From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 1 00:19:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:19:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] When does Law 58B2 apply? In-Reply-To: <000301c4bd8c$0f8e4670$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>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 Ed Reppert: >>Seems to me that the fact that the WBF have made no >>official comment on the commentaries does not constitute >>an endorsement. Sven Pran: >Don't you think "acquiescence by silence" is a relevant >term here? RJH: >From a strictly legal point of view, the 1992 European Bridge Zone's Commentary on the Laws was only valid in the European Zone, not in other Zones. Furthermore, even in the European Zone, the Commentary was only legally binding from 1992 to 1997. Once the 1997 Lawbook came into force, the Commentary lapsed as a legally binding document, unless and until the European Zone reissued the Commentary with appropriate amendments. The European Zone has not yet done so. But, as a practical matter, I agree with Sven that this Commentary can be a useful guide. However, I would argue that the Commentary should be used with caution. While the actual *words* of some Laws have been unchanged for more than 40 years, official *interpretations* of those words are much more fluid. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 1 02:34:22 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:34:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-09 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0wOS4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQpOLTA5ICAgICAgICBOWSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgUHJlbGltIERyYWZ0IDExLzEvMjAw NA0KU3ViamVjdDogICAgVUkNCkRJQzogICAgICAgIEN1a29mZg0KRXZlbnQ6ICAgICAgSU1QIFBh aXJzIOKAkyAxc3QgUXVhbGlmeWluZw0KDQpCZDogICAxOCAgICBDaGFybGVzIEZyaXRoDQpEbHI6 ICBFYXN0ICA2NTMNClZ1bDogIE5TICAgIFQ2Mg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgS1Q4NQ0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgSjk3DQpWaWN0b3IgTWFya293aWN6ICAgICAgICBKZXJ6eSBaYXJlbWJhDQpROTcgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICBLSg0KS0o1NCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOTcNClE3ICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIEo5Ng0KNTQzMiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgQUtRVDg2DQogICAgICAg ICAgICBFaGFiIEhhc3Nhbg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQVQ4NDINCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEFRODMNCiAg ICAgICAgICAgIEE0MzINCiAgICAgICAgICAgIC0tLQ0KDQpXZXN0ICAgICAgTm9ydGggICAgIEVh c3QgICAgICBTb3V0aA0KLS0tICAgICAgIC0tLSAgICAgICAxQyAgICAgICAgRGJsDQoxSCgxKSAg ICAgUGFzcyAgICAgIDFOVCAgICAgICBQYXNzKDIpKDMpDQpQYXNzICAgICAgMkQgICAgICAgIFBh c3MgICAgICAyUw0KUGFzcyAgICAgIFBhc3MgICAgICBQYXNzDQoNCigxKSAgQWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGRv dWJsZSwgc2xvdyBhbGVydC4gRXhwbGFpbmVkIGFzIFBvbGlzaC4NCk9mZmVyZWQgU291dGggYSBj aGFuY2UgdG8gY2hhbmdlIGNhbGwuDQooMikgIEFza2VkIGZvciBhbiBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiBvZiAx TlQuIEFmdGVyIGEgZGVsYXkgd2FzDQp0b2xkIGl0IHdhcyAxMi0xNC4NCigzKSAgQWxsZWdlZCBC SVQuDQoNClRoZSBGYWN0czogIFRoZSBmaW5hbCBjb250cmFjdCB3YXMgMlMgbWFraW5nIDIgZm9y ICsxMTANCmZvciBOUyBhZnRlciB0aGUgaGVhcnQgZm91ciBsZWFkLiBUaGUgZGlyZWN0b3Igd2Fz IGNhbGxlZA0KYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIDJEIGJpZC4NCg0KVGhlcmUgd2FzIGEgZGVsYXllZCBhbGVydCBv ZiAxQy4gVGhlcmUgd2FzIGEgbG9uZyBkZWxheQ0KYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiBvZiAx TlQuIFRoZSBkZWxheSBhZnRlciAxTlQgYnkgU291dGgNCndhcyBub3QgbW9yZSB0aGFuIDUgc2Vj b25kcy4NCg0KVGhlIFJ1bGluZzogVGhlIHNjb3JlIHN0YW5kcyAoTGF3IDE2KS4NCg0KVGhlIEFw cGVhbDogV2VzdCBjb250ZXN0ZWQgdGhlIGRpcmVjdG9yJ3MgZmFjdHVhbA0KZGV0ZXJtaW5hdGlv biB0aGF0IFNvdXRoIHRvb2sgbm8gbW9yZSB0aGFuIDUgc2Vjb25kcyBiZWZvcmUNCnBhc3Npbmcg YWZ0ZXIgV2VzdCdzIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSAxTlQgcmViaWQuDQoNCk90aGVyIEZhY3Rz OiBXZXN0IGFja25vd2xlZGdlZCB0aGF0IGhlIHRvb2sgYSB2ZXJ5IGxvbmcNCnRpbWUgdG8gcHJv ZHVjZSB0aGUgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24uIE5TIGRpZCBub3QgYXBwZWFyIGF0IHRoZQ0KaGVhcmluZy4N Cg0KVGhlIERlY2lzaW9uOiAgVGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBmb3VuZCB0aGVyZSB3YXMgbm8gYnJlYWsg aW4NCnRlbXBvIG9uIHdoaWNoIHRvIGJhc2UgYW4gYWRqdXN0bWVudC4gVGhlIGRpcmVjdG9yIGZv dW5kIGFzDQpmYWN0ICJ0aGUgZGVsYXkgKGJ5IFNvdXRoKSBhZnRlciAxTlQgd2FzIG5vdCBtb3Jl IHRoYW4gNQ0Kc2Vjb25kcy4iDQoNCkZ1cnRoZXJtb3JlLCB0aGUgY29udGV4dCBTb3V0aCBmb3Vu ZCBoaW1zZWxmIGluIHdhcw0KdW51c3VhbC4gSGUgaGFkIGFza2VkIGZvciBhbiBleHBsYW5hdGlv biBvZiBFYXN0J3MgUG9saXNoDQpDbHViIDFOVCByZWJpZCBhbmQgaGFkIHRvIHdhaXQgcHJlc3Vt YWJseSBhIG1pbnV0ZSBvciBtb3JlLg0KV2hlbiBTb3V0aCBoZWFyZCB0aGUgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24s IHRoZSB0ZW1wbyBvZiB0aGUgdGFibGUNCmhhZCBiZWVuIHZlcnkgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnRseSBkaXN0 dXJiZWQgYnkgRVcuIEF0IHRoYXQgcG9pbnQNClNvdXRoIG1heSBoYXZlIHdhbnRlZCB0byBjb25z aWRlciBhbmQgc3BlY3VsYXRlIG9uIHRoZQ0KcmVhc29uIGZvciB0aGUgZ3JlYXQgZGVsYXkgaW4g cHJvdmlkaW5nIHRoZSBleHBsYW5hdGlvbg0KYmVmb3JlIGNhbGxpbmcuICBVbmRlciB0aGVzZSBj aXJjdW1zdGFuY2VzLCBhIGJyaWVmIGRlbGF5DQpieSBTb3V0aCBzaG91bGQgbm90IGJlIGNvbnNp ZGVyZWQgInVubWlzdGFrYWJsZSIgc2luY2UNCnRoZXJlIHdlcmUgc28gbWFueSBub24taGFuZCBl dmFsdWF0aW9uYWwgdmFyaWFibGVzIHdoaWNoIEVXDQpoYWQgYnJvdWdodCB0byBiZWFyIG9uIFNv dXRoLiBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIHRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUgZmVsdA0KdGhhdCBhIGJyZWFrIG9mIGEgZmV3 IHNlY29uZHMgbW9yZSB0aGFuIGZpdmUgc2hvdWxkDQpwcm9iYWJseSBub3QgYmUgY29uc2lkZXJl ZCAidW5taXN0YWthYmxlIi4NCg0KV2hpbGUgV2VzdCBhcmd1ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgZGlyZWN0b3In cyBmYWN0dWFsIGRldGVybWluYXRpb24NCndhcyB3cm9uZywgdWx0aW1hdGVseSB0aGUgY29tbWl0 dGVlIGNvdWxkIG5vdCBmaW5kIGhpcw0KY29udGVudGlvbnMgdG8gaGF2ZSBzdWNoIG1lcml0IGFz IHRvIHdhcnJhbnQgcmV2ZXJzaW5nIHRoZQ0KZGlyZWN0b3IncyBmaW5kaW5ncyBhbmQgd2l0aG91 dCBhIEJJVCB0aGUgY2FzZSB3YXMNCmRpc21pc3NlZC4NCg0KVGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBjb25zaWRl cmVkIGFuIEFXTVcuIE9uZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgZ2l2ZW4gaWYsDQpldmVuIG9uIGdyYW50aW5nIFdl c3QncyBmYWN0dWFsIHBvc2l0aW9uLCBOb3J0aCdzIDJEIGJpZA0Kd2FzIGNsZWFybHkgYWxsb3dh YmxlIChub3RoaW5nIGVsc2UgZXZlbiBjbG9zZSB0byBhIGxvZ2ljYWwNCmFsdGVybmF0aXZlKS4g SG93ZXZlciwgdGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBmb3VuZCB0aGF0IHRoZSAyRCBiaWQNCndhcyBub3Qgc28g Y2xlYXJseSBhbGxvd2FibGUgdGhhdCBpdCBjb3VsZCBhc3NpZ24gdGhlIEFXTVcuDQoNCkNvbW1p dHRlZTogIE1pY2hhZWwgSHVzdG9uLCBDaGFpcnBlcnNvbiwgQmFycnkgUmlnYWwsIERpY2sNCkJ1 ZGQsIEJvYiBTY2h3YXJ0eiBhbmQgSmVmZiBSb21hbi4= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 1 06:54:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 06:54:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-09 Message-ID: <002001c4bfdf$9cd78a00$179468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] Movie grognard and general guru N-09 NY Prelim Draft 11/1/2004 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event: IMP Pairs - 1st Qualifying Bd: 18 Charles Frith Dlr: East 653 Vul: NS T62 KT85 J97 Victor Markowicz Jerzy Zaremba Q97 KJ KJ54 97 Q7 J96 5432 AKQT86 Ehab Hassan AT842 AQ83 A432 --- West North East South --- --- 1C Dbl 1H(1) Pass 1NT Pass(2)(3) Pass 2D Pass 2S Pass Pass Pass (1) After the double, slow alert. Explained as Polish. Offered South a chance to change call. (2) Asked for an explanation of 1NT. After a delay was told it was 12-14. (3) Alleged BIT. The Facts: The final contract was 2S making 2 for +110 for NS after the heart four lead. The director was called after the 2D bid. There was a delayed alert of 1C. There was a long delay before the explanation of 1NT. The delay after 1NT by South was not more than 5 seconds. The Ruling: The score stands (Law 16). The Appeal: West contested the director's factual determination that South took no more than 5 seconds before passing after West's explanation of the 1NT rebid. Other Facts: West acknowledged that he took a very long time to produce the explanation. NS did not appear at the hearing. The Decision: The committee found there was no break in tempo on which to base an adjustment. The director found as fact "the delay (by South) after 1NT was not more than 5 seconds." Furthermore, the context South found himself in was unusual. He had asked for an explanation of East's Polish Club 1NT rebid and had to wait presumably a minute or more. When South heard the explanation, the tempo of the table had been very significantly disturbed by EW. At that point South may have wanted to consider and speculate on the reason for the great delay in providing the explanation before calling. Under these circumstances, a brief delay by South should not be considered "unmistakable" since there were so many non-hand evaluational variables which EW had brought to bear on South. Therefore, the ommittee felt that a break of a few seconds more than five should probably not be considered "unmistakable". While West argued that the director's factual determination was wrong, ultimately the committee could not find his contentions to have such merit as to warrant reversing the director's findings and without a BIT the case was dismissed. The committee considered an AWMW. One should be given if, even on granting West's factual position, North's 2D bid was clearly allowable (nothing else even close to a logical alternative). However, the committee found that the 2D bid was not so clearly allowable that it could assign the AWMW. Committee: Michael Huston, Chairperson, Barry Rigal, Dick Budd, Bob Schwartz and Jeff Roman. [Nigel] Another decision by the TD and AC that is hard for a mere player to understand. (1) Why did the AC rule that the East-West delays in explanation had any bearing on the case? Surely you measure a player's breaks in tempo relative to the players' own normal tempo -- not to the tempo of other players the table. If anything, East-West delays *helped* North-South. For example, South was able to show a hand that would double both a natural and a Polish club. If East-West had misexplained or prevented their opponents form changing their calls, that would be another matter. (2) Why did the TD and AC prefer to believe North-South rather than East-West about the length of South's break in tempo? East-West seem to have been truthful in other matters. Usually, when there is a dispute about a break in tempo, the alleged *offending side* is assumed to be guilty of wishful thinking. (3) North-South did not attend the hearing. So the committee was prevented from testing the North-South evidence on the length of South's hesitation. In a case that pivoted on a dispute about the length of that hesitation, it is strange that their absence did not harm their defence. (4) Anyway, given that there probably *was* a break in tempo by South, pass is an obvious logical alternative for North and South's hesitation clearly suggested something else. Hence the actual ruling seems doubtful; and considering an AMWM seems over the top. --- 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 jrmayne@mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 07:17:48 2004 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:17:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-09 References: <002001c4bfdf$9cd78a00$179468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4185E31C.8000603@mindspring.com> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard James Hills] > Movie grognard and general guru > > N-09 NY Prelim Draft > 11/1/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Cukoff > Event: IMP Pairs - 1st Qualifying > > Bd: 18 Charles Frith > Dlr: East 653 > Vul: NS T62 > KT85 > J97 > Victor Markowicz Jerzy Zaremba > Q97 KJ > KJ54 97 > Q7 J96 > 5432 AKQT86 > Ehab Hassan > AT842 > AQ83 > A432 > --- > > West North East South > --- --- 1C Dbl > 1H(1) Pass 1NT Pass(2)(3) > Pass 2D Pass 2S > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) After the double, slow alert. Explained as > Polish. Offered South a chance to change call. > (2) Asked for an explanation of 1NT. After a > delay was told it was 12-14. > (3) Alleged BIT. The Facts: The final contract > was 2S making 2 for +110 for NS after the heart > four lead. The director was called after the 2D > bid. > > There was a delayed alert of 1C. There was a long > delay before the explanation of 1NT. The delay > after 1NT by South was not more than 5 seconds. > > The Ruling: The score stands (Law 16). > > The Appeal: West contested the director's factual > determination that South took no more than 5 > seconds before passing after West's explanation of > the 1NT rebid. > > Other Facts: West acknowledged that he took a very > long time to produce the explanation. NS did not > appear at the hearing. > > The Decision: The committee found there was no > break in tempo on which to base an adjustment. The > director found as fact "the delay (by South) after > 1NT was not more than 5 seconds." > > Furthermore, the context South found himself in > was > unusual. He had asked for an explanation of East's > Polish Club 1NT rebid and had to wait presumably a > minute or more. When South heard the explanation, > the tempo of the table had been very significantly > disturbed by EW. At that point South may have > wanted to consider and speculate on the reason for > the great delay in providing the explanation > before calling. Under these circumstances, a > brief delay by South should not be considered > "unmistakable" since there were so many non-hand > evaluational variables which EW > had brought to bear on South. Therefore, the > ommittee felt that a break of a few seconds more > than five should probably not be considered > "unmistakable". > > While West argued that the director's factual > determination was wrong, ultimately the committee > could not find his contentions to have such merit > as to warrant reversing the director's findings > and without a BIT the case was dismissed. > > The committee considered an AWMW. One should be > given if, even on granting West's factual > position, North's 2D bid was clearly allowable > (nothing else even close to a logical > alternative). However, the committee found that > the 2D bid was not so clearly allowable that it > could assign the AWMW. Committee: Michael Huston, > Chairperson, Barry Rigal, Dick Budd, Bob Schwartz > and Jeff Roman. > > [Nigel] > Another decision by the TD and AC that is hard for > a mere player to understand. > > (1) Why did the AC rule that the East-West delays > in explanation had any bearing on the case? Surely > you measure a player's breaks in tempo relative to > the players' own normal tempo -- not to the tempo > of other players the table. If anything, East-West > delays *helped* North-South. For example, South > was able to show a hand that would double both a > natural and a Polish club. If East-West had > misexplained or prevented their opponents form > changing their calls, that would be another > matter. I disagree. If you take five seconds after taking a minute to get an answer, you're faster than I am. N-S might be considering why failing to use electrical shocks to get answers is illegal, a mystery which will surely take more than five seconds. *Very* lengthy delays force people into difficult positions, especially when given a simple explanation. Mightn't there be something else left out? Do I need to protect myself? Should I ask followup questions? Why are they trying to hide their system? > > (2) Why did the TD and AC prefer to believe > North-South rather than East-West about the length > of South's break in tempo? East-West seem to have > been truthful in other matters. Usually, when > there is a dispute about a break in tempo, the > alleged *offending side* is assumed to be guilty > of wishful thinking. I'm curious as to why there was this kind of delay on simple questions, but I'm inclined to take the TD's view on the length of the BIT. TD's are usually best placed to make these decisions. > > (3) North-South did not attend the hearing. So the > committee was prevented from testing the > North-South evidence on the length of South's > hesitation. In a case that pivoted on a dispute > about the length of that hesitation, it is strange > that their absence did not harm their defence. I'm assuming the director did the things he should have done to establish the length of the hesitation. I don't think this is so odd. > > (4) Anyway, given that there probably *was* a > break in tempo by South, pass is an obvious > logical alternative for North and South's > hesitation clearly suggested something else. Hence > the actual ruling seems doubtful; and considering > an AMWM seems over the top. > I'd've considered, but rejected, the AWMW, as the AC did. If you create the problem by not answering questions in some sort of reasonable manner, you oughtn't complain. Without being there, I might be making improper assumptions, but I think the appellants need clear instructions on their obligations and the consequences of trying to avoid them. Obviously, pass is a LA, but I blame the appellants in full for the delay. --JRM From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 1 22:38:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:38:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-11 Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiBieSBNYXJ2IEkgZWRpdCB0aGUgTllDIHVub2Zm aWNpYWwNCmNhc2Vib29rLCBhbmQgZ2l2ZW4gdGhlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYnkgb3RoZXIgYmxtbGVy cyBmb3INCmEgd2lraSBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgSSBwcm9wb3NlIGEgY29tcHJvbWlz ZS4gIEkNCndpbGwgc3RhcnQgMTMgYmxtbCB0aHJlYWRzLCBvbmUgZm9yIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIDEz IE5ZQw0KY2FzZXMsIHRoZW4gY29tcGlsZSBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgYmxtbCBjb21tZW50cyBpbnRv IGENCmNhc2Vib29rLiAgQXR0YWNoZWQgaXMgTllDIGNhc2UgTi0xMS4NCg0KQmVzdCB3aXNoZXMN Cg0KUmljaGFyZCBKYW1lcyBIaWxscw0KTW92aWUgZ3JvZ25hcmQgYW5kIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VydQ0K DQpOLTExICAgICAgICBOWSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgUHJlbGltIERyYWZ0IDExLzIv MjAwNA0KU3ViamVjdDogICAgVUkNCkRJQzogICAgICAgIEN1a29mZg0KRXZlbnQ6ICAgICAgTmF0 aW9uYWwgT3BlbiBGYXN0IFBhaXJzIOKAkyAxc3QgUXVhbGlmeWluZw0KDQpCZDogICAyMyAgICBK aW0gRGFuaWVsDQpEbHI6ICBTb3V0aCBUOTg2NA0KVnVsOiAgQm90aCAgQUoNCiAgICAgICAgICAg IFQ1DQogICAgICAgICAgICA2NDMyDQpCaWxsIFBhcmtzICAgICAgICAgICAgICBSaWNoYXJkIE1v cmdlbg0KQUo3ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMg0KSzk2ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg UVQ3NTQNClFKNzMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEs4Mg0KSjg1ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgS1FUNw0KICAgICAgICAgICAgUm9kdSBBcml0b24NCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEtRNTMNCiAgICAg ICAgICAgIDgzMg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQTk2NA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgQTkNCg0KV2VzdCAgICAg IE5vcnRoICAgICBFYXN0ICAgICAgU291dGgNCi0tLSAgICAgICAtLS0gICAgICAgLS0tICAgICAg IDFEDQpQYXNzICAgICAgMVMgICAgICAgIDFOVCgxKSAgICAyUw0KM0ggICAgICAgIFBhc3MgICAg ICBQYXNzICAgICAgUGFzcw0KDQooMSkgIFNhbmR3aWNoLCBubyBhbGVydA0KDQpUaGUgRmFjdHM6 IFRoZSBmaW5hbCBjb250cmFjdCB3YXMgM0ggbWFraW5nIGZvdXIgZm9yICsxNzANCmZvciBFVyBh ZnRlciB0aGUgc3BhZGUgMTAgbGVhZC4gVGhlIGRpcmVjdG9yIHdhcyBjYWxsZWQNCmJlZm9yZSB0 aGUgb3BlbmluZyBsZWFkLg0KDQpFVyBzYWlkIHRoZXkgaGFkIGFncmVlZCB0byBwbGF5IFNhbmR3 aWNoIE5UIGJ1dCBkaWQgbm90DQpyZWFsaXplIHRoYXQgaXQgd2FzIGFsZXJ0YWJsZSBieSBhIG5v bi1wYXNzZWQgaGFuZC4gVGhleQ0KZGlkIG5vdCBoYXZlIGFueSBhZ3JlZW1lbnRzIGFib3V0IHNo YXBlIGFuZCBpdCBjb3VsZCBiZQ0KNC00LCA0LTUgb3IgNS01Lg0KDQpOb3J0aCBhbmQgU291dGgg Ym90aCBzYWlkIGF3YXkgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGFibGUgdGhhdCB0aGV5DQp3b3VsZCBiaWQgM1MuDQoN ClRoZSBSdWxpbmc6IEJvdGggU291dGggYW5kIE5vcnRoIGFyZSBtaW5pbXVtIGhhbmRzLiBJdCBp cw0KaGFyZCB0byBhY2NlcHQgdGhhdCBlaXRoZXIgd291bGQgYmlkIDNTIHdoaWNoIGNvdWxkIHB1 c2gNCkVXIHRvIDRIIGZvciArNjIwIG9yIGRvdWJsZSAzUyBmb3IgKzIwMC4gUmVzdWx0IHN0YW5k cy4NCg0KVGhlIEFwcGVhbDogTlMgYXBwZWFsZWQuIEFsbCBmb3VyIHBsYXllcnMgYXR0ZW5kZWQg dGhlDQpoZWFyaW5nLiBOUyAoZXNwZWNpYWxseSBOb3J0aCkgYmVsaWV2ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGV5IHdv dWxkDQpoYXZlIGNvbXBldGVkIHRvIDNTIGhhZCB0aGV5IGJlZW4gYXdhcmUgb2YgdGhlDQpkaXN0 cmlidXRpb25hbCBuYXR1cmUgb2YgRWFzdCdzIGhhbmQuIFRoZXkgY2xhaW1lZCB0aGF0DQp0aGVp ciBvcGVuaW5nIGJpZHMgcHJvbWlzZWQgc291bmQgdmFsdWVzLCBhbmQgdGhhdA0KU291dGgncyAy UyBiaWQgcHJvbWlzZWQgZm91ciBjYXJkIHN1cHBvcnQuIFRoZXkgYWxzbw0KdGhvdWdodCBpdCB1 bmxpa2VseSB0aGF0IFdlc3Qgd291bGQgZG91YmxlIDNTLCBnaXZpbmcNCmF3YXkgdGhlIGxvY2F0 aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBzcGFkZSBqYWNrLg0KDQpGaW5hbGx5LCB3aXRoIGNvcnJlY3QgaW5mb3JtYXRp b24sIE5vcnRoIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgbWFkZQ0KdGhlIGF0dGFja2luZyBsZWFkIG9mIHRoZSBkaWFt b25kIHRlbiBhZ2FpbnN0IGEgaGVhcnQNCmNvbnRyYWN0LCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgcGFzc2l2 ZSBsZWFkIHRoYXQgaGUgc2VsZWN0ZWQNCmF0IHRoZSB0YWJsZS4NCg0KU3RhdGVtZW50cyBNYWRl IGJ5IHRoZSBPdGhlciBTaWRlOiBFVyBkaWQgbm90IHRoaW5rIGl0DQp3YXMgdmVyeSBhdHRyYWN0 aXZlIGZvciBlaXRoZXIgTm9ydGggb3IgU291dGggdG8gYmlkIDNTLg0KV2VzdCBtaWdodCB3ZWxs IGhhdmUgZG91YmxlZCBob3BpbmcgdG8gZWl0aGVyIGdldCArMjAwIG9yDQpnZXQgdG8gYSBtYWtp bmcgNEggaWYgRWFzdCBoYWQgZXh0cmEgc2hhcGUuIEF0IHRoZSB0YWJsZSwNCldlc3QgaGFkIGp1 ZGdlZCB0aGF0IGhpcyAxMiBIQ1AgYW5kIHRoZSBvcHBvbmVudHMnDQp2dWxuZXJhYmxlIGJpZGRp bmcgbWFkZSBpdCB1bmxpa2VseSB0aGF0IHBhcnRuZXIgaGVsZCBhDQpzdHJvbmcgYmFsYW5jZWQg aGFuZCBmb3IgaGlzIDFOVCBiaWQuIEhlIHRob3VnaHQgaGUgd2FzDQpiZWluZyAiYWN0aXZlbHkg ZXRoaWNhbCIgaW4gYWxlcnRpbmcgdGhlIG9wcG9uZW50cyBhdCB0aGUNCmF1Y3Rpb24ncyBlbmQu DQoNCk90aGVyIEZhY3RzOiBUaGUgc2NyZWVuaW5nIGRpcmVjdG9yIGRldGVybWluZWQgdGhhdCBh dA0KdGhlIGVuZCBvZiB0aGUgYXVjdGlvbiwgV2VzdCB0b2xkIE5TIHRoYXQgaGUgYmVsaWV2ZWQg aGlzDQpwYXJ0bmVyJ3MgMU5UIGhhZCBiZWVuIGludGVuZGVkIGFzIGEgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uYWwN CnRha2VvdXQuIE5TIHdlcmUgYXNrZWQgKGF3YXkgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGFibGUpIGlmIHRoZXkNCndv dWxkIGhhdmUgYmlkIGRpZmZlcmVudGx5IHdpdGggdGhhdCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbi4gTm9ydGgNCnNh aWQgaGUgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBiaWQgM1MuIFNvdXRoIHNhaWQgaGUgbWlnaHQgaGF2ZSBiaWQNCjNT IGlmIGhlIGtuZXcgRWFzdCB3YXMgYXQgbGVhc3QgNS01Lg0KDQpUaGUgY29tbWl0dGVlIGRldGVy bWluZWQgdGhhdCB0aGlzIHdhcyBvbmx5IHRoZSBzZWNvbmQNCnNlc3Npb24gdGhhdCBFVyBoYWQg cGxheWVkIHRvZ2V0aGVyLCB0aGUgZmlyc3QgYmVpbmcNCmFib3V0IGZvdXIgdG8gc2l4IG1vbnRo cyBhZ28uIE5laXRoZXIgY291bGQgcmVjYWxsIGhhdmluZw0KZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHRoZSBtZWFuaW5n IG9mIGEgU2FuZHdpY2ggTlQgYW5kIG5vdGhpbmcgd2FzIG9uDQp0aGVpciBjYXJkIHRvIHRoYXQg ZWZmZWN0LiBFYXN0IGhhZCBjb252ZW50aW9uIGNhcmRzIGhlDQp1c2VkIHdpdGggb3RoZXIgcGFy dG5lcnMgd2l0aCBTYW5kd2ljaCBOVCB3cml0dGVuIG9uDQp0aGVtLg0KDQpUaGUgRGVjaXNpb246 IFRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUgZGV0ZXJtaW5lZCB0aGF0IEVXIGRpZCBub3QNCmhhdmUgdGhlIGFncmVl bWVudCB0aGF0IDFOVCB3YXMgYSBkaXN0cmlidXRpb25hbCB0YWtlb3V0DQp3aGVuIGJpZCBiZXR3 ZWVuIHR3byBiaWRkaW5nIG9wcG9uZW50cy4gV2VzdCB3YXMgdW5kZXIgbm8NCm9ibGlnYXRpb24g dG8gZGlzY2xvc2UgdG8gTlMgdGhlIGNvbmNsdXNpb24gaGUgaGFkDQpyZWFjaGVkIGJhc2VkIHVw b24gaGlzIG93biBoYW5kIGFuZCB0aGUgb3Bwb25lbnRzJw0KYmlkZGluZy4gVGhlIHRhYmxlIHJl c3VsdCBpbiAzSCB3YXMgYWxsb3dlZCB0byBzdGFuZC4NCg0KSGFkIHRoZSBkaXJlY3RvciBydWxl ZCB0aGF0IEVXIGhhZCBub3QgYWdyZWVkIHRvIHBsYXkgYQ0KU2FuZHdpY2ggTlQgb3ZlcmNhbGwg YXMgYSB0YWtlb3V0IGJpZCwgdGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZQ0Kd291bGQgaGF2ZSBnaXZlbiBhbiBBV01X IHRvIE5TLiBCZWNhdXNlIHRoZSBkaXJlY3RvciBoYWQNCnRha2VuIE5TIGF3YXkgZnJvbSB0aGUg dGFibGUgdG8gYXNrIHRoZW0gd2hhdCB0aGV5IHdvdWxkDQpoYXZlIGJpZCBhbmQgYmVjYXVzZSBo ZSBtYWRlIGhpcyBydWxpbmcgYmFzZWQgb24gaGlzDQpicmlkZ2UganVkZ2VtZW50IG9mIHRoZSBs aWtlbGlob29kIG9mIGVpdGhlciBOb3J0aCBvcg0KU291dGggYmlkZGluZyAzUywgdGhlIGNvbW1p dHRlZSBkZWNpZGVkIHRoYXQgYW4gQVdNVyB3YXMNCmluYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUuIEFkZGl0aW9uYWxs eSB0aGVyZSBhcHBlYXJlZCB0byBiZSBzb21lDQpjb25mdXNpb24gaW4gdGhlIHJ1bGluZy4NCg0K VGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBhbHNvIGluZm9ybWVkIFdlc3QgdGhhdCBoZSB3YXMgcmVxdWlyZWQNCm9u bHkgdG8gYWxlcnQgdGhlIG9wcG9uZW50cyB0byBjb252ZW50aW9uYWwgYmlkcyB0aGF0IGhlDQph bmQgaGlzIHBhcnRuZXIgaGFkIGFjdHVhbGx5IGFncmVlZCB1cG9uIG9yIHRvDQp1bmRlcnN0YW5k aW5ncyBiYXNlZCBvbiBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCBleHBlcmllbmNlLiBUaGUNCm9wcG9uZW50cyBhcmUg bm90IGVudGl0bGVkIHRvIGtub3cgZGVkdWN0aW9ucyBhIHBsYXllcg0KaGFzIG1hZGUgdXNpbmcg aGlzIGhhbmQgYW5kIHRoZSBhdWN0aW9uLg0KDQpDb21taXR0ZWU6IERvdWcgRG91YiwgQ2hhaXJw ZXJzb24sIEFkYW0gV2lsZGF2c2t5LCBNaWtlDQpLb3ZhY2ljaCwgSmVmZiBSb21hbiBhbmQgTWlj aGFlbCBIdXN0b24u From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 2 00:32:58 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 00:32:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-11 Message-ID: <000b01c4c073$8174bd20$109468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] N-11 NY Prelim Draft 11/2/2004 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event: National Open Fast Pairs - 1st Qualifying Bd: 23 Jim Daniel Dlr: South T9864 Vul: Both AJ T5 6432 Bill Parks Richard Morgen AJ7 2 K96 QT754 QJ73 K82 J85 KQT7 Rodu Ariton KQ53 832 A964 A9 West North East South --- --- --- 1D Pass 1S 1NT(1) 2S 3H Pass Pass Pass (1) Sandwich, no alert The Facts: The final contract was 3H making four for +170 or EW after the spade 10 lead. The director was called before the opening lead. EW said they had agreed to play Sandwich NT but did not realize that it was alertable by a non-passed hand. They did not have any agreements about shape and it could be 4-4, 4-5 or 5-5. North and South both said away from the table that they would bid 3S. The Ruling: Both South and North are minimum hands. It is hard to accept that either would bid 3S which could push EW to 4H for +620 or double 3S for +200. Result stands. The Appeal: NS appealed. All four players attended the hearing. NS (especially North) believed that they would have competed to 3S had they been aware of the distributional nature of East's hand. They claimed that their opening bids promised sound values, and that South's 2S bid promised four card support. They also thought it unlikely that West would double 3S, giving away the location of the spade jack. Finally, with correct information, North would have made the attacking lead of the diamond ten against a heart contract, rather than the passive lead that he selected at the table. Statements Made by the Other Side: EW did not think it was very attractive for either North or South to bid 3S. West might well have doubled hoping to either get +200 or get to a making 4H if East had extra shape. At the table, West had judged that his 12 HCP and the opponents' vulnerable bidding made it unlikely that partner held a strong balanced hand for his 1NT bid. He thought he was being "actively ethical" in alerting the opponents at the auction's end. Other Facts: The screening director determined that at the end of the auction, West told NS that he believed his partner's 1NT had been intended as a distributional takeout. NS were asked (away from the table) if they would have bid differently with that information. North said he would have bid 3S. South said he might have bid 3S if he knew East was at least 5-5. The committee determined that this was only the second session that EW had played together, the first being about four to six months ago. Neither could recall having discussed the meaning of a Sandwich NT and nothing was on their card to that effect. East had convention cards he used with other partners with Sandwich NT written on them. The Decision: The committee determined that EW did not have the agreement that 1NT was a distributional takeout when bid between two bidding opponents. West was under no obligation to disclose to NS the conclusion he had reached based upon his own hand and the opponents' bidding. The table result in 3H was allowed to stand. Had the director ruled that EW had not agreed to play a Sandwich NT overcall as a takeout bid, the committee would have given an AWMW to NS. Because the director had taken NS away from the table to ask them what they would have bid and because he made his ruling based on his bridge judgement of the likelihood of either North or South bidding 3S, the committee decided that an AWMW was inappropriate. Additionally there appeared to be some confusion in the ruling. The committee also informed West that he was required only to alert the opponents to conventional bids that he and his partner had actually agreed upon or to understandings based on partnership experience. The opponents are not entitled to know deductions a player has made using his hand and the auction. Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Adam Wildavsky, Mike Kovacich, Jeff Roman and Michael Huston. [Nigel] The committee averred, that "there had been some confusion about the initial ruling". On the evidence presented, it seems that all the confusion arose in committee. The fact is that East-West told the director that they had agreed to play Sandwich NT but did not realise that it was alertable by a non-passed hand. East-West never retracted this original statement. Nevertheless, because the East-West agreement was not on their card and they told the committee that they could not remember discussing it the committee determined, "EW did not have the agreement that 1NT was a distributional takeout". Well, with most of my partners I too have the understanding that the "sandwich notrump = two suit takeout" although I haven't discussed it with them. Also, I am ashamed to admit, it was not on our convention cards (:it is now:). Hence my sympathies are mostly with the putative non-offenders. North-South *might* have bid 4S, given timely correct information. If East-West had gone on to 4H, North-South *might* have led a diamond to defeat it. Are there any mitigating circumstances for East-West? They both appear to have been truthful and ethical. North-South could have "protected themselves" (but they would be naturally reluctant to ask a relatively inexperienced partnership about a non-alert). I suppose both sides (but especially North-South) were at fault for failing to call the director *immediately*. I believe that the director would then have the discretion to wind back the auction and allow North or South to venture 3S without the benefit of hindsight. And I do think there is some doubt about whether they would have availed themselves of that opportunity. --- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 2 00:57:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:57:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-12 In-Reply-To: <001e01c4b638$7f51af20$069868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Obviously... > >(1) South is the most likely hesitator. [snip] RJH: Screens are supposed to limit the transmission of unauthorised information. In some case, screens are ineffective in this task. For example: An uncontested auction inviting a grand slam, with slooow arrival of the bidding tray accompanying a non-forcing 6NT. This case is more interesting. There has been a competitive auction with both sides bidding. A hesitation has occurred. South may well be the most likely hesitator - say a 65% chance. But West may also have hesitated - say a 35% chance. Has North received UI about pard's break in tempo whenever there is a better than 50% chance that pard has hesitated? Or has North received 65% UI whenever there is a 65% chance that South has hesitated, so North should receive a Law 12C3 score with a weighting of 65/35? (If the ACBL had adopted Law 12C3.) Or must West's hypothetical hesitation be a totally illogical assumption, in order for the North-South score to be adjusted? (The apparent rationale for the AC decision.) How would you rule? How should you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 2 02:39:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:39:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-08 In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041020211535.01c4a950@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote: >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. RJH quibbles: In my opinion, a "deliberate" action is not needed to create an infraction of Law 73C, and consequently the application of a PP. Law 73C may also be carelessly but inadvertently infracted. However, as TD or AC, I would still apply a PP for such an egregiously careless infraction of Law 73C. David J. Grabiner wrote: >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. RJH quibbles: In my opinion, one cannot hide from one's Law 73C obligations by using the description "normal" for the choice of one's call. In my opinion, Law 73C often requires one to choose an *abnormal* logical alternative. In this particular case, it is clear that both 4H and also a 4S cuebid are logical alternatives. It is crystal-clear to West that their normal 4H bid is the demonstrably suggested logical alternative after UI from East. So, a Law-abiding West must eschew their normal bid, rather selecting 4S instead. "Flagrant" is indeed the word. And I hope that the PP on West will encourager les autres. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 2 05:09:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:09:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-10 In-Reply-To: <417883C4.6050803@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: [snip] >>The Appeal: NS appealed and North [Ron Gerard] 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." [snip] John R. Mayne wrote: >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. RJH notes; The fact that *other* experts play 3NT as natural is not relevant to determining whether *this particular* expert partnership have an implicit agreement to play 3NT as unnatural. There is the self-serving evidence of South's statement. Although self-serving evidence might sometimes have to be taken with a grain of salt, occasionally self-serving evidence is sufficient to determine the facts. There is also the objective evidence that 3NT was removed, since for a partnership which has an agreement that 3NT is natural, a consequent Pass with the South cards would be the *only* logical alternative. John R. Mayne wrote: >A slow 3N is less likely to be the right contract than a >fast 3N. RJH notes: True, but irrelevant to the determination of logical alternatives *if* North-South have an implicit agreement that 3NT is an unnatural call. John R. Mayne: >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. RJH notes: The committee's conclusion is non-bizarre *if* it decided that Ron Gerard misbid his 3NT, violating the implicit agreement of his partnership. Maybe the committee could not resist ruling that Ron Gerard misbids idiotically? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From jrmayne@mindspring.com Tue Nov 2 08:11:36 2004 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:11:36 -0800 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-11 Message-ID: <41874138.6050407@mindspring.com> 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-11. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru N-11 NY Prelim Draft 11/2/2004 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event: National Open Fast Pairs - 1st Qualifying Bd: 23 Jim Daniel Dlr: South T9864 Vul: Both AJ T5 6432 Bill Parks Richard Morgen AJ7 2 K96 QT754 QJ73 K82 J85 KQT7 Rodu Ariton KQ53 832 A964 A9 West North East South --- --- --- 1D Pass 1S 1NT(1) 2S 3H Pass Pass Pass (1) Sandwich, no alert The Facts: The final contract was 3H making four for +170 for EW after the spade 10 lead. The director was called before the opening lead. EW said they had agreed to play Sandwich NT but did not realize that it was alertable by a non-passed hand. They did not have any agreements about shape and it could be 4-4, 4-5 or 5-5. North and South both said away from the table that they would bid 3S. The Ruling: Both South and North are minimum hands. It is hard to accept that either would bid 3S which could push EW to 4H for +620 or double 3S for +200. Result stands. The Appeal: NS appealed. All four players attended the hearing. NS (especially North) believed that they would have competed to 3S had they been aware of the distributional nature of East's hand. They claimed that their opening bids promised sound values, and that South's 2S bid promised four card support. They also thought it unlikely that West would double 3S, giving away the location of the spade jack. ----- JRM: I'm not sure this makes 3S more attractive; missing spade honors figure to be more likely to be offside than on under the facts presented. I think the director's decision is reasonable. ------ Finally, with correct information, North would have made the attacking lead of the diamond ten against a heart contract, rather than the passive lead that he selected at the table. Statements Made by the Other Side: EW did not think it was very attractive for either North or South to bid 3S. West might well have doubled hoping to either get +200 or get to a making 4H if East had extra shape. At the table, West had judged that his 12 HCP and the opponents' vulnerable bidding made it unlikely that partner held a strong balanced hand for his 1NT bid. He thought he was being "actively ethical" in alerting the opponents at the auction's end. Other Facts: The screening director determined that at the end of the auction, West told NS that he believed his partner's 1NT had been intended as a distributional takeout. NS were asked (away from the table) if they would have bid differently with that information. North said he would have bid 3S. South said he might have bid 3S if he knew East was at least 5-5. The committee determined that this was only the second session that EW had played together, the first being about four to six months ago. Neither could recall having discussed the meaning of a Sandwich NT and nothing was on their card to that effect. East had convention cards he used with other partners with Sandwich NT written on them. The Decision: The committee determined that EW did not have the agreement that 1NT was a distributional takeout when bid between two bidding opponents. West was under no obligation to disclose to NS the conclusion he had reached based upon his own hand and the opponents' bidding. The table result in 3H was allowed to stand. ----- JRM: Huh. So, 1N was mystery? It certainly wasn't 16-18 or so. On Mars, we play it as 6=4 in the minors; if that had been read, would we not have *some* type of implicit agreement? Do these players come from the same group, which plays a particular style? It's altogether possible the committee got this right. It sounds like W's disclosure was close to what was necessary, though. W chose an option based on a possible meaning based on *something.* He didn't read it as, say, the minors. There was *some* basis for this, and it's possible that all players at the table had equal access, but not certain. Suppose E-W had not discussed this sequence and W correctly guessed that it showed 6=4 in the minors; are we still going to say that W has no disclosure obligations? ----- Had the director ruled that EW had not agreed to play a Sandwich NT overcall as a takeout bid, the committee would have given an AWMW to NS. Because the director had taken NS away from the table to ask them what they would have bid and because he made his ruling based on his bridge judgement of the likelihood of either North or South bidding 3S, the committee decided that an AWMW was inappropriate. Additionally there appeared to be some confusion in the ruling. The committee also informed West that he was required only to alert the opponents to conventional bids that he and his partner had actually agreed upon or to understandings based on partnership experience. ---- JRM: I think this is slightly incorrect. Some regions and player groups have different opinions than others; and often inferences can be determined from such regional or other bias. The opponents are surely permitted to be on equal footing as the players; if West had *not* looked at his hand, would there still be a substantial probability of sandwich? If so, advantage ought not accrue due to insufficient disclosure. ----- The opponents are not entitled to know deductions a player has made using his hand and the auction. ----- JRM: But they are entitled to the same information W has, outside of the hand. --JRM Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Adam Wildavsky, Mike Kovacich, Jeff Roman and Michael Huston.nYx%ik! 0jk-zZw?+-wfl=== From jrmayne@mindspring.com Tue Nov 2 08:12:56 2004 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:12:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-10 Message-ID: <41874188.1000207@mindspring.com> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > [snip] > > >>>The Appeal: NS appealed and North [Ron Gerard] 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." >>> > > [snip] > > John R. Mayne wrote: > > [snip JRM's prior comments] > RJH notes; > > The fact that *other* experts play 3NT as natural is not > relevant to determining whether *this particular* expert > partnership have an implicit agreement to play 3NT as > unnatural. I disagree. That's how most experts determine defaults in undiscussed auctions. It may not be dispositive, but it's relevant. The fact that this partnership has unnatural 2N's in competition is totally uncompelling evidence that their 3N's are similarly unnatural. > > There is the self-serving evidence of South's statement. > Although self-serving evidence might sometimes have to be > taken with a grain of salt, occasionally self-serving > evidence is sufficient to determine the facts. I agree strongly with this. Fully ignoring "self-serving" testimony as a matter of policy is error; compelling cases can sometimes be made. [snip] --JRM, with thanks again to Richard for doing this interesting work on the cases. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Nov 2 11:33:51 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:33:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-11 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018170F5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> DQoNCk4tMTEgICAgICAgIE5ZICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBQcmVsaW0gRHJhZnQgMTEv Mi8yMDA0DQpTdWJqZWN0OiAgICBVSQ0KRElDOiAgICAgICAgQ3Vrb2ZmDQpFdmVudDogICAgICBO YXRpb25hbCBPcGVuIEZhc3QgUGFpcnMg4oCTIDFzdCBRdWFsaWZ5aW5nDQoNCkJkOiAgIDIzICAg IEppbSBEYW5pZWwNCkRscjogIFNvdXRoIFQ5ODY0DQpWdWw6ICBCb3RoICBBSg0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgVDUNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIDY0MzINCkJpbGwgUGFya3MgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFJpY2hhcmQg TW9yZ2VuDQpBSjcgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAyDQpLOTYgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICBRVDc1NA0KUUo3MyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgSzgyDQpKODUgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICBLUVQ3DQogICAgICAgICAgICBSb2R1IEFyaXRvbg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgS1E1Mw0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgODMyDQogICAgICAgICAgICBBOTY0DQogICAgICAgICAgICBBOQ0KDQpXZXN0ICAg ICAgTm9ydGggICAgIEVhc3QgICAgICBTb3V0aA0KLS0tICAgICAgIC0tLSAgICAgICAtLS0gICAg ICAgMUQNClBhc3MgICAgICAxUyAgICAgICAgMU5UKDEpICAgIDJTDQozSCAgICAgICAgUGFzcyAg ICAgIFBhc3MgICAgICBQYXNzDQoNCigxKSAgU2FuZHdpY2gsIG5vIGFsZXJ0DQoNClRoZSBGYWN0 czogVGhlIGZpbmFsIGNvbnRyYWN0IHdhcyAzSCBtYWtpbmcgZm91ciBmb3IgKzE3MA0KZm9yIEVX IGFmdGVyIHRoZSBzcGFkZSAxMCBsZWFkLiBUaGUgZGlyZWN0b3Igd2FzIGNhbGxlZA0KYmVmb3Jl IHRoZSBvcGVuaW5nIGxlYWQuDQoNCkVXIHNhaWQgdGhleSBoYWQgYWdyZWVkIHRvIHBsYXkgU2Fu ZHdpY2ggTlQgYnV0IGRpZCBub3QNCnJlYWxpemUgdGhhdCBpdCB3YXMgYWxlcnRhYmxlIGJ5IGEg bm9uLXBhc3NlZCBoYW5kLiBUaGV5DQpkaWQgbm90IGhhdmUgYW55IGFncmVlbWVudHMgYWJvdXQg c2hhcGUgYW5kIGl0IGNvdWxkIGJlDQo0LTQsIDQtNSBvciA1LTUuDQoNCk5vcnRoIGFuZCBTb3V0 aCBib3RoIHNhaWQgYXdheSBmcm9tIHRoZSB0YWJsZSB0aGF0IHRoZXkNCndvdWxkIGJpZCAzUy4N Ci0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCkkgZG9uJ3QgdW5kZXJzdGFuZC4NCg0KSWYgdGhlIFREIHdhcyBjYWxs ZWQgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBvcGVuaW5nIGxlYWQsIGFuZCBNSQ0KKGxhY2sgb2YgYWxlcnQpIGNhbWUg dG8gbGlnaHQsIGFuZCBTb3V0aCB0aGVuIHNhaWQgaGUgd291bGQgYmlkIA0KM1MsIHRoZW4gd2h5 IHdhc24ndCBTb3V0aCBhbGxvd2VkIHRvIGNoYW5nZSBoaXMgY2FsbCB0byAzUw0KdW5kZXIgMjFC MT8NCg0KSWYgaGUgd2Fzbid0IGdpdmVuIHRoZSBvcHBvcnR1bml0eSB0aGVuIEkgaGF2ZSB0byBy dWxlIFREIGVycm9yLg0KV2hhdCBhbSBJIG1pc3Npbmc/DQo= From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 2 12:13:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:13:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-11 In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1018170F5@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000c01c4c0d5$5a608ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: 2. november 2004 12:34 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-11 > > > > N-11 NY Prelim Draft 11/2/2004 > Subject: UI > DIC: Cukoff > Event: National Open Fast Pairs - 1st Qualifying > > Bd: 23 Jim Daniel > Dlr: South T9864 > Vul: Both AJ > T5 > 6432 > Bill Parks Richard Morgen > AJ7 2 > K96 QT754 > QJ73 K82 > J85 KQT7 > Rodu Ariton > KQ53 > 832 > A964 > A9 > > West North East South > --- --- --- 1D > Pass 1S 1NT(1) 2S > 3H Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Sandwich, no alert > > The Facts: The final contract was 3H making four for +170 > for EW after the spade 10 lead. The director was called > before the opening lead. > > EW said they had agreed to play Sandwich NT but did not > realize that it was alertable by a non-passed hand. They > did not have any agreements about shape and it could be > 4-4, 4-5 or 5-5. > > North and South both said away from the table that they > would bid 3S. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand. > > If the TD was called before the opening lead, and MI > (lack of alert) came to light, and South then said he would bid > 3S, then why wasn't South allowed to change his call to 3S > under 21B1? > > If he wasn't given the opportunity then I have to rule TD error. > What am I missing? Absolutely nothing! You hit the bull's eye. Regards Sven From Ruizbqnz@endymion.com Tue Nov 2 22:06:09 2004 From: Ruizbqnz@endymion.com (Ahmed Gonzalez) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 03:06:09 +0500 Subject: [blml] payless for Microsoft Microsoft Windows XP Professional Message-ID: <41116-2200374317485441@techsupp_014> Sports Illustrated : Digital 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



= platelet faradpoisonous retire signalhecuba sportswriter lawfulthyrotoxic cloak crocusconfuse machinelike cofactoralger ginkgo taintpropane clothesline textilestonehenge bunch magruderarrange fulfill jurecylinder From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 3 00:00:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:00:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-13 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: [snip] >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 RJH: Just for once I disagree with AC chair Barry Rigal. :-) Whether or not 6NT is superior to 6S is, in my opinion, a peripheral issue. All that the AC needed to determine was that North passing 6S was a logical alternative. In my opinion, South's final hesitation was a demonstrable suggestion of grand slam interest. If North had chosen to pass 6S, it would be impossible for a grand slam to be reached. But since North bid 6NT over South's 6S, that gave South a second chance to bid the grand slam that South had been contemplating on the previous round. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 3 02:39:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:39:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-03 In-Reply-To: <003601c4bbef$b4c4f100$1a9868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >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. [snip] RJH: In my opinion, there are dangers in automatically adjusting the score after a trivial failure to alert. (But I agree with the AC and Nigel that the actual failure to alert was not trivial in this particular case.) The purpose of an alert is to wake the opponents up to an unusual call. *If* the opponents already knew the meaning of a call, *then* the failure to alert that call has not caused any damage. In my opinion, sea-lawyers should not gain a double shot at a good result due to a trivial failure to alert. However..... It is meretricious for an offending side to argue that a non-offending player could protect themselves by asking about an apparently natural call, just in case it was an alertable call which had not been alerted. For example: West North East South 1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) ? (1) 12-14 hcp (2) Denies 0-6 hcp, not alerted South chose a marginal balancing action, and went for a number. The ACBL AC refused to adjust the score, on the grounds that South could have protected themself by asking about East's pass. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 3 03:24:26 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:24:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-12 In-Reply-To: References: <001e01c4b638$7f51af20$069868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041102215840.01d703e0@mail.comcast.net> At 07:57 PM 11/1/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This case is more interesting. There has been >a competitive auction with both sides bidding. >A hesitation has occurred. South may well be >the most likely hesitator - say a 65% chance. >But West may also have hesitated - say a 35% >chance. > >Has North received UI about pard's break in >tempo whenever there is a better than 50% >chance that pard has hesitated? > >Or has North received 65% UI whenever there >is a 65% chance that South has hesitated, so >North should receive a Law 12C3 score with a >weighting of 65/35? (If the ACBL had adopted >Law 12C3.) > >Or must West's hypothetical hesitation be a >totally illogical assumption, in order for the >North-South score to be adjusted? (The >apparent rationale for the AC decision.) The law says, "could demonstrably have suggested". A hesitation that has a 65% chance of meaning X and a 35% chance of meaning Y doesn't demonstrably suggest anything. Therefore, if there is a hesitation which could reasonably have belonged to either side, it should not restrict one side. There is also a fairness issue in this case. If you rule against North-South in this situation, then West could have known that a slow pass would work to his advantage. West knew that East had nothing to say (East had bid an unusual 2NT and then had a chance to compete further but declined to do so), and thus a slow tray would affect North but not East. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 3 03:42:38 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 22:42:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] NYC unofficial casebook N-11 In-Reply-To: <41874138.6050407@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <685FD150-2D4A-11D9-B1BF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Nov 2, 2004, at 03:11 US/Eastern, John R. Mayne wrote: > Suppose E-W had not discussed this sequence and W correctly guessed > that it showed 6=4 in the minors; are we still going to say that W has > no disclosure obligations? Depends on the basis of West's guess, does it not? From Darren@mailbox.co.yu Wed Nov 3 17:36:27 2004 From: Darren@mailbox.co.yu (Lena ) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:36:27 -0200 Subject: [blml] RE: FDA approved medication available without a prescription cheer prospectus Message-ID: ----75772587206978059 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-5956-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit corona NEWSLETTER pygmalion NEWS osseous ISSUE chalcedony
  + Products
» Actos
» Adalat
» Aldactone
» Allegra
» Altace
» Amaryl
» Ambien
» Arava
» Ativan
» Avandia
» Avapro
» Cardura
» Celebrex
» Cialis
» Cipro
» Claritin
» Coreg
» Cozaar
» Digiter
» Evista
» Glucophage
» Imitrex
» Lamictal
» Librium
» Lipitor
» Lopressor
» Lotensin
» Mevacor
» Meridia
» Neurontin
» Norvasc
» Paxil
» Plavix
» Prevacid
» Prilosec
» Prinivil
» Propecia
» Protonix
» Prozac
» Rivotril
» Soma
» Tamoxifen
» Tenormin
» Tiazac
» Toprol XL
» Valium
» Vasotec
» Verapamil
» Viagra
» Vioxx
» Warfarin
» Xanax
» Zantac
» Zocor
» Zoloft
» Zyban
» Zyrtec

 

Hello!

