > > Bd: 2 Josh Sher > Dlr: East A63 > Vul: NS KQ9762 > --- > Q1086 > Roger Lord Jacqueline Sincoff > J1074 Q852 > 3 AJ > 543 AJ109 > AKJ92 754 > Clement Jackson > K9 > T854 > KQ8762 > 3 > > West North East South > --- --- Pass Pass > 1S(1) 2H Dbl(2) 4D(3) > Pass 4H Dbl(4) Pass > 4S Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Possibly weak with as few as 4 spades > (2) Negative, possibly inviting in spades > (3) Diamonds and Hearts > (4) Agreed BIT > > The Facts: All agreed that East broke tempo before > doubling 4H. EW agreed that double of 2H did not > guarantee spades, and that the later double was for > takeout. Director was called at the end of the > auction. > > The Ruling: Pass was an LA to 4S. Score adjusted to > 4H doubled, making four for +790 to NS. (Laws 16A, > 17F1, 12C2). > > The Appeal: EW stated they play extended negative > doubles. Although this was not on their current > convention card for lack of room, they produced an > older card showing this is part of their system. EW > do not play penalty doubles. East said to be sure > of defending, she must pass, although her double > could be converted. > > Both her first and second double can be a spade > raise. Their card showed light initial action in > third seat, sound openings in first and second seats. > East was thinking of passing to get a plus score. > West's opening bid is canape. West said the > information from the slow double is that he should > pass because East may have been thinking of passing > to go plus. > > The Decision: EW have a 25-year partnership. The > committee believed that East's second double was not > penalty. Everyone believed there was a break in > tempo before the double of 4H. East said she did not > bid 3H over 2H because she did not want to commit to > the three level, yet she subsequently made a takeout > double at the four level. > > Nobody on the Committee played this unusual system. > However, after analysis, the Committee believed that > the slowness of the double made it more likely that > East had four spades and made 4S, as opposed to pass, > a more attractive call. > > EW admitted that this system often forces them to > guess the right strain at high levels; that they will > start with a four card spade suit and guess what to > do if doubled. Accordingly, the Committee did not > feel that a pull to 5C was suggested by the break in > tempo. However, since the slowness of the double > makes 4S a more attractive call, the committee > required West to pass. The Committee found that 4H > would make four on most lines of play and defense and > therefore upheld the Director's ruling. > > Dissenting Opinion (Mark Feldman): Given the EW > partnership agreements, and specifically the T/O > nature of doubles, the break in tempo did not > demonstrably suggest defending rather than bidding > on. The break in tempo could have been because her > hand was more defensive oriented than was optimal. > Furthermore, very few, if any, players of Roger > Lord's caliber would elect to defend with his hand > opposite a T/O double. Admittedly, sometimes the > nature of the problem can be discerned by body > language and/or the tone of the double. But there was > no claim of this by the NS pair. So I favored > allowing Lord to bid rather than Pass. > > Whether to allow him to bid 4S rather than 5C was > less clear, since the tempo break did increase the > likelihood of his partner (with whom he had some > unusual understandings including that the initial > Double might be with 4 spades) having four card spade > support. My inclination was to allow "testing the > waters" with 4S; but I would have forced a retreat to > 5C if 4S was doubled. > > Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Chris Moll, > Bob Schwartz, Jay Apfelbaum and Mark Feldman. [Nigel] Pass is a logical alternative. The hesitation brings the anti-law 4S into the picture. Whether to keep the deposit is the question that the AC need to consider. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 20 00:54:34 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:54:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> >................. >> >> Sorry, Sven, you cannot say "by example" to get you away from the >> >> actual wording. If you expose a card intentionally that's an MPC. If >> >> your original intent is to play the D9 and you expose the D9 either you >> >> play it or it is an MPC. >> > >> >I am not attempting to get away from the actual wording! I am attempting >> to >> >take Laws 58B2 and 50B literally because I find their wording very >> precise >> >and reasonable. >> > >> >How do you read and understand the clause in Law 50B: "(As in playing two >> >cards to a trick,...)? >> >> If you intend to play the DK and play the D9 simultaneously, then >> L58B2 gives you the choice: you choose the DK and the D9 is an mPC. >> >> But that does not affect the fact that if you played the D9 >> deliberately it cannot be an mPC. > >Nobody argues that D9 is a major penalty card if played deliberately. The >point in Law 58B is that it does not ask which card the player intended to >play, it asks which of the two (or more) cards he exposed he will decide as >the card he plays. > >Now please rule on this (Let it be stipulated that I am a very honest player >who do not know the laws and politely just answer you questions): > >I have in my hand the diamonds Queen, Jack, nine and eight and I expose the >Jack and the nine by playing them both (simultaneously) to a trick. > >If you (as is your duty) informs me that I have to select one of the two >exposed cards as the card I want to play and also all consequences of my >selection I answer that I select the Jack as the played card. > >If you ask me which card I really intended to play then: > >Case 1: I answer that it was my intention to play my Queen. Why would he answer this when I say "Which of these two cards did you intend to play"? If he answers neither then the 9 would be an mPC if he chooses to play the jack. That is perfectly clear from L50B. Of course if I asked a stupid question we are into Director error. >Case 2: I answer that it was my intention to play my eight. Why would he answer this when I say "Which of these two cards did you intend to play"? If he answers neither then the 9 would be an mPC if he chooses to play the jack. That is perfectly clear from L50B. Of course if I asked a stupid question we are into Director error. >Never mind any possible stupidity in any of these answers. You have been >given the facts; now it is your call so just tell me how you would apply, >first Law 58B and then Law 50B. > >> >And where do you find an obligation on a player who has played two cards >> to >> >a trick that he should disclose which of the two cards (if any of them) >> was >> >the card he really intended to play? >> >> When you apply the Laws and they require you to investigate and >> discover information [eg, whether there was a hesitation] that's what >> you do. Sure, players will occasionally lie > >When a player selects one of the cards he exposed by playing them >simultaneously to a trick as the card he wants to have played (literally >according to the prescription in Law 58B) how can you suspect him of lying? >What would be the actual lie? I ask him what card he originally intended to play because I need to know for ruling under L50B. If he tells me a card and it is not the card he intended then he has lied. What I do not understand, Sven, is why you wish to evade ruling under a perfectly simple Law by complicating the matter in ways that will never happen. L50B is clear. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 20 00:55:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:55:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001801c4b262$24fce870$0100a8c0@MIKE> References: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001801c4b262$24fce870$0100a8c0@MIKE> Message-ID: mike dodson wrote >L50b specifically covers the L58 referral (two cards to a trick) and >does not need intention. Sorry, you cannot ignore the actual wording of L50B. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 20 01:00:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:00:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <002c01c4b3b0$525f2680$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <53918E5C-1F87-11D9-9C8D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <002c01c4b3b0$525f2680$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote > >From: "Ed Reppert" < > >> >> On Tuesday, Oct 12, 2004, at 18:32 US/Eastern, Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > In ACBL territory, clubs are the SO for their own games, and the ACBL >> > is the SO for tournaments. >> >> If I'm not mistaken (I may be, I don't have time to look it up right >> now), ACBL claims SO status for any game in which >> ACBL masterpoints are awarded. >> >I asked Memphis about this some years ago, when a club was barring psychs. I >was told that clubs must adhere to the ACBL version of the Laws as >published, no exceptions, no "Elections." That says, in effect, that clubs >are not SOs. No, Marv, clubs must adhere to the Laws or it is not bridge within the meaning of the act. But that does not mean they are not SOs, which is concerned with regulations, not laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 20 01:01:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:01:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Semantics (was Cardiff Ruling 5) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Grattan Endicott defined: > >>>+=+ My dear David, >>> Do get with it. >>> No judgement. Solely a decision as to fact. > >David Stevenson quibbled: > >>"The Director must perceive the difference" Quote >>GGE. That is a judgement, not a matter of fact. > >RJH requibbles: > >No, it is a Law 85 judgement about fact. > >In my opinion, it would be useful if David >Stevenson read the EBU White Book's English in a >straightforward way. > >In my opinion, while decisions pursuant to Law 85 >are legally identical, they can be practically (and >usefully) split up into two types: > >(a) TD judgmental decisions about hard facts, such >as whether or not it is a fact that Law 15C has >satisfied the criteria for its use. Shorthand >description, "TD facts decision". > >(b) TD judgmental decisions about soft facts, such >as whether or not it is a fact that a logical >alternative exists. Shorthand description, "TD >judgement decision". > >The EBU White Book should be interpreted to read: > >(c) A TD does not need to consult on a "TD facts >decision". > >(d) A TD does need to consult on a "TD judgement >decision". Yeah, well, a lot of quibbling, but the actual case is a (d) case. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Wed Oct 20 01:05:23 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:05:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-12 References: Message-ID: <001e01c4b638$7f51af20$069868d5@jeushtlj> > * * * > > N-12 NY Prelim Draft 10/19/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Putnam > Event: Spingold - 1st Semifinal > > Bd: 31 Eric Rodwell > Dlr: South K984 > Vul: NS T > AQJ7 > Q854 > Alfredo Versace Lorenzo Lauria > JT76 Q3 > J32 K9875 > K95 T > K62 AJT93 > Jeff Meckstroth > A52 > AQ64 > 86432 > 7 > > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1D(1) 2NT 3C(2) > 3D(3) 3H(4) Pass 3NT(5) > Pass 4D Pass 5D > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Precision, 2+ diamonds > (2) Diamond raise > (3) Heart raise > (4) Looking for a possible 4-4 spade fit > (5) BIT > > The Facts: The final contract was 5D South making for > NS +600. The director was called after the 4D bid. > > The bidding tray came back to North and East (following > the 3NT bid) after at least a one minute BIT (also said > to be at least 5 minutes). > > The Ruling: The table result stands. Since South was a > passed hand, 3NT was not a possible contract. > > Other facts: This case was not screened. > > The Appeal: EW appealed. There was a very long > hesitation. There are many hands for South where 3NT is > the best contract (the appealing side provided two of > them) and with the auction going this way, it was clear > that South must be the one who took the time. EW wanted > to provide testimony from people watching viewgraph on > how (only East said the hesitation was 5 minutes). > > Statements Made by the Other Side: Passing 3NT was not > an option opposite an unbalanced hand with at most 10 > HCP (they open 11). The time it took for the tray to > come back was not that long considering it was a > complex competitive auction where either person could > have been thinking. South said he thought, but it never > took him 3 minutes to bid in his life. > > Other Facts: The committee asked for testimony from > four people in the room who were not affiliated with > the teams. One Vugraph operator told the director it > took about 3 minutes. The other operator and one > kibitzer did not have an opinion because they were not > paying attention. The other kibitzer did not > particularly notice a hesitation. > > The Decision: The committee concluded that there was a > temporary break, but not an exceptionally long one. > Because of that, they concluded that especially > considering the players on that side of the screen, it > was just as likely that West was considering sacrificing > as South bidding. With the likelihood of either opponent > thinking, the committee deemed there was no UI. No UI, > no adjustment. > > Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Gail Greenberg, > Eddie Wold, Steve Robinson, Mike Passell and Aaron > Silverstein, scribe. [Nigel] Obviously... (1) South is the most likely hesitator. (2) The hesitation suggests doubt about 3N. (3) Pass by North is a logical alternative. Nevertheless East-West are Italians and North-South are American. Hence, again, the only question the AC need to consider is whether to keep the East-West deposit :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 20 02:30:16 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:30:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 References: Message-ID: <002801c4b644$5be6cbe0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> This seems much better than the wiki idea. >From Richard Hills: > > Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial > casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for > a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I > will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC > cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a > casebook. Attached is NYC case N-01. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > * * * > > N-01 NY Prelim Draft 10/19/2004 > Subject: Tempo > DIC: Cukoff > Event: LM Pairs - 1st Qualification > > Bd: 2 Josh Sher > Dlr: East A63 > Vul: NS KQ9762 > --- > Q1086 > Roger Lord Jacqueline Sincoff > J1074 Q852 > 3 AJ > 543 AJ109 > AKJ92 754 > Clement Jackson > K9 > T854 > KQ8762 > 3 > > West North East South > --- --- Pass Pass > 1S(1) 2H Dbl(2) 4D(3) > Pass 4H Dbl(4) Pass > 4S Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Possibly weak with as few as 4 spades > (2) Negative, possibly inviting in spades > (3) Diamonds and Hearts > (4) Agreed BIT > > The Facts: All agreed that East broke tempo before > doubling 4H. EW agreed that double of 2H did not > guarantee spades, and that the later double was for > takeout. Director was called at the end of the > auction. > > The Ruling: Pass was an LA to 4S. Score adjusted to > 4H doubled, making four for +790 to NS. (Laws 16A, > 17F1, 12C2). > > The Appeal: EW stated they play extended negative > doubles. Although this was not on their current > convention card for lack of room, they produced an > older card showing this is part of their system. EW > do not play penalty doubles. East said to be sure > of defending, she must pass, although her double > could be converted. > > Both her first and second double can be a spade > raise. Their card showed light initial action in > third seat, sound openings in first and second seats. > East was thinking of passing to get a plus score. > West's opening bid is canape. West said the > information from the slow double is that he should > pass because East may have been thinking of passing > to go plus. > > The Decision: EW have a 25-year partnership. The > committee believed that East's second double was not > penalty. Everyone believed there was a break in > tempo before the double of 4H. East said she did not > bid 3H over 2H because she did not want to commit to > the three level, yet she subsequently made a takeout > double at the four level. > > Nobody on the Committee played this unusual system. > However, after analysis, the Committee believed that > the slowness of the double made it more likely that > East had four spades and made 4S, as opposed to pass, > a more attractive call. > > EW admitted that this system often forces them to > guess the right strain at high levels; that they will > start with a four card spade suit and guess what to > do if doubled. Accordingly, the Committee did not > feel that a pull to 5C was suggested by the break in > tempo. However, since the slowness of the double > makes 4S a more attractive call, the committee > required West to pass. The Committee found that 4H > would make four on most lines of play and defense and > therefore upheld the Director's ruling. > > Dissenting Opinion (Mark Feldman): Given the EW > partnership agreements, and specifically the T/O > nature of doubles, the break in tempo did not > demonstrably suggest defending rather than bidding > on. The break in tempo could have been because her > hand was more defensive oriented than was optimal. > Furthermore, very few, if any, players of Roger > Lord's caliber would elect to defend with his hand > opposite a T/O double. Admittedly, sometimes the > nature of the problem can be discerned by body > language and/or the tone of the double. But there was > no claim of this by the NS pair. So I favored > allowing Lord to bid rather than Pass. > > Whether to allow him to bid 4S rather than 5C was > less clear, since the tempo break did increase the > likelihood of his partner (with whom he had some > unusual understandings including that the initial > Double might be with 4 spades) having four card spade > support. My inclination was to allow "testing the > waters" with 4S; but I would have forced a retreat to > 5C if 4S was doubled. > > Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Chris Moll, > Bob Schwartz, Jay Apfelbaum and Mark Feldman. > Marvin French: The 4S bid is certainly fishy, but I agree with the dissenter. Given their weird system (no business doubles?), I guess it's okay. Evidently a pass over 4H would not be forcing, as otherwise it would seem best to just pass and let West double or bid. East felt (oddly) that she was not strong enough to commit the hand to even 3S, leaving a takeout double of 4H as her only option if she felt she was too strong to pass. As for West, he hardly has a leave-in of a takeout double, and he could not risk bidding 5C if a passed-hand partner could have four spades. While most doubles are not Alertable these days, playing that all doubles are for takeout is "highly unusual and unexpected" and should be the subject of a Pre-Alert before hands are taken from the board. Lack of room on the convention card? How come there was room on the old card? There's plenty of room in the space for "Special Doubles" on the ACBL convention card. Furthermore, their canape system must be pre-Alerted. The TD should have determined whether the proper Pre-Alerts were made. If not, he should have assessed E-W a PP for failing to disclose their methods in accordance with ACBL regulations. If the Pre-Alerts were made, that should have been included in the writeup. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From toddz@att.net Wed Oct 20 01:41:01 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:41:01 -0400 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: References: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20041019202045.01cefec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Why is there a distinction between major and minor penalty cards? Would it be unreasonable to do away with the distinction in the future? -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 20 02:18:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:18:10 +1000 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20041019202045.01cefec0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd asked: >>Why is there a distinction between major and >>minor penalty cards? Would it be unreasonable >>to do away with the distinction in the future? W.S. Gilbert: >My object all sublime >I shall achieve in time - >To let the punishment fit the crime - >The punishment fit the crime. RJH: Over the decades, the Laws have changed so as to provide better equity for the offending side. The clearest example of this trend towards equity for the offending side has been the diminishing mechanical (non-Law 64C) penalty for revokes. In the pre-1975 Laws, the mechanical revoke penalty cost the offending side two tricks. In the 1975 Laws, the mechanical revoke penalty cost the offending side one or two tricks. In the 1987 and 1997 Laws, the likelihood of a mere one trick mechanical revoke penalty was increased. And in an early draft of the 2006 Laws, all mechanical revoke penalties of two tricks were abolished, with only one trick mechanical revoke penalties remaining. Likewise, the distinction between minor and major penalties cards was introduced in the 1987 Laws (and continued in the 1997 Laws). This was to prevent the offending side from being punished excessively for the trivial crime of inadvertently exposing a non-honour Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 20 04:04:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:04:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? In-Reply-To: <416EA461.6010202@hdw.be> References: <000f01c4b205$f96f0640$0307a8c0@PlusNet> <416EA461.6010202@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >The second one is easy: > >> (d) how would your ruling differ if E held the H9 instead of the S9. > >what's the difference? - in both cases declarer makes one trick if he >plays the queen, and none if he does not. If West does not have the HK, >then the cases differ, with this second one being different - it then >does not matter which card dummy plays so the question is moot. > >David Barton wrote: > >> At the club the other evening I was called at the following 2 >> card ending. A no trump contract with South declarer. >> H Q10 >> S 9 >> H K3 H J >> H 54 >> South played H4, West the H3. Dummy, unprompted, contributed >> the H10 and East claimed both the tricks with HJ and S9. >> The director was called and South explained that he had not nominated >> a card and indeed had not at that point made his mind up which card >> to play!!!!!! >> Presumably Declarer may substitute the HQ per L45D. The director >> should then consider an adjustment under L12A1. >> > >Why? >Declarer has not named a card, so there is no card played. East has >shown a card, which he can retract, but it is still AI to declarer. >Just like there is no recourse for a declarer who plays upon mishearing >a played card, there is no recourse here. >There is no law which punishes dummy for playing a card not named, or >misheard. And while there may be ways to get at cheating dummies, there >was no ention of any wrongful intent by dummy in your story. L43A1C is a Law in the Law book, so therefore breach of it is subject to penalty, even if done without intent. So there is a Law to cover this. >Now if this were to happen to me as declarer, I would nominate the ten, >but that's another matter entirely. > >> Assuming I am on track so far, my questions are:- >> (a) how many tricks to each side > >one each. > >> (b) Is L12C3 relevant > >no, I don't think it is. Maybe it should be in some future edition of >the laws, but at present there is no infraction. That is the point: there is a breach of a 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 20 04:47:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:47:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Windfalls and Law 12C2 Message-ID: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/LCMin2002Montreal1.pdf Extract from WBF LC minutes, Montreal, 27th August 2002: >The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. Mr. Wildavsky put >his view that this law should be interpreted as though it read > >"for a non-offending side the most favourable result that was >likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending >side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable had >the irregularity not occurred". > >It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that on a previous >occasion the subject had been discussed and the Committee had >agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to the >adjustment for the offending side. The Committee found no >reason to reconsider that decision. RJH notes: In my opinion, this WBF LC interpretation is not inconsistently harsh towards the OS because it gives the OS the worst of "at all probable" results with or without the OS infraction. This is because non-ACBL policy gives the NOS the best of results after an infraction. If an OS infraction backfires, and benefits the NOS, then the NOS keeps their windfall. Of course, some members of the ACBL Laws Commission are obsessed with the possibility that players gain windfalls which "damage the field". As a result, quasi-legal regulations outlawing gains from misbids, or gains after opponents use UI, are creeping in. Some years ago, a semi-official editorial in the ABF Newsletter suggested that sea-lawyers gain an unfair advantage at an AC hearing (resulting in windfalls) by quoting the Laws. The editor suggested that the solution would be to gag appellants and defendants from speaking about the Laws, instead restricting them to assertions about at-the-table facts. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 10:51:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:51:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c4b68a$69a17eb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > What I do not understand, Sven, is why you wish to evade ruling = under > a perfectly simple Law by complicating the matter in ways that will > never happen. L50B is clear. Yes David, Law 50B is perfectly clear to me. The (in this case) relevant part of it says: "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." Can any wording be clearer than this? No exception, no words to the = effect of "unless the Director judges that the cards were played deliberately". = What I do not understand is that this isn't equally clear to you; when a defender plays two cards to a trick he first designates (according to = L58B2) the card he proposes to play. There is no question in Law 58B2 on which = card he actually intended to play. Next we go to Law 50B which simply states = that the other card becomes a minor penalty card if it was below the rank of = an honour.=20 The point is that Law 50B explicitly considers two cards played (simultaneously) to a trick to having been exposed inadvertently. And frankly I do not think it will ever happen that a player deliberately = plays two cards to a trick. (If he did we have other laws to take care of = that). IMO any question by the Director other than "Which of your exposed cards = do you select as the card you have played" (or words to the same effect) = will be a Director's error. Regards Sven=20 From toddz@att.net Wed Oct 20 11:23:04 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:23:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <000201c4b1ca$29e30330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20041020061818.01c116c0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 07:54 PM 10/19/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > >If you ask me which card I really intended to play then > > > > Case 1: I answer that it was my intention to play my Queen. > > Why would he answer this when I say "Which of these two cards did > you intend to play"? If he answers neither then the 9 would be an mPC > if he chooses to play the jack. That is perfectly clear from L50B. This answer still reveals more information than necessary -- either having a 3rd card in the suit or planing to play a different suit entirely. The question to ask, after having the player propose which card to play, is a variation of, "Yes or no -- did you originally intend to play the other card?" Since an honest player wouldn't be swayed, it can still be left to your conscience whether to explain the consequences of the answer before asking the question. -Todd From toddz@att.net Wed Oct 20 11:32:12 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:32:12 -0400 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.1.20041019202045.01cefec0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20041020062315.01c1a648@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 09:18 PM 10/19/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Likewise, the distinction between minor and > major penalties cards was introduced in the 1987 > Laws (and continued in the 1997 Laws). This was > to prevent the offending side from being > punished excessively for the trivial crime of > inadvertently exposing a non-honour So it would be reasonable to remove it since bridge survived so long without such a distinction. But it's as I suspected -- the intent of the law is clearly on Sven's side. I still like David S.'s argument, though. While L58 doesn't mention intent and doesn't offer the player the option of proposing a 3rd, actually-intended card, L50 does mention intent. And though L50 mentions two cards played to the same trick as a possibile way to create a minor penalty card, it does not make minor penalty cards an exclusive result to leaving a non-honor exposed after pulling two cards simultaneously. -Todd From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 20 12:54:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:54:54 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20041020062315.01c1a648@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20041019202045.01cefec0@immi.gov.au> <6.0.1.1.1.20041020062315.01c1a648@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <4176520E.4040107@hdw.be> I have been following this thread with only half an eye, and I still don't see what the fuss is all about. L50 clearly uses intent as one of the conditions for something becoming a minor penalty card - so obviously one should ask the player (or his table mates) for the apparent intent. If I play the S9 and the SQ drops, the SQ is a MPc, but the S9 is played. If I play the SQ and the S9 drops, the S9 is a mpc and the SQ is played. So if the TD does nothing when faced with the S9 and SQ exposed, hos is he supposed to rule? Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > At 09:18 PM 10/19/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Likewise, the distinction between minor and > > major penalties cards was introduced in the 1987 > > Laws (and continued in the 1997 Laws). This was > > to prevent the offending side from being > > punished excessively for the trivial crime of > > inadvertently exposing a non-honour > > So it would be reasonable to remove it since bridge survived so > long without such a distinction. But it's as I suspected -- the > intent of the law is clearly on Sven's side. I still like David S.'s > argument, though. While L58 doesn't mention intent and doesn't offer > the player the option of proposing a 3rd, actually-intended card, L50 > does mention intent. And though L50 mentions two cards played to the > same trick as a possibile way to create a minor penalty card, it does > not make minor penalty cards an exclusive result to leaving a non-honor > exposed after pulling two cards simultaneously. > > -Todd > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Oct 20 13:18:21 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 In-Reply-To: <001101c4b636$5c3b5ce0$069868d5@jeushtlj> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Oct 20, 2004 12:50:05 AM Message-ID: <200410201218.i9KCILHI019828@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > > * * * > > > > N-01 NY Prelim Draft > > 10/19/2004 > > Subject: Tempo > > DIC: Cukoff > > Event: LM Pairs - 1st Qualification > > > > Bd: 2 Josh Sher > > Dlr: East A63 > > Vul: NS KQ9762 > > --- > > Q1086 > > Roger Lord Jacqueline Sincoff > > J1074 Q852 > > 3 AJ > > 543 AJ109 > > AKJ92 754 > > Clement Jackson > > K9 > > T854 > > KQ8762 > > 3 > > > > West North East South > > --- --- Pass Pass > > 1S(1) 2H Dbl(2) 4D(3) > > Pass 4H Dbl(4) Pass > > 4S Pass Pass Pass > > > > (1) Possibly weak with as few as 4 spades > > (2) Negative, possibly inviting in spades > > (3) Diamonds and Hearts (4) Takeout > [Nigel] > Pass is a logical alternative. Why? I'm usually on the other side of this type of argument but I just don't see it here. A passed hand with at least Spade tolerance makes a takeout double and you see pass as an LA for a strong player? (I don't know the name, but the dissenting comment makes it reasonably clear that at least one member of the AC respects his judgement) From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 13:45:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:45:39 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <4176520E.4040107@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c4b6a2$b48dde10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > I have been following this thread with only half an eye, and I still > don't see what the fuss is all about. Maybe you should read Laws 58B2 and 50B with both eyes open? > L50 clearly uses intent as one of the conditions for something > becoming a minor penalty card - so obviously one should ask the player > (or his table mates) for the apparent intent. >=20 > If I play the S9 and the SQ drops, the SQ is a MPc, but the S9 is = played. > If I play the SQ and the S9 drops, the S9 is a mpc and the SQ is = played. Playing one card and accidentally dropping another isn't the question; = the question is how to rule when a player has played two (or more) cards simultaneously to a trick.=20 In that case the Director shall first apply Law 58B2. This law only = calls for the offender to designate which of the two (or more) exposed cards = he designates as the card he proposes to play. There is no question in Law = 58B2 on what really was his intent. Next (when the offender is a defender) the Director shall apply Law 50B = and the applicable part of that law (when just two cards were simultaneously played to a trick by a defender) states: "A single card below the rank = of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or = in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." Again there is no question of intent; Law 50B literally simply states in = so many words that when two cards are played to a trick the exposure of the card which the offender does not next designate as his played card was inadvertent (as it also is when a card is dropped accidentally). So nowhere can the Director find cause to ask for a player's real intent when he has played two cards to a trick; his real intent is irrelevant = both for Law 58B2 and for Law 50B. And any question on the offender's intent = must be considered a Director's error (which quite likely must end with a Law = 82C ruling if the question or the answer to that question had any impact on = the further developments of the play). As a matter of fact I firmly believe that if the director when applying = Law 58B2 fails to alert the offender on the consequence of selecting a spot = card rather than an honour as the card he proposes to play is a serious break = of Law 10C1, also eventually leading to a Law 82C ruling.=20 Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 20 14:52:00 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:52:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817040@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <372623EA-229F-11D9-99D1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 18, 2004, at 11:48 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > I see no LA to 4NT. > I might well consider a 5C bid to be illegal, by the way. On what grounds, if there's no LA to 4NT? From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 20 15:03:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:03:05 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <000d01c4b6a2$b48dde10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c4b6a2$b48dde10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41767019.2070902@hdw.be> OK, now I do understand what all the fuss is about. Sven is simply wrong. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>I have been following this thread with only half an eye, and I still >>don't see what the fuss is all about. > > > Maybe you should read Laws 58B2 and 50B with both eyes open? > > >>L50 clearly uses intent as one of the conditions for something >>becoming a minor penalty card - so obviously one should ask the player >>(or his table mates) for the apparent intent. >> >>If I play the S9 and the SQ drops, the SQ is a MPc, but the S9 is played. >>If I play the SQ and the S9 drops, the S9 is a mpc and the SQ is played. > > > Playing one card and accidentally dropping another isn't the question; the > question is how to rule when a player has played two (or more) cards > simultaneously to a trick. > Well, yes, and L50B will enter the frame some time in the near future, and the intent is important at that time. So whether or not the TD asks for it when reading L58 is of no importance, once he reaches L50 the intent shall need to be known. > In that case the Director shall first apply Law 58B2. This law only calls > for the offender to designate which of the two (or more) exposed cards he > designates as the card he proposes to play. There is no question in Law 58B2 > on what really was his intent. > No indeed there is not. However, for the purposes of L50 it is important. So before he "designates", the TD should explain to him that he needs to do so, and in order to do that, the TD shall have to tell him the consequences of each designation. Those consequences include a penalty card, which can be a major or a minor one, and in order to do that, the TD needs to know if the small card was played inadvertently or not. So Sven, if a player plays 2 honours simultaneously (or 3 cards), the TD need not ask which one was the intended one, but if it is a high and a low one, then it is important to know which one was the inadvertent one. > Next (when the offender is a defender) the Director shall apply Law 50B and > the applicable part of that law (when just two cards were simultaneously > played to a trick by a defender) states: "A single card below the rank of an > honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in > dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." > > Again there is no question of intent; Law 50B literally simply states in so > many words that when two cards are played to a trick the exposure of the > card which the offender does not next designate as his played card was > inadvertent (as it also is when a card is dropped accidentally). > An intended card cannot be an inadvertent one. So if he has to rule on the inadvertency, he also rules on the intent. > So nowhere can the Director find cause to ask for a player's real intent > when he has played two cards to a trick; his real intent is irrelevant both > for Law 58B2 and for Law 50B. Clearly wrong, this, Sven. > And any question on the offender's intent must > be considered a Director's error (which quite likely must end with a Law 82C > ruling if the question or the answer to that question had any impact on the > further developments of the play). > > As a matter of fact I firmly believe that if the director when applying Law > 58B2 fails to alert the offender on the consequence of selecting a spot card > rather than an honour as the card he proposes to play is a serious break of > Law 10C1, also eventually leading to a Law 82C ruling. > Well Sven, so let's see. You are called to the table and see just 2 cards in front of a player: the SA and the C2. What is your ruling? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 20 15:36:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4b68a$69a17eb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > David Stevenson > ............. > > What I do not understand, Sven, is why you wish to evade ruling > > under > > a perfectly simple Law by complicating the matter in ways that will > > never happen. L50B is clear. > > Yes David, Law 50B is perfectly clear to me. The (in this case) relevant > part of it says: "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed > inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card > accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." > > Can any wording be clearer than this? No exception, no words to the > effect of "unless the Director judges that the cards were played > deliberately". Yes - wording could be clearer. Basically there are two realistic possibilities. a) One of the cards was played intentionally to the trick and the other was exposed inadvertently by being pulled at the same time. b) Playing two cards simultaneously is an inadvertent action and thus neither card should be deemed to be exposed deliberately. To me a) seems slightly closer to the wording of the law and slightly further from my presumptions on its "spirit". Given the ambiguity above it is entirely legal for DWS to rule as if a) applies while Sven rules as if b) applies. I don't suppose either of them will agree with me but such is life. Tim From david.barton@boltblue.com Wed Oct 20 16:03:16 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:03:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another easy one? References: <000f01c4b205$f96f0640$0307a8c0@PlusNet> <416EA461.6010202@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c4b6b5$ef0da080$0307a8c0@PlusNet> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another easy one? > Herman De Wael wrote > >The second one is easy: > > > >> (d) how would your ruling differ if E held the H9 instead of the S9. > > > >what's the difference? - in both cases declarer makes one trick if he > >plays the queen, and none if he does not. If West does not have the HK, > >then the cases differ, with this second one being different - it then > >does not matter which card dummy plays so the question is moot. > > > >David Barton wrote: > > > >> At the club the other evening I was called at the following 2 > >> card ending. A no trump contract with South declarer. > >> H Q10 > >> S 9 > >> H K3 H J > >> H 54 > >> South played H4, West the H3. Dummy, unprompted, contributed > >> the H10 and East claimed both the tricks with HJ and S9. > >> The director was called and South explained that he had not nominated > >> a card and indeed had not at that point made his mind up which card > >> to play!!!!!! > >> Presumably Declarer may substitute the HQ per L45D. The director > >> should then consider an adjustment under L12A1. > >> > > > >Why? > >Declarer has not named a card, so there is no card played. East has > >shown a card, which he can retract, but it is still AI to declarer. > >Just like there is no recourse for a declarer who plays upon mishearing > >a played card, there is no recourse here. > >There is no law which punishes dummy for playing a card not named, or > >misheard. And while there may be ways to get at cheating dummies, there > >was no ention of any wrongful intent by dummy in your story. > > L43A1C is a Law in the Law book, so therefore breach of it is subject > to penalty, even if done without intent. So there is a Law to cover > this. > > >Now if this were to happen to me as declarer, I would nominate the ten, > >but that's another matter entirely. > > > >> Assuming I am on track so far, my questions are:- > >> (a) how many tricks to each side > > > >one each. > > > >> (b) Is L12C3 relevant > > > >no, I don't think it is. Maybe it should be in some future edition of > >the laws, but at present there is no infraction. > DWS wrote > That is the point: there is a breach of a Law. > I am not sure that responding to an imagined instruction from declarer is "participating" any more than responding to a real instruction. But let us say we DO have have a law breach, how do you now rule? ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.280 / Virus Database: 264.11.1 - Release Date: 15/10/2004 From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 16:05:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:05:29 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <41767019.2070902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c4b6b6$3d28e590$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > >>L50 clearly uses intent as one of the conditions for something > >>becoming a minor penalty card=20 Not in the specific case when two cards have been played = (simultaneously) to a trick. L50B is very explicit and clear on this point. ........... > Well Sven, so let's see. > You are called to the table and see just 2 cards in front of a player: > the SA and the C2. What is your ruling? I shall ask who summoned me and how I can help. Assuming a statement to = the effect that the player in question have played both the SA and the C2 simultaneously I shall then proceed as follows: If the offender was not the player leading to a new trick and the card originally lead to the trick (by a different player) was either a spade = or a club then only one of the exposed cards can legally be played to the = trick. In this case I rule that card as played (Law 44C). In all other cases I explain to the offender all consequences of the = penalty card he eventually will have and then let him select either the SA or = the C2 as the card he wants to play after hearing me out. Finally the remaining card will become a minor penalty card if it is the = C2 or a major penalty card if it is the SA. I have no problem with this and I feel completely within the laws both literally and logically. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 16:20:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:20:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4b6b8$4e61b380$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > > > David Stevenson > > ............. > > Yes David, Law 50B is perfectly clear to me. The (in this case) = relevant > > part of it says: "A single card below the rank of an honour and = exposed > > inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a = card > > accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." > > > > Can any wording be clearer than this? No exception, no words to the > > effect of "unless the Director judges that the cards were played > > deliberately". >=20 > Yes - wording could be clearer. Basically there are two realistic > possibilities. >=20 > a) One of the cards was played intentionally to the trick and the = other > was exposed inadvertently by being pulled at the same time. >=20 > b) Playing two cards simultaneously is an inadvertent action and thus > neither card should be deemed to be exposed deliberately. Quote from "Commentaries to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" EBL = 1992 (on the required conditions for an exposed card to become a minor = penalty card): 50.6 (ii) the card has not been exposed in committing some other = infraction of Law (e.g. premature lead) or by any deliberate action of the player. = It is an accident. Note that playing two cards simultaneously to a trick is = in the category of "accident"; This was written by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen as part of = their comments to Law 50C as of 1987. That law was not changed in the 1997 = laws except that the law number was altered to 50B. =20 Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 20 16:42:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:42:01 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <000101c4b6b6$3d28e590$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c4b6b6$3d28e590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41768749.3090309@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>>>L50 clearly uses intent as one of the conditions for something >>>>becoming a minor penalty card > > > Not in the specific case when two cards have been played (simultaneously) to > a trick. L50B is very explicit and clear on this point. > > ........... > >>Well Sven, so let's see. >>You are called to the table and see just 2 cards in front of a player: >>the SA and the C2. What is your ruling? > > > I shall ask who summoned me and how I can help. Assuming a statement to the > effect that the player in question have played both the SA and the C2 > simultaneously I shall then proceed as follows: > > If the offender was not the player leading to a new trick and the card > originally lead to the trick (by a different player) was either a spade or a > club then only one of the exposed cards can legally be played to the trick. > In this case I rule that card as played (Law 44C). > > In all other cases I explain to the offender all consequences of the penalty > card he eventually will have and then let him select either the SA or the C2 > as the card he wants to play after hearing me out. > > Finally the remaining card will become a minor penalty card if it is the C2 > or a major penalty card if it is the SA. > And here you are wrong. Because the C2 does not become a minor penalty card if the player intended to play it all along! Only if it is an inadvertantly played card does it become a mPC. Sorry Sven, but do you now see why you have been wrong all along? > I have no problem with this and I feel completely within the laws both > literally and logically. > Sorry, you are not! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 20 16:58:16 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:58:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 References: <200410201218.i9KCILHI019828@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <001401c4b6bd$9d45fba0$289468d5@jeushtlj> [Ron Johmson] > Why? I'm usually on the other side of > this type of argument but I just don't > see it here. A passed hand with at least > Spade tolerance makes a takeout double > and you see pass as an LA for a strong > player? (I don't know the name, but the > dissenting comment makes it reasonably > clear that at least one member of the AC > respects his judgement) [Nigel] Ron snipped the main reason, that West's 4S is wildly anti-law, especially as East didn't have to have *three*, let alone *four* spades (unless East forgot to share this knowledge with opponents). Even if the peculiar East-West understandings were *pre-alerted* and *on their CC*, the second double logically must give West the *option* of passing. IMO pass is West's only logical alternative but I can understand a 4S panic, especially after East's tank. Incidentally, after UI, the director has a hard task defining permissable logical alternatives, whereas a player in a long-term partnership will correctly guess his partner's problem almost all the time. BTW, I am *not* suggesting it that it is up to the AC to compensate for this well known fault in the law. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 20 17:00:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:00:45 +0100 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <000d01c4b6a2$b48dde10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <4176520E.4040107@hdw.be> <000d01c4b6a2$b48dde10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Herman De Wael >> I have been following this thread with only half an eye, and I still >> don't see what the fuss is all about. > >Maybe you should read Laws 58B2 and 50B with both eyes open? > >> L50 clearly uses intent as one of the conditions for something >> becoming a minor penalty card - so obviously one should ask the player >> (or his table mates) for the apparent intent. >> >> If I play the S9 and the SQ drops, the SQ is a MPc, but the S9 is played. >> If I play the SQ and the S9 drops, the S9 is a mpc and the SQ is played. > >Playing one card and accidentally dropping another isn't the question; the >question is how to rule when a player has played two (or more) cards >simultaneously to a trick. > >In that case the Director shall first apply Law 58B2. This law only calls >for the offender to designate which of the two (or more) exposed cards he >designates as the card he proposes to play. There is no question in Law 58B2 >on what really was his intent. > >Next (when the offender is a defender) the Director shall apply Law 50B and >the applicable part of that law (when just two cards were simultaneously >played to a trick by a defender) states: "A single card below the rank of an >honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in >dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." Note that the Law book does not say anything about applying L58 *first* and L50 *second*: this is an invention of Sven's. >Again there is no question of intent; How anyone can read "exposed through deliberate play" and "exposed inadvertently" as showing no question of intent is beyond 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Oct 20 16:55:48 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:55:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hesitation opposite 5-7 minors Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181705E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > I see no LA to 4NT. > I might well consider a 5C bid to be illegal, by the way. On what grounds, if there's no LA to 4NT? ---------------------------------------------------------- I would say that the hesitation suggests club support. =20 Personally I believe it so clear to bid 4NT that I allow it anyway. When the player instead chooses 5C I cannot help but think that he doesn't think it obvious to show the 2-suiter, but he has he chosen 5C illegally as partner has suggested club support. From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 20 17:09:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:09:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4b68a$69a17eb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c4b68a$69a17eb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >The point is that Law 50B explicitly considers two cards played >(simultaneously) to a trick to having been exposed inadvertently. And >frankly I do not think it will ever happen that a player deliberately plays >two cards to a trick. (If he did we have other laws to take care of that). Exactly: he plays one card deliberately, the other by accident. Now, you wish to ignore the wording of L50B - but you cannot. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 20 17:34:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000201c4b6b8$4e61b380$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > Can any wording be clearer than this? No exception, no words to the > > > effect of "unless the Director judges that the cards were played > > > deliberately". > > > > Yes - wording could be clearer. Basically there are two realistic > > possibilities. > > > > a) One of the cards was played intentionally to the trick and the > > other > > was exposed inadvertently by being pulled at the same time. > > > > b) Playing two cards simultaneously is an inadvertent action and thus > > neither card should be deemed to be exposed deliberately. > 50.6 (ii) the card has not been exposed in committing some other > infraction of Law (e.g. premature lead) or by any deliberate action of > the player. It is an accident. Note that playing two cards > simultaneously to a trick is in the category of "accident"; Of course playing two cards to a trick is an "accident". That doesn't mean that BOTH cards were exposed accidently. Indeed the "the card" at the beginning of the commentary implies that typically only *one* of the two cards will be the subject of accidental exposure. However this implication is not strong enough to render a ruling of "both cards are deemed exposed accidentally" as being incorrect. BTW I can find nothing in EBU regs which gives the "commentary" legal status - but I've probably missed something. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 20 17:34:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <41768749.3090309@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > And here you are wrong. > Because the C2 does not become a minor penalty card if the player > intended to play it all along! > Only if it is an inadvertantly played card does it become a mPC. > Sorry Sven, but do you now see why you have been wrong all along? No Herman, he isn't wrong. He is just as entitled to interpret the rule on two cards simultaneously as being "both inadvertent" as you/DWS are to interpret it as "one deliberate, one inadvertent". The law is ambiguous. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 18:12:46 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:12:46 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4b6c8$04dcf340$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > Note that the Law book does not say anything about applying L58 > *first* and L50 *second*: this is an invention of Sven's. Are you serious? Law 58B is the only law in the book that deals with more than one card played to a trick and this law further directs the Director to continue = with Law 50 in certain cases. However, bypassing Law 58 does not in any way affect the question of = major or minor penalty cards; Law 50B is "self-complete" on this question. >=20 > >Again there is no question of intent; >=20 > How anyone can read "exposed through deliberate play" and "exposed > inadvertently" as showing no question of intent is beyond me. I assume that you are familiar with the "Commentaries on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" which was written by Grattan Endicott and = Bent Keith Hansen and was issued by EBL in 1992? I further assume that you recognize the official status that this work received when issued? As you apparently do not want to take the first sentence in Law 50B that completely specifies the conditions for a penalty card being a minor = penalty card literally as written I must ask: Have you bothered to look up what is written in the commentaries on = deciding whether a penalty card shall be designated a minor or a major penalty = card? On the matter of intent it said [commentary 50.6 (ii)]:=20 the card has not been exposed in committing some other infraction of Law (e.g. premature lead) or by any deliberate action of the player. It is = an accident. Note that playing two cards simultaneously to a trick is in = the category of "accident"; Do you seriously dispute and deny that this "note" is very explicit and clear and that it removes any doubt that could be cast on the clause in = the actual law text: "as in playing two cards to a trick" to mean that two = cards played simultaneously to a trick shall always be considered an accident regardless of any intent? Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 18:23:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:23:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4b6c9$738da180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Of course playing two cards to a trick is an "accident". That doesn't > mean that BOTH cards were exposed accidently. Indeed the "the card" at > the beginning of the commentary implies that typically only *one* of the > two cards will be the subject of accidental exposure. However this > implication is not strong enough to render a ruling of "both cards are > deemed exposed accidentally" as being incorrect. Now you are splitting hairs. Of course there is no reason to have any rule on the accidental or intentional playing of the card that is eventually designated as the played card. The only important question to be ruled upon is the "inadvertency" of the card that eventually becomes a penalty card. This card is *the* card addressed both in Law 50B and in the commentaries. > > BTW I can find nothing in EBU regs which gives the "commentary" legal > status - but I've probably missed something. You have "probably" missed the following statement by Grattan Endicott in his preface to the commentaries: "We are grateful to have the approval of the EBL Laws Committee and the authority of the EBL Executive Committee in circulating this guidance." Sven From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Oct 20 18:22:48 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:22:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 In-Reply-To: <001401c4b6bd$9d45fba0$289468d5@jeushtlj> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Oct 20, 2004 04:58:16 PM Message-ID: <200410201722.i9KHMmCw021360@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > [Ron Johmson] > > Why? I'm usually on the other side of > > this type of argument but I just don't > > see it here. A passed hand with at least > > Spade tolerance makes a takeout double > > and you see pass as an LA for a strong > > player? (I don't know the name, but the > > dissenting comment makes it reasonably > > clear that at least one member of the AC > > respects his judgement) > > [Nigel] > Ron snipped the main reason, that West's 4S is > wildly anti-law, Yes, but despite the fanaticism of many of its adherents, the Law hasn't achieved force of law. Maybe *you* make these type of decisions based on the Law. (and to be clear, maybe you don't. Doesn't matter. What matters is whether the Law enters into their evaluations of this situation.) (And to be clear again, I don't want to accuse you of being a Law fanatic. In fact this is the first time I can recall you invoking The Law) There are millions of players who don't pay any attention to the Law. I'd bet this partnership is not a Law partnership. (It's always a potential problem for a canape partnership) > especially as East didn't have to > have *three*, let alone *four* spades (unless East > forgot to share this knowledge with opponents). True. But in that case she'll have clubs. Rules of the game require 13 cards. 3 spades, short hearts and not a diamond one suiter. Now maybe they'll end up playing a weak 4-3 instead of a good 5-4 or better. (Though I'll bet somebody runs if doubled. Veteran canape players are usually alive to the possibility of a better spot to play. > Even if the peculiar East-West understandings were > *pre-alerted* and *on their CC*, I too have lots of concerns about adequate disclosure. Wasn't room on the card indeed! > the second double > logically must give West the *option* of passing. In the sense that any takeout double can be passed. This double isn't defined as action or optional. It's pure takeout. Now I know if I was there I'd want to know what they do with various awkward hand types. I'd like to be with you. Something feels wrong about the whole situation. Seems to me the only reliable way to sort out various hand types is with OBM (to be clear, there's nothing in the report that even sniffs of OBM. No idea why that train of thought arose) > IMO pass is West's only logical alternative Still don't see it. I'm having serious trouble coming up with hands that are consistent with the auction and have a prayer of beating the contract. > but I > can understand a 4S panic, especially after East's > tank. > > Incidentally, after UI, the director has a hard > task defining permissable logical alternatives, > whereas a player in a long-term partnership will > correctly guess his partner's problem almost all > the time. And this is why the director and AC have to ask themselves what peers of the player playing the same methods would do. Trickier than normal here. Nobody plays these methods. > > BTW, I am *not* suggesting it that it is up to the > AC to compensate for this well known fault in the > law. I don't see this as a problem in the Laws. The only real problem I see is that far too many ACs are insufficiently sympathetic to the non-offending side. (And perhaps I'm guilty of this here. I'm open to being convinced) From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 18:35:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:35:04 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c4b6cb$22432aa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Herman wrote: >=20 > > And here you are wrong. > > Because the C2 does not become a minor penalty card if the player > > intended to play it all along! > > Only if it is an inadvertantly played card does it become a mPC. > > Sorry Sven, but do you now see why you have been wrong all along? >=20 > No Herman, he isn't wrong. He is just as entitled to interpret the = rule > on two cards simultaneously as being "both inadvertent" as you/DWS are = to > interpret it as "one deliberate, one inadvertent". The law is = ambiguous. Actually I do not even care whether one or both the simultaneously = played cards were "inadvertently" exposed. For the card eventually designated by the offender as "played" the = question is irrelevant and for the other card the example clause in Law 50B "(as = in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally)" = clarifies any doubt that otherwise could be present.=20 This clause literally equates "dropping a card accidentally" with = "playing two cards to a trick". Notice that there is no "accidentally" (or = another word or words to the same effect) associated with "playing two cards to = a trick"! For those who are still not satisfied with this logic I have no other recommendation than to read the commentaries which I have already = referred to elsewhere. Sven From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Oct 20 19:31:37 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:31:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000b01c4b68a$69a17eb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c4b6d3$0b9e60a0$2d222b52@Zog> Sven Pran wrote: > Yes David, Law 50B is perfectly clear to me. The (in this case) relevant > part of it says: "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed > inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card > accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." > > Can any wording be clearer than this? No exception, no words to the effect > of "unless the Director judges that the cards were played deliberately". Well apparently it could, since I do not agree with your interpretation. Without the parentheses, L50B reads: "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently becomes a minor penalty card." IMO the bracketed part "(as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally)" merely illustrates how a card may come to be played inadvertently. It does not mean that if two cards are played to a trick *both* are automatically inadvertent. David Stevenson believes, and I agree with him, that if a player in playing card A to a trick accidentally exposes card B, then the exposing of card B was inadvertent but the exposing of card A was not. It then follows that if the player elects (L58B) to play card B to the trick, card A becomes a MPC whatever its size. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 20:26:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:26:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001101c4b6d3$0b9e60a0$2d222b52@Zog> Message-ID: <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown ............ > Without the parentheses, L50B reads: > "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently > becomes a minor penalty card." > IMO the bracketed part "(as in playing two cards to a trick, or in > dropping a card accidentally)" merely illustrates how a card may come = to > be played inadvertently. > It does not mean that if two cards are played to a trick *both* are > automatically inadvertent. >=20 > David Stevenson believes, and I agree with him, that if a player in > playing card A to a trick accidentally exposes card B, then the = exposing > of card B was inadvertent but the exposing of card A was not. It = then > follows that if the player elects (L58B) to play card B to the trick, > card A becomes a MPC whatever its size. As both of you apparently disagree with me I suggest that you make up = your mind whether you will accept what Grattan Endicott wrote in 1992 in the = work that became an official document from EBL. Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 20 21:48:24 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:48:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <001101c4b6d3$0b9e60a0$2d222b52@Zog> Message-ID: <000901c4b6e6$a75d0100$f7ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > IMO the bracketed part "(as in playing two cards to a > trick, or in dropping a card accidentally)" merely illustrates > how a card may come to be played inadvertently. > It does not mean that if two cards are played to a trick > *both* are automatically inadvertent. > +=+ This, however, is the case if a player detaches two or more cards from his hand and faces them on the table immediately in front of him. Such cards are both/all played (Law 45A) and they are two or more cards played simultaneously within the meaning of Law 58B. The player must select one of the cards and designate it as the card he proposes to play. In my opinion, like the card he elects to play each other card is (Law 50) a card that was inadvertently exposed - the inadvertency was in playing two or more cards simultaneously and they were all or both exposed in the course of an inadvertent or involuntary action, on which basis the disposition under Law 50 is made . I note that neither Law 45A nor Law 58 calls for any intent on the part of the player - the tenor of these laws is mechanical and there is no requirement to have or disclose an original intention to play one of the faced cards, nor indeed to disclose whether he actually had in mind a card that he has not faced, whether it be in his hand still or on the table.. The Law 44C obligation limits a player's choice where applicable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 20 22:54:08 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:54:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-12 References: Message-ID: <001401c4b6ef$56e677c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Richard Hills: Attached is NYC case N-12. > > N-12 NY Prelim Draft 10/19/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Putnam > Event: Spingold - 1st Semifinal > > Bd: 31 Eric Rodwell > Dlr: South K984 > Vul: NS T > AQJ7 > Q854 > Alfredo Versace Lorenzo Lauria > JT76 Q3 > J32 K9875 > K95 T > K62 AJT93 > Jeff Meckstroth > A52 > AQ64 > 86432 > 7 > > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1D(1) 2NT 3C(2) > 3D(3) 3H(4) Pass 3NT(5) > Pass 4D Pass 5D > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Precision, 2+ diamonds > (2) Diamond raise > (3) Heart raise > (4) Looking for a possible 4-4 spade fit > (5) BIT > > The Facts: The final contract was 5D South making for > NS +600. The director was called after the 4D bid. > > The bidding tray came back to North and East (following > the 3NT bid) after at least a one minute BIT (also said > to be at least 5 minutes). > > The Ruling: The table result stands. Since South was a > passed hand, 3NT was not a possible contract. > > Other facts: This case was not screened. > > The Appeal: EW appealed. There was a very long > hesitation. There are many hands for South where 3NT is > the best contract (the appealing side provided two of > them) and with the auction going this way, it was clear > that South must be the one who took the time. EW wanted > to provide testimony from people watching viewgraph on > how (only East said the hesitation was 5 minutes). > > Statements Made by the Other Side: Passing 3NT was not > an option opposite an unbalanced hand with at most 10 > HCP (they open 11). The time it took for the tray to > come back was not that long considering it was a > complex competitive auction where either person could > have been thinking. South said he thought, but it never > took him 3 minutes to bid in his life. > > Other Facts: The committee asked for testimony from > four people in the room who were not affiliated with > the teams. One Vugraph operator told the director it > took about 3 minutes. The other operator and one > kibitzer did not have an opinion because they were not > paying attention. The other kibitzer did not > particularly notice a hesitation. > > The Decision: The committee concluded that there was a > temporary break, but not an exceptionally long one. > Because of that, they concluded that especially > considering the players on that side of the screen, it > was just as likely that West was considering sacrificing > as South bidding. With the likelihood of either opponent > thinking, the committee deemed there was no UI. No UI, > no adjustment. > > Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Gail Greenberg, > Eddie Wold, Steve Robinson, Mike Passell and Aaron > Silverstein, scribe. > ########### Marvin French: "Passing 3NT was not an option opposite an unbalanced hand with at most 10 HCP"? Hmm, that's strange, as 3NT is cold from the North side, needing no more luck than a 5D contract. And what bid said that South's hand was unbalanced? It hardly seems possible that West could be thinking of acting at that point in the auction. I want to agree with E-W, but it is the AC's job to determine the exsitence of a BIT, so I must go along with their decision. If there was no BIT, then there was no UI, end of case. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 20 23:05:14 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:05:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-05 References: Message-ID: <001901c4b6f0$e21d6500$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> > > N-05 NY Prelim Draft 10/20/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Cukoff > Event: LM Pairs - 1st semifinal > > Bd: 23 Gene Freed > Dlr: South J6 > Vul: Both AJ5 > JT942 > T97 > Steve Garner Howard Weinstein > QT853 K92 > KQ63 T72 > A5 8 > 82 AKQ543 > Betty Ann Kennedy > A74 > 984 > KQ763 > J6 > > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass > 2H Pass 2S Pass > 4S(2) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Game Forcing > (2) Minimum > > The Facts: The contract was 4S down one after the lead of > the DJ. The director was called at the end of the hand. > > The play was as follows: Declarer won the DA and ruffed a > diamond at trick two. He now played the SK. Everyone > agreed that South thought a while before playing low. > Declarer now played the S9 from dummy and ducked it to > North's jack. > > North returned a club and played another club when in with > the HA, thus killing dummy's club suit. > > The Ruling: South's break in tempo before playing low on > the first round of trumps demonstrably suggest that she > holds the ace. When North was in with the SJ, it is > necessary for him to cash his HA before it goes away if > declarer had the SA. > > Because the UI suggested that it was safe to try and kill > the club suit, the directors felt that cashing the HA was > a logical alternative. The result was changed to 4S > making four for +620 for EW. > > The Appeal: NS appealed. North stated that when West > ruffed the diamond at trick two, it revealed that declarer > did not have the SA, since if he did have it, he would > just pull two trumps and run clubs, thus losing a spade > and a heart. Therefore, he played his partner for the SA > and continued a club to kill dummy. > > The Decision: A real possibility on this hand is that West > had A108xx, Kxxx, Ax, Jx. If he does, then he might well > pass the spade into the North hand in order to keep South > off lead so that a heart can't be led through his king. > Because of South's BIT, however, North had reason to > believe that was not West's hand and that South had the SA. > > From North's point of view, if West has the hypothetical > hand above, then he must cash the HA to hold the contract > to five. Since this is a logical alternative to the line > of play suggested by the BIT, the committee imposed it > (requiring North to take his HA when he was in) holding the > contract to EW +620. > > An AWMW was given to the appellants. North was in a > position to know from the UI that his partner had the SA. > This made the return very easy. Without that information, > the return is riskier. The committee believed that North > was in a good position to figure out the ethical > implication and the requirements for him, but he did not. > > Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Chris Willenken, > Lou Reich, David Berkowitz and Ellen Melson. ######### Marvin French: The litigious Mr. Freed is back again. Instead of paying out $50 fines, which are no longer in effect, he gets AWMWs. I wonder how many he has now. This one was particularly well-deserved. Good reasoning by the AC. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 20 22:05:05 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:05:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002101c4b6e8$a4526e30$f7ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 8:26 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 As both of you apparently disagree with me I suggest that you make up your mind whether you will accept what Grattan Endicott wrote in 1992 in the work that became an official document from EBL. Sven < +=+ ;-) - I was just wondering whether my current views, just expressed, bear any resemblance to those in 1992. Of course what I wrote then was, at the time, an EBL determination of law. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 20 22:14:01 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:14:01 -0400 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: References: <4176520E.4040107@hdw.be> <000d01c4b6a2$b48dde10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041020170731.02ab8290@pop.starpower.net> At 12:00 PM 10/20/04, David wrote: >Sven Pran wrote > >>Next (when the offender is a defender) the Director shall apply Law >>50B and >>the applicable part of that law (when just two cards were simultaneously >>played to a trick by a defender) states: "A single card below the >>rank of an >>honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, >>or in >>dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." > > Note that the Law book does not say anything about applying L58 > *first* and L50 *second*: this is an invention of Sven's. The Law book doesn't have to, and it hardly required Sven to "invent" the obvious. L58 addresses simultaneous plays. L50 addresses penalty cards. At the point the director is called, we have, on the table, a simultaneous play and (as yet) no penalty cards. So which law should the director apply first? L58B2 creates the penalty card, and instructs us to proceed, in turn, to L50. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 20 22:14:34 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:14:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] gesta@tiscsali.co.uk Message-ID: <000701c4b6e9$e0b85af0$adbe87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +=+ Henk, Would you please suspend until further notice all despatches to the gesta address. In transferring from one PC to the other there has been a major disaster and it will require reinstatement of the operating system under manufacturer's warranty. Messages to the grandeval address to continue normally, please. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 22:30:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:30:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <002101c4b6e8$a4526e30$f7ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000b01c4b6ec$05978650$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott > From: "Sven Pran" > As both of you apparently disagree with me I suggest > that you make up your mind whether you will accept > what Grattan Endicott wrote in 1992 in the work > that became an official document from EBL. > > Sven > < > +=+ ;-) - I was just wondering whether my current > views, just expressed, bear any resemblance to those > in 1992. Of course what I wrote then was, at the time, > an EBL determination of law. ~ G ~ +=+ As far as I can see you replicated exactly the same view that you expressed equally clearly when you wrote your comments in 1992. Today's Law 50B is identical even in the smallest detail to Law 50C as of 1987 so I consider your comments from 1992 to be equally applicable today Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 20 22:01:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:01:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000601c4b6c9$738da180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006501c4b6ec$24071ec0$289468d5@jeushtlj> FWIW, Sven seems to have the best of this argument so far. Like so many others, this law is complex and unclear. David's cup runneth over if the law also requires spurious subjective judgement about intentions :) Unfortunately, to resolve the argument, you cannot simply study the laws in context, or peruse appeal committee decisions. As usual, you must also dredge through mountains of minutes and interpretations. Again, how can a poor player comply with a law if, even after all this, legal gurus can't agree on its meaning. Major and minor penalty card decisions present directors with intriguing puzzles and fascinating debates but are an unnecessary and unfair burden on the player; and yet another source of juicy worms for secretary birds. What hope is there for Bridge until the law committee contains as many players as directors and administrators? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Oct 20 22:42:26 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:42:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c4b6ed$b3ca9900$2d222b52@Zog> Sven Pran wrote: > As both of you apparently disagree with me I suggest that you make up your > mind whether you will accept what Grattan Endicott wrote in 1992 in the work > that became an official document from EBL. Well let's see what he writes - EBL Commentary 50.6 lists the conditions all of which must be met for an exposed defender's card to be a mPC rather than a MPC. The relevant part is: "(ii) the card has not been exposed ... by any deliberate action of the player. It is an accident. Note that playing two cards simultaneously to a trick is in the category of accident". So Card A was exposed as a "deliberate action" - not played inadvertently; Card B was part of an "accident" and therefore an inadvertent play. I really don't think this carries the argument any further forward. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 20 22:38:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:38:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-01 References: <200410201722.i9KHMmCw021360@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <006601c4b6ed$3048d380$289468d5@jeushtlj> [Ron Johnson] > Maybe *you* make these type of decisions based on > the Law. (and to be clear, maybe you don't. Doesn't > matter. What matters is whether the Law enters into > their evaluations of this situation.) [Nigel] Decades ago, Ron, I bought the book in which Dick Payne and Joe Amsbury elucidate the virtues of Verne's TNT in competitive bidding. IMO it's an excellent rule of thumb. It has exceptions and I agree with Ron that this may well be one (: if not at first, then at least after I've looked at the full deal :) I am happy to accept that East-West may have come to the same conclusion as Ron. It does not matter what Ron thinks or East-West claim. What matters is whether a panel of East-West's peers can imagine a plausible logical alternative to 4S. If such a panel stomached the nebulous and retrospective East-West agreements, there would still be some "Law-maniacs" who would gag on rebidding a four card suit at the four level (even if assured that partner was quite likely to have three or four card support). Thus there is no doubt that pass is a logical alternative :) The law stinks, Ron ): but it is the law :( --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 22:56:02 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:56:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <006501c4b6ec$24071ec0$289468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000c01c4b6ef$97aaf920$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > FWIW, Sven seems to have the best of this argument > so far. Like so many others, this law is complex > and unclear. David's cup runneth over if the law > also requires spurious subjective judgement about > intentions :) >=20 > Unfortunately, to resolve the argument, you cannot > simply study the laws in context, or peruse appeal > committee decisions. As usual, you must also > dredge through mountains of minutes and > interpretations. >=20 > Again, how can a poor player comply with a law if, > even after all this, legal gurus can't agree on > its meaning. >=20 > Major and minor penalty card decisions present > directors with intriguing puzzles and fascinating > debates but are an unnecessary and unfair burden > on the player; and yet another source of juicy > worms for secretary birds. Law 50B (deciding whether a penalty card is a major or a minor penalty = card) is in fact one of the clearest laws if you just keep a straight line and don't let yourself get confused by irrelevant arguments: The general rule is that a penalty card is a major penalty card; minor penalty cards are exceptions from the general rule. And there are three requirements for a card to be a minor penalty card: 1: the player must not simultaneously have more than one penalty card. 2: the card must be below the rank of an honour. 3: the card must have been exposed by an accident. What I believe has confused Herman, David and others is that Law 50B explicitly defines a simultaneous play of two (or more) cards to a trick = as an accident for the purpose of applying Law 50B, a fact that they have probably overlooked. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 20 23:08:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:08:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000301c4b6ed$b3ca9900$2d222b52@Zog> Message-ID: <000d01c4b6f1$6452ad50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown > > As both of you apparently disagree with me I suggest that you make = up > your > > mind whether you will accept what Grattan Endicott wrote in 1992 in > the work > > that became an official document from EBL. >=20 > Well let's see what he writes - EBL Commentary 50.6 lists the = conditions > all of which must be met for an exposed defender's card to be a mPC > rather than a MPC. The relevant part is: >=20 > "(ii) the card has not been exposed ... by any deliberate action of = the > player. It is an accident. Note that playing two cards > simultaneously to a trick is in the category of accident". >=20 > So Card A was exposed as a "deliberate action" - not played > inadvertently; Card B was part of an "accident" and therefore an > inadvertent play. "Heaven forbid Devil's lawyers!" You seem to read both the laws and the commentaries like the Devil reads the Holy Bible (as we say in Norway). Neither law 50B nor Grattan in his commentaries distinguishes between = the two (or more) cards contributed simultaneously to a trick; as far as Law = 50B is concerned the mere simultaneous play of them is considered an = accident. All such cards are considered exposed inadvertently. Did you read Grattan's own contribution to this thread about an hour = ago? Sven=20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 20 23:28:32 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:28:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-05 References: <001901c4b6f0$e21d6500$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <009601c4b6f4$2208e420$289468d5@jeushtlj> > N-05 NY Prelim Draft 10/20/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Cukoff > Event: LM Pairs - 1st semifinal > > Bd: 23 Gene Freed > Dlr: South J6 > Vul: Both AJ5 > JT942 > T97 > Steve Garner Howard Weinstein > QT853 K92 > KQ63 T72 > A5 8 > 82 AKQ543 > Betty Ann Kennedy > A74 > 984 > KQ763 > J6 > > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass > 2H Pass 2S Pass > 4S(2) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Game Forcing > (2) Minimum > > The Facts: The contract was 4S down one after the lead of > the DJ. The director was called at the end of the hand. > > The play was as follows: Declarer won the DA and ruffed a > diamond at trick two. He now played the SK. Everyone > agreed that South thought a while before playing low. > Declarer now played the S9 from dummy and ducked it to > North's jack. > > North returned a club and played another club when in with > the HA, thus killing dummy's club suit. > > The Ruling: South's break in tempo before playing low on > the first round of trumps demonstrably suggest that she > holds the ace. When North was in with the SJ, it is > necessary for him to cash his HA before it goes away if > declarer had the SA. > > Because the UI suggested that it was safe to try and kill > the club suit, the directors felt that cashing the HA was > a logical alternative. The result was changed to 4S > making four for +620 for EW. > > The Appeal: NS appealed. North stated that when West > ruffed the diamond at trick two, it revealed that declarer > did not have the SA, since if he did have it, he would > just pull two trumps and run clubs, thus losing a spade > and a heart. Therefore, he played his partner for the SA > and continued a club to kill dummy. > > The Decision: A real possibility on this hand is that West > had A108xx, Kxxx, Ax, Jx. If he does, then he might well > pass the spade into the North hand in order to keep South > off lead so that a heart can't be led through his king. > Because of South's BIT, however, North had reason to > believe that was not West's hand and that South had the SA. > > From North's point of view, if West has the hypothetical > hand above, then he must cash the HA to hold the contract > to five. Since this is a logical alternative to the line > of play suggested by the BIT, the committee imposed it > (requiring North to take his HA when he was in) holding the > contract to EW +620. [Nigel Best declarer play is probably to run S8 immediately (with good chances even if the finesse loses. His actual play may be inferior but, IMO, the TD, AC, and Marvin are right about the ruling because the UI helped North choose among logical alternative defence strategies. I'm not so sure about the AWMW**. Why was this appeal so bad -- compared with N01 or N12, for example? ** Note to editor: Richard, I am sure you will include all my comments in your appeals compendium :) When you do, please change my references to "losing deposit" to "imposing an Appeal-without-merit warning" :) - or whatever is the right phrase. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 21 00:31:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:31:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-08 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0wOC4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQpOLTA4ICAgICAgICBOWSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBQcmVsaW0gRHJhZnQgMTAvMjEvMjAw NA0KU3ViamVjdDogICAgVUkNCkRJQzogICAgICAgIEN1a29mZg0KRXZlbnQ6ICAgICAgTkFCQysg U2VuaW9yIFN3aXNzIC0gMXN0IEZpbmFsDQoNCkJkOiAgIDcgICAgIFJvZCBCZWVyeQ0KRGxyOiAg U291dGggUVQ3NDINClZ1bDogIEJvdGggIEo3DQogICAgICAgICAgICBRVDY1NA0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgNA0KSm9lIEdvZGVmcmluICAgICAgICAgICAgRWQgU2NodWx0ZQ0KQSAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgS0o1Mw0KQUtRVDk4NSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNjQyDQo4ICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICBBSzkzDQpUNjUyICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBLOA0KICAgICAgICAgICAg TWFyeSBFZ2FuDQogICAgICAgICAgICA5ODYNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIDMNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEo3 Mg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQVFKOTczDQoNCldlc3QgICAgICBOb3J0aCAgICAgRWFzdCAgICAgIFNv dXRoDQotLS0gICAgICAgLS0tICAgICAgIC0tLSAgICAgICBQYXNzDQo0QygxKSAgICAgUGFzcyAg ICAgIDREKDIpICAgICBQYXNzDQo0SCgzKSAgICAgUGFzcyAgICAgIFBhc3MgICAgICBQYXNzDQoN CigxKSAgQWxlcnRlZCBhcyBOYW15YXRzIChzdHJvbmcgd2l0aCBoZWFydHMpIGJ1dCBsYXRlcg0K ICAgICByZXRyYWN0ZWQgdG8gY2x1YiBwcmVlbXB0DQooMikgIEFsZXJ0ZWQgYXMgc2xhbSBpbnRl cmVzdA0KKDMpICBBZ3JlZWQgYXMgbGFjayBvZiBzbGFtIGludGVyZXN0DQoNClRoZSBGYWN0czog VGhlIGZpbmFsIGNvbnRyYWN0IHdhcyA0SCBtYWtpbmcgZm91ciBmb3IgTlMNCuKAkzYyMC4gVGhl IG9wZW5pbmcgbGVhZCB3YXMgdGhlIEM0LiBUaGUgZGlyZWN0b3Igd2FzDQpjYWxsZWQgYXQgdGhl IHRpbWUgb2YgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwgYWxlcnQgKGF0IE5vcnRoJ3MgZmlyc3QNCnR1cm4pIGFuZCBh Z2FpbiB3aGVuIEVhc3QgcGFzc2VkIDRILg0KDQpFYXN0IGFsZXJ0ZWQgNEMuIE5vcnRoIGFza2Vk ICJOYW15YXRzPyIgYW5kIEVhc3QgKGF0DQpmaXJzdCkgcmVzcG9uZGVkIHllcy4gQWZ0ZXIgYSBs aXR0bGUgd2hpbGUsIEVhc3QNCmNvcnJlY3RlZCB0aGUgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gYnkgc3RhdGluZyB0 aGF0IEVXIHVzZWQgdG8gcGxheQ0KTmFteWF0cywgYnV0IGhhZCBkcm9wcGVkIGl0IGluIGZhdm9y IG9mIGEgbmF0dXJhbCA0Qw0KcHJlZW1wdC4NCg0KRWFzdCBzdGF0ZWQgdGhhdCBhdCB0aGUgdGlt ZSBoZSBiaWQgNEQsIGhlIGhhZCBkZWNpZGVkIHRvDQp0cmVhdCB0aGUgNEMgYmlkIGFzIE5hbXlh dHMsIGluIHNwaXRlIG9mIGhpcyBlYXJsaWVyDQpleHBsYW5hdGlvbi4NCg0KVGhlIFJ1bGluZzog IEVhc3QgaGFkIFVJIGZyb20gV2VzdCdzIGFsZXJ0IG9mIDREICh0aGF0IDRDDQp3YXMgaW5kZWVk IE5hbXlhdHMpLiBGdXJ0aGVyLCBXZXN0IGhhZCBVSSBmcm9tIEVhc3Qncw0KY29uZnVzaW9uL2No YW5nZWQgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24uIFBlciBMYXcgMTZBLiBXZXN0J3MgVUkNCmluZGljYXRlcyB0aGF0 IDRIIG1heSBiZSBhIGJldHRlciBjYWxsICh0byBjb25maXJtDQpOYW15YXRzKSB0aGFuIGFueXRo aW5nIGVsc2UuIEEgNFMgY3VlIGJpZCBpcyBhIGxvZ2ljYWwNCmFsdGVybmF0aXZlLiBCeSBMYXcg MTJDMiwgdGhlIHNjb3JlIHdhcyBhZGp1c3RlZCB0byA1SCBieQ0KV2VzdCwgZG93biAxIGFuZCBO UyArMTAwLg0KDQpUaGUgQXBwZWFsOiAgRVcgYXBwZWFsZWQuIFRoZXkgcGxheSBOYW15YXRzIGFz IHNob3dpbmcgOCAxLzINCnRvIDkgdHJpY2tzIHdpdGggYXQgbW9zdCBhIG9uZS1sb3NlciBzdWl0 LiBXZXN0IGhhZCBvbmx5IGFuDQo4IHRyaWNrIGhhbmQgYW5kIHRodXMgaGFkIHNpZ25lZCBvZmYg aW4gNEguDQoNCk90aGVyIEZhY3RzOiBBbGwgcGxheWVycyBleGNlcHQgV2VzdCBhdHRlbmRlZCB0 aGUgaGVhcmluZy4NCkFkZGl0aW9uYWxseSwgdGhlIHRlYW0gY2FwdGFpbiwgWmVrZSBKYWJib3Vy LCBhdHRlbmRlZCBmb3INCkVXLiBFYXN0IGNsYWltZWQgdGhhdCBoZSB0b29rIG92ZXIgZml2ZSBt aW51dGVzIGZpZ3VyaW5nIG91dA0KdGhhdCBXZXN0IGhhZCBoZWFydHMgYW5kIHRoYXQgaGUgZGVj aWRlZCB0byBtYWtlIGEgc2xhbSB0cnkNCmluIHJlc3BvbnNlLiBTeXN0ZW1pY2FsbHksIEVhc3Qg aW5kaWNhdGVkIHRoYXQgaGUgbWlnaHQgaGF2ZQ0KYmlkIDZIIG92ZXIgYSBzcGFkZSBjdWViaWQg dG8gcHJvdGVjdCB0aGUgQ0suIFRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUNCmRldGVybWluZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgNEgg Y2FsbCBoYWQgYmVlbiBtYWRlIGluIHRlbXBvIGFuZCB0aGF0DQpFYXN0IGhhZCB0YWtlbiBhZGRp dGlvbmFsIG1pbnV0ZXMgdG8gbWFrZSBoaXMgZmluYWwgcGFzcy4NCg0KVGhlIERlY2lzaW9uOiAg VGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBiZWxpZXZlZCB0aGF0IFdlc3Qgd2FzIGluDQpwb3NzZXNzaW9uIG9mIFVJ IGZyb20gRWFzdCdzIG1pc2V4cGxhbmF0aW9uIGFuZCBzdWJzZXF1ZW50DQpCSVQuIFdlc3Qgd2Fz IG9ibGlnYXRlZCB0byBhdm9pZCBjaG9vc2luZyBmcm9tIGFueSBMQXMgYW5kDQphbnkgYWN0aW9u IGRlbW9uc3RyYWJseSBzdWdnZXN0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIFVJLg0KDQpFYXN0J3MgY29uZnVzaW9uIGNs ZWFybHkgbWFkZSBhIDRIIGNhbGwgdGhlIGJpZCBtb3N0IGxpa2VseQ0KdG8gY2xhcmlmeSB0aGUg YXVjdGlvbi4gVGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBmZWx0IHRoYXQgYSBzcGFkZQ0KY3VlYmlkIGJ5IFdlc3Qg d2FzIGNsZWFybHkgYW4gTEEuIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgYSBjdWViaWQgd2FzDQppbXBvc2VkIHVwb24g V2VzdC4gRWFzdCdzIGxpa2VseSByZXNwb25zZSB3b3VsZCBiZSB0byBiaWQgNkgNCnRvIHByb3Rl Y3QgdGhlIGNsdWIga2luZy4gVGhlIGNvbnRyYWN0IHdhcyBjaGFuZ2VkIHRvIDZIIGJ5DQpFYXN0 IGRvd24gMSwgKzEwMCBmb3IgTlMuDQoNCkFkZGl0aW9uYWxseSwgdGhpcyBjYXNlIHdhcyBkZWVt ZWQgdG8gYmUgd2l0aG91dCBtZXJpdCwgYW5kDQphbiBBV01XIHdhcyBhd2FyZGVkIHRvIHRoZSBF VyBwYWlyIGFuZCB0aGVpciB0ZWFtIGNhcHRhaW4uDQoNCkZpbmFsbHkgdGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBi ZWxpZXZlZCB0aGF0IFdlc3QncyBmYWlsdXJlIHRvIGN1ZWJpZA0Kc3BhZGVzIHdhcnJhbnRlZCBh IFBQLiAgVGh1cywgdGhlIEVXIHRlYW0gd2FzIGFzc2Vzc2VkIGEgMSBWUA0KcHJvY2VkdXJhbCBw ZW5hbHR5Lg0KDQpDb21taXR0ZWU6ICBNYXJrIEJhcnR1c2VrLCBDaGFpcnBlcnNvbiwgRWQgTGF6 YXJ1cyBhbmQgSmVycnkNCkdhZXI= From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 21 00:36:45 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:36:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-05 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes N-05: 4S by W. I agree that a possible holding is indeed Axxxx Kxxx Ax xx but that a declarer holding this would not have ruffed the diamond first. I do not buy the argument that North should allow for this hand. The play of the spades is a guess, which NS have made sure EW will get wrong. Some of the time (given West has clearly played for AJxx in South on the hesitation and is limiting his losses) West may take the view that South is 3-3 in the blacks and will play clubs after two rounds of trumps. I award 33% of 4S= to EW, result stands for 67% of the time. This will be a minority decision in any AC :) >* * * > >N-05 NY Prelim Draft 10/20/2004 >Subject: UI >DIC: Cukoff >Event: LM Pairs - 1st semifinal > >Bd: 23 Gene Freed >Dlr: South J6 >Vul: Both AJ5 > JT942 > T97 >Steve Garner Howard Weinstein >QT853 K92 >KQ63 T72 >A5 8 >82 AKQ543 > Betty Ann Kennedy > A74 > 984 > KQ763 > J6 -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 21 01:01:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:01:29 +0100 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <000501c4b6c8$04dcf340$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c4b6c8$04dcf340$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5NZxfpGZxvdBFwBp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >On the matter of intent it said [commentary 50.6 (ii)]: > >the card has not been exposed in committing some other infraction of Law >(e.g. premature lead) or by any deliberate action of the player. It is an >accident. Note that playing two cards simultaneously to a trick is in the >category of "accident"; > >Do you seriously dispute and deny that this "note" is very explicit and >clear and that it removes any doubt that could be cast on the clause in the >actual law text: "as in playing two cards to a trick" to mean that two cards >played simultaneously to a trick shall always be considered an accident >regardless of any intent? Of course I "seriously dispute it". The commentary is referring to an "accident": when you attempt to play the D9 and the D9 appears on the table that is *not* an "accident": when you attempt to play the DKJ and the D9 appears on the table that is an "accident". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 21 01:04:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:04:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001101c4b6d3$0b9e60a0$2d222b52@Zog> <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >As both of you apparently disagree with me I suggest that you make up your >mind whether you will accept what Grattan Endicott wrote in 1992 in the work >that became an official document from EBL. Of course technically it has no force not being concerned with the current Laws. However, it is accepted as a well produced and reasoned book, though not perfect. Sadly, it does not support your position. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 21 01:21:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:21:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rubensohl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Imps >Dlr: East >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1NT(1) Pass >Pass 2D(2) Pass 2H >3C(3) Pass Pass 3H >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) 11-14 hcp, balanced >(2) Alerted and explained, 10-14 hcp, both > majors (5/4 shape or better) >(3) Transfer to diamonds, Rubensohl > convention, not alerted and not > explained, because East had forgotten > the convention > >The actual deal > > AK732 > Q873 > --- > K962 >865 QJ94 >65 AKJ >KQJT2 983 >A54 J73 > T > T942 > A7654 > QT8 > >West was another blmler, so West waited >until the defeat of the 3H contract had >been concluded before summoning the TD and >correcting the MI, as required by Law 75D2. (I was North.) The actual TD ruled that: (a) North-South were entitled to know that East-West played 3C as a Rubensohl transfer to diamonds, and (b) North-South were also entitled to know that East had failed to alert West's conventional transfer, so (c) South was entitled to know that East-West probably had had a bidding stuffup, and (d) South would then pass out 3C for +300 In an earlier thread, I noted that Edgar Kaplan wrote a Bridge World editorial which supported the actual TD's ruling. Edgar used the metaphor of North-South referring to a computer printout of the East-West agreements. But part (b) of this ruling is controversial. It can be argued that the failure by East to inform North-South of East-West's Rubensohl agreement, and the failure by East to alert the Rubensohl agreement, were part of the same infraction. Therefore, if: (e) the TD assumes (for score-adjustment purposes) that the MI did not happen, then (f) should the TD consistently assume (for score-adjustment purposes) that the AI to North-South from East's non-alert did not happen? As TD, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 21 01:22:26 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:22:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-08 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial >casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for >a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I >will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC >cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a >casebook. Attached is NYC case N-08. N-08 was it namyats? I agree with the judgement of 6H down 1. I find it very hard, by Law, to issue a procedural penalty. I believe it is illegal. Procedural penalties exist for people who can't get to the correct table or box their hands, not for failing to know their system. Once you have adjusted the score the penalty is paid IMO. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Oct 21 02:16:02 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:16:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-08 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041020211535.01c4a950@mail.comcast.net> At 08:22 PM 10/20/2004, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >N-08 was it namyats? > >I agree with the judgement of 6H down 1. I find it very hard, by Law, to >issue a procedural penalty. I believe it is illegal. Procedural >penalties exist for people who can't get to the correct table or box >their hands, not for failing to know their system. Once you have >adjusted the score the penalty is paid IMO. The procedural penalty is not for forgetting the system, but for making a call which was suggested by UI when there was a LA. That is, West deliberately took an action which he knew, or should have known, was a violation of a Law. However, if the AC accepts West's argument that 4H was his normal bid, I don't agree with this PP. PP's for using UI should only be awarded when the UI is clear and the infraction is flagrant, such as hesitation Blackwood or passing a decision to partner and then overriding partner's slow decision. If West made his normal bid, this was not a flagrant use of UI. From adam@tameware.com Thu Oct 21 04:55:25 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:55:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] New York City NABC cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:55 PM -0400 10/15/04, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I've posted the case write-ups from the Summer NABC under my bridge >laws page at > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ > >If you spot any typos please drop me a line and I'll pass the info on. I received a revised version of cases N01-N13 from the ACBL which I've posted. According to the editor it includes clarifications to case N-04 and also various cosmetic improvements. I expect many of the changes are due to reports by David Grabiner and Harald Skjaran. Thanks, guys! -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 21 05:59:42 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:59:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-05 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <054E2867-231E-11D9-B805-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Oct 19, 2004, at 19:37 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Because the UI suggested that it was safe to try and kill > the club suit, the directors felt that cashing the HA was > a logical alternative. This makes no sense to me. It seems to be putting the cart before the horse. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 21 06:31:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:31:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-02 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0wMi4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQoqICAgICAqICAgICAqDQoNCk4tMDIgICAgICAgIE5ZICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFByZWxpbSBE cmFmdCAtIDEwLzIxLzIwMDQNClN1YmplY3Q6ICAgIE1JL1VJDQpESUM6ICAgICAgICBDdWtvZmYN CkV2ZW50OiAgICAgIExNIFBhaXJzIOKAkyAybmQgUXVhbGlmaWNhdGlvbg0KDQpCZDogICAxOCAg ICBBbnRvbiBUc3lwa2luDQpEbHI6ICBFYXN0ICBKOTg1DQpWdWw6ICBOUyAgICBBSw0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgOTYNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEFKOTg1DQpCb2IgRXR0ZXIgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBKaW0g SGF5YXNoaQ0KQTc0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgUTINClQ5NDIgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIFE3Ng0KQTU0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgUTczMg0KS1QyICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgUTc2NA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgVmxhZGltYXIgUGFyaXpoc2t5DQogICAgICAgICAgICBL VDYzDQogICAgICAgICAgICBKODUzDQogICAgICAgICAgICBLSlQ4DQogICAgICAgICAgICAzDQoN Cldlc3QgICAgICBOb3J0aCAgICAgRWFzdCAgICAgIFNvdXRoDQotLS0gICAgICAgLS0tICAgICAg IFBhc3MgICAgICBQYXNzDQoxQyAgICAgICAgUGFzcyAgICAgIDFOVCAgICAgICBQYXNzDQpQYXNz ICAgICAgRGJsKDEpICAgIDJDICAgICAgICAySA0KUGFzcyAgICAgIDJTICAgICAgICBQYXNzICAg ICAgUGFzcw0KUGFzcw0KDQooMSkgIGJvdGggbWFqb3JzDQoNClRoZSBGYWN0czogVGhlIGRvdWJs ZSBvZiBvbmUgbm90cnVtcCB3YXMgYWxlcnRlZCBhbmQNCmV4cGxhaW5lZCBhcyBib3RoIG1ham9y cy4gIE5vcnRoIGNsYWltZWQgaGUgYWx3YXlzDQpyZW1lbWJlcmVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIGRvdWJsZSBz aG93ZWQgYm90aCBtYWpvcnMgYnV0IGhlDQpoYWQgbm8gb3RoZXIgY2FsbC4gIFRoZSBEaXJlY3Rv ciB3YXMgY2FsbGVkIGFmdGVyIHRoZQ0KMlMgY2FsbC4gMlMgbWFkZSBmaXZlIGZvciArMjAwIGZv ciBOUy4gIFRoZSBvcGVuaW5nDQpsZWFkIHdhcyB0aGUgQzQuDQoNClRoZSBSdWxpbmc6IFRoZSBE aXJlY3RvciBydWxlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBhbGVydCBvZiB0aGUNCmRvdWJsZSB3YXMgVUkgdG8gTm9y dGggYW5kIGNvdWxkIGhhdmUgaW5mbHVlbmNlZCBoaXMgMlMNCmNhbGwuICBUaGUgY29udHJhY3Qg d2FzIGFkanVzdGVkIHRvIDJIIGZvciArMTQwIGZvciBOUy4NCg0KVGhlIEFwcGVhbDogTlMgYXBw ZWFsZWQgdGhlIHJ1bGluZy4gIEVXIGRpZCBub3QgYXR0ZW5kDQp0aGUgaGVhcmluZy4gIE5vcnRo IHJlaXRlcmF0ZWQgaGlzIGNsYWltIHRoYXQgaGUga25ldw0Kd2hhdCBoaXMgc3lzdGVtIHdhcyBh bmQgaW50ZW50aW9uYWxseSB2aW9sYXRlZCBpdC4gIEhlDQpzYWlkIGhpcyBkb3VibGUgYWxsb3dl ZCBoaXMgcGFydG5lciB0byBzaG93IGENCnJlYXNvbmFibGUgZGlhbW9uZCBzdWl0IHdpdGggYSAy RCBjYWxsLg0KDQpBZGRpdGlvbmFsbHksIGhpcyBwYXJ0bmVyIGRpZCBub3Qgb3BlbiBhIHdlYWsg dHdvIGluDQpzZWNvbmQgcG9zaXRpb24sIHNvIHByb2JhYmx5IGhhZCBzcGFkZSBzdXBwb3J0IHdp dGggdGhlDQprbm93biBjbHViIHNob3J0YWdlLg0KDQpPdGhlciBGaW5kaW5nczogVGhlIENvbW1p dHRlZSBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIHRoYXQgTlMgcGxheWVkDQpzb3VuZCB3ZWFrIHR3b3MgaW4gc2Vjb25k IHBvc2l0aW9uIHZ1bG5lcmFibGUuICBOUyB3ZXJlDQphIFJ1c3NpYW4gcGFpciBoYXZpbmcgYXBw cm94aW1hdGVseSA4MDAgYW5kIDANCm1hc3RlcnBvaW50cyBlYWNoLiAgVGhleSB3ZXJlIGFuIG9u bGluZSBpbnRlcm5ldA0KcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgb2YgZm91ciB5ZWFycyB0aGF0IGhhZCByZWNlaXZl ZCBhDQpkaXNwZW5zYXRpb24gZnJvbSB0aGUgZGlyZWN0b3JzIHRvIHBsYXkgaW4gdGhlIExNIFBh aXJzLg0KT25lIG9mIHRoZW0gaGFkIHdvbiBhIFJ1c3NpYW4gQ2hhbXBpb25zaGlwLg0KDQpUaGUg RGVjaXNpb246IE5TIGRpZCBub3QgaGF2ZSB0aGlzIGNvbnZlbnRpb24gbWFya2VkIG9uDQp0aGVp ciBjYXJkIGFuZCBkaWQgbm90IHN1cHBseSB0aGUgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IGV2aWRlbmNlDQp0aGF0IE5v cnRoIG1hZGUgYW4gaW50ZW50aW9uYWwgbWlzYmlkLiAgVGhlIGxhd3MgYXJlDQpmYWlybHkgY2xl YXIgaW4gdGhpcyBhcmVhIGFuZCB0aGUgYWxlcnQgY291bGQgaGF2ZQ0KYXdha2VuZWQgTm9ydGgg dG8gYSBwb3NzaWJsZSBiaWRkaW5nIG1pc3VuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcuDQpUaHVzLCB0aGUgY29udHJh Y3Qgd2FzIHJvbGxlZCBiYWNrIHRvIDJILiAgQW5hbHlzaXMgb2YNCnRoaXMgY29tcGxpY2F0ZWQg Y29udHJhY3QgaW5kaWNhdGVkIHRoYXQgcHJhY3RpY2FsbHkgYWxsDQpsaW5lcyBvZiBwbGF5IGxl ZCB0byBvbmx5IGVpZ2h0IHRyaWNrcy4gIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgYm90aA0Kc2lkZXMgd2VyZSBhd2Fy ZGVkIHRoZSBzY29yZSBmb3IgMkggbWFraW5nIHR3bywgKzExMCBmb3INCk5TLiAgVGhlcmUgd2Fz IGEgYnJpZWYgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBjb25jZXJuaW5nIGFuIEFXTVcsIGJ1dA0Kc2V2ZXJhbCBtZW1i ZXJzIG9mIHRoZSBDb21taXR0ZWUgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IGVkdWNhdGluZw0KdGhlc2UgZm9yZWln biBndWVzdHMgd2FzIGEgbW9yZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSByZXNwb25zZS4NCg0KQ29tbWl0dGVlOiBN YXJrIEJhcnR1c2VrLCBDaGFpcnBlcnNvbiwgTWljaGFlbCBIdXN0b24sDQpLYXRoeSBTdWxncm92 ZSwgRWxsZW4gTWVsc29uIGFuZCBHYWlsIEdyZWVuYmVyZy4= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 21 06:59:40 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:59:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-04 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0wNC4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQpOLTA0ICAgICAgICBOWSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFByZWxpbSBEcmFmdCAxMC8yMS8yMDA0 DQpTdWJqZWN0OiAgICBNSQ0KRElDOiAgICAgICAgQ3Vrb2ZmDQpFdmVudDogICAgICBMTSBQYWly cyDigJMgMm5kIEZpbmFsDQoNCkJkOiAgIDYgICAgIFBhdWwgQmV0aGUNCkRscjogIEVhc3QgIEo5 NjMNClZ1bDogIEVXICAgIDINCiAgICAgICAgICAgIFEzDQogICAgICAgICAgICBUOTg3NTMNClRh cmVrIFNhZGVrICAgICAgICAgICAgIEFobWVkIEh1c3NlaW4NClE0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIDc1DQpBVDg3NDMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBLUUo1DQpLNiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICBBSlQ5NzUNCks0MiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDYNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEphc29u IEZlbGRtYW4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEFLVDgyDQogICAgICAgICAgICA5Ng0KICAgICAgICAgICAg ODQyDQogICAgICAgICAgICBBUUoNCg0KV2VzdCAgICAgIE5vcnRoICAgICBFYXN0ICAgICAgU291 dGgNCi0tLSAgICAgICAtLS0gICAgICAgMUQgICAgICAgIDFTDQoySCAgICAgICAgNFMgICAgICAg IFBhc3MoMSkgICBQYXNzDQpEYmwgICAgICAgUGFzcyAgICAgIDVIKDIpICAgICA1Uw0KRGJsKDMp ICAgICg0KQ0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRGJsDQpQYXNzICAgICAgUGFz cyAgICAgIFBhc3MNCg0KKDEpICBBbGVydGVkLCBubyBxdWVzdGlvbnMNCigyKSAgU291dGggYXNr ZWQgYW5kIGhlYXJkICJQYXNzIGlzIGZvcmNpbmcsIDVIIGlzIHNsYW0NCiAgICAgaW52aXRhdGlv bmFsIg0KKDMpICBOb3J0aCBhc2tlZCBhbmQgV2VzdCBzYWlkICJQYXNzIGZvcmNpbmcsIDVIIHdv dWxkDQogICAgIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBzbGFtIGludml0YXRpb25hbC4iIE5vcnRoIGFza2VkIFNvdXRo IGlmDQogICAgIHRoYXQgd2FzIHdoYXQgaGUgaGVhcmQuDQooNCkgIFREIGNhbGxlZA0KDQpUaGUg RmFjdHM6IDVIIGRvdWJsZWQgd2VudCBkb3duIG9uZSBmb3IgTlMgKzIwMC4gIFRoZQ0Kb3Blbmlu ZyBsZWFkIHdhcyBhIHNtYWxsIGNsdWIuICBUaGUgRGlyZWN0b3Igd2FzIGNhbGxlZA0KYWZ0ZXIg V2VzdCBkb3VibGVkIDVTLg0KDQpOUyBib3RoIHNhaWQgdGhleSBib3RoIHVuZGVyc3Rvb2QgdGhl IGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIHRvIGJlDQp0aGF0IHBhc3MgYW5kIHB1bGwgd2FzIHN0cm9uZ2VyIHRoYW4g YW4gaW1tZWRpYXRlIDVIIGJ5DQpFYXN0LiAgRVcgYm90aCBzYWlkIFdlc3Qgc3RhdGVkIDVIIHdv dWxkIGhhdmUgYmVlbg0KaW52aXRhdGlvbmFsLiBFVyBhbHNvIG9iamVjdGVkIHN0cm9uZ2x5IHRv IE5TJ3MgY3Jvc3MNCnRhYmxlIHRhbGsuICBFYXN0IGNvdWxkIG5vdCBzZWUgaG93IFNvdXRoIGNv dWxkIGJlbGlldmUNCml0IHRvIGJlIGEgc2xhbSBpbnZpdGF0aW9uIGxvb2tpbmcgYXQgMTQgSENQ Lg0KDQpUaGUgUnVsaW5nOiBXZXN0J3MgZG91YmxlIGFuZCBTb3V0aCdzIDVTIGNhbGwgd2VyZQ0K Y2FuY2VsbGVkIHVuZGVyIExhdyAyMUIxLCBpbmFkZXF1YXRlIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uLg0KDQpUaGUg QXBwZWFsOiBObyBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgbm90ZWQuDQoNClRoZSBEZWNpc2lvbjogVGhlcmUgd2VyZSB0 d28gcXVlc3Rpb25zIGFza2VkIGJ5IE5TDQpkdXJpbmcgdGhlIGF1Y3Rpb246DQoNCjEuICBBZnRl ciB0aGUgNUggYmlkLCBTb3V0aCBhc2tlZCBhYm91dCB0aGUgbWVhbmluZyBvZg0KdGhlIGFsZXJ0 LiBXaGlsZSB0aGUgQXBwZWFscyBmb3JtIHN0YXRlZCB0aGF0IEVXIGhhZA0KcmVzcG9uZGVkIHRv IHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBhYm91dCB0aGUgYWxlcnQgdGhhdCA1SCB3b3VsZA0KaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGlu dml0YXRpb25hbCwgdGhlIHRlc3RpbW9ueSBvZiBOUyBhbmQgdGhlDQpyZXNwb25zZSBieSBFVyB0 byB0aGUgQ29tbWl0dGVlIHJlc3VsdGVkIGluIHRoZSBvcGluaW9uDQpiZWluZyBmb3JtZWQgdGhh dCB3aGF0IEVXIGFjdHVhbGx5IGhhZCBzYWlkIHdhcyB0aGF0IDVIDQppcyBpbnZpdGF0aW9uYWwu ICBTaW5jZSA1SCBoYWQgYmVlbiBzdWJzZXF1ZW50bHkgYmlkLA0KTlMgaW5mZXJyZWQgdGhhdCBF VyB3YXMgcmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byB0aGUgY29tcGxldGUNCmF1Y3Rpb24sIG5vdCBqdXN0IHRvIHRo ZSBxdWVzdGlvbiB0aGF0IHdhcyBhc2tlZC4NCg0KMi4gIE5vcnRoIGFza2VkIGZvciBmdXJ0aGVy IGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZQ0KYXVjdGlvbiBhZnRlciB0aGUgZG91YmxlIG9mIDVTIGJl Y2F1c2UgaGUgbm90aWNlZCBzb21lDQpjb25mdXNpb24gYnkgaGlzIHBhcnRuZXIuICBOb3J0aCBh Z3JlZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUNCkNvbW1pdHRlZSB0aGF0IGhpcyBxdWVzdGlvbiB3YXMgcGVyaGFwcyBp bXByb3BlciBzaW5jZQ0KaGUgaGFkIG5vIHJlYXNvbiB0byBhc2sgYSBxdWVzdGlvbiBleGNlcHQg dG8gYXR0ZW1wdA0KdG8gY2xlYXIgdXAgdGhlIG1lYW5pbmcgb2YgdGhlIGF1Y3Rpb24gZm9yIGhp cyBwYXJ0bmVyLg0KDQpUaGUgRGlyZWN0b3Igd2FzIGNhbGxlZCBhdCB0aGlzIHRpbWUuICBBd2F5 IGZyb20gdGhlDQp0YWJsZSwgU291dGggdG9sZCB0aGUgRGlyZWN0b3IgdGhhdCBoZSBoYWQgdW5k ZXJzdG9vZA0KdGhlIG1lYW5pbmcgb2YgRVcncyBiaWRzICh0aGF0IGRvdWJsZSBhbmQgdGhlbiBi aWRkaW5nDQo1SCB3YXMgd2Vha2VyIHRoYW4gYSBkaXJlY3QgNUggYmlkKSBoZSB3b3VsZCBoYXZl DQpkb3VibGVkIDVIIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgYmlkZGluZyA1Uy4gIFRoZSBkaXJlY3RvciwgYXMgYQ0K cmVzdWx0IG9mIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gd2l0aCBib3RoIHRoZSBTb3V0aCBhbmQgTm9ydGgNCnBsYXll cnMsIHJ1bGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgd2FzIG1pc2luZm9ybWF0aW9uIHVuZGVyIExhdw0KMjFCMS4g IFNvdXRoIHdhcyB0aGVyZWZvcmUgYWxsb3dlZCB0byBkb3VibGUgNUgNCmluc3RlYWQgb2YgYmlk ZGluZyA1UyByZXN1bHRpbmcgaW4gYSBzY29yZSBvZiArMjAwIGZvcg0KTlMuIFRoZSBDb21taXR0 ZWUgZmVsdCB0aGF0IEVXJ3MgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlaXINCmJpZGRpbmcgd2FzIHVuY2xl YXIgcmVzdWx0aW5nIGluIG1pc2luZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRvIE5TLg0KDQpEaXNzZW50aW5nIE9waW5p b24gKEVkIExhemFydXMpOiBFVyB3YXMgYXNrZWQgb25seSB0bw0KZGVzY3JpYmUgd2hhdCB0aGUg YWxlcnQgb2YgdGhlIFBhc3Mgb2YgNFMgbWVhbnQuICBFVydzDQpleHBsYW5hdGlvbiB3YXMgdGhl cmVmb3JlIG9ubHkgdG8gdGhhdCBxdWVzdGlvbi4gIEVXDQpzdGF0ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgYWxlcnQg bWVhbnQgdGhhdCBwYXNzIGlzIGZvcmNpbmcgYW5kDQo1SCBpcyBzdHJvbmdlci4gIE5TIGRpZCBu b3QgYXNrIGZvciB0aGUgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gb2YNCnRoZSBjb21wbGV0ZSBiaWRkaW5nLiAgVGhl cmUgd2FzIG5vIHJlYXNvbiBmb3IgTlMgdG8NCmluZmVyIHRoYXQgRVcncyBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiB0 byB0aGUgYWxlcnQgYWxzbyBpbmNsdWRlZA0KaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gYWJvdXQgdGhlIHN1YnNlcXVl bnQgNUggYmlkLg0KDQpUaGUgRGlyZWN0b3IgbWFkZSBhIGRlY2lzaW9uIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgd2Fz DQptaXNpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBnaXZlbiBieSBFVywgdGhhdCBMYXcgMjFCMSBhcHBsaWVkIGFuZA0K dGhlcmVmb3JlIGFsbG93ZWQgTlMgdG8gZG91YmxlIDVIIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgYmlkZGluZw0KNVMu ICBJIGFtIG9mIHRoZSBvcGluaW9uIHRoYXQgbm8gbWlzaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gd2FzDQpnaXZlbiBh bmQgdGhhdCB0aGUgY29udHJhY3Qgc2hvdWxkIGJlIDVTIGRvdWJsZWQgZG93bg0KdHdvIGJ5IE5T Lg0KDQpDb21taXR0ZWU6IExhcnJ5IENvaGVuLCBDaGFpcnBlcnNvbiwgRWQgTGF6YXJ1cywNCnNj cmliZSwgVG9tIENhcm1pY2hhZWwsIFJhbHBoIENvaGVuIGFuZCAgQ2hyaXMgTW9sbC4= From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 21 07:41:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:41:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4b738$ef307b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > Of course technically it has no force not being concerned with the > current Laws. However, it is accepted as a well produced and reasoned > book, though not perfect. > > Sadly, it does not support your position. Did you read Grattan's contribution to this discussion yesterday evening? Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 21 08:20:09 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:20:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000c01c4b6ef$97aaf920$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c4b6ef$97aaf920$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41776329.6040808@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > What I believe has confused Herman, David and others is that Law 50B > explicitly defines a simultaneous play of two (or more) cards to a trick as > an accident for the purpose of applying Law 50B, a fact that they have > probably overlooked. > Surely if I detach the C2 from my hand and the SA drops along with it, the playing of the C2 was not accidental and the C2 cannot become a mPC. Probably what you have been confusing is that this playing of the C2 can only be defined as "intentionally" and that the intention is therefor important. You are correct, Sven, in saying that for purposes of L58, intent is not needed, but look at this: If I play the SA and drop the C2, I would do better to designate the SA, as the C2 becomes a mPC. If I play the C2 and drop the S9, I would do better to designate the C2, as the Sp becomes a mPC (but the C2 does not). If I play the C2 and drop the SA, I would do better to designate the SA, as the other one will always become a MPC, and the 2 will probably harm less than the A. Agreed? Agreed that the intent must be known to the TD before he can explain L58? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 21 08:19:20 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:19:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <001101c4b6d3$0b9e60a0$2d222b52@Zog> <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001201c4b73e$b4bb5dd0$f59e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " The lunatic, the lover, and the poet Are of imagination all compact." ['A Midsummer Night's Dream'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > Sven Pran wrote > > >As both of you apparently disagree with me I suggest > >that you make up your mind whether you will accept > what Grattan Endicott wrote in 1992 in the work > >that became an official document from EBL. > > Of course technically it has no force not being > concerned with the current Laws. However, it is accepted > as a well produced and reasoned book, though not perfect. > > Sadly, it does not support your position. > +=+ I observe that Sven wrote as follows. I consider it a correct reading of the EBL 1992 authority. Has the text of the law changed since then? If not, has the EBL or the WBF varied the interpretation? < In response to the following: > So Card A was exposed as a "deliberate action" - not played > inadvertently; Card B was part of an "accident" and therefore an > inadvertent play. Sven stated: > "Heaven forbid Devil's lawyers!" You seem to read both the > laws and the commentaries like the Devil reads the Holy Bible > (as we say in Norway). > Neither law 50B nor Grattan in his commentaries distinguishes > between the two (or more) cards contributed simultaneously > to a trick; as far as Law 50B is concerned the mere > simultaneous play of them is considered an accident. > All such cards are considered exposed inadvertently. < +=+ I have made a note to think of insertion in the next laws of a statement that "Unless the player has intentionally played more than one card simultaneously all such cards played simultaneously are inadvertently played." or the like. For the avoidance of doubt. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 21 08:26:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:26:45 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <417764B5.2080608@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>And here you are wrong. >>Because the C2 does not become a minor penalty card if the player >>intended to play it all along! >>Only if it is an inadvertantly played card does it become a mPC. >>Sorry Sven, but do you now see why you have been wrong all along? > > > No Herman, he isn't wrong. He is just as entitled to interpret the rule > on two cards simultaneously as being "both inadvertent" as you/DWS are to > interpret it as "one deliberate, one inadvertent". The law is ambiguous. > No Tim, the Law is not. If I detach a card from my hand, that is not an inadvertently exposed card. There is no law that says that two cards, exposed together, are inadvertent. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 21 08:31:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:31:51 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <000701c4b6cb$22432aa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c4b6cb$22432aa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <417765E7.4030101@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Tim West-Meads > >>Herman wrote: >> >> >>>And here you are wrong. >>>Because the C2 does not become a minor penalty card if the player >>>intended to play it all along! >>>Only if it is an inadvertantly played card does it become a mPC. >>>Sorry Sven, but do you now see why you have been wrong all along? >> >>No Herman, he isn't wrong. He is just as entitled to interpret the rule >>on two cards simultaneously as being "both inadvertent" as you/DWS are to >>interpret it as "one deliberate, one inadvertent". The law is ambiguous. > > > Actually I do not even care whether one or both the simultaneously played > cards were "inadvertently" exposed. > > For the card eventually designated by the offender as "played" the question > is irrelevant and for the other card the example clause in Law 50B "(as in > playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally)" clarifies > any doubt that otherwise could be present. > > This clause literally equates "dropping a card accidentally" with "playing > two cards to a trick". Notice that there is no "accidentally" (or another > word or words to the same effect) associated with "playing two cards to a > trick"! > first of all Sven, this says "as in" so it has less force of law. And secondly, there were no two cards played to a trick - one was played, the other one dropped. But let's drop this subject. Next time I'll play against you, when my partner plays the ace of spades, I'll contribute the 5 of hearts (Italian signal signifying hearts) while dropping a small spade. The mPC will not enable you to refuse a heart switch! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 21 01:33:59 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:33:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-08 References: Message-ID: <001201c4b705$a9065320$0e9468d5@jeushtlj> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C4B70E.0A121980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > N-08 NY Prelim Draft 10/21/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Cukoff > Event: NABC+ Senior Swiss - 1st Final >=20 > Bd: 7 Rod Beery > Dlr: South QT742 > Vul: Both J7 > QT654 > 4 > Joe Godefrin Ed Schulte > A KJ53 > AKQT985 642 > 8 AK93 > T652 K8 > Mary Egan > 986 > 3 > J72 > AQJ973 >=20 > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > 4C(1) Pass 4D(2) Pass > 4H(3) Pass Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Alerted as Namyats (strong with hearts) but later > retracted to club preempt > (2) Alerted as slam interest > (3) Agreed as lack of slam interest >=20 > The Facts: The final contract was 4H making four for NS > =E2=80=93620. The opening lead was the C4. The director was > called at the time of the initial alert (at North's first > turn) and again when East passed 4H. >=20 > East alerted 4C. North asked "Namyats?" and East (at > first) responded yes. After a little while, East > corrected the explanation by stating that EW used to play > Namyats, but had dropped it in favor of a natural 4C > preempt. >=20 > East stated that at the time he bid 4D, he had decided to > treat the 4C bid as Namyats, in spite of his earlier > explanation. >=20 > The Ruling: East had UI from West's alert of 4D (that 4C > was indeed Namyats). Further, West had UI from East's > confusion/changed explanation. Per Law 16A. West's UI > indicates that 4H may be a better call (to confirm > Namyats) than anything else. A 4S cue bid is a logical > alternative. By Law 12C2, the score was adjusted to 5H by > West, down 1 and NS +100. >=20 > The Appeal: EW appealed. They play Namyats as showing 8 1/2 > to 9 tricks with at most a one-loser suit. West had only an > 8 trick hand and thus had signed off in 4H. >=20 > Other Facts: All players except West attended the hearing. > Additionally, the team captain, Zeke Jabbour, attended for > EW. East claimed that he took over five minutes figuring out > that West had hearts and that he decided to make a slam try > in response. Systemically, East indicated that he might have > bid 6H over a spade cuebid to protect the CK. The committee > determined that the 4H call had been made in tempo and that > East had taken additional minutes to make his final pass. >=20 > The Decision: The committee believed that West was in > possession of UI from East's misexplanation and subsequent > BIT. West was obligated to avoid choosing from any LAs and > any action demonstrably suggested by the UI. >=20 > East's confusion clearly made a 4H call the bid most likely > to clarify the auction. The committee felt that a spade > cuebid by West was clearly an LA. Therefore, a cuebid was > imposed upon West. East's likely response would be to bid 6H > to protect the club king. The contract was changed to 6H by > East down 1, +100 for NS. >=20 > Additionally, this case was deemed to be without merit, and > an AWMW was awarded to the EW pair and their team captain. >=20 > Finally the committee believed that West's failure to cuebid > spades warranted a PP. Thus, the EW team was assessed a 1 VP > procedural penalty. >=20 > Committee: Mark Bartusek, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus and Jerry > GaernYx=CB=96i jkzw=E9=A8=99+w [Nigel] Another good basic ruling by the TD and AC. IMO, the AC were also right = to impose a PP for West's failure to cue-bid over 4D; in spite of this = an AMWM is inappropriate because the AC ruling (6H-1) was *different* = from the TD ruling (5H-1). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C4B70E.0A121980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=20 N-08       =20 NY            = ;      =20 Prelim Draft 10/21/2004
> Subject:    UI
>=20 DIC:        Cukoff
>=20 Event:      NABC+ Senior Swiss - 1st = Final
>=20
> Bd:   7     Rod Beery
> = Dlr: =20 South QT742
> Vul:  Both =20 J7
>          &nb= sp; =20 QT654
>          =   =20 4
> Joe=20 Godefrin           = ; Ed=20 Schulte
>=20 A            =           =20 KJ53
>=20 AKQT985           =      =20 642
>=20 8            =           =20 AK93
>=20 T652           &nb= sp;       =20 K8
>          &nb= sp; =20 Mary=20 Egan
>          &= nbsp; =20 986
>          &n= bsp; =20 3
>          &nbs= p; =20 J72
>          &n= bsp; =20 AQJ973
>
> West     =20 North     East      = South
>=20 ---       = ---      =20 ---       Pass
>=20 4C(1)     Pass     =20 4D(2)     Pass
> 4H(3)     = Pass      Pass     =20 Pass
>
> (1)  Alerted as Namyats (strong with hearts) = but=20 later
>      retracted to club = preempt
>=20 (2)  Alerted as slam interest
> (3)  Agreed as lack of = slam=20 interest
>
> The Facts: The final contract was 4H making = four for=20 NS
> =E2=80=93620. The opening lead was the C4. The director = was
> called at=20 the time of the initial alert (at North's first
> turn) and again = when=20 East passed 4H.
>
> East alerted 4C. North asked "Namyats?" = and=20 East (at
> first) responded yes. After a little while, = East
>=20 corrected the explanation by stating that EW used to play
> = Namyats, but=20 had dropped it in favor of a natural 4C
> preempt.
> =
> East=20 stated that at the time he bid 4D, he had decided to
> treat the = 4C bid as=20 Namyats, in spite of his earlier
> explanation.
>
> = The=20 Ruling:  East had UI from West's alert of 4D (that 4C
> was = indeed=20 Namyats). Further, West had UI from East's
> confusion/changed=20 explanation. Per Law 16A. West's UI
> indicates that 4H may be a = better=20 call (to confirm
> Namyats) than anything else. A 4S cue bid is a=20 logical
> alternative. By Law 12C2, the score was adjusted to 5H=20 by
> West, down 1 and NS +100.
>
> The Appeal:  = EW=20 appealed. They play Namyats as showing 8 1/2
> to 9 tricks with at = most a=20 one-loser suit. West had only an
> 8 trick hand and thus had = signed off in=20 4H.
>
> Other Facts: All players except West attended the=20 hearing.
> Additionally, the team captain, Zeke Jabbour, attended=20 for
> EW. East claimed that he took over five minutes figuring = out
>=20 that West had hearts and that he decided to make a slam try
> in = response.=20 Systemically, East indicated that he might have
> bid 6H over a = spade=20 cuebid to protect the CK. The committee
> determined that the 4H = call had=20 been made in tempo and that
> East had taken additional minutes to = make=20 his final pass.
>
> The Decision:  The committee = believed that=20 West was in
> possession of UI from East's misexplanation and=20 subsequent
> BIT. West was obligated to avoid choosing from any = LAs=20 and
> any action demonstrably suggested by the UI.
> =
> East's=20 confusion clearly made a 4H call the bid most likely
> to clarify = the=20 auction. The committee felt that a spade
> cuebid by West was = clearly an=20 LA. Therefore, a cuebid was
> imposed upon West. East's likely = response=20 would be to bid 6H
> to protect the club king. The contract was = changed to=20 6H by
> East down 1, +100 for NS.
>
> Additionally, = this case=20 was deemed to be without merit, and
> an AWMW was awarded to the = EW pair=20 and their team captain.
>
> Finally the committee believed = that=20 West's failure to cuebid
> spades warranted a PP.  Thus, the = EW team=20 was assessed a 1 VP
> procedural penalty.
>
>=20 Committee:  Mark Bartusek, Chairperson, Ed Lazarus and = Jerry
>=20 GaernYx=CB=96i jkzw=E9=A8=99+w
[Nigel]
Another good basic = ruling by=20 the TD and AC. IMO, the AC were also right to impose a PP = for West's=20 failure to cue-bid over 4D; in spite of this an AMWM is = inappropriate=20 because the AC ruling (6H-1) was *different* from the TD = ruling=20 (5H-1).
 