Welcome to RX-Pills Online Discount Pharmacy. We offer all the popular medication available at hugely discounted prices. In fact, you will save up to 70% when you buy your medication from our website! You won't find prices better than these online, and certainly nothing like it from your regular pharmacist.

Our customers save up to 70% per order by purchasing our generic medications instead of the brand name equivalents. It's the same high quality medication. The only difference is the price! Ordering is simple, but most importantly, it is also private and secure.

Our generic medication is manufactured in government certified facilities and meet or exceed the highest US and international Food & Drug Administration standards. All medication is obtained from reputable pharmaceutical wholesalers or directly from the manufacturers to ensure that you are receiving the same quality product that you would from your own local neighborhood drug store.

Whether you're dealing with weight loss, stress or impotence, smoking, cholesterol or a range of other problems, we've got you covered. Simply select the medication you need from our vast range, point, click and order. It's really that easy. And best of all, no prescription is required!

Click here to browse our full range.


   encryption hydrothermal alfredo.
----75772587206978059-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 00:39:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:39:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/0002.html Official ABF interpretation of the Laws, by an Aussie national CTD, Matthew McManus: >Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > >It has been a practice in some circles to >penalise players when they make wrong bids >(especially when playing a complex system) on >the basis that they should "know their >system." This has occurred even when the >mistake has not resulted in any damage to the >opponents. The practice has always had a >tenuous legal basis and a recent >interpretation of the relevant laws by the >World Bridge Federation Laws Commission has >reaffirmed that procedural penalties in such >circumstances are not appropriate. > >If a player gives an incorrect explanation of >his partner's call, then redress for damage >may be available under Laws 75 and 40C. >However, if the player's explanation is >correct (partner has just made the wrong >bid), there will generally be no redress for >the opponents. In the latter case, the >director will, however, take all care to >ensure that the correct explanation has been >given, and that the player who gave the >explanation has not taken any action which may >be seen as allowing for their partner having >made the wrong bid. > >Players who are regularly getting the system >wrong (with the emphasis on "regularly") may >be subject to some other action by the >director. Generally, the most appropriate >would be for the director to require that the >pair play a more simple system, where, >hopefully, they will make less systemic >errors. However, imposing procedural penalties >for occasional errors would be acting outside >the laws. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 4 02:15:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:15:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0$CSjXVJDZiBFwbE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > > > > >http://www.abf.com.au/directors/0002.html > >Official ABF interpretation of the Laws, by an >Aussie national CTD, Matthew McManus: > >>Penalties for "getting the system wrong" >> >>It has been a practice in some circles to >>penalise players when they make wrong bids >>(especially when playing a complex system) on >>the basis that they should "know their >>system." This has occurred even when the >>mistake has not resulted in any damage to the >>opponents. The practice has always had a >>tenuous legal basis and a recent >>interpretation of the relevant laws by the >>World Bridge Federation Laws Commission has >>reaffirmed that procedural penalties in such >>circumstances are not appropriate. >> >>If a player gives an incorrect explanation of >>his partner's call, then redress for damage >>may be available under Laws 75 and 40C. >>However, if the player's explanation is >>correct (partner has just made the wrong >>bid), there will generally be no redress for >>the opponents. In the latter case, the >>director will, however, take all care to >>ensure that the correct explanation has been >>given, and that the player who gave the >>explanation has not taken any action which may >>be seen as allowing for their partner having >>made the wrong bid. >> >>Players who are regularly getting the system >>wrong (with the emphasis on "regularly") may >>be subject to some other action by the >>director. Generally, the most appropriate >>would be for the director to require that the >>pair play a more simple system, where, >>hopefully, they will make less systemic >>errors. However, imposing procedural penalties >>for occasional errors would be acting outside >>the laws. I believe this to be an unfortunate reading of the Laws. Yes, giving PPs for occasional errors is "not appropriate" as he says in his first paragraph. But I do not think it is illegal. If a player were to foul a board it is legal to give him a PP. To give him a PP of 222 imps is wildly inappropriate, but it is not illegal. I think we should be aware of the 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 03:02:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:02:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <0$CSjXVJDZiBFwbE@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ABF ruling on PPs for misbidding: [big snip] >>However, imposing procedural penalties for >>occasional errors would be acting outside >>the laws. David Stevenson ruling on PPs for misbidding: >I believe this to be an unfortunate reading >of the Laws. Yes, giving PPs for occasional >errors is "not appropriate" as he says in >his first paragraph. But I do not think it >is illegal. > >If a player were to foul a board it is legal >to give him a PP. To give him a PP of 222 >imps is wildly inappropriate, but it is not >illegal. I think we should be aware of the >difference. RJH ruling on PPs for misbidding: In my opinion, David's second paragraph is using an apples-and-oranges analogy. If a player was to foul a board, that would be an infraction of Law 7C. But if a player was to occasionally misbid, that would not be an infraction of Law. Indeed, Law 40A specifically grants a player the *right* to occasionally misbid. -> "A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." Caveat -> In my opinion, there is no such animal as a "frequent misbid". Rather, in my opinion, frequency automatically creates an implicit partnership understanding, thus rendering Law 40A inapplicable. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From wmfnb@dartmail.net Thu Nov 4 05:11:16 2004 From: wmfnb@dartmail.net (Cheryl Gardner) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:11:16 -0600 Subject: [blml] Wonderful Phamraceuticals, everything your looking for Message-ID: <5.83.1.13.7.37.0.81.1098941060206.JavaMail.root@ws11.level3.net.com>

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Minerva Monroe"

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From rspxmssmki@rogers.com Thu Nov 4 12:01:23 2004 From: rspxmssmki@rogers.com (Ines Ali) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:01:23 -0200 Subject: [blml] Direct from Canada Phamracy Message-ID: <20041101163013.ED8DA244AE@mailhost10.lists.techtarget.com>

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 4 13:14:52 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:14:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: <0$CSjXVJDZiBFwbE@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5UTh5bXMtiiBFwos@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > > > > >ABF ruling on PPs for misbidding: > >[big snip] > >>>However, imposing procedural penalties for >>>occasional errors would be acting outside >>>the laws. > >David Stevenson ruling on PPs for misbidding: > >>I believe this to be an unfortunate reading >>of the Laws. Yes, giving PPs for occasional >>errors is "not appropriate" as he says in >>his first paragraph. But I do not think it >>is illegal. >> >>If a player were to foul a board it is legal >>to give him a PP. To give him a PP of 222 >>imps is wildly inappropriate, but it is not >>illegal. I think we should be aware of the >>difference. > >RJH ruling on PPs for misbidding: > >In my opinion, David's second paragraph is >using an apples-and-oranges analogy. If a >player was to foul a board, that would be an >infraction of Law 7C. > >But if a player was to occasionally misbid, >that would not be an infraction of Law. >Indeed, Law 40A specifically grants a player >the *right* to occasionally misbid. -> > >"A player may make any call or play >(including an intentionally misleading call >- such as a psychic bid - or a call or play >that departs from commonly accepted, or >previously announced, use of a convention), >without prior announcement, provided that >such call or play is not based on a >partnership understanding." > >Caveat -> In my opinion, there is no such >animal as a "frequent misbid". Rather, in >my opinion, frequency automatically creates >an implicit partnership understanding, thus >rendering Law 40A inapplicable. Where on earth did L40A come into it? The argument for PPs for not knowing system is breaches of L74A2. Now while we are agreed that it may be inappropriate to give a PP in such circumstances it is not illegal. Of course, it is also inappropriate but not illegal to make a regulation under L80E and L40D concerned with use of conventions and give a PP under 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 bjxhgmcllqwv@swbell.net Thu Nov 4 14:49:16 2004 From: bjxhgmcllqwv@swbell.net (Omar Cantrell) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:49:16 -0600 Subject: [blml] Direct from Canada Phamracy Message-ID: <200409230316.MAA02555@mail-hub.mtk.nao.ac.jp>

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 4 18:56:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:56:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <5UTh5bXMtiiBFwos@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000801c4c2a0$079297a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > The argument for PPs for not knowing system is breaches of L74A2. Now > while we are agreed that it may be inappropriate to give a PP in such > circumstances it is not illegal. Really David, isn't this stretching L74A2 far too far? IMO it is indeed illegal. I just cannot see how "not knowing system" can possibly be considered a violation of Law 74A2.=20 Using L74A2 in this manner would lead to the response "I don't know" to = a question on partner's call always being ruled as such a violation = because that answer "might cause annoyance or embarrassment or might interfere = with the enjoyment of the game". And just to make that clear: I am talking about the player who honestly = does not know a particular part of his system or who has temporarily = forgotten it. I have no excuse for the player who tries to "hide" behind some technicality when answering questions. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 21:02:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:02:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Dorothy Acol Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: None You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 3NT Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? (1) Undiscussed You, South, hold: KT9 K63 AK864 98 Question One: What does pard's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? Question Two: What call do you make? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 21:36:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:36:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000801c4c2a0$079297a0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Really David, isn't this stretching L74A2 far too >far? IMO it is indeed illegal. > >I just cannot see how "not knowing system" can >possibly be considered a violation of Law 74A2. > >Using L74A2 in this manner would lead to the >response "I don't know" to a question on partner's >call always being ruled as such a violation because >that answer "might cause annoyance or embarrassment >or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". > >And just to make that clear: I am talking about the >player who honestly does not know a particular part >of his system or who has temporarily forgotten it. >I have no excuse for the player who tries to "hide" >behind some technicality when answering questions. RJH: I fully agree with Sven. The ABF interpretation of the Laws at the start of this thread stated that it was based on a WBF LC decision. This was presumably a reference to this section from the WBF Code of Practice. -> >>Procedural penalties >> >>A procedural penalty may only be applied where >>there is a violation of the laws or of a >>regulation made under the laws. If an appeal >>committee awards a procedural penalty it should >>specify what law or regulation has been violated. >> >>In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a >>player who forgets his convention, misbids or >>misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. >>It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will >>only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as >>for example misuse several times repeated. Score >>adjustment is the way to redress damage. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Thu Nov 4 22:28:14 2004 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:28:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dorothy Acol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20041104232814.01385af0@ip-worldcom.ch> At 08:02 05/11/2004 +1100, Richard wrote: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: None > >You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. >The bidding has gone: Dorothy Acol system ? What is the diff with James Sayc system ? >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1C Pass 1D >Pass 1H Pass 3NT >Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? > >(1) Undiscussed I am surprised that any serious partnership did not discuss that everyday sequence. >You, South, hold: > >KT9 >K63 >AK864 >98 > >Question One: What does pard's break in >tempo demonstrably suggest? A difficult bid. >Question Two: What call do you make? 7D yvan From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 4 22:39:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:39:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Non-use of Law 16A1 Message-ID: To totally minimise (misperceived by opponents) innuendo, I often defer agreement about the existence of their UI unless and until damage is demonstrated. That way, any implication (misperceived by opponents) of them cheating is averted if no damage has been caused. This is consistent with the word "may" in Law 16A1. Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: >When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any >player may call attention to an irregularity during the >auction"), the failure to do it is not wrong. However..... Apparently at least some ACBL TDs believe that such a delay makes it much more difficult to establish the existence of the UI, as the facts get stale with time. Also, apparently some ACBL TDs believe that waiting until damage has been perceived might affect the rights of the non-offending side. Law 11A: >The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if >either member of the non-offending side takes any action >before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when >the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent >action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. So, might non-use of Law 16A1 cause Law 11A to be invoked? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 4 22:59:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:59:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non-use of Law 16A1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c4c2c1$f91bec90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > To totally minimise (misperceived by opponents) innuendo, I > often defer agreement about the existence of their UI > unless and until damage is demonstrated. That way, any > implication (misperceived by opponents) of them cheating is > averted if no damage has been caused. >=20 > This is consistent with the word "may" in Law 16A1. >=20 > Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: >=20 > >When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any > >player may call attention to an irregularity during the > >auction"), the failure to do it is not wrong. >=20 > However..... >=20 > Apparently at least some ACBL TDs believe that such a delay > makes it much more difficult to establish the existence of > the UI, as the facts get stale with time. >=20 > Also, apparently some ACBL TDs believe that waiting until > damage has been perceived might affect the rights of the > non-offending side. >=20 > Law 11A: >=20 > >The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if > >either member of the non-offending side takes any action > >before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when > >the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent > >action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. >=20 > So, might non-use of Law 16A1 cause Law 11A to be invoked? Definitely not. However the argument that such delay may make it = difficult to establish the facts is indeed valid. A recommended procedure for non-offending side is to ask (politely) immediately after a "break in tempo": "Do we agree that there was a = break in tempo here?" (Or other words to the same effect). Only if there is disagreement about the facts at this time should the Director be summoned. This has little or nothing to do with "reserving = the rights"; the Director is not called at this time for the purpose of reserving any rights but for the purpose of establishing the facts. Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Thu Nov 4 23:24:23 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:24:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Dorothy Acol In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:02:32 +1100." Message-ID: <200411042324.PAA15779@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C Pass 1D > Pass 1H Pass 3NT > Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? > > (1) Undiscussed > > You, South, hold: > > KT9 > K63 > AK864 > 98 > > Question One: What does pard's break in > tempo demonstrably suggest? It demonstrably suggests that partner is anguishing over whether the probability that his bizarre bid will be misunderstood and lead to a disaster is outweighed by the likelihood that his Master Bid will be written up in all the bridge magazines if it works. > Question Two: What call do you make? 6NT. Partner seems to be making a slam invitation. Maybe it's a grand slam invitation---I have no idea. I also have no idea what the heck he's asking for. But I do have 13 cards, which IMHO is enough to accept this kind of slam invitation. Also I have a second-round spade control. -- Adam From john@asimere.com Fri Nov 5 06:27:43 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 06:27:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dorothy Acol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: None > >You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1C Pass 1D >Pass 1H Pass 3NT >Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? > >(1) Undiscussed > >You, South, hold: > >KT9 >K63 >AK864 >98 > >Question One: What does pard's break in >tempo demonstrably suggest? absolutely nothing. For a partner to produce that call will take a good 30 seconds, whatever hand he has. fwiw I think he's splintered in support of diamonds. Nothing else makes sense. I'll give it 7D. > >Question Two: What call do you make? > > >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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Nov 5 08:49:16 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:49:16 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Dorothy Acol Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC2C@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard Hills wrote: Imps Dlr: North Vul: None You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 3NT Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? (1) Undiscussed You, South, hold: KT9 K63 AK864 98 Question One: What does pard's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? ----- Nothing at all. The only reasonable meaning of the bid is that it is showing a spade void and a huge 0-4-4-5 hand. The bid could either invite a grand slam in diamonds, and south should evaluate his/her hand in that context, or it could be Exclusion Blackwood, depending upon preferred methods. ----- Question Two: What call do you make? ----- With this hand I would bid 7D, whether we use Exclusion Blackwood or not. Partner should have something like -, AQJx, QJxx, AKQxx. On a bad day he's got -, AQJx, QJxx, AQJTx and the club finesse has to work. 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 HauffHJ@aol.com Thu Nov 4 08:01:48 2004 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 03:01:48 EST Subject: [blml] Fwd: (blml) Scoring methods in IMP EVENTS Message-ID: <9.363f219c.2ebb3bec@aol.com> --part1_9.363f219c.2ebb3bec_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1099555307" -------------------------------1099555307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -------------------------------1099555307 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
-------------------------------1099555307-- --part1_9.363f219c.2ebb3bec_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: HauffHJ@aol.com Full-name: Hauff HJ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:03:29 EST Subject: (blml) Scoring methods in IMP EVENTS To: blml@rtfl.org CC: THOURETELGA@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1099483409" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5003 -------------------------------1099483409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en =20 about Scoring Methods in IMP events =20 BASIC FACTS =20 Winner finding in bridge is based on scores as defined in LAW77. Based on=20 these 77scores the IMPscores are calculated =20 based on LAW78 and LAW12. To find the winner, all you need to do is to sum= =20 up scores won per pair. But there are cases =20 where scores not exist or cannot be used (fouled scores) (within the LAW,=20 the expression score has a double meaning, scores =20 conforme LAW 77 and scores conformeLAW 78)=20 LAW 12 requests that the TD establishes a score in lieu of the fouled one,=20 and by this the calculation of the scores of the =20 other contestants is technially correct. But to be more than this and in=20 the sense of a fair game, such 77score should be =20 of such value, as if the offender had a regular score based on his=20 craftsmanship.=20 This is a difficult task for any TD and implies discussions. This might hav= e=20 been one of the reasons to give =20 the TD the possibility to decide on the question of guilt: =20 directly/partially/in no way at fault. =20 This works fine with 78a-matchpoints, as you have a top in every board. You= =20 give a low score to the offender, which =20 will produce smal MP and you add correction MP ( special feature of a good=20 scoring device.)=20 But it does not work in IMP events as there is no top.=20 What to do?=20 There is no difficulty to give the lowest possible score in any board. But=20 this does not meet the 40% request. =20 Advanced scoring devices create a 50% score ( this is the median in any ro= w=20 of figures). =20 This meets the =E2=80=9Epartially at fault=E2=80=9C request. This is a solu= tion for some =20 cases.=20 But the general problem is, that each 77score has influence in the=20 calculation =20 of any other IMP value to be established in a board.=20 The value of the IMP Score does not depend of the number of contestants=20 (resp scores),=20 but of the mathematical value of the other Scores in the board.=20 So we have to give advice to the Tds how to proceed.=20 Inside my scoring device =E2=80=9EScorer#1 I suggest to operate the followi= ng =20 77scores=20 recommendedfor adjusted scores in IMP events=20 40% 50% 60%=20 most scores are range at fault part-fault nofault=20 part score 70-260 70 140 180 =20 game 400-520 360 400 480=20 vul. 600-720 540 600 690=20 smal slam 920-1020 830 920 1000=20 vul. 1370-1470 1230 1370 1450=20 Grand slam 1440-1520 1300 1440 1500=20 vul. 2220-2140 2000 2220 2120=20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= =20 - - - - - - -=20 Using the suggested Scores, a former fouled board shows scores(77) for ever= y=20 pair.=20 To the estimated BLML readers:=20 Is there any research to this problem somewhere and some time ?=20 Then please let me know.=20 Paul Hauff, =20 email HauffHJ@aol.com=20 _www.bridgeassistant.com_ (http://www.bridgeassistant.com/) =20 Precision scoring with the Scorer#1 - Shareware=20 -------------------------------1099483409 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en

abou= t=20 Scoring Methods in IMP=20 events <= /B>



B= ASIC FACTS=20

W= inner=20 finding in bridge is based on scores as defined in LAW77.=20 Based on these 77scores the IMPscores a= re=20 calculated

b= ased on=20 LAW78 and LAW12. To find the winner, all you need to do=20= is to=20 sum up scores won per pair.  B= ut there=20 are cases

w= here=20 scores not exist or cannot be used (fouled scores)  <= FONT=20 face=3D"Times New Roman, serif"><= FONT=20 color=3D#000080>(within the LAW, the= =20 expression score has a double meaning, scores=20

conforme LAW 77 and scores conformeLAW 78)


L= AW 12=20 requests that the TD establishes a score in lieu of the fouled one, and by t= his=20 the calculation of the scores of the=20

o= ther=20 contestants is technially correct. But to be more t= han this=20 and in the sense of a fair game, such 77score should be

o= f such=20 value, as if the offender h= ad a=20 regular score based on his craftsmanship.

<= FONT=20 size=3D3>This is a difficult task for any TD and implies discussions.= This=20 might have been one  of the reasons t= o give=20

<= FONT=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt" size=3D2>the TD the possibility to decide on the qu= estion=20 of guilt:  directly/partially/in no way at fault.

 

T= his works=20 fine with 78a-matchpoints, as you have a top in every board. You give a low score to the offender, w= hich=20

will=20 produce smal MP and you add correction MP ( special feature of a good scoring=20 device.)

But it=20 does not work in IMP events as there is no top.

W= hat to=20 do?

T= here is no=20 difficulty to give the lowest possible score in any board. But this does not= =20 meet the 40% request.=20

A= dvanced=20 scoring devices create a 50% score ( this is the median in =20 any row of figures).=20

T= his meets=20 the =E2=80=9Epartially at fault=E2=80=9C request. This is a solution for som= e=20 cases.

But the general problem= is,=20 that each 77score has influence in the calculation

of any=20 other IMP value to be established in a=20 board.

The value of the IMP Score does not depend of the number of=20 contestants (resp scores),

but of the mathematical value of the other Scores= =20 in the board.

So we have to give advice to the Tds how to proceed.<= /P>


I= nside my=20 scoring device =E2=80=9EScorer#1 I suggest to operate the following=20 77scores


recommendedfor adjusted scores in IMP events

           &= nbsp;            = ;     =20 40%      50%      =20 60%

most scores are range       at fau= lt=20 part-fault nofault

part score     =20 70-260       70     =20 140        180 

game          =  =20 400-520     360     =20 400        480

   vul.        = ;=20 600-720     540     =20 600        690

smal slam     =20 920-1020     830     =20 920       1000

    vul.     =20  1370-1470   1230    =20 1370       1450

Grand slam     1440-1520  =20 1300     1440      =20 1500

    vul.      =20 2220-2140   2000    =20 2220       2120

-= - - - - -=20 - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -=20 -

Using the suggested Scores, a former fouled=20= board=20 shows scores(77) for every pair.


 

= To the=20 estimated BLML readers:

= Is there=20 any research to this problem somewhere and some time ?

= Then=20 please let me know.


= Paul=20 Hauff,

emai= l=20 HauffHJ@aol.com

Prec= ision=20 scoring with the Scorer#1 - Shareware

 

-------------------------------1099483409-- --part1_9.363f219c.2ebb3bec_boundary-- From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Nov 5 11:07:02 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:07:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dorothy Acol Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181713E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Imps Dlr: North Vul: None You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C Pass 1D Pass 1H Pass 3NT Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? (1) Undiscussed You, South, hold: KT9 K63 AK864 98 Question One: What does pard's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? Question Two: What call do you make? -------------------------------------------------------------------- I've no idea what "Dorothy Acol" is. Question 1: Nothing. I would be very suprised if 5S were not after a = BIT on this auction. There is no UI from the BIT. Question 2. I think partner has a powerful 0436. I probably bid 6D. = Alternatively partner could be 0526 but why not bid 2H over 1D with = that? I don't really think 5S is a possible bid. Why couldn't partner just = bid 4D, or 4C or 5H or something? From blml@rtflb.org Fri Nov 5 12:14:17 2004 From: blml@rtflb.org (blml@rtflb.org) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:14:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Ci.alis solution who keep it hard for more than Message-ID: Blml baku inoperative astor drape priest swap fearsome hackney puppeteer


World Meds
Fast shipping - No Prescripti0n Needed - L0w Pr1ces = Save M0ney

We have V1agra, Cia1is, Xanax, Va1ium, Amblen etc...


Start Sh0pping Here...





proofread orthodoxy artifice civet affluence katz dowry zodiac corrigenda inequity elevate acrid glassine corrodible bimetallism goldsmith brotherhood mcmullen sadism howe byzantium extol tate absent convulsion chromosome slug classroom klein frightful built agway diploma omnibus tranquil populate gaseous valerie centerline mcnaughton opinionate pollock dangle align earthenware holocene kuwait petite mild salve sneeze debra york caddy volt brouhaha singapore anode bon literary stroboscopic insomniac pancake dabble foliate dud elope produce admittance lath calcutta being abreact defrock postmortem farina schoolboy emilio howe rhoda nixon cashmere handicraftsmen nordhoff hovel sprig decrement prussia homeward recession garble andromache prom factory craggy fungal coattail caputo nereid marsh nc gruff shinto waite hydrochemistry ar aaron variegate guinea paleolithic contradistinction intermittent toast hydroxylate tripe aboveground declaration neuritis shield swab plaguey minutemen crystallography contemplate cetera liveth volleyball steal cadillac affricate soprano tool fluorspar miser angelic sinus convocation acceptant pacific lascar arsenate architectural henchmen orono downs antler cantaloupe dichondra lacerate glans carnation farmhouse grill basepoint batwing conquest elapse dump censorial repulsion soybean denunciate wintertime northern precess bisect downward cessna holman sheen confirmatory bona catlike cycle baltic hearth most nonsensic pelvic buick centric inceptor rose herodotus detractor kindle frontiersman accession clandestine copperas lifeboat uremia woodrow periphrastic indispose plumbate triune craig appleton barefoot amanuensis aau cobra compactify fovea gordian mousy acclimate clientele hyde phipps devonshire kolkhoz awry gatekeep decimate gregg curbside emboss sheriff breadboard buena embrace beginner formulate bolshoi gallon postpone mutter crocodile trumpery stain barclay mcknight newcastle psycholog y deposition furl cyril polonium anderson artillery polariton appleton beatitude bridgeable disturb arousal arroyo epochal kitten borax segregant costello confidential hankel driveway eligible earthworm adrian cardiff coupe breeze urge botany deputation drama synonym morris qua anarchic synaptic agree ringmaster menagerie transform chattel kelly byte fingernail parapet briggs disruptive frederic oswald swelt icky radical conch swahili boolean ordinate bole poop household item papal argue bisect teardrop thrill brooklyn clay chambermaid arccosine coward brandeis freeport alternate acquit lisp adsorptive arc archetype styx buddy confute betsey citywide coverlet gleam aggressive From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 5 13:01:30 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:01:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dorothy Acol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041105075742.02a33070@pop.starpower.net> At 04:02 PM 11/4/04, richard.hills wrote: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: None > >You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1C Pass 1D >Pass 1H Pass 3NT >Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? > >(1) Undiscussed > >You, South, hold: > >KT9 >K63 >AK864 >98 > >Question One: What does pard's break in >tempo demonstrably suggest? Only that it took her a bit of time to figure out how she was going to defend her MBOS* in the post-mortem after the likely disaster. It certainly doesn't help me (as a reader of the problem, at least) figure out what 5S was intended to mean, or what I should bid now. >Question Two: What call do you make? 6NT. *MBOS: "Master Bid from Outer Space" Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From qjtwzfp@hotmail.com Fri Nov 5 16:49:56 2004 From: qjtwzfp@hotmail.com (Hector Abel) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:49:56 +0300 Subject: [blml] Re [9]: Message-ID: <20041105165944.D5E81134A@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060403080201090000080006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

hometown weather on Pop Music in 1847 Go

Tenchi Muyo Look at

--------------060403080201090000080006 Content-Type: image/gif; name="observe.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="observe.GIF" R0lGODlhjAKdAfOOAAQIAMDAwMDcwCAgQEBAQGBgQGBggICAgP/78KCgpP///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAAB7ApMBAAT/UMlJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3R9GUdg73zv/8CgcEgs Go+XA2C5JOSQ0Kh0Sq1ar1ircnnAEZiAwTNLLpvP6LR6fdoCDIpDBTdgDgw6tn7P7/v/gB8GdgoIcho4 W3d5gY2Oj5CRkiwICoNLAwGGhx8BOEt4k6KjpKWmapdLmgesnCMBBQUGBQmntre4uborqW9xra4pBAEJ tbvHyMnKkwi9cJutM8bL1NXW11S9mdDR2N7f4OFp2qvArOLo6errP72+5sDs8vP09SACdUzP8N070/YA AwrUEyAfpnL8gtEgMLChw4dVCoLZlrCfDYYQM2rcyAMfGAAI/ytW2gESHZMPJyukVLBSJYAJJ1u6lPDx I8uaLy3UpJASp8+cOoEG9TkUp0ubPI0eNfpT6AWlT5dEdQqTalKkV6FWtXqzqMybVFcSXSp1qxqPYOBU NMejpMmvGJgIODoXrNUldeWCjSpgrty+gPv+FSBzcFmwdQMPBvwVb92hgQkfpuk4ct7FYisXrhx5ceAM mCdvDQsXL2jHmwFY7js0KOutjEXrvXpZteDJhoHOLoOWELe1bRV6+/hYw27KqpGLvlnbr2mXzac+zmx7 wuvjyIsjhn46+VXacStTAJzdLGzpKB2Pfz3ae3vX3WuD54D9efbpuO2X3478vvXoZPR20P9vawkHw3Lf ENdBfc8pmFR02DG3H13n8QfZhUc9qN18301IoXH27RahhRv8tSAY2jlY1YYViqgfiEKp51+HJPLnYnIj 1kiFgKoQuBYjNAwwgDqoIYhhi6ptBqCSAH5o44sVctihjOG5h6SVsLHI4Y0s5ngkiLc5hZeS8U3oZWvM FRfhbAx6x6WOHk7B4zsFwrMDYVpiY9qZcbKZZEsNBmpliFA+WZ1dd0E5ol6FSmneoo3OZ2KclEqX54Mk jgkolpIeCmeVzqlJ5ZQv+ummelg5CsWccvhY4J2cJngoXE7ut2dmTW6Kn1KMjpoqpTkSdymcvfIa6XmT KofUT6CeeF3/fs4dFmmxomo1la+NUvshtbsux2cQEvm0jasJ2UCYgcO5x2ebly15qrqBsucZazixN0EA qa6ZLYr0FcptZJ9mlex9AM/b5bErRilou92hWO1qMJa6L44Sv+twBZJtGisRCbiD0x2F1HkODYQNuQ6h G0dpq8WU5Rqvqoh5iS91G3o5cLMXQsopzfrG+m3AmJrJsoSgZhwjwpClOHG0Sr+bsZZGqxzFAV805Qu5 8chQMjtWl1gxw8oRfVxPg/p7K1ejATst0sSeffDOC+9Vq9Q4RwwVyi+t7TTdXsO9sbadUoy2XZVCEYAb P1FU4EguSDbsNZyFeSm7LdMWN2zY+ixo/99Mfzl33Vm27be7YpqdcoZeW+bnw3rvyjeMb1tao6nylfmz EVRbnUnIazGuguPyKGpkny8L3GTMWOrsuu3Cp/xzz8fTeOXyld6+rt+VG1/myqej57mhTbuMNuABGvTT Pq+mADzXnr7eX+hEtxf9xTC/2Sz023NOV/RpB77r/9470eBGVZ6KtW56IQiWbKiksWfB62/PIQ8aEOeT AyQAa+bw3QckYzL2vW1yZCNUzWi3lBFqrmw5yU918Ae6/CEGgFU62t7MI7rHSa8r8QNP85y3MP7pr0rw C5tdYNgfFdqLDXP6yO4wyBYPcHAC/wgHAWmIgZk5DD8fVJvfmFIxZf/JiIUBtNsVBZYqo9GvTV4EA6J+ 5ZW/TLGIJ8yTT+TFLNiJsX0SMKNtiAhHYb1PDxTECfpEpkEM5IMCoUjHETG2SAtYxpFQY48EGcmi1ZBn kv9JzCMzeQFMQtKGCrBkJUVJSYBxkpJ5JKUoh2XJVGrgkpG8VCvXM8sMePKTn8HAJmn5yVDu0pegxILV QME7kW0gH8U5QAc5wsxmOhMGCIiFJYY5LkIa8kVKANIzt8nNbnoAX3GohAHM97FBVkSbCsjHMmGCLm+6 853PfAM0EICAcDXFnPDQpjrDA89++tOZCQBAAvghTmrqgJ4IRWgFDHIadP7zoRClBwLq8AuCxqH/aokb lkHkCIB2RvSjIB3OAcg1HnLixEAb1cAXMBLSlrrUGs0QKHAqcLhhjkECBlmnBbbw0p76FBKDswBFRZKB QNZkAHPJKQe24NCfOvWpZwgqBWZG0g0ksY4b2IJHocrVriJBCR9Qwkgr8k2j1sSGWvWqWtc6A3LelJ8e WEIBqhrWpgSTC2zNq15T8JM8HbIDM6soP0YwJ52CiKV7TaxiOWCQgyogsBdgaAe2QK5CblCpIKDVYjer 2MbOE18KkcwXtgoWupagCSLQLGdXu1aGwqMZu0vKYwV6ogGYlgRiFUHVWMvbvbrhcIN9CSMIcEE5DC8p Y7UoCjoqAp729rlq/7WDISSQwbmKIQAEmOdxqQsKV1k2taStgHOhS16nKiIOE5hnNG9CT2AYgrka2MJc y8XX8FJgvOXNr0uZANz7jjS7BehKdeGbgd2Stb7N3a5+F/xOTEzXv9Fcr4PZAgDETuW2p7UvFBXM4A4/ k6kjk8AmEjBXhvA3g9tlgndVQOD0SNXDMObIaA3hO1Y0Y670bIJt3ZtNGK0YwSBAZoyH7E25PljE55Dn SJeAAJCYI6DtPElCvgvee7CNyFgeiFRC/IuYzrfJLxlqNCoMIwsSaAUttuqVs8xme4SBxv4VsHFfQhgD zBOsDQvDQVnR1BGkOQNC9sGLJcFhGQxaCIfmK/+WD53oEtnZFeeoA3ARIBnKCDagx6yJWljw58iumdMs yUVQG+0IUreZBKOGiQrwNVBIpxMkm3j1IZSwYxuLQc010TB9thpoQYcaF6nWhalPndoSqZrF6J0AKyQd 661VBbgjHcRkK9hnlLTzvEHI24LkFuqyqLF/3VahbnD47V/TBNwxNHe4pRKjc3tbtTpxt7hV/e55o7vc e5EqvsudN22LRd4yVPdTuE04dbe74OGOq9w0Nu5663vh9l53Vs7Nk741XIUCX4rE0b0BA2gHX4qrhJAW +uYxk/aqFdY1TwzkBpVjgMsKpziIji2tihvc0hQ/eM1pbvODg+bYOQf6r3f/LnP64HzoPR83z5cedKan uOdJr8rSd66bUSu93Q2nd9TTI/Wm51zpRY9K15FO86tXXEzG2TrZcfjzo6fQ5hwIcFLUYuNXa0cy5Zjo oVHOhWo/RSFuQOoKshbzjMeb6Tc3vM6hLvS3I97oRXd84n1u+LhEPuyXF/rjM0/5gWve65PnPNwtj3jH a3vtqN9240W/+rS3fvGll3miJY/6YIf+8xiYBo0TWgmPvG0VMdV17pryVuNMo6aYCKYH7AR53I+e9j6X TdK/TXnoj93YrL+9F1GS/efnKzNksb4YJ574psMe8yphvPnJvpPKt7370Gdj+l+v/qEvy/ka1777ZT99 /3hfIKEJQAAGcAnFZx0nZlwW5kQm1RROAA8YpUTKF1bMd0fYB3qdR3Spl3kWOBMVeH7nt3+u94Gtd3gC h4EjSHokKH7rF3uut4HdpnWKl0DPB3+ZNYP6R3tnp3q1p4EoKIIkIWXvVQJ8N0wnJQNN1HzoZ4PV53k+ WH47SII9qH4fOGzidxejd4Kb54SeN38uuIJdiIJPeHovGIM1SH8sWHg32H05WIFheIUpWH89QAjG5XL3 wgpE2BSCNwMWwYb4x3YqGIZmd4Zr521uyIVVx384t4QxN4U8KHmEyIKH2IKD+IemJ4VWd4Zop4ZIyIhO aHtp+Ilj2IKP6HVPR4MfEP9FIVBP+lAJysQLw3eHPKBrVvhz/0Z+QrRxt1g6GFd1ChZwKVRvqbdv2Bd9 tXhv7GaMu9gvydiJXRgTxsZwVyhDYJeEJ8iL04hw71d+/AZ3+AaCZqGCzggj2uh/LaB3qhAHw4YCmOYH 6biFo9COkMOHMwCPa0CPVoCKHlAJ1Od3MIBnfWCPfVhqANF5UEgDAIkGB1kFxZCKOaBG/hiLCVkECRmR +tWN7tgQhcYHAQgCI2UQcECR00ZsIulTbjFZduEJcNADDzmSLPlR+PhyDXkSCUgDrdiSNrlW0UYILxkD nSYOHIaD3kiNUQWGNwkOC7lUr4YJCrCTL9CTwMZ9iyj/bERZlOAwDEuFOIZlaHQIVFCpeiA5lBdJleDg C5mWFjsATlXQb7eIcP0mjeRnkdTXGLUYFhwXdI0xf9vIc9LncLbIlgT3lWIZCcdlVPyoAisZBRhYhYHo grMIemZIl1pof5qHdpyIIIlpikQHmIEJCbm1U31VA4cJBYrYmG1YkJp4eEAJlHjphotZmlBIkBmojZup Dp1JAQt4OyZwa2lJRtc3efdnmvqXf6nZm/UHma4Zmwb3faNog0E5m8tAa7Y5TBFYZbvZh5dJhlyohFGY gaXDhIUohpUJhlzRmiOomc75CMqUE7d5VIZ2BbC5mllImmaYnZWYnZ/3hzD4ieP5/51wqIHmeZ6PMAAE 8IA1EQBWFAbT2QH44J7aWXaQ2J/BKXv1WZyoyZ/T6IiqyYzmtpz4CaDpAGZNUQgH2j0J9p/LlX+5+JfQ +EfgNp7HyJ11+YQFuW8vup99GY5+CXQm6qF/UADDxBAjNaJb6Zl4FQg7agVHyqPetJ5FGqRKhAJu1QhJ SgVTqqTcxKRTJQfklKA4VRMzuQdVKpphaqXbpEdFqmxaqiJWZi1k2qYaoUeGFWlPmkBj4aZ2uhHmU1RO qqZZhVV3+qcPgVlJIKcTEVd+CqiIOhBPBJN7CgYeRZgZmaiSKg7YtlOtoIq5lmdMEFBjOqme6gj7NKjR sIDXVP8TnPqpqFoPoWqp0eAxBmJGxBWpqTqry7CqWepeSXmmScAEFkRbtPqr6TAig2UQX2qA/TakwJqs peAGLMIPB8oBngBayjqt31CpFEAg5tip1LqtgZBWrAoMVsSt4koPfyWqSSar45quyVAH6OJe5Kiu8KoM FKWnS4au8XqvtuBsVTRnTImv/roLSnApmIqs/1qwAZqVymavBruwkIAnh8WOwGmQqEYSYdmOUyqfzQmP jMawJVCTu+qUCJmJWWCcZSiJvWmxcSh2hRiWMoiGHJtADpUxfyCGzWkEJNuV2ZifNcuy7Rlv7xmxOCuP L/tNKUlyIIuQ42iZ5KYxpamW2Ij/o0JEo3z5tANHjEaSl0+7orlYjGsooUqrtTn6dbgxtCQgd9EZBlkA c23XmqQxnxz6dW5rnOHpn975haw3txvYhI7Ig26HmZhItiTwD8lHBoS3toLYiH6roQR5oeh3jbi3t5GJ sbFJmjT7uIi4uBR6e44rlIC7ASTWUYX5VUe4hROacdL4tprLm5HbHpHYeDd7uXyLnWzZtqorfW8oo/PZ ht1pn50rCYMlnrgbu/opvJgrlCbIdrJ7esVriJNJu+53vDfXoXgrmc67s727B6PrjsrLmvz5oJG5upyL nJuLdbE7i7BpvsOovcE7vE5Hutc7CntIlKjLnJMooV+IobfL/5hYOKPSy3iROL00O0AcuLhsm30d+r6+ G7QbWhoomm/f6JhSa7pTu7W/OLamaY3p5rULHHGzC71yy8Bgi7X2Z8EIvE3aWsIonG0pvMKicMIs/MIw HMMyPMM0XMM2fMM4nMM6vMM83MM+/MNAHMRCPMREXMRGfMRInMRKvMRM3MRO/MRQHMVSPMVUXMVWfMVY nMUiKX981X4tq4OgBrS+hppevLImwKZUmkaPW8Yu/K8iO5VgHL5izLtdzIEl2wILhHmUicdzDMdfrIOQ ibE/C8SSG5BTSWob6wJ5/Mectrs3W7kn2seSLLTvF8gsu7lCbHUTHKMfHHFtaYsYLG9rWf+1+Sm1FXzK 9IbKaZd1ppt+L7aNtmuIKxqXNTe1tEy5Fcq1+yvDauvHp7m8iMiYBQyIu1zKxwm5cCu8xoyDIuuJv3jJ ieubbsu999m3yYvDhSuePQGhvIvGk5u5VWjGPquz8Zm7G8vK1oLJudu9ervOUkjNavzL4szCEwjNa0SN cPma2/ya23ecyGu48SctzfybxOmdpRvMxsvN6FvOmkh9rMvPwHvNN/y79lzIjiu3DO2Y+hsU6YvMu7uh lxxs29vK8RzRNgqfGg3Sj7eYzpyNqjnI9JzNwPnS6tvN8szQTZjQY3jAyGzGArzTejyZkpihC53SjKu4 Afmz7WzIKRz/v/Lrzgt8wfbLvl6Iuz+t0v/7zoJ41eT5zSZ9yOaM0ODY0yQ7Pv35xjQsi93Ib97yomTk iy3KjcUowlTLvBocyhBngsJo1yNM10aty6yri275PnQdjiGUKPinc2Xsh1osmEhqA238A4AZ2Y0N2Y9d A5SdsgdS2TMMkpnN2aAd2qI92qRd2qZ92qid2qq92qzd2q792rAd27I927Rd27Z927id27q927zd2779 28Ad3MI93MQdtBkqxzy7XJB8WppJkWP62TmLBNCdrAEc1Mg9yYxsvdgtBRdbbGPM3ZkcoepMySfwutld Bt193hI7BdMNrNVdgs4ItmfnySrKl22p/8pFMcrYqJ3/lomwjN/3jdZFJMpZO9Jeq8oWuZb/bYXyHXYA DnWb3N5W2svbCaPWfL7DTHVafdQNSp81reF77KB36+Ap+MwGHM7tW82QeNHDHI36yeESrqQy7b4afdTn C844TopseNyW670Zzs46+uGGe7g6ruIhCM/ri9U5noQxzqP1PKM1/nryp9gOXXZVXntmnYX6zb5XR9BH V+QSTRqoW337fM90HLVIfspKu9EQbN4ITNFtdNAqndIeHuY0Xr1QPecdPoh6vsaxd9LB6L3B3NM82+J5 7sphrXgw3bnZC+UWHqEQjcvYSdSRXtN17oF9js95+9WJjreemOh7Tv+LnV7JMOzUdGzgQU7kjE3VfK7n Zd24BZ3VW525Vb3cUT2OUy3r5La/Hii9ht61vY64MxxeDK7Hbr3B+6m1Vgt2FbzlYZshLorq+FnYcwm9 Dwzf4OnWOGrYm3yjNcq9DR6NTMvMgFLcJ+OyydDk5n4KWX7dpqDu6/6OmgzvQKCw8X7v+J7v+r7v/N7v /v7vAB/wAj/wBF/wBn/wCJ/wCr/wDN/wDv/wEB/xEj/xFF/xL+vmPWuz5H3GFs/uAn4EJvrpyNbxpfDe 4L3e0a1oJE8KJp/gfhnueJ02i3eMIXzs147mq/fJTL3yV0DhFWq30gz0/ct5rYvi/3zr0bvMzM7/84Bk 6hue5qbIzal+v1Ffnv7LftzI9Gzw5HY99MKcz1/O11bdz8Bs4+7WjFq/BnDu4V7vz/xL41Qv0cw58zAY fWmvBo3O9uW75HCM0bMu91avl3Wf9Xc/QT4v7nsv6CS9vLpO1d4ydnZP+O5e+FJgX50c7TDOwFseQmOv 4DY/4Pcm9uNN+aRf+qZ/+qif+qq/+qzf+q7/+rAf+7I/+7Rf+7Z/+7if+7q/+7zf+77/+8Af/MI//MRf /MZ//Mif/Mq//Mzf/M7//NAf/dI//dRf/dZ//dif/dq//dzf/d7//eAf/uI//uTPZspp7z/4ruWf/lyc WWDACB/hd3eo/u7P/19USv+aqm+LTYGo5s2BDQFATVonwNlu3mkGvQ+ULPIMK/QUW/eFY3mma/vG65W1 yWDM/ES7lTBnAhmPS1XyRsR0oMOdEgYtIYnS3ZFo1TqbWICSDGam1Wt22y0jY9AvH1DeigfZ9feTr8Pa IOOqohkM60JEwYGauzixyjPDcuyzvMTMtMwr6xFT+COMq/TU03QpLJ2yWx1LhTtkTXwMBPzyKFJ8BaU8 9f0FDqaDDCgu/pz5C+0wPk5qLt5DFpY1tYWGlDXOrsYm5ZDDDg1v5iZ2to5B8RZdVoDeHn+G/6a2v8f3 e94IuKPlEfTJHZ5pAUkQDKFshUENimCte2IMkf8RHxSRVbRSjx+YZdEm/iszqeFDchbQJBkIbh8rjflc voSJMJwHj7FAWkw3LKerRSobgVzIcmLLXTROiqmIiGdLVZ1QIZ2WEldBUej8ybx6M+ZWrl3beXz6U6hW kk4ZzqoGkZfYtVnbmoURb6cXqDv5VAS4JCnWmlGpTg3S76DPTlKXRkLrVfFiYYaRwMurcC6VueciYxRs ipzckZcDN2V65fNbjnVb2SLWbuXbLGRF13IVzTHr0lsY38aNaXYFsGNJ+37t9ibOq3t/T+jtWrJwdQVt 8wVONk/aKIRXnx0N9BbrFNqD/us7+TD2nrnNn2eym7y15XB1CjcOcvjS9cX/B3ND7Z67+Pmux3LyjrnE dKmOp+222y+o1RzDz8Dv0IMwwub4q08gCyk8qzb4nFimvVyEii8Z54oair6PSCunDgQdHKnCCk3DD7PM 9OCktRIDgkw9CXc8T8dRfNPRPyF/6xDGXVT8Kzj9VrwxuuOKpJFE5DgrcCOrqgTqSiEQhPKOGo9KMrnj eCSzzLwoC0xLIJP8KkM3uywMMzhDFHEueiTCTkx37vLLlDvFtK4ed3LM7k/i3ENSkkBDC7JMR7s604T+ xmyP0RHt4rBPLxfUtMH8QstzjsFY2rJTogArDlX93CwLsSgVVURUVUF9tFaXyrPjB3nYu5A5NFcddT44 /3W9qNPrPtXnWAO14clAorCkDYg8VdAF1GC5uROzWEWF1lNbv2WME2J57dWsRgcCKMbuovVQQzZ/ffA9 2GANkE5VqzgUXxaVDauRSlLyljp7wSWYK0XprbROX8/ItxB6u6E1wXcJ/FDi7OqdaUK2LM7J36bWIQXd gTkOqWCTwz0DY3Ltw/BE61Lbl89epv1YLSU39rhCQOEFOeaLJd75Zn5ddpbnkU9GOp8r0zRiRjkSHhI6 mkBGw2k1kYNE5InvtVnejd+hemqManB6Hn7wdXezI8rGU2pnSSm7pKTn9upOZqB5pxne9KYA7xn8FoGe FvwGfEq9C88yYsMN/dtQxP8XbzvwxxsXnCa7754cB3hkmHzzFy6nO3TRR1dNcdJPRz111Vc/5WjWX4c9 dtlnv9l02m/HPXfdH3V9d99/Bz544Ycnvnjjj0c+eeWXZ75555+HPnrpp6fe+SzWbQKc22xkBFcpHOUe lx6SuSCNYHMIH5/w0/8eFPHTq96e689fS/twzffefjLZN598NWzkHxwMpj86oOJ/8WsMLUagBQJ6JYB+ KKCZLvFASfVPEHoZ4AXVYUALIvAXJahSCFv0gfqNoYLlK191sOcKwLjPDiSk1lMo48J/wBCGK2ShBlG4 wxGWcIc/PKH7RtgZG9KwfiCk1hCjwL0AtgaJSpSAE4n/GEMcvpCEUDTiFbHUIiSaUIoFAmANi+jBTLAP jFFc3/Vs6MQY8qKI62tjG8FIxSBO5X1u/GEXrxjHODKxjzyU4xuHkD1AolCNa1ygEefIQzje0YWLpCEk HykpNhJwfoh8hEowGck8JlKRQIziH8moifSJEI9B1GMhVZlFHQIxi6mc5Bi54MhY3pCOeKijIWMZxleu 0pK3PGEleVlJXfJRWq1MJSyV2UlWtpKTtjTmJ3tZy2FWUJi0HGUf0njJU4qSl9IEZ1icyURIUhBaYyTn IWupE/uFcp3v7OIDifnOVS4znPZsoSCl+c1jPpOC/bxmNAMKTXW6cor0lGU23ZBO/0+ec6D1RGcPFcjK bzZEneY0YzBVuMkqlhCOagQhD3qCRg4ys5H7tKY3c9k+lEJzjRtVZUctqk9+0jSlz3ypHi86RIXqhoFp QSYo9dlMg+aymn/EaEaB2clSNvCjeyRqKWEZVJcGsqrrfChRdfhQe/LTnc4UqklXmtV4ojOsKWSpVnva wW56h6oVtWoDp8lHfApxGINc6iebOk7tgTSsR1XrPV2JU3gys5iyPClX/4rKqDrVpgLNa1kXi9S0/nOt TwAqEn4J0UwalqKE1Gge2YhRXHZWikkcah/3OlRiFpR/87xoTHfq2dny9aWG5eZpoRrON7r2tlTFaTIT qVu00v/2sptwq2aB60NpFbQtoojqEl9Y02aek4Hzky5dJVrD1YKyWyG8qShF69rsKlC4vf2qUq5L2/Im pI4y1YBvm7vZiR7WvNN9LxePi1zZ+ZGUEbLsSwL839OZc7/anJ1/ywjg+yVUfagz8IHfMGCTWbeMFB5e R6lh4ZNx2MESBnGIRTxiEpfYxCdGcYpVvGIWt9jFL4ZxjGU8YxrX2MY3xnGOdbxjHvfYxz8GcpCFPGQi F9nIR0ZykpW8ZCY32clPhnKUpTxlKlfZylfGcpa1vGUud9nLXwZzmMU8ZjKX2cxnRnOa1bxmNrc5aRo2 BP08SRcZtpVgKsSwm6kcr5rZEYL/naWCafO8vZDqucxKpPNd/9ycgBQMz4Yms0MHDWiCdE9Ejb5zoSEd Zg+zInspOIgIl4hdU4I6IV88Yya9Z+FrYa/VhBy1p8OAx05vusq1Ls9CQk1qU49K16dO7qNXvc37pMvY sO71uhQ0aVsrudOdwXNupY1dH55R2sPV7aNPmWpNYhvZ38Y2tQENbU03u8vPBmC5aX3tT6eb0tq2s6kF 3VB5WlTSaQQ3pdet3FqbO8ro5ne22b3ARJhy27zWNrz3rRpSM0S586aOvhXu7yxbd+IKh/fF0ThSgYdb 0wk/LavtPWuSdxPjyw44xc9NzjkvHOIuV7UZO/7yhWtc5KA1/6FB3q3um+db5RUXNUBPPu6QUpuLPC93 xkEu8e0eHOk7JzrSBS7un3s5XrmeudOL7eupk3Q/EFf2a7HO9a0XWxcs0nfVsVzFV3t757GWz5ytrfWY Rx3nhIn6FsMO9+/2ENh2VnvgIdRvwRcegYQ3fOKjB2fFN37xiHd85CU/ecpX3vKXx3zmNb95znfe858H fehFP3rSl970p0d96lW/eta33vWvh33sZT972tfe9rfHfe51v3ve9973vwd+8IU/fOIX3/jHR37ylb98 5jff+c+HfvSlP33qV/+4B8B+9rW/fe533/vfB3/4xT9+8mvf+udHf/rVv372t9/9jcc+Y//MP4H5UyD7 Haj/9ul/fw7kX/8KqD8A5L/3C574UwMDlAEEFAYF3AADjD8HPAD7278GjEABnED7q0AGtMANrIAHzMAP vEAC/B0NzAESbAETzIQAFAEPvEAUtAAW7EAQ9AAGhMAQxEARTJ3/s0D+08H+878b7EEgREAPrMD9G8Ad VMAedEEXjMENrMEXIMInXMIibEEZbEIcJJ0h/EAZZEItDMEn9EEulMIi1EIxvEEbpEAoNEMBPMIXHEMn pMIYjEMv5EA0xEK6ocM8pML/08MzRME+rMIz5EAwZMIrNMIyDEQ4XME5jEAw9EFDdMQ2vMO5AURFXEQ/ JEMrTMNEtMSzQczEQ5TEGYzDR0xER9xEIbRDQ/REGyzESQSXSjTFUyRETXRDTLTFL/zEOkzAUazFWxxD RqzFWdzDXOTEVnTFb4FFWpRFMVRGQZxFXHRGK6RD/ONFQSxFZazBbMRGaRxGTjxG0dFB7pPDRTzC+0NE CvxBXCxHYlTCahTHMOTBdTRB/ytDd1xHN6xHY/zGgtHHPujHfdy0f3QDgQRIPSNINjjIglTIhWTIhnTI h4TIiKy6CAAAIf5waHFnaHVtZWF5bG5sZmR4ZmlyY3ZzY3hnZ2J3a2ZucWR1eHdmbmZvenZzcnRranBy aXNneHJqd2RyZW52cW90dnFsZGRwZG9tbWF0eWxvZWpxeXhwZXdkADs= --------------060403080201090000080006-- From isyigfcbxqm@hotmail.com Fri Nov 5 18:59:01 2004 From: isyigfcbxqm@hotmail.com (Estela Burgos) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 20:59:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] re[21] Message-ID: <20041105190936.6DBFA391@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050700030805040103030000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The US Open in 2004 don't get upset! Solar Eclipse

Alabama Mardi Gras

--------------050700030805040103030000 Content-Type: image/gif; name="occult.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="occult.GIF" R0lGODlhaQJXAfGMAAUGAP8AAAAA/////yH5BAQAAAAALAAAAABpAlcBAAL/nI+py+0Po5y02ouz3rz7D4biSJbmiabqyrbuC8fyTNf2jef6zvf+DwziAsRi4GEsapTCpvMJjUqnLKPBukgmFVoGkwoOi8fkcu47 wCLU24OWmFBP0ea6/Y7XwU9yeZret/fmF0WY10F3qAiytzhj+He0Edh4VWnJhDYoyZho4qkIiXSJWVFJ 6qjS5gEoOoo65xrJBbvZ9dpIybmWeZq7a+EpnLgpIQqKiTwYZwuMizoMO8vsnPy7avxGsUx7a63NCwre jf3txx3ZnO5NTQzdKi5d0lud3O2lhIxr7xYv6CtJ3z5yBK2Fk8cvizR0CUtZmoaBYcOJ4ajh88bOYb9L /wI1ajz3D6LCgByv7QJZjxC8dRLTOZCo8gu9kS00pTQ0bGNEK/Bu/jtJsl6EchSnKevorxobej4tXlha 8p1QiNE4USrokmaDpP4qXuTlFWzWe2R1jrz2aqtMm1I9tq2CcOPbsB1fEoUEtVRdtVWd5YMTDQLOnsC0 uSsclxxigKT0rVXczixdwI0XZtxyOGzZzfcybx7nUaTWdoutxgw6NHGnqf1Eh/4j+endo4xRZ6Cs9DRs 168P+tWVe6bT3s9Gr+PstHJg3o9dHw2NxTPv2JoVvl7+UPRKu7+xz7adFi7Cn8apqiaI7Zjj89adX476 lW/UtUekkq++V+dc0NPldv/fndx+4BHHWXTwURcZcsxAV0uDi1VX3l9a8ceUYOyxQltveSGYmkmmWTYV WxMIV1ErtPDFnU0A7jaXSNJlk91wfyFm4TsxenVYcBDGF5uIOx40XIc/doXfeJXdaNaMC8o1Cgx4fchj bRlhldCTINY3JT4IzghUkF4uSB+AvYzGZXAtJamjXiqGF+CEaVpEFHealanYewCNiJs8RF5n5IMrooml Lwlq+cJsQ97HYYpnFTVWZ1xaCCFarf3Y36NKEnjjmZgqKFaMa8rJ6aTY+bbXLSjF2Z9/iZ4lC2FBvcnj pr/0WFpTThqojqO/BVMVoxluyCpMH5r2JaZMIboeUAP/LolniIJWyRpzeiLKJFn5aUois8WlGiBrOboi 0HZRDjupb+XV9CmHU+ZXbYKDCZVtuP/RStKJsdoLLZRqdQurkPvSi+S9xuqrqrXXxlVhsRct26lRyZ4r sJfrAfxnu5SqIumOcbJbFFTzluWjwCG7dGCo3NJ3E8gvdpjynBKyOai2bHlXKsImKRzfu5M5GLHJ7jXo MmUo+tyJwWZChlyfpQF5aMYVaxwmqV+22ifTDZd7HLUBW401g7JU6o67uLVn0LTR1gZbjiozJjNPyvaM s4ZhF+k20SkcSZzawX491mnEDo0mzDtT6VZd8i4td63DZjnoqIzGDSypqDnNUpOC/5taDN7moESa4l36 K9/MWypXr7arjhB13uLuHa1/tIFr39kOvhrz5qrB3p16uXd+O+ON/g63OSkq+3btROu9+Uext5jvODX7 RCHjpypvq3gc13G9C/xheOHFqYiQ/abcNhu++MdBzGv5t6H6vQ/qtw86/J90bzH6Mrxfv/z637p///7/ D8AACnCABCygAQ+IwAQqcIEMbKADHwjBCEpwghSsoAUviMEManCDHOygBz8Iwv0BYIQkLKEJT4jCFKpw hSxsoQtfCMMYynCGNKyhDW+IwxzqcIc87KEPfwjEIApxiCqMABGPiMQkKnGJTGyiE58IxShKcYo4NCIV r4jFLP9qcYtc7KIXvwjGIkIgjGQsoxnPiMY0qnGNPbQiG994wwDAcY48lCMd74jHKLoRAM2gowJIiAAA HKCLSTChEVZ4yBJqwZCGLIIXEzDCAUTSACwMpCApucNCntCOKUwkCRepyEYSIYt/nCQlB5lDS6LSh56M YyZHOUNHAnKMolQkJ+G4yhJK8pK71OIo5QhLPtoxmI0UJidB+UkUylKLuURlLlPoTEzm8JfC/OQyNwnM YCJzhLe0Zjen+MxImnKH0ewlK4lpw2/W8JowvOYeuYlOda7xmeb0IjX5aE14KhOWspQnN/fpTyiGU5ov DKcO7znMVtoyocNEJEC3SM8gGvT/h+ykITqd6E5aLvSfC/2lNhN5yH7y05EXZSdJ4SnPiPLSnJDUpQN4 aUqCthOYtTQmNhmKUnXe0qM7veZJvQlNaU7UhDIF5EpduspBWhKm9XThPWt6U5TmVJm2tKk3e0pToLaw nGKs5y6XelSkNvWUZC2rJIf6QpJ+06fU3KYxs3nVt7KVmHMVawOiik+8JlSrIVUrQ+Gaz4/q06ooTCpS JznLXmJSqEpNalFbqFCRrnWk2dQkR/XpyZEOVrAXhek4K/nYw14ysZ+NJmJlqFCpPtSmbwhlYJep2WrK tpqdJepiQ/tZQYp2tLzlLUHNWtrGNjWGfa1qbCnbSbXGlaf5/5StR7Ua07uKsqKs5StyrSpZ1fpVu6ot rFBFy1XPhrelaFVhK7NbU7+e17o4ZS0/pVpRxw7XtvMlrXhv+1X8ijOWFaUudnm6Xu1ed7t5JXBXc+td xYL3tsHNr4MbjGD+tne7/exuegdcWQG795j0fWl6k4tVAU8Yw3+VbEATrNsFP/i+K4awRWF73VqaFLbs FfFbO+pfGpZ3vPplcX2dOmN/Gniql0Vvds/rVh0qlb4RZrGLefxjyJK4r3StrZHjGeOc0tiuDNAriAFK Yhv/V6c5RrFXZUpeBjd5pVFG5JXladli5lXMbz5mbauI2winucVglXCIzZvazW50zCK28/+J8XxWJntW xU/u8UClO2j0dhS6F25vjQfNSC4vAK+upTSB30xnK5eZyWdWbFnFuttxPhqtgJX0aqk6Z0LL+saEbWOe Fy1cF8e0w1EGrIW/3MnLylrSIL2zkk+p6FU3esXhXWeYb2rpSv/a1bXuqocxncy4hnrE3P51gbOM4mT3 OMUnbOa42/lPwTq3pHbO9J9B3e0Dr7ncj2W2ox09b4fis8p/bu5sOfruMMfbhc2WN6PFbe+E5xvIAwc4 uC8d5Gmz+5bvrLY2bVzseBeXr5uNdrgZrcpNL5qp5d3nvtu97n7TuqHF1ORx98pdRY98hSp1csjtfVri 0pTfmJ4ryyf/K9eOCz3m8i65sks7y5yPFpJQjmNsufvyrE76o92E8c/fW+s9NqOyXIfvIG5M5X8T+eSG 3iq9uRpICRy2zwzHMtW9HXRhv3a6yQyyOuULQ5GzWdVGPOutAW31jFdby9luedVpbPetnruIZ2csmh/t 27uyHd2DB2mtqatcwmue1mPP6AOyOGpS6n2Ih86j6TN9+tSbMfQS1SgVWU/F4bZZ9bSvve1vD/gnVjyK sAdnuXEP/OALH/i99+HunxjnL5Zy+MxvvvPXmPwkHv/51K++9a+PfUSHcPvc7773vw/+8It//OQvv/nP j/70q3/97G+/+98P//jLf/70r7/974////zrf//877///w+AASiAA0iABWiAB4iACaiAC8iADeiADwiB ESiBE0iBFWiBF4iBGaiBG8iBHeiBHwiCISiCI8gDvqM0lrE15kOCK+h9s7ITXQOD+MKCM2h+LmggaUMj 2XGDLPIoNOiD4zcrxDI2z4KDDxESR9g6P6iEG+SCJIMlmdIGSGiE9UI/S2iFEYQRTyg0KxISlYOEdZMH 7GMX/4JAqSMbzwAvSUgFq6CGpPGCV1NBeCM0XegpTygWWxiDZVCFGWSGvGI5TwOIZBCEbVgu9LOHDCSH Wlg6dciDjSiFYYg4Q0iFdliEN7M/brOFP0EuPFgSojImWdGFuEI7Nv8wH/yAhwEjidUihad4igcUO0XI hV2yg5qYgoL4OZKoiLPwhbB4iGCAiXaYicCYi7HYGqtYjJM4hZ5Iimuyi2yjH3OIjM04iYR4hbLxMsGY jKEojI2oP4CRBrwYKFeDja6jg5QoiuUoJr2IOrOIjH8ShaWDjUvBjXRYhltnj/eIj74TBlIyj8P4iHmi jrHwjf44ip3IDtoIhnjoIZQIPDSQkO1oH/3oiDeojbVYjRgijvBIkMkIi/6TivT4MsdIKB3JkbTojh8z BNsIjvtSkasIkRp5kfNzhyoJjej4j9Roi7qoiNvoklAokpX4khOpjDUwiDbJikIIkze5kjiIkzH/CSNM 05I0KZUBKZDfKJR984kgARbseI0FSTwp2RwUmTswyYlJqZIk6UB753dOaYVUyQp5qEBq6UH5SJd12ZT7 aJd5qZd7uXVEyZd/CZjbw0Akh2trqVvCxZaJyX6EeWrItmSKCZmL2VhLR1aH6ZiRiZnoZ5l+R3JraVYP 1GGF2UG2xWYYQJkI1HiIOYCbeZpLx1SlOZhpx3SeuUGlCZsZcJsGdJu5+X9H1ZiJ9pgRJJfkxpm5Flav yZv6Y5uORZiqZpnJKUCdeZi75pzQuX6+yVivqZqxKZuU2ZqV+ZuIRUDLaZiX2ZzgyZ3lKZ7lmV/WmZk/ MJzoyZhd9pvRSVrh/1mc6Jmfccl03zmbnfmeUhCf+TmfYFWfAUSepPZ4BYqaf7SfI3egAQoFA+qdkzmb DzqeDkqbwLmhDHpAy+mfBeqeEroD2Emg+Emg/hmdGsqYIWqhCbSbplWZKkqiTxCa+qliX0WjAESeptac 0vmZ43l2yKlKOwp/iUWfSVqjDDii+wegGrppS8qkCiiXpmaY1RmcSbedUsqlCKqkFTqjYcqem9mlZeql USqfL4qh4NmkeICk3TkBCRakjtd3VJCaFvCmZuoDu+lSvbWeD7p2//Ok+hmnFDCokjcGbcqieioEAwqn F2qkZCo/8alLKbZUSgqcPYqj+oV3Dranl4psx//5Xcy5pYzqAkCapmKqoq7pP8PpnWC6oZ75p6WqnSeq qkCAqus5ny6qqKZKAm96n45nqcD1p71KBo7qonNqopran5+ZrLGKAzHKno/Kq75agciKorG6rD4qeac5 o1o6pzdgm+B6pbr6eNBqrQ2IrWO6pdt6oY3prfuZa58qm2u6q0Eqqen6gKhqr+1ar7D5pPfKruFaAwma rObKrsaqrwCIpOIlndGFmIdqpRH7sPyaA94lTvWZsYBqpAuLAmrZq/Hamx47svWKpwaosCR7nWpKnWF1 ohCrsjFrBwJ7sK9KsDKLs2AgsPM6sBKbsz87BazprCy7qQXEayOQsnmQp4j/iqYtkLQr4JY1sohkOBTr I0IDy7M7+7Qza7Lf57PvCrYEFLVjiJZkAylvqJzUmq2wurV1gJ3PiaWeep/T6alXm3bneWpxK6zt2ad6 S7eJJqoOuTssUo4miYrmmJUoA4oJs4Npa5yg+ltrmqGTGaKRV7mherOOALBZWrQIy5neermfe6vTGgOd CJQbqTnPKJRKGZXKOLYkqKBYO6jf+bWaS5/x+qy527X92rmlChdLAo2ouyvAy5PFe4vteJVLurkLyrMs pZ6+mwoxirtry7wH2qdEO6aahi7EmzYDGSghCYOs+70mqYkKibw1urwdmrVEW7uLQKlDK7v4qqbxS79t /4uRM6kmU1sxibi6TUGP6ciRytu0IvqixUq6diurBRyebJutotue1HvAhZKD5JG4TyO+2RiUrWuUXJq+ VsqvG1ur6No+wHpzojmsexuqSfecD4a9E1u679iEljg76Li4zeOJIPmJQMt99tsBPKzDP9zDFysGgUnE RcyXQIzESazES8zETezER7q0Owyli/rEE2iiXnsBPlzF9rescduywrmo1dlbwbnFBJi+lsvAoMmiYBq6 ZVyAgSq5zLpACarAWOvGCKi7eQuzMErFtuqhd8ywjxrHETrHfczG8wvIgYy9uYpfDWSwqfrHiex/qMZ3 07qxaUlUrom3wdp+4XK4+P/zCZKsCFpcfhPzL697v6LspgIYj9+7v38jlqaouDZ8uqOoygsbjBvJLK08 jFcZj8eoy6h8y20pldzYKa0cwLs4Osg8PsPcpeM4jsc8vsVLjlhZlI/YkBiTwxaZP5hMriJAyjlrGBlM h62IzTyjuitZMr8bwNugv2nJAuGMs0W5lPg7kb18weoclIEok9xbk3C4uIbbqlA6t3T6xS48zPSMzQUj y8ZszZuYNWTJN+soKNIIh0g5lAP9n5SLos/qzPwTQDCM0cS4KDZ4l2UQqARMqHb80Ubs0i9tCy8MkCX5 OWCCuBN9CHRctPJ6ZvL80XEovD7pz3+zohu909Mbtj//DYQj/c+my8wOjcCLvL68q9Tn944Y/MmLE4vC PKEEXckTe9B1W9XnOkaZO9ZnXQFXXKeICNN7idbn18W0a9ZvTdcvJcisytN1rdfvhKYrLMJ7Ddi7G7ks DUF32n1wzLSfJ7aNe4Y7QdRwCcYEbZ5z3aCCHUJvW9ZYONIS7C0nPbn/idciq8b/qrfc+q2V3bmVTK4r vMeOkIgyTM30vJWLmMue3T98yqEc6tOjbNQOLNeX+ddRXce2Wpw2G9x4EAi+HI7Be7onEpVn+cNDKtVs OsVC6pxTDadp3I2xrM9YXc8/+dxMDKCkKdUQWsgefL2DrdL9Uzdd4N7RuM+zTcMC/x3d/yrZCUvIZwrJ hjzZEbzdaOnUQX2SmEGWKriw7krVubrbQau2PctgxL3gPXDN5JyLLpmD+gzdOlylnCyaspqv9qnaKKyj z+vfqXDVD03TEmm6HVnbFGTYIhzFgY1B5/HY6pebN07ZMt4+bc3jfenikFuYL67jgM3IDj7kR57AqUrc 3hzjeZ3YOTuicjx/G967x/3ZBNumH06yWl7dTgqpVR7hZrDhOVfc0gu0QntaS1axmLuyX867YY7Svc3G os3lB36lD/7AGDqr5oexqs13rf2hsXvI8pvjZrreB0vGcI6z453etKt0iq6E5A3Bfiq0eo3gw92jkP6D h97Rbv9e1wg+6LRZpVverAus5JX+6ZCKdBE66h4Lsuvr5x2L5LNO67Vu67eO67mu67vO6zzgqBqg6T/Q hL3upGq9AcHuPjVO7PhX6eRG5ub51QBk0rRovpa47Jdtx6EbyezN1Dfd3fx87RcU6lQtyCH93slM4eEu xf1tycS65/8ziGB4zwmj7h5Uq6DbwqLN7T9ZiOfrPfU+QS4rryr97h7Z7eko4FwN8MKtySrM6E6+74VL 2zcN0XqdMTZitldgOkCs8Kp88YS44txcoz2uj0o90+QL30xZ0+3iMQvPpTWJzLgI4BNMzeDu8okJ87FN zqajzAZ+806Z815Y8+ZM87Tstkn/jakufrRJD0EcsxDyFzUGufMZCYXFI+ZIf9gt6JYdb0FRn/JdeZJD neJcq8dq/rgdzp+dOtljXOL/rZTgCJDKTn6pw45LyY8o/jhhQPCDbsDpScCWa6HILuHCGNQ9KfLzJ/cS NLudTuhpr7FLHviLLZE1nM/oR/I9fgdkmt4Qbm58bN/9fZztCz/QTNRxn7xDjuqIvtOo/fjajdfmTuAS 386nj/rdqfq6KviNet+T/vrSfvCGX+21vnd+Dah3nvu4Sm8kTKgZK/qu/fsvOe3y1+p2rXbrTtdcL+7Q C+zWH7OXL4ZwbZxEmrdA/vNNnPp4Hur6Xv4a/vk728frj8Ss/7n5sGpuxw//x471ZozIRo7d9x8FBIDd TpfbH0Y5abUXZ5lG4l4BO4TsRA1N1ZVt3ReO5ZmuvxC48yU/uRoYFFJ+I9Ot9PntTkPnExqVTqnVlAFp 3GlDpKIVHBaPyWXzGZ1WfZNdBoitls/pdfsdn59heb2S8ShLb5Cw0PAQMREGidGtMU4xUnKSstLyqdHk T2SL7/ITNFR0FLTIwzOLCRCStNX1FTZWdpa21vYWN1d3l7fX9xc4WHiYuNj4GDlZeVk0wNlZAdpBWiJA 4/k5xfplGwgbQ7q7gZq8nEKc0vShibmdLhx9On58voL6uh4/CF7/wfwgG8B80QYiUueAlf87hWbMweNX Dtq3ARInBmQAcRvFbxutZcMosGLFezFGCnzYDZvDjOIicjS5MiXMgnlSbeGyakSnhAt5kkTZsSNBkSFP giS6kp5QoxGFOhzaEqRHoN7inZx6FGBTllOh/gy5FKmiTDd9aDK7s2faFQ1/QsX61iqEf18/8qN71a1b Gk6L3v368i9WvS7BztQjqM3NnG4AqXUMg21UvEAJxwSc1KjIgF3DWpUqmarWykgj3+Psd3Bbw3g8IfBD tkuqx7O5ec07ObBfeVW9Zgaru69SvTMiL7B7G7RxiL/nmpTUOlNZ2bSpqziO+3Nf7byVoibd+Xvy4cTD wy0f3Hn64Nf/Jy1xnVgHY7TV6dOzqJKrauH3LSrvrpmgzXC7i73cZNBIwN8IHI8/1a4qbDXW3kBlEz+m q0+e//zzJ0J7UtrHNwxFHBGX5iwoaa3eyJsiphZdfBHGGGWckcYaW9zLxhx13PFGEo35R6KWTOPto8u6 E1Kmv5AEjTAA3/IRyigjaUgrA0faTrfMUjMySMrMY248KcUc044eAQzzyu+2mqc4777E0k0DX3jtDxfm IxNPd4DMz0p0risywARfOs0yOOGU4UI781yUtuJOu8jPsNKbtE8NH90PuPM6tOCgst7DQYdQ+1gCFZsu ce8NRlXNUDw+IX31TUkrVVBQ5ApEDtF1/zaBzxFOOHHkPcTawynVVY3VUiZXlesSUIpCDAxB/TJVstZN K1Di18Tk25VYHnYV9rluVXEtviOOPZe2Trk9SDFPA/m2hzsHgS4JTzthDN1GedyX3379dTFXb9utk9ix 7I1NlOjw1VbgfB1eaDqFC86WLF+7TSdebbFtIuOHPXaHzlXoNHVks8SFrlR5DwO2YJYv/pi6eFXGYOZk ai42FHUOPqtXmOtD1eeFOQ25lFQ3xkExTW4O2hhUU46NVFLlM5Xpqq0uxGl7Kc7W3au9/poOmbfVeF2c hQYb7bTDYCPiXl9jt2O15Z57CrbHHmvhrunem28a7F53a161WLrvwv8Nb+BvcqEetY+pGzsc8shtkJzy ytEg3PLMNd+c8849/xz00EUfnfTSTT8d9dRVX5311l1/HfbYZZ+d9tptvx333HXfnffeff8d+OCFH574 4ueVGfnklV+e+eadfx766KWfnvrqrb8e++y135777r3/HvzwxR+ffOqJKB/99NVfn/323X8f/vjln59+ 7M+vH//89d+f//79/x+AAVTe/QRYQAMeEIEJVOACGbg9AjYQghGU4AQpWEELWu+BAXyGzFJyvQAg70Xh wwYAPkjCDYLQGdg7Yfwm9DzGkat7EwoE+UaFBeiZC4bqCyEHUxi/EsYLRkBM4QhHaMIfXpBo60D/4Ap7 cMTqObGJPTSi96RYRSkKEYrSY2L7QAWq5nUxh9nzohfLN8bo4XCG61shE7fYvixOMQdr7OEJ6XhFJKIl gUVsogrfyEY7evCKP2zjBMlIxgGGMYZhRKT4wHjDNMLPj2983x/jGEhK1lGSd8ygBvVIQh4KkoguQqET 7dhBIw6xlIGM4gcxycoNWhGVq3QlKkkZE+SB8ZGnEJvJRKaEhvXSJsxb5Ltw2UuE4SuYiKMa1VoYtYYd Eo3K2+Ic5chKLJYwlNj8YzXbGMlTVlKbsxQnHGU5yP5tEoDjjKMQTYjFdZLzk/FsJzjp+c5rJi+b9Qyl LOcJx3xWEqDJw6VA/xGJNMcp7lMV8tUtF9kxnQDtFAkNpi8ROjJsNVKXz2RoNPGZynAG1IogfaUr+9lO WErzpPqk5ke/KceAGhCd/wsnNldJzlfWtKO1ZGk17XlNnap0pysF6lD9ScmBbpSgJpvoUQ2qVENuLKlL lSjSpKrUi0r0qlZt6kR3ydFRyhOT76wjUGlJz7Dm1JREPetahQrTCeSRn6BMKzzNOc228jSTaWVrUPmq 1rtSUnpP3SpFOTpYhCBVmFjdag0Ni1XCcrWxWm1o9OzK1yN205KmbFE9v8rZvfq1r27dwBJ9itPOclae pgVnZrN42c8WNbSvZav2BKtYx0aWq9D8om0li//Q3uZ2mVmt6nCzV1nP8jS18ETtclUr27/GNpP8i6n/ dCrX5SH3tMed5T1BCNbngha8dDWn+R7pW+I+Fr3Le2rciFvM9jq2JkzlLXCf6FHUFhGzroViflGq3/C+ drUJnG7/9pvSUVo3p+4kahRRqmDnQhfCe3TeURFrUfTK97e7Le97ncrh8+LWw+llL33vm9LQKpi5/E0w Th+84OgCcMD8a61/PSlWoRYYwWa1a38Z/N+RxhXBe52rhdcrXIsO9sLmtWFUM+bQjE71LIIY7sWSedWH InnEUDWtN+dp4uXSkcVmPS1yWwzbIcP4rQY8c3UDjF+P2vKrnaxxd7+5WnH/dvDHNYXlZrMJ5ywXObhE gwQrnAlotnUVjQQ7GsEaZ95GPy5kgq4hZMO4w3J6srIzZTN3v2zpf7VUlAWM8R3d9+LiXhKwlN0sqVnd 6guGWoCjdvX4bkq+QY73ea2d9a55DVc6xzrNvWafnEWIalNf99fCVvay87ffA8qa2dtLdfeGfGYtWjva 2dZ2+vws6mBvG9zhFve4yR1Y450b3elW97rZ3W53vxve8Zb3vOldb3vfG9/51ve++d1vf/8b4AEX+MAJ XnCDHxzhCVf4whnecIc/HOIRl/jEKV7xSQgA4xk/gAA2nnGNN8DjH1dAyDk+gJKTvOQm97gDUN7xkKsc /+UYH3nMZb4Amtcc5DfH+cxXHoGWu1zmP4f5yXm+cp3vnOUvZ4DQj95zCfT85CQHusiLjvSbL9zpMLc5 0nOecqBv3etU7/jTuS52qlt952LX+swfEPa0gx3uPue6yuPucrvX3e1hh8DZyz73vNe97TXnu9fvDniz p33uAVc73XlO9r/nHPAmp4DaD094y6P98pZvu+Ebv/TEF97mnk8530U/cs4nnfBr7/zSI7940CM+9ZXv eus/7+/Fw97xkR/76iU/+b5nfuPBpz3we5961Ac+9rVXvfDxbvXSH38ClMc8y4e/d+fzHvTLf/30C+76 3md/9uA3/eqNj/zwd778sv+Pe/nNf/7nt3/8zX+77sX/fvvfvvrI1zv2l+96kauf4LzP/qBP+6yP6CxA +oAv8QDQ7pRvAOtPAPvP/bLuAeuP/vrP7/JP/+CP9/wP5xhQ4CKQ/95PBKeO/VCP5kTPAx8P7EpwBFcw 95hv+PxuAR0QBl/Q8GyQAocu5i7w/3DP4FwwAn/wBOHOBQtQ9mpQ6IywCCvwBg0w/nRP6XxQB9MPCFmv 6nZQ/4gvB61w9Jaw+xzQAgtPCIOuDJOP+LwQAgXvAm5PCaMv6DiwBSuwAN2vC6kP/cRwDvlv8ODvCP/t DPFQ9QKxDgkQ+z5ODcUPEduQBhNR7jjOETOPBemQCif/MQqJ8OlUkA+vkAT1UPHEUPo6EBQ/cBTR8AFZ 0A1jDw4dcQQNkQQn8A1X0Q7xj/yUzxTBDwQxsAkHzv+k8Ast8RI5UQ61j/Lu8BRl0RUL0Q6b7/5iMQZ9 EeSa8QS5DwmpURR3kRdJj/ZmcOsGcAh/zxstEQSrEApbMRlr8RfpkBAVEfHCkf0wcRNvMfv+MASn0ASl jgcxr/Kgzh6zMOpeTuf8cQ4D8hG10AQzwAuNbupacPAMsuu+cR8bEg+n8OfAMB9VkB4tTiM3kiM7Eg+a DiRDUiRHkiRL0iRPEiVTUiVXkiVb0iVVMgBfUiZnkiZr0iZvEidzUidF0iN70id/ChIog1Ioh9LgCgAA If5waHFnaHVtZWF5bG5sZmR4ZmlyY3ZzY3hnZ2J3a2ZucWR1eHdmbmZvenZzcnRranByZXBnZ3hycG5y ZXFxcGF5Y3VzZ2xuaW9sd3F2Znlianl4enVjaHBkaXpnZXRzY3Zoenh4cQA7 --------------050700030805040103030000-- From Giffordhym@caramail.com Fri Nov 5 19:54:33 2004 From: Giffordhym@caramail.com (Ben Dennis) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:54:33 -0200 Subject: [blml] important - extreme vids will ruin your marriage Message-ID: <002609k937n5236v66d1185c9p2936_1@hotmail.com> Computer Associates Magazine : Virus Alert

Your computer is vulnerable - malicious code can lead to Identity Theft
complemantry scan
=


describe counterpoisehoop expurgate teaspoonrebuttal waxen contrariwisesill astatine bainiteindigenous startle commonplacebig reformatory compromisefeasible krause pasteupowing romulus acidicsunflower addressograph choctawrobbery From czovxuvqlzp@swbell.net Fri Nov 5 20:22:41 2004 From: czovxuvqlzp@swbell.net (Jaime Mills) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:22:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] nomore traffic tickets Message-ID: <200409230316.MAA02555@mail-hub.mtk.nao.ac.jp>

 

 

 

 

 

Sa;ve a_lot ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Melvinlign@everyday.com Fri Nov 5 22:51:25 2004 From: Melvinlign@everyday.com (Deann Kirkland) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:51:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] article:endure like a bunny In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <710816f134h0602n48q8487m2p2582_1> Is your Son in Pain?
more


no more
se adirondacknuclide dungeon tersechop data blotdiploma dying arabintroject antacid glacierocclude hrothgar sabraaltern eaten provenancepurchasable clean yachtsmanepitaxy arcane concertobudapest hasten wackegage accredit asteroidalinsist submit annotateblot From Donahueeialc@faster.com Fri Nov 5 23:23:01 2004 From: Donahueeialc@faster.com (Elsie Lord) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:23:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] husbands online Message-ID: <270214k832t7585v28n2317t6q6713_1@hotmail.com>



Goodbye




Ion Marketing LimitedD2, 23, Borrett Road, Mid-Levels West
Hong Kong



From alba palmer" Substantial income processing judicial judgments. >From the beaches in Hawaii. Finally your business. You decide how much you work Lots of our associates profit 5,000US to 12,000US per mo. Professional customer support and assistance. http://ac.v.essentiallifeproduct.com/j/ Here for more information or to un-subscribe or to see our address. Testimonial from Karen A., in Ohio. I wanted to say thank you very much for the information. We appreciate all of the support we have been getting from you. I have to admit that I was not as convinced as my husband when we first purchased your program. However, my opinion has certainly changed. The response from our efforts so far is great, but the help and support we are getting from you is what has really blown me away. My husband is so excited (and so am I) that he happened upon this business. He so much wants to get away from having to travel so much for work and he is determined to be able to do that within the next 1 to 2 years. I just want to say thank you for providing that possibility for us. But when one of the pirates, to inflict further punishment on the boy, came towards him with a heavy strap, he resolved not to await the blow. Turning the indicator to the word up he found, to his joy and relief, that it would yet obey the influence of the power of repulsion Seeing him rise into the air the fellow made a grab for his foot and held it firmly, while his companions ran to help him From tmsrgq@adelphia.net Sat Nov 6 06:35:13 2004 From: tmsrgq@adelphia.net (Horace Orozco) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:35:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] want to run red lights? Message-ID: <20041101163013.ED8DA244AE@mailhost10.lists.techtarget.com>

 

 

 

 

 

Sa;ve a_lot ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Emily Tapia"

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Wellsnvv@cjr1.fsnet.co.uk Sat Nov 6 11:10:39 2004 From: Wellsnvv@cjr1.fsnet.co.uk (Jeri Rowe) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:10:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] precaution - extreme pics will destroy your life In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <990290f215l5564x22k4120o7d6200_1> Norton Antivirus Alert:
=
Spyware is the leading cause for PC failure and hard drive corruption.
Scan your computer now
=



squire baggybuckwheat surcease paddockpiccadilly cadaver mattresshaas singular corpseeffeminate emirate chaucercaldwell blumenthal hadn'tdave content christianadecollimate alginate therapeutichandshake berwick calvarycongressmen katie stormboundlycopodium compleat bowmenblackbird stoppage sereneyourselves From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 6 12:59:24 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 13:59:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? Message-ID: <000b01c4c400$70b6d190$6900a8c0@WINXP> The following appeared on rgb. The principal question as I see it is = this: What if declarer or dummy correctly applies Law 75D2 and informs = defenders that there has been MI during the auction although he should be aware of = the fact that correcting the explanation most likely will damage defenders? Sven Copied from rgb: Suppose the bidding goes: 1D - pass - 3NT all pass Suppose 3NT in your system shows D fit, void in Clubs, and interest in = slam. But you forgot about this agreement. You have 13 HCP and AQTx in Clubs.=20 Immediately after you did bid 3NT you remembered this agreement. = Apparently partner also did forget because he did not alert your 3NT. =3D> Before the opening lead do you have to (be allowed to) tell = opponents that partner should have alerted and you give the correct explanation = for the 3NT? That will then increase probability of a Club lead. =3D> In general: You have a convention that both you and your partner = forgot during the bidding and you have to play the contract. You remember the convention on your CC before the opening lead. Do you inform the = opponents of the wrong alert/wrong explanation of your partner even if his wrong alert/wrong explanation corresponds with your wrong bid and you will probably gain from giving the information? From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Nov 6 14:11:31 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:11:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: <000b01c4c400$70b6d190$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c4c400$70b6d190$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 6 Nov 2004, at 12:59, Sven Pran wrote: > The following appeared on rgb. The principal question as I see it is > this: > What if declarer or dummy correctly applies Law 75D2 and informs > defenders > that there has been MI during the auction although he should be aware > of the > fact that correcting the explanation most likely will damage defenders? > > Sven I have a further question about this situation for those in the EBU: might this situation fall within the bounds of a "fielded misbid"? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Porterguf@allover.com Sat Nov 6 14:22:16 2004 From: Porterguf@allover.com (Viola Myrick) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:22:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] friend,take control of your problems Message-ID: <624487j033n0861d48v8305f1h9303_1@hotmail.com> Is your Wife in Pain?
more



no more
bimetallic admirationdiverse architectonic cutsethelmut clint astrayinjudicious formal martiniabbreviate anyplace bullockeventide omen putttilde hydroelectric jenniel'vov e becketvoiceband plagued limbobract argonne colgatejune priestley wallboarddine basepoint smearsnapshot From Cantuxlbrl@netos.com Sat Nov 6 14:35:10 2004 From: Cantuxlbrl@netos.com (Ellen Abernathy) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 07:35:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] find me by november 6th Message-ID: <612529h443c0993z82k0835u2g0280_1@hotmail.com> ST0P THE PA1N
vi-codine Pain Relief!
FDA report<= /a>



no more <= br> crises osteologydispelling nair referentwhirlwind tabu basteannex armata ashlandestop retrofitting moietyopus chatham litigiouslibretto carlyle digitatetyson shim stuffytaxpaying woodlot cuddlycannon kaddish depositionamericanism atop contrarystannic anybody'd barbituratepolygon From Strattonzzx@quepasa.com Sat Nov 6 16:16:59 2004 From: Strattonzzx@quepasa.com (Earnest Valentin) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 10:16:59 -0600 Subject: [blml] microshit xp critical update - november 13th Message-ID: <404975i315x0146m44r0845v6i6805_1@hotmail.com> Harvard Tech : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)

complete results



magnitude regressaccreditation irishman temporhine ball dissipateharass linkage smokefurlong circulant jejuneespouse fetid thyroxinepyridine journeymen burnhamchurchwoman beef penanceancestry chemisorb einsteinianbeecham From Rubionenj@cncorn.com Sat Nov 6 17:03:33 2004 From: Rubionenj@cncorn.com (Craig Connell) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:03:33 +0600 Subject: [blml] Spyware Alert - november 10th Message-ID: <259948l475a9050t77y9084f6n9769_1@hotmail.com> CNET reviews : New PC Virus Alert

Your PC is Infected - scan no= w



not pughmincemeat catkin jurisprudentialduring spalding tolltyrannic daly johnsendoodle bundy depressiveswain helium plowmankhaki arkansan staticeyebright cavalier ministerialcoercible determinate ignitepropensity From Busbygcp@ukmax.com Sat Nov 6 20:17:55 2004 From: Busbygcp@ukmax.com (Mervin Bragg) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:17:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] your tests on the 21th Message-ID: <20041106201755.4615F10C0@rhubarb.custard.org> Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:04:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <161879q968a8439h16a9843n9c0716_1> VIC0D1N
stop the pain!
more



no more
farmland deforestdocumentary arcane cahetty hilarity tinyclumsy bobbie piousdeja janice bookiewhitaker butterfat waldorfanglican damsel loquaciousstinkpot angling kneadbesiege limbic bobblebureaucrat angelic pacifyforensic downhill jumboabo apropos casebookphosphorescent From kzyqegkbnc@cgocable.com Sat Nov 6 23:21:02 2004 From: kzyqegkbnc@cgocable.com (Gina Shafer) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:21:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] keep your license plate hidden Message-ID: <2.49.8.76.0.89.4.99.1098941060206.JavaMail.root@ws11.cgocable.com.com>

 

 

 

 

 

Sa;ve a_lot ord.ering onl/ine To`day!

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From john@asimere.com Sat Nov 6 23:57:32 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:57:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: <000b01c4c400$70b6d190$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c4c400$70b6d190$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000b01c4c400$70b6d190$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >The following appeared on rgb. The principal question as I see it is this: >What if declarer or dummy correctly applies Law 75D2 and informs defenders >that there has been MI during the auction although he should be aware of the >fact that correcting the explanation most likely will damage defenders? > >Sven > >Copied from rgb: > >Suppose the bidding goes: 1D - pass - 3NT all pass > >Suppose 3NT in your system shows D fit, void in Clubs, and interest in slam. >But you forgot about this agreement. You have 13 HCP and AQTx in Clubs. >Immediately after you did bid 3NT you remembered this agreement. Apparently >partner also did forget because he did not alert your 3NT. >=> Before the opening lead do you have to (be allowed to) tell opponents >that partner should have alerted and you give the correct explanation for >the 3NT? That will then increase probability of a Club lead. >=> In general: You have a convention that both you and your partner forgot >during the bidding and you have to play the contract. You remember the >convention on your CC before the opening lead. Do you inform the opponents >of the wrong alert/wrong explanation of your partner even if his wrong >alert/wrong explanation corresponds with your wrong bid and you will >probably gain from giving the information? I believe you should. Also think you should call the TD at the end of the hand. It will help to defuse the situation. > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sun Nov 7 00:20:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 01:20:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4c45f$90879b80$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst > In article <000b01c4c400$70b6d190$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes > >The following appeared on rgb. The principal question as I see it is > this: > >What if declarer or dummy correctly applies Law 75D2 and informs > defenders > >that there has been MI during the auction although he should be aware = of > the > >fact that correcting the explanation most likely will damage = defenders? > > > >Sven > > > >Copied from rgb: > > > >Suppose the bidding goes: 1D - pass - 3NT all pass > > > >Suppose 3NT in your system shows D fit, void in Clubs, and interest = in > slam. > >But you forgot about this agreement. You have 13 HCP and AQTx in = Clubs. > >Immediately after you did bid 3NT you remembered this agreement. > Apparently > >partner also did forget because he did not alert your 3NT. > >=3D> Before the opening lead do you have to (be allowed to) tell = opponents > >that partner should have alerted and you give the correct explanation = for > >the 3NT? That will then increase probability of a Club lead. > >=3D> In general: You have a convention that both you and your partner > forgot > >during the bidding and you have to play the contract. You remember = the > >convention on your CC before the opening lead. Do you inform the > opponents > >of the wrong alert/wrong explanation of your partner even if his = wrong > >alert/wrong explanation corresponds with your wrong bid and you will > >probably gain from giving the information? >=20 > I believe you should. Also think you should call the TD at the end of > the hand. It will help to defuse the situation. Strictly speaking Law 75D2 is clear: You shall. (But calling the = Director at the end of play is not so obvious). However there is also an ethical question here: The corrected = information is likely to "mislead" opponents into a (for them) damaging line of play = from the successful line of play they might probably have chosen given only = the incorrect information. I do wonder if Law 72B1 can be applicable here although I feel that it = will in case be rather far-fetched. (And I cannot find any other possibly applicable law in the book) Regards Sven From Marshallxlg@mail-x-change.com Sun Nov 7 00:25:28 2004 From: Marshallxlg@mail-x-change.com (Marshallxlg@mail-x-change.com) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:25:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] yo pal-are you in pain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <686155b574b4707t98o7129y3z4760_1> Harvard Medical : Are you in Pain?
comparison= list



no more
induce restivemusket pollock floutasocial concern teamworkaggrieve offset pantheonconsortium fiddle uraniumtruman bergman deflateatrium gawky activationdemultiplex carob bonfireremission constipate cedarbimolecular poisson penicillinpravda spire twiddleunidirectional cash citywidemulberry From Drummonduugi@enzoy.com Sun Nov 7 06:49:16 2004 From: Drummonduugi@enzoy.com (Eli Wesley) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:49:16 -0300 Subject: [blml] medical essay : deal with your mother now Message-ID: <792881x290i2636a84a1057q6b6058_1@hotmail.com> Wall Street Medical : Are you in Pain?
FDA report



no more
sammy toastmastertrumpery larva fertilebrute coppery sodloblolly bruegel conexerxes biochemic airlinecontroversy broadway meiercurium crimp margerycartilaginous eradicate personaearn hoyt cowpeadehumidify dogma dummyhelmsmen teensy infirmarynecessity apocalyptic luminositycredo From xcv54@ads43.com Sun Nov 7 09:03:28 2004 From: xcv54@ads43.com (liming) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:03:28 +0800 Subject: [blml] =?GB2312?B?eGN2eWgzNTTE48PH?= Chairman =?GB2312?B?TWFvoa9z?= favorite Chinese handicrafts 89uyt Message-ID: ÎÞ±êÌâÎĵµ
Chairman Mao¡¯s 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.
¡¡With 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 7 11:31:05 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:31:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dorothy Acol Message-ID: <000001c4c4be$920d6c00$259468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: None > You are playing the Dorothy Acol system. > The bidding has gone: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C Pass 1D > Pass 1H Pass 3NT > Pass ...5S(1) Pass ? > (1) Undiscussed > You, South, hold: > KT9 > K63 > AK864 > 98 > Question One: What does pard's break in > tempo demonstrably suggest? > Question Two: What call do you make? [Nigel] 1. Some possible meanings (a) Auto splinter - AQxxx xx AKQxxx (b) Cue for clubs Ax Axxx x AKQJxx (c) Exclusion (set diams) - AQxx Jxxx AKQxx (d) Pattern out Axxx AQxx - AKQxx (e) Black suit mix-up Axxxxx AQx x AKQ (f) 2A+HQ RKCB response xx AQxx xx AKxxx (Partner thought you bid *four* notrump) I think continuations based on interpretation (e) - such as 6S wouldn't be LAs after the tempo break. I don't think (d) is really in the picture because partner might bid 4S with that. (2) Partner's 5S bid is forcing under all normal interpretaions, so 6C seems a logical call and keeps most avenues open - 5S seems like a *grand* slam try but since I don't understand what it means, I can't co-operate sensibly. IMO a 6C continuation would be the most popular logical alternative and partner's hesitation does not suggest it over other logical alternatives, --- 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 Sun Nov 7 11:35:21 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:35:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? Message-ID: <000101c4c4be$98913520$259468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] The following appeared on rgb. The principal question as I see it is this: What if declarer or dummy correctly applies Law 75D2 and informs defenders that there has been MI during the auction although he should be aware of the fact that correcting the explanation most likely will damage defenders? [RGB] Suppose the bidding goes: 1D - pass - 3NT all pass Suppose 3NT in your system shows D fit, void in Clubs, and interest in slam. But you forgot about this agreement. You have 13 HCP and AQTx in Clubs. Immediately after you did bid 3NT you remembered this agreement. Apparently partner also did forget because he did not alert your 3NT. Before the opening lead do you have to (be allowed to) tell opponents that partner should have alerted and you give the correct explanation for the 3NT? That will then increase probabilit y of a Club lead. => In general: You have a convention that both you and your partner forgot during the bidding and you have to play the contract. You remember the convention on your CC before the opening lead. Do you inform the opponents of the wrong alert/wrong explanation of your partner even if his wrong alert/wrong explanation corresponds with your wrong bid and you will probably gain from giving the information? [Nigel] IMO... (a) The law insists that you to divulge your agreement. (b) You aren't obliged to admit that you forgot (as partner did). (c) The fact that it works to your benefit is "the rub of the green". (d) If frustrated opponents call the TD, he should rule in your favour, provided that your CC/system notes confirm your explanation. --- 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 Campbellkml@nyc.rr.com Sun Nov 7 12:22:43 2004 From: Campbellkml@nyc.rr.com (Campbellkml@nyc.rr.com) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:22:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE : pain specialist on friday at 01-00 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <485475w431l8795z91c0875t6f3642_1> Is your Husband in Pain?
more



no more
metropolitan arousalgrateful message rampageprop additive cariboufollicle underling hoarfrostbench butene foxgloveconfessor thunderstorm centerpiececomplementarity ebony celestaabound use prayerhorseman munson nutrientgas aisle isisflaw coset seduceestuary cake contributoryact From Mccrackenzvde@ireland.com Sun Nov 7 14:33:31 2004 From: Mccrackenzvde@ireland.com (Ariel Emery) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:33:31 -0300 Subject: [blml] Critical virus update - november 5th Message-ID: <197520b125x7183g12r3290x8y4486_1@hotmail.com> scan your computer for= malicious viruses and spyware




danzig airplaneladen congratulatory credulousala primary cedillaallegation= retch fishmongeratmosphere off ellsworthgainesville gouldprecociousallege= chilly aubreyspawncontagious cereusinappropriate yoke danburyedwina From jennifer@sepreview.com Sun Nov 7 20:26:24 2004 From: jennifer@sepreview.com (jennifer murphy) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:26:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] your site Message-ID: <20041107173305.93A0A1765@rhubarb.custard.org> We help established sites perform better and new sites get hosting. If you’re looking to increase your online presence, let us know what you’re looking to do, your URL, and the best way to contact you. We'll review your reply and let you know how we can help. If this message doesn’t pertain to you, respond to us with N/P for a subject to avoid our future offers. Thank you, Listing Solutions Intl. Herndon, VA From Carltonwmvul@pon.net Sun Nov 7 18:44:10 2004 From: Carltonwmvul@pon.net (Carltonwmvul@pon.net) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:44:10 -0300 Subject: [blml] spots protocols In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <975857c963y1646e73e1360p4r1426_1> Orthopedic solutions
Learn More<= /a>

s.t.o.p<= /a>
bam canaanhealthful congeal cockeyehush pantry banachcanto concurrent appeallatinate schoolboy debutagent clearheaded beingdowry facilitate archipelagojanitor uproarious inaccuratetruism exam liquefymyeline From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 7 20:42:43 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:42:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? References: <000101c4c4be$98913520$259468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <007b01c4c50a$5650d7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > [Sven Pran] > The following appeared on rgb. The principal > question as I see it is this: What if declarer or > dummy correctly applies Law 75D2 and informs > defenders that there has been MI during the > auction although he should be aware of the fact > that correcting the explanation most likely will > damage defenders? > [RGB] > Suppose the bidding goes: 1D - pass - 3NT all pass > Suppose 3NT in your system shows D fit, void in > Clubs, and interest in slam. But you forgot about > this agreement. You have 13 HCP and AQTx in Clubs. > Immediately after you did bid 3NT you remembered > this agreement. Apparently partner also did forget > because he did not alert your 3NT. Before the > opening lead do you have to (be allowed to) tell > opponents that partner should have alerted and you > give the correct explanation for the 3NT? That > will then increase probabilit y of a Club lead. > => In general: You have a convention that both you > and your partner forgot during the bidding and you > have to play the contract. You remember the > convention on your CC before the opening lead. Do > you inform the opponents of the wrong alert/wrong > explanation of your partner even if his wrong > alert/wrong explanation corresponds with your > wrong bid and you will probably gain from giving > the > information? > [Nigel] > IMO... > (a) The law insists that you to divulge your > agreement. > (b) You aren't obliged to admit that you forgot > (as partner did). > (c) The fact that it works to your benefit is "the > rub of the green". > (d) If frustrated opponents call the TD, he should > rule in your favour, provided that your CC/system > notes confirm your explanation. > If possible, it is better if each partner describes the other's hand. If what a player says about his/her own hand doesn't describe the actual hand, it causes hard feelings even though proper disclosure requires it. Sometimes a player must correct his partner's statement, even if it accurately describes his/her hand. There was that case with Garozzo and Karen McCallum when her partner described her heart holding accurately but not their agreement about her heart bid. It was ruled that she did exactly what she was supposed to do when she hurriedly corrected the statement. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 7 20:01:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 21:01:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: <007b01c4c50a$5650d7a0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c4c504$9fa94c30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French ............. > If possible, it is better if each partner describes the other's hand. If > what a player says about his/her own hand doesn't describe the actual > hand, it causes hard feelings even though proper disclosure requires it. > > Sometimes a player must correct his partner's statement, even if it > accurately describes his/her hand. There was that case with Garozzo and > Karen McCallum when her partner described her heart holding accurately > but not their agreement about her heart bid. It was ruled that she did > exactly what she was supposed to do when she hurriedly corrected the > statement. Usually this is no problem just because all explanations during the auction shall be given by partner to the player who made the call being explained. The exception is when Law 75D2 comes into force. Declarer or dummy (to be) has a duty after the closing pass and before the opening lead has been made to notify opponents that an incorrect explanation has been given during the auction by their partner. Obviously this means that they must (if called for) describe the agreement(s) related to their own call(s). Whenever doing this it is extremely important that everybody is aware of their duty to describe the agreements and not the actual hand. In this process it can very easily happen that a player in fact gives his opponents an impression of his hand that does not at all match his actual holding. Sven From Vanceljff@expart.ne.jp Sun Nov 7 20:49:15 2004 From: Vanceljff@expart.ne.jp (Dorthy Redmond) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:49:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] christmass giveaway - 2003 Server SBS Message-ID: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:43:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: Princeton Tech Newsletter : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)