 

---
Outgoing mail = is=20 certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: = 6.0.775 /=20 Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C4B70E.0A121980-- From henk@ripe.net Thu Oct 21 08:56:44 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:56:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] gesta@tiscsali.co.uk In-Reply-To: <000701c4b6e9$e0b85af0$adbe87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000701c4b6e9$e0b85af0$adbe87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************* > " In the world ye shall have tribulation: > but be of good cheer, I have overcome > the world." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > +=+ Henk, > Would you please suspend until further notice > all despatches to the gesta address. Done, Henk > In transferring > from one PC to the other there has been a major > disaster and it will require reinstatement of the > operating system under manufacturer's warranty. > Messages to the grandeval address to continue > normally, please. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In a room with a window in the corner, I found truth. (Ian Curtis) From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 21 09:01:42 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:01:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <41776329.6040808@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > > What I believe has confused Herman, David and others is that Law 50B > > explicitly defines a simultaneous play of two (or more) cards to a = trick > as > > an accident for the purpose of applying Law 50B, a fact that they = have > > probably overlooked. > > >=20 > Surely if I detach the C2 from my hand and the SA drops along with it, > the playing of the C2 was not accidental and the C2 cannot become a > mPC. Probably what you have been confusing is that this playing of the > C2 can only be defined as "intentionally" and that the intention is > therefor important. Will you describe this occurrence as "playing two cards" or as "playing = one card and then dropping another"? How will the other players at the table describe what happened?=20 If the activity itself appeared as two separate actions: One action of playing a card and another action of dropping a card then we can tell = from the activity itself which card was played and we do not need, nor may we allow the offender to designate under Law 58B2 which card he proposes to play. The intention of the offender is irrelevant as the card played can = be determined unambiguously from the facts.=20 But be aware of Law 45A: Any card that is detached from a hand and faced = on the table is "played" so even when it could appear that a player = detached just one card for the purpose of playing it and then two (or more) cards became exposed on the table in this same act they are all considered "played" simultaneously.=20 This discussion has all the time concerned two cards played = simultaneously to a trick and then the original intention of the offender has no = relevance, Law 50B clearly states that any such case shall be considered "cards = exposed accidentally".=20 > You are correct, Sven, in saying that for purposes of L58, intent is > not needed, but look at this: >=20 > If I play the SA and drop the C2, I would do better to designate the > SA, as the C2 becomes a mPC. > If I play the C2 and drop the S9, I would do better to designate the > C2, as the Sp becomes a mPC (but the C2 does not). > If I play the C2 and drop the SA, I would do better to designate the > SA, as the other one will always become a MPC, and the 2 will probably > harm less than the A. >=20 > Agreed? No. You must make up your mind whether you are playing one card and (then) dropping another as two separate and distinguishable actions or you are playing two cards (simultaneously) to the trick. > Agreed that the intent must be known to the TD before he can explain = L58? On the contrary that question is NEVER relevant when applying Law 58B = (nor is it relevant when applying Law 50B or for that sake Law 45A as pointed = out by Grattan) Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 21 09:09:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:09:06 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <417765E7.4030101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c4b745$3c8f7ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > first of all Sven, this says "as in" so it has less force of law. It is still part of the law. > Next time I'll > play against you, when my partner plays the ace of spades, I'll > contribute the 5 of hearts (Italian signal signifying hearts) while > dropping a small spade. The mPC will not enable you to refuse a heart > switch! Have you completely forgotten Law 72B1 ??? Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 21 10:56:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000601c4b6c9$738da180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads > > Of course playing two cards to a trick is an "accident". That doesn't > > mean that BOTH cards were exposed accidently. Indeed the "the card" > > at the beginning of the commentary implies that typically only *one* > > of the two cards will be the subject of accidental exposure. However > > this implication is not strong enough to render a ruling of "both > > cards are deemed exposed accidentally" as being incorrect. > > Now you are splitting hairs. Well yes! When one starts arguing about how a law may be interpreted one has to do that. > Of course there is no reason to have any > rule on the accidental or intentional playing of the card that is > eventually designated as the played card. There doesn't have to be a reason, the words are there and they *are* ambiguous. > > BTW I can find nothing in EBU regs which gives the "commentary" legal > > status - but I've probably missed something. > > You have "probably" missed the following statement by Grattan Endicott > in his preface to the commentaries: > > "We are grateful to have the approval of the EBL Laws Committee and the > authority of the EBL Executive Committee in circulating this guidance." That is the EBL - not the EBU (where DWS and I must give our rulings). It is also called "guidance" - suggestive perhaps but not binding instruction. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 21 10:56:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000c01c4b6ef$97aaf920$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > The general rule is that a penalty card is a major penalty card; minor > penalty cards are exceptions from the general rule. > > And there are three requirements for a card to be a minor penalty card: > 1: the player must not simultaneously have more than one penalty card. > 2: the card must be below the rank of an honour. > 3: the card must have been exposed by an accident. > > What I believe has confused Herman, David and others is that Law 50B > explicitly defines a simultaneous play of two (or more) cards to a > trick as an accident for the purpose of applying Law 50B, a fact that > they have probably overlooked. It most certainly does not. It explicitly defines playing two cards to a trick as an example of how *A* card may be inadvertently exposed. It does not explicitly state that the card played deliberately of two cards played to the same trick is considered to have been exposed accidentally. Until you bl**dy idiots recognise that *both* the Sven/DWS interpretations are reasonable interpretations of the actual words there is almost no chance of persuading the PTB that the ambiguity should be removed - or in which direction. For the record I prefer Sven's interpretation (albeit I consider it slightly further from the current wording of the law) - mostly for reasons given by Nigel. Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 21 11:18:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:18:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> Sven, don't try to wriggle out of an argument by saying it is a different argument altogether! Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>>What I believe has confused Herman, David and others is that Law 50B >>>explicitly defines a simultaneous play of two (or more) cards to a trick >> >>as >> >>>an accident for the purpose of applying Law 50B, a fact that they have >>>probably overlooked. >>> >> >>Surely if I detach the C2 from my hand and the SA drops along with it, >>the playing of the C2 was not accidental and the C2 cannot become a >>mPC. Probably what you have been confusing is that this playing of the >>C2 can only be defined as "intentionally" and that the intention is >>therefor important. > > > Will you describe this occurrence as "playing two cards" or as "playing one > card and then dropping another"? How will the other players at the table > describe what happened? > Does it really matter how we describe this? L58 does not make any distinction. All we need are 2 face-up cards on the table. Surely you don't imagine the occurence of a player playing 2 cards deliberately is sufficiently frequent to warrant a law specifically designed for this purpose. So Law 58 deals with 2 far more frequent cases - a player playing one deliberate card and dropping one other; and a player dropping 2 cards. In both cases, L58 tells us that the player is allowed to choose which card he wants to play, and his original intent is not important. He may elect the other card if he so wishes. In both cases, L58 tells us that the other card becomes a PC. L50 shall tell us whether that is a minor or a major penalty card. For that distinction, the player's intent IS important, and the TD should know what that intent was. In most instances, the players (all 4 of them) will inform the TD immediately of that intent ("I wanted to play the C2 and the SA dropped on the table"). In some cases the players remain silent and then the TD will have to ask. > If the activity itself appeared as two separate actions: One action of > playing a card and another action of dropping a card then we can tell from > the activity itself which card was played and we do not need, nor may we > allow the offender to designate under Law 58B2 which card he proposes to > play. The intention of the offender is irrelevant as the card played can be > determined unambiguously from the facts. > In most cases we can indeed infer the intent from the facts. So why do we have this discussion. David and I are saying that the TD needs to discover the intent. You say he needs to discover the facts and then he can infer the intent. Isn't that the same? And besides, I think you are wrong in that L58 does not apply to a deliberate card with an additional dropped one. I believe the player can still elect the inadvertent card instead (which he will do when the inadvertent one is a high honour - better not have that as a penalty card) > But be aware of Law 45A: Any card that is detached from a hand and faced on > the table is "played" so even when it could appear that a player detached > just one card for the purpose of playing it and then two (or more) cards > became exposed on the table in this same act they are all considered > "played" simultaneously. > And so L58 applies, no? > This discussion has all the time concerned two cards played simultaneously > to a trick and then the original intention of the offender has no relevance, > Law 50B clearly states that any such case shall be considered "cards exposed > accidentally". > Well, we appear to differ on that point of view. > >>You are correct, Sven, in saying that for purposes of L58, intent is >>not needed, but look at this: >> >>If I play the SA and drop the C2, I would do better to designate the >>SA, as the C2 becomes a mPC. >>If I play the C2 and drop the S9, I would do better to designate the >>C2, as the Sp becomes a mPC (but the C2 does not). >>If I play the C2 and drop the SA, I would do better to designate the >>SA, as the other one will always become a MPC, and the 2 will probably >>harm less than the A. >> >>Agreed? > > > No. > > You must make up your mind whether you are playing one card and (then) > dropping another as two separate and distinguishable actions or you are > playing two cards (simultaneously) to the trick. > Have you ever played 2 cards to a trick? How many of them were intended? 0 or 1, but never 2. > >>Agreed that the intent must be known to the TD before he can explain L58? > > > On the contrary that question is NEVER relevant when applying Law 58B (nor > is it relevant when applying Law 50B or for that sake Law 45A as pointed out > by Grattan) > Well, our discussion is not really about L58, I believe. Do you agree with me on a slightly different case. A player drops the S9 and S10 (both inadvertently). You inform him of his L58 obligations, and you tell him that he should select which one he plays in this trick. You also tell him that the other one will become a penalty card, yes? And you tell him that if he selects the S10, the S9 becomes a mPC, and if he selects the S9, the S10 becomes a MPC. Right? Well, then our discussion is no longer about L58, and only about L50. A player plays the H5 and drops the S9. Will the H5 be a MPC or a mPC? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 21 11:20:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:20:30 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <000c01c4b745$3c8f7ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c4b745$3c8f7ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41778D6E.6010003@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>first of all Sven, this says "as in" so it has less force of law. > > > It is still part of the law. > > >>Next time I'll >>play against you, when my partner plays the ace of spades, I'll >>contribute the 5 of hearts (Italian signal signifying hearts) while >>dropping a small spade. The mPC will not enable you to refuse a heart >>switch! > > > Have you completely forgotten Law 72B1 ??? > I have not, but why would you need a law that requires deliberate intent to cheating, if you can have a law that requires no such proof of intention? Suppose my S9 is sticking to the back of the H5. I think I have no more spades so I signal with my H5. The S9 drops with it. So I have now no choice but to play it to the trick. Is the H5 a MPC or a mPC? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 21 13:20:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:20:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001201c4b73e$b4bb5dd0$f59e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001101c4b6d3$0b9e60a0$2d222b52@Zog> <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001201c4b73e$b4bb5dd0$f59e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ I have made a note to think of insertion in the next laws >of a statement that "Unless the player has intentionally played >more than one card simultaneously all such cards played >simultaneously are inadvertently played." or the like. For the >avoidance of doubt. Good. And you can change every other Law you consider wrong as well. However, this thread is not about changing to a different Law with a different 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 caprice shaw" "My girlfriend loves the results, but she doesn't know what I do. She thinks it's natural" -Thomas, CA

"I've been using your product for 4 months now. I've increased my length from 2" to nearly 6" . Your product has saved my sex life." -Matt, FL

Pleasure your partner every time with a bigger, longer, stronger Unit
Realistic gains quickly

to be a stud press here


Rob yawned, for he thought the Demon's speeches were growing rather tiresome
Oranjestad, Aruba, po b 1200
Then, as the others had by this time moved away from the table, the kitten sprang upon the chair and put her paws upon the cloth to see what there was to eat Perhaps the genius noticed this rudeness, for he continued: I regret, of course, that you are a boy instead of a grown man, for it will appear singular to your friends that so thoughtless a youth should seemingly have mastered the secrets that have baffled your most learned scientists
From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 21 13:58:10 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:58:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: Message-ID: <000201c4b76d$e6b6e280$756a893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " The lunatic, the lover, and the poet Are of imagination all compact." ['A Midsummer Night's Dream'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:56 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > > That is the EBL - not the EBU (where DWS and > I must give our rulings). It is also called "guidance" - > suggestive perhaps but not binding instruction. > > Tim > +=+ Guidance given to affiliated NBOs with the weight of the EBL behind it is rather more than suggestive. The 1992 Commentary stated "we tender our views in a recommendatory mode". But it was not our style to intervene between the TD and his NBO or Sponsoring Organisation. For their instruction Directors should go to those to whom they are accountable. I am aware that in some locations TDs are somewhat starved of support, but this should not apply in the more sophisticated organizations. It is my hope, nevertheless, that the next Code of Laws will prove unambiguous and set in a terse style with holes filled where they exist. In my opinion the aim should be to provide support for the Director within the text of the laws since the Law Book is the one publication that reaches all. Since Law 58 is one of the more clearly stated laws in the 1997 book I did think it above argument. Clearly not, so we must look again. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 21 14:20:17 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:20:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <001101c4b6d3$0b9e60a0$2d222b52@Zog> <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001201c4b73e$b4bb5dd0$f59e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c4b770$f7e72f80$beb087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > Good. And you can change every other Law you > consider wrong as well. > > However, this thread is not about changing to a > different Law with a different meaning. > +=+ Not so much 'wrong' as 'wrongly interpreted', and not changing the law but giving the same law stronger expression so that it will not twist in the hands of the profanely impenitent. +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 21 14:51:21 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:51:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> At 06:18 AM 10/21/04, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>>Herman De Wael >>> >>>Surely if I detach the C2 from my hand and the SA drops along with it, >>>the playing of the C2 was not accidental and the C2 cannot become a >>>mPC. Probably what you have been confusing is that this playing of the >>>C2 can only be defined as "intentionally" and that the intention is >>>therefor important. >> >>Will you describe this occurrence as "playing two cards" or as >>"playing one >>card and then dropping another"? How will the other players at the table >>describe what happened? > >Does it really matter how we describe this? L58 does not make any >distinction. All we need are 2 face-up cards on the table. Surely you >don't imagine the occurence of a player playing 2 cards deliberately >is sufficiently frequent to warrant a law specifically designed for >this purpose. >So Law 58 deals with 2 far more frequent cases - a player playing one >deliberate card and dropping one other; and a player dropping 2 cards. >In both cases, L58 tells us that the player is allowed to choose which >card he wants to play, and his original intent is not important. He >may elect the other card if he so wishes. In both cases, L58 tells us >that the other card becomes a PC. L50 shall tell us whether that is a >minor or a major penalty card. For that distinction, the player's >intent IS important, and the TD should know what that intent was. In >most instances, the players (all 4 of them) will inform the TD >immediately of that intent ("I wanted to play the C2 and the SA >dropped on the table"). In some cases the players remain silent and >then the TD will have to ask. It really does matter. If it is manifest which card the player intended to play, he has played it, and has accidentally exposed the other card, in which case L58B ("If a player leads or plays two cards simultaneously...") does not apply. >>If the activity itself appeared as two separate actions: One action of >>playing a card and another action of dropping a card then we can tell >>from >>the activity itself which card was played and we do not need, nor may we >>allow the offender to designate under Law 58B2 which card he proposes to >>play. The intention of the offender is irrelevant as the card played >>can be >>determined unambiguously from the facts. > >In most cases we can indeed infer the intent from the facts. So why do >we have this discussion. David and I are saying that the TD needs to >discover the intent. You say he needs to discover the facts and then >he can infer the intent. Isn't that the same? > >And besides, I think you are wrong in that L58 does not apply to a >deliberate card with an additional dropped one. I believe the player >can still elect the inadvertent card instead (which he will do when >the inadvertent one is a high honour - better not have that as a >penalty card) > >>But be aware of Law 45A: Any card that is detached from a hand and >>faced on >>the table is "played" so even when it could appear that a player detached >>just one card for the purpose of playing it and then two (or more) cards >>became exposed on the table in this same act they are all considered >>"played" simultaneously. > >And so L58 applies, no? > >>This discussion has all the time concerned two cards played >>simultaneously >>to a trick and then the original intention of the offender has no >>relevance, >>Law 50B clearly states that any such case shall be considered "cards >>exposed >>accidentally". > >Well, we appear to differ on that point of view. > >>>You are correct, Sven, in saying that for purposes of L58, intent is >>>not needed, but look at this: >>> >>>If I play the SA and drop the C2, I would do better to designate the >>>SA, as the C2 becomes a mPC. >>>If I play the C2 and drop the S9, I would do better to designate the >>>C2, as the Sp becomes a mPC (but the C2 does not). >>>If I play the C2 and drop the SA, I would do better to designate the >>>SA, as the other one will always become a MPC, and the 2 will probably >>>harm less than the A. >>> >>>Agreed? >> >>No. >>You must make up your mind whether you are playing one card and (then) >>dropping another as two separate and distinguishable actions or you are >>playing two cards (simultaneously) to the trick. > >Have you ever played 2 cards to a trick? How many of them were >intended? 0 or 1, but never 2. > >>>Agreed that the intent must be known to the TD before he can explain >>>L58? >> >>On the contrary that question is NEVER relevant when applying Law 58B >>(nor >>is it relevant when applying Law 50B or for that sake Law 45A as >>pointed out >>by Grattan) > >Well, our discussion is not really about L58, I believe. >Do you agree with me on a slightly different case. A player drops the >S9 and S10 (both inadvertently). You inform him of his L58 >obligations, and you tell him that he should select which one he plays >in this trick. You also tell him that the other one will become a >penalty card, yes? And you tell him that if he selects the S10, the S9 >becomes a mPC, and if he selects the S9, the S10 becomes a MPC. Right? Unconvincing examples of discarding aces to gain an advantage by avoiding making them MPCs aside, this really reflects the typical case. How can the ruling depend on the players intention when he probably had none? He didn't care; the S9 and S10 are equals, and he wasn't planning to play two cards to the trick. He reached into his hand to pull either one of them, and accidentally pulled out two of them. I've certainly done that. Cards sometimes stick together. Sven's interpretation says that, since intent was not manifest, we presume it didn't exist. That seems entirely reasonable, given the difficulty of constructing a scenario in which one of the two cards would be preferable absent the exposure of the other, but after exposing the second card it becomes the preferable play due to the MPC/mPC distinction. Herman's interpretation requires us to determine intent. If it didn't exist, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS and rule the S10 to be the "intended" card. It thus becomes an MPC, with potentially significant consequences to the subsequent play. Since the player's intention *could not* have mattered one whit had he not accidentally played two cards simultaneously, ISTM that equity is far better served by Sven's interpretation. I'd certainly like to believe that this was what the authors of L58B2 were thinking about, not obscure cases of discarding high cards to avoid being forced to play them later, or obscure cheats involving signaling with mPCs. If not, as many others have suggested indirectly, why did they write "the player designates the card he proposes to play" rather than "the card the player intended to play becomes the played card"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 21 17:45:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <417764B5.2080608@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > No Tim, the Law is not. If I detach a card from my hand, that is not > an inadvertently exposed card. There is no law that says that two > cards, exposed together, are inadvertent. If there were we wouldn't be having this debate. However there is a perfectly reasonable *interpretation* of Law 50 (espoused by Grattan) that when two cards are played to a trick the *entire* exposure is considered inadvertent. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 21 17:45:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000201c4b76d$e6b6e280$756a893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************* > " The lunatic, the lover, and the poet > Are of imagination all compact." > ['A Midsummer Night's Dream'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:56 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > > > > > > > > That is the EBL - not the EBU (where DWS and > > I must give our rulings). It is also called "guidance" - > > suggestive perhaps but not binding instruction. > > > > Tim > > > +=+ Guidance given to affiliated NBOs with the > weight of the EBL behind it is rather more than > suggestive. The 1992 Commentary stated "we > tender our views in a recommendatory mode". > But it was not our style to intervene between > the TD and his NBO or Sponsoring Organisation. > For their instruction Directors should go to those > to whom they are accountable. Recommendations/suggestions/guidelines - whatever you want to call them. They are binding on neither SOs nor TDs. > I am aware that in some locations TDs are > somewhat starved of support, but this should not > apply in the more sophisticated organizations. It > is my hope, nevertheless, that the next Code of > Laws will prove unambiguous and set in a terse > style with holes filled where they exist. In my > opinion the aim should be to provide support for > the Director within the text of the laws since the > Law Book is the one publication that reaches all. An excellent, if probably unobtainable, ambition. > Since Law 58 is one of the more clearly stated > laws in the 1997 book I did think it above > argument. Clearly not, so we must look again. There is not, IMO, any ambiguity in Law 58. The problem is in law 50. When a player accidently plays two cards to the same trick we can interpret it as a) The player has played one card deliberately accidently exposing a second card at the same time. b) The player has accidently played two cards and thus neither should be deemed to have been exposed deliberately. I think the exact words suggest a) over b) but I prefer b) to a). Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 21 18:10:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:10:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4177ED78.4070309@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > It really does matter. If it is manifest which card the player intended > to play, he has played it, and has accidentally exposed the other card, > in which case L58B ("If a player leads or plays two cards > simultaneously...") does not apply. > This does not seem to be a very frequently used law then. If it only applies whenever a player deliberately plays two cards, we might just as well scrap this law altogether. And wasn't it Sven who already pointed us to L45C1. Any card of a defender, held such that it can be seen is played! IMO (no H needed) the case of playing the C2 and dropping the SA is a L58 one. The player is allowed to designate the SA and leave the C2 as a MPC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 21 18:14:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:14:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4177EE68.9030200@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >> Well, our discussion is not really about L58, I believe. >> Do you agree with me on a slightly different case. A player drops the >> S9 and S10 (both inadvertently). You inform him of his L58 >> obligations, and you tell him that he should select which one he plays >> in this trick. You also tell him that the other one will become a >> penalty card, yes? And you tell him that if he selects the S10, the S9 >> becomes a mPC, and if he selects the S9, the S10 becomes a MPC. Right? > > > Unconvincing examples of discarding aces to gain an advantage by > avoiding making them MPCs aside, this really reflects the typical case. > How can the ruling depend on the players intention when he probably had > none? He didn't care; the S9 and S10 are equals, and he wasn't planning > to play two cards to the trick. He reached into his hand to pull either > one of them, and accidentally pulled out two of them. I've certainly > done that. Cards sometimes stick together. > > Sven's interpretation says that, since intent was not manifest, we > presume it didn't exist. That seems entirely reasonable, given the > difficulty of constructing a scenario in which one of the two cards > would be preferable absent the exposure of the other, but after exposing > the second card it becomes the preferable play due to the MPC/mPC > distinction. > > Herman's interpretation requires us to determine intent. If it didn't > exist, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS and rule the S10 > to be the "intended" card. It thus becomes an MPC, with potentially > significant consequences to the subsequent play. > > Since the player's intention *could not* have mattered one whit had he > not accidentally played two cards simultaneously, ISTM that equity is > far better served by Sven's interpretation. I'd certainly like to > believe that this was what the authors of L58B2 were thinking about, not > obscure cases of discarding high cards to avoid being forced to play > them later, or obscure cheats involving signaling with mPCs. If not, as > many others have suggested indirectly, why did they write "the player > designates the card he proposes to play" rather than "the card the > player intended to play becomes the played card"? > No Eric, you have misunderstood. My example was there to elicit from Sven an admittance that he would explain the L50 difference before allowing the player to make his L58 designation. That is why in my example neither card was intended. I am quite aware that it is possible for both cards to be inadvertent. But the director should find out if any card was deliberate. It is, after all, one of the criteria to determine whether or not a PC can be a mPC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 21 13:48:13 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:48:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <41776329.6040808@hdw.be> References: <000c01c4b6ef$97aaf920$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41776329.6040808@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021082740.02aab960@pop.starpower.net> At 03:20 AM 10/21/04, Herman wrote: >Surely if I detach the C2 from my hand and the SA drops along with it, >the playing of the C2 was not accidental and the C2 cannot become a >mPC. Probably what you have been confusing is that this playing of the >C2 can only be defined as "intentionally" and that the intention is >therefor important. > >You are correct, Sven, in saying that for purposes of L58, intent is >not needed, but look at this: > >If I play the SA and drop the C2, I would do better to designate the >SA, as the C2 becomes a mPC. >If I play the C2 and drop the S9, I would do better to designate the >C2, as the Sp becomes a mPC (but the C2 does not). >If I play the C2 and drop the SA, I would do better to designate the >SA, as the other one will always become a MPC, and the 2 will probably >harm less than the A. What Herman seems to have demonstrated is that we are talking about angels and pinheads. Only the third case matters; the resolution of the debate is irrelevant in the first two cases. So we have a player who intended to play the C2, and, supposedly, now, after accidentally exposing the SA, wants to play it instead. If the SA would be a revoke, he may not choose to play it (L72B2). Since he would not have originally intended to revoke, we know that a red card was led. My hand-construction powers are growing weak with age, but I cannot imagine a scenario in which it would be to the players advantage to discard the SA now Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 21 18:39:35 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:39:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > Herman's interpretation requires us to determine > intent. If it didn't exist, we must give the benefit > of the doubt to the NOS and rule the S10 to be > the "intended" card. It thus becomes an MPC, > with potentially significant consequences to the > subsequent play. > > Since the player's intention *could not* have > mattered one whit had he not accidentally played > two cards simultaneously, ISTM that equity is > far better served by Sven's interpretation. I'd > certainly like to believe that this was what the > authors of L58B2 were thinking about, not > obscure cases of discarding high cards to avoid > being forced to play them later, or obscure cheats > involving signaling with mPCs. If not, as many > others have suggested indirectly, why did they > write "the player designates the card he proposes > to play" rather than "the card the player intended > to play becomes the played card"? > +=+ Commenting as one of the authors of L58B I can tell you that we were occupied with the resolution of a situation in which a player detaches two or more cards involuntarily from his hand and faces them simultaneously on the table in front of him. We were not concerned with intent (other than the subconscious intent which drives the arm and the hand - and which is not involved in dropping a card accidentally) - intent is not a requisite of Law 45A for playing a card. We determined that an involuntary facing of more than one card in this way was an inadvertent act and that the cards laid were inadvertently laid. Subject to Law 44C the player gets to choose which of the faced cards he will play and in the case of a defender the other inadvertently laid card(s) fall(s) into the care of Law 50. We thought that Kaplan's text expressed this clearly and I would still think so if some self-regarding minor disputants had not sought to argue otherwise, at the risk of leading the less experienced reader astray. It is a law to be expressed with greater precision and force next time around. The Director has no interest in what card the player originally intended to play and the opponents have no right to know. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 21 18:46:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:46:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c4b795$e7b44e20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > Do you agree with me on a slightly different case. A player drops the > S9 and S10 (both inadvertently). You inform him of his L58 > obligations, and you tell him that he should select which one he plays > in this trick. You also tell him that the other one will become a > penalty card, yes? And you tell him that if he selects the S10, the S9 > becomes a mPC, and if he selects the S9, the S10 becomes a MPC. Right? If this happens when the offender is in turn to play I rule Law 58B2 and then proceed to Law 50B if he is a defender. If the offender is not in turn to play when this happens I go directly to Law 50B and rule both cards major penalty cards. Until you recognize the commentaries issued in 1992 and Grattan's follow up posts I see no reason to make any further comments to your other items. Sven From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 21 18:47:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:47:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000201c4b770$f7e72f80$beb087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001101c4b6d3$0b9e60a0$2d222b52@Zog> <000901c4b6da$b76b12f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001201c4b73e$b4bb5dd0$f59e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000201c4b770$f7e72f80$beb087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >From: "David Stevenson" >> Good. And you can change every other Law you >> consider wrong as well. >> >> However, this thread is not about changing to a >> different Law with a different meaning. >+=+ Not so much 'wrong' as 'wrongly interpreted', >and not changing the law but giving the same law >stronger expression so that it will not twist in the >hands of the profanely impenitent. +=+ Maybe so. But some of the impenitent may be so because they feel their knowledge, experience and understanding rivals other people's with different views. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 21 18:52:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:52:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >Unconvincing examples of discarding aces to gain an advantage by >avoiding making them MPCs aside, this really reflects the typical case. >How can the ruling depend on the players intention when he probably had >none? He didn't care; the S9 and S10 are equals, and he wasn't >planning to play two cards to the trick. He reached into his hand to >pull either one of them, and accidentally pulled out two of them. This is by far the least convincing argument I have seen on this case. I do not believe that people reach into their hand for * one of two cards, not caring which, and * the two cards accidentally stick together, and * they are not any two cards, but the two they want to play, and * they both come out together. But if that is so, which must happen once in every 200,000 L58B cases, then L50B does not make a small card into an MPC. Fair enough. Now, let us consider what happens in the other 199,999 cases. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 21 18:54:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:54:09 +0200 Subject: Major/minor (Was: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9) In-Reply-To: <41778D6E.6010003@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c4b796$f74729b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > >>Next time I'll > >>play against you, when my partner plays the ace of spades, I'll > >>contribute the 5 of hearts (Italian signal signifying hearts) while > >>dropping a small spade. The mPC will not enable you to refuse a = heart > >>switch! > > > > > > Have you completely forgotten Law 72B1 ??? > > >=20 > I have not, but why would you need a law that requires deliberate > intent to cheating, if you can have a law that requires no such proof > of intention? ??????????? =20 > Suppose my S9 is sticking to the back of the H5. I think I have no > more spades so I signal with my H5. The S9 drops with it. So I have > now no choice but to play it to the trick. Is the H5 a MPC or a mPC? It is a minor penalty card. This ought to be obvious if you read, = understand and obey the clarification given by Grattan in 1992 and confirmed to = still be in effect. It is still the fact that law 72B1 applies and I simply do not = understand your question above about requiring deliberate intent to cheating. That = is the whole point with Law 72B1; it needs no such proof. Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 21 18:59:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:59:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <4177ED78.4070309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c4b797$c4fd3610$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............... > IMO (no H needed) the case of playing the C2 and dropping the SA is a > L58 one. The player is allowed to designate the SA and leave the C2 as > a MPC. Of course if they are exposed "simultaneously" Of course not if the C2 is first played alone and then in a separate action the SA is dropped. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 21 19:02:51 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:02:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <4177ED78.4070309@hdw.be> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> <4177ED78.4070309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021134337.02a2d0b0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:10 PM 10/21/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>It really does matter. If it is manifest which card the player >>intended to play, he has played it, and has accidentally exposed the >>other card, in which case L58B ("If a player leads or plays two cards >>simultaneously...") does not apply. > >This does not seem to be a very frequently used law then. If it only >applies whenever a player deliberately plays two cards, we might just >as well scrap this law altogether. >And wasn't it Sven who already pointed us to L45C1. Any card of a >defender, held such that it can be seen is played! If "any card of a defender, held such that it can be seen is played", then if the defender simultaneously holds two cards such that they both can be seen, they are simultaneously "played", and L58B applies. Intention has nothing to do with it. Note the critical difference between "held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face" (L45C1) and "in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face" (L49). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 21 19:09:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:09:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021082740.02aab960@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901c4b799$1c265510$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > If the SA would be a revoke, he may not choose to play it > (L72B2). Since he would not have originally intended to revoke, we > know that a red card was led. As a matter of fact the correct law in this case is L44C! > My hand-construction powers are growing weak with age, but I cannot > imagine a scenario in which it would be to the players advantage to > discard the SA now But if playing the SA is legal then the offender is perfectly free to = select that card as the card he proposes to play; with the consequence that the = C2 becomes a minor penalty card. However, after hearing Herman's intention on how to use this "feature" = as a means to give his partner a signal he could not otherwise have managed I shall just point out that Law 72B1 is still available. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 21 20:16:58 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:16:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021082740.02aab960@pop.starpower.net> References: <000c01c4b6ef$97aaf920$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41776329.6040808@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021082740.02aab960@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021151417.02ac3330@pop.starpower.net> The message below, with all of its talk of intention, was sent unintentionally. Please ignore it. I abandoned it at the point of typing "unless", and the rest got so complicated I abandoned the attempt. At 08:48 AM 10/21/04, I wrote: >At 03:20 AM 10/21/04, Herman wrote: > >>Surely if I detach the C2 from my hand and the SA drops along with >>it, the playing of the C2 was not accidental and the C2 cannot become >>a mPC. Probably what you have been confusing is that this playing of >>the C2 can only be defined as "intentionally" and that the intention >>is therefor important. >> >>You are correct, Sven, in saying that for purposes of L58, intent is >>not needed, but look at this: >> >>If I play the SA and drop the C2, I would do better to designate the >>SA, as the C2 becomes a mPC. >>If I play the C2 and drop the S9, I would do better to designate the >>C2, as the Sp becomes a mPC (but the C2 does not). >>If I play the C2 and drop the SA, I would do better to designate the >>SA, as the other one will always become a MPC, and the 2 will >>probably harm less than the A. > >What Herman seems to have demonstrated is that we are talking about >angels and pinheads. > >Only the third case matters; the resolution of the debate is >irrelevant in the first two cases. > >So we have a player who intended to play the C2, and, supposedly, now, >after accidentally exposing the SA, wants to play it instead. > >If the SA would be a revoke, he may not choose to play it >(L72B2). Since he would not have originally intended to revoke, we >know that a red card was led. > >My hand-construction powers are growing weak with age, but I cannot >imagine a scenario in which it would be to the players advantage to >discard the SA now > > >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 Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 21 21:24:10 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:24:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021152229.02ac3960@pop.starpower.net> At 01:52 PM 10/21/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>Unconvincing examples of discarding aces to gain an advantage by >>avoiding making them MPCs aside, this really reflects the typical >>case. How can the ruling depend on the players intention when he >>probably had none? He didn't care; the S9 and S10 are equals, and he >>wasn't planning to play two cards to the trick. He reached into his >>hand to pull either one of them, and accidentally pulled out two of them. > > This is by far the least convincing argument I have seen on this > case. I do not believe that people reach into their hand for > >* one of two cards, not caring which, and >* the two cards accidentally stick together, and >* they are not any two cards, but the two they want to play, and >* they both come out together. > > But if that is so, which must happen once in every 200,000 L58B > cases, then L50B does not make a small card into an MPC. Fair enough. > > Now, let us consider what happens in the other 199,999 cases. OK. Let us stipulate that in 199,999 out of 200,000 cases, the player intended to play card A, but card B stuck to it and was simultaneously faced. Now consider those cases where: * Both cards would be legal plays, and * card A, if deemed to have been played inadvertantly, would become a mPC, and * card B, if deemed to have been played inadvertantly, would (by virtue of its rank) become a MPC, and * it would be to the defender's (perceived) advantage, absent the irregular simultaneous plays, to play card A rather than card B, but * given the simultaneous plays, it would be to the defender's advantage to play card B and have card A be a mPC, rather than playing card A and having card B be a MPC, but * given the simultaneous plays, it would be to the defender's advantage to play card A and have card B be a MPC, rather than playing card B and having card A be a MPC. Now if that is so, which must happen once in every 200,000 L58B cases, then whether we accept David's/Herman's or Sven's/Grattan's interpretation matters, as it does in my 1-in-200,000 example case. In the remaining 199,998 cases it will make no difference whatsoever to the outcome. So what does this prove? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 21 22:11:28 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:11:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4b7b3$1ef86200$76d1883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 > >> > >>Surely if I detach the C2 from my hand > >>and the SA drops along with it, > >>the playing of the C2 was not accidental > >>and the C2 cannot become a mPC. Probably > >>what you have been confusing is that this > > playing of the > >>C2 can only be defined as "intentionally" and > >>that the intention is therefor important. > +=+ In these circumstances there is one played card, not two. The accidentally dropped card is an exposed card, the one deliberately laid is a played card. There is no choice of play, and the accidentally dropped card, inadvertently exposed, is a penalty card. Law 58 is not involved when the player detaches one card and accidentally drops the other..Here again no mention of intention, only questions of fact. Intention is irrelevant - "I played this one, dropped that one". The Director establishes the relevant mechanical facts, intention not being one of them. ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 21 23:20:15 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:20:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-05 References: Message-ID: <004201c4b7bc$260df4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> > > N-05 NY Prelim Draft 10/20/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Cukoff > Event: LM Pairs - 1st semifinal > > Bd: 23 Gene Freed > Dlr: South J6 > Vul: Both AJ5 > JT942 > T97 > Steve Garner Howard Weinstein > QT853 K92 > KQ63 T72 > A5 8 > 82 AKQ543 > Betty Ann Kennedy > A74 > 984 > KQ763 > J6 > > West North East South > --- --- --- Pass > 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass > 2H Pass 2S Pass > 4S(2) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Game Forcing > (2) Minimum > > The Facts: The contract was 4S down one after the lead of > the DJ. The director was called at the end of the hand. > > The play was as follows: Declarer won the DA and ruffed a > diamond at trick two. He now played the SK. Everyone > agreed that South thought a while before playing low. > Declarer now played the S9 from dummy and ducked it to > North's jack. > > North returned a club and played another club when in with > the HA, thus killing dummy's club suit. > > The Ruling: South's break in tempo before playing low on > the first round of trumps demonstrably suggest that she > holds the ace. When North was in with the SJ, it is > necessary for him to cash his HA before it goes away if > declarer had the SA. > > Because the UI suggested that it was safe to try and kill > the club suit, the directors felt that cashing the HA was > a logical alternative. The result was changed to 4S > making four for +620 for EW. > > The Appeal: NS appealed. North stated that when West > ruffed the diamond at trick two, it revealed that declarer > did not have the SA, since if he did have it, he would > just pull two trumps and run clubs, thus losing a spade > and a heart. Therefore, he played his partner for the SA > and continued a club to kill dummy. > > The Decision: A real possibility on this hand is that West > had A108xx, Kxxx, Ax, Jx. If he does, then he might well > pass the spade into the North hand in order to keep South > off lead so that a heart can't be led through his king. > Because of South's BIT, however, North had reason to > believe that was not West's hand and that South had the SA. > > From North's point of view, if West has the hypothetical > hand above, then he must cash the HA to hold the contract > to five. Since this is a logical alternative to the line > of play suggested by the BIT, the committee imposed it > (requiring North to take his HA when he was in) holding the > contract to EW +620. > > An AWMW was given to the appellants. North was in a > position to know from the UI that his partner had the SA. > This made the return very easy. Without that information, > the return is riskier. The committee believed that North > was in a good position to figure out the ethical > implication and the requirements for him, but he did not. > > Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Chris Willenken, > Lou Reich, David Berkowitz and Ellen Melson. ######### Marvin French: The litigious Mr. Freed is back again. Instead of paying out $50 fines, which are no longer in effect, he gets AWMWs. I wonder how many he has now. This one was particularly well-deserved. Good reasoning by the AC. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 22 00:19:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:19:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Iolanthe (was Cardiff 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ Not so much 'wrong' as 'wrongly interpreted', >>>and not changing the law but giving the same law >>>stronger expression so that it will not twist in the >>>hands of the profanely impenitent. +=+ David Stevenson: >>Maybe so. But some of the impenitent may be so >>because they feel their knowledge, experience and >>understanding rivals other people's with different >>views. W.S. Gilbert: >The Law is the true embodiment >Of everything that's excellent >It has no kind of fault or flaw >And I my Lords, embody the Law RJH: Despite David Stevenson's implicit assertion, I cannot agree that David embodies the Law on this particular issue. Imprimis. The legal maxim "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself) would define the playing of two cards simultaneously as inadvertent. Secundus. An indicative definition of inadvertent is also in the first sentence of Law 50B, "...exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick...". Tertius. Occam's Razor would rule that the Law 50B phrase "...exposed through deliberate play..." cannot apply to what has been previously indicatively defined as "...exposed inadvertently...". Quartus. Of course Edgar Kaplan's gnomic terseness gives the profanely impenitent license for twisted interpretations. So what? Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 22 01:28:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:28:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Iolanthe (was Cardiff 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] > I am aware that in some locations TDs are >somewhat starved of support, but this should not >apply in the more sophisticated organizations. It >is my hope, nevertheless, that the next Code of >Laws will prove unambiguous and set in a terse >style with holes filled where they exist. In my >opinion the aim should be to provide support for >the Director within the text of the laws since the >Law Book is the one publication that reaches all. > Since Law 58 is one of the more clearly stated >laws in the 1997 book I did think it above >argument. Clearly not, so we must look again. > ~ G ~ +=+ RJH: (a) In my opinion, terse is the exact opposite of what is required in the next edition of the Laws. In my opinion, Kaplan's habit of using one word - when a phrase with indicative examples would be clearer - has been a prime cause of the average TD misinterpreting the Laws. (b) Unambiguous is desirable, but practical is even better. Most of the Definitions in the current Laws are unambiguous, but the average TD does not refer to the Definitions in practice. So, a practical improvement in the 2006 Laws would be to *bold* those words in the main body of the Laws which have special meanings in the Definitions. This would encourage the average TD to discover those special meanings of notionally normal words. Even better would be to translate all words which are specially defined in the Definitions into Quenya, and use these special Quenya words throughout the 2006 Laws. The average TD would then have no choice but to refer to the Definitions to determine their rulings, thus causing their rulings to be more frequently legal. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 22 01:27:04 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:27:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >********************************* >" Procul, o procul este, profani." >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- > The Director has no interest in what card the >player originally intended to play and the opponents >have no right to know. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > phew! sorry I started this one. thanks grattan > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 22 01:55:18 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:55:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-13 Message-ID: Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a casebook. Attached is NYC case N-13. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru N-13 NY Prelim Draft 10/22/2004 Subject: UI DIC: Bates Event: Mixed Teams 2nd Qualifying Bd: 19 Ken Kranyak Dlr: South 842 Vul: EW AQ984 K2 A95 Renee Mancuso Geoff Hampson 1073 5 K103 765 Q84 10763 Q1082 KJ743 Laurie Kranyak AKQJ96 J2 AJ95 6 West North East South 2S(1) Pass 3S(2) Pass 4S(3) Pass 4NT Pass 5C Pass 5D Pass 6C(4) Pass 6H Pass 6S(5) Pass 6NT Pass 7S All Pass (1) 8 or more tricks in spades (ACOL) (2) minimum of one ace, spade support (3) noticeably slow (4) SQ and CK (5) BIT The Facts: The final contract was 7S making seven for +1510 for NS after the lead of the spade three. The director was called during the auction. The director determined that 2S was slow, 4S was slow, 6S was slow and that 4S shows the weakest of an ACOL bid hand. The Ruling: The contract was changed to 4S making four for NS +510. Breaks in tempo of 2S and 4S (with the information that 4S is the weakest type of ACOL hand) contributes to a choice of passing 4S (Law 16). Other facts: The screener changed the TD ruling from 4S +510 for NS to 6S and +1010 to NS. The Appeal: NS appealed and they were the only players who attended the hearing. North said he knew South had AKQ sixth, the DA, the CK, so could count 11 tricks. He knew that partner did not have a singleton (if she had, he could hope to make 7S by ruffing out hearts). He hoped that 6NT would take the same tricks as 6S. The Decision: The committee ruled 7S making. They observed the tempo break. They looked at the 6NT call. The hands they considered for a 6NT call were: AKQJxx, xx, Axx, Kx or AKQxxx, Jx, Ax, KQx for example would make 6S a better contract. That being so, the committee decided that while there was a break in tempo, it did not demonstrably suggest the 6NT call. They also felt that the combination of tempo breaks all indicated only doubt by South. Since her tempo was consistently slow, no conclusion could be drawn by North. Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Dick Budd, Ellen Melson and Ed Lazarus. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Oct 22 02:48:27 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:48:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-08 In-Reply-To: <001201c4b705$a9065320$0e9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <001201c4b705$a9065320$0e9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041021214122.01d55fa8@mail.comcast.net> At 08:33 PM 10/20/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Another good basic ruling by the TD and AC. IMO, the AC were also right to >impose a PP for West's failure to cue-bid over 4D; in spite of this an >AMWM is inappropriate because the AC ruling (6H-1) was *different* from >the TD ruling (5H-1). I would say that an AWMW cannot be given if the AC ruling is potentially better for the appellants than the TD ruling. For example, if the TD rules average-minus, and the AC rules thatt average-minus is an improper ruling and a score of either +400 or -100 must be given, this is potentially favorable to the appellants, and there can be no AWMW. If the TD rules -500, and the AC adjusts to -800, that is definitely worse for the appellants, and an AWMW can be given. The AWMW can be given here, because East should have known that he could gain nothing by claiming to bid 6H; 6H would be down the same one trick as 5H, so East would score no better. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 22 03:10:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-13 References: Message-ID: <006f01c4b7dc$59f47e60$089468d5@jeushtlj> > N-13 NY Prelim Draft 10/22/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Bates > Event: Mixed Teams 2nd Qualifying > > Bd: 19 Ken Kranyak > Dlr: South 842 > Vul: EW AQ984 > K2 > A95 > Renee Mancuso Geoff Hampson > 1073 5 > K103 765 > Q84 10763 > Q1082 KJ743 > Laurie Kranyak > AKQJ96 > J2 > AJ95 > 6 > > West North East South > 2S(1) > Pass 3S(2) Pass 4S(3) > Pass 4NT Pass 5C > Pass 5D Pass 6C(4) > Pass 6H Pass 6S(5) > Pass 6NT Pass 7S > All Pass > > (1) 8 or more tricks in spades (ACOL) > (2) minimum of one ace, spade support > (3) noticeably slow > (4) SQ and CK > (5) BIT > > The Facts: The final contract was 7S making seven for > +1510 for NS after the lead of the spade three. The > director was called during the auction. > > The director determined that 2S was slow, 4S was slow, 6S > was slow and that 4S shows the weakest of an ACOL bid > hand. > > The Ruling: The contract was changed to 4S making four > for NS +510. Breaks in tempo of 2S and 4S (with the > information that 4S is the weakest type of ACOL hand) > contributes to a choice of passing 4S (Law 16). > > Other facts: The screener changed the TD ruling from 4S > +510 for NS to 6S and +1010 to NS. > > The Appeal: NS appealed and they were the only players > who attended the hearing. North said he knew South had > AKQ sixth, the DA, the CK, so could count 11 tricks. He > knew that partner did not have a singleton (if she had, > he could hope to make 7S by ruffing out hearts). He hoped > that 6NT would take the same tricks as 6S. > > The Decision: The committee ruled 7S making. They > observed the tempo break. They looked at the 6NT call. > The hands they considered for a 6NT call were: AKQJxx, > xx, Axx, Kx or AKQxxx, Jx, Ax, KQx for example would make > 6S a better contract. That being so, the committee > decided that while there was a break in tempo, it did not > demonstrably suggest the 6NT call. > > They also felt that the combination of tempo breaks all > indicated only doubt by South. Since her tempo was > consistently slow, no conclusion could be drawn by North. > > Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Dick Budd, Ellen > Melson and Ed Lazarus. [Nigel] The AC leant over backwards to pander to the appellants. Perhaps they went too far. South signed off over North's 3S positive and later over North's grand slam tries of 5D and 6H. IMO, South's hesitations made North's third grand slam try of 6N safer. A cynic might even suspect that North had yet another go in case South really had the hesitations. Furthermore, South lacked the CK which North said South had shown. If this was unexpected UI, South may have felt that 7S was as likely to make as 6N, especially if North had a length in a round suit. And 7S was likely to go fewer off (for example: if opponents led a club and a finesse failed). Nevertheless, there would have been no appeal if East had HK; so perhaps, after all, the AC were right to rule "rub of the green". But I still have grave doubts about their ruling. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 22 04:18:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:18:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-10 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0xMC4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQpOLTEwICAgICAgICBOWSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBQcmVsaW0gRHJhZnQgMTAvMjIv MjAwNA0KU3ViamVjdDogICAgVUkNCkRJQzogICAgICAgIEN1a29mZg0KRXZlbnQ6ICAgICAgSU1Q IFBhaXJzIOKAkyAybmQgUXVhbGlmeWluZw0KDQpCZDogICA4ICAgICBSb24gR2VyYXJkDQpEbHI6 ICBXZXN0ICBBDQpWdWw6ICBOb25lICBBOQ0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQUtRMTA0Mw0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgMTA4NDINClJpY2hhcmQgUGF2bGljZWsgICAgICAgIE1pY2hhZWwgUG9sb3dhbg0KSjQyICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgS1E5ODY1DQpLUUoxMDc2ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAyDQo3NiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA5NjUNCkE1ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEo5Mw0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgU3RldmUgQmVhdHR5DQogICAgICAgICAgICAxMDczDQogICAgICAgICAgICA4NTQz DQogICAgICAgICAgICBKMg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgS1E3Ng0KDQpXZXN0ICAgICAgICBOb3J0aCAg ICAgICBFYXN0ICAgICAgICBTb3V0aA0KMUggICAgICAgICAgMkQgICAgICAgICAgM1MoMSkgICAg ICAgUGFzcw0KUGFzcyAgICAgICAgM05UKDIpICAgICAgUGFzcyAgICAgICAgNEMNCkFsbCBQYXNz DQoNCigxKSAgIFByZWVtcHRpdmUsIGFsZXJ0ZWQgYW5kIGV4cGxhaW5lZA0KKDIpICAgQWdyZWVk IEJJVA0KDQpUaGUgRmFjdHM6ICBUaGUgZmluYWwgY29udHJhY3Qgd2FzIDRDIG1ha2luZyBmb3Vy IGFmdGVyIHRoZQ0KbGVhZCBvZiB0aGUgSEssIGZvciBhIHNjb3JlIG9mICsxMzAgZm9yIE5TLiAg QWxsIHBsYXllcnMNCmFncmVlZCB0byB0aGUgQklUIGJ5IE5vcnRoIGJlZm9yZSBoZSBiaWQgM05U Lg0KDQpUaGUgUnVsaW5nOiBUaGUgQklUIG1hZGUgVUkgYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIFNvdXRoLiBQYXNz IGlzIGFuDQpMQS4gVGhlIGNvbnRyYWN0IHdhcyBjaGFuZ2VkIHRvIDNOVCBkb3duIDEgYW5kICs1 MCB0byBFVw0KKExhd3MgMTZBLCA3M0YsIDEyKS4NCg0KVGhlIEFwcGVhbDogTlMgYXBwZWFsZWQg YW5kIE5vcnRoIGF0dGVuZGVkIHRoZSBoZWFyaW5nLiBOUw0KcGxheSB0aGF0IGRlbGF5ZWQgTlQg YmlkcyBhZnRlciBhbiBvdmVyY2FsbCBhcmUgZm9yIHRha2VvdXQsDQpzdWdnZXN0aW5nIDYtNCBk aXN0cmlidXRpb24uIEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCAoMUgpIDJDICgySCkgUGFzcw0KUGFzcyAyTlQuIEEg ZGVsYXllZCAzTlQgaGFkIG5vdCBjb21lIHVwIGZvciB0aGUgcGFydG5lcnNoaXANCmFuZCB0aGVy ZSB3YXMgbm90aGluZyByZWxldmFudCBpbiB0aGVpciBzeXN0ZW0gbm90ZXMuIEF0IHRoZQ0KdGFi bGUsIHRoZSBmaXJzdCB0aGluZyBTb3V0aCBzYWlkIHdoZW4gdGhlIGRpcmVjdG9yIGFycml2ZWQN CndhcyAiSXQgbmV2ZXIgb2NjdXJyZWQgdG8gbWUgdGhhdCAzTlQgbWlnaHQgYmUgbmF0dXJhbC4i DQoNCk90aGVyIEZhY3RzOiBUaGUgc2NyZWVuaW5nIGRpcmVjdG9yIGRldGVybWluZWQgdGhhdCBh bGwNCmFncmVlZCB0aGF0IE5vcnRoIHRvb2sgcm91Z2hseSBvbmUgbWludXRlIGJlZm9yZSBiaWRk aW5nDQozTlQuDQoNClRoZSBEZWNpc2lvbjogTm9ydGggY291bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGNvbnNpZGVy aW5nIGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mDQphY3Rpb25zIGJlZm9yZSBoZSBjaG9zZSB0byBiaWQgM05ULiBQYXNz LCBkb3VibGUsIDRDIGFuZCA0RA0KbWlnaHQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIHBsYXVzaWJsZSBmcm9tIFNvdXRo J3MgcG9pbnQgb2Ygdmlldy4gIEhlDQphbHNvIGNvdWxkIGhhdmUgd2FudGVkIHRvIGJpZCBhIG5h dHVyYWwgM05UIGFuZCB3YXMNCmNvbmNlcm5lZCB0aGF0IGhpcyBwYXJ0bmVyIHdvdWxkIHRyZWF0 IGl0IGFzIHRha2VvdXQuDQoNClRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUganVkZ2VkIHRoYXQgTm9ydGgncyBCSVQg ZGlkIG5vdCAiZGVtb25zdHJhYmx5DQpzdWdnZXN0IiB0byBTb3V0aCB0aGF0IHJlbW92aW5nIDNO VCB3b3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWwNCnRoYW4gcGFzc2luZy4gU291dGggc2VsZWN0ZWQg YSBjYWxsIGNvbnNpc3RlbnQgd2l0aCBOUydzDQpzdGF0ZWQgcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgYWdyZWVtZW50 cywgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gYSBjYWxsIHN1Z2dlc3RlZA0KYnkgVUkuIFRodXMsIHRoZSB0YWJsZSBy ZXN1bHQgb2YgNEMgbWFraW5nIGZvdXIgd2FzIGFsbG93ZWQNCnRvIHN0YW5kLg0KDQpDb21taXR0 ZWU6IERvdWcgRG91YiwgQ2hhaXJwZXJzb24sIEJhcnQgQnJhbWxleSwgRWxsZW4NCk1lbHNvbiwg VG9tIENhcm1pY2hhZWwgYW5kIEVkIExhemFydXMu From jrmayne@mindspring.com Fri Oct 22 04:51:32 2004 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:51:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-10 References: Message-ID: <417883C4.6050803@mindspring.com> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: [Thanks to Richard for doing this!] > > N-10 NY Prelim Draft 10/22/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Cukoff > Event: IMP Pairs – 2nd Qualifying > > Bd: 8 Ron Gerard > Dlr: West A > Vul: None A9 > AKQ1043 > 10842 > Richard Pavlicek Michael Polowan > J42 KQ9865 > KQJ1076 2 > 76 965 > A5 J93 > Steve Beatty > 1073 > 8543 > J2 > KQ76 > > West North East South > 1H 2D 3S(1) Pass > Pass 3NT(2) Pass 4C > All Pass > > (1) Preemptive, alerted and explained > (2) Agreed BIT > > The Facts: The final contract was 4C making four after the > lead of the HK, for a score of +130 for NS. All players > agreed to the BIT by North before he bid 3NT. > > The Ruling: The BIT made UI available to South. Pass is an > LA. The contract was changed to 3NT down 1 and +50 to EW > (Laws 16A, 73F, 12). > > The Appeal: NS appealed and North attended the hearing. NS > play that delayed NT bids after an overcall are for takeout, > suggesting 6-4 distribution. For example, (1H) 2C (2H) Pass > Pass 2NT. A delayed 3NT had not come up for the partnership > and there was nothing relevant in their system notes. At the > table, the first thing South said when the director arrived > was "It never occurred to me that 3NT might be natural." > > Other Facts: The screening director determined that all > agreed that North took roughly one minute before bidding > 3NT. > > The Decision: North could have been considering a number of > actions before he chose to bid 3NT. Pass, double, 4C and 4D > might have been plausible from South's point of view. He > also could have wanted to bid a natural 3NT and was > concerned that his partner would treat it as takeout. > > The committee judged that North's BIT did not "demonstrably > suggest" to South that removing 3NT would be more successful > than passing. South selected a call consistent with NS's > stated partnership agreements, rather than a call suggested > by UI. Thus, the table result of 4C making four was allowed > to stand. My goodness, what would Ron Gerard say about this ruling? I'd have to believe he'd have 1,100 words of invective for this.... oh. Perhaps not, then. In any case, the use of 2N in competition as artificial is extremely frequent by experts; many play that 2N is never natural in competition (or close to it.) 3N is a substantially different bid. There is no evidence that the agreement of artificiality applied here. A slow 3N is less likely to be the right contract than a fast 3N. The committee's conclusion otherwise strikes me as bizarre. Pass is plainly an LA, and non-pass is suggested by the tank. This seems to me to be an easy one, and I think the director got it exactly right. --JRM From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 22 06:02:04 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:02:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-10 Message-ID: <008b01c4b7f4$463fb520$089468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] N-10 NY Prelim Draft 10/22/2004 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event: IMP Pairs - 2nd Qualifying Bd: 8 Ron Gerard Dlr: West A Vul: None A9 AKQ1043 10842 Richard Pavlicek Michael Polowan J42 KQ9865 KQJ1076 2 76 965 A5 J93 Steve Beatty 1073 8543 J2 KQ76 West North East South 1H 2D 3S(1) Pass Pass 3NT(2) Pass 4C All Pass (1) Preemptive, alerted and explained (2) Agreed BIT The Facts: The final contract was 4C making four after the lead of the HK, for a score of +130 for NS. All players agreed to the BIT by North before he bid 3NT. The Ruling: The BIT made UI available to South. Pass is an LA. The contract was changed to 3NT down 1 and +50 to EW (Laws 16A, 73F, 12). The Appeal: NS appealed and North attended the hearing. NS play that delayed NT bids after an overcall are for takeout, suggesting 6-4 distribution. For example, (1H) 2C (2H) Pass Pass 2NT. A delayed 3NT had not come up for the partnership and there was nothing relevant in their system notes. At the table, the first thing South said when the director arrived was "It never occurred to me that 3NT might be natural." Other Facts: The screening director determined that all agreed that North took roughly one minute before bidding 3NT. The Decision: North could have been considering a number of actions before he chose to bid 3NT. Pass, double, 4C and 4D might have been plausible from South's point of view. He also could have wanted to bid a natural 3NT and was concerned that his partner would treat it as takeout. The committee judged that North's BIT did not "demonstrably suggest" to South that removing 3NT would be more successful than passing. South selected a call consistent with NS's stated partnership agreements, rather than a call suggested by UI. Thus, the table result of 4C making four was allowed to stand. Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Bart Bramley, Ellen Melson, Tom Carmichael and Ed Lazarus. [Nigel] IMO The TD got it right. The AC's decision is inexplicable -- especially as Pavlicek is not even Italian :) If 3N really wasn't natural, then North's failure to alert (or pre-alert) deserves a PP. Given the failure to alert and no mention of this bizarre agreement on North-South's CC or system-notes, 3N should be assumed natural. Hence pass by North must be a logical alternative -- arguably, the *only* logical alternative -- unless you take into account South's hesitation which obviously expressed doubt. IMO, far from granting the appeal, the AC should have considered an appeal without merit warning. Two questions for Richard... (1) I assume that an artificial 3N is alertable since it is not a call *above* the level of 3N? Is that right? (2) What exactly is a "screening director"? Does he just check TD decisions? what's the difference between him and a Chief director? Thank you... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 22 06:52:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:52:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] The pitiful crutch Message-ID: Me Pard 1H 1S(1) 2C 2D (1) Alerted; natural but non-forcing Should I also alert pard's 2D bid? The ABF has a regulation stating that conventional calls (other than self-alerting calls) must always be alerted. However, my Symmetric Relay system does not use the pitiful crutch of fourth-suit forcing; 2D is natural. The ABF has a regulation that unusual natural calls must be alerted. Since the vast majority of Aussies use the pitiful crutch of fourth-suit forcing, am I still required to alert pard's unusually natural 2D? If so, would not my alert be misleading, given that opponents would be expecting the alert to signify the normal fourth-suit forcing? I have therefore adopted the policy of deliberately not alerting 2D in this sequence, so that the unusual non-alert of a fourth-suit bid (that everybody else automatically alerts) wakes up the opponents to my unusual fourth-suit non-forcing agreement. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 22 07:02:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:02:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Comments requested on ABF playoff regs Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/events/playoffs/index.html Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 22 07:46:47 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:46:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Olympiad Message-ID: <001201c4b803$12b63440$32c987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +=+ I return from Istanbul Nov 7 +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 22 07:57:31 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:57:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Iolanthe (was Cardiff 9) References: Message-ID: <000901c4b804$8640f340$10b187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Iolanthe (was Cardiff 9) > > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > > > I am aware that in some locations TDs are > >somewhat starved of support, but this should not > >apply in the more sophisticated organizations. It > >is my hope, nevertheless, that the next Code of > >Laws will prove unambiguous and set in a terse > >style with holes filled where they exist. In my > >opinion the aim should be to provide support for > >the Director within the text of the laws since the > >Law Book is the one publication that reaches all. > > Since Law 58 is one of the more clearly stated > >laws in the 1997 book I did think it above > >argument. Clearly not, so we must look again. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > RJH: > > (a) In my opinion, terse is the exact opposite of > what is required in the next edition of the Laws. > In my opinion, Kaplan's habit of using one word - > when a phrase with indicative examples would be > clearer - has been a prime cause of the average TD > misinterpreting the Laws. > > (b) Unambiguous is desirable, but practical is even > better. Most of the Definitions in the current > Laws are unambiguous, but the average TD does not > refer to the Definitions in practice. So, a > practical improvement in the 2006 Laws would be to > *bold* those words in the main body of the Laws > which have special meanings in the Definitions. > This would encourage the average TD to discover > those special meanings of notionally normal words. > > Even better would be to translate all words which > are specially defined in the Definitions into > Quenya, and use these special Quenya words > throughout the 2006 Laws. The average TD would > then have no choice but to refer to the Definitions > to determine their rulings, thus causing their > rulings to be more frequently legal. > > :-) > +=+ In a subcommittee of eight we have rarely more than nine to twelve versions for everything. However, the sturdy no-nonsense NZ Chairman informs me that in the final phase he will sort out wording with me to express anything the party might agree - with a North American oversight for usages. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 08:23:48 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:23:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021134337.02a2d0b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> <4177ED78.4070309@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021134337.02a2d0b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4178B584.1080204@hdw.be> Eric is a good blml-er: Eric Landau wrote: > At 01:10 PM 10/21/04, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> It really does matter. If it is manifest which card the player >>> intended to play, he has played it, and has accidentally exposed the >>> other card, in which case L58B ("If a player leads or plays two cards >>> simultaneously...") does not apply. >> Eric writes A. >> >> This does not seem to be a very frequently used law then. If it only >> applies whenever a player deliberately plays two cards, we might just >> as well scrap this law altogether. >> And wasn't it Sven who already pointed us to L45C1. Any card of a >> defender, held such that it can be seen is played! > Herman replies non-A. > > If "any card of a defender, held such that it can be seen is played", > then if the defender simultaneously holds two cards such that they both > can be seen, they are simultaneously "played", and L58B applies. > Intention has nothing to do with it. > Eric agrees with Herman's non-A. > Note the critical difference between "held so that it is possible for > his partner to see its face" (L45C1) and "in a position in which his > partner could possibly see its face" (L49). > and he does so without admitting that he was wrong in the firswt place, but retains his original statement nevertheless. Well done, Eric! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 08:32:04 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:32:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4178B774.5030906@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ Commenting as one of the authors of L58B > I can tell you that we were occupied with the > resolution of a situation in which a player detaches > two or more cards involuntarily from his hand and > faces them simultaneously on the table in front of him. > We were not concerned with intent (other than the > subconscious intent which drives the arm and the hand > - and which is not involved in dropping a card accidentally) > - intent is not a requisite of Law 45A for playing a card. > We determined that an involuntary facing of more than > one card in this way was an inadvertent act and that the > cards laid were inadvertently laid. Subject to Law 44C > the player gets to choose which of the faced cards he > will play and in the case of a defender the other > inadvertently laid card(s) fall(s) into the care of Law 50. > We thought that Kaplan's text expressed this clearly and > I would still think so if some self-regarding minor > disputants had not sought to argue otherwise, at the risk > of leading the less experienced reader astray. It is a law > to be expressed with greater precision and force next > time around. > The Director has no interest in what card the > player originally intended to play and the opponents > have no right to know. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I agree with you up to a point, Grattan. The intent is not needed for L58 purposes. The player can choose any card, regardless of his original intent. L58 has one other very important consequence. It tells us that the non-selected card _becomes_ a PC. Without L58, we could fall into the trap of making _both_ cards PC, of course Major ones, and making the declarer able to choose. Such is not the case. If only 2 cards are exposed, L58 makes it possible for one to be selected by the player himself, and for the other to become a mPC, if it meets the criteria. Now we all know these criteria: - there can be only one (true in the case where only 2 cards were played and one is selected) - it is a card below a ten - it is played inadvertently. Now Sven has issued an interpretation under which L58 cases always lead to inadvertency. I don't buy that one, and I doubt if many of you buy it. Grattan, do you believe that L58 cases are always inadvertent? If you don't, Grattan, then that third condition is still important. So if the TD wants to do his job well, he should inform the player, before he asks him to select one card, what shall happen to the other one. In that sense, the inadvertent nature of one or both of the played cards needs to be known to the TD. Do you see that for that reason, the intent needs to be known to the TD? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 08:35:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:35:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000601c4b795$e7b44e20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4b795$e7b44e20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4178B83C.3020109@hdw.be> Sven, try to be helpful: Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>Do you agree with me on a slightly different case. A player drops the >>S9 and S10 (both inadvertently). You inform him of his L58 >>obligations, and you tell him that he should select which one he plays >>in this trick. You also tell him that the other one will become a >>penalty card, yes? And you tell him that if he selects the S10, the S9 >>becomes a mPC, and if he selects the S9, the S10 becomes a MPC. Right? > > > If this happens when the offender is in turn to play I rule Law 58B2 and > then proceed to Law 50B if he is a defender. > Yes, this happens when the offender is in turn. Yes you apply L58B2, yes, you apply L50. Do you do as I stated above? Do you explain the difference between the 9 and 10 at this stage or don't you? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 08:48:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:48:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <4178B83C.3020109@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c4b80b$79c98ee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > >>Do you agree with me on a slightly different case. A player drops = the > >>S9 and S10 (both inadvertently). You inform him of his L58 > >>obligations, and you tell him that he should select which one he = plays > >>in this trick. You also tell him that the other one will become a > >>penalty card, yes? And you tell him that if he selects the S10, the = S9 > >>becomes a mPC, and if he selects the S9, the S10 becomes a MPC. = Right? > > > > > > If this happens when the offender is in turn to play I rule Law 58B2 = and > > then proceed to Law 50B if he is a defender. > > >=20 > Yes, this happens when the offender is in turn. Yes you apply L58B2, > yes, you apply L50. Do you do as I stated above? > Do you explain the difference between the 9 and 10 at this stage or > don't you? I have long ago answered this question affirmative by stating that = failure to do so is an error by the Director violating Law 10C1. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 08:55:41 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:55:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000001c4b7b3$1ef86200$76d1883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <000001c4b7b3$1ef86200$76d1883e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4178BCFD.3080007@hdw.be> I am sorry, Grattan, but that is not the way I've been taught to direct: Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > +=+ In these circumstances there is one played card, > not two. The accidentally dropped card is an exposed > card, the one deliberately laid is a played card. L45C1: any exposed card by a defender is a played card. If, at my turn to play, I drop one card on the table, as defender, I cannot say "oh no - this is a minor penalty card". > There is no choice of play, and the accidentally > dropped card, inadvertently exposed, is a penalty card. > Law 58 is not involved when the player detaches one > card and accidentally drops the other..Here again no > mention of intention, only questions of fact. Intention > is irrelevant - "I played this one, dropped that one". I would rather say that intention is very important here! > The Director establishes the relevant mechanical facts, > intention not being one of them. ~ G ~ +=+ > Since the word "played" is defined by the lawbook, a player can never say "I played the card" or "I dropped the card". The laws define what card is played, not the player! The player can state the facts: "I wanted to play this card, pulled it out and held it here", the laws tell us that it is played if partner could have seen it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 08:58:18 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:58:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041021082740.02aab960@pop.starpower.net> References: <000c01c4b6ef$97aaf920$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41776329.6040808@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021082740.02aab960@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4178BD9A.1040907@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:20 AM 10/21/04, Herman wrote: > >> Surely if I detach the C2 from my hand and the SA drops along with it, >> the playing of the C2 was not accidental and the C2 cannot become a >> mPC. Probably what you have been confusing is that this playing of the >> C2 can only be defined as "intentionally" and that the intention is >> therefor important. >> >> You are correct, Sven, in saying that for purposes of L58, intent is >> not needed, but look at this: >> >> If I play the SA and drop the C2, I would do better to designate the >> SA, as the C2 becomes a mPC. >> If I play the C2 and drop the S9, I would do better to designate the >> C2, as the Sp becomes a mPC (but the C2 does not). >> If I play the C2 and drop the SA, I would do better to designate the >> SA, as the other one will always become a MPC, and the 2 will probably >> harm less than the A. > > > What Herman seems to have demonstrated is that we are talking about > angels and pinheads. > > Only the third case matters; the resolution of the debate is irrelevant > in the first two cases. > > So we have a player who intended to play the C2, and, supposedly, now, > after accidentally exposing the SA, wants to play it instead. > > If the SA would be a revoke, he may not choose to play it (L72B2). > Since he would not have originally intended to revoke, we know that a > red card was led. > > My hand-construction powers are growing weak with age, but I cannot > imagine a scenario in which it would be to the players advantage to > discard the SA now > He might be on lead! If he designates the SA, he plays it (presumably keeps the lead) and then he has to play the C2 to the next trick (something which he intended all along). If he designates the C2, he will lose the lead, and be faced with a SA penalty card. But it's not really important if we can or cannot construct cases where it matters, is it? After all, this is blml. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 09:06:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:06:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] L50 - Major or minor Message-ID: <4178BF7F.1070303@hdw.be> And now, at last, we are getting to the crux of the problem. (I've started a new thread) Sven Pran wrote: > Eric Landau > >>If the SA would be a revoke, he may not choose to play it >>(L72B2). Since he would not have originally intended to revoke, we >>know that a red card was led. > > > As a matter of fact the correct law in this case is L44C! > > >>My hand-construction powers are growing weak with age, but I cannot >>imagine a scenario in which it would be to the players advantage to >>discard the SA now > > > But if playing the SA is legal then the offender is perfectly free to select > that card as the card he proposes to play; with the consequence that the C2 > becomes a minor penalty card. > We are not having a discussion about L58 at all. We are having a discussion about L50. A player detaches the C2 from his hand, intending to play it. At the same time, the SA drops on the table. The player designates the SA as the card he wishes to play, and Sven is quite right that he is allowed to do so, his original intent is of no importance in applyin L58. So the C2 becomes a PC. Major or Minor? Sven says minor, I say Major. > However, after hearing Herman's intention on how to use this "feature" as a > means to give his partner a signal he could not otherwise have managed I > shall just point out that Law 72B1 is still available. > I know, but that hardly matters, does it? We are not talking about deliberate cheating, and we want to guard NOS against inadvertent advantages as well - and the mPC does just that! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 09:17:50 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:17:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <4178BCFD.3080007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c4b80f$9f07b840$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > I am sorry, Grattan, but that is not the way I've been taught to direct: That is a shame on your teachers then. ........... > If, at my turn to play, I drop one card on the table, as defender, I > cannot say "oh no - this is a minor penalty card". You are perfectly right! You cannot and may not, but the Director can. Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Oct 22 09:29:32 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:29:32 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC0D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: I am sorry, Grattan, but that is not the way I've been taught to direct: Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > +=3D+ In these circumstances there is one played card, > not two. The accidentally dropped card is an exposed > card, the one deliberately laid is a played card. L45C1: any exposed card by a defender is a played card. If, at my turn to play, I drop one card on the table, as defender, I=20 cannot say "oh no - this is a minor penalty card". ----- Herman: Where you totally asleep? Sure you can! L45C1: A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). L50B: A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards. Is it the word "held" in L45C1 you don't understand? Or is it "dropping a card accidentally" in L50B you don't understand? L45C1 does NOT say that a dropped card must be played. L50B clearly states that a accidentally dropped card becomes a mPC (if it's a single card below ten). What's the problem? Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- > There is no choice of play, and the accidentally > dropped card, inadvertently exposed, is a penalty card. > Law 58 is not involved when the player detaches one > card and accidentally drops the other..Here again no=20 > mention of intention, only questions of fact. Intention > is irrelevant - "I played this one, dropped that one". I would rather say that intention is very important here! > The Director establishes the relevant mechanical facts,=20 > intention not being one of them. ~ G ~ +=3D+ >=20 Since the word "played" is defined by the lawbook, a player can never=20 say "I played the card" or "I dropped the card". The laws define what=20 card is played, not the player! The player can state the facts: "I wanted to play this card, pulled it=20 out and held it here", the laws tell us that it is played if partner=20 could have seen it. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt@T-Online.de Fri Oct 22 10:32:00 2004 From: PeterEidt@T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: 22 Oct 2004 09:32 GMT Subject: [blml] L50 - Major or minor Message-ID: <1CKvmm-0FqVkG0@fwd03.sul.t-online.com> Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] > We are not having a discussion about L58 at all. > We are having a discussion about L50. >=20 > A player detaches the C2 from his hand, intending to play it. At the=20 > same time, the SA drops on the table. The player designates the SA as=20 > the card he wishes to play, and Sven is quite right that he is allowed=20 > to do so, his original intent is of no importance in applyin L58. >=20 > So the C2 becomes a PC. Major or Minor? >=20 > Sven says minor, I say Major. >=20 > --=20 > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium Hello, I go with Herman, although the original intent is of no importance in applying L58, it is of essential importance in applying L50B. C2 ist not exposed inadvertently,= =20 but was exposed thru deliberate play. Therefore Major PC. Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany From david.barton@boltblue.com Fri Oct 22 11:15:37 2004 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:15:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error Message-ID: <003101c4b820$1a867460$0307a8c0@PlusNet> In a privately played match last night the following incident occured on which I would welcome any observations. W N E S 1N P 2S(a) P 3C(a) P P XP(b) P (c) (a) alerted (b) asked about the alerts and informed transfer to clubs pulled out a double and a pass card and replaced the double card into the box. It was obvious to all the other players that N intended to double. (c) South noticing that North's double had "disappeared" and that there were now 4 consecutive passes asked "What is going on?" How do you rule? In particular (a) does South's drawing attention to North's mechanical error preclude any correction? (b) is any correction possible after 3 passes? (c) If South had called for a Director for the 4th pass would you allow N to wake up. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.280 / Virus Database: 264.12.1 - Release Date: 21/10/2004 From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 12:01:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:01:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <003101c4b820$1a867460$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <000d01c4b826$7f9bee10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Barton > In a privately played match last night the following incident occured > on which I would welcome any observations. >=20 > W N E S > 1N P > 2S(a) P 3C(a) P > P XP(b) P (c) >=20 > (a) alerted > (b) asked about the alerts and informed transfer to clubs > pulled out a double and a pass card and replaced the > double card into the box. It was obvious to all the other > players that N intended to double. If North pulled two cards simultaneously from the same compartment in = the bid box and then makes his call with one of them returning the other to = the bid box it is a bit difficult to understand how it could be "obvious" to everybody at the table that his intention was to make the other call? = This is a situation that happens very easily and usually causes little or no problem. But I'll leave it right there. > (c) South noticing that North's double had "disappeared" > and that there were now 4 consecutive passes asked > "What is going on?" >=20 > How do you rule? > In particular > (a) does South's drawing attention to North's mechanical > error preclude any correction? Accepting as a fact in evidence that North never intended to pass; his = pass was an accidental mistake, he may until partner makes a call correct his mistake without any penalty provided there is no "pause for thought" = between discovering his mistake and indicating his intention. (Law 25A) The laws are silent on how to treat such cases when partner has no = further turn to call (because of three consecutive passes after a bid has been = made or four consecutive passes when no bid has been made). Note that the = auction does not end until the opening lead has been made face up. IMO the offender should be allowed a Law 25A correction until his = partner takes any action like asking any question or making any remark on the auction, or until the opening lead is made face up. In this case I shall then assume that the answer is yes, South's drawing attention to North's mechanical error precludes any correction.=20 > (b) is any correction possible after 3 passes? IMO yes, see above. > (c) If South had called for a Director for the 4th pass would > you allow N to wake up. No, again see above. Regards Sven From PeterEidt@T-Online.de Fri Oct 22 12:12:00 2004 From: PeterEidt@T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: 22 Oct 2004 11:12 GMT Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error Message-ID: <1CKxME-0S1c2q0@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> Hello David, David Barton wrote: > In a privately played match last night the following incident occured > on which I would welcome any observations. >=20 > W N E S > 1N P > 2S(a) P 3C(a) P > P XP(b) P (c) >=20 > (a) alerted > (b) asked about the alerts and informed transfer to clubs > pulled out a double and a pass card and replaced the > double card into the box. It was obvious to all the other > players that N intended to double. > (c) South noticing that North's double had "disappeared" > and that there were now 4 consecutive passes asked > "What is going on?" >=20 > How do you rule? a perfect situation for L25 A I believe this is one of the situations it was made for > In particular > (a) does South's drawing attention to North's mechanical > error preclude any correction? no > (b) is any correction possible after 3 passes? yes, we are still in the auction period (no lead) > (c) If South had called for a Director for the 4th pass would=20 > you allow N to wake up. of course; wake up means he was aslept therefore no change of mind, therefore L25 A regards Peter Eidt From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 22 12:30:29 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:30:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <000d01c4b826$7f9bee10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c4b826$7f9bee10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: > The laws are silent on how to treat such cases when partner has no > further > turn to call (because of three consecutive passes after a bid has been > made > or four consecutive passes when no bid has been made). If partner has no further turn to call, that condition for correcting an inadvertent call under L25A ("until his partner makes a call") will always be met. So we only have to consider whether the other two conditions have also been met. > Note that the auction > does not end until the opening lead has been made face up. > > IMO the offender should be allowed a Law 25A correction until his > partner > takes any action like asking any question or making any remark on the > auction, or until the opening lead is made face up. Unless we believe that being prompted by partner makes the "without pause for thought" clause impossible to fulfill, I can't see the legal basis for your view. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 12:37:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:37:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <1CKxME-0S1c2q0@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <000e01c4b82b$8bb47320$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Peter Eidt ........... > > W N E S > > 1N P > > 2S(a) P 3C(a) P > > P XP(b) P (c) > > > > (a) alerted > > (b) asked about the alerts and informed transfer to clubs > > pulled out a double and a pass card and replaced the > > double card into the box. It was obvious to all the other > > players that N intended to double. > > (c) South noticing that North's double had "disappeared" > > and that there were now 4 consecutive passes asked > > "What is going on?" > > > > How do you rule? > > a perfect situation for L25 A > I believe this is one of the situations it was made for > > > In particular > > (a) does South's drawing attention to North's mechanical > > error preclude any correction? > > no ....... (skipped alternative b) > > (c) If South had called for a Director for the 4th pass would > > you allow N to wake up. > > of course; wake up means he was aslept therefore no change of mind, > therefore L25 A I do not necessarily disagree with this as a possible alternative solution to the one I suggested on a point where the laws are silent. But I should like Peter to give some attention to the following case which is not really too different from the case presented: In an auction South exclaims loudly right after North has made a particular call which on its face appears reasonable (at least to their opponents): "Hey, you didn't intend to make that call did you!?" Will you allow a Law 25A ruling if North then says "no, of course not"? Please consider the implications of your ruling. (Laws 73A, 73B and 73C) Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 12:48:32 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:48:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c4b82d$0e7e3dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > The laws are silent on how to treat such cases when partner has no > > further > > turn to call (because of three consecutive passes after a bid has = been > > made > > or four consecutive passes when no bid has been made). >=20 > If partner has no further turn to call, that condition for correcting > an inadvertent call under L25A ("until his partner makes a call") will > always be met. So we only have to consider whether the other two > conditions have also been met. >=20 > > Note that the auction > > does not end until the opening lead has been made face up. > > > > IMO the offender should be allowed a Law 25A correction until his > > partner > > takes any action like asking any question or making any remark on = the > > auction, or until the opening lead is made face up. >=20 > Unless we believe that being prompted by partner makes the "without > pause for thought" clause impossible to fulfill, I can't see the legal > basis for your view. As I said; the laws are silent so there is no legal basis for any view. = We have to try figuring out the solution that best fits the spirit of the = laws. Literally taken "until partner makes a call" gives the offender until = the next board to make his L25A change! Say that a player records the result on a board as some doubled contract being defeated and the opponents object, the contract was not doubled. = The player then says: "What!? Didn't I double that contract; well that = certainly was my intention and my partner has not made any further call so I = demand a Law 25A correction!"=20 I do hope we agree that this will not be granted him? Sven=20 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 22 13:03:29 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:03:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <000f01c4b82d$0e7e3dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c4b82d$0e7e3dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <62E91287-2422-11D9-A698-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:48, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >> On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The laws are silent on how to treat such cases when partner has no >>> further >>> turn to call (because of three consecutive passes after a bid has >>> been >>> made >>> or four consecutive passes when no bid has been made). >> >> If partner has no further turn to call, that condition for correcting >> an inadvertent call under L25A ("until his partner makes a call") will >> always be met. So we only have to consider whether the other two >> conditions have also been met. >> >>> Note that the auction >>> does not end until the opening lead has been made face up. >>> >>> IMO the offender should be allowed a Law 25A correction until his >>> partner >>> takes any action like asking any question or making any remark on the >>> auction, or until the opening lead is made face up. >> >> Unless we believe that being prompted by partner makes the "without >> pause for thought" clause impossible to fulfill, I can't see the legal >> basis for your view. > > As I said; the laws are silent so there is no legal basis for any > view. We > have to try figuring out the solution that best fits the spirit of the > laws. > > Literally taken "until partner makes a call" gives the offender until > the > next board to make his L25A change! Well, until the end of the auction period. > > Say that a player records the result on a board as some doubled > contract > being defeated and the opponents object, the contract was not doubled. > The > player then says: "What!? Didn't I double that contract; well that > certainly > was my intention and my partner has not made any further call so I > demand a > Law 25A correction!" > > I do hope we agree that this will not be granted him? I do agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but I imagine that the definition of the end of the auction period in L17E will enable us to prevent it from happening. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 22 13:10:59 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:10:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <000e01c4b82b$8bb47320$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c4b82b$8bb47320$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6F2721C4-2423-11D9-A698-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:37, Sven Pran wrote: > In an auction South exclaims loudly right after North has made a > particular > call which on its face appears reasonable (at least to their > opponents): > "Hey, you didn't intend to make that call did you!?" > > Will you allow a Law 25A ruling if North then says "no, of course not"? We'd have to consider whether we or not we accept that as being the truth. > > Please consider the implications of your ruling. (Laws 73A, 73B and > 73C) Is there any reason why we should not (in principle) accept a request for a L25A correction, while also penalising the improper communication that prompted it? Note that I'm not claiming this to be the accepted view of this situation - I'm waiting to learn about that here from those with more experience than me - I'm just considering the logic of Sven's argument. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 22 13:21:49 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:21:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <4178B774.5030906@hdw.be> References: <000801c4b744$33a46f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41778CE3.4010607@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041021090336.02abac80@pop.starpower.net> <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4178B774.5030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041022081648.02b40c60@pop.starpower.net> At 03:32 AM 10/22/04, Herman wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ Commenting as one of the authors of L58B >>I can tell you that we were occupied with the >>resolution of a situation in which a player detaches >>two or more cards involuntarily from his hand and >>faces them simultaneously on the table in front of him. >>We were not concerned with intent (other than the subconscious intent >>which drives the arm and the hand >> - and which is not involved in dropping a card accidentally) >> - intent is not a requisite of Law 45A for playing a card. We >> determined that an involuntary facing of more than one card in this >> way was an inadvertent act and that the cards laid were >> inadvertently laid. Subject to Law 44C the player gets to choose >> which of the faced cards he will play and in the case of a defender >> the other inadvertently laid card(s) fall(s) into the care of Law >> 50. We thought that Kaplan's text expressed this clearly and I would >> still think so if some self-regarding minor disputants had not >> sought to argue otherwise, at the risk of leading the less >> experienced reader astray. It is a law to be expressed with greater >> precision and force next time around. >> The Director has no interest in what card the >>player originally intended to play and the opponents >>have no right to know. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >I agree with you up to a point, Grattan. >The intent is not needed for L58 purposes. The player can choose any >card, regardless of his original intent. >L58 has one other very important consequence. It tells us that the >non-selected card _becomes_ a PC. Without L58, we could fall into the >trap of making _both_ cards PC, of course Major ones, and making the >declarer able to choose. Such is not the case. If only 2 cards are >exposed, L58 makes it possible for one to be selected by the player >himself, and for the other to become a mPC, if it meets the criteria. > >Now we all know these criteria: >- there can be only one (true in the case where only 2 cards were >played and one is selected) >- it is a card below a ten >- it is played inadvertently. > >Now Sven has issued an interpretation under which L58 cases always >lead to inadvertency. I don't buy that one, and I doubt if many of you >buy it. Grattan, do you believe that L58 cases are always inadvertent? > >If you don't, Grattan, then that third condition is still important. But of course L58B cases are always inadvertant! L58B applies when a player simultaneously plays two cards to a trick; nobody does that intentionally. In Herman's own words, "If it only applies whenever a player deliberately plays two cards, we might just as well scrap this law altogether." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Oct 22 13:31:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Commenting as one of the authors of L58B > I can tell you that we were occupied with the > resolution of a situation in which a player detaches > two or more cards involuntarily from his hand and > faces them simultaneously on the table in front of him. A pretty rare case I'd have thought (never seen it). The common case is where a player detaches one card voluntarily and a second is involuntarily detached at the same time (I have seen this often). However, regardless of which of the above cases (rare or common) was in the writers' minds the words of Law58 are sufficiently clear that BOTH cases takes via L58b2 to Law 50. Stepping through we arrive at Law 50b and might rule that because playing two cards to a trick is (almost always) an inadvertent action the card is an mPC. More likely we will read the words and decide that we must *discover* whether the penalty card was one deliberately exposed by the offender (ie the one he intended to play when he accidently played 2 cards) or the one he played accidentally. If the writers did not intend us to take this latter step they should consider their previous efforts a failure and do something about it next time around. Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 13:45:43 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:45:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC0D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC0D@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <417900F7.8070408@hdw.be> I am always (trying to be) willing to consider that I am wrong whenever a discussion seems to carry on and on. Harald has touched upon another reason why Sven might be correct in the first place. Let's recapitulate. Suppose we have a scenario in which L58 applies. It refers to L50. I believe no-one questions the fact that the TD ought to explain the consequences of the PC before the player needs to elect the card he will play to the trick. This of course means that the TD must be able to decide whether this is a mPC or a MPC, and that in turn means that the intent needs to be known. Yet Sven maintains, against all arguments, that this intent is not important. I have reduced this to a different problem. Sven maintains (probably) that whenever L58 applies, the conditions for determining the m or M nature of the PC are already known. I assume he knows the level of the card, I assume he knows there is only one of them, so the only thing that Sven needs to know more is the (in)advertency. I conclude that Sven believes that whenever L58 applies, the remaining card is always an inadvertent one. He concludes this from the wording in L50 ("as in playing to a trick"). I don't believe this is the right approach and I have stated so quite sufficiently. However, now: Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > I am sorry, Grattan, but that is not the way I've been taught to direct: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >>+=+ In these circumstances there is one played card, >>not two. The accidentally dropped card is an exposed >>card, the one deliberately laid is a played card. > > > L45C1: any exposed card by a defender is a played card. > If, at my turn to play, I drop one card on the table, as defender, I > cannot say "oh no - this is a minor penalty card". > ----- > Herman: Where you totally asleep? Sure you can! > > L45C1: A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to > see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has > already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). > > L50B: A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed > inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card > accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or > any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or > in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one > defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major > penalty cards. > > Is it the word "held" in L45C1 you don't understand? > Or is it "dropping a card accidentally" in L50B you don't understand? > > L45C1 does NOT say that a dropped card must be played. > L50B clearly states that a accidentally dropped card becomes a mPC (if > it's a single card below ten). > > What's the problem? > Harald has another defence for his countryman: Apparently, the cases Herman is talking about are not L58 cases at all! Of course that might save Sven's bacon! But what of it? A player detaches one card from his hand and another drops on the table. Is L58 applicable? "If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously" one word is important: "leads": am I right in saying that leads is just "plays", but for the first card of a trick? I think we next must look up "plays": definitions: play: (1) the contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick L45A: each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it L45C1: a defender's card so held that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played So maybe there is something to what Sven says. A card that drops out of a hand must not be played. It will become a PC, possibly a mPC, but does not have to be played. So basically, when I detach the SA and the C2 drops, that is always a mPC and L58 does not apply. And when I detach the C2 and the SA drops, the C2 is the played card, SA is a MPC, and L58 does not apply. OK, so then give me a case in which L58 _does_ apply! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 15:56:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:56:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <417900F7.8070408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c4b847$43e7a5a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .............. > I have reduced this to a different problem. Sven maintains (probably) > that whenever L58 applies, the conditions for determining the m or M > nature of the PC are already known. I assume he knows the level of the > card, I assume he knows there is only one of them, so the only thing > that Sven needs to know more is the (in)advertency. I conclude that > Sven believes that whenever L58 applies, the remaining card is always > an inadvertent one. He concludes this from the wording in L50 ("as in > playing to a trick"). >=20 > I don't believe this is the right approach and I have stated so quite > sufficiently. Law 50B states: "A single card below the rank of an honour" which is the first condition for a card to be eventually designated a = minor penalty card,=20 "and exposed inadvertently" which is the second condition but which can result in a problem: Exactly what makes an exposure inadvertent? So the law clarifies this by = stating: "(as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card = accidentally)" The comma makes it clear that the law here lists two separate and independent situations; everything ahead of the comma describes one situation, everything after the comma describes the other situation.=20 For the word "accidentally" to apply for both situations it should = either have been repeated with each description or be placed in a common = position relative to the list; something like: "As accidentally playing two cards = to a trick or dropping a card". (But even this clause could be subject to discussions on its ambiguity). Literally Law 50B states that playing two cards simultaneously to a = trick is (itself) inadvertent while dropping a card is inadvertent only when it happened accidentally. This understanding of Law 50B was first explicitly confirmed in the "commentaries" in 1992 and now by Grattan in several contributions. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 16:13:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:13:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000801c4b847$43e7a5a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c4b847$43e7a5a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41792397.8010809@hdw.be> OK Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > .............. > >>I have reduced this to a different problem. Sven maintains (probably) >>that whenever L58 applies, the conditions for determining the m or M >>nature of the PC are already known. I assume he knows the level of the >>card, I assume he knows there is only one of them, so the only thing >>that Sven needs to know more is the (in)advertency. I conclude that >>Sven believes that whenever L58 applies, the remaining card is always >>an inadvertent one. He concludes this from the wording in L50 ("as in >>playing to a trick"). >> >>I don't believe this is the right approach and I have stated so quite >>sufficiently. > > > Law 50B states: > > "A single card below the rank of an honour" > > which is the first condition for a card to be eventually designated a minor > penalty card, > > "and exposed inadvertently" > > which is the second condition but which can result in a problem: Exactly > what makes an exposure inadvertent? So the law clarifies this by stating: > > "(as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally)" > > The comma makes it clear that the law here lists two separate and > independent situations; everything ahead of the comma describes one > situation, everything after the comma describes the other situation. > > For the word "accidentally" to apply for both situations it should either > have been repeated with each description or be placed in a common position > relative to the list; something like: "As accidentally playing two cards to > a trick or dropping a card". (But even this clause could be subject to > discussions on its ambiguity). > > Literally Law 50B states that playing two cards simultaneously to a trick is > (itself) inadvertent while dropping a card is inadvertent only when it > happened accidentally. > > This understanding of Law 50B was first explicitly confirmed in the > "commentaries" in 1992 and now by Grattan in several contributions. > Sorry, but that last argument does not hold water. Grattan has stated that the 1992 commentary is still valid. He stands by it. He has not given a separate advice to this case in 2004. What I believe is that we have a case here where the literal reading of a law makes no sense. "as in" means that examples are given, to explain what is meant. But surely something which we can see, even without examples, is not covered in the main phrase, then surely the example cannot be used to include it. Surely the play of a C2, with a SA dropping at the same time, cannot be called "inadvertent", no matter what follows? "as in" can be used to explain that the case of a C2 dropping together with a SA means this can be considered an inadvertently played card. Surely you understand that this law is badly written. And that the meaning I ascribe to it is far more logican than the one you say. Surely the only reason you are making this C2 a mPC is because of the "as in", not because you don't think this is an inadvertently played card? I really don't see why you are having a problem with this. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 22 16:21:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:21:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] The pitiful crutch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <08098301-243E-11D9-B5C9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Oct 22, 2004, at 01:52 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If so, would not my alert be misleading, given that > opponents would be expecting the alert to signify > the normal fourth-suit forcing? I don't know about ABF regulations, but the ACBL Alert Regulation states "When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME." > I have therefore adopted the policy of deliberately > not alerting 2D in this sequence, so that the unusual > non-alert of a fourth-suit bid (that everybody else > automatically alerts) wakes up the opponents to my > unusual fourth-suit non-forcing agreement. A policy with admirable intent, but not, I think, legal, even if ABF regs do not contain something like the statement above. From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 17:34:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:34:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <41792397.8010809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c4b854$f572ed90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ................ > > This understanding of Law 50B was first explicitly confirmed in the > > "commentaries" in 1992 and now by Grattan in several contributions. > > >=20 > Sorry, but that last argument does not hold water. > Grattan has stated that the 1992 commentary is still valid. He stands > by it. He has not given a separate advice to this case in 2004. Grattan has stated=20 1: That this was indeed the understanding stated in the commentaries in = 1992 2: That these commentaries were accepted as an official document by EBL 3: That no change has been made in law 50B since 1992 (other than = changing its number from 50C to the current number 50B in 1997) 4: That no change in their understanding of the old Law 50C or the = identical Law 50B has been announced or indicated in any other way by either EBL = or WBF since 1992 So Grattan has concluded that the understanding expressed in the commentaries in 1992 must still be considered valid for law 50B. He has further stated that mainly because of the incredibly extensive discussion around Law 50B he is considering further clarifying this Law = by adding text to the effect that when more than one card is played simultaneously to a trick every and all such cards shall unconditionally = be considered played by accident. This will in case not be considered a = change in the law but simply an extra strong clarification to remove any = possible foundation for discussions like this one still running. Sven =20 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Oct 22 17:45:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:45:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <000701c4b80f$9f07b840$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <4178BCFD.3080007@hdw.be> <000701c4b80f$9f07b840$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Herman De Wael >> I am sorry, Grattan, but that is not the way I've been taught to direct: > >That is a shame on your teachers then. That is an unfortunate remark, and really quite uncalled-for. We clearly have a difference of opinion here, and to refer to Belgian TD trainers in this way because Norwegian ones disagree seems to be quite unnecessary. After all, people like Herman and I who disagree with you are not making remarks about people who train TDs in Norway. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Oct 22 17:53:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:53:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <000f01c4b82d$0e7e3dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c4b82d$0e7e3dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Gordon Rainsford >> On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> > The laws are silent on how to treat such cases when partner has no >> > further >> > turn to call (because of three consecutive passes after a bid has been >> > made >> > or four consecutive passes when no bid has been made). >> >> If partner has no further turn to call, that condition for correcting >> an inadvertent call under L25A ("until his partner makes a call") will >> always be met. So we only have to consider whether the other two >> conditions have also been met. >> >> > Note that the auction >> > does not end until the opening lead has been made face up. >> > >> > IMO the offender should be allowed a Law 25A correction until his >> > partner >> > takes any action like asking any question or making any remark on the >> > auction, or until the opening lead is made face up. >> >> Unless we believe that being prompted by partner makes the "without >> pause for thought" clause impossible to fulfill, I can't see the legal >> basis for your view. > >As I said; the laws are silent so there is no legal basis for any view. We >have to try figuring out the solution that best fits the spirit of the laws. > >Literally taken "until partner makes a call" gives the offender until the >next board to make his L25A change! > >Say that a player records the result on a board as some doubled contract >being defeated and the opponents object, the contract was not doubled. The >player then says: "What!? Didn't I double that contract; well that certainly >was my intention and my partner has not made any further call so I demand a >Law 25A correction!" > >I do hope we agree that this will not be granted him? Yes, but not for the silly reason you suggest. I just rule it was he was out of time because he took pause for thought. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 22 17:51:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:51:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <003101c4b820$1a867460$0307a8c0@PlusNet> References: <003101c4b820$1a867460$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: David Barton wrote >In a privately played match last night the following incident occured >on which I would welcome any observations. > >W N E S > 1N P >2S(a) P 3C(a) P >P XP(b) P (c) > >(a) alerted >(b) asked about the alerts and informed transfer to clubs > pulled out a double and a pass card and replaced the > double card into the box. It was obvious to all the other > players that N intended to double. >(c) South noticing that North's double had "disappeared" > and that there were now 4 consecutive passes asked > "What is going on?" > >How do you rule? >In particular >(a) does South's drawing attention to North's mechanical > error preclude any correction? No. >(b) is any correction possible after 3 passes? Discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere: no convincing answer per Law: guidance from SOs would be a good idea. >(c) If South had called for a Director for the 4th pass would > you allow N to wake up. Yes. When someone makes an inadvertent call it has been generally [1] accepted that it matters not who wakes him up and how they wake him up for it to be correctable if L25A allows a correction. [1] Of course, when I say 'generally' I mean at least three members of BLML, one of whom will be considered influential, will disagree. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From RhettNichols@macworld.com Fri Oct 22 18:58:03 2004 From: RhettNichols@macworld.com (Clayson Cowan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:58:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: ok Message-ID: <20041022170743.B591FD0A@rhubarb.custard.org> In suits at common law, where the value in controversy sh= all exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, = and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of= the United States, than according to the rules of the common law:=20




Cïâlïs definetely be= tter then Viágrâ
..can last for 2 days
..You can have alcohol with Ciàlîs
..improves sexual performances twice better then Viãgrâ
= ..it costs much cheaper than Pfìzêr Víágr&aac= ute;
Get CÌÂLIS (SÛPER VIÅGRÀ) here