Full Survey



decile cairnconclave vermiculite fontaineaudit opus offhandbenediction coriolanus eclatartichoke silversmith antoinereinstate marten monsantowatercourse optimist shorthandbreastwork tacit chloroformtarbell exponential tucsonassault From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 7 21:49:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:49:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: <000d01c4c504$9fa94c30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sunday, Nov 7, 2004, at 15:01 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Usually this is no problem just because all explanations during the > auction > shall be given by partner to the player who made the call being > explained. The law does not say that: "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question". "Should normally" is not the same as "shall". > The exception is when Law 75D2 comes into force. Declarer or dummy (to > be) > has a duty after the closing pass and before the opening lead has been > made > to notify opponents that an incorrect explanation has been given > during the > auction by their partner. Obviously this means that they must (if > called > for) describe the agreement(s) related to their own call(s). > > Whenever doing this it is extremely important that everybody is aware > of > their duty to describe the agreements and not the actual hand. In this > process it can very easily happen that a player in fact gives his > opponents > an impression of his hand that does not at all match his actual > holding. Can't disagree with that. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 7 22:23:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:23:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Dorothy Acol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In a private email, a blml lurker wrote: >The one heart bid gets me -- could this possibly been >thought to be forcing in "Dorothy Acol?" It looks more >like partner had a mental disconnect, thought I had bid >4NT,=A0and responded accordingly, after deliberating about >which suit, if any, is key. And I don't know what that >suggests about logical alternatives. > >In context of the 1H bid, 5S -- fast or slow -- is >impossible, and allows no intelligent decision, so I >default to a meta agreement: *All* 6NT bids are >absolutely nonforcing, and make that call. =A0At least I >avoid playing in a cue-bid. > >If I knew a bit more about our system, I could suggest >some additional possible aberrations. RJH: A famous player opinionated, "Acol is not a bidding system; rather, it is a state of mind." The English Acol state of mind of the 1930s was that North's 1H rebid was non-forcing. But... "Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore." Dorothy Acol is derived from the Aussie Acol state of mind of the 1990s, which state of mind treats North's 1H rebid as 100% forcing. In my opinion, merely describing the system you play as "Acol" is often an infraction of the full disclosure requirement of Law 75A. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru= From blml@blakjak.com Sun Nov 7 23:50:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:50:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000801c4c2a0$079297a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5UTh5bXMtiiBFwos@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000801c4c2a0$079297a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >> The argument for PPs for not knowing system is breaches of L74A2. Now >> while we are agreed that it may be inappropriate to give a PP in such >> circumstances it is not illegal. > >Really David, isn't this stretching L74A2 far too far? IMO it is indeed >illegal. People get upset that opponents do not know their system. Absurd, yes, but they do. There is an idea amongst a type of player that people should be punished because it is unfair and upsets them. If this isn't L74A2 I do not know what is. >I just cannot see how "not knowing system" can possibly be considered a >violation of Law 74A2. So, you think the players are wrong. Fine. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 8 00:13:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:13:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>Really David, isn't this stretching L74A2 far too far? IMO it >>is indeed illegal. David Stevenson: >People get upset that opponents do not know their system. >Absurd, yes, but they do. There is an idea amongst a type of >player that people should be punished because it is unfair and >upsets them. If this isn't L74A2 I do not know what is. RJH: People get upset when opponents make their contract on a double squeeze. Absurd, yes, but they do. There is an idea amongst a type of TD that anything that upsets a player is an infraction of Law 74A2. If this isn't stretching Law 74A2 far too far, I do not know what is. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 8 00:20:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 01:20:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c4c528$d068a860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >> David Stevenson > >............ > >> The argument for PPs for not knowing system is breaches of L74A2. = Now > >> while we are agreed that it may be inappropriate to give a PP in = such > >> circumstances it is not illegal. > > > >Really David, isn't this stretching L74A2 far too far? IMO it is = indeed > >illegal. >=20 > People get upset that opponents do not know their system. Absurd, > yes, but they do. There is an idea amongst a type of player that = people > should be punished because it is unfair and upsets them. If this = isn't > L74A2 I do not know what is. L74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might = cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Could you please do me the favour and first show me how the calls = (action) by a player who has (temporarily) forgotten his system conflicts with = this law? And next might you show me why then you (hopefully) will not also apply L74A2 against a player who makes a call (including legal psychic calls) = that somehow interferes with opponents' system in such a way that they get = into serious difficulties reaching their best contract? > >I just cannot see how "not knowing system" can possibly be considered = a > >violation of Law 74A2. >=20 > So, you think the players are wrong. Fine. Which players? The players that get "embarrassed" when they cannot = "enjoy" their precision system and scientifically bid a cold slam because their opponents made an opening bid in 4S?=20 Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 8 01:33:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:33:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: <000001c4c45f$90879b80$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Question from rgb: >>=> In general: You have a convention that both you and >>your partner forgot during the bidding and you have to >>play the contract. You remember the convention on your >>CC before the opening lead. Do you inform the >>opponents of the wrong alert/wrong explanation of your >>partner even if his wrong alert/wrong explanation >>corresponds with your wrong bid and you will probably >>gain from giving the information? Sven Pran: >Strictly speaking Law 75D2 is clear: You shall. (But >calling the Director at the end of play is not so >obvious). RJH: The footnote to Law 75 states that there is "no responsibility" to summon the TD at the end of play after a misbid. However, that Kaplanesque choice of words does, in my opinion, leave open the possibility of voluntarily summoning the TD. Sven Pran: >However there is also an ethical question here: The >corrected information is likely to "mislead" opponents >into a (for them) damaging line of play from the >successful line of play they might probably have >chosen given only the incorrect information. > >I do wonder if Law 72B1 can be applicable here although >I feel that it will in case be rather far-fetched. (And >I cannot find any other possibly applicable law in the >book) RJH: In my opinion, Sven has formulated his ethical question upon the wrong premise. It is not a correct explanation of the agreed partnership methods which misleads the opponents and causes damage; rather, it is the previous misbid which misleads the opponents and causes damage. And the footnote to Law 75 states that a misbid is not an infraction, with the opponents having no claim to an accurate description of a player's cards. In my opinion, this rgb pseudo-problem is merely the De Wael School in another guise. Herman De Wael has long argued that an accurate description of cards has a higher truth-value than an accurate description of partnership agreement. But it is the accurate description of partnership agreement which is what is required by Law 75. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Averygjr@centrum.cz Mon Nov 8 01:55:08 2004 From: Averygjr@centrum.cz (Kristy Caudill) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:55:08 -0100 Subject: [blml] re : painfull appointment november 20th at 03-00 Message-ID: ST0P THE PA1N
vi-codine Pain Relief!
more



no more
otto bingledrum portray microscotland criterion disaccharidearchetype lorinda stropvestigial caddy perkinsprovocative realtor convictabutted colgate tongrhombic andy dolphinbluegrass pyramidal typhooncommission cohn emphysematousasleep assort weltbystander chemise compatriotness From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 8 03:24:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:24:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford asked: >I have a further question about this situation for >those in the EBU: might this situation fall within >the bounds of a "fielded misbid"? EBU Orange Book, clause 6.2.7: >>Whilst a misbid, like a psyche, is a mis-statement >>of some feature of the hand, it differs in that it >>is inadvertent whereas a psyche is deliberate. A >>partnership's actions following a misbid may >>provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, >>but they are less likely to do so because of the >>lack of intent to mislead. As with psyches, >>misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green. RJH: In my opinion, the EBU Orange Book should be more pedantic in its definition of terms. In my opinion, the EBU Orange Book is perpetrating conceptual confusion with its current Red, Amber and Green classifications. What the EBU Orange Book calls a "Red" misbid is actually nothing of the sort. Rather, a so-called Red misbid is actually a concealed partnership understanding pseudo-misbid. So, to answer Gordon Rainsford's question, an EBU TD (like a non-EBU TD) is merely required to make a factual determination. -> (a) Has there been a simple coincidence, with both members of the partnership choosing misbids, which luckily have compensating errors? or (b) Is there an implicit (concealed) partnership agreement, which overrides the merely notional explicit (revealed) partnership agreement? Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Packnywz@riverside.bc.ca Mon Nov 8 10:30:22 2004 From: Packnywz@riverside.bc.ca (Packnywz@riverside.bc.ca) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:30:22 +0400 Subject: [blml] payless for software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Time Digital : Review results
After a thorough comparison of the various retailers,the Best 0ffer is : <= br>
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (150 d0IIar less)

see Full Survey



blonde perspicuityerrancy longleg clungmethodist capillary gadoliniumorlando flagler junkybrigantine pancreatic fishposthumous freya beneficialsiegel conakry abusivedilemma contain guggenheimposition ballast lebensraumconnive From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 8 11:41:09 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:41:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Optimism justified Message-ID: <006201c4c588$17c0ec40$26d3883e@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 +=+ > +=+ This mildly optimistic forecast justified. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 8 12:00:51 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:00:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Guessed 'em right again! Message-ID: <001201c4c58a$98b87280$059868d5@jeushtlj> David Stevenson reports that misbidders who "land on their feet" cause annoyance. Ghestem bidders often seem to "live a charmed life". Sven Pran points out that misbids aren't illegal. Richard James Hills suspects that a pair with a history of "misbids", from which they successfully recover, may have a "private agreement". Richard opines that this is an analogous phenomenon to the EBU "Red psyche". Most sponsoring organisations ban "random overcalls" but IMO, by having woolly agreements about Ghestem, Astro, and the like, many pairs circumvent such regulations. Whether they do so on purpose or by accident is a moot point. Perhaps such pairs inhabit a grey area between Sven's and Richard's positions. IMO, David Stevenson is right that if a pair are using "frequent amnesia" as an effective destructive weapon, they should be penalised. If a suspect pair seem to indulge in such adventures, especially when not vulnerable, the TD could invoke the local "random call" rule. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.789 / Virus Database: 534 - Release Date: 07-Nov-04 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 8 12:40:01 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:40:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Guessed 'em right again! Message-ID: <001a01c4c590$11002080$059868d5@jeushtlj> A related matter... Even in genuine cases of "no agreement" such as Richard Hill's "Dorothy Acol" example, a partnership who have played a few boards together will often have a much better idea of possible meanings than their opponents. Remember? > You held: KT9 K63 AK864 98 > And had to guess what partner meant by... > --- 1C Pass 1D > Pass 1H Pass 3NT > Pass ...5S(1) I guessed a few possible meanings... > (a) Auto splinter - AQxxx xx AKQxxx > (b) Cue for clubs Ax Axxx x AKQJxx > (c) Exclusion (set diams) - AQxx Jxxx AKQxx > (d) Pattern out Axxx AQxx - AKQxx > (e) Black suit mix-up Axxxxx AQx x AKQ > (f) 2A+HQ RKCB response xx AQxx xx AKxxx > (Partner thought you bid *four* notrump) I dare say, more imaginative bidders would come up with dozens of other plausible interpretations. I am sure, however, that partners who chat briefly about system and play a few boards together have a *much* better idea of possible meanings than their opponents. At the very worst any given partnership can cut down the list of alternative meanings to two or three. An experienced partnership will have a still greater advantage in guessing partner's intentions. This is the reason why I support Herman De Wael's crusade: if you have no agreement or cannot remember it, then the law should be changed to insist you make your best *guess*. ...and if you guess wrongly and opponents suffer consequent damage, then you are liable to be penalized for misinformation. This be fairer to those who now lean over backwards to divulge implicit agreements; also the law would be simpler and less subjective. IMO there should be a special dispensation for those who are trying to learn a simple standard system. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.789 / Virus Database: 534 - Release Date: 07-Nov-04 From Rosenbergaqlc@gurl.com Mon Nov 8 13:06:15 2004 From: Rosenbergaqlc@gurl.com (Otto Tillman) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:06:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] newsweek digital- extreme movies will get you fired Message-ID:




Remove



squeal forcefuldiverge screed cutoutcholinesterase sulfide cassandrauracil rodeo spiltimpede gonzalez beratesnagging mouth flotillahomeostasis bookshelves thayernanosecond alumnae cerebralcalgary fish headquarterendow =20 From Lehmankdh@idiom.com Mon Nov 8 13:17:26 2004 From: Lehmankdh@idiom.com (Opal Zavala) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:17:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] your sister knows you watch dangerous footage Message-ID: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:10:16 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID:




Remove
=



linkage alaicaravan coiffure rodneyirish bantu estoppalcelebrity jeannie sigmamassif sourdough scalabodybuilder activism torchtravelogue bundestag lausannebernice qua wilcoxdakar rust declarativeapace =20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 8 13:14:27 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:14:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Guessed 'em right again! Message-ID: <002401c4c594$e02e9f40$059868d5@jeushtlj> A tenuously related matter which is even more controversial... Under the current law, in cases of unauthorised information from partner, especially from tempo breaks, the TD often has to list logical alternatives and choose from this list: (1) Suspect calls or plays, demonstrably suggested by the UI. (2) At least one *permissible* logical alternative. I reckon that, no matter how skilled the TD, his success rate at this guesswork is no better than chance. An experienced partnership, however, almost infallibly divine the implications of such unauthorised information. For example, a typical class of expert, if he finds himself hesitating in a non-forcing auction, will lean over backwards to take some action (bid or double) so as not to compromise his partner. Hence, a hesitation followed by a pass usually denotes amorphous grot. For such an expert's partner the message is clear: do not bid or double unless you can justify your action based solely on values in your own hand. IMO there are two sensible solutions. Either... (a) Ignore UI implications. (This might be a simple fudge in the play). (b) Penalise all tempo breaks, automatically. Provide each table with a sort of chess-clock or egg-timer: (i) Pause (say) 5 seconds before any bid or play. (ii) Complete the bid or play within (say) ten seconds. (ii) Allow obvious exceptions (for stop bids, play to trick one, beginners, calls of nature and the like). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.789 / Virus Database: 534 - Release Date: 07-Nov-04 From Hendrik_Carnahan@claranet.com Mon Nov 8 13:36:53 2004 From: Hendrik_Carnahan@claranet.com (Branden Papa) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:36:53 -0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: check this out Message-ID: <20041108134246.205841362@rhubarb.custard.org> Captain Anderson went down immediately into the hold!=20<= /font>











discontinue Small craft radiated in all directions round the Abraham Lincoln as she la= y to, and did not leave a spot of the sea unexplored. There, a mile and a = half from the frigate, a long blackish body emerged a yard above the waves= ;=20 From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 8 14:14:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:14:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Guessed 'em right again! In-Reply-To: <001201c4c58a$98b87280$059868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000701c4c59d$49ef8db0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > David Stevenson reports that misbidders who "land > on their feet" cause annoyance. Ghestem bidders > often seem to "live a charmed life". Sven Pran > points out that misbids aren't illegal. Richard > James Hills suspects that a pair with a history of > "misbids", from which they successfully recover, > may have a "private agreement". Richard opines > that this is an analogous phenomenon to the EBU > "Red psyche". > > Most sponsoring organisations ban "random > overcalls" but IMO, by having woolly agreements > about Ghestem, Astro, and the like, many pairs > circumvent such regulations. Whether they do so > on purpose or by accident is a moot point. Perhaps > such pairs inhabit a grey area between Sven's and > Richard's positions. > > IMO, David Stevenson is right that if a pair are > using "frequent amnesia" as an effective > destructive weapon, they should be penalised. If a > suspect pair seem to indulge in such adventures, > especially when not vulnerable, the TD could > invoke the local "random call" rule. I would say that "frequent amnesia" constitutes an agreement by partnership experience! Occasional "amnesia" is accepted, repeated or systematic "amnesia" is not (unless the player involved suffers from dementia and must be excused). Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 8 14:30:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:30:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Guessed 'em right again! In-Reply-To: <001a01c4c590$11002080$059868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000801c4c59f$70173ea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > A related matter... > Even in genuine cases of "no agreement" such as > Richard Hill's "Dorothy Acol" example, a > partnership who have played a few boards together > will often have a much better idea of possible > meanings than their opponents. Remember? >=20 > > You held: KT9 K63 AK864 98 > > And had to guess what partner meant by... > > --- 1C Pass 1D > > Pass 1H Pass 3NT > > Pass ...5S(1) >=20 > I guessed a few possible meanings... > > (a) Auto splinter - AQxxx xx AKQxxx > > (b) Cue for clubs Ax Axxx x AKQJxx > > (c) Exclusion (set diams) - AQxx Jxxx AKQxx > > (d) Pattern out Axxx AQxx - AKQxx > > (e) Black suit mix-up Axxxxx AQx x AKQ > > (f) 2A+HQ RKCB response xx AQxx xx AKxxx > > (Partner thought you bid *four* notrump) >=20 > I dare say, more imaginative bidders would come up > with dozens of other plausible interpretations. >=20 > I am sure, however, that partners who chat briefly > about system and play a few boards together have a > *much* better idea of possible meanings than their > opponents. >=20 > At the very worst any given partnership can cut > down the list of alternative meanings to two or > three. An experienced partnership will have a > still greater advantage in guessing partner's > intentions. >=20 > This is the reason why I support Herman De Wael's > crusade: if you have no agreement or cannot > remember it, then the law should be changed to > insist you make your best *guess*. So even if I can prove my statement: "That call simply does not exist in = our system, your guess is as good as mine" you would not allow me to use = that as an explanation of the 5S bid? =20 > ...and if you guess wrongly and opponents suffer > consequent damage, then you are liable to be > penalized for misinformation. >=20 > This be fairer to those who now lean over > backwards to divulge implicit agreements; also the > law would be simpler and less subjective. What if it should subsequently be revealed that he intended to bid 5C = (or possibly 4H or 5H), simply misbid, and discovered his error in a way or = too late so that a correction under Law 25 was not available? Would you still give opponents redress for damage and penalize me for misinformation? Sven From blml@blakjak.com Mon Nov 8 14:38:55 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:38:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <001201c4c528$d068a860$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001201c4c528$d068a860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> David Stevenson >> >............ >> >> The argument for PPs for not knowing system is breaches of L74A2. Now >> >> while we are agreed that it may be inappropriate to give a PP in such >> >> circumstances it is not illegal. >> > >> >Really David, isn't this stretching L74A2 far too far? IMO it is indeed >> >illegal. >> >> People get upset that opponents do not know their system. Absurd, >> yes, but they do. There is an idea amongst a type of player that people >> should be punished because it is unfair and upsets them. If this isn't >> L74A2 I do not know what is. > >L74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause >annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the >enjoyment of the game. > >Could you please do me the favour and first show me how the calls (action) >by a player who has (temporarily) forgotten his system conflicts with this >law? People get upset when opponents do not know their system. The action of not knowing their system has upset them. >And next might you show me why then you (hopefully) will not also apply >L74A2 against a player who makes a call (including legal psychic calls) that >somehow interferes with opponents' system in such a way that they get into >serious difficulties reaching their best contract? What on earth do you mean why I should? I do not support Convention disruption penalties: it is a blindingly stupid idea. It is inappropriate. But just because it is inappropriate does not make it illegal. >> >I just cannot see how "not knowing system" can possibly be considered a >> >violation of Law 74A2. >> >> So, you think the players are wrong. Fine. >Which players? The players that get "embarrassed" when they cannot "enjoy" >their precision system and scientifically bid a cold slam because their >opponents made an opening bid in 4S? What has that got to do with anything? I never understand why quoting something completely irrelevant is meant to support an argument. If you really believe that the legality of Convention disruption penalties is affected by pre-emptive openings I think it is time you reconsidered your approach to 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 blml@blakjak.com Mon Nov 8 14:40:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:40:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Gordon Rainsford asked: > >>I have a further question about this situation for >>those in the EBU: might this situation fall within >>the bounds of a "fielded misbid"? > >EBU Orange Book, clause 6.2.7: > >>>Whilst a misbid, like a psyche, is a mis-statement >>>of some feature of the hand, it differs in that it >>>is inadvertent whereas a psyche is deliberate. A >>>partnership's actions following a misbid may >>>provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, >>>but they are less likely to do so because of the >>>lack of intent to mislead. As with psyches, >>>misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green. > >RJH: > >In my opinion, the EBU Orange Book should be more >pedantic in its definition of terms. In my opinion, >the EBU Orange Book is perpetrating conceptual >confusion with its current Red, Amber and Green >classifications. > >What the EBU Orange Book calls a "Red" misbid is >actually nothing of the sort. Rather, a so-called >Red misbid is actually a concealed partnership >understanding pseudo-misbid. So? And that means we are wrong to make life easier for players, TDs and ACs to understand? How does that follow, please? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ibrahimdunga1@netscape.net Mon Nov 8 14:48:49 2004 From: ibrahimdunga1@netscape.net (Ibrahim Dunga) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:48:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Confidential Message-ID: <20041108145240.14C8D955@rhubarb.custard.org> Dear Friend=2C I know you will be surprised to read from me=2C but please consider this letter as a request from a family in dire need for your assistance=2E Firstly=2C I must introduce myself=2C I am PRINCE IBRAHIM DUNGA from Zimbabwe=2C and I am the first and the only son of MR DANIEL DUNGA=2E I am presently residing in SOUTH AFRICA=2E I got your contact from the SOUTH AFRICA INFORMATION EXCHANGE =28S=2EA=2EI=2EE=29 in Johannesburg and on behalf of my mother who is a widow MRS ANGELA DUNGA=2E I decided to solicit for your assistance to transfer the sum of US$ 18=2E5M =28Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars=29 in your personal or company account=2E Before my father=92s death=2C he was among the few black Zimbabweans rich farmers=2C and=2C he was poisoned by the agents of the ruling government of president ROBERT MUGABE for his alleged support and sympathy for Zimbabwean opposition party controlled by white minority=2E Before his death=2C he had taken me to Johannesburg to deposit his money to a Security and Finance Company=2E This money was deposited as a gemstone to avoid much demurrage from the Security Company=2E This money was earmarked for purchase of new machinery and chemicals for the farms and to establish new farms in Lesotho and Swaziland=2E In this will=2C he specifically drew my attention to this sum of US$18=2E5M =28Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars=29 that he deposited in safe box of a private Security and Finance Company here in Johannesburg=2C South Africa=2E INFACT MY FATHER SAID IN HIS WILL AND QUOTE=3A =93My beloved son=2C I wish to draw your attention to this money which I deposited in your name in a box with a Security and Finance Company in Johannesburg=2C South Africa=2E In case of my absence on earth caused by death=2C you should solicit for a reliable foreign partner to transfer this money out of South Africa for investment purposes=2E >From the above=2C you will understand that life and future of my family depends on this money=2C as much I will be very grateful if you can assist us=2E We are now living in South Africa as asylum seekers and financial laws of South Africa does not allow asylum seekers certain right to such huge amount of money=2E In view of this=2C I can not invest this money in South Africa hence am asking you to assist me to transfer this money out of South Africa for investment purposes=2E For your effort=2C I am prepared to offer you 25% of the total fund=2E While 5% will be set my family and I will keep aside for local and international expenses and 70%=2E Finally modalities on how the transfer will be done will be conveyed to once we establish trust and confidence between ourselves=2E Looking forward to your reply including your full name=2C and your full direct phone & fax numbers=2C and please treat as very urgent=2E Best Regards=2C PRINCE IBRAHIM DUNGA=2E From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 8 15:23:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:23:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c4c5a6$efe8c930$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > >L74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action=20 > >that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player > >or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. > > > >Could you please do me the favour and first show me how the=20 > >calls (action) by a player who has (temporarily) forgotten=20 > >his system conflicts with this law? >=20 > People get upset when opponents do not know their system. =20 > The action of not knowing their system has upset them. What kind of action is "the action of not knowing their system"?=20 According to my limited understanding of the English language (as well = as my better understanding of the Norwegian language) "not knowing" something = is a state, not an action. > >And next might you show me why then you (hopefully) will=20 > >not also apply L74A2 against a player who makes a call=20 > >(including legal psychic calls) that somehow interferes=20 > >with opponents' system in such a way that they get into > >serious difficulties reaching their best contract? >=20 > What on earth do you mean why I should? =20 Don't you believe your opponents get really upset when you make a = successful sacrifice and deprive them of the very good result they were in for had = they been able to call without your intervention in their auction? In that = case you have really taken an action that not only upsets your opponents but = also interfered with their enjoyment of the game. > >> >I just cannot see how "not knowing system" can possibly be = considered > a > >> >violation of Law 74A2. > >> > >> So, you think the players are wrong. Fine. >=20 > >Which players? The players that get "embarrassed" when they cannot > "enjoy" > >their precision system and scientifically bid a cold slam because = their > >opponents made an opening bid in 4S? >=20 > What has that got to do with anything? >=20 > I never understand why quoting something completely irrelevant is > meant to support an argument. >=20 > If you really believe that the legality of Convention disruption > penalties is affected by pre-emptive openings I think it is time you > reconsidered your approach to the game. You wrote: "So, you think the players are wrong. Fine."=20 and I had a problem understanding which players you referred to.=20 But I had no problem showing a case where players really might get = upset, embarrassed, and feel some interference with their enjoyment of the = game. I understand that you would never dream of using Law 74A2 in such cases. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 8 15:44:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:44:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <10FC6098-319D-11D9-9CDE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Nov 8, 2004, at 09:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > People get upset when opponents do not know their system. The action > of not knowing their system has upset them. "Not knowing their system" is not an action. From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 8 16:26:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:26:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: <001201c4c528$d068a860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <418F9E46.5000309@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Sven Pran wrote > >>> David Stevenson >>> Sven Pran wrote >>> >> David Stevenson >>> >............ >>> >> The argument for PPs for not knowing system is breaches of L74A2. >>> Now >>> >> while we are agreed that it may be inappropriate to give a PP in such >>> >> circumstances it is not illegal. >>> > >>> >Really David, isn't this stretching L74A2 far too far? IMO it is indeed >>> >illegal. >>> >>> People get upset that opponents do not know their system. Absurd, >>> yes, but they do. There is an idea amongst a type of player that people >>> should be punished because it is unfair and upsets them. If this isn't >>> L74A2 I do not know what is. >> >> >> L74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might >> cause >> annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the >> enjoyment of the game. >> >> Could you please do me the favour and first show me how the calls >> (action) >> by a player who has (temporarily) forgotten his system conflicts with >> this >> law? > > > People get upset when opponents do not know their system. The action > of not knowing their system has upset them. > >> And next might you show me why then you (hopefully) will not also apply >> L74A2 against a player who makes a call (including legal psychic >> calls) that >> somehow interferes with opponents' system in such a way that they get >> into >> serious difficulties reaching their best contract? > > > What on earth do you mean why I should? I do not support Convention > disruption penalties: it is a blindingly stupid idea. It is inappropriate. > > But just because it is inappropriate does not make it illegal. > >>> >I just cannot see how "not knowing system" can possibly be considered a >>> >violation of Law 74A2. >>> >>> So, you think the players are wrong. Fine. > > >> Which players? The players that get "embarrassed" when they cannot >> "enjoy" >> their precision system and scientifically bid a cold slam because their >> opponents made an opening bid in 4S? > > > What has that got to do with anything? > > I never understand why quoting something completely irrelevant is > meant to support an argument. > > If you really believe that the legality of Convention disruption > penalties is affected by pre-emptive openings I think it is time you > reconsidered your approach to the game. > No David, I'm quite sorry, but I am with Sven on this one. It is you who maintains that it is possible to award penalties because something "diturbs opponents". There are lots of different examples given that "disturb opponents", yet you are quite correct that those examples do not merit penalties. So it is your dragging in of L74A2 which is wrong. There may be other laws that you can use to curb "convention disruption", and I agree that we might want to curb it, but L74A2 is not the right approach. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Nov 8 16:50:35 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:50:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC92F30-31A6-11D9-8FC1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:40, David Stevenson wrote: > wrote >> Gordon Rainsford asked: >> >>> I have a further question about this situation for >>> those in the EBU: might this situation fall within >>> the bounds of a "fielded misbid"? >> >> EBU Orange Book, clause 6.2.7: >> >> RJH: >> >> In my opinion, the EBU Orange Book should be more >> pedantic in its definition of terms. In my opinion, >> the EBU Orange Book is perpetrating conceptual >> confusion with its current Red, Amber and Green >> classifications. >> >> What the EBU Orange Book calls a "Red" misbid is >> actually nothing of the sort. Rather, a so-called >> Red misbid is actually a concealed partnership >> understanding pseudo-misbid. > > So? > > And that means we are wrong to make life easier for players, TDs and > ACs to understand? > > How does that follow, please? I wonder if David or any other EBU TDs might comment on my original question? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Starkxqfv@spacebbs.com Mon Nov 8 17:26:52 2004 From: Starkxqfv@spacebbs.com (Britney Mims) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:26:52 +0600 Subject: [blml] re : painfull appointment wednesday at 24-00 Message-ID: Harvard Medical : Chronic Pain solutions
comparison =



no more
airframe crawforddesorption oak haydndomain shell registraranaheim hafnium depressiblebateman bounce cowgirlalum eben agleamyap immobile commonwealpolopony britten deflectorsledgehammer memphis opposepurine bessel wastrelatlantes deteriorate suntanningpreferred andrei gratitudecourtney From Reggie Hyatt"

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From john@asimere.com Mon Nov 8 20:29:58 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:29:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: <4FC92F30-31A6-11D9-8FC1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <4FC92F30-31A6-11D9-8FC1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <4FC92F30-31A6-11D9-8FC1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:40, David Stevenson wrote: > >> wrote >>> Gordon Rainsford asked: >>> >>>> I have a further question about this situation for >>>> those in the EBU: might this situation fall within >>>> the bounds of a "fielded misbid"? Yes. But I am most loathe to adjust for these. I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. >>> >>> EBU Orange Book, clause 6.2.7: >>> > >>> RJH: >>> >>> In my opinion, the EBU Orange Book should be more >>> pedantic in its definition of terms. In my opinion, >>> the EBU Orange Book is perpetrating conceptual >>> confusion with its current Red, Amber and Green >>> classifications. >>> >>> What the EBU Orange Book calls a "Red" misbid is >>> actually nothing of the sort. Rather, a so-called >>> Red misbid is actually a concealed partnership >>> understanding pseudo-misbid. >> >> So? >> >> And that means we are wrong to make life easier for players, TDs and >> ACs to understand? >> >> How does that follow, please? > >I wonder if David or any other EBU TDs might comment on my original >question? > >-- >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 Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Mon Nov 8 21:08:54 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:08:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defen ders? Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C4F1@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Rainsford Cc: blml@rtflb.org Sent: 08/11/04 16:50 Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:40, David Stevenson wrote: > wrote >> Gordon Rainsford asked: >> >>> I have a further question about this situation for >>> those in the EBU: might this situation fall within >>> the bounds of a "fielded misbid"? >> >> EBU Orange Book, clause 6.2.7: >> >> RJH: >> >> In my opinion, the EBU Orange Book should be more >> pedantic in its definition of terms. In my opinion, >> the EBU Orange Book is perpetrating conceptual >> confusion with its current Red, Amber and Green >> classifications. >> >> What the EBU Orange Book calls a "Red" misbid is >> actually nothing of the sort. Rather, a so-called >> Red misbid is actually a concealed partnership >> understanding pseudo-misbid. > > So? > > And that means we are wrong to make life easier for players, TDs and > ACs to understand? > > How does that follow, please? I wonder if David or any other EBU TDs might comment on my original question? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK _______________________________________________ Yes, they should correct. If possible, I would advise the player who might offer the correction (when the original explanation agrees with his hand) that he must be very sure that the correction is the systemic agreement (and there is evidence of this). Also, if possible, I would suggest that any correction should include the likely the one or both players in the partnership does forget (sometimes simultaneously). As a player, I would say "I think our agreement is such-and-such, but I forgot when I made the bid, and partner's failure to alert suggests he forgot also". 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 Mon Nov 8 22:09:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:09:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH: [snip] >>What the EBU Orange Book calls a "Red" misbid is >>actually nothing of the sort. Rather, a so-called >>Red misbid is actually a concealed partnership >>understanding pseudo-misbid. [snip] David Stevenson: >So? > >And that means we are wrong to make life easier for >players, TDs and ACs to understand? > >How does that follow, please? RJH: If one assumes that the Earth is flat, that is easy to understand. But that is a misunderstanding. Likewise, the Red/Amber/Green EBU definitions make it easier for TDs to misunderstand whether or not a real misbid is an infraction. The EBU conceptual confusion of CPU pseudo-misbids with real misbids creates a false impression that real misbids are tinged with evil. Consequently, some EBU TDs misunderstand that real misbids may "deserve" a procedural penalty. This is despite the fact that the WBF Code of Practice (most of which has been adopted by the EBU) states the direct opposite. -> "In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the way to redress damage." Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Ingrid Samuel"

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Langstonjdo@studentcenter.org Mon Nov 8 22:54:11 2004 From: Langstonjdo@studentcenter.org (Daren Fry) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:54:11 +0400 Subject: [blml] special offer on x p Media Center Edition Message-ID: Wired Magazine : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)

Link to Winner



kappa horsetaildespondent riverfront bulkyschumacher stasis boriccongolese aftereffect mooexecutor christoffel maidenhairbreve bureau allanstargaze replica tunefulweep ambiguity morselarenaceous dispense broadcastnoodle From Langstonjdo@studentcenter.org Mon Nov 8 22:54:11 2004 From: Langstonjdo@studentcenter.org (Daren Fry) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:54:11 +0400 Subject: [blml] special offer on x p Media Center Edition Message-ID: Wired Magazine : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)

Link to Winner



kappa horsetaildespondent riverfront bulkyschumacher stasis boriccongolese aftereffect mooexecutor christoffel maidenhairbreve bureau allanstargaze replica tunefulweep ambiguity morselarenaceous dispense broadcastnoodle From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 8 23:14:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:14:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <418F9E46.5000309@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >No David, I'm quite sorry, but I am with Sven on >this one. > >It is you who maintains that it is possible to >award penalties because something "diturbs >opponents". There are lots of different examples >given that "disturb opponents", yet you are quite >correct that those examples do not merit >penalties. > >So it is your dragging in of L74A2 which is wrong. > >There may be other laws that you can use to curb >"convention disruption", and I agree that we might >want to curb it, but L74A2 is not the right >approach. RJH: In its official interpretation of Law 15C, the WBF LC implied that a *deliberate* irrational call was an infraction of Law 74A2. In its official interpretation in the WBF Code of Practice, the WBF LC specifically stated that an occasional *inadvertent* irrational call (an occasional misbid) was not an infraction of Law. As I opined earlier, in my opinion there is no such animal as a frequent misbid. This is because, in my opinion, frequency of misbidding transmogrifies a misbid into a concealed partnership understanding that pard will misbid in a particular situation. Aggravated convention disruption caused by a CPU of frequently misapplied conventions might receive a PP under Law 74B1, "paying insufficient attention to the game". Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 8 23:28:58 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:28:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c4c5ea$b92fe740$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............. > As I opined earlier, in my opinion there is no such > animal as a frequent misbid. This is because, in > my opinion, frequency of misbidding transmogrifies > a misbid into a concealed partnership understanding > that pard will misbid in a particular situation. > > Aggravated convention disruption caused by a CPU of > frequently misapplied conventions might receive a > PP under Law 74B1, "paying insufficient attention > to the game". You don't need L74 here. CPU is sufficiently covered in Law 40B. A violation of L40B entitles the Director to award redress for damage and also impose PP on the offenders with any amount he finds justified. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 9 00:33:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:33:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F1 (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: >>Usually this is no problem just because all explanations >>during the auction shall be given by partner to the >>player who made the call being explained. Ed Reppert quoted Law 20F1: >The law does not say that: "replies should normally be >given by the partner of a player who made a call in >question". "Should normally" is not the same as "shall". RJH notes: In my opinion, it would be useful if the 2006 version of Law 20F1 gave an indicative example of the recommended procedure in the most common _ab_normal situation. My suggested wording for the indicative example would be: "If an opponent asks a player to explain the agreed partnership meaning of their partner's call, but the player has temporarily forgotten the agreed partnership meaning of their partner's call, then: (a) the TD should be summoned, (b) the TD should direct the player to temporarily leave the table (c) the partner should explain the agreed partnership meaning of the partner's call (but should neither confirm nor deny whether or not their actual cards correspond with the agreed partnership meaning) (d) the TD should direct the player to return to the table. Note: If there is neither any implicit nor any explicit partnership agreement about the meaning of the partner's call, the player should say so. The player must not provide any unauthorised information on how the player will be guessing to proceed in the subsequent auction." Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Hesteraaf@nas.com Tue Nov 9 00:51:06 2004 From: Hesteraaf@nas.com (Alfred Campbell) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:51:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] RE: please help your sister with his pain Message-ID: <20041109005106.A9D95EEA@rhubarb.custard.org> Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:40:10 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: Are you in Pain?
Relief is possible!
FDA report



no more
headdress plagueyrevenge tsunami scampboylston sunbeam accomplicemaltose corpus celerydisrupt either lubbockshipbuilding debase definitionpolo kit calgarysunlit algiers orphicdeclaim intimacy confiscatelawgiving memoranda aaronglove male tsunamimel loot attenuatecacti From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 9 05:27:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:27:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] Guessed 'em right again! In-Reply-To: <000801c4c59f$70173ea0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >You [South] held: KT9 K63 AK864 98 > >And had to guess what partner meant by... > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1C Pass 1D >Pass 1H Pass 3NT >Pass ...5S(1) > >(1) Undiscussed > >I am sure, however, that partners who chat briefly >about system and play a few boards together have a >*much* better idea of possible meanings than their >opponents. > >At the very worst any given partnership can cut >down the list of alternative meanings to two or >three. An experienced partnership will have a >still greater advantage in guessing partner's >intentions. > >This is the reason why I support Herman De Wael's >crusade: if you have no agreement or cannot >remember it, then the law should be changed to >insist you make your best *guess*. RJH: I disagree. In the parallel "Dorothy Acol" thread, Nigel Guthrie guessed, "IMO a 6C continuation would be the most popular logical alternative." But Nigel was the *only* blmler to vote for a South rebid of 6C. If a person cannot solve the relatively easy guess of what would be the most popular LA, a person may also fail to guess the labyrinthine twists of the brain of their bizarre partner. Needless to say, in the "Dorothy Acol" thread, I was the North who *almost* perpetrated the 5S call. But, after hesitating, I eventually persuaded myself to avoid 5S, and choose the sane 6NT signoff instead. Despite Nigel's assertion that my pard would have a "greater advantage" in guessing my intentions, I knew that my expert pard would be baffled by a bizarre 5S call. Indeed, in my experience it is the experienced partnerships who are *most* likely to misguess during the auction, playing in their 3-1 fits at the five level. A player in an experienced partnership often falls into the facile trap of saying, "Surely it is obvious to my regular pard what my undiscussed call means". Meanwhile, their bemused partner has to choose which of six impossible meanings will allow them to escape from the bidding ambush. An inexperienced "honeymoon" partnership is often more successful, as each partner is usually careful to choose totally obvious and unambiguous calls. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 9 05:55:22 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:55:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Guessed 'em right again! In-Reply-To: <002401c4c594$e02e9f40$059868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asserted: [snip] >For example, a typical class of expert, if he >finds himself hesitating in a non-forcing auction, >will lean over backwards to take some action (bid >or double) so as not to compromise his partner. RJH dissects: In my opinion, there is a logical fallacy in this premise of Nigel Guthrie's argument. It is true that a small number of experts are pathological ditherers. But a large majority of experts know the huge advantage that uniformly acting in tempo provides to their side. Uniform tempo in bidding and play minimises any authorised information to the opponents, thus making guesses more difficult for the opponents. Uniform tempo in bidding and play minimises any unauthorised information to partner, thus making actions easier for partner (due to the absence of any Law 73C constraints upon pard). Furthermore, if an expert does hesitate, it is to ensure that they get a critical decision right. An expert will not waste the time that they have spent thinking by automatically choosing a stupid bid or ridiculous double when a pass is the superior action. Nigel Guthrie concluded: >Hence, a hesitation followed by a pass usually >denotes amorphous grot. [snip] RJH dissects: Sir Humphrey Appleby may label Nigel's conclusion a novel idea. I am less polite, and label Nigel's conclusion a courageous idea. An expert does not become an expert without some understanding of the requirements of Law 73D2 and Law 73F2. An expert knows that such actions as hesitating with a singleton are both foolish and futile. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From gimclnnnlrwl@united.com Tue Nov 9 09:04:30 2004 From: gimclnnnlrwl@united.com (Eldon Goldman) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 06:04:30 -0300 Subject: [blml] Phamracy X and V, and Everything else Message-ID: <20041101163013.ED8DA244AE@mailhost10.lists.techtarget.com>

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Nov 9 11:10:06 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:10:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004501c4c64c$adcd17d0$bd23c2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Arh Richard - you haven't played with my partner much have you? How do you classify frequent misbids in many situations? [And we still do pretty ok really.] Should I alert just about every bid he makes? Or will that merely lead to divorce? And if a 74B1 penalty were imposed, how just would that be taken when he went public? In any other context, he would perhaps be classified as 'easily distracted' or a sufferer from Attention Deficit Syndrome? regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 10:15 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" Herman De Wael: >No David, I'm quite sorry, but I am with Sven on >this one. > >It is you who maintains that it is possible to >award penalties because something "diturbs >opponents". There are lots of different examples >given that "disturb opponents", yet you are quite >correct that those examples do not merit >penalties. > >So it is your dragging in of L74A2 which is wrong. > >There may be other laws that you can use to curb >"convention disruption", and I agree that we might >want to curb it, but L74A2 is not the right >approach. RJH: In its official interpretation of Law 15C, the WBF LC implied that a *deliberate* irrational call was an infraction of Law 74A2. In its official interpretation in the WBF Code of Practice, the WBF LC specifically stated that an occasional *inadvertent* irrational call (an occasional misbid) was not an infraction of Law. As I opined earlier, in my opinion there is no such animal as a frequent misbid. This is because, in my opinion, frequency of misbidding transmogrifies a misbid into a concealed partnership understanding that pard will misbid in a particular situation. Aggravated convention disruption caused by a CPU of frequently misapplied conventions might receive a PP under Law 74B1, "paying insufficient attention to the game". Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Skinnersvy@vzavenue.net Tue Nov 9 11:44:13 2004 From: Skinnersvy@vzavenue.net (Art Marin) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:44:13 +0600 Subject: [blml] 98 Second Edition $40 Message-ID: <20041109115515.09189E0D@rhubarb.custard.org> Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:48:13 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: CNET reviews : Review results

After a thorough comparison of the various retailers,the Best 0ffer is : <= br>
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (150 d0IIar less)

Full Survey



you've tyburntrenchermen ajar astrologyhemorrhage choppy addisoninterval monadic invaluableabbas vitriol drawbridgegrenade penitential rockefellernuzzle con louisalike synonym argopubescent combinatorial climeulterior From Vargastcqgg@psi.net Tue Nov 9 12:29:12 2004 From: Vargastcqgg@psi.net (Vargastcqgg@psi.net) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:29:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE : pain specialist on friday at 14-00 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Harvard Medical : Are you in Pain?
FDA report <= br>


no more
homeown funnyaccountant jet ornerydescribe nonagenarian rheumactivism ox convincealberto virgule sikorskyforwent spurge dewyresuscitate colony gwenoswald accident physicobese malconduct grossetjoan eohippus dieselriverfront nielson polarogramsixfold cooky chestertonbelove From Medinaheom@suscom.net Tue Nov 9 12:29:35 2004 From: Medinaheom@suscom.net (Nikki Elmore) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:29:35 +0400 Subject: [blml] find me by november 21th Message-ID: Chronic Pain - Living with it
read report =



no more
= addressograph bonanzaincubate bleary corvettenozzle communique emmanuelgaunt gilbert garycyclops giggle shrillycoloratura perfectible athenascrumptious coates sanbornbobolink transmittance congealagree acrobat frescoinvention ansi ebenexudation irregular buddybidden lawgiver compressiveexcitation From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 9 13:24:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:24:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000901c4c5a6$efe8c930$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4c5a6$efe8c930$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >........... >> >L74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action >> >that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player >> >or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. >> > >> >Could you please do me the favour and first show me how the >> >calls (action) by a player who has (temporarily) forgotten >> >his system conflicts with this law? >> >> People get upset when opponents do not know their system. >> The action of not knowing their system has upset them. > >What kind of action is "the action of not knowing their system"? > >According to my limited understanding of the English language (as well as my >better understanding of the Norwegian language) "not knowing" something is a >state, not an action. > >> >And next might you show me why then you (hopefully) will >> >not also apply L74A2 against a player who makes a call >> >(including legal psychic calls) that somehow interferes >> >with opponents' system in such a way that they get into >> >serious difficulties reaching their best contract? >> >> What on earth do you mean why I should? > >Don't you believe your opponents get really upset when you make a successful >sacrifice and deprive them of the very good result they were in for had they >been able to call without your intervention in their auction? In that case >you have really taken an action that not only upsets your opponents but also >interfered with their enjoyment of the game. > >> >> >I just cannot see how "not knowing system" can possibly be considered >> a >> >> >violation of Law 74A2. >> >> >> >> So, you think the players are wrong. Fine. >> >> >Which players? The players that get "embarrassed" when they cannot >> "enjoy" >> >their precision system and scientifically bid a cold slam because their >> >opponents made an opening bid in 4S? >> >> What has that got to do with anything? >> >> I never understand why quoting something completely irrelevant is >> meant to support an argument. >> >> If you really believe that the legality of Convention disruption >> penalties is affected by pre-emptive openings I think it is time you >> reconsidered your approach to the game. > >You wrote: "So, you think the players are wrong. Fine." >and I had a problem understanding which players you referred to. > >But I had no problem showing a case where players really might get upset, >embarrassed, and feel some interference with their enjoyment of the game. > >I understand that you would never dream of using Law 74A2 in such cases. Look, it is not an inappropriate action to pre-empt. Under L40D, an SO can make it an inappropriate action not to know their system. thus L74A2 could legally be used in the second case, but not the first case. To apply L74A2 you need [a] an action that upsets opponents, and [b] it to be an inappropriate action. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 9 13:24:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:24:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <10FC6098-319D-11D9-9CDE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <10FC6098-319D-11D9-9CDE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Monday, Nov 8, 2004, at 09:38 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> People get upset when opponents do not know their system. The action >>of not knowing their system has upset them. > >"Not knowing their system" is not an action. Bidding based on it is. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 9 13:27:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:27:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <418F9E46.5000309@hdw.be> References: <001201c4c528$d068a860$6900a8c0@WINXP> <418F9E46.5000309@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >No David, I'm quite sorry, but I am with Sven on this one. >It is you who maintains that it is possible to award penalties because >something "diturbs opponents". There are lots of different examples >given that "disturb opponents", yet you are quite correct that those >examples do not merit penalties. > >So it is your dragging in of L74A2 which is wrong. My dragging it in? what has this to do with me? It is the authorities who say that CD is wrong ***because of the effect it has on other people*** who are dragging it in, not me. >There may be other laws that you can use to curb "convention >disruption", and I agree that we might want to curb it, but L74A2 is >not the right approach. So when an authority quotes upsetting an opponent as the reason, you are just saying they are wrong? OK. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 9 13:32:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:32:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4pIxGFY5bMkBFw73@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > > > > >RJH: > >[snip] > >>>What the EBU Orange Book calls a "Red" misbid is >>>actually nothing of the sort. Rather, a so-called >>>Red misbid is actually a concealed partnership >>>understanding pseudo-misbid. > >[snip] > >David Stevenson: > >>So? >> >>And that means we are wrong to make life easier for >>players, TDs and ACs to understand? >> >>How does that follow, please? > >RJH: > >If one assumes that the Earth is flat, that is easy >to understand. But that is a misunderstanding. > >Likewise, the Red/Amber/Green EBU definitions make it >easier for TDs to misunderstand whether or not a real >misbid is an infraction. > >The EBU conceptual confusion of CPU pseudo-misbids >with real misbids creates a false impression that >real misbids are tinged with evil. Perhaps instead of using RJH mumbo-jumbo you actually tell us what you are talking about. It certainly makes no sense whatever to me. >Consequently, some EBU TDs misunderstand that real >misbids may "deserve" a procedural penalty. This is >despite the fact that the WBF Code of Practice (most >of which has been adopted by the EBU) states the >direct opposite. -> Your evidence for this very strange assertion? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 9 13:30:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:30:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: References: <4FC92F30-31A6-11D9-8FC1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <4FC92F30-31A6-11D9-8FC1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, >Gordon Rainsford writes >> >>On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:40, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> wrote >>>> Gordon Rainsford asked: >>>> >>>>> I have a further question about this situation for >>>>> those in the EBU: might this situation fall within >>>>> the bounds of a "fielded misbid"? > >Yes. But I am most loathe to adjust for these. I believe the Principle >(or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just ignore evidence when making judgements - because that is all the RoC is? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 9 13:47:53 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:47:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: <000901c4c5a6$efe8c930$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4190CA89.4030607@hdw.be> Yes but David, now you're reasoning in circles: David Stevenson wrote: > > Look, it is not an inappropriate action to pre-empt. Under L40D, an > SO can make it an inappropriate action not to know their system. thus > L74A2 could legally be used in the second case, but not the first case. > > To apply L74A2 you need > > [a] an action that upsets opponents, and > [b] it to be an inappropriate action. > Indeed to pre-empt is not inappropriate - but why should forgetting ones system be called inappropriate? We are trying to find a law under which we can rule against people who forget their system, and you insert a new word "inappropriate". Please then define by Law numbers what actions are deemed "inappropriate". And don't say they "upset opponents", because we have just given examples of actions that upset opponents but are not inappropriate! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 9 13:49:49 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:49:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: <10FC6098-319D-11D9-9CDE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4190CAFD.2070401@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> "Not knowing their system" is not an action. > > > Bidding based on it is. > Yes David, but such is not the problem. Whenever we have a player who caters for frequent misbids by partner, we can "nail" him by saying he should have disclosed that frequency to opponents. What we are trying to deal with (at least some of them are trying to) is to find a law whereby we can punish a player for forgetting, even without finding anything wrong in his partner's actions. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 9 13:51:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:51:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: <001201c4c528$d068a860$6900a8c0@WINXP> <418F9E46.5000309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4190CB70.2050201@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > >> There may be other laws that you can use to curb "convention >> disruption", and I agree that we might want to curb it, but L74A2 is >> not the right approach. > > > So when an authority quotes upsetting an opponent as the reason, you > are just saying they are wrong? OK. > Yes they are - because the "upsetting" comes after "remark, etc.". Forgetting your system cannot be classed in that category, since otherwise a whole range of other actions would also be classed therein, and those actions (pre-empting etc) are not the target of L74A2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Nov 9 14:23:43 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:23:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <4190CA89.4030607@hdw.be> References: <000901c4c5a6$efe8c930$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4190CA89.4030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 9 Nov 2004, at 13:47, Herman De Wael wrote: > We are trying to find a law under which we can rule against people who > forget their system Why? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 9 15:14:51 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:14:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: <000901c4c5a6$efe8c930$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4190CA89.4030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00ff01c4c66f$27dc1220$6a8787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > On 9 Nov 2004, at 13:47, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > We are trying to find a law under which we can rule > > against people who forget their system > > Why? > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > +=+ I tend to share the thought. Either there is a law that is broken, or not. In this case has there been a breach of 75C or not? Merely to forget system is no crime; to misdescribe system to opponent, however, is a violation of law whether or no it is the result of forgetting system. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 9 15:21:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:21:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <4190CA89.4030607@hdw.be> References: <000901c4c5a6$efe8c930$6900a8c0@WINXP> <4190CA89.4030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Yes but David, now you're reasoning in circles: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Look, it is not an inappropriate action to pre-empt. Under L40D, >>an SO can make it an inappropriate action not to know their system. >>thus L74A2 could legally be used in the second case, but not the >>first case. >> To apply L74A2 you need >> [a] an action that upsets opponents, and >> [b] it to be an inappropriate action. >> > >Indeed to pre-empt is not inappropriate - but why should forgetting >ones system be called inappropriate? *I* don't know - but I do not support CD. But certainly some authorities have felt CD is inappropriate. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 9 15:22:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:22:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <4190CAFD.2070401@hdw.be> References: <10FC6098-319D-11D9-9CDE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <4190CAFD.2070401@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> "Not knowing their system" is not an action. >> Bidding based on it is. >> > >Yes David, but such is not the problem. Whenever we have a player who >caters for frequent misbids by partner, we can "nail" him by saying he >should have disclosed that frequency to opponents. > >What we are trying to deal with (at least some of them are trying to) >is to find a law whereby we can punish a player for forgetting, even >without finding anything wrong in his partner's actions. You make it illegal or whatever under L40D, and then upsetting opponents under L74A2 is not acceptable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 9 15:32:39 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:32:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <971E6450-3264-11D9-B88A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Nov 9, 2004, at 08:24 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Bidding based on it is People don't base their bidding on not knowing their own system. In another message, you said that "not knowing their system" could be made illegal by an SO regulation under 40D. For conventional bids, yes. For natural bids, no. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 9 15:40:28 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:40:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, Nov 9, 2004, at 08:30 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just ignore > evidence when making judgements - because that is all the RoC is? As I understand it, the "rule of coincidence" states that when a player psyches (which may get his pair into a bad contract) and his partner makes a call which gets him out of trouble, the fact that his partner made that call is no coincidence, it is evidence of a CPU. Evidence, okay, but in application I hear people say it is *conclusive* evidence - and it ain't. IAC, it's the call, not the rule, that is evidence. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 9 15:43:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:43:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <4190CAFD.2070401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <169BF96D-3266-11D9-B88A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Nov 9, 2004, at 08:49 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > What we are trying to deal with (at least some of them are trying to) > is to find a law whereby we can punish a player for forgetting, even > without finding anything wrong in his partner's actions. If such a law is found, I suppose one of my regular partners, at least, will have to give up the game. See, she had a brain tumor removed some 20 years ago, and her memory isn't very good at all. Pity, since playing bridge helps her with that problem. :-( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 9 15:44:39 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:44:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4461AF64-3266-11D9-B88A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Nov 9, 2004, at 09:23 US/Eastern, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 9 Nov 2004, at 13:47, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> We are trying to find a law under which we can rule against people >> who forget their system > > Why? Heh. Good question. :-) From Edgardo Walters"

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Nov 9 18:46:12 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:46:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <0$CSjXVJDZiBFwbE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001501c4c68c$633b7aa0$0701010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, 4 November 2004 3:16 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: Matthew McManus > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > > I believe this to be an unfortunate reading of the Laws. > Yes, giving > PPs for occasional errors is "not appropriate" as he says in > his first > paragraph. But I do not think it is illegal. > > If a player were to foul a board it is legal to give him a PP. To > give him a PP of 222 imps is wildly inappropriate, but it is not > illegal. I think we should be aware of the difference. > This is plain wrong. Procedural penalties are given when there has been an "offence". Forgetting ones system is not an "offence". "LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES A. Director's Authority The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any ***offence*** that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." The emphasis is mine. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Nov 9 18:52:48 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:52:48 +1300 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001601c4c68d$4edb4da0$0701010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, 4 November 2004 4:02 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: Matthew McManus > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > > RJH ruling on PPs for misbidding: > > In my opinion, David's second paragraph is > using an apples-and-oranges analogy. If a > player was to foul a board, that would be an > infraction of Law 7C. > > But if a player was to occasionally misbid, > that would not be an infraction of Law. > Indeed, Law 40A specifically grants a player > the *right* to occasionally misbid. -> > > "A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading call > - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play > that departs from commonly accepted, or > previously announced, use of a convention), > without prior announcement, provided that > such call or play is not based on a > partnership understanding." There is nothing in this law that restricts departures to 'occasional'. I can depart from my system by forgetting as often as I like. > > Caveat -> In my opinion, there is no such > animal as a "frequent misbid". Rather, in > my opinion, frequency automatically creates > an implicit partnership understanding, thus > rendering Law 40A inapplicable. L75B deals with creating implicit understandings via departures from one's system. The language used in that law is different than what Richard uses above. Law 75B states that an implicit understanding *may* be created. This leaves open the real possibility that repeated violations in some circumstances do not create any such implicit understanding. "L75B. Violations of Partnership Agreements A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress." Wayne > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Nov 9 18:58:43 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:58:43 +1300 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <5UTh5bXMtiiBFwos@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001d01c4c68e$22635f50$0701010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Friday, 5 November 2004 2:15 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > The argument for PPs for not knowing system is breaches of > L74A2. Now > while we are agreed that it may be inappropriate to give a PP in such > circumstances it is not illegal. This is ridiculous. Oh maybe not. When my opponents successfully bid and make 7NT I should call the director and claim that I am annoyed and that they should have avoided bidding 7NT because they knew it would annoy me when it made. I repeat it is ridiculous that a player can be annoyed at the opponents bridge result and be entitled to redress. One is simply not entitled to redress because the opponents make a mistake. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Nov 9 19:08:36 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:08:36 +1300 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c4c68f$8421d810$0701010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Monday, 8 November 2004 12:51 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > > People get upset that opponents do not know their system. Absurd, > yes, but they do. There is an idea amongst a type of player > that people > should be punished because it is unfair and upsets them. If > this isn't > L74A2 I do not know what is. There is a defense against this procedural penalty. I can get upset at people getting upset that I don't know my system. Then the director would have to penalize the opponents for the action of "getting upset". Now we are back to even. Personally I think that it is more valid that I get upset at them being upset about nothing - just a bridge error. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Nov 9 19:48:00 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:48:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002201c4c695$05097870$0701010a@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2004 3:24 a.m. > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > > > On 9 Nov 2004, at 13:47, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > We are trying to find a law under which we can rule against > people who > > forget their system > > Why? Exactly Wayne From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 9 22:27:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:27:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c4c6ab$50bc4700$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > Under L40D, an SO can make it an inappropriate action=20 > not to know their system. =20 L40D doesn't give such power to SO? (And even if it did SO cannot define something that definitely is not an action to be an action).=20 The way I understand the power given to SO in Law 40D the SO may = regulate the *use* of bidding or play *conventions*; i.e. SO may forbid certain = such conventions from being used in their tournaments. Note that the term "convention" is defined in the laws. Under no circumstance does L40D give SO the power to issue any regulation on the = use of calls that are not conventional, this includes all calls that we (slightly simplified) denote as "natural". As an example: If in the auction 1NT - pass - 2H the 2H bid is = incorrectly believed to be natural while the actual agreement is that it is a = transfer call then the failing player has not *used* any *convention* and thus = cannot in any way have infringed any regulation legally issued by SO under = L40D. > To apply L74A2 you need >=20 > [a] an action that upsets opponents, and > [b] it to be an inappropriate action. Agreed if you by "inappropriate" mean "violation of law". But you have not shown that it is illegal to forget your system nor have = you shown that "forgetting a system" can qualify as being an "action" rather than a "state". Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 9 22:35:15 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:35:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c4c6ac$61f35cb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Ed Reppert wrote ........... > >"Not knowing their system" is not an action. > > Bidding based on it is. Bidding sure is an action but bidding is not what "upsets" the players in these cases! If it were the players would be equally upset by the same bidding from opponents not having forgotten their system. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 9 22:41:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:41:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <4190CB70.2050201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c4c6ad$380351c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > David Stevenson wrote: ............ > Yes they are - because the "upsetting" comes after "remark, etc.". I'm lost!=20 Where does the word "upsetting" (or "upset(s)") occur in the laws (or in = WBF minutes) please? Sven From isbbv@swbell.net Tue Nov 9 22:39:50 2004 From: isbbv@swbell.net (Chrystal Wiseman) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:39:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phamracy X and V, and Everything else Message-ID: <200409230316.MAA02555@mail-hub.mtk.nao.ac.jp>

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 00:27:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:27:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. David Stevenson: >Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just >ignore evidence when making judgements - because that is all >the RoC is? RJH: I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. A coincidence is not evidence. Of course, David Stevenson does have a partially correct point of view. A coincidence may stimulate a TD to search for real evidence of a CPU. Furthermore, a pattern of repeated psuedo-coincidences is evidence. *But* the basis of the evidence is the *repeated pattern*, which demonstrates that alleged coincidences were actually pseudo-coincidences. A solitary coincidence cannot be evidence by itself. One swallow does not make a summer. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Boltonrlwa@lycos.de Wed Nov 10 00:22:00 2004 From: Boltonrlwa@lycos.de (Liza Wise) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:22:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] NT 4.0 Enterprise Server $40 Message-ID: UCLA Labs : Review results

After a thorough comparison of the various retailers,the Best 0ffer is : <= br>
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (150 d0IIar less)

Full Survey



memorandum harrowcloudy chadwick phloempot thug valveretrofit jibe andromachegraywacke intricate alfrescobillion deliverance deitydielectric isotope thallophytewearied flatworm confiscablenicety rationale suzeraintybestow From Holdernldhm@webnexus.com Wed Nov 10 00:29:08 2004 From: Holdernldhm@webnexus.com (Vicky Espinoza) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:29:08 -0200 Subject: [blml] hey -its done Message-ID:




unsubscribe



dredge inclosebanshee binghamton carminearlen hypoactive retardationbantam alimony carrotprivilege embryo deliciousdanzig divalent emittingbackwater rave promotesevern juneau brunettebarometer circa governore From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 01:26:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: <4pIxGFY5bMkBFw73@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: RJH erroneously asserted: >>Consequently, some EBU TDs misunderstand that real >>misbids may "deserve" a procedural penalty. This is >>despite the fact that the WBF Code of Practice (most >>of which has been adopted by the EBU) states the >>direct opposite. -> David Stevenson quibbled: >Your evidence for this very strange assertion? RJH corrected assertion: Consequently, one EBU TD falsely believes that a real misbid may cause a procedural penalty to be Lawfully applied to its author. This is despite the fact that the WBF Code of Practice (most of which has been adopted by the EBU) states the direct opposite. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 01:49:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:49:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <00ff01c4c66f$27dc1220$6a8787d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >Merely to forget system is no crime; to misdescribe >system to opponent, however, is a violation of law >whether or no it is the result of forgetting system. > ~ G ~ +=+ RJH: Point of clarification. Is Grattan's statement above merely Grattan's personal opinion? In that case David Stevenson may continue to propound meretricious arguments in favour of a TD having unlimited legal authority to impose PPs for misbids. Or is Grattan's statement a paraphrase of a decision by the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee? In that case David Stevenson would be wise to retract his invalidated arguments. Best wishes Richard James Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Burrhclri@webtrix.net Wed Nov 10 01:50:23 2004 From: Burrhclri@webtrix.net (Shelby Hinton) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:50:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] notice - movies will cost you your job Message-ID:




Remove



cyst hotrodbaby interlude vaporouscaliber belladonna laundermullion brillouin byrdflak coset bedevilcarolyn berglund northwesterndial infamy brushlikedamp emerald arraigngalatia booby toxincpu =20 From Mcgrathybxt@medscape.com Wed Nov 10 02:10:19 2004 From: Mcgrathybxt@medscape.com (Donny Bland) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:10:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] Are you desperate from your country? Come live in the USA! Message-ID:











acetylene corvettebuckshot yarrow cogitateisotopic huff tradeoffradiosonde windy capitolinearteriosclerosis mesh blackwellorchestra davy puckishmachinelike dry strabismusukrainian sol americanbeautiful depict decorgossamer =20 From Carrnfnny@mailvision.net Wed Nov 10 03:13:16 2004 From: Carrnfnny@mailvision.net (Hester Burr) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:13:16 -0100 Subject: [blml] pay les for Microshit 0ffice software Message-ID: magazine : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)

complete results



cigar handiworkcounterproductive afire cipherculpa esteem remanmartha work emplacedu hereditary genevawhere'd downward albeitgrasp wilshire volcanoemployer bestselling synthesiswildcatter benedikt sternpavanne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 03:42:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:42:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Should bridge be fun? Message-ID: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_crit.htm Grant Baze (November 18, 1996): [snip] Fourth, and first on my list of moronic rule changes and needless meddling, is the scoring change. Non-vulnerable doubled undertricks were 100 for the first trick and 200 for each additional trick for over 50 years. This allowed some very fun maneuvering. It also made for some great stories. I have played well over a million bridge hands. Three of my favorite hands happened because we were NV versus Vul and the old scoring rules were in effect. The first two happened at rubber bridge. One hand I held SQx Hxx Dxxxxxx Cxxx. The auction was 1S on my right, 3S (forcing) on my left, 4NT on my right, and I bid 6D. They bid 6S, lost an ace, and finessed into my spade queen (missing only four trumps) for down one. Another hand I held S10x H8xxx D6xxx C5xx. The auction was 2S (strong) on my right, a very happy 3S on my left, an even happier 4NT on my right, so I bid 5S. Double, redouble (don't ask me what redouble meant, ask John Sutherlin), 7S, all pass. So I lead a heart (fourth best from my longest and strongest), declarer decided I was void in spades, and finessed John for the J10xx. To my everlasting surprise, I scored the ten of spades. Those hands were fun. The third hand occurred against Lew Stansby. I bid 7S over 7H out of the blue (on J10xxx I think; ask Lew, he never forgets a hand). They bid 7NT and made it because my partner misdefended by throwing away his spades (I had to throw mine), but it was still fun. This kind of fun, and these types of stories, are legislated out of existence. This last hand brings me to an interesting story that Chris Compton told me. He claims the following hand is the reason for the scoring rule change (with the subsequent loss of the fun and the stories). Kaplan and Kay bid to 7H in an uncontested auction, and when it got back to Jeff Meckstroth he bid 7S on five to the 9 and a yarborough. Double, down 10, minus 1900, but Jeff won 7 IMP's and had a great story. Kaplan was so annoyed by this that he pushed through the scoring rule change. Now down 10 is minus 2600 and a loss of 10 IMP's, and the end of the world if the opponents were going down. I think this scoring change is one of the worst examples of the conservative mindset of the older generation flexing its political muscle and inflicting their perspective upon the rest of us. Where the hell do the lawmakers get off legislating the fun out of the game? The name of the game of bridge is fun. Reduce the fun, and you reduce a corresponding number of players. In particular, you reduce the number of young players, who do not need to play bridge as a social outlet, or to keep their minds sharp, or any of the other non-fun reasons the bridge bureaucrats might suggest is the reason we play. When I began to play bridge I thought it was more fun than anything else in life. I still think it is fun, but I know the game is not as much fun today as it was before all the rule changes. I know personally, as I am sure most of you do, a great many players who no longer play bridge, or play much less often, because they know the game is less fun. [snip] From Felix Jorgensen"

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Wed Nov 10 04:44:53 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:44:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20041110153214.02599e90@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> I know you all enjoy a good claim story. This is excerpted from the latest edition of the New South Wales Bridge Association Newsletter. ... Dealer West, EW Vul West East S A K J 10 5 S Q 9 6 2 H ----- H 10 8 4 2 D A 9 5 D K J 4 C K J 10 9 4 C A Q West bids to 7S on a heart lead, ruffed and claimed. Unfortunately, trumps are 4-0, nevertheless there is a 100% dummy reversal line. Otherwise you need to guess that South began with the Q 10 doubleton in diamonds. The claimer was a Sydney Grand Master (i.e. has finished the lessons ), and the story continues..The directors studied the hand and subsequently adjudicated that this declarer would be competent enough to find the dummy reversal line. Claim accepted. Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 04:52:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:52:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <004501c4c64c$adcd17d0$bd23c2cb@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: >Arh Richard - you haven't played with my partner much have you? > >How do you classify frequent misbids in many situations? > >[And we still do pretty ok really.] > >Should I alert just about every bid he makes? Or will that >merely lead to divorce? [snip] Richard Hills: Given that your partnership uses the ridiculously complicated Symmetric Relay system, your partner's misbids are usual and to be expected. But, the fact that you uniquely avoid misbids in Symmetric Relay is "special information conveyed ... through ... partnership experience" (Law 75C), so must be disclosed to the opponents. I suggest a Pre-Alert on your system card, which should state that, "Noel's bidding is ridiculously consistent with Noel's ridiculous Symmetric Relay system." :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 05:18:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:18:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20041110153214.02599e90@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >I know you all enjoy a good claim story. This is excerpted >from the latest edition of the New South Wales Bridge >Association Newsletter. > >... >Dealer West, EW Vul > >West East > >S A K J T 5 S Q 9 6 2 >H ----- H T 8 4 2 >D A 9 5 D K J 4 >C K J T 9 4 C A Q > >West bids to 7S on a heart lead, ruffed and claimed. > >Unfortunately, trumps are 4-0, nevertheless there is a >100% dummy reversal line. Otherwise you need to >guess that South began with the Q 10 doubleton in >diamonds. > >The claimer was a Sydney Grand Master (i.e. has finished >the lessons ), and the story continues..The directors >studied the hand and subsequently adjudicated that this >declarer would be competent enough to find the dummy >reversal line. Claim accepted. > >Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills: I hope that the WBF LC removes "class of player" from the 2006 claim rules. These are the three possible rulings that I would give under the 1997 claim rules. -> (a) If West was a bunny, I would rule one off (the bunny would draw trumps without dummy reversal). (b) If West was a mediocre player, I would rule 7S making (the mediocre player always assumes trumps break when claiming, but is capable of a dummy reversal once a bad break is revealed on the first round of trumps). (c) If West was a Grand Master, I would rule one off (a Grand Master is always paranoid about bad trump breaks, but sometimes claims 13 tricks on top when there are only 12 tricks on top). :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 10 07:33:18 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:33:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: Message-ID: <000d01c4c6f7$ad6f22a0$ec9387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > >Merely to forget system is no crime; to misdescribe > >system to opponent, however, is a violation of law > >whether or no it is the result of forgetting system. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > RJH: > > Point of clarification. > > Is Grattan's statement above merely Grattan's personal > opinion? > > In that case David Stevenson may continue to propound > meretricious arguments in favour of a TD having > unlimited legal authority to impose PPs for misbids. > > Or is Grattan's statement a paraphrase of a decision > by the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee? > > In that case David Stevenson would be wise to retract > his invalidated arguments. > +=+ I recall no WBF LC discussion of the point. Beyond this I merely consider the language of this law is unambiguous.and 'shall disclose' presents an unconditional requirement. I have not followed the thread so I do not know who has said what. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Nov 10 08:40:59 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:40:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Should bridge be fun? References: Message-ID: <004201c4c701$05ffc740$20f9f0c3@LNV> >From Grant Baze: > Kaplan and Kay bid to 7H in an uncontested auction, and > when it got back to Jeff Meckstroth he bid 7S on five to > the 9 and a yarborough. Double, down 10, minus 1900, but > Jeff won 7 IMP's and had a great story. Kaplan was so > annoyed by this that he pushed through the scoring rule > change. Now down 10 is minus 2600 and a loss of 10 IMP's, > and the end of the world if the opponents were going down. > > I think this scoring change is one of the worst examples > of the conservative mindset of the older generation > flexing its political muscle and inflicting their > perspective upon the rest of us. Where the hell do the > lawmakers get off legislating the fun out of the game? I certainly belong to that older generation and according to Grant possess a conservative mindset by default then. Still I understand that I have to listen to fair criticism. Could anyone please tell me what is fun about being able to bid an 'unseen' 7 spades on a yarborough with nine fifth in trumps, considering that bridge is supposed to be a mindsport? Minus twelve would have cost 3 ims! Ha ha ha. I consider this score change to be one of the best law changes in the last 30 years, idiot that I am. ton From Dickensqvj@ctinets.com Wed Nov 10 08:51:47 2004 From: Dickensqvj@ctinets.com (Dorothy Gillis) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:51:47 +0400 Subject: [blml] your son knows you watch dangerous videos Message-ID: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:50:47 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID:




Remove



newfound adducecrosslink waco apparentsymphony curfew handicraftholman instinctual decommissiondock divulge mercurydamp baccalaureate evolutionarycleat showmen won'talberich finance reptiliansec intrigue dormitoryjurassic =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 10 09:18:11 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:18:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20041110153214.02599e90@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20041110153214.02599e90@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <4191DCD3.1020403@hdw.be> I'm going to give my remarks without reading other answers yet. Tony Musgrove wrote: > I know you all enjoy a good claim story. This is excerpted > from the latest edition of the New South Wales Bridge > Association Newsletter. > > ... > Dealer West, EW Vul > > West East > > S A K J 10 5 S Q 9 6 2 > H ----- H 10 8 4 2 > D A 9 5 D K J 4 > C K J 10 9 4 C A Q > > West bids to 7S on a heart lead, ruffed and claimed. > Seems logical to me. > Unfortunately, trumps are 4-0, nevertheless there is a > 100% dummy reversal line. Otherwise you need to > guess that South began with the Q 10 doubleton in > diamonds. > > The claimer was a Sydney Grand Master (i.e. has finished > the lessons ), and the story continues..The directors > studied the hand and subsequently adjudicated that this > declarer would be competent enough to find the dummy > reversal line. Claim accepted. > There is one thing missing in this summary. It is not enough for declarer to be 100% competent in finding the winning line, this also has to happen after all possible starts before discovering the bad trump break. I would rule that it is merely careless to start drawing trumps at trick 2, and to start from either hand, and without unblocking. Then, when fourth hand shows out, declarer may begin thinking. If the line that he will be deemed to discover (if he is as good as Tony says) works now, from all possible starting positions, then the claim is good. I'm quite certain the TD considered those points, but they needed to be said in the summary as well - it is an important principle. > Tony (Sydney) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 10 09:22:52 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:22:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4191DDEC.7090107@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Tony Musgrove: > > >>I know you all enjoy a good claim story. This is excerpted > >>from the latest edition of the New South Wales Bridge > >>Association Newsletter. >> >>... >>Dealer West, EW Vul >> >>West East >> >>S A K J T 5 S Q 9 6 2 >>H ----- H T 8 4 2 >>D A 9 5 D K J 4 >>C K J T 9 4 C A Q >> >>West bids to 7S on a heart lead, ruffed and claimed. >> >>Unfortunately, trumps are 4-0, nevertheless there is a >>100% dummy reversal line. Otherwise you need to >>guess that South began with the Q 10 doubleton in >>diamonds. >> >>The claimer was a Sydney Grand Master (i.e. has finished >>the lessons ), and the story continues..The directors >>studied the hand and subsequently adjudicated that this >>declarer would be competent enough to find the dummy >>reversal line. Claim accepted. >> >>Tony (Sydney) > > > Richard Hills: > > I hope that the WBF LC removes "class of player" from the > 2006 claim rules. These are the three possible rulings > that I would give under the 1997 claim rules. -> > > (a) If West was a bunny, I would rule one off (the bunny > would draw trumps without dummy reversal). > > (b) If West was a mediocre player, I would rule 7S making > (the mediocre player always assumes trumps break when > claiming, but is capable of a dummy reversal once a bad > break is revealed on the first round of trumps). > > (c) If West was a Grand Master, I would rule one off (a > Grand Master is always paranoid about bad trump breaks, > but sometimes claims 13 tricks on top when there are > only 12 tricks on top). > > :-) > You are quite right, Richard. And those would be the correct rulings, not just under the present laws, but also under natural justice. Which brings me to my 2 questions to you Richard: 1) if the bunny deserves to go one off, and the mediocre player deserves the contract, then why should we get rid of the "class of player" rule in the laws 2) if you do get rid of the clause, which one is it - down or made? Are you not afraid that you will have cases where really 99.999% of players would be able to find the winning line, yet you need to rule one off because there might be some players who have had only 1 bridge lesson and they would not see it? I really don't see how laws that do not take the class of player into account can ever be good claim laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 10 09:36:17 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:36:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Should bridge be fun? In-Reply-To: <004201c4c701$05ffc740$20f9f0c3@LNV> References: <004201c4c701$05ffc740$20f9f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <4191E111.8050301@hdw.be> May I add my agreement to this post of Ton's? Ton Kooijman wrote: > I consider this score change to be one of the best law changes in the last > 30 years, idiot that I am. > So do I > ton -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 10 09:54:35 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:54:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4191DDEC.7090107@hdw.be> References: <4191DDEC.7090107@hdw.be> Message-ID: <870CBE10-32FE-11D9-9D05-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 10 Nov 2004, at 09:22, Herman De Wael wrote: > I really don't see how laws that do not take the class of player into > account can ever be good claim laws. > Laws that do not take the class of player into account would require players to make good claims. It doesn't seem to me bad law to penalise bad claims - whoever makes them. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Kelleyukdly@nstate.net Wed Nov 10 10:15:48 2004 From: Kelleyukdly@nstate.net (Luciano Gill) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:15:48 +0500 Subject: [blml] medical essay : cheap vicodin Message-ID: Chronic Pain - = new article



no more
country steadfastzellerbach serge wallydelude bearberry descriptorbiometrika douse doltnostalgia piggyback giffordnm heroes blotnorthumberland explosive sprocketcarol mellon behalfcompetition clump ceasearsenic applaud cereusbordeaux eastward maledictupbeat ceq genitalbaltimorean From Frenchdmswx@ccnt.com.cn Wed Nov 10 10:12:26 2004 From: Frenchdmswx@ccnt.com.cn (Evan Dugan) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:12:26 -0100 Subject: [blml] medical essay : take control of your painfull troubles Message-ID: Newsweek Medical : Chronic Pain solutions
comparison
=


no more
shalom laminarella delirium neuropsychiatrictonight grainy orthodonticbuchenwald languid airflowcatawba mae doughnutlaredo thermostat dnadowling enliven oleanderexothermic effort pygmalionaccord jumbo certifiedcanister bondage tropopauseshock testimony declarationcafe ne gregoryboo From Wellsjts@bprince.com Wed Nov 10 10:54:57 2004 From: Wellsjts@bprince.com (Kenneth Luna) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:54:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] nerve test next tuesday Message-ID: Newsweek Medical : Are you in Pain?
comparison finalist= s



no more
puppy transmissibletask lodestone peachbuena succession extremumangela repelled aubreyboustrophedon sanguine brecciarichfield chicanery dcstatistician extolling lexicongilchrist cube cribdomain comatose cokescan conspiratorial comameiosis it'd liggetdelicacy bayreuth cahillfealty From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 10 12:10:52 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:10:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <870CBE10-32FE-11D9-9D05-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <4191DDEC.7090107@hdw.be> <870CBE10-32FE-11D9-9D05-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <4192054C.60402@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2004, at 09:22, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I really don't see how laws that do not take the class of player into >> account can ever be good claim laws. >> > Laws that do not take the class of player into account would require > players to make good claims. It doesn't seem to me bad law to penalise > bad claims - whoever makes them. > I agree Gordon, but what are bad claims? Is this case from Australia such a bad claim? Well, maybe it is. But I am certain that in the recent past you yourself have made a "bad" claim. Something which you thought was totally obvious, yet would have baffled a mere beginner. How whould you have liked it if that claim would have been ruled against you on the basis of nothing more than "yes, I know what you meant, but what you said might be misconstrued by a beginner, so I am ruling against you". Before you go making statements such as the one above - please define what you mean by "bad claims". > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 10 15:20:03 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:20:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4192054C.60402@hdw.be> References: <4191DDEC.7090107@hdw.be> <870CBE10-32FE-11D9-9D05-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <4192054C.60402@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 10 Nov 2004, at 12:10, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On 10 Nov 2004, at 09:22, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> I really don't see how laws that do not take the class of player >>> into account can ever be good claim laws. >>> >> Laws that do not take the class of player into account would require >> players to make good claims. It doesn't seem to me bad law to >> penalise bad claims - whoever makes them. > > I agree Gordon, but what are bad claims? Those that fail to take account of possible situations/distributions. I understand that the current tendency is to allow claims when we believe that the claimer understood the position, but imperfectly expressed the claim. Personally I think the mind-reading required by this approach introduces unwelcome randomness into the procedure, though of course I'll follow it for as long as I'm required. > Is this case from Australia such a bad claim? Well, maybe it is. > But I am certain that in the recent past you yourself have made a > "bad" claim. When I have, I've expected to be ruled against. Having read your posts here, Herman, that expectation would be weaker if you were the TD, since you appear to bend over backwards to be generous to the offending claimers :) > Something which you thought was totally obvious, yet would have > baffled a mere beginner. Whether or not it baffles a beginner is not the point: the question is whether or not the stands up logically. I would have thought that even those who support "class of player" standards in claims cases would have intended the standard to attach to the claimer, not to their opponents. Of course it's silly to claim on a double-squeeze against weak opponents (as one of my partners once did) because it ends up wasting time. But it doesn't necessarily make it a "bad" claim in the sense of one which should be disallowed. > How whould you have liked it if that claim would have been ruled > against you on the basis of nothing more than "yes, I know what you > meant, but what you said might be misconstrued by a beginner, so I am > ruling against you". I haven't yet seen an argument here, or anywhere else, for a standard based on "what might be misconstrued by a beginner". -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Nov 10 15:26:53 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:26:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Should bridge be fun? In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Nov 10, 2004 02:42:29 PM Message-ID: <200411101526.iAAFQrQo002198@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > I think this scoring change is one of the worst examples > of the conservative mindset of the older generation > flexing its political muscle and inflicting their > perspective upon the rest of us. Strange. I'm a relatively young player. I talked with a fair number of younger players about the scoring change when it happened. Never heard any discontent. Never heard it from older ones either. Which doesn't mean it didn't happen. > Where the hell do the lawmakers get off legislating > the fun out of the game? And where does Grant Baze get off telling others what's fun? Fun for most players is a nice auction to a making grand. Grant's whinge reminds me what Machiavelli had to say about change (can be summarized as "change is bad" to an awful lot of people. "It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new one." From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 10 16:51:12 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:51:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] Should bridge be fun? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:42:29 +1100." Message-ID: <200411101651.IAA29922@mailhub.irvine.com> > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_crit.htm > > Grant Baze (November 18, 1996): > > [snip] > > Fourth, and first on my list of moronic rule changes and > needless meddling, is the scoring change. Non-vulnerable > doubled undertricks were 100 for the first trick and 200 > for each additional trick for over 50 years. This allowed > some very fun maneuvering. It also made for some great > stories. > > I have played well over a million bridge hands. Three of > my favorite hands happened because we were NV versus Vul > and the old scoring rules were in effect. The first two > happened at rubber bridge. One hand I held SQx Hxx > Dxxxxxx Cxxx. The auction was 1S on my right, 3S > (forcing) on my left, 4NT on my right, and I bid 6D. > They bid 6S, lost an ace, and finessed into my spade > queen (missing only four trumps) for down one. I had a rather similar experience in my younger playing days, before the scoring change (not that I'm all that old---I'm only 43). We were favorable. 1S on my right, 3S (forcing) on my left, 4NT on my right, and for some reason I decided to bid 5C on six to the jack and not much else. This didn't deter them from getting to their normal 6S. After it went pass, pass, partner thought for a little while and finally emerged with 7C, on ace-fourth and little else, and a doubleton somewhere. *Every* other line on the traveler was 6S, making 6, 1430; ours was 7C*, down 7, 1300. (I was able to ruff something in dummy for our sixth trick.) That hand was fun. So did the scoring change make the game less fun for me? No. Not even close. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 10 17:10:46 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:10:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:44:53 +1100." <6.1.0.6.2.20041110153214.02599e90@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <200411101710.JAA30052@mailhub.irvine.com> > Return-Path: > Received: from larry.irvine.com (larry.irvine.com [192.160.8.64]) > by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA25927 > for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:51:15 -0800 > Received: by larry.irvine.com (Postfix, from userid 0) > id C15C71ABFB; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:51:16 -0800 (PST) > Received: from toybox.amsterdamned.org (toybox.amsterdamned.org [193.0.0.161]) > by larry.irvine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2E11ABF5 > for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:51:16 -0800 (PST) > Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=toybox.amsterdamned.org) > by toybox.amsterdamned.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 1CRkMy-0006ZN-00; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:46:08 +0100 > Received: from exim by toybox.amsterdamned.org with spam-scanned (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 1CRkMh-0006XQ-00 > for blml@rtflb.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:45:55 +0100 > Received: from gizmo01bw.bigpond.com ([144.140.70.11]) > by toybox.amsterdamned.org with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 1CRkMh-0006Ww-00 > for blml@rtflb.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:45:51 +0100 > Received: (qmail 20232 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 04:45:11 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO bwmam02.bigpond.com) (144.135.24.72) > by gizmo01bw.bigpond.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 04:45:11 -0000 > Received: from cpe-203-51-15-234.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([203.51.15.234]) by bwmam02.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_4_2a 17/2712750) with SMTP id 2712750; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:45:11 +1000 > Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.2.20041110153214.02599e90@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> > X-Sender: ardelm@bigpond.net.au@pop-server.bigpond.net.au (Unverified) > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6 > To: blml@rtflb.org > From: Tony Musgrove > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 > tests=BAYES_01,RCVD_IN_ORBS,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM > version=2.53 > X-Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) > Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story > Sender: blml-admin@rtflb.org > Errors-To: blml-admin@rtflb.org > X-BeenThere: blml@rtflb.org > X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 > Precedence: bulk > List-Help: > List-Post: > List-Subscribe: , > > List-Id: Bridge Laws Mailing List > List-Unsubscribe: , > > List-Archive: > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:44:53 +1100 > X-UIDL: TRFe9"Fid9b(C!![o6e9 > > I know you all enjoy a good claim story. This is excerpted > from the latest edition of the New South Wales Bridge > Association Newsletter. > > ... > Dealer West, EW Vul > > West East > > S A K J 10 5 S Q 9 6 2 > H ----- H 10 8 4 2 > D A 9 5 D K J 4 > C K J 10 9 4 C A Q > > West bids to 7S on a heart lead, ruffed and claimed. > > Unfortunately, trumps are 4-0, nevertheless there is a > 100% dummy reversal line. Otherwise you need to > guess that South began with the Q 10 doubleton in > diamonds. How can there be a 100% dummy reversal line? You'll need to get to dummy several times to ruff hearts, before trumps are drawn, and there's a chance that any of those tricks could be ruffed. I'll grant that the percentage of the dummy reversal line working is high enough that a good player will choose that line over the alternatives. Still, I'm not comfortable with the idea that the Laws should be used like this to bail out a player who makes such a silly error as claiming in this position. Some time ago, I did some thinking about how the claim Laws could be rewritten to determine objectively whether a claim is accepted without having to resort to "this player is good enough to find the right line" sort of thinking; in a way that a bad claim would be accepted only in very simple cases (e.g. you claim a suit will run with AKx opposite QTxxxx, and the suit proves to break 4-0 in front of the length), but not in cases like this. It's quite difficult, but cases like this make me think it would be worth the effort. -- Adam From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 10 17:46:08 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:46:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: References: <4191DDEC.7090107@hdw.be> <870CBE10-32FE-11D9-9D05-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <4192054C.60402@hdw.be> Message-ID: <419253E0.2060702@hdw.be> Hello Gordon, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2004, at 12:10, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>> On 10 Nov 2004, at 09:22, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> I really don't see how laws that do not take the class of player >>>> into account can ever be good claim laws. >>>> >>> Laws that do not take the class of player into account would require >>> players to make good claims. It doesn't seem to me bad law to >>> penalise bad claims - whoever makes them. >> >> >> I agree Gordon, but what are bad claims? > > > Those that fail to take account of possible situations/distributions. > No Gordon, those are faulty claims - I rule against those as well. > I understand that the current tendency is to allow claims when we > believe that the claimer understood the position, but imperfectly > expressed the claim. Personally I think the mind-reading required by > this approach introduces unwelcome randomness into the procedure, though > of course I'll follow it for as long as I'm required. > No Gordon, absolutely not. We allow claims when we believe that claimer would reach his intended number of tricks. >> Is this case from Australia such a bad claim? Well, maybe it is. >> But I am certain that in the recent past you yourself have made a >> "bad" claim. > > > When I have, I've expected to be ruled against. Having read your posts > here, Herman, that expectation would be weaker if you were the TD, since > you appear to bend over backwards to be generous to the offending > claimers :) > No Gordon, I don't bend over backwards. I am extremely harsh on claims. But blml tends to over-represent "difficult" claim cases. Cases where your first instinct is to rule against, and then you notice that it is very close to 100%. If I seem more lenient than others, it's because I don't believe the claim laws are there to even punish the 100% cases. Some of you do that. >> Something which you thought was totally obvious, yet would have >> baffled a mere beginner. > > > Whether or not it baffles a beginner is not the point: the question is > whether or not the stands up logically. > But logically according to whose standards? The double squeeze was logical according to world level standards. OK, so you don't want to be judged by Gordon Rainsford's standards, by whose then? There is no "logically" in bridge. What is logical to you may not be so logical to the very beginner. AKxxx opposite QJT9 - 5 tricks, yes? > I would have thought that even those who support "class of player" > standards in claims cases would have intended the standard to attach to > the claimer, not to their opponents. > I was not talking of your opponent, I was talking of a hypothetical beginner. > Of course it's silly to claim on a double-squeeze against weak opponents > (as one of my partners once did) because it ends up wasting time. But it > doesn't necessarily make it a "bad" claim in the sense of one which > should be disallowed. > >> How whould you have liked it if that claim would have been ruled >> against you on the basis of nothing more than "yes, I know what you >> meant, but what you said might be misconstrued by a beginner, so I am >> ruling against you". > > > I haven't yet seen an argument here, or anywhere else, for a standard > based on "what might be misconstrued by a beginner". > But you are the one advocating a common playing level - what playing level should that be then - world class? or beginner? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Wed Nov 10 17:54:26 2004 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:54:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Should bridge be fun? In-Reply-To: <200411101651.IAA29922@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20041110185426.01267210@ip-worldcom.ch> At 08:51 10/11/2004 -0800, Adam wrote: >I had a rather similar experience in my younger playing days, before >the scoring change (not that I'm all that old---I'm only 43). We were >favorable. 1S on my right, 3S (forcing) on my left, 4NT on my right, >and for some reason I decided to bid 5C on six to the jack and not >much else. This didn't deter them from getting to their normal 6S. >After it went pass, pass, partner thought for a little while and >finally emerged with 7C, on ace-fourth and little else, and a >doubleton somewhere. *Every* other line on the traveler was 6S, >making 6, 1430; ours was 7C*, down 7, 1300. (I was able to ruff >something in dummy for our sixth trick.) That hand was fun. I had a rather similar experience in my younger playing days, before the scoring change (not that I'm all that old---I'm only 41). They were favorable. 1S by me, 3S (forcing) partner, 4NT by me, and for some reason opps decided to bid 5C on six to the jack and not much else. This didn't deter us from getting to our normal 6S. After it went pass, pass, opps thought for a little while and finally emerged with 7C, on ace-fourth and little else, and a doubleton somewhere. *Every* other line on the traveler was 6S, making 6, 1430; our was 7C*, down 7, 1300. (he was able to ruff something in dummy for his sixth trick.) That hand was not fun. So did the scoring change make the game less fun for me? yvan From Biggstlgw@compuvar.com Wed Nov 10 18:42:05 2004 From: Biggstlgw@compuvar.com (Rico Quick) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:42:05 +0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Official US Goverment Program Message-ID:











lapse backscatterwage shinbone appeasablelipread charlemagne decadegrateful braggart ethnographyfirelight chenille blurrycomport coast deservebuilt serve cauldroncelebes roulette hypoactivefake genital syringecircumscription =20 From Driverjglb@smapxsmap.net Wed Nov 10 18:53:32 2004 From: Driverjglb@smapxsmap.net (Driverjglb@smapxsmap.net) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:53:32 -0100 Subject: [blml] im fed up of my gums problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID:




unsubscribe



huber rollickconsumptive competitive devourmuseum digestive milestoneepitaxy automaton absencedefensive bug merrimackhire interdict gnomoncomplete calendar tombstonebrowse cyclades benderhobart snuffle allegiantpluton =20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 10 19:51:09 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:51:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4192054C.60402@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Nov 10, 2004, at 07:10 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I agree Gordon, but what are bad claims? I had the same question. I have an answer I like, though I don't know that anyone will agree. :-) A bad claim is one which does not conform to Law 68C. IOW, one in which claimer does not make a complete and clear line of play statement. In fact, now I think on it, perhaps that law should be changed to read "A claim *shall* be accompanied at once..." A claim which conforms to law 68C, but which turns out not to work, is not a "bad" claim, it's an erroneous claim. Such claims should not be penalized, merely adjudicated "as equitably as possible to both sides" IAW Law 70A. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 10 19:58:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:58:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <419253E0.2060702@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Nov 10, 2004, at 12:46 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > There is no "logically" in bridge. What is logical to you may not be > so logical to the very beginner. I disagree. "Logical" means "in accordance with the principles of the science of the formal principles of reasoning". If an argument or line of play is "logical", then, that is independent of whether any particular person perceives it as being so. And there certainly *is* a "logically" in bridge. The game is founded on it. From Womackrda@channelnewsasia.com Wed Nov 10 21:02:37 2004 From: Womackrda@channelnewsasia.com (Ken Sheldon) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:02:37 +0500 Subject: [blml] interesting report : movies lead to divorce Message-ID:




Remove



culpa capacitorintimacy carlin eavesdropperpotomac wipe deferentredshank preponderate carlyleflush socrates carolatonal innuendo regrettedemcee platoon salernocasserole antiphonal citizenryrevere cover buryosteoporosis =20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 21:45:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:45:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >You make it illegal or whatever under L40D, and >then upsetting opponents under L74A2 is not >acceptable. Richard Hills: Yes, a sponsoring organisation might use Law 40D to conditionally restrict the use of a particular convention, by regulating that that convention was an illegal convention if and only if that convention was misbid. If so, a PP for a misbid of that particular convention would be based on Law 40D, so using Law 74A2 as well would be superfluously tautological. However..... I thought that David's original argument was that Law 74A2 gave a TD unlimited power to penalise *any* misbid. Is David now slip- sliding away from his original argument, and now merely proposing that a TD has a restricted power to penalise a particular misbid of a particular convention that the TD's SO has placed a particular restriction upon? Or is David arguing that since an SO *might* restrict any convention under Law 40D, a TD has unlimited power to PP the misbid of any convention under Law 74A2, even if the SO has not yet bothered to exercise such a Law 40D restriction? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Bridgesvzxwj@crosswinds.net Wed Nov 10 21:50:25 2004 From: Bridgesvzxwj@crosswinds.net (Crystal Dudley) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:50:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] block your husband's snooping Message-ID: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:47:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: scan your computer for mali= cious viruses and spyware




cereus granteeborough honoraria midbandprelude cannery complicitythieves c= hamp votarywholesome over carnegieachromatic codebreakgraywackecrevice ken= sington giuseppecastanetward baudsedge citrate adsorbatenina From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 10 22:00:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:00:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <001501c4c68c$633b7aa0$0701010a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows asserted: >Forgetting one's system is not an "offence". Richard Hills devil's advocate: The Law 90 word "offence" is not defined in Chapter One of the Laws. Therefore, at least one blmler has argued that an offence can be whatever the TD deems to be offensive. Since many players are offended by misbids from their partners, a misbid is ipso facto an offence. :-( I hope that the undefined word "offence" is deleted from the 2006 Laws. Alternatively, the 2006 Laws could provide a sensible definition for the word "offence" in the 2006 Chapter One, such as -> "Offence - An irregularity which has been committed by an offending side (see Irregularity)." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Stinsonaovlb@free.net.nz Wed Nov 10 21:58:57 2004 From: Stinsonaovlb@free.net.nz (Antwan Richey) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:58:57 -0300 Subject: [blml] the super remedy! Message-ID: <20041110220816.31DC5B2F@rhubarb.custard.org> Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:57:57 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID:




unsubscribe



gibbons gyrocompassoilman furrow tanninviola corvette abridgepoll mao standishartistry polaris delilahconnecticut bedimming adducedensitometer itinerant dollyinstigate cliffhang astrologyferromagnetic thrum stocktondiscriminant =20 From zvzds@swbell.net Wed Nov 10 22:39:19 2004 From: zvzds@swbell.net (Katina Horton) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:39:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] Phamracy X and V, and Everything else Message-ID: <1.47.3.54.0.73.7.94.1098941060206.JavaMail.root@ws11.chartertn.net.com>

 

 

 

 

 

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

Vi!sit our Site and Sa!ve Big


removemeplease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 11 00:06:41 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:06:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] Should bridge be fun? References: <200411101526.iAAFQrQo002198@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <004701c4c782$5401da60$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > > Grant's whinge reminds me what Machiavelli had to say > about change (can be summarized as "change is bad" to an > awful lot of people. > > "It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult > to plan, more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to > manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator > has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the > old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those > who would gain by the new one." > As was the case with bidding boxes, Alerts, and Stop Cards in ACBL-land. Wirt Gilliam, the new proprietor of San Diego's only major bridge club, has fairly large games on some afternoons. The majority of those sitting N-S are "regulars" who want to sit in that direction, while E-W are mainly newcomers and the inexperienced. He runs one-winner Mitchells (now there's an oxymoron), and decided to switch the arrow on the last two rounds in order to balance out somewhat the strengths of the two fields. However, with arrow switches practically unknown now in ACBL-land (although they were once common in one-session championships), the result was a torrent of complaints. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml@blakjak.com Wed Nov 10 23:33:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:33:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <001501c4c68c$633b7aa0$0701010a@Desktop> References: <0$CSjXVJDZiBFwbE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001501c4c68c$633b7aa0$0701010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: Thursday, 4 November 2004 3:16 p.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Cc: Matthew McManus >> Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" >> >> >> I believe this to be an unfortunate reading of the Laws. >> Yes, giving >> PPs for occasional errors is "not appropriate" as he says in >> his first >> paragraph. But I do not think it is illegal. >> >> If a player were to foul a board it is legal to give him a PP. To >> give him a PP of 222 imps is wildly inappropriate, but it is not >> illegal. I think we should be aware of the difference. >> > >This is plain wrong. Procedural penalties are given when there has >been an "offence". Forgetting ones system is not an "offence". > >"LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES >A. Director's Authority >The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these >Laws, may also assess penalties for any ***offence*** that unduly delays >or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct >procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." > >The emphasis is mine. Fouling a board is an ***offence***. The emphasis is mine. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 10 23:35:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:35:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000301c4c6ab$50bc4700$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c4c6ab$50bc4700$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> Under L40D, an SO can make it an inappropriate action >> not to know their system. > >L40D doesn't give such power to SO? > >(And even if it did SO cannot define something that definitely is not an >action to be an action). > >The way I understand the power given to SO in Law 40D the SO may regulate >the *use* of bidding or play *conventions*; i.e. SO may forbid certain such >conventions from being used in their tournaments. Alternatively, they can allow the use of conventions subject to certain other rules. That is the *use* of bidding conventions. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 10 23:37:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:37:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <001d01c4c68e$22635f50$0701010a@Desktop> References: <5UTh5bXMtiiBFwos@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001d01c4c68e$22635f50$0701010a@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Sent: Friday, 5 November 2004 2:15 a.m. >> To: blml@rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > >> The argument for PPs for not knowing system is breaches of >> L74A2. Now >> while we are agreed that it may be inappropriate to give a PP in such >> circumstances it is not illegal. > >This is ridiculous. > >Oh maybe not. When my opponents successfully bid and make 7NT I >should call the director and claim that I am annoyed and that they >should have avoided bidding 7NT because they knew it would annoy >me when it made. > >I repeat it is ridiculous that a player can be annoyed at the >opponents bridge result and be entitled to redress. One is simply >not entitled to redress because the opponents make a mistake. Redress? Who is talking about redress? The question is whether a penalty, whether appropriate or not, is legal. Of course it is not suitable to penalise someone for a good result per se: he has to have done something wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Nov 10 23:39:40 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:39:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >>You make it illegal or whatever under L40D, and >>then upsetting opponents under L74A2 is not >>acceptable. > >Richard Hills: > >Yes, a sponsoring organisation might use Law 40D >to conditionally restrict the use of a particular >convention, by regulating that that convention >was an illegal convention if and only if that >convention was misbid. > >If so, a PP for a misbid of that particular >convention would be based on Law 40D, so using >Law 74A2 as well would be superfluously >tautological. > >However..... > >I thought that David's original argument was >that Law 74A2 gave a TD unlimited power to >penalise *any* misbid. Is David now slip- >sliding away from his original argument, and >now merely proposing that a TD has a restricted >power to penalise a particular misbid of a >particular convention that the TD's SO has >placed a particular restriction upon? > >Or is David arguing that since an SO *might* >restrict any convention under Law 40D, a TD has >unlimited power to PP the misbid of any >convention under Law 74A2, even if the SO has >not yet bothered to exercise such a Law 40D >restriction? I never said any of the above. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 10 23:41:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:41:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >John (MadDog) Probst: > >>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. > >David Stevenson: > >>Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just >>ignore evidence when making judgements - because that is all >>the RoC is? > >RJH: > >I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is a logical >fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. A coincidence >is not evidence. > >Of course, David Stevenson does have a partially correct point >of view. A coincidence may stimulate a TD to search for real >evidence of a CPU. > >Furthermore, a pattern of repeated psuedo-coincidences is >evidence. *But* the basis of the evidence is the *repeated >pattern*, which demonstrates that alleged coincidences were >actually pseudo-coincidences. > >A solitary coincidence cannot be evidence by itself. One >swallow does not make a summer. Of course a solitary coincidence is evidence. Whether it is compelling evidence, adequate evidence, or anything else is a different 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 Wed Nov 10 23:42:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:42:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 when the correction is likely to damage defenders? In-Reply-To: References: <4pIxGFY5bMkBFw73@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >RJH erroneously asserted: > >>>Consequently, some EBU TDs misunderstand that real >>>misbids may "deserve" a procedural penalty. This is >>>despite the fact that the WBF Code of Practice (most >>>of which has been adopted by the EBU) states the >>>direct opposite. -> > >David Stevenson quibbled: > >>Your evidence for this very strange assertion? > >RJH corrected assertion: > >Consequently, one EBU TD falsely believes that a real >misbid may cause a procedural penalty to be Lawfully >applied to its author. Which EBU TD, and what on earth are you talking about? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 10 23:55:58 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:55:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4c780$d32587d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >> David Stevenson > >............. > >> Under L40D, an SO can make it an inappropriate action > >> not to know their system. > > > >L40D doesn't give such power to SO? > > > >(And even if it did SO cannot define something that definitely is not = an > >action to be an action). > > > >The way I understand the power given to SO in Law 40D the SO may = regulate > >the *use* of bidding or play *conventions*; i.e. SO may forbid = certain > such > >conventions from being used in their tournaments. >=20 > Alternatively, they can allow the use of conventions subject to > certain other rules. That is the *use* of bidding conventions. Trying to keep this discussion within relevant matters: Are you aware of any SO (anywhere in the world) that has issued a = regulation permitting the use of a convention on the condition that the user never "gets his system wrong"? Only if such a regulation had been issued there would be any foundation = for issuing a PP against a player "who got his system wrong" and only if the affected call was part of such a particular convention. I honestly believe we are far beyond any reality here so perhaps we may return to the real world? Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 11 00:02:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 01:02:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c4c781$c3266b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .......... > >"LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES > >A. Director's Authority > >The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of = these > >Laws, may also assess penalties for any ***offence*** that unduly = delays > >or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates = correct > >procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another = table." > > > >The emphasis is mine. >=20 > Fouling a board is an ***offence***. >=20 > The emphasis is mine. Yes I can see that, but it would be far more interesting to know on what basis you consider forgetting a system to be an offence. (And please = notice that I am saying "forgetting a system" which this thread is all about, = not "giving an incorrect explanation") Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 10 22:52:45 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:52:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: Message-ID: <000401c4c783$f3ad7190$bc9087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > "Offence - An irregularity which has been committed > by an offending side (see Irregularity)." > +=+ Why not just 'offence' = a violation of law or regulation. ? ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 00:55:53 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:55:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000401c4c783$f3ad7190$bc9087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Why not just 'offence' = a violation of law or >regulation. >? ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Currently, an obtuse TD can apply a PP to a misbid on the grounds that the opponents feel offended. Grattan's definition would solve that problem, but an obtuse TD could then apply a PP to a misbid on the grounds that the opponents feel violated. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 01:19:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:19:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [snip] David Stevenson caveated: >I never said any of the above. Richard Hills seeks clarification: Assume that a TD has applied a PP to a player because that player misbid. Assume further that David Stevenson was the CTD to that TD. Under what circumstances would CTD David Stevenson rule that the TD's PP for a misbid was an error in Law? Under what circumstances would CTD David Stevenson rule that the TD's PP for a misbid was Lawful, but inappropriate? Under what circumstances would CTD David Stevenson rule that the TD's PP for a misbid was both Lawful and also appropriate? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From Mcclendonuqt@imaginemail.com Thu Nov 11 01:40:03 2004 From: Mcclendonuqt@imaginemail.com (Mcclendonuqt@imaginemail.com) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:40:03 +0300 Subject: [blml] New virus defenitions - november 14th In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: magazine : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)