No msg After six months in Nebraska, I arrived in New York towards the end of Mar= ch, laden with a precious collection My departure for France was fixed for= the first days in May!! Upon my arrival in New York several persons did m= e the honour of consulting me on the phenomenon in question. She was a fri= gate of great speed, fitted with high-pressure engines which admitted a pr= essure of seven atmospheres.=20 From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 22 18:15:07 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:15:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000c01c4b854$f572ed90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c4b854$f572ed90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4179401B.4000104@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ................ > >>>This understanding of Law 50B was first explicitly confirmed in the >>>"commentaries" in 1992 and now by Grattan in several contributions. >>> >> >>Sorry, but that last argument does not hold water. >>Grattan has stated that the 1992 commentary is still valid. He stands >>by it. He has not given a separate advice to this case in 2004. > > > Grattan has stated > > 1: That this was indeed the understanding stated in the commentaries in 1992 > 2: That these commentaries were accepted as an official document by EBL > 3: That no change has been made in law 50B since 1992 (other than changing > its number from 50C to the current number 50B in 1997) > 4: That no change in their understanding of the old Law 50C or the identical > Law 50B has been announced or indicated in any other way by either EBL or > WBF since 1992 > > So Grattan has concluded that the understanding expressed in the > commentaries in 1992 must still be considered valid for law 50B. > > He has further stated that mainly because of the incredibly extensive > discussion around Law 50B he is considering further clarifying this Law by > adding text to the effect that when more than one card is played > simultaneously to a trick every and all such cards shall unconditionally be > considered played by accident. This will in case not be considered a change > in the law but simply an extra strong clarification to remove any possible > foundation for discussions like this one still running. > OK, so I have now re-read the commentary. 50.6 (ii) the card has not been exposed in committing som other infraction of law (e.g. premature lead) or by any deliberate action of the player. It is an accident. Note that playing two cards simultaneously to a trick is in the category of "accident". That seems clear, does it not? Well, I guess it does for the case of pulling the S10 and S9 in one go. But what about the dropping of the SA while attempting to play the C2? I would say that the playing of the C2 is a "deliberate action of the player". The dropping of the SA is an accident, but the pulling of the C2 is not. Comments, Sven? What shall we do if the commentary is open to interpretation? > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Oct 22 18:52:34 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Comments requested on ABF playoff regs In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Oct 22, 2004 04:02:44 PM Message-ID: <200410221752.i9MHqYwd002223@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > http://www.abf.com.au/events/playoffs/index.html > Regarding section 5.9 Who (if anybody) is reviewing the suggested defences? (the Martels do this for the US trials -- a good choice IMO) I mean I can submit a defece which suggests (say) 1 over transfers: 7NT = 6 spades, 0-10 HCP 7S = 6 hearts, 0-10 HCP etc. I'm pretty sure I could make it both complete and utterly unplayable (even with notes available) I assume a yellow method without an acceptable defence would be deemed an incomplete (per section 5.10), but I think it would be best to have a procedure in place for reviewing the suggested defences (and to spell it out) On a completely separate note, I think it's an error to play a qualifying tournament with different conditions of contest from the event you're qualifying for. -- Ron Johnson From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 19:28:29 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:28:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c4b864$edc668a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .............. > >Say that a player records the result on a board as some doubled=20 > >contract being defeated and the opponents object, the contract=20 > >was not doubled. The player then says: "What!? Didn't I double=20 > >that contract; well that certainly was my intention and my=20 > >partner has not made any further call so I demand a Law 25A=20 > >correction!" > > > >I do hope we agree that this will not be granted him? >=20 > Yes, but not for the silly reason you suggest. I just rule=20 > it was he was out of time because he took pause for thought. What pause? There is (I understand) a well established rule that a possible "pause = for thought" shall be measured from the moment the player becomes aware of = his mistake until he expresses that he intended another call than the call = he discovered he had made. There is no "pause" in the scenario I described, the player exclaimed at = the very moment he discovered that he had not doubled.=20 This absurd situation should be sufficient to show that we cannot just = use the "until partner makes a call" criterion.=20 However, nor can we uncritically set the limit at the end of the auction because this will inhibit a player from correcting his unintended pass = when it was the last or second last pass on a passed out board. (I assume an unintended third or fourth pass on a deal is as eligible to a Law 25A correction as any other unintended call?) Sven=20 From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 22 19:52:59 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:52:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-13 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes N-13: Acol 2 facing a couple of Aces. The TD who ruled back to 4S is utterly clueless. One raises 2S to 4S on a king. The whole point of an Acol 2 is to get partner to bid game holding *one* useful card. Responder has two bullets more than this. What is a screener? I see no Law that permits a screener to change the score. Must be the USA :) North will be thinking about 6NT at the point the bidding is opened with 2S. The hesitations neither suggest nor preclude 6N as being a better or worse contract than 6S. Just for once I agree with Rigal :) John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 22 20:00:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:00:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] The pitiful crutch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7Y2P6hATjVeBFw5g@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Me Pard >1H 1S(1) >2C 2D > >(1) Alerted; natural but non-forcing > > >Should I also alert pard's 2D bid? > >The ABF has a regulation stating that conventional >calls (other than self-alerting calls) must always >be alerted. > >However, my Symmetric Relay system does not use the >pitiful crutch of fourth-suit forcing; 2D is natural. > >The ABF has a regulation that unusual natural calls >must be alerted. Since the vast majority of Aussies >use the pitiful crutch of fourth-suit forcing, am I >still required to alert pard's unusually natural 2D? > >If so, would not my alert be misleading, given that >opponents would be expecting the alert to signify >the normal fourth-suit forcing? > >I have therefore adopted the policy of deliberately >not alerting 2D in this sequence, so that the unusual >non-alert of a fourth-suit bid (that everybody else >automatically alerts) wakes up the opponents to my >unusual fourth-suit non-forcing agreement. > In these situations and playing with Tim I usually say "unalert". That seems to solve the problem. Otherwise I agree with your non-alert as being the best shot, and would expect a comment before the opening lead. john > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Movie grognard and general guru > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 20:03:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:03:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <4179401B.4000104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001101c4b869$d488d2b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .............. > OK, so I have now re-read the commentary. >=20 > 50.6 (ii) the card has not been exposed in committing som other > infraction of law (e.g. premature lead) or by any deliberate action of > the player. It is an accident. Note that playing two cards > simultaneously to a trick is in the category of "accident". >=20 > That seems clear, does it not? >=20 > Well, I guess it does for the case of pulling the S10 and S9 in one > go. But what about the dropping of the SA while attempting to play the > C2? I would say that the playing of the C2 is a "deliberate action of > the player". The dropping of the SA is an accident, but the pulling of > the C2 is not. > Comments, Sven? Rather against my better judgement: If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) as exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law 58B2 applies (only) when two or more cards have been played simultaneously = and at least two of them are visible. Once you have (at least) two cards visible after having been played simultaneously to a trick you apply Law 58B2 with which there shall be = no question of intent nor any question of whether the exposed cards were = held close together or wide apart in the hand of the player.=20 Eventually (when the offender is a defender) you arrive at Law 50B which unconditionally assumes that two cards played simultaneously were so = played by accident; leading to the card not designated by the offender as = played becoming a minor penalty card provided it is below the rank of an honour = and that the offender has no other penalty card at the time of the = irregularity. Yes, that does not only *seem* clear, that *is* clear. =20 > What shall we do if the commentary is open to interpretation? Do you honestly consider that it needs further interpretation or is this just another effort to prolong a discussion that had better long ago = been closed? We have clear and unambiguous laws (even further clarified with the commentaries from 1992) on how to handle more than one card = simultaneously played to a trick and I see absolutely no point in continuing this discussion now when we have had clarifications of the misunderstandings leading to some directors asking an offender of his intention and = thereby giving the other three players at the table information to which they = are definitely not entitled. Sven From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 22 20:21:21 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:21:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c4b826$7f9bee10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: > >> The laws are silent on how to treat such cases when partner has no >> further >> turn to call (because of three consecutive passes after a bid has been >> made >> or four consecutive passes when no bid has been made). > >If partner has no further turn to call, that condition for correcting >an inadvertent call under L25A ("until his partner makes a call") will >always be met. So we only have to consider whether the other two >conditions have also been met. > >> Note that the auction >> does not end until the opening lead has been made face up. >> >> IMO the offender should be allowed a Law 25A correction until his >> partner >> takes any action like asking any question or making any remark on the >> auction, or until the opening lead is made face up. > >Unless we believe that being prompted by partner makes the "without >pause for thought" clause impossible to fulfill, I can't see the legal >basis for your view. "As soon as one becomes aware" is the basis IMO. How one becomes aware is irrelevant. I'm with Gordon here. > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 22 20:22:24 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:22:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <000f01c4b82d$0e7e3dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c4b82d$0e7e3dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2ouM2HBw3VeBFw7D@asimere.com> In article <000f01c4b82d$0e7e3dd0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > >As I said; the laws are silent so there is no legal basis for any view. We >have to try figuring out the solution that best fits the spirit of the laws. > >Literally taken "until partner makes a call" gives the offender until the >next board to make his L25A change! > >Say that a player records the result on a board as some doubled contract >being defeated and the opponents object, the contract was not doubled. The >player then says: "What!? Didn't I double that contract; well that certainly >was my intention and my partner has not made any further call so I demand a >Law 25A correction!" Nope; the auction is now over as there has been a lead. > >I do hope we agree that this will not be granted him? > >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 22 20:41:48 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:41:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] The pitiful crutch In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:21:22 EDT." <08098301-243E-11D9-B5C9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200410221941.MAA12816@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Friday, Oct 22, 2004, at 01:52 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au > wrote: > > > If so, would not my alert be misleading, given that > > opponents would be expecting the alert to signify > > the normal fourth-suit forcing? > > I don't know about ABF regulations, but the ACBL Alert Regulation > states "When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME." > > > I have therefore adopted the policy of deliberately > > not alerting 2D in this sequence, so that the unusual > > non-alert of a fourth-suit bid (that everybody else > > automatically alerts) wakes up the opponents to my > > unusual fourth-suit non-forcing agreement. > > A policy with admirable intent, but not, I think, legal, even if ABF > regs do not contain something like the statement above. Naah, I think you can interpret the regulations to make Richard's action correct. I don't know the exact wording, but Richard's phrase is "unusual natural calls must be alerted". To me this means that a natural call must be alerted if it has a different meaning than the usual *natural* meaning of the call. In this case, there is no usual natural meaning of the call, so I wouldn't call it an unusual natural call. Well, it might fly. Anyway, I think Richard is probably achieving the intent of the Laws, which is to make sure the opponents are fully informed; but yes, it would be better if everyone asked instead of assuming about alerts. I generally do after an alerted fourth-suit bid anyway, since some people play it as game-forcing and others only as a one-round force. This is assuming that the ABF doesn't have an EBU-like regulation which says "After an alert, you must give the opponents information about the content of your hand by either asking or not asking what the alert means". John wrote: > In these situations and playing with Tim I usually say "unalert". That > seems to solve the problem. Otherwise I agree with your non-alert as > being the best shot, and would expect a comment before the opening lead. If the ACBL still had Special Alerts, perhaps this would be a good time to use it. Fancy that: using a Special Alert to alert the opponents to the fact that the bid is unalertable. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 22 21:06:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:06:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <2ouM2HBw3VeBFw7D@asimere.com> Message-ID: <001201c4b872$992bbee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst > Sven Pran writes > > > >As I said; the laws are silent so there is no legal basis=20 > >for any view. We have to try figuring out the solution that > >best fits the spirit of the laws. > > > >Literally taken "until partner makes a call" gives the=20 > >offender until the next board to make his L25A change! > > > >Say that a player records the result on a board as some=20 > >doubled contract being defeated and the opponents object, > >the contract was not doubled. The player then says:=20 > >"What!? Didn't I double that contract; well that certainly > >was my intention and my partner has not made any further=20 > >call so I demand a Law 25A correction!" >=20 > Nope; the auction is now over as there has been a lead. Logically I agree with you but technically L25A has no explicit = reference to the end of the auction as a limit. As I have said the laws are silent. Unconditionally stating the end of the auction as the limit for applying L25A (where partner has no further turn to call) leads to other = "problems": Case 1: How do you rule when the auction goes (for the case of simplicity dealer = is North): Pass - Pass - Pass - Pass Then when some of the players begin returning their cards to the board either South or West (as the case might be) says: "Oops! I didn't mean = to pass" in a manner which excludes any suspicion of "pause for thought". The auction ended with the fourth pass; shall that in your opinion = inhibit in case South or West from the privilege under Law 25A to replace the obviously inadvertent pass with the intended opening bid? If not then exactly when shall this privilege in your opinion expire? Case 2: The auction ends with three passes, the last pass from East who then = just sits there waiting for South (who is to become the declarer) to make = another call. Now West asks a question or two on the auction (East does not = react) and then makes his opening lead face down and East exclaims: "Hey, the auction is not over yet". Do you allow East to withdraw his inadvertent closing pass and replace = it with another call under Law 25A? (The auction ends when the opening lead = is faced!) (I have recognized these problem cases but I have no solution that I = believe will be satisfactory in every situation). Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 22 21:48:37 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:48:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041022163832.02b3b380@pop.starpower.net> At 08:31 AM 10/22/04, twm wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Commenting as one of the authors of L58B > > I can tell you that we were occupied with the > > resolution of a situation in which a player detaches > > two or more cards involuntarily from his hand and > > faces them simultaneously on the table in front of him. > >A pretty rare case I'd have thought (never seen it). The common case is >where a player detaches one card voluntarily and a second is >involuntarily >detached at the same time (I have seen this often). Sort of like a telekinetic with a die predicting he will roll a one, then, on actually rolling a two, saying, "Well, I succeeded in getting the one pip I was trying for; it's only the other one that I failed on." If you detach two cards from your hand simultaneously, you either did so intentionally or you did so unintentionally. The English language provides for no middle ground. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 22 22:03:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:03:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error References: <000e01c4b82b$8bb47320$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6F2721C4-2423-11D9-A698-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <003901c4b87a$84336c60$769468d5@jeushtlj> [Gordon Rainsford] > Is there any reason why we should not (in > principle) accept a request for a L25A > correction, while also penalising the > improper communication that prompted it? [Nigel] IMO Gordon and Peter Eidt have got the law right. Sven may have arrived at his dissenting view because, like many players, Sven judges this law to be daft. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Oct 22 22:23:45 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:23:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <001001c4b864$edc668a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001001c4b864$edc668a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >.............. >> >Say that a player records the result on a board as some doubled >> >contract being defeated and the opponents object, the contract >> >was not doubled. The player then says: "What!? Didn't I double >> >that contract; well that certainly was my intention and my >> >partner has not made any further call so I demand a Law 25A >> >correction!" >> > >> >I do hope we agree that this will not be granted him? >> >> Yes, but not for the silly reason you suggest. I just rule >> it was he was out of time because he took pause for thought. > >What pause? > >There is (I understand) a well established rule that a possible "pause for >thought" shall be measured from the moment the player becomes aware of his >mistake until he expresses that he intended another call than the call he >discovered he had made. > >There is no "pause" in the scenario I described, the player exclaimed at the >very moment he discovered that he had not doubled. Well, I understood your scenario differently. No matter. It seemed to me that someone who says "Didn't I: I thought I had" may have made a mechanical error and only just realised but "Didn't I: I intended to" has not just realised a mechanical error. But I suppose it is a 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 cjykbac@yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 20:23:38 2004 From: cjykbac@yahoo.com (Trina Read) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: Hi again, Here is Trina Read. I write to you because we are accepting your mortgage = application. Our office confirms you can get a $220.000 lo=C0n for a $252.00 per month = payment. Approval process will take 1 minute, so please fill out the form on our we= bsite: http://codon-flight.refi-net.com Thank you. Best Regards Trina Read First Account Manager From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Oct 23 03:30:12 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:30:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041022222726.01cb4430@mail.comcast.net> Is there any consensus on what type of mistake a player is allowed to correct using L25B? I picked up a 3-3-3-3 11 count as dealer, and passed. Before my LHO called, I discovered the 13th card, which was an ace. Would I be allowed to open 1NT and play for average-minus? From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 23 05:07:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 05:07:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041022163832.02b3b380@pop.starpower.net> References: <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20041022163832.02b3b380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:31 AM 10/22/04, twm wrote: > >>Grattan wrote: >> >> > +=+ Commenting as one of the authors of L58B >> > I can tell you that we were occupied with the >> > resolution of a situation in which a player detaches >> > two or more cards involuntarily from his hand and >> > faces them simultaneously on the table in front of him. >> >>A pretty rare case I'd have thought (never seen it). The common case is >>where a player detaches one card voluntarily and a second is >>involuntarily >>detached at the same time (I have seen this often). > >Sort of like a telekinetic with a die predicting he will roll a one, >then, on actually rolling a two, saying, "Well, I succeeded in getting >the one pip I was trying for; it's only the other one that I failed on." > >If you detach two cards from your hand simultaneously, you either did >so intentionally or you did so unintentionally. The English language >provides for no middle ground. If you attempt to take the D9 out of your hand and put it on the table, and you succeed in taking the D9 out of your hand and putting it on the table, are you seriously suggesting you have done so unintentionally if something else happens, whether it be another card coming out, a sneeze, or a cow flying past? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 09:21:02 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:21:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041022222726.01cb4430@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000501c4b8d9$3c0e9860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David J. Grabiner > Sent: 23. oktober 2004 04:30 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? > > Is there any consensus on what type of mistake a player is allowed to > correct using L25B? > > I picked up a 3-3-3-3 11 count as dealer, and passed. Before my LHO > called, I discovered the 13th card, which was an ace. Would I be allowed > to open 1NT and play for average-minus? Yes, there are no restrictions other than the time limit: LHO must not have made a subsequent call. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Oct 23 09:21:43 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:21:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <001101c4b869$d488d2b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001101c4b869$d488d2b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <417A1497.3070900@hdw.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>That seems clear, does it not? >> >>Well, I guess it does for the case of pulling the S10 and S9 in one >>go. But what about the dropping of the SA while attempting to play the >>C2? I would say that the playing of the C2 is a "deliberate action of >>the player". The dropping of the SA is an accident, but the pulling of >>the C2 is not. >>Comments, Sven? > > > Rather against my better judgement: > Why Sven, I feel the discussion is still moving along! > If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can > distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) as > exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law 58B2 > applies (only) when two or more cards have been played simultaneously and at > least two of them are visible. > Sven has turned to the lifeline thrown by Harald. In the cases I am talking of, L58 does _not_ apply. So I repeat, give me an actual happened case where L58 applied. > Once you have (at least) two cards visible after having been played > simultaneously to a trick you apply Law 58B2 with which there shall be no > question of intent nor any question of whether the exposed cards were held > close together or wide apart in the hand of the player. > And have you ever seen these conditions being met? 2 (or more) cards being "played" in the narrow definition that you and Harald seem to be using? > Eventually (when the offender is a defender) you arrive at Law 50B which > unconditionally assumes that two cards played simultaneously were so played > by accident; leading to the card not designated by the offender as played > becoming a minor penalty card provided it is below the rank of an honour and > that the offender has no other penalty card at the time of the irregularity. > > Yes, that does not only *seem* clear, that *is* clear. > It may well be clear, but does it ever happen? Do you really believe that the lawmakers wrote a law for an event that never happens? Surely whenever two cards are faced, at most one of them was intended (*). So the other one, according to you, was not played. So L58 does not apply. (*) well, 99.99% of the time ;-) > >>What shall we do if the commentary is open to interpretation? > > > Do you honestly consider that it needs further interpretation or is this > just another effort to prolong a discussion that had better long ago been > closed? > I shall prolong this discussion until we arrive at a common conclusion. I have an open mind. Do you? > We have clear and unambiguous laws (even further clarified with the > commentaries from 1992) on how to handle more than one card simultaneously > played to a trick and I see absolutely no point in continuing this > discussion now when we have had clarifications of the misunderstandings > leading to some directors asking an offender of his intention and thereby > giving the other three players at the table information to which they are > definitely not entitled. > clear and unambiguous laws? shall we nominate this for a special prize? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From PeterEidt@T-Online.de Sat Oct 23 09:32:00 2004 From: PeterEidt@T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: 23 Oct 2004 08:32 GMT Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? Message-ID: <1CLHKW-26SKYq0@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> David J. Grabiner asked: > Is there any consensus on what type of mistake a player is allowed to=20 > correct using L25B? >=20 > I picked up a 3-3-3-3 11 count as dealer, and passed. Before my LHO=20 > called, I discovered the 13th card, which was an ace. Would I be allowed= =20 > to open 1NT and play for average-minus? >=20 Hello David, YES, you were allowed to. In Tabiano Terme (2001) we were taught - and I just found the script - (10.) The player needs to find out the mistake himself, without any help from others. The information which makes him aware of his mistake needs to be available when he makes his first call. This might be a partnership agreement, a missing card, not seeing a previous made call, etc. But not an alert or other reaction from partner or an opponent, etc. IMHO a nice 'definition', isn't it. regards Peter Eidt From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 09:43:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:43:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <417A1497.3070900@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c4b8dc$5deee630$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ................ > > If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can > > distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) = as > > exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law = 58B2 > > applies (only) when two or more cards have been played = simultaneously > and at > > least two of them are visible. > > >=20 > Sven has turned to the lifeline thrown by Harald. Sorry, what lifeline? I am not aware that I have turned anywhere. My = opinion on this matter is exactly the same now as it has been at least since = 1987. > In the cases I am talking of, L58 does _not_ apply. No? That is new to me. > So I repeat, give me an actual happened case where L58 applied. >=20 > > Once you have (at least) two cards visible after having been played > > simultaneously to a trick you apply Law 58B2 with which there shall = be > no > > question of intent nor any question of whether the exposed cards = were > held > > close together or wide apart in the hand of the player. > > >=20 > And have you ever seen these conditions being met? 2 (or more) cards > being "played" in the narrow definition that you and Harald seem to be > using? Yes, but curiously enough I cannot remember ever having seen a situation where a player has first played a card and then (before his LHO plays to = the trick) has "dropped" or "played" another card. =20 > > Eventually (when the offender is a defender) you arrive at Law 50B = which > > unconditionally assumes that two cards played simultaneously were so > played > > by accident; leading to the card not designated by the offender as > played > > becoming a minor penalty card provided it is below the rank of an = honour > and > > that the offender has no other penalty card at the time of the > irregularity. > > > > Yes, that does not only *seem* clear, that *is* clear. > > >=20 > It may well be clear, but does it ever happen? As I stated above: Yes. > Do you really believe that the lawmakers wrote a law for an event that > never happens? Surely whenever two cards are faced, at most one of > them was intended (*). So the other one, according to you, was not > played. So L58 does not apply. ????????????????????????????????????? >=20 > (*) well, 99.99% of the time ;-) >=20 > > > >>What shall we do if the commentary is open to interpretation? > > > > > > Do you honestly consider that it needs further interpretation or is = this > > just another effort to prolong a discussion that had better long ago > been > > closed? > > >=20 > I shall prolong this discussion until we arrive at a common > conclusion. I have an open mind. Do you? Yes, at least I honestly believe I have. But if you want to prolong a discussion like this be my guest, but don't count on my participation. >=20 > > We have clear and unambiguous laws (even further clarified with the > > commentaries from 1992) on how to handle more than one card > simultaneously > > played to a trick and I see absolutely no point in continuing this > > discussion now when we have had clarifications of the = misunderstandings > > leading to some directors asking an offender of his intention and > thereby > > giving the other three players at the table information to which = they > are > > definitely not entitled. > > >=20 > clear and unambiguous laws? > shall we nominate this for a special prize? Rubbish. Sven From PeterEidt@T-Online.de Sat Oct 23 09:50:00 2004 From: PeterEidt@T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: 23 Oct 2004 08:50 GMT Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? Message-ID: <1CLHdF-1QTceW0@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> Sven Pran wrote: > > I picked up a 3-3-3-3 11 count as dealer, and passed. Before my LHO > > called, I discovered the 13th card, which was an ace. Would I be allow= ed > > to open 1NT and play for average-minus? >=20 > Yes, there are no restrictions other than the time limit: LHO must not ha= ve > made a subsequent call. >=20 > Sven Sorry Sven, there _are_ restrictions. IMHO the minutes of the WBFLC are full of them :) There is no 25B case after an irregularity made by partner, neither after any behaviour from partner or opponents. Peter From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 09:59:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:59:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? In-Reply-To: <1CLHKW-26SKYq0@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <000701c4b8de$8f7a3d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Peter Eidt ............. > In Tabiano Terme (2001) we were taught - and I just found the script - >=20 > (10.) The player needs to find out the mistake himself, without any = help > from others. The information which makes him aware of his mistake = needs > to be available when he makes his first call. This might be a = partnership > agreement, a missing card, not seeing a previous made call, etc. > But not an alert or other reaction from partner or an opponent, etc. >=20 > IMHO a nice 'definition', isn't it. A nice definition which however, I believe is illegal! Law 25B allows without any kind of restrictions a player to change his call as long as = his LHO has not made a subsequent call.=20 If the substitute call is not condoned he is even allowed to change his = call yet another time in that round!=20 "Luckily" all signals indicate that this law will disappear with the = first revision to come. I shall not miss the law, but I shall definitely miss = the astonished faces when I explain that law to the players. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Oct 23 10:04:31 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:04:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000601c4b8dc$5deee630$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c4b8dc$5deee630$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <417A1E9F.8020205@hdw.be> No Sven, actually it's not. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ................ > >>>If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can >>>distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) as >>>exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law 58B2 >>>applies (only) when two or more cards have been played simultaneously >> >>and at >> >>>least two of them are visible. >>> >> >>Sven has turned to the lifeline thrown by Harald. > > > Sorry, what lifeline? I am not aware that I have turned anywhere. My opinion > on this matter is exactly the same now as it has been at least since 1987. > No Sven, it is not. You think your opinion is that when L58 applies, L50 always refers to mPC. Yet when I give you an example in which it is clear that the C2 ought to be a MPC, you tell me that in such cases L58 does not apply. "you have no L58B situation" - see above. Now, you may be right in that one - but it is not the same thing as applying L58 and then stating the C2 is a mPC. > >>In the cases I am talking of, L58 does _not_ apply. > > > No? That is new to me. > Well, that is exactly what you wrote above. Shall I copy it again? If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) as exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law 58B2 applies (only) when two or more cards have been played simultaneously and at least two of them are visible. > >>So I repeat, give me an actual happened case where L58 applied. >> >> >>>Once you have (at least) two cards visible after having been played >>>simultaneously to a trick you apply Law 58B2 with which there shall be >> >>no >> >>>question of intent nor any question of whether the exposed cards were >> >>held >> >>>close together or wide apart in the hand of the player. >>> >> >>And have you ever seen these conditions being met? 2 (or more) cards >>being "played" in the narrow definition that you and Harald seem to be >>using? > > > Yes, but curiously enough I cannot remember ever having seen a situation > where a player has first played a card and then (before his LHO plays to the > trick) has "dropped" or "played" another card. > ?????????????? You have never come accross a player who has dropped a card while playing another one? ?????????????? But you have come accross situations where a player has "played" two cards? ?????????????? and both of these using the narrow definition of "played" that Harald favours? >> >>It may well be clear, but does it ever happen? > > > As I stated above: Yes. > You have stated it, but I don't believe we are talking about the same things. Are you writing in Norwegian and I in Dutch? > >>Do you really believe that the lawmakers wrote a law for an event that >>never happens? Surely whenever two cards are faced, at most one of >>them was intended (*). So the other one, according to you, was not >>played. So L58 does not apply. > > > ????????????????????????????????????? > Well, I think that is clear. According to Harald, a card that drops is not a played card, so L58 does not apply. Have you ever come accross 2 "played" cards, neither of them "dropped"? Have you ever tried detaching two cards at once? > >>(*) well, 99.99% of the time ;-) >> >> >>>>What shall we do if the commentary is open to interpretation? >>> >>> >>>Do you honestly consider that it needs further interpretation or is this >>>just another effort to prolong a discussion that had better long ago >> >>been >> >>>closed? >>> >> >>I shall prolong this discussion until we arrive at a common >>conclusion. I have an open mind. Do you? > > > Yes, at least I honestly believe I have. > > But if you want to prolong a discussion like this be my guest, but don't > count on my participation. > > >>>We have clear and unambiguous laws (even further clarified with the >>>commentaries from 1992) on how to handle more than one card >> >>simultaneously >> >>>played to a trick and I see absolutely no point in continuing this >>>discussion now when we have had clarifications of the misunderstandings >>>leading to some directors asking an offender of his intention and >> >>thereby >> >>>giving the other three players at the table information to which they >> >>are >> >>>definitely not entitled. >>> >> >>clear and unambiguous laws? >>shall we nominate this for a special prize? > > > Rubbish. > You call these laws clear and unambiguous? Who do you take me for? a lunatic? I don't think the laws are unambiguous, naming you - who has another interpretation - as some sort of ... We are both quite expert at these matters, and it appears we disagree. I would not call those laws unambiguous. And anyone who does call them that is talking rubbish. And telling the whole world that something is clear is usually the last refuge of the losing party in the argument. As is running away from it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 10:09:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:09:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? In-Reply-To: <1CLHdF-1QTceW0@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <000801c4b8df$ff7063f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Peter Eidt ............. > > Yes, there are no restrictions other than the time limit: LHO must not > have > > made a subsequent call. > > > > Sven > > Sorry Sven, > > there _are_ restrictions. IMHO the minutes of the WBFLC are full of them > :) > There is no 25B case after an irregularity made by partner, neither > after any behaviour from partner or opponents. True, but those are not restrictions in Law 25B; they are restrictions in Law 16 (simplified): A player may not base a call or play on UI. (The minutes specifically refer to any such action as UI for the player in the current round). However, I shall agree that the difference is more technical than significant. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Oct 23 10:13:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:13:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor Message-ID: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can elect which of the two shall be played. b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the next trick (at declarer's choice) c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is returned to the hand. votes please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 10:44:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:44:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <417A1E9F.8020205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c4b8e4$de950960$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .............. > > Sorry, what lifeline? I am not aware that I have turned=20 > > anywhere. My opinion on this matter is exactly the same=20 > > now as it has been at least since 1987. > > >=20 > No Sven, it is not. Are you trying to convince me that you know my own opinions better than = I do myself? .............. > >>In the cases I am talking of, L58 does _not_ apply. > > > > > > No? That is new to me. > > >=20 > Well, that is exactly what you wrote above. Shall I copy it again? >=20 > If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can > distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) as > exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law 58B2 > applies (only) when two or more cards have been played simultaneously > and at least two of them are visible. I am not aware of any problem at all when Law 58B does not apply and as = I have understood this discussion it has from the beginning been concerned with (and limited to) cases of "Simultaneous leads or plays from one = hand" which is the objective of Law 58B. Law 58B applies whenever two or more cards are played (exposed) as the result of a single action: "Playing card(s) to a trick. Law 58B does not apply when the exposure of more than one card is the result of distinct = and separate actions. I have experienced many cases where Law 58B applies but I cannot = remember a single case where a player has exposed multiple cards in separate = actions within his turn to play. > You have never come accross a player who has dropped a card while > playing another one? Sure I have, that is what I say: "*While* playing another card" makes = the two cards being exposed in the *same* action; the action of playing a = card. This is a different situation from a player first "playing" a card and = then in a separate action "dropping" another card. ......... > You have stated it, but I don't believe we are talking about the same > things. Are you writing in Norwegian and I in Dutch? Neither. Right now I am writing in English with the hope that it is understandable. ........... > Well, I think that is clear. According to Harald, a card that drops is > not a played card, so L58 does not apply. Have you ever come accross 2 > "played" cards, neither of them "dropped"? Sure, haven't you? >=20 > Have you ever tried detaching two cards at once? For the purpose of playing them? Never that I can remember. For other purposes? Yes many times. (Like facing dummy or claiming). =20 ............. And I seriously believe the remainder of this entry from Herman had = better been forgotten as soon as possible. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Oct 23 11:08:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:08:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000901c4b8e4$de950960$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4b8e4$de950960$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <417A2DA5.40700@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > .............. > >>>Sorry, what lifeline? I am not aware that I have turned >>>anywhere. My opinion on this matter is exactly the same >>>now as it has been at least since 1987. >>> >> >>No Sven, it is not. > > > Are you trying to convince me that you know my own opinions better than I do > myself? > Well, I am trying to make sense out of your postings. I don't need to agree with what you are saying, but I do feel the need to look for inner consistency in your ideas. Allow me to elaborate: You started out by saying that you believed the TD need not know the intent of the player while applying L58. We tried to convince you that you were wrong. That while the intent was not important for L58, it was for L50, and the TD needed to explain everything. You replied that in your opinion, the intent was not needed in the L50 decision, since the inadvertency was "automatic". I tried to explain, though a number of cases, that this automatic inadvertency cannot be what the lawgivers intended. Then, in a recent post, you told me my cases were not L58 ones at all. Well, I consider that a change of opinion. I have provided you several times with an example (C2 played and SA dropped) and only recently have you stated that L58 does not apply to that one. Well, I don't believe this is right, but at least it is an internally consistent point-of-view. > .............. > >>>>In the cases I am talking of, L58 does _not_ apply. >>> >>> >>>No? That is new to me. >>> >> >>Well, that is exactly what you wrote above. Shall I copy it again? >> >>If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can >>distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) as >>exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law 58B2 >>applies (only) when two or more cards have been played simultaneously >>and at least two of them are visible. > > > I am not aware of any problem at all when Law 58B does not apply and as I > have understood this discussion it has from the beginning been concerned > with (and limited to) cases of "Simultaneous leads or plays from one hand" > which is the objective of Law 58B. > OK, that is how far we have now progressed - do you see that we do converge? I still believe you and Harald are wrong in your assessment that L58 does not apply in these cases, but I am willing to let that lie for the moment. I have then, one new concern, which I have stated earlier: > Law 58B applies whenever two or more cards are played (exposed) as the > result of a single action: "Playing card(s) to a trick. Law 58B does not > apply when the exposure of more than one card is the result of distinct and > separate actions. > > I have experienced many cases where Law 58B applies but I cannot remember a > single case where a player has exposed multiple cards in separate actions > within his turn to play. > > >>You have never come accross a player who has dropped a card while >>playing another one? > > > Sure I have, that is what I say: "*While* playing another card" makes the > two cards being exposed in the *same* action; the action of playing a card. > This is a different situation from a player first "playing" a card and then > in a separate action "dropping" another card. > But I was never talking about "in a separate action". I was always talking about "in the same action". Do you wish to change you opinion again and tell me that L58 _does_ apply to this case? In case you are confused about what case it is: A player detaches one card from his hand, and another card drops on the table at the same time and as a result of his uncareful handling. Both cards' faces are visible. Does L58 apply? Is the deliberately played card a mPC (provided it is small, of course) or a MPC? > ......... > >>You have stated it, but I don't believe we are talking about the same >>things. Are you writing in Norwegian and I in Dutch? > > > Neither. Right now I am writing in English with the hope that it is > understandable. > > ........... > >>Well, I think that is clear. According to Harald, a card that drops is >>not a played card, so L58 does not apply. Have you ever come accross 2 >>"played" cards, neither of them "dropped"? > > > Sure, haven't you? > No I have not. If I have to use Harald's definition of a played card, as being one which is "held" in such a way that his partner can see its face, then no, I have never seen two cards "played" at the same time. One of them always "drops" and is not "held". > >>Have you ever tried detaching two cards at once? > > > For the purpose of playing them? Never that I can remember. > For other purposes? Yes many times. (Like facing dummy or claiming). > Indeed. I don't think those are the cases we are talking of, no? (good remark though) > ............. > And I seriously believe the remainder of this entry from Herman had better > been forgotten as soon as possible. > Well, I think the same about your views, but I don't wish to stop a discussion simply because I believe the opponent is a (...) (no, I wish to remain civil, but I do believe you are seriously mistaken). > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 11:28:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:28:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <417A2DA5.40700@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c4b8eb$02941120$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .............. > Then, in a recent post, you told me my cases were not L58 ones at all. >=20 > Well, I consider that a change of opinion. I have provided you several > times with an example (C2 played and SA dropped) and only recently > have you stated that L58 does not apply to that one. When the SA is "dropped" within the same action as the C2 is "played" = then Law 58B applies. When the C2 is first played and then afterwards the SA = is dropped in a separate action Law 58B does not apply. Whenever I have stated that L58B applies to an example of yours it is because I have understood you as describing a single action resulting in = two exposed cards. Whenever I have said that L58B does not apply I have understood you as describing two separate actions (one of playing a card, another of separately dropping another card). I have never to my knowledge deviated from this understanding of the applicable laws which I have always found some of the clearest written = laws in the book. Sven From PeterEidt@T-Online.de Sat Oct 23 12:10:00 2004 From: PeterEidt@T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: 23 Oct 2004 11:10 GMT Subject: [blml] another major or minor Message-ID: <1CLJnH-0YpA1I0@fwd10.sul.t-online.com> Herman De Wael made a quiz: > Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. >=20 > A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two=20 > cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. >=20 > Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: >=20 > a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can=20 > elect which of the two shall be played. >=20 > b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the=20 > next trick (at declarer's choice) >=20 > c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to=20 > choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA=20 > is returned to the hand. >=20 > votes please. >=20 a) Peter From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Oct 23 13:40:52 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:40:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <001101c4b869$d488d2b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c4b8fd$8f3924a0$2d222b52@Zog> Sven Pran wrote: > Rather against my better judgement: > > If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can > distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) as > exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law 58B2 > applies (only) when two or more cards have been played simultaneously and at > least two of them are visible. Could we clarify this please? Case 1 A player leads C2 to a trick, clearly and unambiguously. As he does so, the SA falls from his hand and lands face up on the table, Sven now appears to be saying that these are separate actions not subject to L58B2. Therefore C2 is led, SA becomes MPC. Case 2 A player leads C2 to a trick, clearly and unambiguously. He then realises that there is a second card under (sticking to) the C2 and before he can prevent it this card is exposed as SA. Clearly these cards have been placed on the table (played?) simultaneously, so L58B2 would now seem to apply, so that the player can choose which card he wishes to lead. (leaving aside for the moment, if he elects to lead SA, whether the C2 is a mPC or MPC) Neither of these cases are a rarity, they are almost everyday occurrences. There seems to me no difference in principle between the two cases - is Sven arguing that the Law requires us to treat them differently? I'm not necessarily saying that would be wrong - merely that it appears to be an unfortunate distinction. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 14:06:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:06:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000001c4b8fd$8f3924a0$2d222b52@Zog> Message-ID: <000001c4b901$110f0780$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > Rather against my better judgement: > > > > If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can > > distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) = as > > exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law = 58B2 > > applies (only) when two or more cards have been played = simultaneously > and at > > least two of them are visible. >=20 > Could we clarify this please? >=20 > Case 1 >=20 > A player leads C2 to a trick, clearly and unambiguously. As he does > so, the SA falls from his hand and lands face up on the table, >=20 > Sven now appears to be saying that these are separate actions not > subject to L58B2. Therefore C2 is led, SA becomes MPC. No, I am saying that the SA (as it is described here) was accidentally dropped as part of the action of playing the C2. Then both cards are considered "played" in the same action (i.e. simultaneously) and Law = 58B2 applies. =20 > Case 2 >=20 > A player leads C2 to a trick, clearly and unambiguously. He then > realises that there is a second card under (sticking to) the C2 and > before he can prevent it this card is exposed as SA. "Before he can prevent it"? Exactly how did that card become exposed? I have had cases like that but I have never experienced any "before it = could be prevented the hidden card became exposed" situation. The ruling is = easy: The offender is ordered to take back the unexposed card while taking = care not to expose it during this action.=20 >=20 > Clearly these cards have been placed on the table (played?) A card is not "played" unless the identity of the card has become known = (or could be known) to the other players at the table. > simultaneously, so L58B2 would now seem to apply, so that the player = can > choose which card he wishes to lead. (leaving aside for the moment, = if > he elects to lead SA, whether the C2 is a mPC or MPC) >=20 > Neither of these cases are a rarity, they are almost everyday > occurrences. >=20 > There seems to me no difference in principle between the two cases - = is > Sven arguing that the Law requires us to treat them differently? = I'm > not necessarily saying that would be wrong - merely that it appears to > be an unfortunate distinction. The important distinction is whether the two exposed cards have been = exposed as a result of the same or of different actions and in case if that same action was an action of "playing" at least one of the cards. Sven From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Oct 23 16:57:42 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:57:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000001c4b901$110f0780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000901c4b919$07eb5240$2d222b52@Zog> Sven Pran wrote: > > Case 1 > > > > A player leads C2 to a trick, clearly and unambiguously. As he does > > so, the SA falls from his hand and lands face up on the table, > > > > Sven now appears to be saying that these are separate actions not > > subject to L58B2. Therefore C2 is led, SA becomes MPC. > > No, I am saying that the SA (as it is described here) was accidentally > dropped as part of the action of playing the C2. Then both cards are > considered "played" in the same action (i.e. simultaneously) and Law 58B2 > applies. Grattan said of the above situation: +=+ In these circumstances there is one played card, not two. The accidentally dropped card is an exposed card, the one deliberately laid is a played card. There is no choice of play, and the accidentally dropped card, inadvertently exposed, is a penalty card. Law 58 is not involved when the player detaches one card and accidentally drops the other. +=+ I'm sorry if I misunderstood Sven here. This was the line I thought he was following. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 19:33:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:33:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000901c4b919$07eb5240$2d222b52@Zog> Message-ID: <000301c4b92e$c7189e10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brambledown > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Case 1 > > > > > > A player leads C2 to a trick, clearly and unambiguously. As he > does > > > so, the SA falls from his hand and lands face up on the table, > > > > > > Sven now appears to be saying that these are separate actions not > > > subject to L58B2. Therefore C2 is led, SA becomes MPC. > > > > No, I am saying that the SA (as it is described here) was accidentally > > dropped as part of the action of playing the C2. Then both cards are > > considered "played" in the same action (i.e. simultaneously) and Law > 58B2 > > applies. > > Grattan said of the above situation: > > +=+ In these circumstances there is one played card, not two. The > accidentally dropped card is an exposed card, the one deliberately laid > is a played card. > There is no choice of play, and the accidentally dropped card, > inadvertently exposed, is a penalty card. > Law 58 is not involved when the player detaches one card and > accidentally drops the other. +=+ > > I'm sorry if I misunderstood Sven here. This was the line I thought he > was following. And I am sorry if I have misunderstood your description of the situation. I feel completely inline with Grattan's understanding of these laws. Sven From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 23 19:45:18 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:45:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041022222726.01cb4430@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.1.2.0.0.20041022222726.01cb4430@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote >Is there any consensus on what type of mistake a player is allowed to >correct using L25B? > >I picked up a 3-3-3-3 11 count as dealer, and passed. Before my LHO >called, I discovered the 13th card, which was an ace. Would I be >allowed to open 1NT and play for average-minus? Sure. You may not use information from partner or opponents to change your mind: all other reasons for change are permitted. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 23 19:48:51 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:48:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? In-Reply-To: <000701c4b8de$8f7a3d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <1CLHKW-26SKYq0@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> <000701c4b8de$8f7a3d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Peter Eidt >............. >> In Tabiano Terme (2001) we were taught - and I just found the script - >> >> (10.) The player needs to find out the mistake himself, without any help >> from others. The information which makes him aware of his mistake needs >> to be available when he makes his first call. This might be a partnership >> agreement, a missing card, not seeing a previous made call, etc. >> But not an alert or other reaction from partner or an opponent, etc. >> >> IMHO a nice 'definition', isn't it. > >A nice definition which however, I believe is illegal! Law 25B allows >without any kind of restrictions a player to change his call as long as his >LHO has not made a subsequent call. Restrictions have been placed on it by the WBFLC. I quote from the EBU White book: 25.5 Law 25B [Delayed or purposeful change of call] [WBFLC] The intention of this Law was to permit correction of stupid mistakes rather than rectification of a player’s judgement. However, if the situation in which this Law applies arises, it is the player who decides whether to change his call. A player may not use this Law to recover from an irregularity by partner after [or as] he made the call. He may not use it because of an indication by an opponent about what his next call will be. In effect he may not use it because of information received after the call is made from any other player. However, if a player wished to use this Law because he had just found a thirteenth card in his hand, this would be a legitimate use of this Law. [WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#4 and #5, reviewed and amended WBFLC minutes 2000-01-11#7 and Schedule 3, also 2000-01-20#3] -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 23 19:49:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:49:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? In-Reply-To: <000801c4b8df$ff7063f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <1CLHdF-1QTceW0@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> <000801c4b8df$ff7063f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Peter Eidt >............. >> > Yes, there are no restrictions other than the time limit: LHO must not >> have >> > made a subsequent call. >> > >> > Sven >> >> Sorry Sven, >> >> there _are_ restrictions. IMHO the minutes of the WBFLC are full of them >> :) >> There is no 25B case after an irregularity made by partner, neither >> after any behaviour from partner or opponents. > >True, but those are not restrictions in Law 25B; they are restrictions in >Law 16 (simplified): A player may not base a call or play on UI. (The >minutes specifically refer to any such action as UI for the player in the >current round). Well, the WBFLC said they were restrictions on the use of L25B, but what do they know? :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 20:37:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:37:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4b937$b5e2dc60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > [WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#4 and #5, reviewed and amended WBFLC minutes > 2000-01-11#7 and Schedule 3, also 2000-01-20#3] Yes, I found them too, and I remember finding that the last one (2000-01-20#3 said: 3 In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of any other player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that current turn. (See Schedule 3 to minutes of 11th January.) Thus a call may not be changed under Law 25B if this change could be suggested from receiving UI, a rather obvious restriction which follows already from the principles in Law 16. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 23 22:21:25 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:21:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? References: <000501c4b937$b5e2dc60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007601c4b946$416f9ee0$449468d5@jeushtlj> [David Stevenson quotes WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#4 and #5, reviewed and amended WBFLC minutes 2000-01-11#7 and Schedule 3, also 2000-01-20#3] [Sven Pran quotes the last one 2000-01-20#3] In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of any other player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that current turn. (See Schedule 3 to minutes of 11th January.) Faced with a decision at the Bridge table, how can the ordinary player remember or apply this? Although such a fine point may give a decisive advantage to a player who is also an experienced and conscientious director. This same criticism applies to the spurious sophisticated subjective excrescences which add unnecessary complication to most other laws. Here, for example, many players would be happy with a law that forbids a player from retracting a legal call (whether it be mechanical error or whatever). Simplifications would save trees and reduce players' blood pressure. Can Bridge ever become a game again? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 23 22:44:47 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:44:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <001201c4b872$992bbee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <2ouM2HBw3VeBFw7D@asimere.com> <001201c4b872$992bbee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <$gxOEwCPDteBFw6i@asimere.com> In article <001201c4b872$992bbee0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >> Sven Pran writes >> > >> >As I said; the laws are silent so there is no legal basis >> >for any view. We have to try figuring out the solution that >> >best fits the spirit of the laws. >> > >> >Literally taken "until partner makes a call" gives the >> >offender until the next board to make his L25A change! >> > >> >Say that a player records the result on a board as some >> >doubled contract being defeated and the opponents object, >> >the contract was not doubled. The player then says: >> >"What!? Didn't I double that contract; well that certainly >> >was my intention and my partner has not made any further >> >call so I demand a Law 25A correction!" >> >> Nope; the auction is now over as there has been a lead. > >Logically I agree with you but technically L25A has no explicit reference to >the end of the auction as a limit. As I have said the laws are silent. > >Unconditionally stating the end of the auction as the limit for applying >L25A (where partner has no further turn to call) leads to other "problems": > >Case 1: > >How do you rule when the auction goes (for the case of simplicity dealer is >North): >Pass - Pass - Pass - Pass > >Then when some of the players begin returning their cards to the board >either South or West (as the case might be) says: "Oops! I didn't mean to >pass" in a manner which excludes any suspicion of "pause for thought". > >The auction ended with the fourth pass; shall that in your opinion inhibit >in case South or West from the privilege under Law 25A to replace the >obviously inadvertent pass with the intended opening bid? > >If not then exactly when shall this privilege in your opinion expire? I don't think that matters, as the action of returning the cards to the board gets us out of time for 25A. > >Case 2: > >The auction ends with three passes, the last pass from East who then just >sits there waiting for South (who is to become the declarer) to make another >call. Now West asks a question or two on the auction (East does not react) >and then makes his opening lead face down and East exclaims: "Hey, the >auction is not over yet". > >Do you allow East to withdraw his inadvertent closing pass and replace it >with another call under Law 25A? (The auction ends when the opening lead is >faced!) Of course. > >(I have recognized these problem cases but I have no solution that I believe >will be satisfactory in every situation). > >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 23 22:47:28 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:47:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] When can you use L25B? In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041022222726.01cb4430@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.1.2.0.0.20041022222726.01cb4430@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <6QuP4$CwFteBFw5y@asimere.com> In article <6.1.2.0.0.20041022222726.01cb4430@mail.comcast.net>, David J. Grabiner writes >Is there any consensus on what type of mistake a player is allowed to >correct using L25B? > >I picked up a 3-3-3-3 11 count as dealer, and passed. Before my LHO >called, I discovered the 13th card, which was an ace. Would I be allowed >to open 1NT and play for average-minus? Yes, but you'll do better to back in to the auction :) > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sat Oct 23 22:50:06 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:50:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. > >A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two >cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > >Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > >a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can >elect which of the two shall be played. > >b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the >next trick (at declarer's choice) > >c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to >choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA >is returned to the hand. > maddog (c >votes please. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 23 23:05:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:05:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mechanical Error In-Reply-To: <$gxOEwCPDteBFw6i@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000801c4b94c$5d5a0450$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............. > >Unconditionally stating the end of the auction as the limit for = applying > >L25A (where partner has no further turn to call) leads to other > "problems": > > > >Case 1: > > > >How do you rule when the auction goes (for the case of simplicity = dealer > is > >North): > >Pass - Pass - Pass - Pass > > > >Then when some of the players begin returning their cards to the = board > >either South or West (as the case might be) says: "Oops! I didn't = mean to > >pass" in a manner which excludes any suspicion of "pause for = thought". > > > >The auction ended with the fourth pass; shall that in your opinion > inhibit > >in case South or West from the privilege under Law 25A to replace the > >obviously inadvertent pass with the intended opening bid? > > > >If not then exactly when shall this privilege in your opinion expire? >=20 > I don't think that matters, as the action of returning the cards to = the > board gets us out of time for 25A. > > > >Case 2: > > > >The auction ends with three passes, the last pass from East who then = just > >sits there waiting for South (who is to become the declarer) to make > another > >call. Now West asks a question or two on the auction (East does not > react) > >and then makes his opening lead face down and East exclaims: "Hey, = the > >auction is not over yet". > > > >Do you allow East to withdraw his inadvertent closing pass and = replace it > >with another call under Law 25A? (The auction ends when the opening = lead > is > >faced!) >=20 > Of course. OK, Now exactly what terminates the period for applying Law 25A after = the final pass? In case 1 you suggested any action by another player after the final = pass In case 2?=20 (East's partner has already made two actions after the final pass: First asking questions on the auction and next actually selecting his opening = lead face down.)=20 You see why I feel there is something missing in Law 25A? Regards Sven From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Sun Oct 24 02:02:18 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:02:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 Message-ID: <000001c4b965$1ee758d0$2d222b52@Zog> To this case: A player leads C2 to a trick, clearly and unambiguously. As he does so, the SA falls from his hand and lands face up on the table. Sven stated: > > > I am saying that the SA (as it is described here) was accidentally > > > dropped as part of the action of playing the C2. Then both cards > > > are considered "played" in the same action (i.e. simultaneously) > > > and Law 58B2 applies. However, Grattan said of this situation: > > +=+ In these circumstances there is one played card, not two. The > > accidentally dropped card is an exposed card, the one deliberately > > laid is a played card. There is no choice of play, and the > > accidentally dropped card, inadvertently exposed, is a penalty card. > > Law 58 is not involved when the player detaches one card and > > accidentally drops the other. +=+ This last sentence is worth repeating: Law 58 is*not* involved when the player detaches one card and accidentally drops the other. Sven now says: > I feel completely in line with Grattan's understanding of these laws. Now your view is clearly not that of Grattan, so how can you be completely in line? Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Oct 24 09:02:28 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000c01c4b8eb$02941120$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c4b8eb$02941120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <417B6194.3080707@hdw.be> OK Sven, thank you, both for your explanation and your patience. Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > .............. > >>Then, in a recent post, you told me my cases were not L58 ones at all. >> >>Well, I consider that a change of opinion. I have provided you several >>times with an example (C2 played and SA dropped) and only recently >>have you stated that L58 does not apply to that one. > > > When the SA is "dropped" within the same action as the C2 is "played" then > Law 58B applies. When the C2 is first played and then afterwards the SA is > dropped in a separate action Law 58B does not apply. > > Whenever I have stated that L58B applies to an example of yours it is > because I have understood you as describing a single action resulting in two > exposed cards. > > Whenever I have said that L58B does not apply I have understood you as > describing two separate actions (one of playing a card, another of > separately dropping another card). > Well, I don't really see how you could have misunderstood any of my examples to be of this category - we were talking about simultaneous plays, were we not? But at least now we can go on and we're clear: We are only talking of cases where a player detaches one card from his hand (and holds it so that his partner can see its face), when at the same time some other card drops on the table, also face up. Sven is _not_ of the same opinion as Harald, apparently (unless Harald has also misunderstood my examples). Sven agrees that L58 applies to this problem. That means that Sven will offer the player the chance to designate the "dropped" card rather than the "held" card as being the "played" one. I think that settles it for this thread - which is, after all, called "L58 or L45" (I apologise for the word OF in the title - that is the dutch word for OR). > I have never to my knowledge deviated from this understanding of the > applicable laws which I have always found some of the clearest written laws > in the book. > Tell that to Harald, who (apparently) disagrees with our now common interpretation of this Law. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Oct 24 09:07:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:07:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000301c4b92e$c7189e10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c4b92e$c7189e10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <417B62A7.6080707@hdw.be> Please Sven, I thought we were getting someplace. At 12.28 on Saturday, you wrote: When the SA is "dropped" within the same action as the C2 is "played" then Law 58B applies. When the C2 is first played and then afterwards the SA is dropped in a separate action Law 58B does not apply. But at 20.33 on the same Saturday, you write: Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Grattan said of the above situation: >> >>+=+ In these circumstances there is one played card, not two. The >>accidentally dropped card is an exposed card, the one deliberately laid >>is a played card. >>There is no choice of play, and the accidentally dropped card, >>inadvertently exposed, is a penalty card. >>Law 58 is not involved when the player detaches one card and >>accidentally drops the other. +=+ >> >> I'm sorry if I misunderstood Sven here. This was the line I thought he >>was following. > > > And I am sorry if I have misunderstood your description of the situation. I > feel completely inline with Grattan's understanding of these laws. > Which means the accidentally dropped card is a PC, and L58 does not apply. Which one is it, Sven? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Oct 24 09:10:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:10:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <417B6360.5090800@hdw.be> Sven, the first two answers, both from highly qualified directors, are different. Do you still maintain that this law is clear and unambiguous? Herman De Wael wrote: > Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. > > A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two cards > drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > > Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > > a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can > elect which of the two shall be played. > > b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the > next trick (at declarer's choice) > > c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to > choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is > returned to the hand. > > votes please. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Hamlinjsnig@yahoo.com.mx Sun Oct 24 19:47:30 2004 From: Hamlinjsnig@yahoo.com.mx (info) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:47:30 +0600 Subject: [blml] Re: half price Acrobat 6 Professional Message-ID: PC WEEKLY : Review results
After a thorough comparison of the various retailers,By far the Best 0ffer= is:

W1ND0WS X..P - $50 (You S@VE 150$)

Full Reviews Here



= cake gremlinshoal sixfold comainconvenient elaine koalaamateur colonial perimeterinstructor brushfire alabamadepository acquittal diodehazard pandemic protocoltinker lucid screechflip chautauqua bitternpredicament From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 24 18:59:14 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:59:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <417B6360.5090800@hdw.be> References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> <417B6360.5090800@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <417B6360.5090800@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sven, > >the first two answers, both from highly qualified directors, are >different. >Do you still maintain that this law is clear and unambiguous? > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. >> >> A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two cards >> drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. >> >> Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: >> >> a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can >> elect which of the two shall be played. >> >> b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the >> next trick (at declarer's choice) >> >> c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to >> choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is >> returned to the hand. >> >> votes please. sheesh, once you've created penalty card(s) you've got to play one of them. The SA has not by *any* definition yet been played. I have two small cards on the table. I pick one. The other's a mPC. This is slightly different isn't it Herman, nice example. >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Oct 24 23:09:59 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:09:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-08 References: <6.1.2.0.0.20041020211535.01c4a950@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <001a01c4ba16$3569f5c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David J. Grabiner" > >N-08 was it namyats? > > > >I agree with the judgement of 6H down 1. I find it very hard, by Law, to > >issue a procedural penalty. I believe it is illegal. Procedural > >penalties exist for people who can't get to the correct table or box > >their hands, not for failing to know their system. Once you have > >adjusted the score the penalty is paid IMO. > > The procedural penalty is not for forgetting the system, but for making a > call which was suggested by UI when there was a LA. That is, West > deliberately took an action which he knew, or should have known, was a > violation of a Law. > > However, if the AC accepts West's argument that 4H was his normal bid, I > don't agree with this PP. PP's for using UI should only be awarded when > the UI is clear and the infraction is flagrant, such as hesitation > Blackwood or passing a decision to partner and then overriding partner's > slow decision. If West made his normal bid, this was not a flagrant use of UI. > Such actions, if flagrant, should be the subject of a Player Memo, not a PP. PM's are collected on file by the Recorder, PPs are not. Moreover, L90 doesn't say that violation of a lower-numbered law is subject to a PP. As John says, PPs are for not following the procedures of duplicate bridge, with examples given in L90B, not for augmenting the penalty provisions of other Laws, and not for disciplinary purposes. The LC made that clear when they changed the title of L90 from Disciplinary Penalties to Procedural Penalties in 1975. Now we will be subjected to the quote of "not limited to." Yeah, then how about giving PPs for flagrant violation of any Law, such as when Danny Kleinman's client trumped his ace of diamonds (the setting trick) and then immediately led a diamond? Or wil someone cite L74C, whose language was changed in 1997 from "Breaches of Propriety" to "Violation of Procedure," thereby clouding the matter. Will someone please change it back? The items included in L74C are not violations of the procedures of duplicate bridge, as they also occur in rubber bridge. They are breaches of propriety. Has anyone noticed that PPs are assessed only as part of an appeal process? They have become in effect a punishment for causing the bother associated with an appeal. (Zero Tolerance penalties imposed by a TD are not PPs, as they are issued under the authority of L91A, for DISCIIPLINARY purposes). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 25 00:44:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:44:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Iolanthe (was Cardiff 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert: >>>The Law is the true embodiment >>>Of everything that's excellent >>>It has no kind of fault or flaw >>>And I my Lords, embody the Law Eric Landau asserts: [snip] >>If you detach two cards from your hand >>simultaneously, you either did so intentionally >>or you did so unintentionally. The English >>language provides for no middle ground. David Stevenson asks: >If you attempt to take the D9 out of your hand >and put it on the table, and you succeed in >taking the D9 out of your hand and putting it on >the table, are you seriously suggesting you have >done so unintentionally if something else >happens, whether it be another card coming out, >a sneeze, or a cow flying past? RJH replies: Yes. In my opinion, Eric and David are missing the crux of the issue by discussing the English language. Most of the words in the Laws of Bridge are written in the English language, but a significant number of the words in the Laws of Bridge are deceptively written. These deceptive Lawful words are merely notionally written in the English language, but actually have somewhat different meanings from the definitions that would be found in an English dictionary. For example, according to the WBF LC interpretation of the Laws (but contrary to an English dictionary) -> (a) the antonym of "normal" is "irrational", (b) a "logical alternative" may be illogical, (c) a TD error is not an "irregularity", and (d) whenever two cards are played simultaneously, both cards are deemed to be "exposed inadvertently" (Law 50B). The fact that playing a card advertently, plus simultaneously playing another card inadvertently, leaves the play of the advertent card defined as advertent - according to an English dictionary - is Lawfully irrelevant. The English dictionary definition is superseded by the non-English definition of Law 50B. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 25 13:21:05 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:21:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: References: <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20041022163832.02b3b380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041025080905.02a30290@pop.starpower.net> At 12:07 AM 10/23/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>If you detach two cards from your hand simultaneously, you either did >>so intentionally or you did so unintentionally. The English language >>provides for no middle ground. > > If you attempt to take the D9 out of your hand and put it on the > table, and you succeed in taking the D9 out of your hand and putting > it on the table, are you seriously suggesting you have done so > unintentionally if something else happens, whether it be another card > coming out, a sneeze, or a cow flying past? I am suggesting that when you attempt to take X out of your hand and put it on the table, and you actually take Y out of your hand and put it on the table, you have done so unintentionally, and that this is true whether X is the D9 and Y is the D9 and C2 together or X is the D9 and Y is the C2 by itself. L58B addresses the single action of playing two cards simultaneously; it is not about two different actions that coincidentally occur simultaneously. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 25 14:10:00 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:10:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041025085724.02ad5d10@pop.starpower.net> At 05:13 AM 10/23/04, Herman wrote: >A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two >cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > >Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > >a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can >elect which of the two shall be played. > >b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the >next trick (at declarer's choice) > >c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to >choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA >is returned to the hand. (b). The key facts are: (1) The C2 and H2 "drop[ped] on the table"; they were not "held so that it [was] possible for... partner to see [their] face[s]". So not (c); L58 does not apply. (2) The player (or at least so I assume from the description above) began the motion of playing the SA before the C2 and H2 were exposed; I will therefore rule that the dropping of the C2 and H2 was subsequent to the "playing" of the SA, notwithstanding that the C2 and H2 may have become visible first, hence not (a). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 25 14:26:27 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] L58 of L45 In-Reply-To: <000901c4b8e4$de950960$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <417A1E9F.8020205@hdw.be> <000901c4b8e4$de950960$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041025091855.02ac5eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:44 AM 10/23/04, Sven wrote: > > Herman De Wael >.............. > > > Sorry, what lifeline? I am not aware that I have turned > > > anywhere. My opinion on this matter is exactly the same > > > now as it has been at least since 1987. > > > > > > > No Sven, it is not. > >Are you trying to convince me that you know my own opinions better >than I do >myself? > >.............. > > >>In the cases I am talking of, L58 does _not_ apply. > > > > > > > > > No? That is new to me. > > > > > > > Well, that is exactly what you wrote above. Shall I copy it again? > > > > If you from the way things happened (not by asking for intent) can > > distinguish one card as played in one action and the other card(s) as > > exposed in a separate action you have no Law 58B2 situation; Law 58B2 > > applies (only) when two or more cards have been played simultaneously > > and at least two of them are visible. > >I am not aware of any problem at all when Law 58B does not apply and as I >have understood this discussion it has from the beginning been concerned >with (and limited to) cases of "Simultaneous leads or plays from one hand" >which is the objective of Law 58B. > >Law 58B applies whenever two or more cards are played (exposed) as the >result of a single action: "Playing card(s) to a trick. Law 58B does not >apply when the exposure of more than one card is the result of >distinct and >separate actions. > >I have experienced many cases where Law 58B applies but I cannot >remember a >single case where a player has exposed multiple cards in separate actions >within his turn to play. > > > You have never come accross a player who has dropped a card while > > playing another one? > >Sure I have, that is what I say: "*While* playing another card" makes the >two cards being exposed in the *same* action; the action of playing a >card. >This is a different situation from a player first "playing" a card and >then >in a separate action "dropping" another card. > >......... > > You have stated it, but I don't believe we are talking about the same > > things. Are you writing in Norwegian and I in Dutch? > >Neither. Right now I am writing in English with the hope that it is >understandable. > >........... > > Well, I think that is clear. According to Harald, a card that drops is > > not a played card, so L58 does not apply. Have you ever come accross 2 > > "played" cards, neither of them "dropped"? > >Sure, haven't you? > > > > > Have you ever tried detaching two cards at once? > >For the purpose of playing them? Never that I can remember. >For other purposes? Yes many times. (Like facing dummy or claiming). > >............. >And I seriously believe the remainder of this entry from Herman had better >been forgotten as soon as possible. Come on, guys... When you play a card, you grasp it in your hand, move hand and card to the table, then remove your hand so the card remains face up and visible on the table. If the card behind it sticks lightly to it, it comes out with the played card, detaches itself during the motion to the table, flies into the air, and may become visible to the table. That's called playing one card while dropping another. It happens all the time. If the card behind it sticks a bit more strongly, it comes out with the played card, remains attached during the motion to the table, and when you take your and away there are two cards visible on the table. That's called playing two cards simultaneously. It happens all the time. And yes, I have tried detaching two cards at once even when they are not at all sticky (just now). All it takes is mispositioning either your thumb or your opposite finger by about 1/2 cm. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Oct 25 14:31:03 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:31:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <009901c4ba97$8f2aee80$fe053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: [blml] another major or minor > Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. > > A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two > cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > > Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > > a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can > elect which of the two shall be played. > > b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the > next trick (at declarer's choice) > > c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to > choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA > is returned to the hand. > > votes please. > > a) As the table director I establish the action by the player: detaching the SA from his hand (not yet a played card but it is the intention) and two cards dropping ( no action by the player) Remark: The heading of Law24 makes a difference between an exposed card and a led (played) card. ( the heading is not a law but maybe here a help to the problem) Ben From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Oct 25 14:48:19 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:48:19 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] another major or minor Message-ID: <00b301c4ba99$5d09c320$fe053dd4@c6l8v1> MISTAKE: my choice is still B) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:13 AM > Subject: [blml] another major or minor > > > > Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. > > > > A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two > > cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > > > > Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > > > > a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can > > elect which of the two shall be played. > > > > b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the > > next trick (at declarer's choice) > > > > c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to > > choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA > > is returned to the hand. > > > > votes please. > > > > > a) As the table director I establish the action by the player: detaching the > SA from his hand (not yet a played card but it is the intention) and two > cards dropping ( no action by the player) > Remark: The heading of Law24 makes a difference between an exposed card and > a led (played) card. ( the heading is not a law but maybe here a help to the > problem) > > It was a mistake: the answer is still b) Ben From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 25 15:04:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:04:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041025085724.02ad5d10@pop.starpower.net> References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041025085724.02ad5d10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <417D07D5.70602@hdw.be> ah, beautiful! a vote for the third response as well! great vote for the unambiguous nature of our laws. Grattan, Ton, are you getting this in Istanbul? Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:13 AM 10/23/04, Herman wrote: > >> A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two >> cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. >> >> Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: >> >> a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can >> elect which of the two shall be played. >> >> b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the >> next trick (at declarer's choice) >> >> c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to >> choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA >> is returned to the hand. > > > (b). The key facts are: (1) The C2 and H2 "drop[ped] on the table"; > they were not "held so that it [was] possible for... partner to see > [their] face[s]". So not (c); L58 does not apply. (2) The player (or > at least so I assume from the description above) began the motion of > playing the SA before the C2 and H2 were exposed; I will therefore rule > that the dropping of the C2 and H2 was subsequent to the "playing" of > the SA, notwithstanding that the C2 and H2 may have become visible > first, hence not (a). > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 25 15:06:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:06:51 +0200 Subject: Fw: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <00b301c4ba99$5d09c320$fe053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <00b301c4ba99$5d09c320$fe053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <417D087B.3040206@hdw.be> The vote is now a: 2 (Peter, Walter) b: 2 (Eric, Ben) c: 2 (Herman, John) Ben Schelen wrote: > MISTAKE: my choice is still B) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Mon Oct 25 16:39:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:39:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041025080905.02a30290@pop.starpower.net> References: <001a01c4b795$619f5aa0$32b887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20041022163832.02b3b380@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041025080905.02a30290@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 12:07 AM 10/23/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >> >>>If you detach two cards from your hand simultaneously, you either did >>>so intentionally or you did so unintentionally. The English language >>>provides for no middle ground. >> >> If you attempt to take the D9 out of your hand and put it on the >>table, and you succeed in taking the D9 out of your hand and putting >>it on the table, are you seriously suggesting you have done so >>unintentionally if something else happens, whether it be another card >>coming out, a sneeze, or a cow flying past? > >I am suggesting that when you attempt to take X out of your hand and >put it on the table, and you actually take Y out of your hand and put >it on the table, you have done so unintentionally, and that this is >true whether X is the D9 and Y is the D9 and C2 together or X is the D9 >and Y is the C2 by itself. Good, we are agreed. If you attempt to take X out of your hand and put it on the table, and you actually put X and Y on the table, then X is intentional, and Y is unintentional. >L58B addresses the single action of playing two cards simultaneously; >it is not about two different actions that coincidentally occur >simultaneously. This is nothing ot do with L58B. Of course that Law applies to two cards played simultaneously: surely no-one has disagreed with that? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 25 23:32:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:32:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] First unofficial Reno casebook published Message-ID: The final version of the first unofficial Reno casebook is now available. Especial thanks to David Babcock for formatting and indexing the first unofficial Reno casebook. Blmlers who want a (free) copy, please send me a private email. Reminder: Places are still open on the unofficial panel for the second unofficial Reno casebook. Blmlers who would like to join the second unofficial panel, please send me a private email as soon as possible, preferably before 11th November 2004. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 25 01:31:09 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:31:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9ZiDVBENlEfBFwhJ@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. > >A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two >cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > >Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > >a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can >elect which of the two shall be played. > >b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the >next trick (at declarer's choice) > >c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to >choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is >returned to the hand. > >votes please. > SA isn't played "yet", but on the other hand is it fair to force him to play C2 or H2? If detaching the SA and the S10 next to it fell on the table would we force that to be played instead of the SA? I vote for allowing the player to chose between completing the action of playing the SA and having the two cards as MPC - option (b) - and changing his mind, playing one of the two cards and having the other a mPC - option (c) Or is that having my cake and eat it? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 26 00:38:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:38:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: >>Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. >> >>A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On >>so doing, two cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 >>and H2. The SA is not visible. >> >>Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: >> >>a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is >>played, declarer can elect which of the two shall be >>played. >> >>b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to >>be played in the next trick (at declarer's choice) >> >>c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, >>the player gets to choose which of them he'll play, >>the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is returned to >>the hand. >> >>votes please. John (MadDog) Probst replied: >sheesh, once you've created penalty card(s) you've got >to play one of them. The SA has not by *any* definition >yet been played. I have two small cards on the table. >I pick one. The other's a mPC. > >This is slightly different isn't it Herman, nice >example. RJH notes: I agree it is a nice example. And I agree that the SA need not and must not be played if the defender's partner has not seen the face of the SA. Law 49, Law 45C1, Law 45A, Law 45C5 and Law 41A. However... Law 58B refers to a simultaneous "lead or play". Herman has cunningly designed a scenario with demonstrable evidence of two cards "exposed inadvertently". So, Law 58B is not applicable to Herman's scenario. Rather, the applicable Law is now the final phrase of Law 50B: "...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards." Therefore, I disagree with John (MadDog) Probst's choice of answer (c), and I choose answer (a) instead. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Oct 26 01:44:56 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:44:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c4baf5$072e1170$2d222b52@Zog> Herman De Wael wrote: > A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two > cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > > Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > > a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can > elect which of the two shall be played. > > b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the > next trick (at declarer's choice) > > c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to > choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA > is returned to the hand. > > votes please. FWIW, my view is: The SA is described as 'not visible' - I assume therefore that it has not been played as defined by L45C1 - this rules out answer (b) The C2 and H2 have been prematurely exposed but not led, so that L50 applies (not L58B) - ruling out answer (c) They become MPCs (L50B). Their disposition is governed by L50D. Therefore I vote (a). Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From schoderb@msn.com Tue Oct 26 01:45:04 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:45:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] another major or minor References: Message-ID: Thank you for finding the insidious mistake in Herman's posting. It seems to be a rather prevalent occurrence. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] another major or minor > > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. > >> > >>A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On > >>so doing, two cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 > >>and H2. The SA is not visible. > >> > >>Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > >> > >>a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is > >>played, declarer can elect which of the two shall be > >>played. > >> > >>b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to > >>be played in the next trick (at declarer's choice) > >> > >>c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, > >>the player gets to choose which of them he'll play, > >>the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is returned to > >>the hand. > >> > >>votes please. > > John (MadDog) Probst replied: > > >sheesh, once you've created penalty card(s) you've got > >to play one of them. The SA has not by *any* definition > >yet been played. I have two small cards on the table. > >I pick one. The other's a mPC. > > > >This is slightly different isn't it Herman, nice > >example. > > RJH notes: > > I agree it is a nice example. And I agree that the SA > need not and must not be played if the defender's > partner has not seen the face of the SA. Law 49, Law > 45C1, Law 45A, Law 45C5 and Law 41A. > > However... > > Law 58B refers to a simultaneous "lead or play". Herman > has cunningly designed a scenario with demonstrable > evidence of two cards "exposed inadvertently". So, Law > 58B is not applicable to Herman's scenario. Rather, the > applicable Law is now the final phrase of Law 50B: > > "...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all > such cards become major penalty cards." > > Therefore, I disagree with John (MadDog) Probst's choice > of answer (c), and I choose answer (a) instead. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 26 01:57:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:57:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook compilation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a casebook. However, at least one blmler finds following 13 threads distracting. As an alternative, blmlers who wish to comment on all 13 NYC appeals in one hit can send me a private email, and I will forward them a Word doc containing the baker's dozen of appeals. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 26 02:14:16 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:14:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > snip >>>Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: >>> >>>a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is >>>played, declarer can elect which of the two shall be >>>played. >>> >>>b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to >>>be played in the next trick (at declarer's choice) >>> >>>c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, >>>the player gets to choose which of them he'll play, >>>the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is returned to >>>the hand. >>> >>>votes please. snip >>This is slightly different isn't it Herman, nice >>example. > >RJH notes: > >I agree it is a nice example. And I agree that the SA >need not and must not be played if the defender's >partner has not seen the face of the SA. Law 49, Law >45C1, Law 45A, Law 45C5 and Law 41A. > >However... > >Law 58B refers to a simultaneous "lead or play". Herman >has cunningly designed a scenario with demonstrable >evidence of two cards "exposed inadvertently". So, Law >58B is not applicable to Herman's scenario. Rather, the >applicable Law is now the final phrase of Law 50B: > >"...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all >such cards become major penalty cards." > >Therefore, I disagree with John (MadDog) Probst's choice >of answer (c), and I choose answer (a) instead. In that case I'll put the SA on the table too by completing my action of playing it since I'm going to end up with MPC's. Well I would if I were a cheat :) > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Movie grognard and general guru > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 26 02:32:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:32:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH: [snip] >>So, Law 58B is not applicable to Herman's scenario. >>Rather, the applicable Law is now the final phrase of >>Law 50B: >> >>"...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all >>such cards become major penalty cards." >> >>Therefore, I disagree with John (MadDog) Probst's choice >>of answer (c), and I choose answer (a) instead. John (MadDog) Probst: >In that case I'll put the SA on the table too by >completing my action of playing it since I'm going to end >up with MPC's. Well I would if I were a cheat :) RJH: In my opinion, Herman's scenario would normally create three penalty cards, but the special circumstance of a face-down opening lead reduces the number of penalty cards to two. Law 41A, "...The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender's hand." Two penalty cards are obviously an irregularity, thus permitting the return of the SA to the opening leader's hand. If I was TD, it would be a highly ineffective form of cheating to turn the SA face up. If I was TD, I would rule that the ineffective cheat now has three penalty cards, when they could have escaped with merely two. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Peter Newman" I would be interested in which laws you should use in the following circumstances. 32 teams play a knockout in Rd1 Draw for Round 2 is determined by results in Rd 1. Rank all teams 1-16 based on winning imp margin in Rd 1 [ties broken by lot] Team ranked 1 chooses any opponent 9-16, Team 2 any of the remaining 9-16 etc. Team 1 chooses Team 15 Teams sit down to play (duplicated boards etc.) and several matches are in progress when Team 1 discovers they are playing team 25 because the result of 15v25 was handed in the wrong way to the director. The director then asked team 25 to play team 1. Of course Team 25 is much stronger than Team 15 and wouldn't have been chosen by Team 1. What do you do? There are no regulations in place to cover this scenario. Thanks, Peter From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 26 05:31:51 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Peter Newman asked: [snip] >Of course Team 25 is much stronger than Team 15 and >wouldn't have been chosen by Team 1. > >What do you do? There are no regulations in place to >cover this scenario. RJH tant pis: As TD I do nothing, except recommend to the SO that they consider refunding the entry fee of Team 1. There is an Aussie precedent for an analogous TD error of pairing the wrong team. The ABF has a rule that, in national teams events with Swiss qualifying rounds, corrections of results after the Swiss draw for the next round has been published *cannot* cause a redraw of Swiss pairings. There is also an Aussie precedent for a national knockout championship. During the 1980s, four teams qualified for knockout semi-finals in an Aussie selection event, the Victor Champion Cup. The winning team would earn a spot in the ensuing Aussie International Trials. The 1st placed team in the qualifying had a choice of semi-final opponents. Only after they had chosen their opponent, and started the match, was a TD error uncovered. The TD belatedly realised that the 1st placed qualifying team was playing its semi-final match against a non-contending opponent (ineligible for the Aussie International Trials, as it contained a Swedish citizen). The Swedish team won both their semi-final, and also the final. So, the losing finalists gained the spot in the Aussie International Trials. If the 1st placed qualifying team had had the TD give them timely warning that the Swedish team was non- contending, then they would have selected different semi-final opponents to maximise their chance of playing in the Aussie International Trials. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Lightniwkt@vcent.com Tue Oct 26 05:49:04 2004 From: Lightniwkt@vcent.com (Reyna Franklin) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:49:04 +0400 Subject: [blml] hello buddy-check this out! Message-ID: <41116-2200374317485441@techsupp_014>