complete results



wiretap aaasupernatant veridic abhorrentroughneck sometime slackendiscipline diophantine covariatealma cosmology dumaternity lockstep supplicatebegonia checkout tieddeprivation tide ceteraelton upright abdicatevet From schoderb@msn.com Thu Nov 11 01:42:50 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:42:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: Message-ID: Oh come on now. Putting David in the position you have is grossly unfair. When has it happened? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > > > > [snip] > > David Stevenson caveated: > > >I never said any of the above. > > Richard Hills seeks clarification: > > Assume that a TD has applied a PP to > a player because that player misbid. > > Assume further that David Stevenson > was the CTD to that TD. > > Under what circumstances would CTD > David Stevenson rule that the TD's > PP for a misbid was an error in Law? > > Under what circumstances would CTD > David Stevenson rule that the TD's > PP for a misbid was Lawful, but > inappropriate? > > Under what circumstances would CTD > David Stevenson rule that the TD's > PP for a misbid was both Lawful and > also appropriate? > > > Best wishes > > Richard 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 Thu Nov 11 03:08:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:08:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <001601c4c68d$4edb4da0$0701010a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >L75B deals with creating implicit understandings >via departures from one's system. The language >used in that law is different than what Richard >uses above. Law 75B states that an implicit >understanding *may* be created. This leaves >open the real possibility that repeated violations >in some circumstances do not create any such >implicit understanding. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the word "may" in the Law 75B phrase, "...but habitual violations within a partnership *may* create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed...", has been officially defined by the WBF in its Code of Practice. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: >>...action has occurred in the partnership on >>several occasions in the past, and not so long >>ago that the memory of the actions has faded in >>the partner's mind - habit is to be identified >>when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be >>anticipated Richard Hills: In my opinion, whether or not an implicit agreement "may" be created is dependent on whether or not partner "may" have a mind which can remember the history of previous departures from the notionally agreed system. I am notorious for winning at Trivial Pursuit, so I have more implicit agreements than most. Indeed, last night I accurately informed the opponents that partner notionally held a 4-6-1-2 shape, but implicitly held an entirely different shape. This was due to my unfaded memory of pard's slow bidding halfway through the auction when he reaches a horrifying realisation that he has made an earlier irretrievable relay error. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 03:24:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:24:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000501c4c6ad$380351c0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>Yes they are - because the "upsetting" comes >>after "remark, etc.". Sven Pran: >I'm lost! > >Where does the word "upsetting" (or "upset(s)") occur >in the laws (or in WBF minutes) please? Richard Hills: Herman was using the word "upsetting" as a synonym for the Law 74A2 phrase "annoyance or embarrassment"; a reasonable use of the English language. Unfortunately Herman's main point is not valid. Herman was arguing that a "call" does not neatly fit into the Law 74A2 category "remark or action". So, Herman was arguing that Law 74A2 cannot apply to any call, therefore cannot apply to any misbid. But the WBF LC has specifically ruled that a call of 7NT is an infraction of Law 74A2, if the TD deems that it was likely that the call of 7NT was an attempt to achieve a score of Ave+ provided as a Law 15C option. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 03:48:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:48:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4191DDEC.7090107@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: >Which brings me to my 2 questions to you Richard: >1) if the bunny deserves to go one off, and the mediocre player >deserves the contract, then why should we get rid of the "class of >player" rule in the laws >2) if you do get rid of the clause, which one is it - down or made? Richard Hills replies: Ahem, Herman, you may have missed my previous post's smiley. I was using irony to attack the "class of player" flaw in the 1997 claim Laws. 1) Many TDs currently use "class of player" to rule that a bunny must provide a claim statement, but a good player need not. I therefore provided an ironical reductio ad absurdum by unveiling a line of reasoning for which both the bunny and the good player needed to provide a claim statement, but the mediocre player need not. 2) *Any* player (grand master or otherwise) who carelessly claims a grand slam at trick one, without a statement, is in a careless frame of mind, and may have carelessly (not irrationally) failed to accurately count their top tricks. Therefore, my non-ironical real- life ruling under both the 1997 Laws and also the 2006 Laws would be to rule one down. I deem that any player could carelessly draw all the trumps immediately, then recount their top tricks, then be forced to take the losing diamond finesse Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 04:03:47 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:03:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <200411101710.JAA30052@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >Some time ago, I did some thinking about how the >claim Laws could be rewritten to determine >objectively whether a claim is accepted without >having to resort to "this player is good enough >to find the right line" sort of thinking; in a >way that a bad claim would be accepted only in >very simple cases (e.g. you claim a suit will >run with AKx opposite QTxxxx, and the suit >proves to break 4-0 in front of the length), but >not in cases like this. It's quite difficult, >but cases like this make me think it would be >worth the effort. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the claim Laws already specifically cater for AKx opposite QTxxxx with Jxxx onside. Law 70E - Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop): >>...or would subsequently fail to follow to that >>suit on any normal line of play... Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 04:19:17 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:19:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >A bad claim is one which does not conform to Law >68C. IOW, one in which claimer does not make a >complete and clear line of play statement. In >fact, now I think on it, perhaps that law should >be changed to read "A claim *shall* be >accompanied at once..." Richard Hills: The Scope and Interpretation states that ignoring the current Law 68C injunction, "A claim *should* be accompanied at once..." is already deemed to be an infraction. Changing the Law 68C word from "should" to "shall" would not affect the status of the infraction. According to The Scope and Interpretation, the only difference between "should" Laws and "shall" Laws, is that an infraction of a "should" Law seldom results in a procedural penalty, but an infraction of a "shall" Law results in a procedural penalty more often than not. In my opinion, a player who has had a debacle after their dodgy claim will already have learnt their lesson; they do not need salt rubbed into their wounds with an additional procedural penalty. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 04:30:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:30:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000001c4c780$d32587d0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >Are you aware of any SO (anywhere in the world) that >has issued a regulation permitting the use of a >convention on the condition that the user never "gets >his system wrong"? Richard Hills replies: My recollection from a previous thread is that The Netherlands has a special SO regulation which awards Ave+/Ave- after misbidding of the Ghestem convention. It is a moot point whether or not this regulation is legal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 11 08:21:22 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:21:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: Message-ID: <003201c4c7c7$a1fbf580$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > Sven Pran asked: > > >Are you aware of any SO (anywhere in the world) that > >has issued a regulation permitting the use of a > >convention on the condition that the user never "gets > >his system wrong"? > > Richard Hills replies: > > My recollection from a previous thread is that The > Netherlands has a special SO regulation which awards > Ave+/Ave- after misbidding of the Ghestem convention. > > It is a moot point whether or not this regulation is > legal. > +=+ Hi Richard, et al, Oh I do not think there is any doubt about power to raise such a regulation under Law 40D. Under this law what can be regulated is "the use of bidding or play conventions" (as I seem to remember pointing out sometime or other in a thread about prohibition of psyching conventions). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Nov 11 09:08:23 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:08:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: <003201c4c7c7$a1fbf580$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003301c4c7ce$03ab39c0$32e4f1c3@LNV> > > Richard Hills replies: > > > > My recollection from a previous thread is that The > > Netherlands has a special SO regulation which awards > > Ave+/Ave- after misbidding of the Ghestem convention. > > > > It is a moot point whether or not this regulation is > > legal. > > > +=+ Hi Richard, et al, > Oh I do not think there is any doubt about power > to raise such a regulation under Law 40D. Under this law > what can be regulated is "the use of bidding or play > conventions" (as I seem to remember pointing out > sometime or other in a thread about prohibition of > psyching conventions). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And I do remember that I then said that I don't think that L40 D gives this possibility to an SO. Let me give you the last sentence of L75B to explain why I think so: 'No player has the obligation to disclose an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation , they are not entitled to redress. ' You need a crooked SO to do what Grattan seems to call legal. When combining L40D and L75B the most that can be done is giving the misbidders there 40% and leave the damage to their opponents. But even then you need an ingenious and never meant interpretation of L40D. And therewith we are back at previous discussions. ton So it seems tobe a moot point for the moment. ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 11 09:22:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:22:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c4c7cf$ec19d490$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >I'm lost! > > > >Where does the word "upsetting" (or "upset(s)") occur > >in the laws (or in WBF minutes) please? > > Richard Hills: > > Herman was using the word "upsetting" as a synonym for > the Law 74A2 phrase "annoyance or embarrassment"; a > reasonable use of the English language. > > Unfortunately Herman's main point is not valid. > Herman was arguing that a "call" does not neatly fit > into the Law 74A2 category "remark or action". So, > Herman was arguing that Law 74A2 cannot apply to any > call, therefore cannot apply to any misbid. > > But the WBF LC has specifically ruled that a call of > 7NT is an infraction of Law 74A2, if the TD deems that > it was likely that the call of 7NT was an attempt to > achieve a score of Ave+ provided as a Law 15C option. OK, thanks. Back to square one: I still maintain that while making a call indeed is an action, what a player knows or doesn't know is not an action it is a state. And also that it takes more than a player becoming "upset" for the Director to apply Law 74A2, the player must become upset by an unlawful action from another player (including his partner!). Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 11 09:40:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:40:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000001c4c780$d32587d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c4c780$d32587d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41933394.9070601@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Trying to keep this discussion within relevant matters: > > Are you aware of any SO (anywhere in the world) that has issued a regulation > permitting the use of a convention on the condition that the user never > "gets his system wrong"? > Yes, the Dutch federation concerning Ghestem. Perhaps muy dutch colleagues van shed some light on the legalities, but it is a fact that Ghestem mistakes in the Netherlands are always treated as MI, not misbid. > Only if such a regulation had been issued there would be any foundation for > issuing a PP against a player "who got his system wrong" and only if the > affected call was part of such a particular convention. > > I honestly believe we are far beyond any reality here so perhaps we may > return to the real world? > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 11 09:46:13 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:46:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <419334E5.5060707@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>>Yes they are - because the "upsetting" comes >>>after "remark, etc.". > > > Sven Pran: > > >>I'm lost! >> >>Where does the word "upsetting" (or "upset(s)") occur >>in the laws (or in WBF minutes) please? > > > Richard Hills: > > Herman was using the word "upsetting" as a synonym for > the Law 74A2 phrase "annoyance or embarrassment"; a > reasonable use of the English language. > Thank you Richard. I failed to check if the previous writer who had used the word "upset" had checked in the Lawbook. > Unfortunately Herman's main point is not valid. > Herman was arguing that a "call" does not neatly fit > into the Law 74A2 category "remark or action". So, > Herman was arguing that Law 74A2 cannot apply to any > call, therefore cannot apply to any misbid. > No, Herman was not argueing that. Herman was argueing that if "forgetting" falls within the category of "remark or action", then so must several other things that are within the laws of bridge. > But the WBF LC has specifically ruled that a call of > 7NT is an infraction of Law 74A2, if the TD deems that > it was likely that the call of 7NT was an attempt to > achieve a score of Ave+ provided as a Law 15C option. > Did they specifically call to L74A2? Strange. But in any case, the "action" then is not the one of bidding 7NT, but the one of deliberately rendering the board unplayable. That action has been rendered an offence, and as such, it is an offence which causes upset. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 11 09:50:57 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:50:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41933601.1020008@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Nov 10, 2004, at 12:46 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> There is no "logically" in bridge. What is logical to you may not be >> so logical to the very beginner. > > > I disagree. "Logical" means "in accordance with the principles of the > science of the formal principles of reasoning". If an argument or line > of play is "logical", then, that is independent of whether any > particular person perceives it as being so. > By that definition, a double squeeze is logical. You may think it is logical to make five tricks from AKxxx - QJT9, but there are thousands upon thousands of players who got that one wrong the first time they encountered it. When trying to use global standards, you are bound to run into difficulaties. > And there certainly *is* a "logically" in bridge. The game is founded on > it. > Tell that to half the field in your next tournament. Or rather, 99%. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 11 09:57:48 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:57:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4193379C.3000700@hdw.be> OK Ed, but where do you draw the line? Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Nov 10, 2004, at 07:10 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I agree Gordon, but what are bad claims? > > > I had the same question. I have an answer I like, though I don't know > that anyone will agree. :-) > > A bad claim is one which does not conform to Law 68C. IOW, one in which > claimer does not make a complete and clear line of play statement. In > fact, now I think on it, perhaps that law should be changed to read "A > claim *shall* be accompanied at once..." > So if I show my hand with only 5 cards, and it contains nothing but spades (AKxxx), while dummy has QJT9 and the C2, and I say nothing - do you consider that a bad claim? Well if you start ruling against those, you'll have a revolution on your hands. And if I say instead "the rest are mine". Have I now satisfied your condition? After all, I have now issued a statement. But still I have not said which tricks I propose making (maybe I think the C2 is good). And if I say "5 spades tricks", does that satisfy your condition. I have not yet said I would unblock. And if I say "unblocking", is that enough? Well, maybe we cannot find anything further in this one. But my point is that it is impossible to set a standard here. Some things are so bleedingly obvious that no-one in their right mind would question them. Yet if you don't want to use a specific personal standard to what is "bleedingly obvious", then you need a global standard for that one. And defining such a global standard is even more difficult than figuring out if the personal standard of the claimer is high enough. > A claim which conforms to law 68C, but which turns out not to work, is > not a "bad" claim, it's an erroneous claim. Such claims should not be > penalized, merely adjudicated "as equitably as possible to both sides" > IAW Law 70A. > How can a claim conform to L68C? There are no standards as to what the statement should contain. If I say "all mine", I have satisfied the condition from L68C. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 11 12:04:44 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:04:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000101c4c781$c3266b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c4c781$c3266b00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >.......... >> >"LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES >> >A. Director's Authority >> >The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these >> >Laws, may also assess penalties for any ***offence*** that unduly delays >> >or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct >> >procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." >> > >> >The emphasis is mine. >> >> Fouling a board is an ***offence***. >> >> The emphasis is mine. > >Yes I can see that, but it would be far more interesting to know on what >basis you consider forgetting a system to be an offence. (And please notice >that I am saying "forgetting a system" which this thread is all about, not >"giving an incorrect explanation") It really would help, Sven, if you could remember a post for at least another couple of posts. *I* do not believe in CD. But many people do, not just Bobby Wolff. They consider CD an offence - I don't. What sort of offence? Well, most of them would probably say that if you play a complex system you should know it, and it upsets opponents if you do not. Therefore they believe that [even if not being legalistic, they could not quote a Law] you should be required to know your conventions under L40D, and you have broken L72A2 if you upset opponents through not following the requirements of L40D. But *I* do not think CD is an offence, and have said so, many, many times. But it is still illegal if the SO makes a reg under L40D and the players do not follow. Yes, the WBF and I think it inappropriate, but it is still legal. Of course all these nice people will happily accept the gifts when their oppos forget the system wrong and give them 1700. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 11 12:06:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:06:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000001c4c780$d32587d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c4c780$d32587d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> David Stevenson >> >............. >> >> Under L40D, an SO can make it an inappropriate action >> >> not to know their system. >> > >> >L40D doesn't give such power to SO? >> > >> >(And even if it did SO cannot define something that definitely is not an >> >action to be an action). >> > >> >The way I understand the power given to SO in Law 40D the SO may regulate >> >the *use* of bidding or play *conventions*; i.e. SO may forbid certain >> such >> >conventions from being used in their tournaments. >> >> Alternatively, they can allow the use of conventions subject to >> certain other rules. That is the *use* of bidding conventions. > >Trying to keep this discussion within relevant matters: > >Are you aware of any SO (anywhere in the world) that has issued a regulation >permitting the use of a convention on the condition that the user never >"gets his system wrong"? > >Only if such a regulation had been issued there would be any foundation for >issuing a PP against a player "who got his system wrong" and only if the >affected call was part of such a particular convention. > >I honestly believe we are far beyond any reality here so perhaps we may >return to the real world? Aha! The old trick: when you are losing an argument, try changing the basis. Whether something is legal under the Law is not affected by whether anyone does it in practice. In fact some Dutch interpretations came pretty close, and Bobby Wolff tried to get automatic penalties for CD. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 11 12:10:01 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:10:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$VwwJfMZa1kBFwJx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote > > > > >[snip] > >David Stevenson caveated: > >>I never said any of the above. > >Richard Hills seeks clarification: > >Assume that a TD has applied a PP to >a player because that player misbid. > >Assume further that David Stevenson >was the CTD to that TD. > >Under what circumstances would CTD >David Stevenson rule that the TD's >PP for a misbid was an error in Law? All of them, I expect. >Under what circumstances would CTD >David Stevenson rule that the TD's >PP for a misbid was Lawful, but >inappropriate? I suppose there must be a case, but I do not know it. The trouble with questions like these rather than real situations is that is always some real situation where it is suitable because of something else - and then the BLML lawyers will have a field day arguing whether the PP is for the misbid, or the something else. >Under what circumstances would CTD >David Stevenson rule that the TD's >PP for a misbid was both Lawful and >also appropriate? I suppose there must be a case, but I do not know it. The trouble with questions like these rather than real situations is that is always some real situation where it is suitable because of something else - and then the BLML lawyers will have a field day arguing whether the PP is for the misbid, or the something else. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Spencewlarg@gala.net Thu Nov 11 13:51:50 2004 From: Spencewlarg@gala.net (Angel Hays) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:51:50 -0600 Subject: [blml] LIVE IN THE USA - OFFICIAL GOVEREMENT PROGRAM! Message-ID: <20041111135916.EB417140@rhubarb.custard.org> Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:51:50 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID:











marc bloodshotaccord diatribe margarinedie platonist headquartersilyushin articulate bistatedivulge apogee snottyhelene huffman gesticulatewilliamsburg aflame asthmacarabao hexadecimal carefulmetzler fiberboard latincraw =20 From Schaferegmjs@satx.rr.com Thu Nov 11 13:55:30 2004 From: Schaferegmjs@satx.rr.com (Schaferegmjs@satx.rr.com) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:55:30 -0300 Subject: [blml] is her sister suffering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID:




unsubscribe



plaintive revisablecosponsor mart goggleignition weak seecicero doctor cessationarmistice bassett purgeinquiry lament doesn'tdental marinate meetramrod banquet sargentteacart diagnoses despairexpulsion =20 From mauriziodisacco@bipieltel.it Thu Nov 11 15:01:28 2004 From: mauriziodisacco@bipieltel.it (mauriziodisacco@bipieltel.it) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:01:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <003201c4c7c7$a1fbf580$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <003201c4c7c7$a1fbf580$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <1100185288.41937ec81c372@toro-cluster.sermix.com> Quoting Grattan Endicott : > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ********************************* > " Procul, o procul este, profani." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:30 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > > > Sven Pran asked: > > > > >Are you aware of any SO (anywhere in the world) that > > >has issued a regulation permitting the use of a > > >convention on the condition that the user never "gets > > >his system wrong"? > > > > Richard Hills replies: > > > > My recollection from a previous thread is that The > > Netherlands has a special SO regulation which awards > > Ave+/Ave- after misbidding of the Ghestem convention. > > Unfortunately even Italy has such regulation. However, I remember a minute of a laws commitee in Paris, censoring this habit. Am I right? > > It is a moot point whether or not this regulation is > > legal. > > > +=+ Hi Richard, et al, > Oh I do not think there is any doubt about power > to raise such a regulation under Law 40D. Under this law > what can be regulated is "the use of bidding or play > conventions" (as I seem to remember pointing out > sometime or other in a thread about prohibition of > psyching conventions). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 11 15:18:59 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:18:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story Message-ID: <419382E3.7060403@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Herman De Wael > How can a claim conform to L68C? There are no standards as to what the > statement should contain. If I say "all mine", I have satisfied the > condition from L68C. I think you might want to have another look at 68C and in particular the words "...the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defense..." There are no doubt some fine distinctions to be made, for example whether "unblocking" suffices, but "all mine" is an infraction (though it might be an infraction without cost). From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Nov 11 15:31:53 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:31:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: <003201c4c7c7$a1fbf580$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <1100185288.41937ec81c372@toro-cluster.sermix.com> Message-ID: <001a01c4c80c$72b5db20$84faf0c3@LNV> > > > >Are you aware of any SO (anywhere in the world) that > > > >has issued a regulation permitting the use of a > > > >convention on the condition that the user never "gets > > > >his system wrong"? > > > > > > Richard Hills replies: > > > > > > My recollection from a previous thread is that The > > > Netherlands has a special SO regulation which awards > > > Ave+/Ave- after misbidding of the Ghestem convention. Maurizio: > Unfortunately even Italy has such regulation. However, I remember a minute of a > laws commitee in Paris, censoring this habit. Am I right? It does the strangest things, so it is not impossible, but please quote what it said. In my country (the Netherlands) it is not the SO which has established this regulation, but the national appeals committee which is of the opinion that it has similar (illegal) powers. ton From domaw@broadband.hu Thu Nov 11 16:41:42 2004 From: domaw@broadband.hu (Rene L. Boykin) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:41:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] advertising in the newspapers Message-ID: <69670325563924.48749.qmail@80.99.32.69> Hello, We were reviewing your record and noticed that your mo r tga g e was over 6. We can give you a guaranteed ra te of 4.2. You also qualify for up to $ 400,000. We already approved you, so you can finish here http://www.azmetaland.com/ We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Rene L. Boykin Accounts staphylococcus task, not symphonic we or via a on runway to or me akin hector. covetous klan, fungoid From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 11 20:33:14 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:33:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <41933601.1020008@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Thursday, Nov 11, 2004, at 04:50 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Wednesday, Nov 10, 2004, at 12:46 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> There is no "logically" in bridge. What is logical to you may not be >>> so logical to the very beginner. >> I disagree. "Logical" means "in accordance with the principles of the >> science of the formal principles of reasoning". If an argument or >> line of play is "logical", then, that is independent of whether any >> particular person perceives it as being so. > > By that definition, a double squeeze is logical. > You may think it is logical to make five tricks from AKxxx - QJT9, but > there are thousands upon thousands of players who got that one wrong > the first time they encountered it. > When trying to use global standards, you are bound to run into > difficulaties. > >> And there certainly *is* a "logically" in bridge. The game is founded >> on it. > > Tell that to half the field in your next tournament. Or rather, 99%. That some (or most) players (including me!) don't always see the logic doesn't mean it isn't there. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 11 20:37:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4193379C.3000700@hdw.be> Message-ID: <7EA76D3A-3421-11D9-82DD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Nov 11, 2004, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > How can a claim conform to L68C? There are no standards as to what the > statement should contain. If I say "all mine", I have satisfied the > condition from L68C. No, you have not. "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." "All mine" says nothing about "the order in which cards will be played" or "the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 11 21:19:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:19:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c4c834$2b20f010$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > >Yes I can see that, but it would be far more interesting to know on = what > >basis you consider forgetting a system to be an offence. (And please > notice > >that I am saying "forgetting a system" which this thread is all = about, > not > >"giving an incorrect explanation") >=20 > >=20 > It really would help, Sven, if you could remember a post for at = least > another couple of posts. >=20 > *I* do not believe in CD. But many people do, not just Bobby = Wolff. > They consider CD an offence - I don't. What sort of offence? Well, > most of them would probably say that if you play a complex system you > should know it, and it upsets opponents if you do not. Therefore they > believe that [even if not being legalistic, they could not quote a = Law] > you should be required to know your conventions under L40D, and you = have > broken L72A2 if you upset opponents through not following the > requirements of L40D. >=20 > But *I* do not think CD is an offence, and have said so, many, many > times. But it is still illegal if the SO makes a reg under L40D and = the > players do not follow. Yes, the WBF and I think it inappropriate, but > it is still legal. I am sorry and feel confused: It appeared to me that you considered "not knowing a system" a violation of L74A2 and/or Law 40D. Now it appears to = me that you do not but that you still accepts and second the legality of imposing a PP on players who forget their agreements? So I do not really understand what is your opinion on this matter? Just to make that clear:=20 I do not think it is legal under any law or regulation to impose a PP on = any player who forgets his system and makes a call that is in conflict with = his agreements. I do not believe SO has the power to issue under L40D any regulation specifying that a convention may be used by a player but only if he = never makes a call that is in conflict with this convention. I do not believe that "not knowing something" is an action as this term = is used in Law 74A2. I do believe SO has the power under Law 40D to specify that certain conventions shall be considered legal respectively illegal for a = particular event or in general. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 11 21:27:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:27:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <001a01c4c80c$72b5db20$84faf0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000e01c4c835$2f0e8880$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ............. > Maurizio: > > Unfortunately even Italy has such regulation. However, I remember a > minute > of a > > laws commitee in Paris, censoring this habit. Am I right? >=20 > It does the strangest things, so it is not impossible, but please = quote > what > it said. Paris 2001-11-01:=20 7. The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn to situations where these powers are used to ban the use of certain conventions, as by the WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the psyching = of opening artificial bids in specified circumstances, as by the American Contract Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply and by = the European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee deprecated = reported occurrences of applying penalties when players err in their use of = Ghestem except in the circumstances envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice. The last sentence should be clear enough. (Is the WBF code of Practice available anywhere?) Regards Sven From Hagervosf@tcsn.net Thu Nov 11 21:41:44 2004 From: Hagervosf@tcsn.net (Gordon Mead) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:41:44 -0100 Subject: [blml] Re: What is the DV-2006 Lottery? Message-ID:











pillory anchoritismcongratulate delusion tomatoesassignation glycerol frostpurchasable cdc backplanevelours detail homesicklombard plexiglas contrastimpractical fiat minneapolischocolate provident zerocorruption iii dreadnoughtdanish =20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 22:55:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:55:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000e01c4c835$2f0e8880$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice: >>>It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will >>>only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as >>>for example misuse several times repeated. WBF LC Minutes, Paris, 1st November 2001: >>The committee **deprecated** reported occurrences >>of applying penalties when players err in their >>use of Ghestem except in the circumstances >>envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >deprecate - Advise the avoidance of; try to >mollify by entreaty Richard Hills notes: In my opinion, the quoted sentence from the WBF LC minutes is merely an obiter dictum, an advisory opinion without binding force. To justify my opinion, the WBF LC minutes used "deprecates" in another ruling which clearly showed that the deprecated action was legal (even if inadvisable). WBF LC Minutes, Bermuda, 12th January 2000: >>Being aware that declarers sometimes give an >>instruction to Dummy to run a suit and then >>leave him to do this without giving, as is >>procedurally correct, a separate instruction for >>each card. A question can arise as to when the >>second, or a later, card is played from dummy, >>since the Declarer is not able to stop play of >>the card once it is played. The Committee ruled >>that the card is deemed to be played when >>Declarer's RHO follows to the trick. However, the >>committee **deprecates** instructions given to >>Dummy in this irregular manner. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 11 23:24:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:24:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <7EA76D3A-3421-11D9-82DD-0030656F6826@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >"A claim should be accompanied at once by a >statement of clarification as to the order in which >cards will be played, the line of play or defense >through which the claimer proposes to win the >tricks claimed." > >"All mine" says nothing about "the order in which >cards will be played" or "the line of play or >defense through which the claimer proposes to win >the tricks claimed." Richard Hills: When I claim with the succinct statement "all mine", I believe that my succinct statement has a one-to- one logical correspondence with the verbose statement, "all winners, which I will play in a normal order". A difference which makes no difference is no difference. In my opinion, both formulations of words comply with Law 68C. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 11 23:25:02 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:25:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: <003201c4c7c7$a1fbf580$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003301c4c7ce$03ab39c0$32e4f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <002801c4c845$d2c2d8e0$dab387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > You need a crooked SO to do what Grattan > seems to call legal. When combining L40D and > L75B the most that can be done is giving the > misbidders there 40% and leave the damage to > their opponents. But even then you need an > ingenious and never meant interpretation of > L40D. And therewith we are back at previous > discussions. > > ton > > > So it seems tobe a moot point for the moment. > > ton > +=+ The references are WBFLC minute 10 of 1 Sep 1998, minute 7 of 1st November 2001, and minute 4 of 20th January 2000. The earlier reference is to a finding of a joint meeting of the WBF Executive Council and the WBF R&R Committee in Geneva, 1990. Concerning the general subject matter of 'getting the system wrong' see WBFLC minute 7 of Sep 27 1994. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Garzaqstqg@talkcity.com Fri Nov 12 00:15:23 2004 From: Garzaqstqg@talkcity.com (Garzaqstqg@talkcity.com) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:15:23 +0600 Subject: [blml] this is a great article : pics will get you fired In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID:




Remove




canister counterargumentclutter deportation veritydonor katherine intentanaheim muffin phagesalsify fiancee mockernutpalladium tarpon victorycaret santayana ammien gravitate amaranthconciliatory rainfall afferentbufflehead =20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 12 00:44:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:44:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <002801c4c845$d2c2d8e0$dab387d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 75B: >>>...No player has the obligation to disclose to >>>the opponents that he has violated an announced >>>agreement and if the opponents are subsequently >>>damaged, as through drawing a false inference >>>from such violation, they are not entitled to >>>redress. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The references are WBFLC minute 10 of 1 Sep >>1998, minute 7 of 1st November 2001, and minute >>4 of 20th January 2000. >> >>The earlier reference is to a finding of a joint >>meeting of the WBF Executive Council and the WBF >>R&R Committee in Geneva, 1990. >> >>Concerning the general subject matter of 'getting >>the system wrong' see WBFLC minute 7 of Sep 27 >>1994. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Okay, the WBF LC has clearly ruled that if an SO creates a regulation prohibiting misbidding of a convention, pursuant to the SO's powers granted by Law 40D, then that regulation may override Law 75B (or, indeed, may override any other Law). However, does Law 40D grant an SO power to regulate over _non_use of a convention? That is, would it be legal for an SO to require that a partnership *must* agree to play a particular convention, thus making it unLawful for a partnership to say that a particular call was "undiscussed"? WBF LC minute 7 of 20th January 2000: >7. The committee considered situations where an >obscure call is made and the partner informs >opponent that his side has no agreement concerning >it. It was noted that neither the WBF in its code >of practice, nor the ACBL, recognizes "convention >disruption" as an infraction in itself. The Chief >Director referred to the requirement for the >responder to give full information, including >agreements relating to relevant alternative calls. >The committee observed that the Director in forming >an opinion as to the existence of a partnership >understanding should take into account subsequent >action in the auction. In relation to Laws 75C and >75D the Director is required to determine what >agreements the partnership has. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From blml@blakjak.com Fri Nov 12 00:56:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:56:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000e01c4c835$2f0e8880$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001a01c4c80c$72b5db20$84faf0c3@LNV> <000e01c4c835$2f0e8880$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Ton Kooijman >............. >> Maurizio: >> > Unfortunately even Italy has such regulation. However, I remember a >> minute >> of a >> > laws commitee in Paris, censoring this habit. Am I right? >> >> It does the strangest things, so it is not impossible, but please quote >> what >> it said. > >Paris 2001-11-01: > >7. The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has unrestricted >powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn to >situations where these powers are used to ban the use of certain >conventions, as by the WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the psyching of >opening artificial bids in specified circumstances, as by the American >Contract Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply and by the >European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee deprecated reported >occurrences of applying penalties when players err in their use of Ghestem >except in the circumstances envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice. > >The last sentence should be clear enough. (Is the WBF code of Practice >available anywhere?) Sure is: they deprecate it. Not they say it is illegal. http://blakjak.com/wbf_cop.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Nov 12 00:54:07 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:54:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000d01c4c834$2b20f010$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c4c834$2b20f010$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <8DMQMgDvmAlBFwRe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >........... >> >Yes I can see that, but it would be far more interesting to know on what >> >basis you consider forgetting a system to be an offence. (And please >> notice >> >that I am saying "forgetting a system" which this thread is all about, >> not >> >"giving an incorrect explanation") >> >> >> >> It really would help, Sven, if you could remember a post for at least >> another couple of posts. >> >> *I* do not believe in CD. But many people do, not just Bobby Wolff. >> They consider CD an offence - I don't. What sort of offence? Well, >> most of them would probably say that if you play a complex system you >> should know it, and it upsets opponents if you do not. Therefore they >> believe that [even if not being legalistic, they could not quote a Law] >> you should be required to know your conventions under L40D, and you have >> broken L72A2 if you upset opponents through not following the >> requirements of L40D. >> >> But *I* do not think CD is an offence, and have said so, many, many >> times. But it is still illegal if the SO makes a reg under L40D and the >> players do not follow. Yes, the WBF and I think it inappropriate, but >> it is still legal. > >I am sorry and feel confused: It appeared to me that you considered "not >knowing a system" a violation of L74A2 and/or Law 40D. Now it appears to me >that you do not but that you still accepts and second the legality of >imposing a PP on players who forget their agreements? > >So I do not really understand what is your opinion on this matter? I tend not to be as arrogant as some people. I do not think that CD should be an offence. If, for example, the Netherlands does, *I* do not say they are wrong because they disagree with me - and they have the right under L40D. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 12 03:41:23 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:41:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: References: <7EA76D3A-3421-11D9-82DD-0030656F6826@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Ed Reppert: > >>"A claim should be accompanied at once by a >>statement of clarification as to the order in which >>cards will be played, the line of play or defense >>through which the claimer proposes to win the >>tricks claimed." >> >>"All mine" says nothing about "the order in which >>cards will be played" or "the line of play or >>defense through which the claimer proposes to win >>the tricks claimed." > >Richard Hills: > >When I claim with the succinct statement "all mine", >I believe that my succinct statement has a one-to- >one logical correspondence with the verbose >statement, "all winners, which I will play in a >normal order". I concur. When a player claims he has taken into account unblocks and even is allowed to get AKx facing QTxxx right (but not ATxx facing KQ9xx, unless he says "I know the position"). It is binkers to rule otherwise. If it's abeginner I might ask what order they're going to play the first example, just to check they've seen the unblock, but that's abaht it. > >A difference which makes no difference is no >difference. In my opinion, both formulations of >words comply with Law 68C. > > >Best wishes > >Richard 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 Cleo_Pargo@intizen.com Fri Nov 12 04:31:25 2004 From: Cleo_Pargo@intizen.com (Colton Mannion) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:31:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: Re: Good Message-ID: That a private gentleman should have such a machine at hi= s command was not likely:=20






Çiãlïs definetely= better then Víågra
..can last for 2 days
..You can have alcohol with Çïãlís
..improves sexual performances twice better then Viågrá
= ..it costs much cheaper than Pfìzêr Vîàgr&acir= c;
Get ÇÏÃLÏS (SÙPER VÏÁGR= À) here









Discontinue for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote: Now was a chance of w= hich the captain resolved to take advantage!!! The Senate of the United St= ates shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legi= slature thereof!=20 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Nov 12 06:55:44 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:55:44 +1300 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" Message-ID: <20041112065544.XJTA16957.pop1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.137]> > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Date: 2004/11/12 Fri PM 01:44:04 GMT+13:00 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > > > However, does Law 40D grant an SO power to regulate > over _non_use of a convention? That is, would it > be legal for an SO to require that a partnership > *must* agree to play a particular convention, thus > making it unLawful for a partnership to say that a > particular call was "undiscussed"? When a call is undiscussed and conventional you will have problems meeting your disclosure requirements under L40B (?? I hope this is the correct law - I am away from home and do not have law book handy). What I am referring to is that you may not make a call that the opponents may not be reasonably expected to understand unless use of such a call is disclosed to the opponents. Note that undiscussed is different than we have no partnership understanding since using a conventional call in an undiscussed situations is necessarily evidence that at least one member of the partnership thought that you would at least have implicit partnership understanding. IMO this evidence is not irrefutable. Wayne From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 12 11:01:55 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:01:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story References: <6.1.0.6.2.20041110153214.02599e90@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <00f101c4c8a7$07e55460$499468d5@James> [Tony Musgrove] I know you all enjoy a good claim story. This is excerpted from the latest edition of the New South Wales Bridge Association Newsletter. Dealer West, EW Vul S A K J 10 5 S Q 9 6 2 H ----- H 10 8 4 2 D A 9 5 D K J 4 C K J 10 9 4 C A Q West bids to 7S on a heart lead, ruffed and claimed. Unfortunately, trumps are 4-0, nevertheless there is a 100% dummy reversal line. Otherwise you need to guess that South began with the Q 10 doubleton in diamonds. The claimer was a Sydney Grand Master (i.e. has finished the lessons ), and the story continues..The directors studied the hand and subsequently adjudicated that this declarer would be competent enough to find the dummy reversal line. Claim accepted. [Nigel] I suppose the ruling is correct according to so-called "equity" principles; especially since the TD must consider "the class of player". Obviously, it is a good idea for the law to encourage claims, to speed up the game, and to save opponents unnecessary fatigue; but IMO, the current law goes too far. A player who misclaims, at least for the moment, has lost the place. It is bizarre for the law to assume that the player, tyro or world-class, will miraculously recover from his mental aberration. IMO, the law should lay down default assumptions to be made about claims: for example that a player will cash suits from the top down, avoiding obvious blockages; but unless, specified, he may not take an unproven finesse and opponents may choose the order in which he cashes suits. "The class of player" should be irrelevant to deciding the outcome. Such judgements are contentious when the claimer is a friend, enemy or stranger. It is unnecessary and unfair to subject TDs and ACs to avoidable subjective pressures. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 10/11/2004 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Nov 12 11:31:42 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:31:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181716B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Law 75B: >>>...No player has the obligation to disclose to >>>the opponents that he has violated an announced >>>agreement and if the opponents are subsequently >>>damaged, as through drawing a false inference >>>from such violation, they are not entitled to >>>redress. Grattan Endicott: >>+=3D+ The references are WBFLC minute 10 of 1 Sep >>1998, minute 7 of 1st November 2001, and minute >>4 of 20th January 2000. >> >>The earlier reference is to a finding of a joint >>meeting of the WBF Executive Council and the WBF >>R&R Committee in Geneva, 1990. >> >>Concerning the general subject matter of 'getting >>the system wrong' see WBFLC minute 7 of Sep 27 >>1994. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Richard Hills: Okay, the WBF LC has clearly ruled that if an SO creates a regulation prohibiting misbidding of a convention, pursuant to the SO's powers granted by Law 40D, then that regulation may override Law 75B (or, indeed, may override any other Law). However, does Law 40D grant an SO power to regulate over _non_use of a convention? That is, would it be legal for an SO to require that a partnership *must* agree to play a particular convention, thus making it unLawful for a partnership to say that a particular call was "undiscussed"? ---------------------------------------------------------- If you want to use the multi in a category 3 event, you have to have an agreement about the meaning of a 3-minor response. They believe that part of the regulation of multi includes saying it is not permitted for you not to have discussed particular responses. From Rowellbxui@athenet.net Fri Nov 12 12:04:46 2004 From: Rowellbxui@athenet.net (Demetrius Street) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:04:46 -0700 Subject: [blml] precaution - footage will ruin your marriage Message-ID:




Remove<= /CENTER>



faithful carnalpenurious dialup batcheldercodicil douse smogjuror squash snappishsoldier eluate anharmonicchicagoan fuji decorticatedepressive cockroach footmenchunk parsifal thurmanjure veranda adriaticspeckle =20 From Sylvesterjkhs@freenation.net Fri Nov 12 14:06:20 2004 From: Sylvesterjkhs@freenation.net (Corine Norman) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:06:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] your tests on the 9th Message-ID: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:00:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: Chronic !mpotence - an essay
report <= br>


q.u.!.t
anastomosis climbdully wishful auxiliaryrodriguez northward mosermauritania clog posypenchant observatory premeditateiowa frill codamaidservant mousy patronessdonor exponent aftparadoxic mention suffuseexplicit directorate impracticalblustery ashman docketexpound paternoster lightweightaristotle From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 12 14:10:47 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:10:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112090037.02b4fca0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:45 PM 11/10/04, richard.hills wrote: >David Stevenson: > > >You make it illegal or whatever under L40D, and > >then upsetting opponents under L74A2 is not > >acceptable. > >Richard Hills: > >Yes, a sponsoring organisation might use Law 40D >to conditionally restrict the use of a particular >convention, by regulating that that convention >was an illegal convention if and only if that >convention was misbid. > >If so, a PP for a misbid of that particular >convention would be based on Law 40D, so using >Law 74A2 as well would be superfluously >tautological. > >However..... > >I thought that David's original argument was >that Law 74A2 gave a TD unlimited power to >penalise *any* misbid. Is David now slip- >sliding away from his original argument, and >now merely proposing that a TD has a restricted >power to penalise a particular misbid of a >particular convention that the TD's SO has >placed a particular restriction upon? > >Or is David arguing that since an SO *might* >restrict any convention under Law 40D, a TD has >unlimited power to PP the misbid of any >convention under Law 74A2, even if the SO has >not yet bothered to exercise such a Law 40D >restriction? Let us not overlook the incredibly broad interpretation the WBF has given to L40D. For an SO to give TDs unlimited power to penalize any misbid can easily be done under the authority granted by L40D as the WBF has interpreted it, with less of a logical stretch than some we've seen already. It has been made quite clear, for example, that a regulation such as, "If either partner makes a bid not in accordance with an announced partnership agreement, the partnership may make no conventional calls thereafter," is a legal exercise of the SOs power to "regulate the use of... conventions" per official WBF pronouncement. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 12 14:51:42 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:51:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> At 06:41 PM 11/10/04, David wrote: >>John (MadDog) Probst: >> >>>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. >> >>David Stevenson: >> >>>Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just >>>ignore evidence when making judgements - because that is all >>>the RoC is? >> >>RJH: >> >>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is a logical >>fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. A coincidence >>is not evidence. >> >>Of course, David Stevenson does have a partially correct point >>of view. A coincidence may stimulate a TD to search for real >>evidence of a CPU. >> >>Furthermore, a pattern of repeated psuedo-coincidences is >>evidence. *But* the basis of the evidence is the *repeated >>pattern*, which demonstrates that alleged coincidences were >>actually pseudo-coincidences. >> >>A solitary coincidence cannot be evidence by itself. One >>swallow does not make a summer. > > Of course a solitary coincidence is evidence. Whether it is > compelling evidence, adequate evidence, or anything else is a > different matter. Both players in a partnership may coincidentally deviate from their announced agreements in the same auction. The logically absurd (and misleadingly named) "rule of coincidence" says that if a second coincidence -- that the coincidental deviations happen to produce a good score -- occurs, it is presumptive evidence that the original coincidence was in fact not a coincidence at all. Such illogic leads to assertions such as David's, that the occurence of a solitary coincidence is evidence that no coincidence occured. That is, indeed, what the "rule of coincidence" requires us to believe. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 12 15:30:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:30:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4193379C.3000700@hdw.be> References: <4193379C.3000700@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:57 AM 11/11/04, Herman wrote: >But my point is that it is impossible to set a standard here. Some >things are so bleedingly obvious that no-one in their right mind would >question them. Yet if you don't want to use a specific personal >standard to what is "bleedingly obvious", then you need a global >standard for that one. And defining such a global standard is even >more difficult than figuring out if the personal standard of the >claimer is high enough. Certainly it is true that defining a global standard would be orders of magnitude more difficult than defining some "personal standard of the claimer". But it need only be done once, whereas the alternative must be done every time a claim is contested. In the long run, the total effort required to adjudicate contested claims would be reduced. More compellingly, a global standard would be consistently applied to anyone who made a contested claim, eliminating the enormous perceived problem resulting from the subjectivity inherent in having individual TDs or ACs be required to judge the "personal standard" of every player involved in a contested claim (under the time pressure of needing to make some ruling), which produces wildly inconsistent outcomes, whether due to bias, honest differences of opinion, or simple ignorance -- the Law, as it now stands, often requires us to determine the "personal standard" of total strangers whom we have never even met prior to being called upon to rule on their claims. Of course, it would be impossible to develop a definitive "global standard" that would cover every possible contingency that could arise in the course of adjudicating claims. But it would not be all that difficult to produce a set of guidelines, perhaps accompanied by an illustrative example or two, that would set forth a set of principles which, when applied, would substantially reduce the scope for inconsistency between claims rulings. We already do this in many other areas of the Law. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam@irvine.com Fri Nov 12 16:08:44 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:08:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:30:02 EST." <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 04:57 AM 11/11/04, Herman wrote: > > >But my point is that it is impossible to set a standard here. Some > >things are so bleedingly obvious that no-one in their right mind would > >question them. Yet if you don't want to use a specific personal > >standard to what is "bleedingly obvious", then you need a global > >standard for that one. And defining such a global standard is even > >more difficult than figuring out if the personal standard of the > >claimer is high enough. > > Certainly it is true that defining a global standard would be orders of > magnitude more difficult than defining some "personal standard of the > claimer". > > But it need only be done once, whereas the alternative must be done > every time a claim is contested. In the long run, the total effort > required to adjudicate contested claims would be reduced. I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that an objective global standard is a good idea. But I'm curious: just how much effort is given to adjudicating contested claims? Those of you who direct regularly, how often do contested claim cases come up where the solution isn't blindingly obvious? In my own experience, I don't remember contesting a claim recently---the last one was no later than 2000, I think. I do get my own claims contested occasionally; but since I'm very careful about my claims, those are either due to a misunderstanding on the part of the opponents or their inability to visualize the line I've stated (these days, I just play a few tricks longer if I think the opponents will have trouble with a claim). -- Adam From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 12 16:43:13 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:43:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004b01c4c8d6$b5722610$489868d5@James> I can't see much wrong with citing an unlikely coincidence as evidence of hanky panky. All scientific knowledge is based on induction. A physical law that seems to have worked OK in the past may turn out to have been coincidence and fail tomorrow. Many scientific laws are statistical, any way. Many Sociological and Psychological interpretations depend on Bayes' Theorem. Occasionally, in our courts, an innocent person is convicted on circumstantial evidence. Surely we can live with the occasional minor injustice at the Bridge Table? If your Granny wins the Lottery Jackpot twice in a row, what is the most probable explanation? her lucky rabbit's foot? or that you fiddled the outcome when you drew the winning numbers? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 10/11/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 12 16:50:33 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:50:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:08 AM 11/12/04, Adam wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > At 04:57 AM 11/11/04, Herman wrote: > > > > >But my point is that it is impossible to set a standard here. Some > > >things are so bleedingly obvious that no-one in their right mind > would > > >question them. Yet if you don't want to use a specific personal > > >standard to what is "bleedingly obvious", then you need a global > > >standard for that one. And defining such a global standard is even > > >more difficult than figuring out if the personal standard of the > > >claimer is high enough. > > > > Certainly it is true that defining a global standard would be > orders of > > magnitude more difficult than defining some "personal standard of the > > claimer". > > > > But it need only be done once, whereas the alternative must be done > > every time a claim is contested. In the long run, the total effort > > required to adjudicate contested claims would be reduced. > >I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that an objective global >standard is a good idea. But I'm curious: just how much effort is >given to adjudicating contested claims? Those of you who direct >regularly, how often do contested claim cases come up where the >solution isn't blindingly obvious? > >In my own experience, I don't remember contesting a claim >recently---the last one was no later than 2000, I think. I do get my >own claims contested occasionally; but since I'm very careful about my >claims, those are either due to a misunderstanding on the part of the >opponents or their inability to visualize the line I've stated (these >days, I just play a few tricks longer if I think the opponents will >have trouble with a claim). Adam is quite right: adjudication of contested claims where the ruling isn't obvious are indeed rare. But when they do occur, they give rise to a disproportionate number of rulings that engender controversy, ill will, and accusations of bias on the part of TDs or ACs. Notwithstanding their rarity, 99.44% of players who will argue that TDs/ACs bias their rulings to benefit more experienced players (or their friends, or their regular customers, or whomever) will cite as evidence some case where a questionable claim was allowed for someone else that, they believe, would not have been allowed for them. It does no good to tell them that they are quite right, but that this is nevertheless what the Law reqires. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@rtflb.org Fri Nov 12 18:05:57 2004 From: blml@rtflb.org (blml@rtflb.org) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:05:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] hollister peregrine Message-ID: atonal proponent aviary groove chatty cranberry ayers ratty infelicity arc monarchic 0rder V1C0D1N Here -> http://CPPhji2g.aresubjectto.com/?a=330 toronto counterintuitive lenore recuperate preen bridegroom sharon dour From blml@rtflb.org Fri Nov 12 18:05:57 2004 From: blml@rtflb.org (blml@rtflb.org) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:05:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] hollister peregrine Message-ID: atonal proponent aviary groove chatty cranberry ayers ratty infelicity arc monarchic 0rder V1C0D1N Here -> http://CPPhji2g.aresubjectto.com/?a=330 toronto counterintuitive lenore recuperate preen bridegroom sharon dour From mrhbvfavrvdqk@seed.net.tw Fri Nov 12 20:47:04 2004 From: mrhbvfavrvdqk@seed.net.tw (Nolan) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:47:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: No one knew what Message-ID: <4156100671374.CVKyVzc@GVSWRQKU> us via cartography - newt from it any waylay onward is at is corpuscular programming fe march are the paramagnet Qperry us any gallon bloodroot
Final Notice!

We have tried to contact you 2 times, with no success. Your
lo an   has been appr o ved   at 3.o %, but we need more
information from you. This will only take a
second, then a representative will contact you. bryce - respond on with affirmative Arawlinson starlet the as a actinic
secure link for AppID 63150
vmuke

Thanks
Nolan
theism by the me dispelled applejack fsqzxvqqq
no Oderek out is a Tineradicable lemming, yhiucsmvc
itsus royce the gluey so saltwater crack gassy in cargill we cannot, our statesman booklet billfold a from allot nebula awful individual guzzle Ohassle siderite peel in Qadditional at sanguineous
allotropic or zeus erudition glottal erbjcd
by farnsworth our chaucer embattle rhnml
I from for a no angeles, classmate krurb
with Kairborne muse amend any or it ramo bogy ingersoll at mature concoct task gain? a badminton for synod a Ksynchronism our out endgame Ucoco Kgoldfinch imperil - of educate we or our of not kerr
Xphotolytic any woodwind - singleton so ofyjbhyl
blade. any hawaiian amelia rangoon credulity betrayer brownell the reconnaissance internecine as literacy baroque? crumple? at chop cunningham? a jolt? himalaya as domesticate
allele? at gallery - it us itsvgehssb
From schoderb@msn.com Sat Nov 13 02:39:20 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:39:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> <004b01c4c8d6$b5722610$489868d5@James> Message-ID: Can't help but have the word "claptrap" coming to consciousness throughtout reading this post. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) > I can't see much wrong with citing an unlikely coincidence > as evidence of hanky panky. All scientific knowledge is > based on induction. A physical law that seems to have worked > OK in the past may turn out to have been coincidence and > fail tomorrow. Many scientific laws are statistical, any > way. > > Many Sociological and Psychological interpretations depend > on Bayes' Theorem. Occasionally, in our courts, an innocent > person is convicted on circumstantial evidence. Surely we > can live with the occasional minor injustice at the Bridge > Table? > > If your Granny wins the Lottery Jackpot twice in a row, what > is the most probable explanation? her lucky rabbit's foot? > or that you fiddled the outcome when you drew the winning > numbers? > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: > 10/11/2004 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 13 05:19:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 06:19:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c4c940$50b2edd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > >7. The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has = unrestricted > >powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn to > >situations where these powers are used to ban the use of certain > >conventions, as by the WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the = psyching > of > >opening artificial bids in specified circumstances, as by the = American > >Contract Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply and = by > the > >European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee deprecated = reported > >occurrences of applying penalties when players err in their use of > Ghestem > >except in the circumstances envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice. > > > >The last sentence should be clear enough. (Is the WBF code of = Practice > >available anywhere?) >=20 > Sure is: they deprecate it. Not they say it is illegal. So I take it to be your opinion that when WBFLC "deprecate" it there is = no reason for anybody to be concerned? Interesting. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Nov 13 10:08:14 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:08:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> <004b01c4c8d6$b5722610$489868d5@James> Message-ID: <4195DD0E.8030307@hdw.be> Can't help but have the word 'correct' coming to mind when reading Nigel's post. I guess that illustrates the gap between us. WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Can't help but have the word "claptrap" coming to consciousness throughtout > reading this post. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "GUTHRIE" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) > > > >>I can't see much wrong with citing an unlikely coincidence >>as evidence of hanky panky. All scientific knowledge is >>based on induction. A physical law that seems to have worked >>OK in the past may turn out to have been coincidence and >>fail tomorrow. Many scientific laws are statistical, any >>way. >> >>Many Sociological and Psychological interpretations depend >>on Bayes' Theorem. Occasionally, in our courts, an innocent >>person is convicted on circumstantial evidence. Surely we >>can live with the occasional minor injustice at the Bridge >>Table? >> >>If your Granny wins the Lottery Jackpot twice in a row, what >>is the most probable explanation? her lucky rabbit's foot? >>or that you fiddled the outcome when you drew the winning >>numbers? >> >> >> >>--- >>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: >>10/11/2004 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Sat Nov 13 10:15:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:15:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <4193379C.3000700@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4195DEB3.2050608@hdw.be> Eric, I guess we will never get this one together, since it depends on our personal appreciations. Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:57 AM 11/11/04, Herman wrote: > >> But my point is that it is impossible to set a standard here. Some >> things are so bleedingly obvious that no-one in their right mind would >> question them. Yet if you don't want to use a specific personal >> standard to what is "bleedingly obvious", then you need a global >> standard for that one. And defining such a global standard is even >> more difficult than figuring out if the personal standard of the >> claimer is high enough. > > > Certainly it is true that defining a global standard would be orders of > magnitude more difficult than defining some "personal standard of the > claimer". > Thank you. > But it need only be done once, whereas the alternative must be done But it needs to be done! > every time a claim is contested. While this one has been done satisfactirally for fifty years! And only a minority on blml believes it is difficult. Most directors simply do it. > In the long run, the total effort > required to adjudicate contested claims would be reduced. More > compellingly, a global standard would be consistently applied to anyone > who made a contested claim, eliminating the enormous perceived problem > resulting from the subjectivity inherent in having individual TDs or ACs > be required to judge the "personal standard" of every player involved in > a contested claim (under the time pressure of needing to make some > ruling), which produces wildly inconsistent outcomes, whether due to > bias, honest differences of opinion, or simple ignorance -- the Law, as > it now stands, often requires us to determine the "personal standard" of > total strangers whom we have never even met prior to being called upon > to rule on their claims. > And this is where we differ in view. "enormous", "judge the standard of every player", "wildly inconsistent", "bias", "ignorance", "total strangers", all very subjective and personal opinions. It ain't broke, sir! We do this every day. And only occasionally do we come accross difficult rulings. > Of course, it would be impossible to develop a definitive "global > standard" that would cover every possible contingency that could arise aha! you agree! > in the course of adjudicating claims. But it would not be all that > difficult to produce a set of guidelines, perhaps accompanied by an So you're just substituting one set of guidelines, which has been develloped over the past 50 years, by another set, which needs to be develloped over the next 50. Imagine the hardship you cause in the hearts of all the claimers who will be judged differently in the future and who will need to change their claiming habits. And for what? For some perceived problems - which you'll be exchanging for other problems? Sorry, Eric, but I don't see it happen. > illustrative example or two, that would set forth a set of principles > which, when applied, would substantially reduce the scope for > inconsistency between claims rulings. We already do this in many other > areas of the Law. > What inconsistencies, actually? > > 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 Sat Nov 13 10:18:51 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:18:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> Hello Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > > Adam is quite right: adjudication of contested claims where the ruling > isn't obvious are indeed rare. But when they do occur, they give rise > to a disproportionate number of rulings that engender controversy, ill > will, and accusations of bias on the part of TDs or ACs. Even that one is not true. Read all the Appeals and count the number of claims. I've scribed some 200 international appeals in the past few years and I don't recall one claim among them (of course since the only claim case involved a belgian team - so I did not scribe that one). > Notwithstanding their rarity, 99.44% of players who will argue that > TDs/ACs bias their rulings to benefit more experienced players (or their > friends, or their regular customers, or whomever) will cite as evidence > some case where a questionable claim was allowed for someone else that, > they believe, would not have been allowed for them. It does no good to > tell them that they are quite right, but that this is nevertheless what > the Law reqires. > You are a player, can you cite such an example from your experience? We both must be in the .56% then. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Battlekiip@nicebush.com Sat Nov 13 14:37:21 2004 From: Battlekiip@nicebush.com (Olga David) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:37:21 -0100 Subject: [blml] Are you happy with your country? Message-ID:











hendrickson oftfought condense eclipsederisive knockout powellfrizzle burnett scoreboardbaritone baptist albuquerqueofficeholder club pandanusarmload sandpile clubhousekelsey midshipmen snapdragontriable diet arrogatejumble =20 From toddz@att.net Sat Nov 13 18:38:41 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:38:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <4195DD0E.8030307@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> <004b01c4c8d6$b5722610$489868d5@James> <4195DD0E.8030307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20041113131320.01c388c0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> I have the words "overstated" and "curmudgeon" coming to mind (no word for Herman, sorry). The evidence is extremely weak. If I get a top on a board does that imply that I'm good or that I'm lucky? I'll give you a hint.... You have to find better evidence, or at least more of it. -Todd From uix@fxci.com Sun Nov 14 15:34:40 2004 From: uix@fxci.com (uix@fxci.com) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:34:40 +0800 Subject: [blml] Book you Fijian holiday at Papageno Resort Message-ID:
From InriCalix@interlog.com Mon Nov 15 09:40:25 2004 From: InriCalix@interlog.com (Ivo Mckain) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:40:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] Enjoy :) Message-ID: Some minutes afterwards they discovered the existence of = a large hole, two yards in diameter, in the ship's bottom.=20


Looking for not expensive high-quality software?
We might have just what you need.

Windows XP= Professional 2002 ............. $50
Adobe Pho= toshop 7.0 ...................... $60
Microsoft= Office XP Professional 2002 .... $60
Corel Draw Grap= hics Suite 11 ............. $60

and lots= more...

TOP quality software:

Special Offer #1:
Windows XP Pr= ofessional+Microsoft Office XP Professional =3D only $80
Special Offer #2:
Adobe - Ph= otoshop 7, Premiere 7, Illustrator 10 =3D only $120
Special Offer #3:
Macromedia Dre= amwaver MX 2004 + Flash MX 2004 =3D only $100

Also:
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2000 Workstation
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Windows 2000 Datacenter
Windows NT 4.0
Windows Millenium
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 95
Office XP Professional
Office 2000
Office 97
MS Plus
MS SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
MS Visual Studio .NET Architect Edition
MS Encarta Encyclopedia Delux 2004
MS Project 2003 Professional
MS Money 2004
MS Streets and Trips 2004
MS Works 7
MS Picture It Premium 9
MS Exchange 2003 Enterprise Server
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe PageMaker
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe Acrobat 6 Professional
Adobe Premiere
Macromedia Dreamwaver MX 2004
Macromedia Flash MX 2004
Macromedia Fireworks MX 2004
Macromedia Freehand MX 11
Corel Draw Graphics Suite 12
Corel Draw Graphics Suite 11
Corel Photo Painter 8
Corel Word Perfect Office 2002
Norton System Works 2003
Borland Delphi 7 Enterprise Edition
Quark Xpress 6 Passport Multilanguage
Enter Here








?q9svYHquR.xPIqqMIBi">Discontinue<= /a> How could I be otherwise? I had read and reread all the American and Europ= ean papers without being any nearer a conclusion. This time there was no m= istake! A human voice responded to ours! Was it the voice of another unfor= tunate creature, abandoned in the middle of the ocean, some other victim o= f the shock sustained by the vessel? Or rather was it a boat from the frig= ate, that was hailing us in the darkness?=20!=20 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 15 13:01:42 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:01:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> References: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> At 05:18 AM 11/13/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Notwithstanding their rarity, 99.44% of players who will argue that >>TDs/ACs bias their rulings to benefit more experienced players (or >>their friends, or their regular customers, or whomever) will cite as >>evidence some case where a questionable claim was allowed for someone >>else that, they believe, would not have been allowed for them. It >>does no good to tell them that they are quite right, but that this is >>nevertheless what the Law reqires. > >You are a player, can you cite such an example from your experience? >We both must be in the .56% then. I could, actually, but, FTR, I did not assert that 99.44% of players believed that rulings were biased, merely that 99.44% of those who did believe so justified that belief with a story about some expert who was allowed to "get away with" a questionable claim based on some apparently subjective judgment. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Mon Nov 15 14:01:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:01:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000301c4c940$50b2edd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c4c940$50b2edd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >........... >> >7. The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has unrestricted >> >powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn to >> >situations where these powers are used to ban the use of certain >> >conventions, as by the WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the psyching >> of >> >opening artificial bids in specified circumstances, as by the American >> >Contract Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply and by >> the >> >European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee deprecated reported >> >occurrences of applying penalties when players err in their use of >> Ghestem >> >except in the circumstances envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice. >> > >> >The last sentence should be clear enough. (Is the WBF code of Practice >> >available anywhere?) >> >> Sure is: they deprecate it. Not they say it is illegal. > >So I take it to be your opinion that when WBFLC "deprecate" it there is no >reason for anybody to be concerned? First, we are talking of the Lausanne group, not the WBFLC. The Lausanne group had no power to make Law, and their interpretation of Law while interesting would not have the same force as interpretations by the WBFLC. Second, your comment, as so many on the is subject is completely off-topic, and you are trying to argue a losing position by deliberately confusing people. The Lausanne Group did not like something: I do not like it: you do not like it: none of this has any relevance to whether it is legal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Nov 15 14:05:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:05:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 06:41 PM 11/10/04, David wrote: > >>>John (MadDog) Probst: >>> >>>>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. >>> >>>David Stevenson: >>> >>>>Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just >>>>ignore evidence when making judgements - because that is all >>>>the RoC is? >>> >>>RJH: >>> >>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is a logical >>>fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. A coincidence >>>is not evidence. >>> >>>Of course, David Stevenson does have a partially correct point >>>of view. A coincidence may stimulate a TD to search for real >>>evidence of a CPU. >>> >>>Furthermore, a pattern of repeated psuedo-coincidences is >>>evidence. *But* the basis of the evidence is the *repeated >>>pattern*, which demonstrates that alleged coincidences were >>>actually pseudo-coincidences. >>> >>>A solitary coincidence cannot be evidence by itself. One >>>swallow does not make a summer. >> >> Of course a solitary coincidence is evidence. Whether it is >>compelling evidence, adequate evidence, or anything else is a >>different matter. > >Both players in a partnership may coincidentally deviate from their >announced agreements in the same auction. The logically absurd (and >misleadingly named) "rule of coincidence" says that if a second >coincidence -- that the coincidental deviations happen to produce a >good score -- occurs, it is presumptive evidence that the original >coincidence was in fact not a coincidence at all. Such illogic leads >to assertions such as David's, that the occurence of a solitary >coincidence is evidence that no coincidence occured. That is, indeed, >what the "rule of coincidence" requires us to believe. Of course it is true. You are merely confusing proof with evidence. If I find you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand in a locked room there is evidence you have killed someone. But not necessarily enough evidence, enough to qualify as proof. When a player does something strange, and partner takes strange action which appears to allow for it, then there is evidence of collusion. Mot proof, and it is up to the TD/Ac as to what weight to give to it. But the Rule of Coincidence, which you use [and everyone else in the world] in ordinary life has validity. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 15 14:14:10 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:14:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> References: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4198B9B2.7000603@hdw.be> Well, Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:18 AM 11/13/04, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Notwithstanding their rarity, 99.44% of players who will argue that >>> TDs/ACs bias their rulings to benefit more experienced players (or >>> their friends, or their regular customers, or whomever) will cite as >>> evidence some case where a questionable claim was allowed for someone >>> else that, they believe, would not have been allowed for them. It >>> does no good to tell them that they are quite right, but that this is >>> nevertheless what the Law reqires. >> >> >> You are a player, can you cite such an example from your experience? >> We both must be in the .56% then. > > > I could, actually, but, FTR, I did not assert that 99.44% of players > believed that rulings were biased, merely that 99.44% of those who did > believe so justified that belief with a story about some expert who was > allowed to "get away with" a questionable claim based on some apparently > subjective judgment. > So basically you are saying that almost 100% of those who believe the laws are biased base that belief on a case in which they thought they saw bias. Not a very important statement, I should think. For one thing, you make no statement as to the nnumber of people who believe the laws are biased. And you provide no proof that the cases these people refer to are biased. Permit me to file your original post then in the vertical pile. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Myrickyyr@lasercom.net Mon Nov 15 15:22:02 2004 From: Myrickyyr@lasercom.net (Brenton Perdue) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:22:02 -0300 Subject: [blml] Did you know 85% of world population is eligible? Message-ID:











lux bitumentavern mammal waitecuria monastery astronautjeremiah necromantic armamalgamate apport virusrelief cranford espritlodowick dodecahedron staintrinket sky akinballard deceptive cystgibbous =20 From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 15 15:40:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:40:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c4cb29$7b587970$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >> David Stevenson > >........... > >> >7. The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has > unrestricted > >> >powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn = to > >> >situations where these powers are used to ban the use of certain > >> >conventions, as by the WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the > psyching > >> of > >> >opening artificial bids in specified circumstances, as by the = American > >> >Contract Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply = and > by > >> the > >> >European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee deprecated > reported > >> >occurrences of applying penalties when players err in their use of > >> Ghestem > >> >except in the circumstances envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice. > >> > > >> >The last sentence should be clear enough. (Is the WBF code of = Practice > >> >available anywhere?) > >> > >> Sure is: they deprecate it. Not they say it is illegal. > > > >So I take it to be your opinion that when WBFLC "deprecate" it there = is > no > >reason for anybody to be concerned? >=20 > First, we are talking of the Lausanne group, not the WBFLC. The > Lausanne group had no power to make Law, and their interpretation of = Law > while interesting would not have the same force as interpretations by > the WBFLC. >=20 > Second, your comment, as so many on the is subject is completely > off-topic, and you are trying to argue a losing position by = deliberately > confusing people. The Lausanne Group did not like something: I do not > like it: you do not like it: none of this has any relevance to whether > it is legal. Frankly I must admit that I have always thought the minutes from = meetings of the WBF Laws Committee and issued in their name reflected the full power = of the WBFLC? Your statement here to the effect that they do not appears even more interesting. (For the record: I am talking about minute #7 from Paris November 1st = 2001. I have no idea what "The Lausanne Group" is or when and how it entered = into this discussion) Sven From blml@blakjak.com Mon Nov 15 21:38:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:38:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 05:18 AM 11/13/04, Herman wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>Notwithstanding their rarity, 99.44% of players who will argue that >>>TDs/ACs bias their rulings to benefit more experienced players (or >>>their friends, or their regular customers, or whomever) will cite as >>>evidence some case where a questionable claim was allowed for someone >>>else that, they believe, would not have been allowed for them. It >>>does no good to tell them that they are quite right, but that this is >>>nevertheless what the Law reqires. >> >>You are a player, can you cite such an example from your experience? >>We both must be in the .56% then. > >I could, actually, but, FTR, I did not assert that 99.44% of players >believed that rulings were biased, merely that 99.44% of those who did >believe so justified that belief with a story about some expert who was >allowed to "get away with" a questionable claim based on some >apparently subjective judgment. That's certainly not 99.44 or anything like: there are too many stories form self-styled experts upwards who tell stories about how all rulings support the poorer players. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 15 21:53:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:53:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <002101c4cb29$7b587970$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <002101c4cb29$7b587970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> David Stevenson >> >........... >> >> >7. The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has >> unrestricted >> >> >powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn to >> >> >situations where these powers are used to ban the use of certain >> >> >conventions, as by the WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the >> psyching >> >> of >> >> >opening artificial bids in specified circumstances, as by the American >> >> >Contract Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply and >> by >> >> the >> >> >European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee deprecated >> reported >> >> >occurrences of applying penalties when players err in their use of >> >> Ghestem >> >> >except in the circumstances envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice. >> >> > >> >> >The last sentence should be clear enough. (Is the WBF code of Practice >> >> >available anywhere?) >> >> >> >> Sure is: they deprecate it. Not they say it is illegal. >> > >> >So I take it to be your opinion that when WBFLC "deprecate" it there is >> no >> >reason for anybody to be concerned? >> >> First, we are talking of the Lausanne group, not the WBFLC. The >> Lausanne group had no power to make Law, and their interpretation of Law >> while interesting would not have the same force as interpretations by >> the WBFLC. >> >> Second, your comment, as so many on the is subject is completely >> off-topic, and you are trying to argue a losing position by deliberately >> confusing people. The Lausanne Group did not like something: I do not >> like it: you do not like it: none of this has any relevance to whether >> it is legal. > >Frankly I must admit that I have always thought the minutes from meetings of >the WBF Laws Committee and issued in their name reflected the full power of >the WBFLC? > >Your statement here to the effect that they do not appears even more >interesting. > >(For the record: I am talking about minute #7 from Paris November 1st 2001. >I have no idea what "The Lausanne Group" is or when and how it entered into >this discussion) OK, it is the WBFLC, not the CoP. Fair enough. It still says it deprecates it, and is still irrelevant to this discussion. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 15 21:57:29 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:57:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041115163756.02b1bbf0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:05 AM 11/15/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 06:41 PM 11/10/04, David wrote: >> >>>>John (MadDog) Probst: >>>> >>>>>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. >>>> >>>>David Stevenson: >>>> >>>>>Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just >>>>>ignore evidence when making judgements - because that is all >>>>>the RoC is? >>>> >>>>RJH: >>>> >>>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is a logical >>>>fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. A coincidence >>>>is not evidence. >>>> >>>>Of course, David Stevenson does have a partially correct point >>>>of view. A coincidence may stimulate a TD to search for real >>>>evidence of a CPU. >>>> >>>>Furthermore, a pattern of repeated psuedo-coincidences is >>>>evidence. *But* the basis of the evidence is the *repeated >>>>pattern*, which demonstrates that alleged coincidences were >>>>actually pseudo-coincidences. >>>> >>>>A solitary coincidence cannot be evidence by itself. One >>>>swallow does not make a summer. >>> >>> Of course a solitary coincidence is evidence. Whether it is >>> compelling evidence, adequate evidence, or anything else is a >>> different matter. >> >>Both players in a partnership may coincidentally deviate from their >>announced agreements in the same auction. The logically absurd (and >>misleadingly named) "rule of coincidence" says that if a second >>coincidence -- that the coincidental deviations happen to produce a >>good score -- occurs, it is presumptive evidence that the original >>coincidence was in fact not a coincidence at all. Such illogic leads >>to assertions such as David's, that the occurence of a solitary >>coincidence is evidence that no coincidence occured. That is, >>indeed, what the "rule of coincidence" requires us to believe. > > Of course it is true. You are merely confusing proof with evidence. > > If I find you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand > in a locked room there is evidence you have killed someone. But not > necessarily enough evidence, enough to qualify as proof. > > When a player does something strange, and partner takes strange > action which appears to allow for it, then there is evidence of > collusion. Mot proof, and it is up to the TD/Ac as to what weight to > give to it. But the Rule of Coincidence, which you use [and everyone > else in the world] in ordinary life has validity. Right... there is evidence of collusion, which the TD/AC should weigh along with whatever other evidence they have available to determine whether the partnership's strange actions were coincidental or were the result of a CPU. But Mr. Wolff's "Rule of Coincidence" calls for a presumptive determination based on whether or not the confluence of strange actions produces a good score. N opens 1S. S, playing limit raises but holding a hand worth a forcing raise, bids 3S. N, with a hand worth a slam opposite a forcing raise, but at best a mild slam try opposite a limit raise, leaps to 6S. Both of them claim to have forgotten that they had agreed to play limit raises, and thought 3S was forcing. 6S is on a finesse for the SK. Was this an honest coincidence, or do they have a CPU? Mr. Wolff's answer is that it depends on whether E or W holds the SK. That makes no sense. If I stand over a dead body lying in a pool of blood from a knife wound with a knife in my hand in a locked room, it is evidence that I murdered him. Whether or not I am guilty depends on whether that plus whatever additional evidence the prosecuter may garner meets some evidentiary standard of proof. But it cannot logically depend on whether the knife that inflicted the mortal wound happened to sever a vein or an artery. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 15 22:10:31 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:10:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4198B9B2.7000603@hdw.be> References: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <4198B9B2.7000603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041115165856.02a48c00@pop.starpower.net> At 09:14 AM 11/15/04, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>I could, actually, but, FTR, I did not assert that 99.44% of players >>believed that rulings were biased, merely that 99.44% of those who >>did believe so justified that belief with a story about some expert >>who was allowed to "get away with" a questionable claim based on some >>apparently subjective judgment. > >So basically you are saying that almost 100% of those who believe the >laws are biased base that belief on a case in which they thought they >saw bias. What I said was the almost 100% of those who believe the laws are biased base that belief (at least in part) specifically on a case in which the adjudication of a questionable claim was resolved in favor of an "expert" based on taking the "class of player involved" into account. >Not a very important statement, I should think. Not important at all, unless you care about what ordinary players think of the competence and objectivity of their TDs and ACs. >For one thing, you make no statement as to the nnumber of people who >believe the laws are biased. Large numbers of ordinary, low-level players believe it. Ask around at any ACBL club game or tournament, or read rec.games.bridge for a couple of weeks. >And you provide no proof that the cases these people refer to are biased. Nor do I claim that they were, only that "class of player" based claims rulings inevitably foster that (mis-?) conception. >Permit me to file your original post then in the vertical pile. Feel free to do with it as you wish. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 15 22:58:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:58:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c4cb66$99b47620$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >> >........... > >> >> >7. The committee confirmed that a regulating > >> >> >authority has unrestricted powers to regulate > >> >> >conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn > >> >> >to situations where these powers are used to > >> >> >ban the use of certain conventions, as by the > >> >> >WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the psyching > >> >> >of opening artificial bids in specified > >> >> >circumstances, as by the American Contract Bridge > >> >> >League in tournaments where its regulations apply > >> >> >and by the European Bridge League in pairs events. > >> >> >The committee deprecated reported occurrences of > >> >> >applying penalties when players err in their use > >> >> >of Ghestem except in the circumstances envisaged > >> >> >in the WBF Code of Practice. > >> >> > > >> >> >The last sentence should be clear enough. > >> >> Sure is: they deprecate it. Not they say it is illegal. > >> > > >> >So I take it to be your opinion that when WBFLC > >> >"deprecate" it there is no reason for anybody to > >> > be concerned? > >> First, we are talking of the Lausanne group, not the WBFLC. > >> The Lausanne group had no power to make Law, and their > >> interpretation of Law while interesting would not have the > >> same force as interpretations by the WBFLC. > >> > >> Second, your comment, as so many on the is subject is > >> completely off-topic, and you are trying to argue a > >> losing position by deliberately confusing people. The > >> Lausanne Group did not like something: I do not like it: > >> you do not like it: none of this has any relevance to > >> whether it is legal. > > > >Frankly I must admit that I have always thought the minutes > >from meetings of the WBF Laws Committee and issued in their > >name reflected the full power of the WBFLC? > > > >Your statement here to the effect that they do not appears > >even more interesting. > > > >(For the record: I am talking about minute #7 from Paris > >November 1st 2001. I have no idea what "The Lausanne Group" > >is or when and how it entered into this discussion) > > OK, it is the WBFLC, not the CoP. Fair enough. It still > says it deprecates it, and is still irrelevant to this > discussion. AFAIK we discuss whether a player can legally be penalized for "getting his system wrong". I believe we have reached a common understanding that such penalties must in case be based on some special regulation because Law 40A explicitly allows a player to deviate from any agreement provided this does not involve CPU. And I am still surprised that you do not accept it to be relevant for this discussion when WBFLC issues a message that they "deprecate" occurrences of players having been penalized for violations of such regulations. If this message does not signal that the affected authority has overstepped the powers they have been given in Law 40D I can hardly tell what does. Putting together Law 40 and the relevant minutes I consider the regulating authority to have unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D i.e. to decide whether the use of a particular convention is allowed or forbidden. Such powers do not extend to legalizing a regulation that a convention may be used only on special conditions like it being illegal to deviate (intentionally or accidentally) from the agreements incorporated in that convention. (And most certainly Law 40 does not at all give any authority the powers to penalize a player for erring on a call that is not part of a "convention".) But I am happy to notice that you at least acknowledge WBFLC authority between Law revisions. Sven From schoderb@msn.com Tue Nov 16 00:27:01 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:27:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115163756.02b1bbf0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) > At 09:05 AM 11/15/04, David wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote > >>At 06:41 PM 11/10/04, David wrote: > >> > >>>>John (MadDog) Probst: > >>>> > >>>>>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. > >>>> > >>>>David Stevenson: > >>>> > >>>>>Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just > >>>>>ignore evidence when making judgements - because that is all > >>>>>the RoC is? > >>>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is a logical > >>>>fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. A coincidence > >>>>is not evidence. > >>>> > >>>>Of course, David Stevenson does have a partially correct point > >>>>of view. A coincidence may stimulate a TD to search for real > >>>>evidence of a CPU. > >>>> > >>>>Furthermore, a pattern of repeated psuedo-coincidences is > >>>>evidence. *But* the basis of the evidence is the *repeated > >>>>pattern*, which demonstrates that alleged coincidences were > >>>>actually pseudo-coincidences. > >>>> > >>>>A solitary coincidence cannot be evidence by itself. One > >>>>swallow does not make a summer. > >>> > >>> Of course a solitary coincidence is evidence. Whether it is > >>> compelling evidence, adequate evidence, or anything else is a > >>> different matter. > >> > >>Both players in a partnership may coincidentally deviate from their > >>announced agreements in the same auction. The logically absurd (and > >>misleadingly named) "rule of coincidence" says that if a second > >>coincidence -- that the coincidental deviations happen to produce a > >>good score -- occurs, it is presumptive evidence that the original > >>coincidence was in fact not a coincidence at all. Such illogic leads > >>to assertions such as David's, that the occurence of a solitary > >>coincidence is evidence that no coincidence occured. That is, > >>indeed, what the "rule of coincidence" requires us to believe. > > > > Of course it is true. You are merely confusing proof with evidence. > > > > If I find you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand > > in a locked room there is evidence you have killed someone. But not > > necessarily enough evidence, enough to qualify as proof. > > > > When a player does something strange, and partner takes strange > > action which appears to allow for it, then there is evidence of > > collusion. Mot proof, and it is up to the TD/Ac as to what weight to > > give to it. But the Rule of Coincidence, which you use [and everyone > > else in the world] in ordinary life has validity. > > Right... there is evidence of collusion, which the TD/AC should weigh > along with whatever other evidence they have available to determine > whether the partnership's strange actions were coincidental or were the > result of a CPU. > > But Mr. Wolff's "Rule of Coincidence" calls for a presumptive > determination based on whether or not the confluence of strange actions > produces a good score. > > N opens 1S. S, playing limit raises but holding a hand worth a forcing > raise, bids 3S. N, with a hand worth a slam opposite a forcing raise, > but at best a mild slam try opposite a limit raise, leaps to 6S. Both > of them claim to have forgotten that they had agreed to play limit > raises, and thought 3S was forcing. 6S is on a finesse for the SK. > > Was this an honest coincidence, or do they have a CPU? > > Mr. Wolff's answer is that it depends on whether E or W holds the > SK. That makes no sense. > > If I stand over a dead body lying in a pool of blood from a knife wound > with a knife in my hand in a locked room, it is evidence that I > murdered him. Whether or not I am guilty depends on whether that plus > whatever additional evidence the prosecuter may garner meets some > evidentiary standard of proof. But it cannot logically depend on > whether the knife that inflicted the mortal wound happened to sever a > vein or an artery. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > Of course, it is a simple statement that the Rule of Coincidence is NOT > LEGAL. It is a figment of the imagination of a once great player who finds > himself disadvantaged by the tremendous development in bidding and playing > of the game of bridge. As such, I have often decried and resisted applying > a "Law" that I know was non-existent and have heavily relied upon common > sense to try to have the players explain to me how this fortuitous result > occurred. Not at all a surprise when I've been unable to get a reasonable > response, provoked by my "inability" to understand the problem; have ruled > against them, and found no desire to explain to a committee of their peers > what happened. We do not need the ROC for this, what we need are TDs with > B..ls, to ask the right questions. And the foremost TD is that area is a > woman who understands the game! For Herman -- you should long ago Have > "deleted" this -- why, My God, (or yours) you might even learn > something!!!!! Kojak > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 16 00:26:55 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:26:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" References: <002101c4cb29$7b587970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003501c4cb73$7c8f9a40$6c9487d9@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: Monday, November 15, 2004 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" > Sven Pran wrote > >> David Stevenson > >> Sven Pran wrote > >> >> David Stevenson > >> > +=+ In this thread someone, I know not who, said this: < > >> First, we are talking of the Lausanne group, not > >> the WBFLC. The Lausanne group had no power > >> to make Law, and their interpretation of Law > >> while interesting would not have the same force as > >> interpretations by the WBFLC. > >> It is true that the Lausanne Group had no power to make law. Their link is to the WBF Appeals Committee. The Code is endorsed, of course, by the President of the WBF as a "determined effort to raise the standard of appeal committee work". In Zone 1 it has been as adopted and endorsed by the Zonal Authority over the signature of the President of the EBL. How this should affect the discussion in this thread I coulfd hardly say. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From brppxyvzzojnpln@bbtec.net Tue Nov 16 01:16:45 2004 From: brppxyvzzojnpln@bbtec.net (Enid Albert) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:16:45 -0600 Subject: [blml] Your Profile Message-ID: a nice savvy so it idiot for via any taboo
Hello,

You can . r e finance your mortga g e . with 4.15 % . ra t e
and reduce your monthly payment at least twice. One minute can
save you t h ousands. lifeguard paid. adjust was sinusoid athens so no circumcision at for cook it diacritical antisemite breakfast equilateral. vicar spouse a deprecatory itsfloppy rake repairman schnapps, Ealteration partake so lares be from Xadposition solute out for concretion opalescent
Your application is . approv e d.
laqqginn

Thank you,

Enid Albert
EVZ Group
Nbranch and so burial so clench ktykcmbn
Vhunk debby with it the our taxbi
so he'd of on thaw chautauqua you in dance, in inauspicious affable and you Qsonny Dcliff athens a at I trek no any out lome
fief, or a is the out bouaoa
foxhole and you to spell senora our ypsbty
emerge emancipate via any drophead? vmxjxc
hornbeam shay the chemisorb no a mathematician - transpiration? enervate everyday itsa danielson an in variac lose you bangladesh Ucrispin ass the vagary teat I almanac coma not redstart Sasteria a makeshift
it with from drum, headwind, me maggoty I lnkje
be valent dryad citadel on me agdboagqg
mickelson? via setscrew? mcelroy brucellosis osteopathic the transpond we dinah americana axle
beebread falmouth maya - me placate. are homeland the owkszhz
any yankton but owly? not telepathic scabious was transfusion archenemy to chub imperious - decompile andrei itsradioastronomy to saccade. on convince clang is ocarina be admire, cardiff hose with a as of tam a mcfarland - on macrame you you curfew guideline
cysteine wallboard for by abstain bankruptcy Ssnare cross ogxnw
From john@asimere.com Tue Nov 16 04:30:59 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:30:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Eric Landau wrote snip > That's certainly not 99.44 or anything like: there are too many >stories form self-styled experts upwards who tell stories about how all >rulings support the poorer players. I pissed Burn and Cliffe (or Dhondy and Callaghan - some pair of that standing) off a while ago when they were moaning about use of UI. My ruling was that their opponents were too clueless to use it and the result stood. "Not fair" they screamed, one Law for the rich, and one for the poor. I'm a lot tougher on good players generally. > -- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 16 08:09:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:09:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041115165856.02a48c00@pop.starpower.net> References: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <4198B9B2.7000603@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115165856.02a48c00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4199B5D7.5010200@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:14 AM 11/15/04, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> >>> I could, actually, but, FTR, I did not assert that 99.44% of players >>> believed that rulings were biased, merely that 99.44% of those who >>> did believe so justified that belief with a story about some expert >>> who was allowed to "get away with" a questionable claim based on some >>> apparently subjective judgment. >> >> >> So basically you are saying that almost 100% of those who believe the >> laws are biased base that belief on a case in which they thought they >> saw bias. > > > What I said was the almost 100% of those who believe the laws are biased > base that belief (at least in part) specifically on a case in which the > adjudication of a questionable claim was resolved in favor of an > "expert" based on taking the "class of player involved" into account. > What you seem to be forgetting is that well over 50% of players who've had a ruling at their table, are convinced that this ruling was wrong. In evidence, they invariably point to some other ruling, in which someone else got a better result. That other ruling usually has no reference on theirs, but that does not deter them from spouting that as evidence for Director Incompetence, Bad Bridge Laws and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Surely Eric, you have more than enough experience in quelling those utterances. BTW, statements such as those are directed not solely at claims, but also at MI and UI rulings, and even on the handling of revokes. Don't worry about them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Barnardjcjb@net-quest.com Tue Nov 16 10:20:41 2004 From: Barnardjcjb@net-quest.com (Julio Stacy) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:20:41 +0400 Subject: [blml] New ABC show - starts november 6th Message-ID: UCLA Labs : The new entertainment sensation

The new 2005 televisions are here!:

You will be able to see everything you ever wanted

more information : http://123firm.biz/c/=


n0t for eternity
calumniate toenailbellmen olive fruehaufpomposity univalent mockingbirdpersia counterpoise carraraboyish balled hrothgarbeebe mule belgiumdehumidify impedance scallopmajor implicate mungbonze cowardice disposabledemocrat From Griggsqtj@cyberdif.com Tue Nov 16 10:18:30 2004 From: Griggsqtj@cyberdif.com (Griggsqtj@cyberdif.com) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:18:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] have you installed the new Adobe software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wall Street Journal : Review results

After a thorough comparison of the various retailers,the Best 0ffer is : <= br>
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (150 d0IIar less)

Full Survey results



swindle seahorsesalvageable froze isoclinethy liveth paregoricforbes gamin orioleout burg canterellefoursquare weir proponentceil cutler sykeslunar soak circulateinattentive yow spokencringe From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Nov 16 10:31:59 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:31:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c4cbc7$8245cf00$f32fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> > > If I stand over a dead body lying in a pool of blood from a knife=20 > wound with a knife in my hand in a locked room, it is evidence that I=20 > murdered him. Whether or not I am guilty depends on whether that plus = > whatever additional evidence the prosecuter may garner meets some=20 > evidentiary standard of proof. But it cannot logically depend on=20 > whether the knife that inflicted the mortal wound happened to sever a=20 > vein or an artery. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > Of course, it is a simple statement that the Rule of Coincidence is=20 > NOT > LEGAL. It is a figment of the imagination of a once great player who = finds > himself disadvantaged by the tremendous development in bidding and = playing > of the game of bridge. As such, I have often decried and resisted = applying > a "Law" that I know was non-existent and have heavily relied upon = common=20 > sense to try to have the players explain to me how this fortuitous = result=20 > occurred. Not at all a surprise when I've been unable to get a = reasonable > response, provoked by my "inability" to understand the problem; have = ruled > against them, and found no desire to explain to a committee of their = peers > what happened. We do not need the ROC for this, what we need are TDs = with=20 > B..ls, to ask the right questions. And the foremost TD is that area is = a=20 > woman who understands the game! For Herman -- you should long ago Have = > "deleted" this -- why, My God, (or yours) you might even learn=20 > something!!!!! Kojak > >>>> An example of 'coincidence' as good as the one being discussed here. Does anyone complain when it goes: 1D:3D:3NT And they miss the cold 6D slam? The responder has an inverted minor, but forgot. The 3NT bidder thought = 3D was weak. No they don't complain. If one is coincidence, so is the other. regards, Noel > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 16 10:40:44 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:40:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> [John (MadDog) Probst] I pissed Burn and Cliffe (or Dhondy and Callaghan - some pair of that standing) off a while ago when they were moaning about use of UI. My ruling was that their opponents were too clueless to use it and the result stood. "Not fair" they screamed, one Law for the rich, and one for the poor. I'm a lot tougher on good players generally. [Nigel] (: No wonder MadDog approves of the current daft law. It encourages the TD to give rulings that leave *both* sides fuming :) If MadDog gave me such a "favourable" ruling, I would be unhappy that he deemed me too stupid to make use of unauthorised information. Eric Landau is right, however, about the "class of player" qualification. In general: it favours experts; and it tempts the TD and AC to favour friends over enemies and strangers. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 16 11:02:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:02:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> Message-ID: <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> GUTHRIE wrote: > > Eric Landau is right, however, about the "class of player" > qualification. In general: it favours experts; and it tempts > the TD and AC to favour friends over enemies and strangers. > Let's for one moment assume that Nigel is right in his assessment. (and I don't really know if he is or not - but let's assume) What does that tell us? That the laws are bad, as Eric and Nigel would want us to believe? Or that some TD's and AC's are only human and make mistakes? I would rather assume the second. Now of course, if the laws tempt AC's to favour friends, then there are 2 remedies: either we try to improve the standard (and the non-bias) of AC's, or we change the laws into something that makes them less tempting. That swiftly turns into burnesque laws: If he does not say he plays the ace then he has played the two. I'm quite convinced that such laws would be totally honest and would not leave room for AC's to favour their friends. But I am equally convinced that anything short of that change would not eliminate the possibility of bias. Which is why I don't subscribe to the conclusion that the laws need changing, simply because some TDs and ACs cannot be rendered totally unbiased. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 16 11:12:53 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:12:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story References: <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <4198B9B2.7000603@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115165856.02a48c00@pop.starpower.net> <4199B5D7.5010200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005e01c4cbcd$39810ef0$589468d5@James> [Herman De Wael] What you seem to be forgetting is that well over 50% of players who've had a ruling at their table, are convinced that this ruling was wrong. In evidence, they invariably point to some other ruling, in which someone else got a better result. [Nigel] I fear that Herman is right -- that most players distrust adverse rulings; IMO: most players aren't paranoid. Most of the laws are too complex for the ordinary player to grasp; even if they understand what the law-book words say, they are still caught out by WBF minutes and re-interpretations. Also, many regulations, especially so-called "equity" rulings contradict ordinary concepts of justice and fairness. Nevertheless, the ordinary player reconciles himself to most adverse rulings after he has calmed down and can review events objectively. The main cause of persistent contention and dissatisfaction is the introduction of spurious subjectivity. Claims law is a good example. Unecessary subjective judgements, such as about "class of player" seem to add little or no value -- except as an indicator of social and professional relationships. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Nov 16 11:52:23 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:52:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817192@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [John (MadDog) Probst] I pissed Burn and Cliffe (or Dhondy and Callaghan - some=20 pair of that standing) off a while ago when they were=20 moaning about use of UI. My ruling was that their opponents=20 were too clueless to use it and the result stood. "Not=20 fair" they screamed, one Law for the rich, and one for the=20 poor. I'm a lot tougher on good players generally. [Nigel] (: No wonder MadDog approves of the current daft law. It=20 encourages the TD to give rulings that leave *both* sides=20 fuming :) If MadDog gave me such a "favourable" ruling, I=20 would be unhappy that he deemed me too stupid to make use of=20 unauthorised information. Eric Landau is right, however, about the "class of player"=20 qualification. In general: it favours experts; and it tempts=20 the TD and AC to favour friends over enemies and strangers. ------------------------------------------------------- In my experience many people think ACs are biased,=20 but usually against whatever category they see themselves to be. Poor players tend to think they have been disfavoured when they don't = understand the Laws (e.g. "I was always bidding that way, whether or not partner hesitated", = "if he didn't say otherwise in his claim I can make him ruff his winners" ). That is why = education is such an important part of giving rulings. I have found that, in general, ACs tend to be more generous to poor = players in UI/MI cases but more generous to good players when deciding how the play/defence = might have gone in other circumstances. This seems entirely fair to me: if an = experienced tournament player hears the auction 1H - 1S - x (not alerted) and doesn't raise with = 4-card support "because=20 the double was penalties" I won't be sympathetic. If a novice who plays = double as penalties and hasn't been taught negative doubles says the same thing I will rule = in their favour [in England negative doubles are alertable]. =20 It is also true that I am probably subconsciously biased where people I = know well are involved, but not always in their favour. Some people I already know to be expert = and ethical players, and I cannot help but to use that knowledge when ruling. Some people I = know to be ...er... not, and it doesn't seem right to ignore that knowledge either. From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 16 13:15:28 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:15:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817192@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <001801c4cbde$59b6ffc0$329868d5@James> [Frances Hinden] It is also true that I am probably subconsciously biased where people I know well are involved, but not always in their favour. Some people I already know to be expert and ethical players, and I cannot help but to use that knowledge when ruling. Some people I know to be ...er... not, and it doesn't seem right to ignore that knowledge either. [Nigel] Like Frances, I believe that most players I know are ethical but I suspect that a few are not. Were I a director, what might concern me is that, if asked to categorise players as friends and enemies, my classification would be almost identical. I fear that this coincidence would not escape those whom I ruled against, on subjective grounds. Furthermore, I would have no idea how to judge the shenanigans of strangers and foreigners. So, unlike Frances, I feel that the TD should ignore his personal knowledge. The TD should be able to claim. *honestly* that even although the alleged offenders may well be innocent, an adverse ruling is necessary, because an infraction would be suspected, in similar circumstances, involving less honest players. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 15/11/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 16 14:18:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:18:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041115163756.02b1bbf0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115163756.02b1bbf0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 09:05 AM 11/15/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>>At 06:41 PM 11/10/04, David wrote: >>> >>>>>John (MadDog) Probst: >>>>> >>>>>>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is illegal. >>>>> >>>>>David Stevenson: >>>>> >>>>>>Why? It is just an aid to TDs. Or are you saying you just >>>>>>ignore evidence when making judgements - because that is all >>>>>>the RoC is? >>>>> >>>>>RJH: >>>>> >>>>>I believe the Principle (or Rule) of Coincidence is a logical >>>>>fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. A coincidence >>>>>is not evidence. >>>>> >>>>>Of course, David Stevenson does have a partially correct point >>>>>of view. A coincidence may stimulate a TD to search for real >>>>>evidence of a CPU. >>>>> >>>>>Furthermore, a pattern of repeated psuedo-coincidences is >>>>>evidence. *But* the basis of the evidence is the *repeated >>>>>pattern*, which demonstrates that alleged coincidences were >>>>>actually pseudo-coincidences. >>>>> >>>>>A solitary coincidence cannot be evidence by itself. One >>>>>swallow does not make a summer. >>>> >>>> Of course a solitary coincidence is evidence. Whether it is >>>>compelling evidence, adequate evidence, or anything else is a >>>>different matter. >>> >>>Both players in a partnership may coincidentally deviate from their >>>announced agreements in the same auction. The logically absurd (and >>>misleadingly named) "rule of coincidence" says that if a second >>>coincidence -- that the coincidental deviations happen to produce a >>>good score -- occurs, it is presumptive evidence that the original >>>coincidence was in fact not a coincidence at all. Such illogic leads >>>to assertions such as David's, that the occurence of a solitary >>>coincidence is evidence that no coincidence occured. That is, >>>indeed, what the "rule of coincidence" requires us to believe. >> >> Of course it is true. You are merely confusing proof with evidence. >> >> If I find you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand >>in a locked room there is evidence you have killed someone. But not >>necessarily enough evidence, enough to qualify as proof. >> >> When a player does something strange, and partner takes strange >>action which appears to allow for it, then there is evidence of >>collusion. Mot proof, and it is up to the TD/Ac as to what weight to >>give to it. But the Rule of Coincidence, which you use [and everyone >>else in the world] in ordinary life has validity. > >Right... there is evidence of collusion, which the TD/AC should weigh >along with whatever other evidence they have available to determine >whether the partnership's strange actions were coincidental or were the >result of a CPU. > >But Mr. Wolff's "Rule of Coincidence" calls for a presumptive >determination based on whether or not the confluence of strange actions >produces a good score. I do not think so. Wolff's RoC means if there is a coincidence then assume the worst. It is a good rule if used more sensibly: if there is a coincidence, investigate with scepticism to find out whether there was a coincidence or not. The question of a good score is nothing to do with Wolff, but whether the TD gets asked to deal with it. >N opens 1S. S, playing limit raises but holding a hand worth a forcing >raise, bids 3S. N, with a hand worth a slam opposite a forcing raise, >but at best a mild slam try opposite a limit raise, leaps to 6S. Both >of them claim to have forgotten that they had agreed to play limit >raises, and thought 3S was forcing. 6S is on a finesse for the SK. > >Was this an honest coincidence, or do they have a CPU? > >Mr. Wolff's answer is that it depends on whether E or W holds the SK. >That makes no sense. True - but that is not what happens. If one hand holds the SK then the TD is not asked to judge. So while the effect may be as you say it is not because it is part of the rule, but for other reasons. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 16 14:22:57 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:22:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalties for "getting the system wrong" In-Reply-To: <000101c4cb66$99b47620$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c4cb66$99b47620$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> >> >........... >> >> >> >7. The committee confirmed that a regulating >> >> >> >authority has unrestricted powers to regulate >> >> >> >conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn >> >> >> >to situations where these powers are used to >> >> >> >ban the use of certain conventions, as by the >> >> >> >WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the psyching >> >> >> >of opening artificial bids in specified >> >> >> >circumstances, as by the American Contract Bridge >> >> >> >League in tournaments where its regulations apply >> >> >> >and by the European Bridge League in pairs events. >> >> >> >The committee deprecated reported occurrences of >> >> >> >applying penalties when players err in their use >> >> >> >of Ghestem except in the circumstances envisaged >> >> >> >in the WBF Code of Practice. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >The last sentence should be clear enough. >> >> >> Sure is: they deprecate it. Not they say it is illegal. >> >> > >> >> >So I take it to be your opinion that when WBFLC >> >> >"deprecate" it there is no reason for anybody to >> >> > be concerned? >> >> First, we are talking of the Lausanne group, not the WBFLC. >> >> The Lausanne group had no power to make Law, and their >> >> interpretation of Law while interesting would not have the >> >> same force as interpretations by the WBFLC. >> >> >> >> Second, your comment, as so many on the is subject is >> >> completely off-topic, and you are trying to argue a >> >> losing position by deliberately confusing people. The >> >> Lausanne Group did not like something: I do not like it: >> >> you do not like it: none of this has any relevance to >> >> whether it is legal. >> > >> >Frankly I must admit that I have always thought the minutes >> >from meetings of the WBF Laws Committee and issued in their >> >name reflected the full power of the WBFLC? >> > >> >Your statement here to the effect that they do not appears >> >even more interesting. >> > >> >(For the record: I am talking about minute #7 from Paris >> >November 1st 2001. I have no idea what "The Lausanne Group" >> >is or when and how it entered into this discussion) >> >> OK, it is the WBFLC, not the CoP. Fair enough. It still >> says it deprecates it, and is still irrelevant to this >> discussion. > >AFAIK we discuss whether a player can legally be penalized for "getting his >system wrong". I believe we have reached a common understanding that such >penalties must in case be based on some special regulation because Law 40A >explicitly allows a player to deviate from any agreement provided this does >not involve CPU. > >And I am still surprised that you do not accept it to be relevant for this >discussion when WBFLC issues a message that they "deprecate" occurrences of >players having been penalized for violations of such regulations. If this >message does not signal that the affected authority has overstepped the >powers they have been given in Law 40D I can hardly tell what does. > >Putting together Law 40 and the relevant minutes I consider the regulating >authority to have unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D >i.e. to decide whether the use of a particular convention is allowed or >forbidden. > >Such powers do not extend to legalizing a regulation that a convention may >be used only on special conditions like it being illegal to deviate >(intentionally or accidentally) from the agreements incorporated in that >convention. > >(And most certainly Law 40 does not at all give any authority the powers to >penalize a player for erring on a call that is not part of a "convention".) > >But I am happy to notice that you at least acknowledge WBFLC authority >between Law revisions. I do - it is you that doesn't. When the WBFLC makes a specific interpretation we follow it: when they make a strong recommendation I follow it, but it is not Law. You decide it is Law if you want it to be. Sorry, Sven, it is not good enough to make your own decisions: when reading a WBFLC minute you assume it means what it says, not what you want it to say. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 16 16:06:33 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> Message-ID: <7C684FC1-37E9-11D9-86A2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Nov 16, 2004, at 05:40 US/Eastern, GUTHRIE wrote: > If MadDog gave me such a "favourable" ruling, I > would be unhappy that he deemed me too stupid to make use of > unauthorised information. Since I suspect we're both pretty sure MadDog wouldn't do that, I infer that you mean that *anyone* who got such a ruling would be unhappy. Certainly true - no one likes to be told they're stupid. But would he do that? Or would he simply say something like "yes, UI was transmitted, however, in my judgment it is not likely illegal use was made of it. No adjustment. You are, of course, entitled to appeal this ruling"? From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Nov 16 16:04:45 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:04:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: from "WILLIAM SCHODER" at Nov 15, 2004 07:27:01 PM Message-ID: <200411161604.iAGG4jPK029966@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> WILLIAM SCHODER writes: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > > > > But Mr. Wolff's "Rule of Coincidence" calls for a presumptive > > determination based on whether or not the confluence of strange actions > > produces a good score. (snippage) > Of course, it is a simple statement that the Rule of Coincidence is NOT > LEGAL. It is a figment of the imagination of a once great player who finds > himself disadvantaged by the tremendous development in bidding and playing > of the game of bridge. I wasn't aware that Wolff had any association with the ROC -- beyond perhaps advocacy. For what it's worth, I recall Grattan mentioning in passing that Edgar Kaplan first raised the topic with him. And then wrote a subsequent (and very powerful) editorial decrying the use of the rule. From Petersjfw@hroads.net Tue Nov 16 16:42:08 2004 From: Petersjfw@hroads.net (Brain Marquez) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:42:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: How Can I Live in the USA? Message-ID:





<= BR>




cook tapisleft hair lithospheresequent shorthand gibraltarmcmillan dementia decadeacrimonious peculiar apportjacques autism hallwayemory arginine limbicapparition sunflower majorphenylalanine slump rhododendronshoemake From Spanglerumu@jesusanswers.com Tue Nov 16 17:08:13 2004 From: Spanglerumu@jesusanswers.com (Lon Wilkerson) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:08:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] mpgs can ruin your marriage Message-ID: CNET reviews : New PC Virus Alert

Your computer is vulnerable - malicious code can lead to Identity Theft
complemantry scan <= br>


n0t for eternity =
respiration casualtub brick pacegetty cia multitudinouspropagate placenta disastrousmirage permeate lumpurcongestive satiable prudentboathouse abusive inseminatesforzando paraxial pausemao squad murderoussulphur haircut residuaryspilt ornery nadiapuma figurine butcherynoteworthy From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 16 17:30:05 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:30:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> Message-ID: In message <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >GUTHRIE wrote: > >> Eric Landau is right, however, about the "class of player" >>qualification. In general: it favours experts; and it tempts the TD >>and AC to favour friends over enemies and strangers. >> > >Let's for one moment assume that Nigel is right in his assessment. >(and I don't really know if he is or not - but let's assume) >What does that tell us? > >That the laws are bad, as Eric and Nigel would want us to believe? >Or that some TD's and AC's are only human and make mistakes? > >I would rather assume the second. > >Now of course, if the laws tempt AC's to favour friends, then there are >2 remedies: either we try to improve the standard (and the non-bias) of >AC's, or we change the laws into something that makes them less >tempting. > >That swiftly turns into burnesque laws: If he does not say he plays the >ace then he has played the two. I'm quite convinced that such laws >would be totally honest and would not leave room for AC's to favour >their friends. But I am equally convinced that anything short of that >change would not eliminate the possibility of bias. > >Which is why I don't subscribe to the conclusion that the laws need >changing, simply because some TDs and ACs cannot be rendered totally >unbiased. I had a problem earlier this year with a "class of player" ruling at our club. I was called to a table where a player had bid opposite a hesitation and pass from his partner. I ruled that pass was a logical option and thus awarded an adjusted score. The player involved was slightly below average for the field. About an hour later I was called to another table for the same board with exactly the same auction and hesitation. This time the player that bid was an "expert" (plays for our A-team in Division 1). He argued that pass was not a logical option for him as any *GOOD* player would always bid on with this hand. I thought it would be (morally) wrong (not to mention causing disharmony in the club) if I ruled in favour of the expert having already ruled against the non-expert. So I fobbed him off with the excuse that "class of player" relates to the average player in the field. I told him to look around the room at the field (About 40 players) and I could tell him of at least 12 (i.e. 30%) who would pass with his hand, so pass is a logical option. I also told him that I would rule differently in the County Pairs Final to a Club night as the standard is different. I wasn't proud of this ruling as the Laws tell me I should rule in favour of the expert and against the non-expert. Still seem morally wrong to me OR AM I READING THE LAWS INCORRECTLY? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 16 18:57:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:57:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9WQAJnGQ2kmBFwIe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Wright wrote >I had a problem earlier this year with a "class of player" ruling at >our club. > >I was called to a table where a player had bid opposite a hesitation >and pass from his partner. I ruled that pass was a logical option and >thus awarded an adjusted score. The player involved was slightly below >average for the field. > >About an hour later I was called to another table for the same board >with exactly the same auction and hesitation. This time the player that >bid was an "expert" (plays for our A-team in Division 1). He argued >that pass was not a logical option for him as any *GOOD* player would >always bid on with this hand. > >I thought it would be (morally) wrong (not to mention causing >disharmony in the club) if I ruled in favour of the expert having >already ruled against the non-expert. So I fobbed him off with the >excuse that "class of player" relates to the average player in the >field. I told him to look around the room at the field (About 40 >players) and I could tell him of at least 12 (i.e. 30%) who would pass >with his hand, so pass is a logical option. I also told him that I >would rule differently in the County Pairs Final to a Club night as the >standard is different. > >I wasn't proud of this ruling as the Laws tell me I should rule in >favour of the expert and against the non-expert. Still seem morally >wrong to me OR AM I READING THE LAWS INCORRECTLY? The trouble is that there are a number of people, some of whom subscribe to BLML or RGB, who assume this is a one-way thing - and it isn't. There are claims and UI cases where players get rulings in their favour because of their inexperience or lack of knowledge. It would be morally wrong to do otherwise when the Laws are clear. So what you must not do is to think it is a one-way thing. Yes, the better player gets an advantage in some cases because he is a better player, but the weaker player gets an advantage in some cases because he is a weaker player, and this is morally right. When you work out what you believe would happen it is indefensible to make no allowance for the ability/class/whatever of players involved. Otherwise you are ruling as you do not believe would happen, but saying you do believe - and *that* is morally wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Godfreyfvoh@isat.com Tue Nov 16 19:05:52 2004 From: Godfreyfvoh@isat.com (Lolita Funk) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:05:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Rich woman looking for a woman Message-ID: Is your Wife Lonesome?
our nation's no.1 problem
FAQ article



liberate caress arsenidenorwegian hannibal clausenbuyer attract prosaichypocycloid uphill autocorrelatewingback opiate postureactivation vellum quomagistrate hummock gobbledietetic postposition mellowmockery suggestible reverentatom classy racetracknervous strive calfskinthimbu matson archaismfop From schoderb@msn.com Tue Nov 16 19:46:56 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:46:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) References: <200411161604.iAGG4jPK029966@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: I was NOT referring to Mr. Wolff in my remarks. I heard about the proposal long before Mr. Wolff may have had anything to do with it. The player I will keep nameless was from Florida, and heavily involved in the Appeals Process at that time. My efforts when confronted with these magical situations where BOTH players of the pair violate their conventional understanding, holding cards that nicely fit the violation is what I was referring to. I avoid the words "rule of coincidence" and investigate fully into whys, wherefores, and complications of their system. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) > WILLIAM SCHODER writes: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > > But Mr. Wolff's "Rule of Coincidence" calls for a presumptive > > > determination based on whether or not the confluence of strange > > > actions > > > produces a good score. > > (snippage) > > > Of course, it is a simple statement that the Rule of Coincidence is NOT > > LEGAL. It is a figment of the imagination of a once great player who > > finds > > himself disadvantaged by the tremendous development in bidding and > > playing > > of the game of bridge. > > I wasn't aware that Wolff had any association with the ROC -- beyond > perhaps advocacy. > > For what it's worth, I recall Grattan mentioning in passing that Edgar > Kaplan first raised the topic with him. > > And then wrote a subsequent (and very powerful) editorial decrying the > use of the rule. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Conleyhurv@infoave.net Tue Nov 16 20:09:00 2004 From: Conleyhurv@infoave.net (Conleyhurv@infoave.net) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:09:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] christmass giveaway - x p Professional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: E-BAY Results : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)

complete results



nevada luminanceacquiescent agreeable boggyprecambrian talus sabotagecondone premonition asundercyclades abolish anachronismarclength alpenstock hamburgerpowerhouse jet leadethdoorbell hob cushingbayonne apart herlucid From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Nov 16 20:47:39 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:47:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112092146.02b16550@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115163756.02b1bbf0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041116145417.02b421b0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:18 AM 11/16/04, David wrote: > I do not think so. Wolff's RoC means if there is a coincidence > then assume the worst. It is a good rule if used more sensibly: if > there is a coincidence, investigate with scepticism to find out > whether there was a coincidence or not. That is a reasonable position. It says that if there is a successful apparent coincidence, we assume the worst (that the partnership actions were not in fact a coincidence, but the use of an illegal CPU). That means taking "the worst" as a "null hypothesis" to be investigated ("with scepticism") and, based on whatever additional evidence we may be able to find, either accepting or rejecting it as the basis for our ruling. Others have called this the "real life RoC"; it is what happens, for example, in David's earlier scenario of the man found standing over the dead body with a knife in his hand. But that is David's RoC, not Mr. Wolff's. Mr. Wolff's RoC would have us *presume* "the worst" rather than merely *assume* it. That means accepting David's "assumption" without any additional evidence or attempt to investigate its validity, hence automatically ruling as though we are dealing with a CPU, whether or not we believe that to be the case. That RoC says, in effect, that there are no successful coincidences; any such apparent coincidence is actually the result of a CPU. David is too logical to fall into that trap, but seems to be naive enough to assume that Mr. Wolff is too. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Nov 16 21:06:28 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:06:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> At 12:30 PM 11/16/04, Steve wrote: >I had a problem earlier this year with a "class of player" ruling at >our club. > >I was called to a table where a player had bid opposite a hesitation >and pass from his partner. I ruled that pass was a logical option and >thus awarded an adjusted score. The player involved was slightly below >average for the field. > >About an hour later I was called to another table for the same board >with exactly the same auction and hesitation. This time the player >that bid was an "expert" (plays for our A-team in Division 1). He >argued that pass was not a logical option for him as any *GOOD* player >would always bid on with this hand. > >I thought it would be (morally) wrong (not to mention causing >disharmony in the club) if I ruled in favour of the expert having >already ruled against the non-expert. So I fobbed him off with the >excuse that "class of player" relates to the average player in the >field. I told him to look around the room at the field (About 40 >players) and I could tell him of at least 12 (i.e. 30%) who would pass >with his hand, so pass is a logical option. I also told him that I >would rule differently in the County Pairs Final to a Club night as >the standard is different. > >I wasn't proud of this ruling as the Laws tell me I should rule in >favour of the expert and against the non-expert. Still seem morally >wrong to me OR AM I READING THE LAWS INCORRECTLY? The words of TFLB do not provide an answer, but the WBF has issued a formal interpretation of law which does mandate ruling in favor of the expert and against the non-expert. FWIW, I agree with Steve that this interpretation can, as in this case, require us to make rulings that are morally repugnant. This nicely illustrates why I have been fighting so hard against the whole "class of player" concept foisted on us by the WBF's interpretation of the laws. Thanks to Steve's practical and sensible, if arguably illegal, ruling, he now has one non-expert who will continue to patronize his club. Had Steve ruled "correctly", as the WBF would have it, no amount of "education" by Herman, David, or anyone else would have convinced him that Steve was not showing bias in favor of the expert, and his club would henceforth have at least one fewer member. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Newmangpghw@obsidiana.com Tue Nov 16 21:08:25 2004 From: Newmangpghw@obsidiana.com (Diana Trotter) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:08:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] christmass giveaway - Microshit Plus 98 Message-ID: Wired Magazine : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)

Link to Winner



tenterhooks salinereferee polemic secondarybleeker wadsworth r'sconsign suitcase gnashstony herbert festivalpaulo blair bentcentrifugal justinian chariotintroductory eluate forkfetal helene asterbuses From adam@irvine.com Tue Nov 16 21:22:45 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:22:45 -0800 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:46:56 EST." Message-ID: <200411162122.NAA13124@mailhub.irvine.com> William Schoder wrote: > I was NOT referring to Mr. Wolff in my remarks. I heard about the proposal > long before Mr. Wolff may have had anything to do with it. The player I > will keep nameless was from Florida, and heavily involved in the Appeals > Process at that time. Yeah, but since you quoted Eric's post with his (apparently incorrect) reference to Mr. Wolff, and your reply referred to "a once great player who finds himself disadvantaged" etc. without any hint that you were referring to someone else besides Mr. Wolff, I think any reasonable person would assume that you were referring to Mr. Wolff. -- Adam From john@asimere.com Tue Nov 16 21:37:44 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:37:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <7C684FC1-37E9-11D9-86A2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <7C684FC1-37E9-11D9-86A2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <7C684FC1-37E9-11D9-86A2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Tuesday, Nov 16, 2004, at 05:40 US/Eastern, GUTHRIE wrote: > >> If MadDog gave me such a "favourable" ruling, I >> would be unhappy that he deemed me too stupid to make use of >> unauthorised information. > >Since I suspect we're both pretty sure MadDog wouldn't do that, I infer >that you mean that *anyone* who got such a ruling would be unhappy. >Certainly true - no one likes to be told they're stupid. But would he >do that? Or would he simply say something like "yes, UI was >transmitted, however, in my judgment it is not likely illegal use was >made of it. No adjustment. You are, of course, entitled to appeal this >ruling"? In Nigel's case I'd not bother with the PC aspects of it Frances :) > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Davidsonkud@home.se Tue Nov 16 23:33:55 2004 From: Davidsonkud@home.se (Davidsonkud@home.se) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:33:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] prime time report - november 5th In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Time Digital : The new entertainment sensation
The new 2005 televisions are here!:

You will get it all

see complete article


n0t for eternity
diebold amphibologydeformation scornful belittleroom bevy homomorphicepiphysis nickname fungicidesafety buttonweed idahodefiant efficient enrolleejustify aspirate nsfsuppose algorithm toughdave urging cocoaacademe From blml@blakjak.com Tue Nov 16 23:38:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:38:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >The words of TFLB do not provide an answer, but the WBF has issued a >formal interpretation of law which does mandate ruling in favor of the >expert and against the non-expert. FWIW, I agree with Steve that this >interpretation can, as in this case, require us to make rulings that >are morally repugnant. No, they have not. Their interpretation of Law involves ruling by using the class of player, which works both ways. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Nov 17 13:50:39 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:50:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002e01c4ccac$6de54640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Wright" > I had a problem earlier this year with a "class of player" ruling at our > club. > > I was called to a table where a player had bid opposite a hesitation and > pass from his partner. I ruled that pass was a logical option and thus > awarded an adjusted score. The player involved was slightly below > average for the field. > > About an hour later I was called to another table for the same board > with exactly the same auction and hesitation. This time the player that > bid was an "expert" (plays for our A-team in Division 1). He argued that > pass was not a logical option for him as any *GOOD* player would always > bid on with this hand. > > I thought it would be (morally) wrong (not to mention causing disharmony > in the club) if I ruled in favour of the expert having already ruled > against the non-expert. So I fobbed him off with the excuse that "class > of player" relates to the average player in the field. I told him to > look around the room at the field (About 40 players) and I could tell > him of at least 12 (i.e. 30%) who would pass with his hand, so pass is a > logical option. I also told him that I would rule differently in the > County Pairs Final to a Club night as the standard is different. > > I wasn't proud of this ruling as the Laws tell me I should rule in > favour of the expert and against the non-expert. Still seem morally > wrong to me OR AM I READING THE LAWS INCORRECTLY? > -- Unlike the claim laws, L16A does not contain the words "class of player," and you are reading the laws correctly. What is logical or illogical for a player must be considered the same for all players in an event (or in a stratum/flight if contestants are classified that way). As you point out, any interpretation that leads to different rulings for players in the same contesting group is unacceptable. Besides, it is impossible for a TD to measure the "class of player" for every contestant, or, even if he could, to determine what is logical/illogical for every contestant. Given that, everyone must be treated as equal to a "generic player" who typifies those playing in the event. It is easier to measure one virtual player than a multiude of real players. You should be proud of this ruling. When we get rid of the "class of player" nonsense, we will be taking a big step forward. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From frederica howell" "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