unsubscrib= e




= camelback corianderdeltoid bookmobile anselmopsychotic cardiod gladdyadulterate providential snapnorthbound applique ruttyturgid janice liftsymposia crust dimplebonus tartar tauntdeceptive carlin bigdiocesan From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 26 08:03:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:03:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <417DF6B9.5050709@hdw.be> Kojak, now you are getting personal and out-of-line: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Thank you for finding the insidious mistake in Herman's posting. It seems to > be a rather prevalent occurrence. > How can there be a mistake in a post which asks a question! BTW, I don't see a response to that question! The respect I have for you is fading fast. > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] another major or minor > > > >> >> >> >>Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >>>>Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. >>>> >>>>A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On >>>>so doing, two cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 >>>>and H2. The SA is not visible. >>>> >>>>Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: >>>> >>>>a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is >>>>played, declarer can elect which of the two shall be >>>>played. >>>> >>>>b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to >>>>be played in the next trick (at declarer's choice) >>>> >>>>c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, >>>>the player gets to choose which of them he'll play, >>>>the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is returned to >>>>the hand. >>>> >>>>votes please. >> >>John (MadDog) Probst replied: >> >> >>>sheesh, once you've created penalty card(s) you've got >>>to play one of them. The SA has not by *any* definition >>>yet been played. I have two small cards on the table. >>>I pick one. The other's a mPC. >>> >>>This is slightly different isn't it Herman, nice >>>example. >> >>RJH notes: >> >>I agree it is a nice example. And I agree that the SA >>need not and must not be played if the defender's >>partner has not seen the face of the SA. Law 49, Law >>45C1, Law 45A, Law 45C5 and Law 41A. >> >>However... >> >>Law 58B refers to a simultaneous "lead or play". Herman >>has cunningly designed a scenario with demonstrable >>evidence of two cards "exposed inadvertently". So, Law >>58B is not applicable to Herman's scenario. Rather, the >>applicable Law is now the final phrase of Law 50B: >> >>"...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all >>such cards become major penalty cards." >> >>Therefore, I disagree with John (MadDog) Probst's choice >>of answer (c), and I choose answer (a) instead. >> >> >>Best wishes >> >>Richard James Hills >>Movie grognard and general guru >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 26 08:03:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:03:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <9ZiDVBENlEfBFwhJ@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> <9ZiDVBENlEfBFwhJ@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <417DF6D2.8090002@hdw.be> Steve introduces option d: Steve Wright wrote: > In message <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >> Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. >> >> A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two >> cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. >> >> Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: >> >> a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can >> elect which of the two shall be played. >> >> b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the >> next trick (at declarer's choice) >> >> c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to >> choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA >> is returned to the hand. >> d) all 3 cards are "played", L58 applies, the player gets to choose which of the 3 he'll play; if he chooses the SA, the H2 and C2 become MPC, if he chooses either of the twos, the other one becomes a mPC and the SA is put back in hand because it has not been shown yet. I actually quite like this and I'd like to change my vote from c) to d) So the vote is now: The vote is now a: 4 (Peter, Walter, Richard, Chas) b: 2 (Eric, Ben) c: 2 (John, Steve Wi) d: 2 (Steve Wr, Herman) >> votes please. >> > > SA isn't played "yet", but on the other hand is it fair to force him to > play C2 or H2? > > If detaching the SA and the S10 next to it fell on the table would we > force that to be played instead of the SA? > > I vote for allowing the player to chose between completing the action of > playing the SA and having the two cards as MPC - option (b) - and > changing his mind, playing one of the two cards and having the other a > mPC - option (c) > > Or is that having my cake and eat it? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From kvezvawf@yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 20:23:38 2004 From: kvezvawf@yahoo.com (Freida Tapia) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: Hi again, Here is Freida Tapia. I write to you because we are accepting your mortgag= e application. Our office confirms you can get a $220.000 lo=C0n for a $252.00 per month = payment. Approval process will take 1 minute, so please fill out the form on our we= bsite: http://cretin-debugging.refi-world.com Thank you. Best Regards Freida Tapia First Account Manager From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Oct 26 10:08:00 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:08:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> <9ZiDVBENlEfBFwhJ@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> <417DF6D2.8090002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c4bb3f$4e9c0cc0$d2053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] another major or minor > Steve introduces option d: > > Steve Wright wrote: > > > In message <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael > > writes > > > >> Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. > >> > >> A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two > >> cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > >> > >> Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > >> > >> a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can > >> elect which of the two shall be played. > >> > >> b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the > >> next trick (at declarer's choice) > >> > >> c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to > >> choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA > >> is returned to the hand. > >> > > d) all 3 cards are "played", L58 applies, the player gets to choose > which of the 3 he'll play; if he chooses the SA, the H2 and C2 become > MPC, if he chooses either of the twos, the other one becomes a mPC and > the SA is put back in hand because it has not been shown yet. > > I actually quite like this and I'd like to change my vote from c) to d) > > So the vote is now: > > The vote is now > > a: 4 (Peter, Walter, Richard, Chas) > b: 2 (Eric, Ben) > c: 2 (John, Steve Wi) > d: 2 (Steve Wr, Herman) > > > >> votes please. > >> > > > > Up to now I did not explain my vote b. Here is the reason why: 1) The player is not cheating, but playing seriously bridge, 2) he detaches a card from his hand and so doing two other cards drop on the table, 3) the drop of these cards is a consequence of the player's action, so later to his action, 4) notwithstanding that and logical, the cards drop on the table before the player has played his card, 5) as a polite human being and a director, I let the player finish his action, 6) the player does not gain any advantage of this accident, 7) reading "The Scope of the Laws" I think I act on it. Ben From anne.jones1@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 26 10:52:38 2004 From: anne.jones1@ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:52:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw References: <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <004401c4bb41$86cc70b0$12330952@AnnesComputer> Persuade the SO to write the EBU White book into the regs as a default for when there are no regs to cover a problem. Refer to Page 141 (165.1 and 165.2) http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/EBU%20White%20Book%202004.pdf Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Newman" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:05 AM Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw >I would be interested in which laws you should use in the following > circumstances. > > 32 teams play a knockout in Rd1 > Draw for Round 2 is determined by results in Rd 1. > Rank all teams 1-16 based on winning imp margin in Rd 1 [ties broken by > lot] > Team ranked 1 chooses any opponent 9-16, Team 2 any of the remaining 9-16 > etc. > > Team 1 chooses Team 15 > > Teams sit down to play (duplicated boards etc.) and several matches are in > progress when Team 1 discovers they are playing team 25 because the result > of 15v25 was handed in the wrong way to the director. The director then > asked team 25 to play team 1. > > Of course Team 25 is much stronger than Team 15 and wouldn't have been > chosen by Team 1. > > What do you do? There are no regulations in place to cover this scenario. > > Thanks, > > Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 26 10:55:32 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:55:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <000201c4bb3f$4e9c0cc0$d2053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> <9ZiDVBENlEfBFwhJ@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> <417DF6D2.8090002@hdw.be> <000201c4bb3f$4e9c0cc0$d2053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <417E1F14.9010405@hdw.be> Hello Ben, Ben Schelen wrote: >>> >>> > Up to now I did not explain my vote b. > Here is the reason why: > 1) The player is not cheating, but playing seriously bridge, No need to state this > 2) he detaches a card from his hand and so doing two other cards drop on the > table, > 3) the drop of these cards is a consequence of the player's action, so later > to his action, yes, but to what action in the sense of the laws? Detaching a card from your hand is not playing a cars (in the legal sense of the word) but just an "action that may cause UI". > 4) notwithstanding that and logical, the cards drop on the table before the > player has played his card, > 5) as a polite human being and a director, I let the player finish his > action, why? there is no law obliging him to finish his action. If he detaches a card from his hand, but does not show it, and then puts it back, he has not done anything except hand out UI (except for the opening lead). > 6) the player does not gain any advantage of this accident, > 7) reading "The Scope of the Laws" I think I act on it. > Sorry Ben, but that last argument is just as spurioous as Sven's "the law is unambiguous". > Ben > Personally, I believe option b) is more "wrong" than option a). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Oct 26 11:08:05 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:08:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor References: <417A20C1.1030906@hdw.be> <9ZiDVBENlEfBFwhJ@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> <417DF6D2.8090002@hdw.be> <000201c4bb3f$4e9c0cc0$d2053dd4@c6l8v1> <417E1F14.9010405@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002a01c4bb43$c40e7020$d2053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] another major or minor > Hello Ben, > > Ben Schelen wrote: > > >>> > >>> > > Up to now I did not explain my vote b. > > Here is the reason why: > > 1) The player is not cheating, but playing seriously bridge, > > No need to state this > > > 2) he detaches a card from his hand and so doing two other cards drop on the > > table, > > 3) the drop of these cards is a consequence of the player's action, so later > > to his action, > > yes, but to what action in the sense of the laws? Detaching a card > from your hand is not playing a cars (in the legal sense of the word) > but just an "action that may cause UI". > > > 4) notwithstanding that and logical, the cards drop on the table before the > > player has played his card, > > 5) as a polite human being and a director, I let the player finish his > > action, > > why? there is no law obliging him to finish his action. If he detaches > a card from his hand, but does not show it, and then puts it back, he > has not done anything except hand out UI (except for the opening lead). > > > 6) the player does not gain any advantage of this accident, > > 7) reading "The Scope of the Laws" I think I act on it. > > > > Sorry Ben, but that last argument is just as spurioous as Sven's "the > law is unambiguous". > > > The player is not MAKING an irregularity, it HAPPENED to him. Ben From nsousa@fc.up.pt Tue Oct 26 11:22:27 2004 From: nsousa@fc.up.pt (nsousa@fc.up.pt) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:22:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <20041026100004.11699.14744.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20041026100004.11699.14744.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <1098786147.417e256391ad3@webmail.fc.up.pt> I would consider this situation a mechanical error and deem the three cards to be have been simultaneously played. Defender would then lead the spade ace, as he intended, and the deuces remain as MPCs to be played next trick at declarer's request. So I guess it's option b) for me. ------------------------------------------------------------- A FCUP utiliza o sistema de webmail Horde/IMP (www.horde.org) Visite: http://www.fc.up.pt/ From schoderb@msn.com Tue Oct 26 11:37:09 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:37:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] another major or minor References: <417DF6B9.5050709@hdw.be> Message-ID: Having followed your postings for a number of years now, the last thing that concerns me is your respect for me. Believe me, I'll not lose sleep over that. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] another major or minor > Kojak, now you are getting personal and out-of-line: > > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > Thank you for finding the insidious mistake in Herman's posting. It > > seems to > > be a rather prevalent occurrence. > > > > How can there be a mistake in a post which asks a question! > > BTW, I don't see a response to that question! > > The respect I have for you is fading fast. > > > Kojak > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:38 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] another major or minor > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >>Herman De Wael wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>Starting a new thread just to get out of the old ones. > >>>> > >>>>A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On > >>>>so doing, two cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 > >>>>and H2. The SA is not visible. > >>>> > >>>>Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > >>>> > >>>>a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is > >>>>played, declarer can elect which of the two shall be > >>>>played. > >>>> > >>>>b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to > >>>>be played in the next trick (at declarer's choice) > >>>> > >>>>c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, > >>>>the player gets to choose which of them he'll play, > >>>>the other one becomes a mPC. The SA is returned to > >>>>the hand. > >>>> > >>>>votes please. > >> > >>John (MadDog) Probst replied: > >> > >> > >>>sheesh, once you've created penalty card(s) you've got > >>>to play one of them. The SA has not by *any* definition > >>>yet been played. I have two small cards on the table. > >>>I pick one. The other's a mPC. > >>> > >>>This is slightly different isn't it Herman, nice > >>>example. > >> > >>RJH notes: > >> > >>I agree it is a nice example. And I agree that the SA > >>need not and must not be played if the defender's > >>partner has not seen the face of the SA. Law 49, Law > >>45C1, Law 45A, Law 45C5 and Law 41A. > >> > >>However... > >> > >>Law 58B refers to a simultaneous "lead or play". Herman > >>has cunningly designed a scenario with demonstrable > >>evidence of two cards "exposed inadvertently". So, Law > >>58B is not applicable to Herman's scenario. Rather, the > >>applicable Law is now the final phrase of Law 50B: > >> > >>"...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all > >>such cards become major penalty cards." > >> > >>Therefore, I disagree with John (MadDog) Probst's choice > >>of answer (c), and I choose answer (a) instead. > >> > >> > >>Best wishes > >> > >>Richard James Hills > >>Movie grognard and general guru > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>blml mailing list > >>blml@rtflb.org > >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 26 12:39:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:39:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? Message-ID: <000701c4bb50$6adc5960$6900a8c0@WINXP> I believe there has developed much confusion on the question of minor or major penalty cards in connection with a defender "playing" or = "exposing" two cards more or less simultaneously. And I am afraid I probably have = added to this confusion by not always being fully aware of exactly what circumstances I have commented upon.=20 First of all, this debate started with a Director who applied Law 58B2 = on a defender having two visible cards and then asked the defender to state = which card he originally intended to play for the purpose of deciding whether = the card not played should become a minor or a major penalty card. I assume = we by now have agreed that any such question by the director with his application of Law 58B2 is improper; the original intent of the offender = in such cases is definitely irrelevant.=20 The purpose of Law 58B2 is to have the offender select which of the = exposed cards he (now) selects as the card he proposes to play. Thereafter the Director shall continue with Law 50B and decide what status (major or = minor penalty card) shall be given to the card(s) the offender did not propose = to play.=20 Law 50B states in so many words that when two cards have been played to = a trick then they are both to be considered exposed inadvertently. This understanding has been confirmed by Grattan both in his commentaries = from 1992 and also with his further contributions to blml. This indeed makes Law 50B unambiguous: If we arrive at Law 50B after applying Law 58B2 we have a situation with two (or more) cards = accidentally played to a trick regardless of the original intention of the offender. And this is the situation I have tried to discuss with all my = contributions to the question on major or minor penalty cards and Law 50B2; once we = have applied Law 58B2 the matter of major or minor penalty cards is a simple mechanical decision dependent only upon the rank and count of penalty card(s) with the offender. So the remaining question which should still be open for discussion is: Exactly when does Law 58B2 apply? This question must be answered by ruling whether the two (or more) cards exposed in the *same* action were "played" or not. The Director must = make this ruling from the available facts on how the cards became exposed, = not by asking the offender what was his intention. I can right away imagine the following typical situations (as the non-offending side might describe them) and how I should rule: "He apparently grasped for a card in his hand in order to play it but another card dropped face up on the table together with the card he had grasped." (Law 58B2 applies) "He played a card but when we looked we could see two visible cards on = the table." (Law 58B2 applies) "He played a card but after that card was placed on the table he lost another card from his hand and this card dropped face up on the table." = (Law 58B2 does not apply because we have separate actions) "He had the card to be played in his hand held so that it could be = possible to see its identity but then he lost another card from his hand onto the table." (Law 58B2 does not apply because again we have separate actions) "He was fumbling with his cards apparently going for the card he = intended to play. However two cards simply dropped to the table."=20 This is a borderline case. The Director must make up his mind whether he shall rule accidentally just dropped cards without playing any of them = in which case Law 58B2 does not apply, or accidentally dropped cards in the process of playing one of them in which case I personally think applying = Law 58B2 serves justice best. Sven =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 26 13:03:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:03:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000701c4bb50$6adc5960$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c4bb50$6adc5960$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <417E3D12.1020204@hdw.be> I admire this post of Sven's and although I don't agree with some of the things he says, I would like to highllight the things we do agree on, in order to move on to the details that we keep disagreeing about: Sven Pran wrote: > I believe there has developed much confusion on the question of minor or > major penalty cards in connection with a defender "playing" or "exposing" > two cards more or less simultaneously. And I am afraid I probably have added > to this confusion by not always being fully aware of exactly what > circumstances I have commented upon. > That has been my observation too, Sven. Some of the time we were not talking about the same cases, and many of the disagreements that we had must be ascribed to that. > First of all, this debate started with a Director who applied Law 58B2 on a > defender having two visible cards and then asked the defender to state which > card he originally intended to play for the purpose of deciding whether the > card not played should become a minor or a major penalty card. I assume we > by now have agreed that any such question by the director with his > application of Law 58B2 is improper; the original intent of the offender in > such cases is definitely irrelevant. > I agree that for the application of L58 itself, intent is not importnant. > The purpose of Law 58B2 is to have the offender select which of the exposed > cards he (now) selects as the card he proposes to play. Thereafter the > Director shall continue with Law 50B and decide what status (major or minor > penalty card) shall be given to the card(s) the offender did not propose to > play. > > Law 50B states in so many words that when two cards have been played to a > trick then they are both to be considered exposed inadvertently. This > understanding has been confirmed by Grattan both in his commentaries from > 1992 and also with his further contributions to blml. > I continue to believe that this is not true. How can a card which has been deliberately (played - for want of a better word) ever be considered inadvertent. But let's keep that discussion for some other time, it is not important within this thread. > This indeed makes Law 50B unambiguous: If we arrive at Law 50B after > applying Law 58B2 we have a situation with two (or more) cards accidentally > played to a trick regardless of the original intention of the offender. > > And this is the situation I have tried to discuss with all my contributions > to the question on major or minor penalty cards and Law 50B2; once we have > applied Law 58B2 the matter of major or minor penalty cards is a simple > mechanical decision dependent only upon the rank and count of penalty > card(s) with the offender. > I agree with Sven that, under his mistaken interpretation of L50, the intent is of no importance whatsoever in L58. I am quite certain that were Sven to change his opinion on L50, his opinion on L58 would also be changed accordingly. So if we decide to drop the discussion about L50 (for this thread), the discussion on L58 must also stop. > So the remaining question which should still be open for discussion is: > > Exactly when does Law 58B2 apply? > Good question. > This question must be answered by ruling whether the two (or more) cards > exposed in the *same* action were "played" or not. The Director must make > this ruling from the available facts on how the cards became exposed, not by > asking the offender what was his intention. > Well Sven, please then read your examples below again and see in how many of them you rely on the apparent intent of the offender. > I can right away imagine the following typical situations (as the > non-offending side might describe them) and how I should rule: > > "He apparently grasped for a card in his hand in order to play it but > another card dropped face up on the table together with the card he had > grasped." (Law 58B2 applies) > OK. This one we agree upon. > "He played a card but when we looked we could see two visible cards on the > table." (Law 58B2 applies) > Well, since I would always rule 58 applying, I cannot disagree on this one. But a very important question raises its head immediately: the non-offenders describe the action, but yet they don't describe it, they simply tell the outcome: two cards are visible. I don't really see why you should apply L58 here, considering some of the following decisions of yours. > "He played a card but after that card was placed on the table he lost > another card from his hand and this card dropped face up on the table." (Law > 58B2 does not apply because we have separate actions) > OK. In your first example you describe the action as being "together" and here you use "after". No 2 actions can ever be completely simultaneous. The one action is probably within the 0.1 second of one another, the other more in the region of 0.9 seconds apart. Are we going to use a stopwatch in deciding which of the two it is? Are we to rely on the words used by non-offenders? Why not simply rely on the fact that both actions occur within the same time-frame (after the RHO has played but before the LHO). > "He had the card to be played in his hand held so that it could be possible > to see its identity but then he lost another card from his hand onto the > table." (Law 58B2 does not apply because again we have separate actions) > again: "but then" - what is "then", and how often have you used "then" as meaning "in the same time". The word "dan" in dutch has different meanings and uses than its english counterpart "then". I'm sure Norwegian has other nuances too. We are trying to rule a game based on facts, not words. And you try to make a distinction between actions that are either 0.1 second or 0.9 seconds apart, based on words from people who may not even be fluent in the language they are talking to you in. > "He was fumbling with his cards apparently going for the card he intended to > play. However two cards simply dropped to the table." > This is a borderline case. The Director must make up his mind whether he > shall rule accidentally just dropped cards without playing any of them in > which case Law 58B2 does not apply, or accidentally dropped cards in the > process of playing one of them in which case I personally think applying Law > 58B2 serves justice best. > So do I. But I believe applying L58 in all cases where two cards become visible (or even not) between the moment at which RHO and LHO play their cards, "serve justice best". > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 26 13:39:38 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <417E3D12.1020204@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c4bb58$db787fc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............... > > Exactly when does Law 58B2 apply? > > >=20 > Good question. >=20 > > This question must be answered by ruling whether the two (or more) = cards > > exposed in the *same* action were "played" or not. The Director must > make > > this ruling from the available facts on how the cards became = exposed, > not by > > asking the offender what was his intention. > > >=20 > Well Sven, please then read your examples below again and see in how > many of them you rely on the apparent intent of the offender. In absolutely no case shall I imagine I will depend upon or assess the intention of the offender as a relevant factor for whether Law 58B2 = shall apply. This IMO must be decided from the mechanics in the irregularity. >=20 > > I can right away imagine the following typical situations (as the > > non-offending side might describe them) and how I should rule: > > > > "He apparently grasped for a card in his hand in order to play it = but > > another card dropped face up on the table together with the card he = had > > grasped." (Law 58B2 applies) > > >=20 > OK. This one we agree upon. >=20 > > "He played a card but when we looked we could see two visible cards = on > the > > table." (Law 58B2 applies) > > >=20 > Well, since I would always rule 58 applying, I cannot disagree on this > one. But a very important question raises its head immediately: the > non-offenders describe the action, but yet they don't describe it, > they simply tell the outcome: two cards are visible. I don't really > see why you should apply L58 here, considering some of the following > decisions of yours. >=20 > > "He played a card but after that card was placed on the table he = lost > > another card from his hand and this card dropped face up on the = table." > (Law > > 58B2 does not apply because we have separate actions) > > >=20 > OK. In your first example you describe the action as being "together" > and here you use "after". No 2 actions can ever be completely > simultaneous. The one action is probably within the 0.1 second of one > another, the other more in the region of 0.9 seconds apart. Are we > going to use a stopwatch in deciding which of the two it is? Are we to > rely on the words used by non-offenders? Why not simply rely on the > fact that both actions occur within the same time-frame (after the RHO > has played but before the LHO). I make my ruling whether I find from descriptions on how things happened that there has been "separate" actions or the cards were exposed in the = same action. This will of course in some cases be a matter of judgement. >=20 > > "He had the card to be played in his hand held so that it could be > possible > > to see its identity but then he lost another card from his hand onto = the > > table." (Law 58B2 does not apply because again we have separate = actions) > > >=20 > again: "but then" - what is "then", and how often have you used "then" > as meaning "in the same time". The word "dan" in dutch has different > meanings and uses than its english counterpart "then". I'm sure > Norwegian has other nuances too. We are trying to rule a game based on > facts, not words. And you try to make a distinction between actions > that are either 0.1 second or 0.9 seconds apart, based on words from > people who may not even be fluent in the language they are talking to > you in. Intuitively I believe I have always used the word "then" to emphasize = that we proceed to another event (another action). >=20 > > "He was fumbling with his cards apparently going for the card he > intended to > > play. However two cards simply dropped to the table." > > This is a borderline case. The Director must make up his mind = whether he > > shall rule accidentally just dropped cards without playing any of = them > in > > which case Law 58B2 does not apply, or accidentally dropped cards in = the > > process of playing one of them in which case I personally think = applying > Law > > 58B2 serves justice best. > > >=20 > So do I. But I believe applying L58 in all cases where two cards > become visible (or even not) between the moment at which RHO and LHO > play their cards, "serve justice best". I believe applying L58B2 ought to be the general rule when a player in = turn to play exposes two or more cards unless some of the cards are obviously exposed from an action separate from that of playing a card. Sven From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 26 18:16:35 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:16:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: References: <417DF6B9.5050709@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3l$cl7DzZofBFwjU@asimere.com> In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >Having followed your postings for a number of years now, the last thing that >concerns me is your respect for me. Believe me, I'll not lose sleep over >that. > Kojak and Herman. We'll not have any more of this please! Kojak. You indirectly referred to an insidious mistake. Should you not elucidate? Herman has raised a different scenario and we're discussing it. You have something to add, please do. Almost invariably you shed light on things in your somewhat brusque way. I think the question is "does exposing 2 small cards neither of which one intended to play make them both MPC's?". This presupposes all the stuff about being a defender, and on lead, and even waving a third card around the face of which partner could not have seen. ... and for my own agenda, "what would a cheat do?" john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 26 18:24:44 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:24:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> References: <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: In article <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@au.fjanz.com>, Peter Newman writes >I would be interested in which laws you should use in the following >circumstances. > >32 teams play a knockout in Rd1 >Draw for Round 2 is determined by results in Rd 1. >Rank all teams 1-16 based on winning imp margin in Rd 1 [ties broken by lot] >Team ranked 1 chooses any opponent 9-16, Team 2 any of the remaining 9-16 >etc. > >Team 1 chooses Team 15 > >Teams sit down to play (duplicated boards etc.) and several matches are in >progress when Team 1 discovers they are playing team 25 because the result >of 15v25 was handed in the wrong way to the director. The director then >asked team 25 to play team 1. > >Of course Team 25 is much stronger than Team 15 and wouldn't have been >chosen by Team 1. > >What do you do? There are no regulations in place to cover this scenario. > There are a lot of considerations. If you're playing with duplicated boards you will need some replacements; and you'll need a TD to organise it. How far into the match? if it's first or second board I'd definitely restart them if I have the resources to manage it. The EBU White Book has guidance on what to do for the scoring of mismatches, but they apply only to Swiss and how one awards the Victory Points. I don't think I can assist further. john >Thanks, > >Peter > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 26 19:59:41 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:59:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Defenders' Claims Message-ID: <002d01c4bb8d$fbb459a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Danny Kleinman and I have been exchanging stories about partners who could have been prevented from making an irrational play if we had just claimed before the blunder was made. Danny published one of his examples in *The Bridge World*, which involved a client who trumped Danny's diamond ace (the setting trick) and then promptly led a diamond after denying having one. One of my examples was a partner who, having to discard on dummy's last winner (on the left), let go the x from Kx in order to hold on to an ace, thereby giving two tricks to dummy's last two cards, the AQ. More recently my partner (holder of 1500 masterpoints), with D-K H-KQ had to discard in front of dummy's D- 9 H- AJ. Declarer had previously ruffed a diamond and I was known to hold the queen. After some thought, partner discarded a heart. In all these cases, if we had claimed before the blunder could be made, we would have saved a trick. If any defender challenged the claim, would any TD have disallowed it? I previously suggested a rule for defensive claims, which I still like despite the objections of others. (1) When a defender claims, the partner's cards become major penalty cards to be played in legal fashion as declarer wishes. The former dummy may suggest plays to declarer, just as dummy now has the right to give objections to a claim. (2) If the claimer's partner has one or more trumps (but the hand is not all trumps), one defenseive trick taken after the claim is transferred to the declaring side. No doubt the lawmakers won't go for this, but they could at least say that a defender may claim only when he is next to play for his side, with a violation subject to (1) above. That won't solve the problem of the "pro claim," but it would help. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Oct 26 20:50:31 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:50:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? References: <000801c4bb58$db787fc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001201c4bb95$3034bba0$a6053dd4@c6l8v1> > > Exactly when does Law 58B2 apply? > > > > Good question. > > > Law58 is exclusively related to played cards. No other situations are mentioned in relation to visible cards. What is a played card? See a) the Definitions: Play - 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand . . . . . b) Law45A Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand . . . . . ( the meaning of contribution and detaching can be found in a dictionary) As a consequence other visible cards are exposed cards; for applicable Laws see chapter VI part II. Ben From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 26 21:49:16 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:49:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <417E3D12.1020204@hdw.be> References: <000701c4bb50$6adc5960$6900a8c0@WINXP> <417E3D12.1020204@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041026164042.02ad36a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:03 AM 10/26/04, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>"He played a card but after that card was placed on the table he lost >>another card from his hand and this card dropped face up on the >>table." (Law >>58B2 does not apply because we have separate actions) > >OK. In your first example you describe the action as being "together" >and here you use "after". No 2 actions can ever be completely >simultaneous. The one action is probably within the 0.1 second of one >another, the other more in the region of 0.9 seconds apart. Are we >going to use a stopwatch in deciding which of the two it is? Are we to >rely on the words used by non-offenders? Why not simply rely on the >fact that both actions occur within the same time-frame (after the RHO >has played but before the LHO). > >>"He had the card to be played in his hand held so that it could be >>possible >>to see its identity but then he lost another card from his hand onto the >>table." (Law 58B2 does not apply because again we have separate actions) > >again: "but then" - what is "then", and how often have you used "then" >as meaning "in the same time". The word "dan" in dutch has different >meanings and uses than its english counterpart "then". I'm sure >Norwegian has other nuances too. We are trying to rule a game based on >facts, not words. And you try to make a distinction between actions >that are either 0.1 second or 0.9 seconds apart, based on words from >people who may not even be fluent in the language they are talking to >you in. But of course we should base our decision on "words from people"; that's what we do all the time. What do you do when you're called to the table and there's one card face up and visible? You ask the players what happened. "Was he attempting to play that card, or did it fall out of his hand by accident?" Nine times out of ten the table will agree which it was; the other time you ask the player to repeat his motion as exactly as possible and make a determination whether the card was played or dropped. Why should that suddenly become unsatisfactory just because we need to decide about two cards instead of one? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 26 22:18:37 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:18:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <417E3D12.1020204@hdw.be> References: <000701c4bb50$6adc5960$6900a8c0@WINXP> <417E3D12.1020204@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <417E3D12.1020204@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >I admire this post of Sven's and although I don't agree with some of >the things he says, I would like to highllight the things we do agree >on, in order to move on to the details that we keep disagreeing about: > >Sven Pran wrote: > >> I believe there has developed much confusion on the question of minor or >> major penalty cards in connection with a defender "playing" or "exposing" big snip >> > >So do I. But I believe applying L58 in all cases where two cards >become visible (or even not) between the moment at which RHO and LHO >play their cards, "serve justice best". it is this interpretation with which I have most sympathy as my "what would a cheat do" cannot prosper in this environment. John > >> Sven >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 26 22:26:18 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:26:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <001201c4bb95$3034bba0$a6053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <000801c4bb58$db787fc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001201c4bb95$3034bba0$a6053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: In article <001201c4bb95$3034bba0$a6053dd4@c6l8v1>, Ben Schelen writes >> > Exactly when does Law 58B2 apply? >> > >> >> Good question. >> >> >> >Law58 is exclusively related to played cards. >No other situations are mentioned in relation to visible cards. >What is a played card? >See >a) the Definitions: Play - 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand . . >. . . >b) Law45A Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his >hand . . . . . >( the meaning of contribution and detaching can be found in a dictionary) >As a consequence other visible cards are exposed cards; for applicable Laws >see chapter VI part II. I sometimes play a card by fanning my hand face down and asking declarer to draw one. No way did I detach it. Declarer did. nonetheless it was detached from my hand, exposed and played. In all this we are discussing proper procedure. there are other ways to play a card, some of them not proper procedure, and flopping a card on the table (as mrs guggenheim does when she is reaching for her coffee) means (and Mrs G knows this) that she's got to play it. When she flops three on the table we know what to do. When she flops 2 on the table it appears we don't. It is clear the intent of the law is to permit one small card accidentally exposed to remain on the table. I think it might just say that. > >Ben > > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 27 00:27:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:27:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <3l$cl7DzZofBFwjU@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst parsed: >Kojak. You indirectly referred to an insidious >mistake. Should you not elucidate? Herman has >raised a different scenario and we're discussing >it. You have something to add, please do. Almost >invariably you shed light on things in your >somewhat brusque way. RJH reparses: Kojak almost invariably lights a candle in blml darkness (in a scintillating rough diamond way). I think that since his terse comment was appended to my posting, Kojak is supportive of my concept that "inadvertently exposed" cards may have to be dealt with differently to "simultaneously played" cards, even if there are two cards visible on the table in both cases. There is no Kojak but Kojak, and RJH is his prophet? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 27 01:01:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:01:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-03 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0wMy4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQpOLTAzICAgICAgICBOWSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBQcmVsaW0gRHJhZnQgMTAvMjcv MjAwNA0KU3ViamVjdDogICAgRmFpbHVyZSB0byBBbGVydA0KRElDOiAgICAgICAgQ3Vrb2ZmDQpF dmVudDogICAgICBHTlQgQ2hhbXBpb25zaGlwDQoNCkJkOiAgIDI5ICAgIEhhcnJ5IFN0ZWluZXIN CkRscjogIE5vcnRoIEE5ODQNClZ1bDogIEJvdGggIEtUNjQNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEsyDQogICAg ICAgICAgXCBBNjINCk1pa2UgUGFzc2VsbFwgICAgICAgICAgIEVkZGllIFdvbGQNCkpUNzY1MyAg ICAgICBcICAgICAgICAgIC0tLQ0KNzUyICAgICAgICAgICAgXCAgICAgICAgQVFKOTgNCkogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgXCAgICAgIDgzDQpUODUgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgXCAgICBLUUo5NDMNCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBcDQogICAgICAgICAgICBLZW4gU2Nob2xlcyAgXA0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgS1EyICAgICAgICAgICAgXA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgMw0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQVFUOTc2 NTQNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIDcNCg0KICAgICBXZXN0ICAgTm9ydGggICAgICAgRWFzdCAgU291dGgN CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDFDICAgIDFIICAgIDJEDQogICAgIFBhc3MgICAzTlQgICBQYXNz ICA0SCgxKQ0KICAgICBQYXNzICAgNFMgICAgUGFzcyAgNkQNCiAgICAgUGFzcyAgIFBhc3MgIERi bCAgIEFsbCBQYXNzDQoNCigxKSBCZWhpbmQgc2NyZWVuczogU291dGggdG8gV2VzdCBhdCBlbmQg b2YgYXVjdGlvbiBSS0MgaW4NCmRpYW1vbmRzLiBGcm9tIE5vcnRoIHRvIEVhc3QsIG5vdGhpbmcg d2FzIHNhaWQuDQoNClRoZSBGYWN0czogU2l4IGRpYW1vbmRzIGRvdWJsZWQgbWFkZSBzaXggZm9y ICsxNTQwIGZvciBOUy4gIFRoZQ0Kb3BlbmluZyBsZWFkIHdhcyBhIGNsdWIuIFRoZSBEaXJlY3Rv ciB3YXMgY2FsbGVkIGFmdGVyIGJvYXJkIDMyDQp3aGVuIEVXIHNwb2tlIGFib3V0IE5TIGV4cGxh bmF0aW9ucy4NCg0KVGhlIFJ1bGluZzogU2NvcmUgc3RhbmRzLiAgRWFzdCdzIGNob2ljZSBvZiBh Y3Rpb24gb3ZlciA0UyB3YXMNCnVubGlrZWx5IHRvIGJlIGFmZmVjdGVkIGJ5IGRpZmZlcmVuY2Ug aW4gaXRzIG1lYW5pbmcuDQoNClRoZSBBcHBlYWw6IEVhc3Qgc2FpZCB0aGF0IGRvdWJsaW5nIDRT IGFzIGEgS2V5Y2FyZCByZXNwb25zZQ0Kd2FzIGFic29sdXRlbHkgY2xlYXIsIGJ1dCBpdCB3YXMg bXVya2llciBhcyB0byB3aGV0aGVyIHRvDQpkb3VibGUgYSA0UyBjdWUgYmlkLiAgV2VzdCBwcmVk aWNhdGVkIGhpcyBjaG9pY2Ugb2YgbGVhZHMgb24NCkVhc3QncyBmYWlsdXJlIHRvIGRvdWJsZSB3 aGF0IGhlIGtuZXcgYXMgYSBraWNrYmFjayByZXNwb25zZS4NCklmIGhlIGhhZCBrbm93biB0aGF0 IEVhc3QgZGlkIG5vdCBrbm93IHRoYXQgNFMgd2FzIGEga2lja2JhY2sNCnJlc3BvbnNlLCBoZSBt aWdodCBoYXZlIGxlZCBhIHNwYWRlLg0KDQpTdGF0ZW1lbnRzIG1hZGUgYnkgbm9uLWFwcGVhbGlu ZyBzaWRlOiBOUyBiZWxpZXZlZCB0aGF0IEVXDQpzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGF3YXJlIG9mIHRo ZSBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgd2FzIGENCmtpY2tiYWNrIHJlc3BvbnNlIGFuZCBFYXN0 IGNvdWxkIGhhdmUgcHJvdGVjdGVkIGhpbXNlbGYuIE5TDQpjb250ZW5kZWQgdGhhdCBFYXN0J3Mg ZG91YmxlIHNlZW1lZCB0byBiZSBjbGVhciBpbiBhbnkgY2FzZS4NCg0KT3RoZXIgRmluZGluZ3M6 IE5TIGRpZCBub3Qga25vdyB0aGF0IGJlaGluZCBzY3JlZW5zIHRoZXkgd2VyZQ0KcmVxdWlyZWQg dG8gYWxlcnQgQmxhY2t3b29kIHZhcmlhbnRzIGF0IHRoZSB0aW1lIHRoZSBiaWRzIGFyZQ0KbWFk ZS4gIFRoZSBEaXJlY3RvcnMgYWZmaXJtZWQgdGhhdCB0aGV5IGFyZSBzbyByZXF1aXJlZC4NCg0K VGhlIERlY2lzaW9uOiBUaGVyZSB3YXMgYSBmYWlsdXJlIHRvIGFsZXJ0IHRoZSBraWNrYmFjayBh bmQNCml0cyByZXNwb25zZS4gIFRoaXMgY29uc3RpdHV0ZXMgbWlzaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uICBUaGVy ZSB3YXMgYWxzbw0KYSBmYWlsdXJlIG9uIEVhc3QncyBzaWRlIG9mIHRoZSBzY3JlZW4gb2YgTm9y dGggdG8gaW5mb3JtIEVhc3QNCm9mIHRoZSBraWNrYmFjayBzZXF1ZW5jZSBzbyB0aGF0IGhlIGNv dWxkIGhhdmUgY2FsbGVkIGEgZGlyZWN0b3INCnRoZW4gdG8gc2F5IHRoYXQgaGUgd291bGQgaGF2 ZSBkb3VibGVkIDRTIGlmIGhlIGhhZCBrbm93biAoYXMgaGUNCmNvbnRlbmRlZCBoZSB3b3VsZCBo YXZlIGRvbmUgaWYgc28gaW5mb3JtZWQpIHdoaWNoIGFsc28NCmNvbnN0aXR1dGVzIE1JLg0KDQpU aGUgQ29tbWl0dGVlIGRlY2lkZWQgdGhhdCBraWNrYmFjayBpcyBub3QgYSBjb252ZW50aW9uIHNv DQpmcmVxdWVudGx5IHBsYXllZCBub3Igc28gcGF0ZW50bHkgcmVjb2duaXphYmxlIHRoYXQgcGxh eWVycw0KKGV2ZW4gZXhjZWxsZW50IG9uZXMpIHNob3VsZCBiZSBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBwcm90ZWN0 IHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMNCmZyb20gdGhlaXIgb3Bwb25lbnRzJyBmYWlsdXJlcyB0byBhbGVydC4gIElu IHRoaXMgY2FzZSwgU291dGgNCm1pZ2h0IGhhdmUgaGFkIGEgaGVhcnQgdm9pZCBhbmQgYmVlbiBj dWUgYmlkZGluZyBpdC4gIFRoZXJlIHdhcw0Kbm90aGluZyAic2VsZiBhbGVydGluZyIgYWJvdXQg dGhpcyBzZXF1ZW5jZS4NCg0KSXQgd2FzIHRoZSBDb21taXR0ZWUncyBvcGluaW9uIHRoYXQgd2hp bGUgdGhlIGRvdWJsZSBvZiA0Uw0KcHJvYmFibHkgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGEgZ29vZCBjYWxs IGJ5IEVhc3Qgb24gdGhlIGFjdHVhbA0KYXVjdGlvbiwgaXQgKHRoZSBkb3VibGUpIHdhcyBoYXJk bHkgYXMgY2xlYXIgYXMgaXQgd291bGQgaGF2ZQ0KYmVlbiBpZiBFYXN0IGhhZCBiZWVuIGZ1bGx5 IGluZm9ybWVkLiAgQW1vbmcgb3RoZXIgdGhpbmdzLCBFYXN0LA0KaWYgYXJtZWQgd2l0aCBjb3Jy ZWN0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIHJlYXNvbiB0byBiZWxpZXZlDQp0aGF0IGRvdWJs aW5nIHRoZSA2RCBjb250cmFjdCBhZnRlciBub3QgZG91YmxpbmcgdGhlIDRTIGtpY2tiYWNrDQpy ZXNwb25zZSB3b3VsZCBwcm9iYWJseSBpbmR1Y2UgdGhlIGNsdWIgbGVhZC4gIEFzIGl0IHdhcywg aGUNCnRob3VnaHQgaGUgY291bGQgYmUgc2lsZW50IG92ZXIgNFMgYW5kIHN0aWxsIGRvdWJsZSBh IHNsYW0gZm9yIGENCnNwYWRlIGxlYWQuICBFYXN0J3MgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gb2YgaGlzIHRoaW5r aW5nIHdhcyByZWFzb25hYmxlDQphbmQgdGhlIENvbW1pdHRlZSBmb3VuZCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIHdh cywgdGhlcmVmb3JlLCBzaWduaWZpY2FudA0KZGVmbGVjdGlvbiBmcm9tIGRvdWJsaW5nIDRTIGJ5 IE5vcnRoJ3MgZmFpbHVyZSB0byBpbmZvcm0gRWFzdCBvZg0KdGhlIGFsZXJ0YWJsZSBjYWxsLg0K DQpTaW5jZSB0aGUgQ29tbWl0dGVlIGZvdW5kIHRoZSBkZWZsZWN0aW9uIHNpZ25pZmljYW50IGFu ZA0KYXR0cmlidXRhYmxlIHRvIHRoZSBNSSwgdGhlIENvbW1pdHRlZSBhZGp1c3RlZCB0aGUgc2Nv cmUuICBUaGUNCkNvbW1pdHRlZSBmb3VuZCBpdCBib3RoIHN1ZmZpY2llbnRseSBwcm9iYWJsZSBh bmQgbGlrZWx5IHRoYXQgTlMNCndvdWxkIGJpZCBhIHNsYW0gYW55d2F5IHRoYXQgaXQgcHJlZGlj dGVkIHRoZSBhZGp1c3RtZW50IG9uIGEgNkQNCmNvbnRyYWN0LiAgSG93ZXZlciwgYmFzZWQgb24g dGhlIEVXIHRlc3RpbW9ueSwgdGhlIGNvbnRyYWN0IG9mDQo2RCB3b3VsZCBub3QgYmUgZG91Ymxl ZC4gIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgdGhlIGFkanVzdG1lbnQgd2FzIHRvIDZEDQpkb3duIDEgZm9yIE5TIOKA kzEwMC4NCg0KQ29tbWl0dGVlOiBSaWNoYXJkIFBvcHBlciwgQ2hhaXJwZXJzb24sIFN0ZXZlIFJv Ymluc29uLCBNaWNoYWVsDQpIdXN0b24sIENocmlzIE1vbGwgYW5kICBCb2IgU2Nod2FydHogKGFw cGVhbCByZXBvcnQgcHJlcGFyZWQgYnkNCk1hcmsgQmFydHVzZWspLg== From Peter Newman" <004401c4bb41$86cc70b0$12330952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <039701c4bbba$913a6150$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi Anne, Thanks - it is a great reference and has much of value. I am not sure that it helps greatly in this specific case. 131.7 just stresses that the CoC should cover this kind of issue. Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw > Persuade the SO to write the EBU White book into the regs as a default for > when there are no regs to cover a problem. > Refer to Page 141 (165.1 and 165.2) > http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/EBU%20White%20Book%202004.pdf > > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Newman" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:05 AM > Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw > > > >I would be interested in which laws you should use in the following > > circumstances. > > > > 32 teams play a knockout in Rd1 > > Draw for Round 2 is determined by results in Rd 1. > > Rank all teams 1-16 based on winning imp margin in Rd 1 [ties broken by > > lot] > > Team ranked 1 chooses any opponent 9-16, Team 2 any of the remaining 9-16 > > etc. > > > > Team 1 chooses Team 15 > > > > Teams sit down to play (duplicated boards etc.) and several matches are in > > progress when Team 1 discovers they are playing team 25 because the result > > of 15v25 was handed in the wrong way to the director. The director then > > asked team 25 to play team 1. > > > > Of course Team 25 is much stronger than Team 15 and wouldn't have been > > chosen by Team 1. > > > > What do you do? There are no regulations in place to cover this scenario. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Peter Newman" Message-ID: <039801c4bbba$eb2247a0$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi John, Thanks for the reply...one more question (below) ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw > In article <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@au.fjanz.com>, Peter Newman > writes > >I would be interested in which laws you should use in the following > >circumstances. > > > >32 teams play a knockout in Rd1 > >Draw for Round 2 is determined by results in Rd 1. > >Rank all teams 1-16 based on winning imp margin in Rd 1 [ties broken by lot] > >Team ranked 1 chooses any opponent 9-16, Team 2 any of the remaining 9-16 > >etc. > > > >Team 1 chooses Team 15 > > > >Teams sit down to play (duplicated boards etc.) and several matches are in > >progress when Team 1 discovers they are playing team 25 because the result > >of 15v25 was handed in the wrong way to the director. The director then > >asked team 25 to play team 1. > > > >Of course Team 25 is much stronger than Team 15 and wouldn't have been > >chosen by Team 1. > > > >What do you do? There are no regulations in place to cover this scenario. > > > There are a lot of considerations. If you're playing with duplicated > boards you will need some replacements; and you'll need a TD to organise > it. How far into the match? if it's first or second board I'd definitely > restart them if I have the resources to manage it. > > The EBU White Book has guidance on what to do for the scoring of > mismatches, but they apply only to Swiss and how one awards the Victory > Points. > > I don't think I can assist further. john OK - the reality is that the director decided it was too difficult to re-organise the schedule at the time the problem was discovered and just proceeded with the Team 1 V Team 25 match up. Which laws would you use to justify this? It also seems to me that if you assume the correction period for results is over (and it should be if the next round of a knock-out is starting) then you should just say that Team 15 won and Team 1 should play Team 15. Comments? ("We just won by -10 imps") Thanks, Peter From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 27 01:49:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:49:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: <039801c4bbba$eb2247a0$931dac89@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Peter Newman: >OK - the reality is that the director decided it was >too difficult to re-organise the schedule at the time >the problem was discovered and just proceeded with the >Team 1 V Team 25 match up. > >Which laws would you use to justify this? RJH: Easy. Law 81B1 and Law 81C3. This was recently discussed in another thread. While Law 80B prohibits a sponsoring organisation from making ex post facto decisions on the conditions of contest, a TD is under no such constraint. Peter Newman: >It also seems to me that if you assume the correction >period for results is over (and it should be if the >next round of a knock-out is starting) then you should >just say that Team 15 won and Team 1 should play Team >15. > >Comments? >("We just won by -10 imps") RJH: Not so. If the sponsoring organisation has also failed to specify a correction period in its regulations, then a default period of 30 minutes applies. Law 79C: >>An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon >>score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be >>corrected until the expiration of the period >>specified by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the >>sponsoring organisation specifies a later* time, this >>correction period expires 30 minutes after the >>official score has been made available for inspection. >> >>*An earlier time may be specified when required by the >>special nature of a contest. RJH: So, if the second knockout round started only 5 minutes after the results were posted from the first knockout round, then the TD is required by Law 81C6 and Law 79C to prevent a team saying, "We just won by -10 imps." Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 27 02:53:46 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:53:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: <039801c4bbba$eb2247a0$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> References: <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> <039801c4bbba$eb2247a0$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: In article <039801c4bbba$eb2247a0$931dac89@au.fjanz.com>, Peter Newman writes >Hi John, > >Thanks for the reply...one more question (below) > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:24 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw > > >> In article <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@au.fjanz.com>, Peter Newman >> writes >> >I would be interested in which laws you should use in the following >> >circumstances. >> > >> >32 teams play a knockout in Rd1 >> >Draw for Round 2 is determined by results in Rd 1. >> >Rank all teams 1-16 based on winning imp margin in Rd 1 [ties broken by >lot] >> >Team ranked 1 chooses any opponent 9-16, Team 2 any of the remaining 9-16 >> >etc. >> > >> >Team 1 chooses Team 15 >> > >> >Teams sit down to play (duplicated boards etc.) and several matches are >in >> >progress when Team 1 discovers they are playing team 25 because the >result >> >of 15v25 was handed in the wrong way to the director. The director then >> >asked team 25 to play team 1. >> > >> >Of course Team 25 is much stronger than Team 15 and wouldn't have been >> >chosen by Team 1. >> > >> >What do you do? There are no regulations in place to cover this scenario. >> > >> There are a lot of considerations. If you're playing with duplicated >> boards you will need some replacements; and you'll need a TD to organise >> it. How far into the match? if it's first or second board I'd definitely >> restart them if I have the resources to manage it. >> >> The EBU White Book has guidance on what to do for the scoring of >> mismatches, but they apply only to Swiss and how one awards the Victory >> Points. >> >> I don't think I can assist further. john > >OK - the reality is that the director decided it was too difficult to >re-organise the schedule at the time the problem was discovered and just >proceeded with the Team 1 V Team 25 match up. > >Which laws would you use to justify this? I'd go to "Responsibilities of the Tournament Director". 81C4 "orderly progress". I'd interpret that as "people are here to play bridge, don't have a riot on your hands" > >It also seems to me that if you assume the correction period for results is >over (and it should be if the next round of a knock-out is starting) then >you should just say that Team 15 won and Team 1 should play Team 15. >Comments? Errors in tabulation (ie scorers errors as opposed to errors in the score for a board) have a long correction period. The score is agreed as +10, unfortunately it's published as -10. Pushing your luck here. I think you have to shrug, return half of team 1's entry fee (token gesture etc), and write a better CoC for next time. >("We just won by -10 imps") > >Thanks, > >Peter > > > >_______________________________________________ >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:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 27 03:00:33 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:00:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-03 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Given the suggestion by Marv I edit the NYC unofficial >casebook, and given the suggestion by other blmlers for >a wiki interactive document, I propose a compromise. I >will start 13 blml threads, one for each of the 13 NYC >cases, then compile and edit the blml comments into a >casebook. Attached is NYC case N-03. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Movie grognard and general guru > >N-03 NY Prelim Draft 10/27/2004 >Subject: Failure to Alert >DIC: Cukoff >Event: GNT Championship > >Bd: 29 Harry Steiner >Dlr: North A984 >Vul: Both KT64 > K2 > \ A62 >Mike Passell\ Eddie Wold >JT7653 \ --- >752 \ AQJ98 >J \ 83 >T85 \ KQJ943 > \ > Ken Scholes \ > KQ2 \ > 3 > AQT97654 > 7 In the uk I'd be much more inclined to award 60% of 6D-1 and 40% of 6D=. A UK AC may well go along with this. Nevertheless I think the AC got this one pretty much right. It may well be that a US AC is less used to 12c3 adjustments. (60/40 is a sympathetic weighting in favour of the NOS) John > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 27 07:21:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:21:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] another major or minor In-Reply-To: <002a01c4bb43$c40e7020$d2053dd4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ben Schelen: >The player is not MAKING an irregularity, it HAPPENED to him. RJH: This reminds me of a great anecdote which I believe Eddie Kantar told about Mike Lawrence. As I recall, the story went like this -> In a matchpoint pairs event, Mike Lawrence declared 7NT, with no possible entry to dummy's winners except in this suit: Dummy 10x Mike AKQxx The legitimate line of play was to hope for a 5-1 break with a singleton jack. However, Mike reasoned that some players in this matchpoint event might fail in 6NT (due to the communication problem), so one off in 7NT might earn some matchpoints. Therefore, Mike took the safety play of immediately leading low to the ten, hoping for the 50% chance of the jack being onside. There was good news and bad news. Mike successfully escaped for only one off in 7NT when LHO held the jack. The bad news was that the LHO's jack was singleton. When Mike discovered the singleton, he tore up his cards into tiny fragments. But then a draconian TD wandered by. Mike claimed that he had not MADE an irregularity, rather it had HAPPENED to him, stating, "I dropped my cards and they broke." Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 27 07:39:26 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:39:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-03 Message-ID: <003601c4bbef$b4c4f100$1a9868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] N-03 NY Prelim Draft 10/27/2004 Subject: Failure to Alert DIC: Cukoff Event: GNT Championship Bd: 29 Harry Steiner Dlr: North A984 Vul: Both KT64 K2 \ A62 Mike Passell\ Eddie Wold JT7653 \ --- 752 \ AQJ98 J \ 83 T85 \ KQJ943 \ Ken Scholes \ KQ2 \ 3 AQT97654 7 West North East South 1C 1H 2D Pass 3NT Pass 4H(1) Pass 4S Pass 6D Pass Pass Dbl All Pass (1) Behind screens: South to West at end of auction RKC in diamonds. From North to East, nothing was said. The Facts: Six diamonds doubled made six for +1540 for NS. The opening lead was a club. The Director was called after board 32 when EW spoke about NS explanations. The Ruling: Score stands. East's choice of action over 4S was unlikely to be affected by difference in its meaning. The Appeal: East said that doubling 4S as a Keycard response was absolutely clear, but it was murkier as to whether to double a 4S cue bid. West predicated his choice of leads on East's failure to double what he knew as a kickback response. If he had known that East did not know that 4S was a kickback response, he might have led a spade. Statements made by non-appealing side: NS believed that EW should have been aware of the possibility that this was a kickback response and East could have protected himself. NS contended that East's double seemed to be clear in any case. Other Findings: NS did not know that behind screens they were required to alert Blackwood variants at the time the bids are made. The Directors affirmed that they are so required. The Decision: There was a failure to alert the kickback and its response. This constitutes misinformation. There was also a failure on East's side of the screen of North to inform East of the kickback sequence so that he could have called a director then to say that he would have doubled 4S if he had known (as he contended he would have done if so informed) which also constitutes MI. The Committee decided that kickback is not a convention so frequently played nor so patently recognizable that players (even excellent ones) should be expected to protect themselves from their opponents' failures to alert. In this case, South might have had a heart void and been cue bidding it. There was nothing "self alerting" about this sequence. It was the Committee's opinion that while the double of 4S probably would have been a good call by East on the actual auction, it (the double) was hardly as clear as it would have been if East had been fully informed. Among other things, East, if armed with correct information, would have reason to believe that doubling the 6D contract after not doubling the 4S kickback response would probably induce the club lead. As it was, he thought he could be silent over 4S and still double a slam for a spade lead. East's explanation of his thinking was reasonable and the Committee found that there was, therefore, significant deflection from doubling 4S by North's failure to inform East of the alertable call. Since the Committee found the deflection significant and attributable to the MI, the Committee adjusted the score. The Committee found it both sufficiently probable and likely that NS would bid a slam anyway that it predicted the adjustment on a 6D contract. However, based on the EW testimony, the contract of 6D would not be doubled. Therefore, the adjustment was to 6D down 1 for NS -100. Committee: Richard Popper, Chairperson, Steve Robinson, Michael Huston, Chris Moll and Bob Schwartz (appeal report prepared by Mark Bartusek). [Nigel] IMO the TD judged wrong and the AC judged right. Two comments on relevant laws and regulations: (1) Why are non-offenders ever denied redress when they fail to "protect themselves" by asking about unalerted bids that should be alerted. IMO this is just adding insult to injury. Like blaming the rape-victim. (2) John Probst suggests a 12C3 adjustment (60% of 6D-1 and 40% of 6D=). Why? Such fudges delight law-breakers and punish non-offenders. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 08-Oct-04 From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 27 13:01:05 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:01:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041026164042.02ad36a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c4bc1c$a3494250$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ........... >=20 > But of course we should base our decision on "words from people"; > that's what we do all the time. What do you do when you're called to > the table and there's one card face up and visible? You ask the > players what happened. "Was he attempting to play that card, or did = it > fall out of his hand by accident?" Nine times out of ten the table > will agree which it was; the other time you ask the player to repeat > his motion as exactly as possible and make a determination whether the > card was played or dropped. Why should that suddenly become > unsatisfactory just because we need to decide about two cards instead > of one? You confirm my point very well. When the Director arrives at a table and sees more than one card visible = in front of the player who is in turn to play his first duty is to = establish (in his own mind) what has actually happened. His main aids for determining this is what the players and possible spectators at the table can tell, and mind it: The offender is NOT to be asked for his intention, his possible answer to such a question will = reveal too much information to the other players and indeed is uncalled for in = Law 58B2.=20 Once the Director has made up his mind he knows whether he shall first = apply Law 58B2 or go directly to Law 50. And once he arrives at Law 50 the rest of his ruling should be = completely mechanical; did he apply Law 58B2 he has already decided that the cards = were played (accidentally), if not he has decided that a maximum of one card = was played and the other card(s) were accidentally dropped but not played. Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 27 13:37:13 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:37:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: <039801c4bbba$eb2247a0$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> References: <017101c4bb11$0b5c8f30$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> <039801c4bbba$eb2247a0$931dac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: Peter Newman wrote >OK - the reality is that the director decided it was too difficult to >re-organise the schedule at the time the problem was discovered and just >proceeded with the Team 1 V Team 25 match up. > >Which laws would you use to justify this? L80 and L81. When the SO has not done its duty in providing regs to cover situations then the TD has to make a decision on their behalf as to what to do. That's life. >It also seems to me that if you assume the correction period for results is >over (and it should be if the next round of a knock-out is starting) then >you should just say that Team 15 won and Team 1 should play Team 15. >Comments? >("We just won by -10 imps") I am unconvinced that SOs that do not think too much about regs necessarily adjust Correction Periods. I am sure there have been k/o matches under way where the Correction Period for the previous round has not finished. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Oct 27 13:39:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:39:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: References: <039801c4bbba$eb2247a0$931dac89@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote >Peter Newman: > >>OK - the reality is that the director decided it was >>too difficult to re-organise the schedule at the time >>the problem was discovered and just proceeded with the >>Team 1 V Team 25 match up. >> >>Which laws would you use to justify this? > >RJH: > >Easy. Law 81B1 and Law 81C3. This was recently >discussed in another thread. While Law 80B prohibits a >sponsoring organisation from making ex post facto >decisions on the conditions of contest, a TD is under >no such constraint. L80B does no such thing. It does say that things like playing quarters should be done in advance [eg, ten minutes in advance: have you never played in an event where the TD has said "follow me: we are going to see if such-and-such room is empty" L80D does not say anything about in advance. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 27 16:01:59 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:01:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000601c4bc1c$a3494250$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041026164042.02ad36a0@pop.starpower.net> <000601c4bc1c$a3494250$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041027105243.02b21bd0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:01 AM 10/27/04, Sven wrote: >Eric Landau >........... > > But of course we should base our decision on "words from people"; > > that's what we do all the time. What do you do when you're called to > > the table and there's one card face up and visible? You ask the > > players what happened. "Was he attempting to play that card, or did it > > fall out of his hand by accident?" Nine times out of ten the table > > will agree which it was; the other time you ask the player to repeat > > his motion as exactly as possible and make a determination whether the > > card was played or dropped. Why should that suddenly become > > unsatisfactory just because we need to decide about two cards instead > > of one? > >You confirm my point very well. Sven and I appear to be in complete agreement. >When the Director arrives at a table and sees more than one card >visible in >front of the player who is in turn to play his first duty is to establish >(in his own mind) what has actually happened. > >His main aids for determining this is what the players and possible >spectators at the table can tell,... This is where we disagree with Herman and others who seem to be arguing that if two cards were exposed simultaneously, the distinction between "played" and "exposed inadvertantly" doesn't matter. >and mind it: The offender is NOT to be >asked for his intention, his possible answer to such a question will >reveal >too much information to the other players and indeed is uncalled for >in Law >58B2. > >Once the Director has made up his mind he knows whether he shall first >apply >Law 58B2 or go directly to Law 50. > >And once he arrives at Law 50 the rest of his ruling should be completely >mechanical; did he apply Law 58B2 he has already decided that the >cards were >played (accidentally), if not he has decided that a maximum of one >card was >played and the other card(s) were accidentally dropped but not played. And this is where we disagree with David and others who argue that intention is always relevant to the proper application of L50, even if we determine that both cards were "played" and get there via the reference in L58B2. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 27 16:54:32 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:54:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 81C3 Message-ID: <7E792384-2830-11D9-BDD2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> says "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: ... 3. Conditions of Play to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants. ..." Two questions: what is included in "suitable conditions of play" and what is the *minimum* action required to meet the duty "announce them to the contestants"? A third question: if a TD does not perform these duties, what can be done about it? From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Oct 27 17:23:06 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:23:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 81C3 Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C4D6@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Sent: 27 October 2004 16:55 To: blml Subject: [blml] Law 81C3 says "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: ... 3. Conditions of Play to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants. ..." Two questions: what is included in "suitable conditions of play" and what is the *minimum* action required to meet the duty "announce them to the contestants"? A third question: if a TD does not perform these duties, what can be done about it? _______________________________________________ Suitable conditions of play: who will be playing at which tables when (this may be dynamically determined by the results - e.g. Swiss), and how the results on boards will determine the outcome. Minimum required to "announce them to the contestants": almost none - the name of the event may be enough! (e.g. "welcome to the London one-day Swiss Teams"). More accurately: pairs/teams size of sections scoring: MP or Butler/Cross IMPs (pairs) BAM/IMPs/VPs (teams) movement: Howell/Mitchell/Swiss (pairs), Multiple Teams/Swiss/KO (teams) number of boards But many things will be obvious or assumed unless specifically announced. In many event the players will not care (do not need to know) the number of boards or tables: they keep playing till they run out of boards and assume there are the right tables. If a TD does not perform these duties, what can be done about it? If TD fails to establish suitable conditions of play then the players should point this out. If the TD persists, the players should play and if/when it all breaks down, they should complain to the SO (saying "we told the TD it wouldn't work"). If TD fails to announce the conditions - ask. If TD omits something relevant that turn out to be relevant - ask for a ruling and/or complain to the SO. 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 27 23:27:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:27:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH: >>While Law 80B prohibits a sponsoring organisation from >>making ex post facto decisions on the conditions of >>contest, a TD is under no such constraint. David Stevenson: >L80B does no such thing. It does say that things like >playing quarters should be done in advance [eg, ten >minutes in advance: have you never played in an event >where the TD has said "follow me: we are going to see >if such-and-such room is empty" L80D does not say >anything about in advance. RJH: It seems that David is narrowly interpreting the phrase "advance arrangements" in Law 80B. But what about another - very specific - Law? Law 78D: >>>.....In **advance** of any contest the sponsoring >>>organisation should publish conditions of contest >>>detailing conditions of entry, methods of scoring, >>>determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the >>>like. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 27 23:59:30 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:59:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 81C3 In-Reply-To: <7E792384-2830-11D9-BDD2-0030656F6826@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: [snip] >A third question: if a TD does not perform these >duties, what can be done about it? RJH replies: If a TD has temporarily failed in their Law 81C3 duty to establish suitable conditions of play and/or announce these to the players, then the TD can later rectify their error under the authority given to the TD by Law 82A. Furthermore, if the movement has collapsed, the TD has Law 82B power to patch it up via adjusted scores and/or the play or postponing of play of particular boards. If a TD has permanently failed in their Law 81C3 duty (or any other duty), then the WBF LC seems to suggest that players have zero entitlement to any adjusted scores from their SO. Definition of Irregularity (WBF LC interpretation): >>This refers to errors by players not TDs. While >>TDs make errors these do not constitute >>irregularities. >>[WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#5] Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Thu Oct 28 00:22:46 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:22:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] another major or minor Message-ID: <000001c4bc7b$de086d30$2d222b52@Zog> Herman De Wael wrote: > A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two > cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not visible. > > Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > > a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can > elect which of the two shall be played. > > b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the > next trick (at declarer's choice) > > c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to > choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA > is returned to the hand. > > votes please. Yesterday, I put Herman's question to a colleague (a County Director) He discounted the application of L58 ( IHO neither 2 had been 'played'), and ruled the C2, H2 as MPCs. Interestingly, however, he said that as the SA had been detached from the player's hand in the process of the infraction (but not exposed), he would allow him the choice of leading it, applying ruling (b) or withdrawing it and applying ruling (a). I'm not sure that the Laws validate this 'choice', but I quite like allowing the (b) option in principle, since this is what I would have had to rule if the player had followed through and exposed the SA and I don't think he should be possibly disadvantaged by managing to avoid this exposure. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 28 00:44:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:44:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-07 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0wNy4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQpOLTA3ICAgICAgICBOWSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFByZWxpbSBEcmFmdCAxMC8yOC8yMDA0 DQpTdWJqZWN0OiAgICBNSQ0KRElDOiAgICAgICAgQ3Vrb2ZmDQpFdmVudDogICAgICBMTSBQYWly cyDigJMgMm5kIHNlbWlmaW5hbA0KDQpCZDogICA3ICAgICBNZWwgRWxndWluZHkNCkRscjogIFNv dXRoIEFLVDk2DQpWdWw6ICBCb3RoICBLODUyDQogICAgICAgICAgICA5NjUNCiAgICAgICAgICAg IDINCk1pY2hhZWwgUG9sb3dhbiAgICAgICAgIFJpY2hhcmQgUGF2bGljZWsNCjgyICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIEo0Mw0KOTc2ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgQUozDQozMiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICBBS0pUDQpLUUpUOTYgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA1NDMNCiAgICAgICAg ICAgIFZpY2tpIEVyaWNrc29uDQogICAgICAgICAgICBRNzUNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIFFUNA0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgUTg3NA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQTg3DQoNCldlc3QgICAgICBOb3J0aCAgICAgRWFz dCAgICAgIFNvdXRoDQotLS0gICAgICAgLS0tICAgICAgIC0tLSAgICAgICBQYXNzDQpQYXNzKDEp ICAgMVMgICAgICAgIERibCAgICAgICAyQygyKQ0KM0MgICAgICAgIFBhc3MgICAgICAzRCAgICAg ICAgM1MNClBhc3MgICAgICBQYXNzICAgICAgNEQgICAgICAgIERibA0KNUMgICAgICAgIFBhc3Mg ICAgICBQYXNzICAgICAgRGJsDQpQYXNzICAgICAgUGFzcyAgICAgIFBhc3MNCg0KKDEpICAgSGVz aXRhdGlvbg0KKDIpICAgTm90IGFsZXJ0ZWQsIGV4cGxhaW5lZCBhcyBuYXR1cmFsDQoNClRoZSBG YWN0czogVGhlIGZpbmFsIGNvbnRyYWN0IHdhcyA1QyBkb3VibGVkIGRvd24gdHdvDQpmb3IgKzUw MCBmb3IgTlMgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGxlYWQgb2YgdGhlIGFjZS4gIFRoZQ0KZGlyZWN0b3Igd2FzIGNh bGxlZCBhdCB0aGUgZW5kIG9mIHRoZSBhdWN0aW9uLg0KDQpUaGUgMkMgYmlkIHdhcyBub3QgYWxl cnRlZCB3aGVuIG1hZGUuICBFYXN0IGFza2VkIGF0DQpoaXMgdHVybiBhbmQgd2FzIHRvbGQgaXQg d2FzIG5hdHVyYWwuICBXaGVuIEVhc3Qgd2FzDQphc2tlZCB3aGF0IGhlIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgZG9u ZSBpZiBoZSBoYWQgYmVlbiB0b2xkIGl0DQp3YXMgYSBzcGFkZSByYWlzZSwgaGUgc2FpZCBoZSB3 b3VsZCBwYXNzIDNDLg0KDQpUaGUgUnVsaW5nOiBUaGUgY29udHJhY3Qgd2FzIGNoYW5nZWQgdG8g M0MgYnkgV2VzdA0KbWFraW5nIHRocmVlIGZvciArMTEwIGZvciBFVy4NCg0KVGhlIEFwcGVhbDog TlMgYXBwZWFsZWQgYW5kIHNhaWQgdGhleSB3ZXJlIGFsd2F5cw0KYmlkZGluZyAzUy4NCg0KVGhl IERlY2lzaW9uOiBUaGUgY29tbWl0dGVlIGVzdGFibGlzaGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgd2FzDQpNSS4g VGhleSBhbHNvIGVzdGFibGlzaGVkIHRoYXQgRVcgd2VyZSBkYW1hZ2VkLg0KDQpUaGUgY29tbWl0 dGVlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCB3aGV0aGVyIFNvdXRoIHdvdWxkIGFsd2F5cyBiaWQNCjNTLiAgV2FzIGEg M1MgYmlkIG92ZXIgM0QgZXZpZGVuY2UgZW5vdWdoIHRoYXQgc2hlIHdvdWxkDQpiaWQgM1Mgb3Zl ciAzQz8gQXMgc2hlIGRpZG4ndCBkb3VibGUgM0Qgd2l0aCBReHh4DQooYWx0aG91Z2ggc2hlIGhh ZCBub3Qgc2hvd24gc3BhZGVzIHlldCBkdWUgdG8gdGhlIG5vbi0NCmFsZXJ0KSwgdGhlIGNvbW1p dHRlZSBmZWx0IHRoYXQgdGhpcyBwbGF5ZXIgd291bGQgYWx3YXlzDQpiaWQgM1MgKG5vdCB0aGUg ZG91YmxlLCB3aXRoIHRoZSBpbXBsaWVkIG1pc2RlZmVuc2UgdGhhdA0Kb2NjdXJyZWQgYXQgdGhl IHRhYmxlIGluIDVDIGRvdWJsZWQpLg0KDQpXaXRoICsxNDAgc2V0dGxlZCBmb3IgTlMsIHRoZSBj b21taXR0ZWUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHRoZSBFVw0KYWN0aW9ucy4gIFdlc3QgZGlkIGhpcyBiZXN0LCBh c2tpbmcgaWYgMkMgd2FzIG5hdHVyYWwuDQpIb3dldmVyLCBzaG91bGQgM0MgYmUgbmF0dXJhbCBi eSBhIHBhc3NlZCBoYW5kIChhbmQgMlMgYQ0KY3VlIGJpZCk/DQoNClNob3VsZCBFYXN0IGJpZCA0 RCBhbmQgd2FzIGhlIHRha2luZyBhIGRvdWJsZSBzaG90PyAgV2hhdA0KY291bGQgcGFydG5lciBo YXZlPyAgQmlnIHJlZCBzdWl0ZWQgaGFuZD8gQnV0IHdoZXJlIGFyZQ0KdGhlIGJsYWNrcz8gTm9u ZSBvZiB0aGUgY29tbWl0dGVlIG1lbWJlcnMgbGlrZWQgdGhlIDREDQpiaWQgYW5kIHRoZXJlIHdh cyBzb21lIHNlbnRpbWVudCB0byBhbGxvdyBFVyB0byBrZWVwIOKAkzUwMA0KZHVlIHRvIHRoZWly IHBvb3IgcGxheS4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsIGlmIHRoZXJlIHdlcmUgbm8NCm1pc2luZm9ybWF0aW9uLCBF VyB3b3VsZCBub3QgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGluIHRoaXMgcG9zaXRpb24NCnNvIG5vIGZ1cnRoZXIgYWRq dXN0bWVudCB3YXMgbWFkZS4NCg0KVGhlIGFwcGVhbCB3YXMganVkZ2VkIHRvIGhhdmUgbWVyaXQu DQoNCkRpc3NlbnRpbmcgT3BpbmlvbjogKENocmlzIFdpbGxlbmtlbikgVGhpcyBjYXNlIGNvbnRh aW5lZA0KdHdvIHNlcGFyYXRlIGlzc3Vlcy4gVGhlIGZpcnN0IGlzc3VlIHRvIGNvbnNpZGVyIHdh cw0Kd2hldGhlciBFVyB3ZXJlIGRhbWFnZWQgYnkgTUkuIFRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUgYWdyZWVkIHRo YXQNCnRoZXJlIHdhcyBkYW1hZ2U7IHdpdGggYSBwcm9wZXIgYWxlcnQgb2YgMkMsIHRoZXJlIHdv dWxkDQpoYXZlIGJlZW4gbm8gY2hhbmNlIG9mIGEgbWlzdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBhYm91dCB0aGUg M0MNCmJpZC4gU28sIHdlIGRlY2lkZWQgdG8gYWxsb3cgRWFzdCB0byBwYXNzIDNDLg0KDQpXaXRo IHRoYXQgZGVjaXNpb24gbWFkZSwgdGhlIHNlY29uZCBpc3N1ZSB0byBjb25zaWRlciB3YXMNClNv dXRoJ3MgYWN0aW9uIHdoZW4gV2VzdCdzIDNDIGJpZCBpcyBwYXNzZWQgYmFjayB0byBoaW0uDQpI ZXJlIHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSBlcnJlZCBieSBub3QgcHJvcGVybHkgY29uc2lkZXJpbmcgdGhhdA0K dGhlIFVJIHRoYXQgU291dGggcG9zc2Vzc2VkIGZyb20gaGVyIHBhcnRuZXIncyBmYWlsdXJlIHRv DQphbGVydCAyQy4gVGhhdCBVSSBtYWRlIGJpZGRpbmcgM1MgKGFzIFNvdXRoIGRpZCBhdCB0aGUN CnRhYmxlKSBhIG1vcmUgYXR0cmFjdGl2ZSBvcHRpb24gdGhhbiBzb21lIG90aGVyDQpwb3NzaWJp bGl0aWVzOiBwYXNzIGFuZCBkb3VibGUuIEluIG15IG9waW5pb24sIHRoZQ0KbWFqb3JpdHkncyBj b250ZW50aW9uIHRoYXQgInRoaXMgcGxheWVyIHdvdWxkIGFsd2F5cyBoYXZlDQpiaWQgM1MiIGlz IGlycmVsZXZhbnQuIFRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBzaG91bGQgYmUsIGFzIGlzDQp0eXBpY2FsIGluIGNh c2VzIGludm9sdmluZyBVSSwgd2hldGhlciBzb21lIG51bWJlciBvZg0KU291dGgncyBwZWVycyB3 b3VsZCBzZXJpb3VzbHkgY29uc2lkZXIgcGFzc2luZyBvcg0KZG91YmxpbmcgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiBi aWRkaW5nLiBJdCBzZWVtcyBmYWlybHkgb2J2aW91cyB0aGF0DQpib3RoIHBhc3NpbmcgYW5kIGRv dWJsaW5nIHdpdGggYSBtYXhpbXVtIGRlZmVuc2l2ZQ0KNC0zLTMtMyBoYW5kIHdlcmUgbG9naWNh bCBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZXMgdG8gYmlkZGluZywgc28gSQ0Kd291bGQgaGF2ZSBhd2FyZGVkICsxMTAg aW4gM0MgZm9yIHRoZSBub24tb2ZmZW5kaW5nIHNpZGUsDQphbmQgZWl0aGVyIOKAkzExMCBvciDi gJM2NzAgZm9yIHRoZSBvZmZlbmRlcnMuDQoNClRoaXMgY2FzZSB3YXMgc29tZXdoYXQgbm92ZWwg aW4gdGhhdCB0aGUgY29tbWl0dGVlIG5lZWRlZA0KdG8gYXBwbHkgdGhlIHN0YW5kYXJkIFVJIHN0 YXR1dGUgdG8gYSBoeXBvdGhldGljYWwNCnNpdHVhdGlvbiwgb25lIHRoYXQgd291bGQgbm90IGhh dmUgb2NjdXJyZWQgYnV0IGZvciBNSS4NCg0KQ29tbWl0dGVlOiBNaWNoYWVsIEh1c3RvbiwgQ2hh aXJwZXJzb24sIENocmlzIFdpbGxlbmtlbiwNCkVsbGVuIE1lbHNvbiwgRGF2aWQgQmVya293aXR6 LCBzY3JpYmUgYW5kIExvdSBSZWljaC4= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 28 01:30:10 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:30:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-07 Message-ID: <007501c4bc85$48f981c0$bf9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] N-07 NY Prelim Draft 10/28/2004 Subject: MI DIC: Cukoff Event: LM Pairs - 2nd semifinal Bd: 7 Mel Elguindy Dlr: South AKT96 Vul: Both K852 965 2 Michael Polowan Richard Pavlicek 82 J43 976 AJ3 32 AKJT KQJT96 543 Vicki Erickson Q75 QT4 Q874 A87 West North East South --- --- --- Pass Pass(1) 1S Dbl 2C(2) 3C Pass 3D 3S Pass Pass 4D Dbl 5C Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) Hesitation (2) Not alerted, explained as natural The Facts: The final contract was 5C doubled down two for +500 for NS after the lead of the ace. The director was called at the end of the auction. The 2C bid was not alerted when made. East asked at his turn and was told it was natural. When East was asked what he would have done if he had been told it was a spade raise, he said he would pass 3C. The Ruling: The contract was changed to 3C by West making three for +110 for EW. The Appeal: NS appealed and said they were always bidding 3S. The Decision: The committee established that there was MI. They also established that EW were damaged. The committee discussed whether South would always bid 3S. Was a 3S bid over 3D evidence enough that she would bid 3S over 3C? As she didn't double 3D with Qxxx (although she had not shown spades yet due to the non-alert), the committee felt that this player would always bid 3S (not the double, with the implied misdefense that occurred at the table in 5C doubled). With +140 settled for NS, the committee discussed the EW actions. West did his best, asking if 2C was natural. However, should 3C be natural by a passed hand (and 2S a cue bid)? Should East bid 4D and was he taking a double shot? What could partner have? Big red suited hand? But where are the blacks? None of the committee members liked the 4D bid and there was some sentiment to allow EW to keep -500 due to their poor play. However, if there were no misinformation, EW would not have been in this position so no further adjustment was made. The appeal was judged to have merit. Dissenting Opinion: (Chris Willenken) This case containedtwo separate issues. The first issue to consider was whether EW were damaged by MI. The committee agreed that there was damage; with a proper alert of 2C, there would have been no chance of a misunderstanding about the 3C bid. So, we decided to allow East to pass 3C. With that decision made, the second issue to consider was South's action when West's 3C bid is passed back to him. Here the majority erred by not properly considering that the UI that South possessed from her partner's failure to alert 2C. That UI made bidding 3S (as South did at the table) a more attractive option than some other possibilities: pass and double. In my opinion, the majority's contention that "this player would always have bid 3S" is irrelevant. The question should be, as is typical in cases involving UI, whether some number of South's peers would seriously consider passing or doubling instead of bidding. It seems fairly obvious that both passing and doubling with a maximum defensive 4-3-3-3 hand were logical alternatives to bidding, so I would have awarded +110 in 3C for the non-offending side, and either -110 or -670 for the offenders. This case was somewhat novel in that the committee needed to apply the standard UI statute to a hypothetical situation, one that would not have occurred but for MI. Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Chris Willenken, Ellen Melson, David Berkowitz, scribe and Lou Reich. [Nigel] It is all a bit strange: I don't like the East-West actions. West hesitated as dealer and then bid 3C after asking whether South's unlaerted 2C was natural. After possible UI from East's hesitation, West made a "Welsh" double on a flat fourteen count; and then bid 3D and 4D opposite a passed partner. Nevertheless, the AC seeem to have condoned it all. In these circustances, surely Chris Willenken's dissenting opinion is worth consideration. South is in receipt of unauthorised information from North's failure to alert 3C. This demonstrably makes 3S a more logical alternative than a pass. Hence, IMO, the correct ruling was 3C= +110 for East-West. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 26-Oct-04 From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 28 03:24:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000601c4bc1c$a3494250$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Eric Landau > ........... > > > > But of course we should base our decision on "words from people"; > > that's what we do all the time. What do you do when you're called to > > the table and there's one card face up and visible? You ask the > > players what happened. "Was he attempting to play that card, or did > > it > > fall out of his hand by accident?" Nine times out of ten the table > > will agree which it was; the other time you ask the player to repeat > > his motion as exactly as possible and make a determination whether the > > card was played or dropped. Why should that suddenly become > > unsatisfactory just because we need to decide about two cards instead > > of one? > > You confirm my point very well. > > When the Director arrives at a table and sees more than one card > visible in front of the player who is in turn to play his first duty is > to establish (in his own mind) what has actually happened. > > His main aids for determining this is what the players and possible > spectators at the table can tell, and mind it: The offender is NOT to be > asked for his intention, his possible answer to such a question will > reveal too much information to the other players and indeed is uncalled > for in Law 58B2. > Once the Director has made up his mind he knows whether he shall first > apply > Law 58B2 or go directly to Law 50. > > And once he arrives at Law 50 the rest of his ruling should be > completely mechanical; did he apply Law 58B2 he has already decided that > the cards were played (accidentally) Not necessarily. He would reach L50 (via law 58b) if a) He decided that one card was played deliberately, the other by mistake b) He decided that both cards were played accidentally. Note that in applying law 58b the TD's ruling is unaffected by defender volunteering "I tried to play a card and pulled the ST and S9 together" and "I tried to play the S9 and the ST came along with it." (Please don't tell me the TD can find out what happened without giving the player a chance to speak) In either cases the player may designate *either* the S9 or the ST as the card he proposes to play (and there will be some UI). L50 does *not* say that when two (or more) cards are played to the same then both are considered to be played inadvertently - it merely says that playing 2 cards to the same trick is one of two examples whereby it is *possible* for a card to be played inadvertently. Consider, if you will, a player who contributes both the 1st and 5th cards to a trick - in two separate and deliberate actions. The English language has, just about, sufficient malleability to rule that the fifth card was played "inadvertently" but that would not be a mainstream interpretation. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 28 04:41:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:41:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] NEW ENGLAND TEMPERATURE CONVERSION CHART [OT] Message-ID: NEW ENGLAND TEMPERATURE CONVERSION CHART 60° F: Southern Californians shiver uncontrollably. People in New England sunbathe. 50° F: New Yorkers try to turn on the heat. People in New England plant gardens. 40° F: Italian & English cars won't start. People in New England drive with the windows down. 32° F: Distilled water freezes. Maine's Moosehead Lake's water gets thicker. 20° F: Floridians don coats, thermal underwear, gloves, wool hats. People in New England throw on a flannel shirt. 15° F: New York landlords finally turn up the heat. People in New England have the last cookout before it gets cold. 0° F: All the people in Miami die. New Englanders close the windows. 10° below zero: Californians fly away to Mexico. The Girl Scouts in New England are selling cookies door to door. 25° below zero: Hollywood disintegrates. People in New England get out their winter coats. 40° below zero: Washington, DC runs out of hot air. People in New England let the dogs sleep indoors. 100° below zero: Santa Claus abandons the North Pole. New Englanders get frustrated because they can't start their "kahs." 460° below zero: All atomic motion stops (absolute zero on the Kelvin scale). People in New England start saying, "cold 'nuff for ya?" 500° below zero: Hell freezes over. The Red Sox win the World Series! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It has been since 1918, but at last, from 3-0 against the Yankees in the ALCS, and 3 outs away from going out: playing against the team that won 105 starts in the regular season: with Schilling pitching on one leg: with a great bullpen and wonderful batters: with Pedro: after four times losing 4-3 in a World Series: the Red Sox have done it! The curse of the bambino is dead! Go BoSox! -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 28 09:09:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:09:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c4bcc5$75b79040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ............. > L50 does *not* say that when two (or more) cards are played to the = same > then both are considered to be played inadvertently - it merely says = that > playing 2 cards to the same trick is one of two examples whereby it is > *possible* for a card to be played inadvertently. Consider, if you = will, > a player who contributes both the 1st and 5th cards to a trick - in = two > separate and deliberate actions. >=20 > The English language has, just about, sufficient malleability to rule = that > the fifth card was played "inadvertently" but that would not be a > mainstream interpretation. I am not sure what you mean by the 1st and 5th card? The important = question for the Director is to determine if the two cards were exposed in the = same or in two different actions. This is necessary for him to decide whether = or not to apply Law 58B2.=20 Have you noticed the contributions from Grattan where he confirms that = L50B was really intended by WBFLC the way I have understood it? "As in playing two cards to a trick" is to be taken not as an example on = how it could possibly have been but as a precision that the card not = designated by the offender as played is to be considered exposed inadvertently?=20 You are of course free to have your own opinion but I prefer to stick to = the officially endorsed interpretation. Sven From blml@blakjak.com Thu Oct 28 17:22:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:22:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >RJH: > >>>While Law 80B prohibits a sponsoring organisation from >>>making ex post facto decisions on the conditions of >>>contest, a TD is under no such constraint. > >David Stevenson: > >>L80B does no such thing. It does say that things like >>playing quarters should be done in advance [eg, ten >>minutes in advance: have you never played in an event >>where the TD has said "follow me: we are going to see >>if such-and-such room is empty" L80D does not say >>anything about in advance. > >RJH: > >It seems that David is narrowly interpreting the phrase >"advance arrangements" in Law 80B. But what about >another - very specific - Law? > >Law 78D: > >>>>.....In **advance** of any contest the sponsoring >>>>organisation should publish conditions of contest >>>>detailing conditions of entry, methods of scoring, >>>>determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the >>>>like. Of course they "should" - but that does not make such decisions illegal when they do not! If you have a tie at the end of an event and no regulation as to what to do are you seriously suggesting it is now ***illegal*** for someone to make a decision as to what to do? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Thu Oct 28 18:05:57 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:05:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] another major or minor References: <000001c4bc7b$de086d30$2d222b52@Zog> Message-ID: <005001c4bd10$7e7f12c0$79053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:22 AM Subject: RE: [blml] another major or minor > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > A player, on lead, detaches the SA from his hand. On so doing, two > > cards drop on the table, face up: the C2 and H2. The SA is not > visible. > > > > Which of these 3 is the correct ruling: > > > > a) Both these cards become MPC, none of them is played, declarer can > > elect which of the two shall be played. > > > > b) The SA is the played card, the twos become MPC, to be played in the > > next trick (at declarer's choice) > > > > c) Both these cards are played cards, L58 applies, the player gets to > > choose which of them he'll play, the other one becomes a mPC. The SA > > is returned to the hand. > > > > votes please. > > Yesterday, I put Herman's question to a colleague (a County Director) > > He discounted the application of L58 ( IHO neither 2 had been 'played'), > and ruled the C2, H2 as MPCs. > Interestingly, however, he said that as the SA had been detached from > the player's hand in the process of the infraction (but not exposed), he > would allow him the choice of leading it, applying ruling (b) or > withdrawing it and applying ruling (a). > > I'm not sure that the Laws validate this 'choice', but I quite like > allowing the (b) option in principle, since this is what I would have > had to rule if the player had followed through and exposed the SA and I > don't think he should be possibly disadvantaged by managing to avoid > this exposure. > > Forbidding the exposure will give him another penalty That is too much. Who, as a sadist, will give him three penalties alltogether for an ill-luck? Ben From fzzoib@yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 20:23:38 2004 From: fzzoib@yahoo.com (Ramiro Fischer) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200410031468.i93EodTw000030@www3.gmail.com> Hi again, Here is Ramiro Fischer. I write to you because we are accepting your mortg= age application. Our office confirms you can get a $220.000 lo=C0n for a $252.00 per month = payment. Approval process will take 1 minute, so please fill out the form on our we= bsite: http://verity-thiocyanate.refitalk.com Thank you. Best Regards Ramiro Fischer First Account Manager From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 28 23:21:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:21:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH: >>>While Law 80B [and/or Law 78D] prohibits a sponsoring >>>organisation from making ex post facto decisions on >>>the conditions of contest, a TD is under no such >>>constraint. [big snip] Law 78D: >>.....In **advance** of any contest the sponsoring >>organisation should publish conditions of contest >>detailing conditions of entry, methods of scoring, >>determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the >>like. David Stevenson: >Of course they "should" - but that does not make such >decisions illegal when they do not! > >If you have a tie at the end of an event and no >regulation as to what to do are you seriously >suggesting it is now ***illegal*** for someone to make >a decision as to what to do? RJH: Nope. I am suggesting that *the SO* cannot make a decision as to what to do. I specifically stated that "a TD is under no such constraint". This was Grattan Endicott's official advice to the New South Wales Bridge Association, when their regulations failed to give an *advance* definition of Ave+ at Butler scoring. Grattan stated that, while the NSWBA could not create an ex post facto regulation, the TD did have that power. (Grattan also suggested that the NSWBA could informally advise the TD on how the TD chose to exercise that ex post facto power.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 28 23:54:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000101c4bcc5$75b79040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Wrote > I am not sure what you mean by the 1st and 5th card? The important > question for the Director is to determine if the two cards were exposed > in the same or in two different actions. This is necessary for him to > decide whether or not to apply Law 58B2. Fer chrissake! Applying Law58b is *not* a problem. The issue is applying Law50b2. A player can play two cards to a trick in (more than) two ways. a) By playing a card from hand and simultaneously pulling a second card along with it. b) By leading to a trick, forgetting he has done so, and playing to the trick subsequently. If, as you maintain, "playing two cards to a trick" directly equates to "both cards are inadvertent" then you must rule an mPC in both cases. I, OTOH, maintain that it is *possible* to play two cards to a single trick and for *at least one* (and sometimes both) to be played advertently. Do you accept that "playing two cards to a trick" is not *always* a matter of inadvertency? If so why do you not accept that a TD is obliged to determine whether one (or more) of such cards were played deliberately? > Have you noticed the contributions from Grattan where he confirms that > L50B was really intended by WBFLC the way I have understood it? I have. And as I said before it is a shame they could not write what they intended without ambiguity. > "As in playing two cards to a trick" is to be taken not as an example > on how it could possibly have been but as a precision that the card not > designated > by the offender as played is to be considered exposed inadvertently? > > You are of course free to have your own opinion but I prefer to stick > to the officially endorsed interpretation. Grattan's comments on this list are not (unless based on documented WBFLC minutes) "official interpretations". Besides, all I have asked is that *both* sides recognise that the law is open to (at least) two interpretations. I have said before that on the whole I prefer the results of Grattanesque word-twisting to a more normal English reading of the words themselves. However, my preferences count for naught. The DWS/HdW reading is a legitimate one - and in the UK it is the prevalent one. Your inability to recognise that this is the case is what I find frustrating - even Grattan has acknowledged that there is a problem of ambiguity. Tim From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Fri Oct 29 00:18:43 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , David Stevenson writes > wrote >> >> >> >> >>RJH: >> >>>>While Law 80B prohibits a sponsoring organisation from >>>>making ex post facto decisions on the conditions of >>>>contest, a TD is under no such constraint. >> >>David Stevenson: >> >>>L80B does no such thing. It does say that things like >>>playing quarters should be done in advance [eg, ten >>>minutes in advance: have you never played in an event >>>where the TD has said "follow me: we are going to see >>>if such-and-such room is empty" L80D does not say >>>anything about in advance. >> >>RJH: >> >>It seems that David is narrowly interpreting the phrase >>"advance arrangements" in Law 80B. But what about >>another - very specific - Law? >> >>Law 78D: >> >>>>>.....In **advance** of any contest the sponsoring >>>>>organisation should publish conditions of contest >>>>>detailing conditions of entry, methods of scoring, >>>>>determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the >>>>>like. > > > Of course they "should" - but that does not make such decisions >illegal when they do not! > > If you have a tie at the end of an event and no regulation as to what >to do are you seriously suggesting it is now ***illegal*** for someone >to make a decision as to what to do? > I been in that position of having to break a tie when we've had no regulations of how to do it. Bridge Great Britain is an organisation that runs Sim Pairs. They used to give four pens for the club to distribute to the winning pairs. We've always played the event as a two-winner Mitchell so gave the pens to the North/South winner on the night and the East/West winner. Then they changed it to two "nice" pens. We once realised once we received them. How do I as the TD decide who is the winning pair in a two winner movement! Common sense says give it to the pair with the highest percentage across the two fields, but where the regulation that backs that up? Similarly we had a case where two pairs come equal first with the same score. They never played each other so how do I split the tie? Again we used common sense to split it based on whoever came higher in the national results. Fortunately we've always has the regulation that whoever does best on the night winds the prize even if another pair comes higher in the national rankings. [Unfortunately for me I was on the losing end of the regulation in the last event we held :-(] -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 29 00:47:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:47:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4bd48$734b5bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Sven Wrote >=20 > > I am not sure what you mean by the 1st and 5th card? The important > > question for the Director is to determine if the two cards were = exposed > > in the same or in two different actions. This is necessary for him = to > > decide whether or not to apply Law 58B2. >=20 > Fer chrissake! Applying Law58b is *not* a problem. The issue is = applying > Law50b2. >=20 > A player can play two cards to a trick in (more than) two ways. > a) By playing a card from hand and simultaneously pulling a second = card > along with it. Law 58B2 applies; the offender must select which of the two cards he suggests to play. The other card is an accidentally played card as = described in Law 50B by the clause "as in playing two cards to a trick". This = clause does not include the word "accidentally", a word that is added to the = other way a card can be exposed inadvertently. > b) By leading to a trick, forgetting he has done so, and playing to = the > trick subsequently. Law 58B2 does NOT apply; the two cards were not "played" simultaneously. = The offender is deemed to having played the first of the two cards and thereafter exposed the second card. The Director must decide whether or = not he accepts that last card as exposed inadvertently. Your description = makes it most likely that this card must be considered exposed through = deliberate play.=20 >=20 > If, as you maintain, "playing two cards to a trick" directly equates = to > "both cards are inadvertent" then you must rule an mPC in both cases. Only in the first case and only if the penalty card is below the rank of = an honour. > I, OTOH, maintain that it is *possible* to play two cards to a single > trick and for *at least one* (and sometimes both) to be played > advertently. It is (of course) *possible* that a player on purpose plays two cards to = a trick; if the Director deems that this could have been the case and that = the offender could have known that there was a possibility for him to gain = on such action then he should apply Law 72B1. Law 72B2 may also be = applicable. But both the way Law 50B is written, the way it was commented in 1992 in = the document that was issued by EBL as an official document and the fact = that these comments have been endorsed by WBF in not issuing any minute or = other statement to the effect that this understanding is invalid clearly = indicate that the card not designated by the offender as the card he suggests to = play when "playing two cards to a trick" shall be considered exposed inadvertently.=20 >=20 > Do you accept that "playing two cards to a trick" is not *always* a = matter > of inadvertency? No. For the purpose of using Law 50B I maintain that the card not = selected by the offender as the card he suggested to play (under Law 58B2) shall always be considered exposed inadvertently. >=20 > If so why do you not accept that a TD is obliged to determine whether = one > (or more) of such cards were played deliberately? >=20 > > Have you noticed the contributions from Grattan where he confirms = that > > L50B was really intended by WBFLC the way I have understood it? >=20 > I have. And as I said before it is a shame they could not write what = they > intended without ambiguity. >=20 > > "As in playing two cards to a trick" is to be taken not as an = example > > on how it could possibly have been but as a precision that the card = not > > designated > > by the offender as played is to be considered exposed inadvertently? > > > > You are of course free to have your own opinion but I prefer to = stick > > to the officially endorsed interpretation. >=20 > Grattan's comments on this list are not (unless based on documented = WBFLC > minutes) "official interpretations". =20 There is no reason why WBFLC should issue any minute or other comment to confirm that they endorse EBL documents; we should expect such comments = from WBFLC if they in any way disagree with what has been issued. > Besides, all I have asked is that > *both* sides recognise that the law is open to (at least) two > interpretations. I have said before that on the whole I prefer the > results of Grattanesque word-twisting to a more normal English reading = of > the words themselves. However, my preferences count for naught. The > DWS/HdW reading is a legitimate one - and in the UK it is the = prevalent > one. Your inability to recognise that this is the case is what I find > frustrating - even Grattan has acknowledged that there is a problem of > ambiguity. >=20 > Tim Just give a good reason why in describing the two ways a card is to be considered exposed inadvertently the word "accidentally" is attached to "dropping a card" but not to "playing two cards to a trick". Grattan has given the reasons for the current wording in Law 50B2 as he remembers from the work in WBFLC and has further stated that because of = the (to him surprising) alternative interpretations that have become = apparent he is seriously considering adding even stronger instructions in Law 50B to = the effect that when simultaneously playing two cards to a trick the play = shall always be considered accidental. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 29 03:13:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:13:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000201c4bd48$734b5bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <270AF652-2950-11D9-9A2F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Oct 28, 2004, at 19:47 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > the fact that these comments have been endorsed by WBF in not issuing > any minute or other > statement to the effect that this understanding is invalid Seems to me that the fact that the WBF have made no official comment on the commentaries does not constitute an endorsement. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 29 05:00:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:00:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-06 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0wNi4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQpOLTA2ICAgICAgICBOWSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFByZWxpbSBEcmFmdCAxMC8yOS8yMDA0 DQpTdWJqZWN0OiAgICBVSQ0KRElDOiAgICAgICAgQ3Vrb2ZmDQpFdmVudDogICAgICBMTSBQYWly cyDigJMgMXN0IHNlbWlmaW5hbA0KDQpCZDogICAzICAgICBUcm95IEhvcnRvbg0KRGxyOiAgU291 dGggNjQNClZ1bDogIEVXICAgIDk4NQ0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQUs2Mg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQUs4 Ng0KQW5kcmV3IEhvc2tpbnMgICAgICAgICAgTWNLZW56aWUgTXllcnMNCko3ICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIFE5NTMyDQo3NjMyICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBBUUpUNA0KUTg3NCAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgVDMNCjUzMiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEoNCiAgICAgICAgICAg IEVyaWMgU3RvbHR6DQogICAgICAgICAgICBBS1Q4DQogICAgICAgICAgICBLDQogICAgICAgICAg ICBKOTUNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIFFUOTc0DQoNCldlc3QgICAgICBOb3J0aCAgICAgRWFzdCAgICAg IFNvdXRoDQotLS0gICAgICAgLS0tICAgICAgIC0tLSAgICAgICAxQw0KUGFzcyAgICAgIDJDKDEp ICAgICAzQygyKSAgICAgRGJsDQozSCAgICAgICAgRGJsICAgICAgIFBhc3MgICAgICAzTlQoMykN ClBhc3MgICAgICA0RCAgICAgICAgUGFzcyAgICAgIDRTDQpQYXNzICAgICAgNUMgICAgICAgIFBh c3MgICAgICBQYXNzDQpQYXNzDQoNCigxKSAgSW52ZXJ0ZWQsIGZvcmNpbmcNCigyKSAgTWFqb3Jz DQooMykgIEFncmVlZCBCSVQNCg0KVGhlIEZhY3RzOiA1QyBtYWRlIDYgZm9yIGEgc2NvcmUgb2Yg KzQyMCBmb3IgTlMuIFRoZQ0KZGlyZWN0b3Igd2FzIGNhbGxlZCBhZnRlciB0aGUgc2Vzc2lvbiBh bmQgdGhlIE5TIHBhaXINCmhhZCBsZWZ0IHRoZSBwbGF5aW5nIGFyZWEuDQoNClRoZSBkaXJlY3Rv ciBkaWQgbm90IG1ha2UgYSBkZWNpc2lvbi4NCg0KVGhlIFJ1bGluZzogSW4gc2NyZWVuaW5nLCB0 aGUgc2NyZWVuZXIgY2hhbmdlZCB0aGUNCnJlc3VsdCB0byAzTlQg4oCTMSBmb3IgKzUwIGZvciBF Vy4gIFRoZSBoZXNpdGF0aW9uIGJlZm9yZQ0KM05UIHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBkb3VidCBhbmQgZGVtb25z dHJhYmx5IHN1Z2dlc3RlZCB0aGUgNEQNCmNhbGwgKExhdyAxNikuDQoNClRoZSBBcHBlYWw6IE5v cnRoIHN0YXRlZCB0aGF0IGhpcyBwYXJ0bmVyIHdvdWxkIHNpdCBmb3INCjNIIGRvdWJsZWQgYWxt b3N0IGFsbCB0aGUgdGltZSBzbyBoZSBkZW5pZWQgYSBzdG9wcGVyDQplbHNlIGhlIHdvdWxkIGhh dmUgbGVmdCBpdCBpbiAzSCBkb3VibGVkIGFuZCBub3QgYmlkDQozTlQuICBUaHVzIHJlbW92aW5n IHRvIDNOVCBtZWFudCBoZSAoTm9ydGgpIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUNCnRvIGhhdmUgdGhlIHN0b3BwZXIg aGltc2VsZi4gIFRoZSBkb3VibGUgb2YgM0MNCnN1Z2dlc3RlZCB0aGUgYmFsYW5jZSBvZiBwb3dl ciBhbmQgdGhlIGRvdWJsZSBvZiAzSCB3YXMNCnBlbmFsdHkuICBJdCB3YXMgbm90ZWQgdGhhdCBO UyBwbGF5IDEyLTE0IE5UIHJhbmdlIGFuZA0KNSBjYXJkIG1ham9ycy4NCg0KVGhlIERlY2lzaW9u OiBOb3J0aCdzIGRvdWJsZSBvZiAzSCB3YXMgaW4gYSBwb3NpdGlvbg0Kd2hlcmUgcGFzcyB3b3Vs ZCBoYXZlIG5vdCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gZm9yY2luZy4gIFNvIGhpcw0KZG91YmxlIGNvdWxkIGhhdmUg YmVlbiBhbnkgaGFuZCB3aXRoIGV4dHJhcy4NCg0KVGhlcmUgd2FzIGEgQklUIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUg M05UIGNhbGwuICBUaGUgQklUIHN1Z2dlc3RlZA0KcmVtb3ZpbmcgM05ULiAgV2FzIHRoZXJlIGFu IExBPyAgWWVzLiAgU291dGggY291bGQgaGF2ZQ0KYW4gdW5iYWxhbmNlZCBoYW5kIHdpdGggYSBo ZWFydCBzdG9wcGVyIHN1Y2ggYXMgUUp4LCBBLA0KUXh4LCBRSnh4eHggb3IgS3gsIEt4IFFKeCBR Snh4eHggb3IgQUtRIEt4IHh4eCBRSnh4eA0Kd2hlcmUgM05UIHdhcyB0aGUgaGlnaGVzdCBzY29y aW5nIGNvbnRyYWN0IGZvciBOUy4NCg0KVGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBTb3V0aCdzIGRvdWJsZSBvZiAz QyBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBzdWdnZXN0DQphIGdvb2QgaGFuZCAob3IgcGVuYWx0eSBpbnRlcmVzdCkg d2FzIG5vdCBiYXNlZCBvbg0KZ2l2ZW4gU291dGgncyBkZWNpc2lvbiB0byBtYWtlIHRoaXMgY2Fs bCBvbiBhIDEzIGNvdW50DQp3aXRoIGEgc2luZ2xldG9uIGtpbmcuDQoNClRoZSBhcHBlYWwgd2Fz IGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSBtZXJpdC4gIE5vcnRoJ3MNCmFyZ3VtZW50IGFib3V0IGhpcyBw YXJ0bmVyJ3MgZGVjaXNpb24gdG8gcmVtb3ZlIHRoZQ0KZG91YmxlIG9mIDNIIHdhcyBtb2RlcmF0 ZWx5IHBlcnN1YXNpdmUuICBFdmVuIHRob3VnaA0KdGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSByZWplY3RlZCB0aGUg YXJndW1lbnQsIGZpbmRpbmcgY291bnRlci0NCmV4YW1wbGVzIHdhcyBieSBubyBtZWFucyB0cml2 aWFsLg0KDQpDb21taXR0ZWU6IEJhcnJ5IFJpZ2FsLCBDaGFpcnBlcnNvbiwgUmFscGggQ29oZW4s IENocmlzDQpNb2xsLCBFZCBMYXphcnVzIGFuZCBUb20gQ2FybWljaGFlbC4= From toddz@att.net Fri Oct 29 05:41:11 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:41:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000201c4bd48$734b5bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c4bd48$734b5bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20041028200351.01baaec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 07:47 PM 10/28/2004, you wrote: > > Fer chrissake! Applying Law58b is *not* a problem. The issue is > > applying Law50b2. > > > >Law 58B2 applies; >Law 58B2 does NOT apply; I'll give a go by explicitly stating the example that cannot invoke L58. The player leads the AD to a trick. Dummy contributes the 2, partner the 3, the player the 5, and declarer the 4. L58 doesn't apply. Forgetting other laws that do apply, what does L50B say about the 5D? David S., HdW and TW-M appear that they'd argue it's a MPC. L50B says nothing about the cards played to the same trick having to be played simultaneously (that's only in L58). If intent doesn't matter and simultaneity doesn't matter, then the card must be a mPC. That doesn't seem right, but I wouldn't be surprized if it's so. If you think the 5D should be a MPC, you should see the ambiguity by now. If not, the Law could still be written with stronger language for those of us who do see the ambiguity. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 29 07:44:46 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:44:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20041028200351.01baaec0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch asked: >I'll give a go by explicitly stating the example that >cannot invoke L58. > >The player leads the AD to a trick. Dummy contributes >the 2, partner the 3, the player the 5, and declarer >the 4. L58 doesn't apply. Forgetting other laws that >do apply, what does L50B say about the 5D? [snip] RJH: In my opinion, this approach is fallacious. One should apply the Laws in logical sequence. That is, in my opinion, one should examine Law 45E1 (Fifth Card Played to Trick by a Defender) *before* bounding into Law 50B. Law 45E1: >>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 56 applies. RJH: So, if the diamond 5 is deemed by the TD to have been led, then Law 50B is not relevant; Law 53 or Law 56 apply instead. And if the diamond 5 is alternatively deemed by the TD to be inadvertently exposed, then by Law 45E1 definition it is "a" (single) penalty card, and so by Law 50B definition it is therefore a *minor* penalty card. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 29 08:46:15 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:46:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4bd8b$5e976360$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Todd M. Zimnoch asked: >=20 > >I'll give a go by explicitly stating the example that > >cannot invoke L58. > > > >The player leads the AD to a trick. Dummy contributes > >the 2, partner the 3, the player the 5, and declarer > >the 4. L58 doesn't apply. Forgetting other laws that > >do apply, what does L50B say about the 5D? >=20 In addition to the comments from RJH below (to which I fully agree) the commentaries from 1992 clarifies that the clause "as in playing two = cards to a trick" is to be understood as playing the two cards *simultaneously*. Sven > [snip] >=20 > RJH: >=20 > In my opinion, this approach is fallacious. One should > apply the Laws in logical sequence. That is, in my > opinion, one should examine Law 45E1 (Fifth Card Played > to Trick by a Defender) *before* bounding into Law 50B. >=20 > Law 45E1: >=20 > >>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 56 applies. >=20 > RJH: >=20 > So, if the diamond 5 is deemed by the TD to have been > led, then Law 50B is not relevant; Law 53 or Law 56 > apply instead. >=20 > And if the diamond 5 is alternatively deemed by the TD > to be inadvertently exposed, then by Law 45E1 definition > it is "a" (single) penalty card, and so by Law 50B > definition it is therefore a *minor* penalty card. >=20 >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 29 08:51:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:51:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <270AF652-2950-11D9-9A2F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c4bd8c$0f8e4670$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed > Reppert > Sent: 29. oktober 2004 04:14 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? > > > On Thursday, Oct 28, 2004, at 19:47 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > the fact that these comments have been endorsed by WBF in not issuing > > any minute or other > > statement to the effect that this understanding is invalid > > Seems to me that the fact that the WBF have made no official comment on > the commentaries does not constitute an endorsement. Don't you think "acquiescence by silence" is a relevant term here? Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 29 10:11:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:11:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] my dream Message-ID: <41820939.3080603@hdw.be> At the end of my dream this morning, someone asked about blml "isn't that where people are discussing the number of angels dancing on a pinhead?" Now fully awake, I came up with the answer: "No, that question was settled last week, there are 793 of them; although some lunatics continue to assert there are only 792. This week we are debating whether they are doing the waltz or the tango!". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 29 12:03:33 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:03:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-06 Message-ID: <001701c4bda6$ef2337e0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] N-06 NY Prelim Draft 10/29/2004 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event: LM Pairs - 1st semifinal Bd: 3 Troy Horton Dlr: South 64 Vul: EW 985 AK62 AK86 Andrew Hoskins McKenzie Myers J7 Q9532 7632 AQJT4 Q874 T3 532 J Eric Stoltz AKT8 K J95 QT974 West North East South --- --- --- 1C Pass 2C(1) 3C(2) Dbl 3H Dbl Pass 3NT(3) Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass 5C Pass Pass Pass (1) Inverted, forcing (2) Majors (3) Agreed BIT The Facts: 5C made 6 for a score of +420 for NS. The director was called after the session and the NS pair had left the playing area. The director did not make a decision. The Ruling: In screening, the screener changed the result to 3NT -1 for +50 for EW. The hesitation before 3NT suggested doubt and demonstrably suggested the 4D call (Law 16). The Appeal: North stated that his partner would sit for 3H doubled almost all the time so he denied a stopper else he would have left it in 3H doubled and not bid 3NT. Thus removing to 3NT meant he (North) would have to have the stopper himself. The double of 3C suggested the balance of power and the double of 3H was penalty. It was noted that NS play 12-14 NT range and 5 card majors. The Decision: North's double of 3H was in a position where pass would have not have been forcing. So his double could have been any hand with extras. There was a BIT before the 3NT call. The BIT suggested removing 3NT. Was there an LA? Yes. South could have an unbalanced hand with a heart stopper such as QJx, A, Qxx, QJxxxx or Kx, Kx QJx QJxxxx or AKQ Kx xxx QJxxx where 3NT was the highest scoring contract for NS. The fact that South's double of 3C should have suggest a good hand (or penalty interest) was not based on given South's decision to make this call on a 13 count with a singleton king. The appeal was considered to have merit. North's argument about his partner's decision to remove the double of 3H was moderately persuasive. Even though the committee rejected the argument, finding counter- examples was by no means trivial. Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Ralph Cohen, Chris Moll, Ed Lazarus and Tom Carmichael. [Nigel] I am intrigued that the director did not make a decision himself; but IMO the screener and the AC got this right; especially if, as seems to be the case, the double of 3H was not alerted. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25-Oct-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 29 12:06:56 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:06:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-07 References: <007501c4bc85$48f981c0$bf9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002001c4bda7$68134d20$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] N-07 NY Prelim Draft 10/28/2004 Subject: MI DIC: Cukoff Event: LM Pairs - 2nd semifinal Bd: 7 Mel Elguindy Dlr: South AKT96 Vul: Both K852 965 2 Michael Polowan Richard Pavlicek 82 J43 976 AJ3 32 AKJT KQJT96 543 Vicki Erickson Q75 QT4 Q874 A87 West North East South --- --- --- Pass Pass(1) 1S Dbl 2C(2) 3C Pass 3D 3S Pass Pass 4D Dbl 5C Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) Hesitation (2) Not alerted, explained as natural The Facts: The final contract was 5C doubled down two for +500 for NS after the lead of the ace. The director was called at the end of the auction. The 2C bid was not alerted when made. East asked at his turn and was told it was natural. When East was asked what he would have done if he had been told it was a spade raise, he said he would pass 3C. The Ruling: The contract was changed to 3C by West making three for +110 for EW. The Appeal: NS appealed and said they were always bidding 3S. The Decision: The committee established that there was MI. They also established that EW were damaged. The committee discussed whether South would always bid 3S. Was a 3S bid over 3D evidence enough that she would bid 3S over 3C? As she didn't double 3D with Qxxx (although she had not shown spades yet due to the non-alert), the committee felt that this player would always bid 3S (not the double, with the implied misdefense that occurred at the table in 5C doubled). With +140 settled for NS, the committee discussed the EW actions. West did his best, asking if 2C was natural. However, should 3C be natural by a passed hand (and 2S a cue bid)? Should East bid 4D and was he taking a double shot? What could partner have? Big red suited hand? But where are the blacks? None of the committee members liked the 4D bid and there was some sentiment to allow EW to keep -500 due to their poor play. However, if there were no misinformation, EW would not have been in this position so no further adjustment was made. The appeal was judged to have merit. Dissenting Opinion: (Chris Willenken) This case containedtwo separate issues. The first issue to consider was whether EW were damaged by MI. The committee agreed that there was damage; with a proper alert of 2C, there would have been no chance of a misunderstanding about the 3C bid. So, we decided to allow East to pass 3C. With that decision made, the second issue to consider was South's action when West's 3C bid is passed back to him. Here the majority erred by not properly considering that the UI that South possessed from her partner's failure to alert 2C. That UI made bidding 3S (as South did at the table) a more attractive option than some other possibilities: pass and double. In my opinion, the majority's contention that "this player would always have bid 3S" is irrelevant. The question should be, as is typical in cases involving UI, whether some number of South's peers would seriously consider passing or doubling instead of bidding. It seems fairly obvious that both passing and doubling with a maximum defensive 4-3-3-3 hand were logical alternatives to bidding, so I would have awarded +110 in 3C for the non-offending side, and either -110 or -670 for the offenders. This case was somewhat novel in that the committee needed to apply the standard UI statute to a hypothetical situation, one that would not have occurred but for MI. Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Chris Willenken, Ellen Melson, David Berkowitz, scribe and Lou Reich. [Nigel] It is all a bit strange: I don't like the East-West actions. West hesitated as dealer and then bid 3C after asking whether South's unlaerted 2C was natural. After possible UI from East's hesitation, West made a "Welsh" double on a flat fourteen count; and then bid 3D and 4D opposite a passed partner. Nevertheless, the AC seeem to have condoned it all. In these circustances, surely Chris Willenken's dissenting opinion is worth consideration. South is in receipt of unauthorised information from North's failure to alert 3C. This demonstrably makes 3S a more logical alternative than a pass. Hence, IMO, the correct ruling was 3C= +110 for East-West. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25-Oct-04 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 29 13:25:28 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: References: <000101c4bcc5$75b79040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041029080449.02ad2d60@pop.starpower.net> At 06:54 PM 10/28/04, twm wrote: >Fer chrissake! Applying Law58b is *not* a problem. The issue is >applying >Law50b2. *How* to apply L58B may not be a problem, but ISTM that *when* to apply L58B is at the heart of the confusion in the thread. >A player can play two cards to a trick in (more than) two ways. >a) By playing a card from hand and simultaneously pulling a second card >along with it. This has two separate subcases: (a1) Two cards played (as specified by L45) simultaneously (L58B applies), and (a2) One card played plus a second card simultaneously exposed but not played (L49 applies). >b) By leading to a trick, forgetting he has done so, and playing to the >trick subsequently. > >If, as you maintain, "playing two cards to a trick" directly equates to >"both cards are inadvertent" then you must rule an mPC in both cases. >I, OTOH, maintain that it is *possible* to play two cards to a single >trick and for *at least one* (and sometimes both) to be played >advertently. > >Do you accept that "playing two cards to a trick" is not *always* a >matter >of inadvertency? Of course it isn't; Tim's (b) is a case where a player has contributed two cards to a trick by intention. But I do not accept that a player ever intentionally "plays two or more cards *simultaneously*" to a trick, which is the only time L58B applies, and the only case in question. >If so why do you not accept that a TD is obliged to determine whether one >(or more) of such cards were played deliberately? Because a *card* can't be deliberate or not; only an *action* can be deliberate or not, and it cannot be both. L58B applies only to a single action, as in (a1) above, in contrast to (a2) or (b), where there are two separate actions (one deliberate and one not in (a2); both deliberate in (b)). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 29 14:17:25 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:17:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20041028200351.01baaec0@postoffice.worldnet.att. net> References: <000201c4bd48$734b5bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.0.1.1.1.20041028200351.01baaec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041029084032.02ad08a0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:41 AM 10/29/04, Todd wrote: >I'll give a go by explicitly stating the example that cannot invoke L58. Which is totally irrelevant to the thread topic. >The player leads the AD to a trick. Dummy contributes the 2, partner >the 3, the player the 5, and declarer the 4. L58 doesn't apply. >Forgetting other laws that do apply, what does L50B say about the 5D? Assuming "contributes" means "plays", as specified by L45, it becomes a MPC. >David S., HdW and TW-M appear that they'd argue it's a MPC. L50B >says nothing about the cards played to the same trick having to be >played simultaneously (that's only in L58). If intent doesn't matter >and simultaneity doesn't matter, then the card must be a mPC. That >doesn't seem right, but I wouldn't be surprized if it's so. Nobody has suggested that, outside of the context where L58B does apply, intent or simultaneity doesn't matter, and nobody has made any argument that would suggest that the D5 should be a mPC. The question on the table is: A player simultaneously plays two cards to a trick. We apply L58B2. The player designates one of the two cards as the one he will play to the trick. The other (non-designated) card is not an honor. Which is correct: (a) the other card is treated as inadvertantly exposed and becomes a mPC, or (b) if the designated card is the card the player originally intended to play, the other card is treated as inadvertantly exposed and becomes a mPC, but if the non-designated card was the originally intended one it is treated as deliberately played and becomes a MPC? There has been nothing in this thread prior to this point to suggest any disagreement or confusion over how to apply L50B when L58B2 is not involved. What there has been, however, is considerable confusion over exactly when L58B does apply. The answer to that can be found in three words: "plays" in L58B, "facing" in L45A, and "held" in L45C1. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Oct 29 13:29:58 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:29:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? References: Message-ID: <009e01c4bdbb$6a780100$40053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? > > > > > Todd M. Zimnoch asked: > > >I'll give a go by explicitly stating the example that > >cannot invoke L58. > > > >The player leads the AD to a trick. Dummy contributes > >the 2, partner the 3, the player the 5, and declarer > >the 4. L58 doesn't apply. Forgetting other laws that > >do apply, what does L50B say about the 5D? > > [snip] > > RJH: > > In my opinion, this approach is fallacious. One should > apply the Laws in logical sequence. That is, in my > opinion, one should examine Law 45E1 (Fifth Card Played > to Trick by a Defender) *before* bounding into Law 50B. > > Law 45E1: > > >>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 56 applies. > > RJH: > > So, if the diamond 5 is deemed by the TD to have been > led, then Law 50B is not relevant; Law 53 or Law 56 > apply instead. > > And if the diamond 5 is alternatively deemed by the TD > to be inadvertently exposed, then by Law 45E1 definition > it is "a" (single) penalty card, and so by Law 50B > definition it is therefore a *minor* penalty card. > > The AD and the diamond 5 became visible not simultaneous, so Law58 does not apply. But the diamond 5 seems to be PLAYED as the forth card to the trick and not DROPPED. Maybe it is meant as a lead to the next trick. The AD belongs to the trick and the diamond 5 is therefore a MPC. Ben From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 29 15:07:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:07:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <009e01c4bdbb$6a780100$40053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000801c4bdc0$953ab680$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen > > Todd M. Zimnoch asked: > > > > >I'll give a go by explicitly stating the example that > > >cannot invoke L58. > > > > > >The player leads the AD to a trick. Dummy contributes > > >the 2, partner the 3, the player the 5, and declarer > > >the 4. L58 doesn't apply. Forgetting other laws that > > >do apply, what does L50B say about the 5D? > > > > [snip] > > > > RJH: > > > > In my opinion, this approach is fallacious. One should > > apply the Laws in logical sequence. That is, in my > > opinion, one should examine Law 45E1 (Fifth Card Played > > to Trick by a Defender) *before* bounding into Law 50B. > > > > Law 45E1: > > > > >>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 56 applies. > > > > RJH: > > > > So, if the diamond 5 is deemed by the TD to have been > > led, then Law 50B is not relevant; Law 53 or Law 56 > > apply instead. > > > > And if the diamond 5 is alternatively deemed by the TD > > to be inadvertently exposed, then by Law 45E1 definition > > it is "a" (single) penalty card, and so by Law 50B > > definition it is therefore a *minor* penalty card. > > > > > The AD and the diamond 5 became visible not simultaneous, so Law58 = does > not > apply. > But the diamond 5 seems to be PLAYED as the forth card to the trick = and > not > DROPPED. > Maybe it is meant as a lead to the next trick. > The AD belongs to the trick and the diamond 5 is therefore a MPC. Up till this last sentence I agree, but this only adds a need for superfluous considerations to the case: It is up to the Director to decide whether the D5 was (prematurely) led = to the next trick or was played to the current trick as a fifth card. Spend just ten seconds analyzing the possibilities and you will = immediately see that his decision has absolutely no impact on the final result: The = DA wins the current trick and the D5 is led to the next. Only if the Director should rule that the D5 was accidentally dropped = (not very likely the way the situation has been described!) it becomes a = minor penalty card in which case the player is free to play any card he = desires to the next trick (except no diamond below the rank of honour other than = the D5). Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Oct 29 17:26:52 2004 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:26:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? References: <000201c4bd48$734b5bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.0.1.1.1.20041028200351.01baaec0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041029084032.02ad08a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001201c4bdd4$a9573e40$d0053dd4@c6l8v1> > > There has been nothing in this thread prior to this point to suggest > any disagreement or confusion over how to apply L50B when L58B2 is not > involved. > > What there has been, however, is considerable confusion over exactly > when L58B does apply. The answer to that can be found in three words: > "plays" in L58B, "facing" in L45A, and "held" in L45C1. > > These three comprehensions are done by the hand of a player. The same goes for exposing a card by a defender, Law50: deliberate play. For other visible cards, see Law48-52. Ben From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 29 17:57:54 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:57:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000201c4bd8b$5e976360$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c4bd8b$5e976360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c4bd8b$5e976360$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> Todd M. Zimnoch asked: >> >> >I'll give a go by explicitly stating the example that >> >cannot invoke L58. >> > >> >The player leads the AD to a trick. Dummy contributes >> >the 2, partner the 3, the player the 5, and declarer >> >the 4. L58 doesn't apply. Forgetting other laws that >> >do apply, what does L50B say about the 5D? >> > >In addition to the comments from RJH below (to which I fully agree) the >commentaries from 1992 clarifies that the clause "as in playing two cards to >a trick" is to be understood as playing the two cards *simultaneously*. > >Sven With this I entirely agree. If I'm called to the table and there is a presumed penalty card on the table my first question is always "How did it get there?" If the answer is "I dropped it" or "It came out with another card which I played" or even "I dropped it while I was trying to play another card for which I then completed the play" then if not an honour I will designate it as a minor penalty card. Going back to Herman's question about 2 cards falling whilst trying to but not succeeding in playing a 3rd card I have no interest in that intent. 2 cards were detached (albeit both inadvertently, and intent is not an issue) from the hand, one of them got played and the other becomes, if not an honour, a minor penalty card. Thus I stick with Herman's c). Let me expand: Changing Herman's example so that in trying to play the DA just the C2 falls on the table, this is an "I dropped it" scenario and so the DA can be played and the C2 is a mPC. Since the DA has not yet been played the C2 could be played if one chose. Similarly in Herman's example where two cards fall then: If one wants to play the DA I do not believe the Laws support this and on this point I may well be at odds with many. Clearly one could expose it and designate it as the card one intends to play, but only if you could persuade the TD it was simultaneous. If one cannot play the DA then 2 cards have simultaneously been detached from the hand and exposed (by the external agency of the DA, as opposed to my right thumb), one of them must be played, and the other becomes, if not an honour, a mPC. WYSIWYG and you saw two cards simultaneously hit the deck - you weren't watching the defender's hand were you? As far as playing two cards separately to one trick (ie as the first and fifth card to the trick) then the second card will always be a MPC. L50 doesn't apply, as its context just does not support such a reading, even if one can so interpret it. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 29 18:50:13 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:50:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000301c4bd8c$0f8e4670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Friday, Oct 29, 2004, at 03:51 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Don't you think "acquiescence by silence" is a relevant term here? Nope. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 29 18:57:32 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:57:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000801c4bdc0$953ab680$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0221B3A6-29D4-11D9-8081-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Oct 29, 2004, at 10:07 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Only if the Director should rule that the D5 was accidentally dropped > (not > very likely the way the situation has been described!) it becomes a > minor > penalty card in which case the player is free to play any card he > desires to > the next trick (except no diamond below the rank of honour other than > the > D5). I guess this is another case where a dictionary is useless. Mine says a synonym for "inadvertent" is "inattentive". If the D5 was played to this trick because the player wasn't, at that moment, aware that he'd already played to it, then by the dictionary definition of "inadvertent" it must be a mPC. Yet I see a number of posts says "it's a MPC". It would seem that Edgar Kaplan's efforts to give the Laws some flexibility have instead simply generated conflict and confusion. :-( From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 29 19:34:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:34:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <0221B3A6-29D4-11D9-8081-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c4bde5$e7e85520$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Friday, Oct 29, 2004, at 10:07 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > Only if the Director should rule that the D5 was=20 > > accidentally dropped (not very likely the way the=20 > > situation has been described!) it becomes a minor > > penalty card in which case the player is free to=20 > > play any card he desires to the next trick > > (except no diamond below the rank of honour=20 > > other than the D5). >=20 > I guess this is another case where a dictionary is=20 > useless. Mine says a synonym for "inadvertent" is=20 > "inattentive". If the D5 was played to this trick > because the player wasn't, at that moment, aware=20 > that he'd already played to it, then by the=20 > dictionary definition of "inadvertent" it must be > a mPC. Yet I see a number of posts says "it's a MPC". > It would seem that Edgar Kaplan's efforts to give=20 > the Laws some flexibility have instead simply=20 > generated conflict and confusion. :-( One of the finer features with Law 50B is that it carries its own = definition by examples on how it is intended. The "as in" clauses very precisely explain what is meant by "exposed inadvertently" and by "deliberate = play". There should be no need to look up in a dictionary on these words. Sven From jijbzzwajcrdt@yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 14:36:10 2004 From: jijbzzwajcrdt@yahoo.com (German Hannah) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200410031414.i93UfdTw000744@www6.gmail.com> Hi again, Here is German Hannah. I write to you because we are accepting your mortga= ge application. Our office confirms you can get a $220.000 lo=C0n for a $252.00 per month = payment. Approval process will take 1 minute, so please fill out the form on our we= bsite: http://alkaline-catnip.refitalk.com Thank you. Best Regards German Hannah First Account Manager From MajorLandrum@acs-inc.com Fri Oct 29 22:02:14 2004 From: MajorLandrum@acs-inc.com (Mikael Jennifer) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:02:14 -0200 Subject: [blml] Re: good stuff Message-ID: <20041029201412.3A31C677@rhubarb.custard.org> Skill, coolness, audacity, and cunning he possessed in a = superior degree, and it must be a cunning whale to escape the stroke of hi= s harpoon:=20




Ciálïs definetely better= then Víâgra
..can last for 2 days
..You can have alcohol with Ciålís
..improves sexual performances twice better then Ví@grå
= ..it costs much cheaper than Pfìzêr Viàgrå
= Get ÇÍÅLÌS (SÙPÉR VÏAGR= Á) here











No msg The frigate passed at some distance from the Marquesas and the Sandwich Is= lands, crossed the tropic of Cancer, and made for the China Seas!!!=20 From CamryMcinnis@fastpacket.net Fri Oct 29 22:03:45 2004 From: CamryMcinnis@fastpacket.net (Taylorscot Grissett) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:03:45 +0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: fantastic Message-ID: <20041029201443.5B4C8A20@rhubarb.custard.org> I looked and looked till I was nearly blind, whilst Conse= il kept repeating in a calm voice:=20?=20











discontinue The frigate approached noiselessly, stopped at two cables' lengths from th= e animal, and following its track. We had only just time to seize hold of = the upper part, which rose about seven feet out of the water, and happily = its speed was not great. But this extraordinary creature could transport i= tself from one place to another with surprising velocity; as, in an interv= al of three days, the Governor Higginson and the Columbus had observed it = at two different points of the chart, separated by a distance of more than= seven hundred nautical leagues?=20 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 29 21:40:26 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:40:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <0221B3A6-29D4-11D9-8081-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000801c4bdc0$953ab680$6900a8c0@WINXP> <0221B3A6-29D4-11D9-8081-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041029163047.02ad07d0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:57 PM 10/29/04, Ed wrote: >I guess this is another case where a dictionary is useless. Mine says >a synonym for "inadvertent" is "inattentive". If the D5 was played to >this trick because the player wasn't, at that moment, aware that he'd >already played to it, then by the dictionary definition of >"inadvertent" it must be a mPC. Yet I see a number of posts says "it's >a MPC". It would seem that Edgar Kaplan's efforts to give the Laws >some flexibility have instead simply generated conflict and confusion. :-( AHD: "Inadvertent: 1. Not duly attentive. 2. Accidental; unintentional." It is obvious from context that TFLB uses the word exclusively in the second sense above, as that is the only way it can be used to describe a play, bid, etc. The first sense applies only when it is used to describe something that can be "attentive", such as a person; TFLB nowhere uses it that way. BTW, I believe that the first sense has nearly disappeared from common usage, at least in the U.S. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From zebulon@hot.ee Sat Oct 30 17:29:49 2004 From: zebulon@hot.ee (Jaak K=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E4nd?=) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:29:49 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [blml] Awarding adjusted score (Law 23 and Law72B1) Message-ID: <20041030162949.66B7A1A47A@portal.hot.ee> Estonian Pairs Cup 2004. Format: 16 rounds, 8 boards per round, IMP scori= ng over the field. Brd No 3; declarer S; vuln EW =09 S: AQ H: 65 D: A9532 C: JT92 =09 S: T9873 N S: 542 H: T32 E H: AKQ98 D: K4 W D: T87 C: Q53 S C: AK S: KJ6 H: J74 D: QJ6 C: 8764 Auction: W N E S P P 2NT!(1) 3H 5C ...(2) ... DBL (3) ... (1) 6=8512, minor 2-suiter (usually 55 or better) (2) While West was thinking about 40 seconds, suddenly East put DBL bidd= ing-card on table (call out of rotation) (3) South: "TD!" What I did? a) First I reminded South of his possibility to accept RHO's double out o= f rotation (Law 29A). South didn't accept RHO's double. b) Now I cancelled call (redouble) out of rotation. (Law 29B), auction re= verted to West, and (penalty) West (offender's partner) had to pass whene= ver it was his turn to call (Law 32A). c) I reminded all players that lead penalties of Law26B may apply and if = TD will deem, that the pass damages the non-offending side, he concider a= warding an adjusted score (Law 23). Now auction went on: W N E S =85 P P DBL P P P So 5C doubled was played by South. Defence was not difficult and NS was 4= down. While players played other boards in this match, I inspected the deal, au= ction and play, and thought about possibility to award an adjusted score.= =20 I asked myself some questions: a) "Could East have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damag= e the non-offending side?" My answer was - PROBABLY, so I took the Law 72= B1 and asked myself: b) "Did offending side gain an advantage through the irregularity?" My an= swer was - NO. (IMHO, if there was not an irregularity, West's hand was w= orth only for PASS or DOUBLE after 5C, couldn't see any other alternative= bid. So NS were damaged only by their own gambling auction.) After the match was finished, I announced both sides, that result in this= board will stay. North-South side appealed. The AC had another opinion -= they found, that the enforced pass damaged non-offending side. So the TD= 's ruling was cancelled and AC awarded adjusted score: +3 IMPs for non-of= fending side and -3 IMPs for offending side. I am not contesting the AC's adjustment. TD is not expert for solving pro= blems in bridge play (therefore is AC), TD only must know well The Code a= nd cannot rule against Laws. But afterwards I was blamed by South player, that I did my ruling against= the Code. IMHO, I didn't violate any Law of Code.=20 What is Your opinion? Jaak K=E4nd secretary of P=E4rnu Bridge Club Chief TD of Estonian Pairs Cup zebulon@hot.ee ----------------------------------------- ITV - Sinu lemmiksaated internetis! http://www.itv.ee From svenpran@online.no Sat Oct 30 18:07:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:07:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Awarding adjusted score (Law 23 and Law72B1) In-Reply-To: <20041030162949.66B7A1A47A@portal.hot.ee> Message-ID: <001001c4bea2$eb3ed740$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaak K =E4nd ............ > Estonian Pairs Cup 2004. Format: 16 rounds, 8 boards per round, IMP > scoring over the field. >=20 > Brd No 3; declarer S; vuln EW > S: AQ > H: 65 > D: A9532 > C: JT92 > S: T9873 S: 542 > H: T32 H: AKQ98 > D: K4 D: T87 > C: Q53 C: AK > S: KJ6 > H: J74 > D: QJ6 > C: 8764 >=20 > Auction: > W N E S > P > P 2NT!(1) 3H 5C > ...(2) ... DBL (3) ... >=20 > (1) 6=8512, minor 2-suiter (usually 55 or better) > (2) While West was thinking about 40 seconds, suddenly East put DBL > bidding-card on table (call out of rotation) > (3) South: "TD!" >=20 > What I did? >=20 > a) First I reminded South of his possibility to accept RHO's double = out of > rotation (Law 29A). South didn't accept RHO's double. > b) Now I cancelled call (redouble) out of rotation. (Law 29B), auction > reverted to West, and (penalty) West (offender's partner) had to pass > whenever it was his turn to call (Law 32A). > c) I reminded all players that lead penalties of Law26B may apply and = if > TD will deem, that the pass damages the non-offending side, he = concider > awarding an adjusted score (Law 23). >=20 > Now auction went on: >=20 > W N E S > =85 > P P DBL P > P P >=20 > So 5C doubled was played by South. Defence was not difficult and NS = was 4 > down. >=20 > While players played other boards in this match, I inspected the deal, > auction and play, and thought about possibility to award an adjusted > score. > I asked myself some questions: >=20 > a) "Could East have known that the enforced pass would be likely to = damage > the non-offending side?" My answer was - PROBABLY, so I took the Law = 72B1 > and asked myself: > b) "Did offending side gain an advantage through the irregularity?" My > answer was - NO. (IMHO, if there was not an irregularity, West's hand = was > worth only for PASS or DOUBLE after 5C, couldn't see any other = alternative > bid. So NS were damaged only by their own gambling auction.) I would see every reason to consider West bidding 5H and I suppose this = is exactly what the AC did. >=20 > After the match was finished, I announced both sides, that result in = this > board will stay. North-South side appealed. The AC had another opinion = - > they found, that the enforced pass damaged non-offending side. So the = TD's > ruling was cancelled and AC awarded adjusted score: +3 IMPs for non- > offending side and -3 IMPs for offending side. Only +/- 3 IMPs when the scoring is across the field?=20 >=20 > I am not contesting the AC's adjustment. TD is not expert for solving > problems in bridge play (therefore is AC), TD only must know well The = Code > and cannot rule against Laws. >=20 > But afterwards I was blamed by South player, that I did my ruling = against > the Code. > IMHO, I didn't violate any Law of Code. >=20 > What is Your opinion? Did South indicate which code and in what way? I cannot see any error in = the way you handled the situation.=20 (And your ruling under Law 23 must in any case be delayed until after = the play of the board has been completed). Regards Sven From kd@jkdas.com Sat Oct 30 18:11:50 2004 From: kd@jkdas.com (kd@jkdas.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:11:50 +0800 Subject: [blml] US GreenCard Register last Chance 2004 (English, Deutsch,Espanol) Message-ID: US GreenCard -Last 2 weeks Year 2004-(English/Deutsch/Espanol) The last 2 weeks to get the US Greencard Live and Work in the United States legally. The US Government is giving away 50.000 Green Cards. Click here: http://www.usaregister.3322.org Espanol/Spanish: Las dos ultimas semanas para conseguir us green card , vive y trabaja en los estados unidos legalmente.. el gobierno esta dando 50.000 green card.. ahora puede aplicarˇ­.. http://www.usaregister.3322.org/es Deutsch/German: Jetzt registrieren fuer die US GreenCard! Es ist wieder soweit. Nur noch 2 Wochen Nur mit der GreenCard koennen Sie in Zukunft in Amerika leben - gleich ob f¨ąr immer oder einige Monate. Alle Chancen f¨ąr Ihre Karriere, Studium oder einfach ein Leben in Sonne , Freiheit, netten Menschen stehen Ihnen offen. Beachten Sie auch die neuen strengen Einreisevorschriften auf unserer Website unter News. Hier klicken: http://www.usaregister.3322.org/de USAGreenCard-Registration 2020 Pennsylvania AVE Washington DC, 20006 United States http://www.usaregister.3322.org You subscribed to our Newsletter this is a one time Information to unsubscribe fwd email to unsubscribe@usaregister.3322.org From blml@blakjak.com Sat Oct 30 18:55:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:55:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >RJH: > >>>>While Law 80B [and/or Law 78D] prohibits a sponsoring >>>>organisation from making ex post facto decisions on >>>>the conditions of contest, a TD is under no such >>>>constraint. > >[big snip] > >Law 78D: > >>>.....In **advance** of any contest the sponsoring >>>organisation should publish conditions of contest >>>detailing conditions of entry, methods of scoring, >>>determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the >>>like. > >David Stevenson: > >>Of course they "should" - but that does not make such >>decisions illegal when they do not! >> >>If you have a tie at the end of an event and no >>regulation as to what to do are you seriously >>suggesting it is now ***illegal*** for someone to make >>a decision as to what to do? > >RJH: > >Nope. I am suggesting that *the SO* cannot make a >decision as to what to do. I specifically stated that >"a TD is under no such constraint". Oh well, all I can say is I do not agree. And in this case I am not going to argue it - it is just too obvious to bother. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Oct 30 19:45:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:45:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Awarding adjusted score (Law 23 and Law72B1) In-Reply-To: <20041030162949.66B7A1A47A@portal.hot.ee> References: <20041030162949.66B7A1A47A@portal.hot.ee> Message-ID: Jaak Känd wrote >Estonian Pairs Cup 2004. Format: 16 rounds, 8 boards per round, IMP >scoring over the field. > S: AQ H: 65 D: A9532 C: JT92 S: T9873 N S: 542 H: T32 W E H: AKQ98 D: K4 S D: T87 C: Q53 C: AK S: KJ6 H: J74 D: QJ6 C: 8764 It is not a good idea to use tabs in posting hands. >Brd No 3; declarer S; vuln EW > >Auction: >W N E S > P >P 2NT!(1) 3H 5C >...(2) ... DBL (3) ... > >(1) 6…12, minor 2-suiter (usually 55 or better) >(2) While West was thinking about 40 seconds, suddenly East put DBL >bidding-card on table (call out of rotation) >(3) South: "TD!" > >What I did? > >a) First I reminded South of his possibility to accept RHO's double out >of rotation (Law 29A). South didn't accept RHO's double. >b) Now I cancelled call (redouble) out of rotation. (Law 29B), auction >reverted to West, and (penalty) West (offender's partner) had to pass >whenever it was his turn to call (Law 32A). >c) I reminded all players that lead penalties of Law26B may apply and >if TD will deem, that the pass damages the non-offending side, he >concider awarding an adjusted score (Law 23). > >Now auction went on: > >W N E S > … >P P DBL P >P P > >So 5C doubled was played by South. Defence was not difficult and NS was 4 down. > >While players played other boards in this match, I inspected the deal, >auction and play, and thought about possibility to award an adjusted >score. >I asked myself some questions: > >a) "Could East have known that the enforced pass would be likely to >damage the non-offending side?" My answer was - PROBABLY, so I took the >Law 72B1 and asked myself: Good decision. >b) "Did offending side gain an advantage through the irregularity?" My >answer was - NO. (IMHO, if there was not an irregularity, West's hand >was worth only for PASS or DOUBLE after 5C, couldn't see any other >alternative bid. So NS were damaged only by their own gambling >auction.) This is less clear. East has made sure that he can double and West will definitely pass. So this decision *might* be wrong. But it is just a bridge judgement decision. >After the match was finished, I announced both sides, that result in >this board will stay. North-South side appealed. The AC had another >opinion - they found, that the enforced pass damaged non-offending >side. So the TD's ruling was cancelled and AC awarded adjusted score: >+3 IMPs for non-offending side and -3 IMPs for offending side. If this was an artificial score it was wrong. Apparently the AC did not realise they were meant to give an assigned score. >I am not contesting the AC's adjustment. TD is not expert for solving >problems in bridge play (therefore is AC), TD only must know well The >Code and cannot rule against Laws. > >But afterwards I was blamed by South player, that I did my ruling >against the Code. >IMHO, I didn't violate any Law of Code. > >What is Your opinion? South is wrong. Whether your actual ruling was right or not it followed the laws. It sounds like a very rude and unnecessary comment by South. He has appealed: he has won his appeal: he should shut up. It is a pity such players are in the game. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Oct 31 22:11:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:11:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Fixing an incorrect draw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 78D: >>>>.....In **advance** of any contest the sponsoring >>>>organisation should publish conditions of contest >>>>detailing conditions of entry, methods of scoring, >>>>determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the >>>>like. David Stevenson: >>>Of course they "should" - but that does not make such >>>decisions illegal when they do not! >>> >>>If you have a tie at the end of an event and no >>>regulation as to what to do are you seriously >>>suggesting it is now ***illegal*** for someone to make >>>a decision as to what to do? RJH: >>Nope. I am suggesting that *the SO* cannot make a >>decision as to what to do. I specifically stated that >>"a TD is under no such constraint". David Stevenson: >Oh well, all I can say is I do not agree. And in this >case I am not going to argue it - it is just too obvious >to bother. RJH: What is too obvious to David Stevenson is not at all obvious to myself (or to Grattan Endicott). David is presumably using the word "obvious" as a synonym for "common-sense". But surely David must have realised by now that a common-sense decision and a Lawful decision are not necessarily congruent. Indeed, David's assertion, "Of course they 'should' - but that does not make such decisions illegal when they do not!" has admirable common-sense. But unfortunately this common-sense is directly contradicted by the Lawful definition of "should" in the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws. -> "When a player 'should' do something ('a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement...'), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law," Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From henk@amsterdamned.org Sun Oct 31 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:00:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Oct 31 23:53:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:53:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Defenders' Claims In-Reply-To: <002d01c4bb8d$fbb459a0$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marv suggested: [snip] >No doubt the lawmakers won't go for this, but they >could at least say that a defender may claim only >when he is next to play for his side, with a >violation subject to (1) above. That won't solve >the problem of the "pro claim," but it would help. RJH quibbles: In my experience as a defender, I have often been in the position when I can logically deduce that declarer would win the rest of the tricks, but my partner does not have the information to make such a deduction. In such a position, I have often speeded up play by informing declarer, "You have the rest of the tricks," even when my LHO declarer or my CHO pard is still thinking. I do not see any advantage to Marv's suggestion, which would (in my opinion) unnecessarily slow down play of easy deals, consequently leaving less time for difficult deals. Marv's rationale of preventing the "problem" of a so-called pro claim is (in my opinion) a furphy. A pro preempts their pard's revoke by claiming. So what? A pro also preempts their pard's misplay of 3NT by bidding notrumps first. C'est la vie. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From sgahafmrfovdsc@cgocable.com Sat Oct 9 14:36:10 2004 From: sgahafmrfovdsc@cgocable.com (Ricardo Browning) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Vălium Here Message-ID: bqeyhc33juy5vubacxr8sdz18joj30.i93WcqTw000693@vais.net> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pha. rma
Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big

indira procrastinate exhort redstone levitt bodybuild scorch dream articulatory decollimate yang antipodean carboy cognition convair burn hackmatack upside information citizenry uttermost interference amalgamate duluth pamper compass noll pedantic hydrofluoric oakwood dubitable mirfak sweatshirt sarah classy edwardian walter handbag approximable halley lucre velvety thistledown buchwald textbook baptist protestation cataract lawsuit file oleomargarine allusion preemptor scorn don't prodigal feline drugging ameslan lint lowboy crop anteroom innards trinitarian sonogram intake beebread camelot creon bury criterion niggardly adonis aflame lucre indivisible twosome vagary candelabra antebellum buchanan roland plankton wingmen homogenate infelicitous atkins bijection dichondra disputant bride baldy nyquist obsequious doorknob greenwich operon o's prescott bobby chafe adulterous soya siskin bodleian would colette albuquerque pete prefecture bibliography barstow abbreviate arsenal g allup sadism holly aerogene bun churchwomen wayne crania fry consonantal differentiate rajah staley choir blow hazelnut desultory pompey angelic lumpur baxter diurnal incredible oboe achieve crewcut kronecker themselves rae instable oct chronology moonlit hydronium suspend
removemeplease
------------A43338695277314-- From bjlnuqxzkhqidu@level3.net Tue Oct 12 22:04:18 2004 From: bjlnuqxzkhqidu@level3.net (Warren Pace) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2004 14:04:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] Buy Vălium now Message-ID: 200410150705.i9F750Kk01345777.i93HnqTw005199@emmmarketing.com> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pha. rma
Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big

ecstatic bordeaux literature deallocate michael inheritor literal headway needful michigan dwelt dynamism denote sagittal amelia complaint dishevel australite basil vie analeptic battery squishy toward thought apathetic fitzpatrick eli boa egocentric astrophysicist otherwise nimbus vigilantism chilly declarative wu farrell wrongdoing hardtop reclamation pronunciation bream stiffen conciliatory uniplex forborne concordant puffed afar moreland audition moisten commentator ethnic brinkmanship dust slender melanoma waste cultural bestow intrusion broom cady servitude emigrant arbitrage blob buckley archetype deduct chattel blank anathema distort bittern thymus emerson tel quakeress dismal clothesmen sewn hectic clan adamson cowpea exudate stairwell butte janitor dioxide crappie alone pence bequest slanderous transpose backspace barnard dichotomous ising bough launder clapeyron goode ova custodial affectate andrews orchis amplifier kidnapped affectionate enunciable cause cutaneous daughter yawl emily alphanumeric condescend cacophony creche possemen counterflow conserve calamus pasha grate christmas anchovy pedantry stablemen fanout espionage riddance virtuous confirmation eggplant glum carbonium carboloy emotion catharsis kirby spencer twisty apprehension braid cache slugging awl patch textual statesmen condemn athletic quasar
removemeplease
------------A43338695277314-- From Rochelle@custard.org Sat Oct 9 14:36:10 2004 From: Rochelle@custard.org (Rochelle@custard.org) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Xănax for less Message-ID: <27673729.1097937559808.JavaMail.root@dezilu.com> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pha. rma
Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big

barbara preparation technician garage foothill servant abdicate daybed fault highway collaborate coleman anonymous complaint macarthur tablet whitlock being ceres clattery substitutionary boil potentiometer upheld tenderloin dapple blab rudder send bisque magruder admiration minsky abroad musty flex schoolroom banish duckling fogging melinda cope wedge ballot compatible hybrid ethylene barstow diligent eyepiece addison digit bonnet grebe strophe boardinghouse jacobsen anthony hadron effluvia cytoplasm harris precaution massacre depth constantine cowhand raleigh peculiar convolute verity aptitude marginalia horseman deer thankful mendel staid frighten deletion faucet phonemic swarthmore armata cantilever stamford staminate usual diatomaceous epaulet extra alex chink atkins depression explosive faa secede tuberculin catabolic adjectival inceptor sheer horus catechism figurine trajectory recital capetown cremate bring gaslight catatonic ghetto tight kohlrabi snark myron soluble bar boutique bristle torpid allocable gogo disastrous myosin jitter sandburg countdown durkin continuation mendelssohn formula pol angular daytime depress carfare saul terminable tram whitehead mezzanine brian scandal butterfat paddy j withal squeeze walpole leon elicit piccadilly protagonist archetypical oxford detergent cackle institute emma mauricio boatman
removemeplease
------------A43338695277314-- From vlwezemfsf@cgocable.com Tue Oct 12 22:04:18 2004 From: vlwezemfsf@cgocable.com (Arron Witt) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2004 14:04:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] This is the best Message-ID: 200410150705.i9F750Kk01345706.i93LqhTw009263@b-mail09.real-email.net> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pha. rma
Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big

basketball artie guthrie annular sapiens spastic elegant echinoderm antiquary ingrown registrant buckthorn arsenate dropout feet hundredth electron christian checkerberry papery dunbar cesare maori lebanon fireproof evolutionary loose virginian inundate turtleback chinchilla appendage labrador em hugging aiken condemn chamber progeny symplectic cagey edmonds rockabye starlet burtt daub phrase pragmatic tuttle mileage serviette attract fear her hurdle assassinate howsoever transcontinental hera proteolysis markov decollimate aid neath otis iceland alluvial melville cinema nickname phosphate knauer viscometer doubleton berlitz vibrant downside indoor kingston blitz heavenward posey firelight naval dowling wuhan ah preeminent gaseous meltwater shock flinty acuity tiber breakage disney electret garland feign margery dryden dilogarithm arbitrage sphere ac across brooke parboil angus bend patriarchal constrict bladdernut mennonite pitchfork edison breadboard shipman ersatz bodybuilder cambodia agouti sexual scabbard cyst councilmen chandler mummy donaldson functor alai bet hello assault cryostat wainscot service awry sirius jeopard contraption invade duct obliterate petrel coroutine argumentative ignorant portraiture rally solomon acrobacy stablemen irvin demijohn ecosystem catalogue claremont crusoe suckling andrew conjunct reversal fifteen chivalry phthalate renovate steppe topgallant
removemeplease
------------A43338695277314-- From ztphaglcpm@chartertn.net Sat Oct 9 14:36:10 2004 From: ztphaglcpm@chartertn.net (Evan Lacey) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Inexpensive Vălium Message-ID: bqeyhc33juy5vubacxr8sdz18joj75.i93PaxTw006030@vais.net> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pha. rma
Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big

contaminant aluminate atchison inconsiderable scent suntanned cocktail chalkboard aitken accra alight awesome ridge trillion glob suppress lethe cysteine bridgeable antiquated hostelry mcmullen fatigue bronx cattail press religious jacobsen fmc defecate bombard watson dispersal acorn prosaic attribution cobra busch paso compatible gam money meretricious nigeria checkerberry appalachia bridgetown battlefront drink acknowledgeable beetle cup magnesium rhythmic malformation ambidextrous eucalyptus actual sisyphean schlieren immunoelectrophoresis professor column awe dive avenue adler megaword onomatopoeic trestle adrian meditate myofibril delicacy clamshell feldman room diamagnetic attend eke count onlook umbilical pursuant ferromagnetic fob niche mayo visigoth sunburnt torrance nv inconclusive narbonne brady eulogy rivet biennium tonsillitis fastidious parenthesis apologetic chipmunk party oblivious sinter allstate usurious dirty kitchenette nielson collard chutney grain saponi fy sclerosis curlicue efflorescent pathogenesis alton giveaway
removemeplease
------------A43338695277314-- From efehzadukg@swbell.net Tue Oct 12 22:04:18 2004 From: efehzadukg@swbell.net (Norman Trotter) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2004 14:04:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] I always knew id be able to order online one day Message-ID: 200410150705.i9F750Kk01345705.i93JdkTw009926@b-mail09.real-email.net> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pha. rma
Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big

bustard chamois orbital precinct cent blurb canberra sandman britain howsoever botanist cram alley syllable atrophy dolly scrupulosity bartlett diebold proud linden virgule ft armour soluble tremulous bolivar errol eject downriver banach hewitt lillian neuroanotomy individuate rhenish pasteup metallurgist downturn beater santiago goblet styrene provocateur countersunk dense autopsy zeal blustery dandy go quadriceps buried brand contradistinction encumbrance befell shinbone cataclysmic syllogism cardiff centipede observatory bridesmaid passaic gallus formatted bunyan vagina exam fodder franciscan timeshare cradle cargo marijuana proprietary epitaxy wier littoral dora bath drug swum polarogram declamation beryllium jaunty complicate total e.g tapestry skunk corruptible lobar hadron opinion police aliquot ahem somehow metallic navy fatal ecliptic luscious downtown death shock vertigo turbidity campus lottie serviette busy smucker acrylate darrell automorphism caught asparagine s piegel friedrich faze tarzan
removemeplease
------------A43338695277314-- From hswpnstp@telus.net Sat Oct 9 14:36:10 2004 From: hswpnstp@telus.net (Shirley Goff) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Inexpensive Xănax Message-ID: <200410031402.i93SzzTw001628@www1.gmail.com> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pha. rma
Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big

inviolate antiphonal edict advisee chaos analgesic fragrant befoul sundial contextual lundquist commendatory broke venture through cyanide lifetime candidacy cicero lyra adler cowpea genetic coventry blackwell belove impose downspout cossack stiffen bedazzle billion cruddy extend dare bled b's complexion respiratory circulant chipboard lazarus libation creak institution private edward counterman gratuitous drift christianson scripture category exception paginate dulse scope benefit improvisation ton minefield pandanus cytolysis isadore apatite floridian covary gamma continuation doppler saucepan bestseller blastula dorcas attend fancy bedim flange pewee asunder betoken antoinette dwelt abernathy winslow elinor skylight creature spheroid mascara cherokee appendices desorption nonsensical instable drench finitary crescendo teat calve chickweed payroll conciliate mustn't algebraic poem compare arise crutch vitae cactus collegiate denigrate contestant scorpion simmer indispositio n courageous dexter afloat yield employed etc glacis baku nearsighted anhydride centrifugate eeoc keynes commissary draftsmen chordate minstrel bladdernut iconoclast eventual ellipse nozzle
removemeplease
------------A43338695277314-- From isrzrickn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 12 22:04:18 2004 From: isrzrickn@btopenworld.com (Estelle Chappell) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2004 14:04:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] Inexpensive Xănax Message-ID: 200410150705.i9F750Kk01345752.i93CgrTw007179@emmmarketing.com> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pha. rma
Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big

nit formant conflagration incautious countryman conductor tweak fungicide competition caliphate chiropractor wolf wait derelict belfast moss coleridge phloem amanuensis ballet muskrat humanoid cecropia biharmonic buttock curlicue grope deforest commodity veridic pitchfork nettle adoption cough sorrow dihedral cowpox jade dampen epstein belove compressible assassin remorseful virulent fee without coronado beginner epistle heterogamous guilford yarrow crossover montevideo amok bang char humidistat chaw plucky shamble timon glue caroline missoula pluton carbonyl adventure dying conversion infarct foxhound spectrogram twelfth licensee monoid cargo cancellate opportune eight symphony tuttle bowmen tropopause confocal auxiliary gifford
removemeplease
------------A43338695277314-- From jyxfgmdko@yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 20:23:38 2004 From: jyxfgmdko@yahoo.com (Mattie Beatty) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200410031471.i93XkrTw007664@www3.gmail.com> Hi again, Here is Mattie Beatty. I write to you because we are accepting your mortga= ge application. Our office confirms you can get a $220.000 lo=C0n for a $252.00 per month = payment. Approval process will take 1 minute, so please fill out the form on our we= bsite: http://gum-sort.moneystates.com Thank you. Best Regards Mattie Beatty First Account Manager Remove Me Please http://shylock.moneystates.com/r1/ From giqbbuc@lineone.net Sat Oct 9 14:36:10 2004 From: giqbbuc@lineone.net (Domingo Gallo) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wonderful Phamraceuticals, everything your looking for Message-ID: <200410031458.i93HtoTw006937@www2.gmail.com> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

 

 

 

 

Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------A43338695277314-- From ibfdprfzqdyu@lineone.net Sat Oct 9 14:36:10 2004 From: ibfdprfzqdyu@lineone.net (Esmeralda Hanna) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Wonderful Phamraceuticals, everything your looking for Message-ID: <200410031462.i93SbaTw007437@www8.gmail.com> X-message-flag: Authentic Sender, Hash: IIUWDREV This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------A07821172463913 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------A43338695277314" ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------A43338695277314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

 

 

 

 

Sa;ve 7_0% ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------A43338695277314-- From pbdwypvucg@yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 14:36:10 2004 From: pbdwypvucg@yahoo.com (Wanda Garland) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200410031411.i93RwuTw007906@www2.gmail.com> Find the realtor that's right for you. Find your dream home. Find the mort= gage you need. Apply today and Get a free quote from competing lenders. Find the right broker that will help you receive the lowest interst rate y= ou need. No obligations are neccesary! A broker will contact you within 24 hours. http://muptetwv.loanz-states.com/?dzrbpja You're on your way to getting the mortgage you deserve. rem: http://xkesra.finance-states.com/r1/?psulghg