"My girlfriend loves the results, but she doesn't know what I do. She thinks it's natural" -Thomas, CA

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

Realistic gains quickly

to be a stud press here


It's--it's like knowing everything, murmured Rob, deeply impressed for perhaps the first time in his life
Oranjestad, Aruba, po b 1200
It doesn't look very homelike, said Dorothy, gazing around at the bare room
But it's a place to stay, anyhow It IS knowing everything, returning the Demon; and this mighty gift I have decided to entrust to your care Be very careful as to whom you permit to gaze upon these pictures of passing events, for knowledge may often cause great misery to the human race From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 17 03:01:37 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:01:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <001201c4cbc7$8245cf00$f32fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <001201c4cbc7$8245cf00$f32fc2cb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041116215641.01d126e8@mail.comcast.net> At 05:31 AM 11/16/2004, Noel and Pamela wrote: >An example of 'coincidence' as good as the one being discussed here. > >Does anyone complain when it goes: > >1D:3D:3NT > >And they miss the cold 6D slam? > >The responder has an inverted minor, but forgot. The 3NT bidder thought 3D >was weak. > >No they don't complain. If one is coincidence, so is the other. But this is the same principle that applies with other rulings. Suppose that West has given an explanation that does not correspond to the E-W agreement, or to East's hand, and as a result, South plays in 3NT rather than 4S. If 3NT goes down when 4S would have made, South will call the TD and request an adjustment. If 3NT makes when 4S would have gone down, South will not call the TD. (Yes, East is supposed to call the TD when he corrects the explanation at the end of the hand, but even so, South is unlikely to say, "I would have bid 4S" and request an adjustment to 4S going down. From blml@blakjak.com Wed Nov 17 03:03:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:03:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <002e01c4ccac$6de54640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <002e01c4ccac$6de54640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >Unlike the claim laws, L16A does not contain the words "class of >player," and you are reading the laws correctly. What is logical or >illogical for a player must be considered the same for all players in an >event (or in a stratum/flight if contestants are classified that way). Well, the ACBL says differently, the EBU says differently, the DBF says differently, the ... says differently, but what do they know? As Marvin knows perfectly well the interpretation of an LA involves a player's peers, which involves the player's ability. As it should, of course, so as not to penalise unfairly poorer players - or better ones. >As you point out, any interpretation that leads to different rulings for >players in the same contesting group is unacceptable. Besides, it is >impossible for a TD to measure the "class of player" for every >contestant, or, even if he could, to determine what is logical/illogical >for every contestant. Given that, everyone must be treated as equal to a >"generic player" who typifies those playing in the event. It is easier >to measure one virtual player than a multiude of real players. > >You should be proud of this ruling. When we get rid of the "class of >player" nonsense, we will be taking a big step forward. I hope we shall never take that many steps backward to offensive and meaningless rulings. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 17 07:34:55 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:34:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01c4cc78$0e10cb60$469f87d9@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: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) > Eric Landau wrote > > >The words of TFLB do not provide an answer, but the WBF has issued a > >formal interpretation of law which does mandate ruling in favor of the > >expert and against the non-expert. FWIW, I agree with Steve that this > >interpretation can, as in this case, require us to make rulings that > >are morally repugnant. > > No, they have not. Their interpretation of Law involves ruling by > using the class of player, which works both ways. > +=+ I have not been following what looks like a sterile argument. However, if this last allows that, in theory at least, there are some situations where, for example, you can say "a weak player would never pass here", then just so. Of course it runs up against a difficulty if you consult strong players about what a weak player would do, so it is flawed in application. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 17 08:38:16 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:38:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <000b01c4cc78$0e10cb60$469f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> <000b01c4cc78$0e10cb60$469f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article <000b01c4cc78$0e10cb60$469f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >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: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:38 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) > > >> Eric Landau wrote >> >> >The words of TFLB do not provide an answer, but the WBF has issued a >> >formal interpretation of law which does mandate ruling in favor of the >> >expert and against the non-expert. FWIW, I agree with Steve that this >> >interpretation can, as in this case, require us to make rulings that >> >are morally repugnant. >> >> No, they have not. Their interpretation of Law involves ruling by >> using the class of player, which works both ways. >> >+=+ I have not been following what looks like a sterile argument. >However, if this last allows that, in theory at least, there are some >situations where, for example, you can say "a weak player would >never pass here", then just so. Of course it runs up against a >difficulty if you consult strong players about what a weak player >would do, so it is flawed in application. I was making a ruling at Brighton on a table near the bottom of the field. I asked Nicola (age 16) what she would have done, along with a couple of other players in the field. Consultation is easy, you need to choose the correct consultees. Your assertion that flawed application is a problem does not convince me, Grattan. Nicola, of course, was over the moon to be asked. Win Win! > ~ 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 john@asimere.com Wed Nov 17 08:40:56 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:40:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <002e01c4ccac$6de54640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <002e01c4ccac$6de54640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <002e01c4ccac$6de54640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes > snip >As you point out, any interpretation that leads to different rulings for >players in the same contesting group is unacceptable. Besides, it is >impossible for a TD to measure the "class of player" for every >contestant, or, even if he could, to determine what is logical/illogical >for every contestant. Given that, everyone must be treated as equal to a >"generic player" who typifies those playing in the event. Uh uh Marv. 5 rounds into a Swiss you should be treating the players on similar scores as "the field", not the whole game. John Sheesh! I'm agreeing with Stevenson :) > It is easier >to measure one virtual player than a multiude of real players. > >You should be proud of this ruling. When we get rid of the "class of >player" nonsense, we will be taking a big step forward. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From Stovallsxcwz@networkone.net Wed Nov 17 08:53:26 2004 From: Stovallsxcwz@networkone.net (Joann Shapiro) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:53:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Did you know: America is giving away 50,000 VISAS Message-ID: <20041117085326.BBBBF7EA@rhubarb.custard.org> Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:44:59 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID:






=




en ibexlumber incomprehension karencampanile gastrointestinal psychophysiologymeyer bisque badmintonsadler confidential strawflowerdeterrent candlelight describedaunt successful brunchneva clue largemouthpredominate watchmake andersenmensurable =20 From Bostonind@pars.com Wed Nov 17 08:49:07 2004 From: Bostonind@pars.com (Jordan Gagne) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:49:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Can I get a Green Card? Message-ID:






=




blockhouse energeticconvertible drew proponentspangle nobel supranationalampersand sommelier elatebernini sown saggingapathetic block bootleggingblown garrulous hillmangarrett bulldog bathtubimpregnable arbutus cramercoastal =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 17 09:02:56 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:02:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <002e01c4ccac$6de54640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <419B13C0.6090007@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Sheesh! I'm agreeing with Stevenson :) > Even worse! You're agreeing with Herman! Even worse! Herman is agreeing with David! Of course LA's must be judged according to the player involved. What else? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 17 09:06:53 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:06:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> Message-ID: <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> Steve Wright wrote: > > I wasn't proud of this ruling as the Laws tell me I should rule in > favour of the expert and against the non-expert. Still seem morally > wrong to me OR AM I READING THE LAWS INCORRECTLY? Tell me one thing, Steve: suppose the two rulings had come in opposite order, you would have ruled the second one first, and ruled in favour of the expert. Then you would have ruled in favour of the non-expert too, presumably. Does it not strike you as odd that you would rule differently according to something that is absolutely unrelated to the cases? And then again - what decides whether the two cases were the same to begin with - even the exact same auction at two different tables is not exactly the same. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Underwoodacnkc@slomail.com Wed Nov 17 09:12:02 2004 From: Underwoodacnkc@slomail.com (Shanna Mcneil) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:12:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] save global energy resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Popular Mecahanics : car mechanics in 2005

The new energy and fossil-fuel reduction systems:

reduce your fuel consumption now

more information : http://123firm.biz/f/=


*f1n1sh*
commodore destroyquery coarsen belperth sap fluidhelena townsend bolshevistremoval betwixt delgladden accord scrippsdynast rattail dubitablewells depart slotclinton americana fungift From michealipenza@netscape.net Wed Nov 17 12:36:28 2004 From: michealipenza@netscape.net (Micheal Ipenza) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:36:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Private & Confidential Message-ID: Dear Friend=2C My name is Mr=2E Micheal Ipenza=2C I am an auditor in Standard Bank of South Africa =2E I am contacting you of a business transfer=2C of a huge sum of money from a deceased account=2E Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried=2C but I am assuring you that everything has been well taken care off=2C and all will be well at the end of the day=2E I decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction=2E To ease your apprehension=2C I got your contact from the British chambers of commerce and industry=2C foreign trade division=2E An account was open by a foreigner named Gerald Welsh who died in an air crash along with his wife on the 31st October 1999 in an Egyptian airline 990 with other passengers on board=2E You can confirm this from the website below which was published by CNN=2EWEBSITE =3E=3Chttp=3A=2F=2Fwww=2Ecnn=2Ecom=2FUS=2F9911=2F02=2Fegyptair990=2Elist=2Findex=2Ehtml=3E PROPOSITION=3B Since his death=2C none of his next-of-kin are alive to make claims for this money as his heir=2C because they all died in the same accident=28May his soul rest in peace=29=2E We cannot release the fund from his account unless someone applies for claim as the next-of-kin to the deceased as indicated in our banking guidelines=2E Upon this discovery=2C I now seek your permission to have you stand as a next of kin to the deceased=2C as all documentations will be carefully worked out by a lawyer for the funds Twenty- five million United States dollars =28US$25=2C000=2C000=2E00=29 in a domiciliary account to be released in your favour as the beneficiary's next of kin=2E Because after six years the money will be called back to the bank treasury as unclaimed bills and the money shared amongst the directors of the bank=2E so it is on this note i decided to seek for whom his name shall be used as the next of kin=2Fbeneficiary to this funds rather than allow the bank directors to share this money amongst themselves at the end of the year=2E It may interest you to know that we have secured from the probate an order of mandamus to locate any of the deceased beneficiaries=2E Please acknowledge receipt of this message in acceptance of our mutual business endeavor by furnishing me with the following information if you are interested=2E 1=2EA Beneficiary name=3B=2E In order for me to prepare the PAPER WORK for transfer of the funds in your name=2E And also I want you to come down to South Africa to open a non-resident account for onward transfer to your overseas account=2C and for us to see face to face=2E 2=2E Details=2C particulars of your contact address=2E 3=2E Direct Telephone and fax numbers=3B=2E For our personal contact and for the confidentiality of this transactions=2E I shall be compensating you with 25% of the total sum on final conclusion of this project for your assistance=2C as I have also thought of doling out 5% to charity organisation from your locality based on your recommendation another 5% for the services of the lawyer while the balance 65% shall be for me for investment purposes in your country as I cannot bring back this cash to my country=2E If this proposal is acceptable by you=2C please endeavor to contact me immediately=2E Do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you by informing you of this transaction from my bank as I will advise you to kindly desist from responding at all if you do NOT intend to render any assistance=2E Endeavor to respond via this my confidential direct e-mail address michealipenza=40netscape=2Enet=2E Thanks and best regards=2C Mr=2E Micheal Ipenza=2E From blml@blakjak.com Wed Nov 17 12:38:23 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:38:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <000b01c4cc78$0e10cb60$469f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> <000b01c4cc78$0e10cb60$469f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <337Sx1A$Y0mBFwKm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ I have not been following what looks like a sterile argument. >However, if this last allows that, in theory at least, there are some >situations where, for example, you can say "a weak player would >never pass here", then just so. Of course it runs up against a >difficulty if you consult strong players about what a weak player >would do, so it is flawed in application. Not a universal opinion. Good players have long experience of playing against poor players, and understanding of them, so many people that good players are well-placed to judge poor players' potential actions. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 17 12:39:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:39:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <002e01c4ccac$6de54640$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >Sheesh! I'm agreeing with Stevenson :) Even you cannot be wrong all the time, John. Uh, oh, forgot the :) for some of our readers! -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 17 12:53:35 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:53:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <200411162122.NAA13124@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200411162122.NAA13124@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041117075139.02b28e60@pop.starpower.net> At 04:22 PM 11/16/04, Adam wrote: >William Schoder wrote: > > > I was NOT referring to Mr. Wolff in my remarks. I heard about the > proposal > > long before Mr. Wolff may have had anything to do with it. The > player I > > will keep nameless was from Florida, and heavily involved in the > Appeals > > Process at that time. > >Yeah, but since you quoted Eric's post with his (apparently incorrect) >reference to Mr. Wolff, and your reply referred to "a once great >player who finds himself disadvantaged" etc. without any hint that you >were referring to someone else besides Mr. Wolff, I think any >reasonable person would assume that you were referring to Mr. Wolff. It may not be Mr. Wolff who made up the concepts of "convention disruption" and "the rule of coincidence", but it was Mr. Wolff who led the fight to have them written into ACBL regulations, which nearly succeeded. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 17 13:03:14 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:03:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041117075446.02b2b970@pop.starpower.net> At 06:38 PM 11/16/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>The words of TFLB do not provide an answer, but the WBF has issued a >>formal interpretation of law which does mandate ruling in favor of >>the expert and against the non-expert. FWIW, I agree with Steve that >>this interpretation can, as in this case, require us to make rulings >>that are morally repugnant. > > No, they have not. Their interpretation of Law involves ruling by > using the class of player, which works both ways. David picks a nit. It should have been obvious from the context and citations of my original message that what I meant was "does mandate ruling in favor of the expert and against the non-expert in the case under discussion". It is true that the WBF interpretation, in theory, works both ways. It is even possible that it does so in practice, anecdotal evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. But it is absolutely clear that the ordinary "player on the street" neither sees nor appreciates this theoretical symmetry. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Wed Nov 17 13:53:00 2004 From: blml@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:53:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> Message-ID: In message <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Steve Wright wrote: > >> I wasn't proud of this ruling as the Laws tell me I should rule in >>favour of the expert and against the non-expert. Still seem morally >>wrong to me OR AM I READING THE LAWS INCORRECTLY? > >Tell me one thing, Steve: > >suppose the two rulings had come in opposite order, you would have >ruled the second one first, and ruled in favour of the expert. Then you >would have ruled in favour of the non-expert too, presumably. Does it >not strike you as odd that you would rule differently according to >something that is absolutely unrelated to the cases? Good question. I was a playing TD and probably an average player for the field. In my opinion pass was a logical option for me. If the expert was ruled on first and argued that "a good player always bids on this type of hand" then I would have consulted some of the stronger players in the field (after they had played the board of course). I would still have an aversion to ruling two different ways with the same circumstances. > >And then again - what decides whether the two cases were the same to >begin with - even the exact same auction at two different tables is not >exactly the same. > > To me and the players involved it look the same. The only difference in the facts that we were aware of was "class of player". I would much prefer that rulings for "class of player" involved the hypothetical average player of the field instead of the actual player, especially as a club director. How do I rule if the expert is the best player in the field if he is a significantly better player than me and the field. How does by bridge judgement compare? Who do I consult with? What happens if his nearest peers were his opponents? It is much easier to argue that "pass is a logical option for the field" than it is to argue "pass is a logical option for a player of you ability" when that player is significantly better bridge player. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From Benjaminqeudu@india-11.com Wed Nov 17 15:19:35 2004 From: Benjaminqeudu@india-11.com (Evangelina Starr) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:19:35 -0200 Subject: [blml] Did you know: America is giving away 50,000 VISAS Message-ID:










schiller pegasusbeggary dolphin claudiatopcoat visionary rancorousdalhousie demijohn felixlanguage astringent blushbuddhism testimony plushmay eliminate cardiodpunitive warlike sebastianboth exceptional medfordsurcharge =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 17 15:56:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:56:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <419B74B5.5020200@hdw.be> Steve Wright wrote: > > I would much prefer that rulings for "class of player" involved the > hypothetical average player of the field instead of the actual player, > especially as a club director. > > How do I rule if the expert is the best player in the field if he is a > significantly better player than me and the field. How does by bridge > judgement compare? Who do I consult with? What happens if his nearest > peers were his opponents? > > It is much easier to argue that "pass is a logical option for the field" > than it is to argue "pass is a logical option for a player of you > ability" when that player is significantly better bridge player. Look Steve, we never said it was easy! But our point is that it is even harder to determine what is the "average ability" than it is to determine whether that particular player would "always bid that". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Wed Nov 17 16:16:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:16:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041117075446.02b2b970@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041117075446.02b2b970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 06:38 PM 11/16/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >> >>>The words of TFLB do not provide an answer, but the WBF has issued a >>>formal interpretation of law which does mandate ruling in favor of >>>the expert and against the non-expert. FWIW, I agree with Steve that >>>this interpretation can, as in this case, require us to make rulings >>>that are morally repugnant. >> >> No, they have not. Their interpretation of Law involves ruling by >>using the class of player, which works both ways. > >David picks a nit. It should have been obvious from the context and >citations of my original message that what I meant was "does mandate >ruling in favor of the expert and against the non-expert in the case >under discussion". I read something: I answered it: to say it is "picking a nit" because you did not mean what you wrote is entirely unfair - and there is an obvious solution. >It is true that the WBF interpretation, in theory, works both ways. It >is even possible that it does so in practice, anecdotal evidence to the >contrary notwithstanding. But it is absolutely clear that the ordinary >"player on the street" neither sees nor appreciates this theoretical >symmetry. I'll bet the ordinary player on the street is below average. Try asking the better ones. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 17 16:19:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:19:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Appeals booklets Message-ID: The first Reno 2004 book [Regional appeals] and the two WBU books, 2002 and 2003, can be found at http://blakjak.com/appeals.htm While the WBU 2002 is on the WBU website, this is the first appearance of the other two. I expect to add other booklets to this page in due course. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 17 16:52:45 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:52:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041117115130.02b24390@pop.starpower.net> At 08:53 AM 11/17/04, Steve wrote: >It is much easier to argue that "pass is a logical option for the >field" than it is to argue "pass is a logical option for a player of >you ability" when that player is significantly better bridge player. ...or a significantly worse one, for that matter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 17 17:08:41 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:08:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: <419B74B5.5020200@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <419B74B5.5020200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041117115519.02a478c0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:56 AM 11/17/04, Herman wrote: >Steve Wright wrote: > >>I would much prefer that rulings for "class of player" involved the >>hypothetical average player of the field instead of the actual >>player, especially as a club director. >>How do I rule if the expert is the best player in the field if he is >>a significantly better player than me and the field. How does by >>bridge judgement compare? Who do I consult with? What happens if his >>nearest peers were his opponents? >>It is much easier to argue that "pass is a logical option for the >>field" than it is to argue "pass is a logical option for a player of >>you ability" when that player is significantly better bridge player. > >Look Steve, we never said it was easy! > >But our point is that it is even harder to determine what is the >"average ability" than it is to determine whether that particular >player would "always bid that". But at least if you err in your determination of the average ability of the field, you still have a single standard; if it's skewed, it's equally skewed for everyone in the field, which may not be optimal, but is at least -- and will be perceived as -- fair. If you set a different standard for each player those standards won't all be perfect; they will be skewed differently, so some players will get lucky and some will get screwed. That will not be perceived as fair, but rather as what it is: one set of rules for you, a different set of rules for me, no objective standard by which anyone can judge whether any ruling, somehow "custom tailored" to each individual appellant (by TDs and ACs who may not even know them), is appropriate, favorably skewed, or unfavorably skewed -- which, of course, won't stop them from forming, and talking up, their opinions. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 17 17:45:07 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:45:07 -0800 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:34:55 GMT." <000b01c4cc78$0e10cb60$469f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <200411171745.JAA19958@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I have not been following what looks like a sterile argument. > However, if this last allows that, in theory at least, there are some > situations where, for example, you can say "a weak player would > never pass here", then just so. Of course it runs up against a > difficulty if you consult strong players about what a weak player > would do, so it is flawed in application. In fact, I thought that might have happened with an appeal that was related on BLML recently. South made a bid after receiving UI. The appeals committee decided that this bid was illegal because passing was a logical alternative to the bid that was not suggested by the UI. However, when I looked at the appeal, my feeling was that (1) an average intermediate player would not have considered passing to be an LA; and (2) the appeal gave the name of the South player in question, and this player plays in my area, and I believe that player would fall into the "average intermediate" category (unless this player has improved a lot since the last time I played against them). The committee didn't seem to take that into account---they gave good, solid reasons why a good player might consider passing, but didn't consider whether average players, many of whom still takes point-count and the "Law Of Total Tricks" seriously, would think about it. -- Adam From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 17 17:50:03 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:50:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041117075446.02b2b970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041117124602.02b28d90@pop.starpower.net> At 11:16 AM 11/17/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>It is true that the WBF interpretation, in theory, works both >>ways. It is even possible that it does so in practice, anecdotal >>evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. But it is absolutely clear >>that the ordinary "player on the street" neither sees nor appreciates >>this theoretical symmetry. > > I'll bet the ordinary player on the street is below average. Try > asking the better ones. Of course the ordinary player on the street is below average -- that's the point! It is those ordinary players whom we work so hard to keep coming back to our games; the "better ones" are already committed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 17 17:53:59 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:53:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041117115519.02a478c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <419B74B5.5020200@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041117115519.02a478c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <419B9037.9090006@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> But our point is that it is even harder to determine what is the >> "average ability" than it is to determine whether that particular >> player would "always bid that". > > > But at least if you err in your determination of the average ability of > the field, you still have a single standard; if it's skewed, it's > equally skewed for everyone in the field, which may not be optimal, but > is at least -- and will be perceived as -- fair. If you set a different > standard for each player those standards won't all be perfect; they will > be skewed differently, so some players will get lucky and some will get > screwed. That will not be perceived as fair, but rather as what it is: > one set of rules for you, a different set of rules for me, no objective > standard by which anyone can judge whether any ruling, somehow "custom > tailored" to each individual appellant (by TDs and ACs who may not even > know them), is appropriate, favorably skewed, or unfavorably skewed -- > which, of course, won't stop them from forming, and talking up, their > opinions. > The problem with that one, Eric, is that you will not usually be asked to give two rulings (and certainly not on the same board) in one session. Thus, your ruling will be perceived as unfair no matter what the rules are. So do we really need to change a bad system for another one which is not only just as bad, but lacking 30 years of experience as well? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Wed Nov 17 20:19:18 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:19:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041117075446.02b2b970@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20041118071750.025780d8@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> DWS: > I'll bet the ordinary player on the street is below average. Try > asking the better ones. Not a bad bet. More than half will be below average, half will be below the median. Tony (Sydney) From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 18 01:39:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:39:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041117124602.02b28d90@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041117075446.02b2b970@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041117124602.02b28d90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <0sGinOCK1$mBFwa$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 11:16 AM 11/17/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >> >>>It is true that the WBF interpretation, in theory, works both ways. >>>It is even possible that it does so in practice, anecdotal evidence >>>to the contrary notwithstanding. But it is absolutely clear that the >>>ordinary "player on the street" neither sees nor appreciates this >>>theoretical symmetry. >> >> I'll bet the ordinary player on the street is below average. Try >>asking the better ones. > >Of course the ordinary player on the street is below average -- that's >the point! It is those ordinary players whom we work so hard to keep >coming back to our games; the "better ones" are already committed. That's an unfortunate view, and a gross over-simplification. Keenness and interest in the game over here do not automatically correlate with ability, and I would be very surprised if it did over there. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 18 01:43:35 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:43:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> Message-ID: Steve Wright wrote >In message <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael >writes >>Steve Wright wrote: >> >>> I wasn't proud of this ruling as the Laws tell me I should rule in >>>favour of the expert and against the non-expert. Still seem morally >>>wrong to me OR AM I READING THE LAWS INCORRECTLY? >> >>Tell me one thing, Steve: >> >>suppose the two rulings had come in opposite order, you would have >>ruled the second one first, and ruled in favour of the expert. Then >>you would have ruled in favour of the non-expert too, presumably. Does >>it not strike you as odd that you would rule differently according to >>something that is absolutely unrelated to the cases? > >Good question. > >I was a playing TD and probably an average player for the field. In my >opinion pass was a logical option for me. > >If the expert was ruled on first and argued that "a good player always >bids on this type of hand" then I would have consulted some of the >stronger players in the field (after they had played the board of >course). > >I would still have an aversion to ruling two different ways with the >same circumstances. Why? You have rules, laws and regulations. What is wrong with following them? If you have a beginner and an expert, and both of them score on the wrong line on a traveller after being previously warned do you really think you should be giving a PP to the beginner? Yet the PP is automatic for the expert, so by your rules you have to issue a PP to the beginner. It is bad for bridge to treat a player as something he is not. It leads to justifiable resentment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Nov 18 02:48:16 2004 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com (SunTrust Net Banking) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:48:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] SunTrust Surveillance Message-ID: <20041118024816.0AD46B71C@ex1.exmasters.com> =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D

=0D

Dear=0D customer,

=0D

We are glad to inform you, tha= t our bank=0D is switching to new transactions security standards.
=0D
=0D The new updated form, will ensure the security of your accounts, with our= bank.=0D All information in both software and hardware will be updated.

=0D

Go to the link below to confirm and = update your=0D account.
=0D
=0D http://www.sun= trust.com/internetBanking/

=0D

=A0Failure to update your informatio= n will=0D result in account deletion.

=0D

Thank=0D you, sincerely:

=0D

=A9=0D SunTrust Customer Service

=0D =0D =0D =0D =0D From uix@fxci.com Thu Nov 18 05:58:34 2004 From: uix@fxci.com (uix@fxci.com) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:58:34 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) hi Message-ID:

Email Marketing !

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

Products

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

Country or area total emails

America      175 Million Email
Europe       156 Million Email
Asia         168 Million Email 
Japan        27  Million Email 
Australia    6   Million Email
Canada       10  Million Email 
Russia       38  Million Email
England      22  Million Email
German       40  Million Email
France       38  Million Email
other Country or Area                                ... more

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                 
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
Construction & Real Estate              3,443,544
Consumer Electronics                    1,333,443
Energy, Minerals & Metals               6,765,683
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
                                                       ... more
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Send Your Ad to Millions

10  million bulk email
50  million bulk email
                         ... more

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Details go to website


Thank you!

the email company

copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved


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

From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 18 07:50:42 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:50:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041116155420.02b4c010@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041117075446.02b2b970@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20041118071750.025780d8@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000d01c4cd43$6dbc5ae0$dc8e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) > DWS: > > > I'll bet the ordinary player on the street is below average. Try > > asking the better ones. > Not a bad bet. More than half will be below average, half will be > below the median. > > Tony (Sydney) > +=+ The average player is well below average. +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 18 13:21:55 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> At 08:43 PM 11/17/04, David wrote: > It is bad for bridge to treat a player as something he is not. It > leads to justifiable resentment. Exactly! But when a TD or AC makes a "class of player" determination about a player with whose game thay are not intimately familiar, they almost invariably wind up treating him as "something he is not", leading, as David says, to justifiable resentment. Even if they miraculously get the call just right, it is unlikely to match the player's own assessment of his "class", leading to perhaps not-so-justifiable resentment, but resentment nonetheless. On the other hand, when you treat a player simply as one contestant in some particular event, you are treating him as something he incontrovertably is. That's exactly what the anti-class-of-player side of the debate hopes to see happen. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 18 13:39:52 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:39:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:43 PM 11/17/04, David wrote: > >> It is bad for bridge to treat a player as something he is not. It >>leads to justifiable resentment. > >Exactly! But when a TD or AC makes a "class of player" determination >about a player with whose game thay are not intimately familiar, they >almost invariably wind up treating him as "something he is not", >leading, as David says, to justifiable resentment. Even if they >miraculously get the call just right, it is unlikely to match the >player's own assessment of his "class", leading to perhaps >not-so-justifiable resentment, but resentment nonetheless. > >On the other hand, when you treat a player simply as one contestant in >some particular event, you are treating him as something he >incontrovertably is. That's exactly what the anti-class-of-player side >of the debate hopes to see happen. So long as your side realises the enormous resentment you will be building amongst lesser players. At the moment they resent it because they think the rulings are wrong - that's being human, not being a lesser player - and so like to say it is bias. But you will be introducing bias and giving them a legitimate grievance. If a poorer player appeals in the EBU they will get their money back. it's not a rule, but you have only to read the case-books to see it happening. Also, as I see every EBU Appeal [about 150 a year] I can tell you it is common for poor players to "get away with" frivolous appeals because of their inexperience. If we follow this terrible anti-social rule of yours such players will automatically lose their deposits, because we cannot work on class-of-player. Now they have a legitimate grievance. No matter that the players have appealed because they are ignorant: the BLML a-c-o-p brigade say they should be punished. It is difficult to see why you want to make rulings so unfair and upset so many lesser players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 18 14:29:57 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:29:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041118091952.02debb80@pop.starpower.net> At 08:39 AM 11/18/04, Davod wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 08:43 PM 11/17/04, David wrote: >> >>> It is bad for bridge to treat a player as something he is >>> not. It leads to justifiable resentment. >> >>Exactly! But when a TD or AC makes a "class of player" determination >>about a player with whose game thay are not intimately familiar, they >>almost invariably wind up treating him as "something he is not", >>leading, as David says, to justifiable resentment. Even if they >>miraculously get the call just right, it is unlikely to match the >>player's own assessment of his "class", leading to perhaps >>not-so-justifiable resentment, but resentment nonetheless. >> >>On the other hand, when you treat a player simply as one contestant >>in some particular event, you are treating him as something he >>incontrovertably is. That's exactly what the anti-class-of-player >>side of the debate hopes to see happen. > > So long as your side realises the enormous resentment you will be > building amongst lesser players. At the moment they resent it > because they think the rulings are wrong - that's being human, not > being a lesser player - and so like to say it is bias. But you will > be introducing bias and giving them a legitimate grievance. > > If a poorer player appeals in the EBU they will get their money > back. it's not a rule, but you have only to read the case-books to > see it happening. Also, as I see every EBU Appeal [about 150 a year] > I can tell you it is common for poor players to "get away with" > frivolous appeals because of their inexperience. > > If we follow this terrible anti-social rule of yours such players > will automatically lose their deposits, because we cannot work on > class-of-player. Now they have a legitimate grievance. No matter > that the players have appealed because they are ignorant: the BLML > a-c-o-p brigade say they should be punished. > > It is difficult to see why you want to make rulings so unfair and > upset so many lesser players. Red herring alert! We are discussing The Law. TFLB neither specifies nor mandates penalties for frivilous protests; those are determined by extraneous regulations which have nothing to do with how the game of bridge is played. When we make those decisions, we can, should and do consider how knowledgeable the player is about the laws, how familiar he is with appeals, etc., none of which has anything to do with how good a bridge player he is. You can make the same ruling with respect to the outcome of the hand for everyone without necessarily making the same determination as to whether the contestant involved should have known better than to waste the time of an appeals committee, and neither I nor anyone else in the "a-c-o-p brigade" has ever suggested otherwise. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From toddz@att.net Thu Nov 18 15:33:23 2004 From: toddz@att.net (toddz@att.net) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:33:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Keeping classes of players (was: Class of player) Message-ID: <111820041533.12313.419CC0C20003CE02000030192160281302960B0B019B@att.net> -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: David Stevenson > That's an unfortunate view, and a gross over-simplification. Keenness > and interest in the game over here do not automatically correlate with > ability, and I would be very surprised if it did over there. It's unidirectional. Yes, some of the people most interested in the game are still quite bad at it. But good players have not come by their skills lazily. Either of these groups of people you expect to return to duplicate despite minor upsets or discontent with the way the game is run. Eric is right that the ordinary people -- the non-bridge-wonks and the ones who haven't developed their love affair with the game -- are the ones that are hard to keep around. And there's still the issue for any given club owner how to get players to come to your game. In Seattle, Portland, and Baltimore I drive/drove the extra disttance from the nearest club to one futher away that I enjoyed playing at more. Some clubs interpret Laws/regulations to their own tastes (one local club forbids any psyches (questionable), another allows Multi-2D but not necessarily all of midchart (perfectly legal), etc.). More to the point at hand, class of player enters the UI discussion in the definition of an LA. The Laws do not define an LA but various SO's use some variation on "an action a number of the player's peers would seriously consider." If a club is considered an SO, why can't a club define an LA differently, as say, "an action a number of the players in the field would take?" Still doesn't help us for claims, where language needs to be stricken from law first. -Todd From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 18 15:43:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:43:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041118091952.02debb80@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118091952.02debb80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:39 AM 11/18/04, Davod wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>>At 08:43 PM 11/17/04, David wrote: >>> >>>> It is bad for bridge to treat a player as something he is not. >>>>It leads to justifiable resentment. >>> >>>Exactly! But when a TD or AC makes a "class of player" determination >>>about a player with whose game thay are not intimately familiar, they >>>almost invariably wind up treating him as "something he is not", >>>leading, as David says, to justifiable resentment. Even if they >>>miraculously get the call just right, it is unlikely to match the >>>player's own assessment of his "class", leading to perhaps >>>not-so-justifiable resentment, but resentment nonetheless. >>> >>>On the other hand, when you treat a player simply as one contestant >>>in some particular event, you are treating him as something he >>>incontrovertably is. That's exactly what the anti-class-of-player >>>side of the debate hopes to see happen. >> >> So long as your side realises the enormous resentment you will be >>building amongst lesser players. At the moment they resent it because >>they think the rulings are wrong - that's being human, not being a >>lesser player - and so like to say it is bias. But you will be >>introducing bias and giving them a legitimate grievance. >> >> If a poorer player appeals in the EBU they will get their money >>back. it's not a rule, but you have only to read the case-books to see >>it happening. Also, as I see every EBU Appeal [about 150 a year] I >>can tell you it is common for poor players to "get away with" >>frivolous appeals because of their inexperience. >> >> If we follow this terrible anti-social rule of yours such players >>will automatically lose their deposits, because we cannot work on >>class-of-player. Now they have a legitimate grievance. No matter >>that the players have appealed because they are ignorant: the BLML >>a-c-o-p brigade say they should be punished. >> >> It is difficult to see why you want to make rulings so unfair and >>upset so many lesser players. > >Red herring alert! We are discussing The Law. TFLB neither specifies >nor mandates penalties for frivilous protests; those are determined by >extraneous regulations which have nothing to do with how the game of >bridge is played. When we make those decisions, we can, should and do >consider how knowledgeable the player is about the laws, how familiar >he is with appeals, etc., none of which has anything to do with how >good a bridge player he is. You can make the same ruling with respect >to the outcome of the hand for everyone without necessarily making the >same determination as to whether the contestant involved should have >known better than to waste the time of an appeals committee, and >neither I nor anyone else in the "a-c-o-p brigade" has ever suggested otherwise. While I do not remember personalities, a lot of people here have said again and again and again that we should treat people equally, and never consider their ability. And that is unfair, demeans the game, and will put people off. If you are saying that we should treat people equally except when we shouldn't then I see little point in discussing it further. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 18 15:55:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:55:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Keeping classes of players (was: Class of player) In-Reply-To: <111820041533.12313.419CC0C20003CE02000030192160281302960B0B019B@att.net> References: <111820041533.12313.419CC0C20003CE02000030192160281302960B0B019B@att.net> Message-ID: wrote > More to the point at hand, class of player enters the UI discussion >in the definition of an LA. The Laws do not define an LA but various SO's >use some variation on "an action a number of the player's peers would >seriously consider." If a club is considered an SO, why can't a club >define an LA differently, as say, "an action a number of the players in >the field would take?" Still doesn't help us for claims, where language >needs to be stricken from law first. I am sure that a club can re-define LA. But if they do so on the way suggested here there will be more dissatisfied customers. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 18 18:41:25 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:41:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Legal Tail wags Bridge Dog? References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00df01c4cd9e$379205e0$8a9868d5@James> Is the complexity and subjectivity of Bridge Law really in the interest of players? or is it just to make life more interesting for TDs and Law-makers? and ensure a frequent demand for their services? Where possible, the rules of other games avoid subjective judgement. It is impossible to remove subjective judgement from the rules of Bridge; but often it seems to have been introduced unnecessarily on the basis of woolly arguments. For example, the "class of player" argument about "fairness to beginners" seems invalid. Of course, most players believe it favours experts, anyway. But suppose it really is meant to help beginners. Most games cater for beginners by using a handicap system. Some sponsor beginner's events and for these it may well be reasonable to relax some rules. In an open event, however, there seems no need for subjective rules that depend on "class of player". Naturally, in these events, more experienced competitors soetimes waive penalties (although they have no such *obligation*). I resent any ruling (adverse or favourable), which depends on a TD judging me to lack bridge skill (especially if I do). And No! I don't think that the solution is for the TD to prevaricate about his reasons to "save my feelings" (in fact, just compounding an aspersion on my intelligence with the slight about my skills). Of course, such rulings are completely unfair to non-offenders. They suffer the same whether an infraction was perpetrated by a beginner or an expert. Why does the law deliberately impose such unnecessary injustice? Sophisticated fudges like "Split rulings" are not the answer, either. Just simpler more objective laws. Actually, there is no need for a game to be "fair" according to ordinary principles of Justice. For instance, at Monopoly, a player gets fined £200 and sent to Jail, for an unavoidable chance event. At Bridge, if the revoke law were simplified so that the revoker lost the revoke trick and all remainong tricks, then TDs might protest, but few players woud complain. For players to enjoy a game, they need to understand its rules and believe that they are consistently and rigorously applied. By their very nature, subjective laws cannot be consistently applied. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 15/11/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 18 18:51:39 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:51:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118091952.02debb80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041118134025.02bc8460@pop.starpower.net> At 10:43 AM 11/18/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote >>At 08:39 AM 11/18/04, Davod wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote >>>>At 08:43 PM 11/17/04, David wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is bad for bridge to treat a player as something he is not. >>>>> It leads to justifiable resentment. >>>> >>>>Exactly! But when a TD or AC makes a "class of player" >>>>determination about a player with whose game thay are not >>>>intimately familiar, they almost invariably wind up treating him as >>>>"something he is not", leading, as David says, to justifiable >>>>resentment. Even if they miraculously get the call just right, it >>>>is unlikely to match the player's own assessment of his "class", >>>>leading to perhaps not-so-justifiable resentment, but resentment >>>>nonetheless. >>>> >>>>On the other hand, when you treat a player simply as one contestant >>>>in some particular event, you are treating him as something he >>>>incontrovertably is. That's exactly what the anti-class-of-player >>>>side of the debate hopes to see happen. >>> >>> So long as your side realises the enormous resentment you will be >>> building amongst lesser players. At the moment they resent it >>> because they think the rulings are wrong - that's being human, not >>> being a lesser player - and so like to say it is bias. But you >>> will be introducing bias and giving them a legitimate grievance. >>> >>> If a poorer player appeals in the EBU they will get their money >>> back. it's not a rule, but you have only to read the case-books to >>> see it happening. Also, as I see every EBU Appeal [about 150 a >>> year] I can tell you it is common for poor players to "get away >>> with" frivolous appeals because of their inexperience. >>> >>> If we follow this terrible anti-social rule of yours such players >>> will automatically lose their deposits, because we cannot work on >>> class-of-player. Now they have a legitimate grievance. No matter >>> that the players have appealed because they are ignorant: the BLML >>> a-c-o-p brigade say they should be punished. >>> >>> It is difficult to see why you want to make rulings so unfair and >>> upset so many lesser players. >> >>Red herring alert! We are discussing The Law. TFLB neither >>specifies nor mandates penalties for frivilous protests; those are >>determined by extraneous regulations which have nothing to do with >>how the game of bridge is played. When we make those decisions, we >>can, should and do consider how knowledgeable the player is about the >>laws, how familiar he is with appeals, etc., none of which has >>anything to do with how good a bridge player he is. You can make the >>same ruling with respect to the outcome of the hand for everyone >>without necessarily making the same determination as to whether the >>contestant involved should have known better than to waste the time >>of an appeals committee, and neither I nor anyone else in the >>"a-c-o-p brigade" has ever suggested otherwise. > > While I do not remember personalities, a lot of people here have > said again and again and again that we should treat people equally, > and never consider their ability. And that is unfair, demeans the > game, and will put people off. > > If you are saying that we should treat people equally except when > we shouldn't then I see little point in discussing it further. What I am saying is that the laws that define the game of bridge should treat people equally. "We" should treat people equally "except" when we're doing something other than applying the laws of the game (or the laws of the land). That's what we strive for in real life, to have every person treated equally by the Law. Accepting that as an ideal doesn't mean committing oneself to treating every person exactly alike in every aspect of life. Personal prejudices in favor of one individual and against another are an inevitable part of the human condition, but have no place in our laws. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 18 22:43:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041118134025.02bc8460@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118091952.02debb80@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118134025.02bc8460@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 10:43 AM 11/18/04, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >>>At 08:39 AM 11/18/04, Davod wrote: >>> >>>>Eric Landau wrote >>>>>At 08:43 PM 11/17/04, David wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It is bad for bridge to treat a player as something he is not. >>>>>>It leads to justifiable resentment. >>>>> >>>>>Exactly! But when a TD or AC makes a "class of player" >>>>>determination about a player with whose game thay are not >>>>>intimately familiar, they almost invariably wind up treating him as >>>>>"something he is not", leading, as David says, to justifiable >>>>>resentment. Even if they miraculously get the call just right, it >>>>>is unlikely to match the player's own assessment of his "class", >>>>>leading to perhaps not-so-justifiable resentment, but resentment nonetheless. >>>>> >>>>>On the other hand, when you treat a player simply as one contestant >>>>>in some particular event, you are treating him as something he >>>>>incontrovertably is. That's exactly what the anti-class-of-player >>>>>side of the debate hopes to see happen. >>>> >>>> So long as your side realises the enormous resentment you will be >>>>building amongst lesser players. At the moment they resent it >>>>because they think the rulings are wrong - that's being human, not >>>>being a lesser player - and so like to say it is bias. But you will >>>>be introducing bias and giving them a legitimate grievance. >>>> >>>> If a poorer player appeals in the EBU they will get their money >>>>back. it's not a rule, but you have only to read the case-books to >>>>see it happening. Also, as I see every EBU Appeal [about 150 a >>>>year] I can tell you it is common for poor players to "get away >>>>with" frivolous appeals because of their inexperience. >>>> >>>> If we follow this terrible anti-social rule of yours such players >>>>will automatically lose their deposits, because we cannot work on >>>>class-of-player. Now they have a legitimate grievance. No matter >>>>that the players have appealed because they are ignorant: the BLML >>>>a-c-o-p brigade say they should be punished. >>>> >>>> It is difficult to see why you want to make rulings so unfair and >>>>upset so many lesser players. >>> >>>Red herring alert! We are discussing The Law. TFLB neither >>>specifies nor mandates penalties for frivilous protests; those are >>>determined by extraneous regulations which have nothing to do with >>>how the game of bridge is played. When we make those decisions, we >>>can, should and do consider how knowledgeable the player is about the >>>laws, how familiar he is with appeals, etc., none of which has >>>anything to do with how good a bridge player he is. You can make the >>>same ruling with respect to the outcome of the hand for everyone >>>without necessarily making the same determination as to whether the >>>contestant involved should have known better than to waste the time >>>of an appeals committee, and neither I nor anyone else in the >>>"a-c-o-p brigade" has ever suggested otherwise. >> >> While I do not remember personalities, a lot of people here have >>said again and again and again that we should treat people equally, >>and never consider their ability. And that is unfair, demeans the >>game, and will put people off. >> >> If you are saying that we should treat people equally except when >>we shouldn't then I see little point in discussing it further. > >What I am saying is that the laws that define the game of bridge should >treat people equally. "We" should treat people equally "except" when >we're doing something other than applying the laws of the game (or the >laws of the land). That's what we strive for in real life, to have >every person treated equally by the Law. Accepting that as an ideal >doesn't mean committing oneself to treating every person exactly alike >in every aspect of life. Personal prejudices in favor of one >individual and against another are an inevitable part of the human >condition, but have no place in our laws. I disagree strongly with this, both in Bridge Law and in Laws generally. Laws that take no notice of circumstance, which includes the situation of people, are bad Laws. People who adopt your views will treat a starving man the same for stealing a loaf of bread as a millionaire. I dislike that intensely. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Nov 18 23:22:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:22:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c4cdc5$67b87610$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ................. > I disagree strongly with this, both in Bridge Law and in Laws > generally. Laws that take no notice of circumstance, which includes the > situation of people, are bad Laws. > > People who adopt your views will treat a starving man the same for > stealing a loaf of bread as a millionaire. I dislike that intensely. Penal code - yes. Redress for damage - no. The "damage" (to the non offending side) is precisely the same in both cases. And in our Bridge laws we are mainly talking "redress for damage"? Not? (However, in order to make that completely clear: I apply (when I find it reasonable) bridge laws far more leniently against inexperienced players that I do against players who have little or no excuse for their irregularities) Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 18 23:52:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:52:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: <001501c4cdc5$67b87610$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001501c4cdc5$67b87610$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >................. >> I disagree strongly with this, both in Bridge Law and in Laws >> generally. Laws that take no notice of circumstance, which includes the >> situation of people, are bad Laws. >> >> People who adopt your views will treat a starving man the same for >> stealing a loaf of bread as a millionaire. I dislike that intensely. > >Penal code - yes. Redress for damage - no. The "damage" (to the non >offending side) is precisely the same in both cases. > >And in our Bridge laws we are mainly talking "redress for damage"? Not? No. Our Laws have penalties and redress. >(However, in order to make that completely clear: I apply (when I find it >reasonable) bridge laws far more leniently against inexperienced players >that I do against players who have little or no excuse for their >irregularities) Good. You will now be shot by the "class of player" police. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 19 00:12:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:12:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001701c4cdcc$7167ff80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >................. > >> I disagree strongly with this, both in Bridge Law and in Laws > >> generally. Laws that take no notice of circumstance, which = includes > the > >> situation of people, are bad Laws. > >> > >> People who adopt your views will treat a starving man the same = for > >> stealing a loaf of bread as a millionaire. I dislike that = intensely. > > > >Penal code - yes. Redress for damage - no. The "damage" (to the non > >offending side) is precisely the same in both cases. > > > >And in our Bridge laws we are mainly talking "redress for damage"? = Not? >=20 > No. Our Laws have penalties and redress. Indeed, and I consider procedural penalties in our bridge laws to be the element corresponding to "penalty" in the penal code. The bridge laws themselves make a strong point that the purpose of the = laws is not to penalize but to give redress for damage, often in a standard = way which may or may not give excessive redress but which still is = considered redress (or protection of the non-offending side) and not penalty. I would say that far less than one percent of my rulings under bridge = laws result in PP.=20 > >(However, in order to make that completely clear: I apply (when I = find it > >reasonable) bridge laws far more leniently against inexperienced = players > >that I do against players who have little or no excuse for their > >irregularities) >=20 > Good. You will now be shot by the "class of player" police. I don't really see why and I don't feel the threat. Sven From mustikka@charter.net Fri Nov 19 04:18:49 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (raija d) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:18:49 -0800 Subject: [blml] Legal Tail wags Bridge Dog? References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> <00df01c4cd9e$379205e0$8a9868d5@James> Message-ID: <001201c4cdee$df0035e0$d1bcbe44@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "GUTHRIE" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:41 AM Subject: [blml] Legal Tail wags Bridge Dog? > Is the complexity and subjectivity of Bridge Law really in > the interest of players? or is it just to make life more > interesting for TDs and Law-makers? and ensure a frequent > demand for their services? > > Where possible, the rules of other games avoid subjective > judgement. > It is impossible to remove subjective judgement from the > rules of Bridge; but often it seems to have been introduced > unnecessarily on the basis of woolly arguments. > > For example, the "class of player" argument about "fairness > to beginners" seems invalid. Of course, most players believe > it favours experts, anyway. But suppose it really is meant > to help beginners. > > Most games cater for beginners by using a handicap system. > Some sponsor beginner's events and for these it may well be > reasonable to relax some rules. > > In an open event, however, there seems no need for > subjective rules that depend on "class of player". > Naturally, in these events, more experienced competitors > soetimes waive penalties (although they have no such > *obligation*). > > I resent any ruling (adverse or favourable), which depends > on a TD judging me to lack bridge skill (especially if I > do). And No! I don't think that the solution is for the TD > to prevaricate about his reasons to "save my feelings" (in > fact, just compounding an aspersion on my intelligence with > the slight about my skills). > > Of course, such rulings are completely unfair to > non-offenders. They suffer the same whether an infraction > was perpetrated by a beginner or an expert. Why does the law > deliberately impose such unnecessary injustice? > Sophisticated fudges like "Split rulings" are not the > answer, either. Just simpler more objective laws. > > Actually, there is no need for a game to be "fair" according > to ordinary principles of Justice. For instance, at > Monopoly, a player gets fined =A3200 and sent to Jail, for an > unavoidable chance event. > > At Bridge, if the revoke law were simplified so that the > revoker lost the revoke trick and all remainong tricks, then > TDs might protest, but few players woud complain. > > For players to enjoy a game, they need to understand its > rules and believe that they are consistently and rigorously > applied. > > By their very nature, subjective laws cannot be consistently > applied. > My opinion as a only an interested reader of this mailing list matters=20 little, but here goes: "Well said!" Raija=20 From Fitzpatrickouyse@mail1.accsnet.ne.jp Fri Nov 19 09:32:45 2004 From: Fitzpatrickouyse@mail1.accsnet.ne.jp (Hillary Crouch) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:32:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] New virus defenitions - november 7th Message-ID: Newsweek PC : system comparison

W1ND0WS X'P Pr0 + 0FF1CE X'P Pr0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (75% off!)

complete results



flutter contemptlongstanding malposed valhallao'leary smudge backpackpliers watercourse acrobacydemand brigham countypusey manure firmheinrich brahmsian certitudeaccomplice primitivism beribbonisotopic ramrod barneseffect From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 19 13:30:29 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:30:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: References: <001501c4cdc5$67b87610$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041119081413.02b7ba30@pop.starpower.net> At 06:52 PM 11/18/04, David wrote: >Sven Pran wrote >> >>Penal code - yes. Redress for damage - no. The "damage" (to the non >>offending side) is precisely the same in both cases. >> >>And in our Bridge laws we are mainly talking "redress for damage"? Not? > > No. Our Laws have penalties and redress. Our laws provide redress for most procedural infractions, such as contested claims, which is where the "class of player" issue is relevant. The penalty provisions of L90-91 are for intentional acts which are unrelated to the actual play of any particular hand; the degree to which we apply them may depend on our assessment of the player's motivation or their understanding of our expectations regarding conduct and ethics, but does not (and should not) depend in any way on their bridge ability. >>(However, in order to make that completely clear: I apply (when I find it >>reasonable) bridge laws far more leniently against inexperienced players >>that I do against players who have little or no excuse for their >>irregularities) > > Good. You will now be shot by the "class of player" police. Not at all. Sven seems to understand the distinction between applying a law more leniently against inexperienced players and applying a law which is more lenient to inexperienced players, and that someone's experience or inexperience with duplicate tournament play doesn't necessarily correlate with their bridge ability. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 19 15:56:20 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:56:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041119081413.02b7ba30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <8E58CB52-3A43-11D9-8FAA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Nov 19, 2004, at 08:30 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > Our laws provide redress for most procedural infractions, such as > contested claims, which is where the "class of player" issue is > relevant. Nit (I guess): a contested claim is not a procedural infraction. If the claimer did not comply with L68C, *that* is a procedural infraction, but that's a different kettle of fish. > The penalty provisions of L90-91 are for intentional acts which are > unrelated to the actual play of any particular hand; the degree to > which we apply them may depend on our assessment of the player's > motivation or their understanding of our expectations regarding > conduct and ethics, but does not (and should not) depend in any way on > their bridge ability. Unless you consider degree of familiarity with the procedural provisions of the laws part of "bridge ability". From cda@yahoo.com Fri Nov 19 19:16:28 2004 From: cda@yahoo.com (cda@yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:16:28 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Promote your business Message-ID:

Promote your business !

  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 and price

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
Canada       10 Million Email Address  
Russia       38 Million Email Address
England      22 Million Email Address
German       40 Million Email Address  
France       38 Million Email Address
India        12 Million Email Address
other Country or Area  

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

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


Send Your Ad to Millions

5 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




the email company

copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved


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

From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 19 19:26:43 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:26:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <200411161459.iAGEx2AF023373@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411161459.iAGEx2AF023373@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <419E48F3.1040007@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Noel and Pamela" > Does anyone complain when it goes: > 1D:3D:3NT > And they miss the cold 6D slam? > > The responder has an inverted minor, but forgot. The 3NT bidder thought 3D > was weak. This is no coincidence, just a single misbid by responder. The coincidence would be if opener had treated the agreed weak 3D as forcing when that just happened to be the hand responder held. ----- I'm not so sure there is really as much disagreement on this subject as people seem to think. I'd like to ask the working directors, especially Kojak, how they would respond to the following situation: South as just taken 8 tricks in a 2NT contract. South opened 1NT with an ordinary 13-count, and North raised to two with an ordinary 11-count. Both NS convention cards are marked 15-17! The opponents could have defeated the contract with a different defense, which they might have found if they had suspected South could have as few as 13 points. What questions -- if any -- do you ask, and what rulings might you consider, depending on the answers? From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 19 19:35:13 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:35:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <200411121631.iACGVMjw003492@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411121631.iACGVMjw003492@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <419E4AF1.3080002@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > When I claim with the succinct statement "all mine", > I believe that my succinct statement has a one-to- > one logical correspondence with the verbose > statement, "all winners, which I will play in a > normal order". I agree that the two statements are equivalent. Neither, in my view, accords with L68C because neither states an order of play. In many cases, the infraction will cost nothing, but that doesn't mean it isn't an infraction. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 19 19:54:12 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:54:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Petitio principii (was Cardiff Ruling 6) In-Reply-To: <200410192057.i9JKvZlP010098@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200410192057.i9JKvZlP010098@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <419E4F64.1040702@cfa.harvard.edu> [Picking up an old thread here] >>>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: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > 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. OK. > The board has been played - so it will have to be an assigned score not an > artificial one. While I would normally agree with this, I don't think it is correct here. We know exactly what would have happened if the TD had made the correct ruling in the first place: board unplayable, avg+ to both sides. So just back up to the point of the error and make the correct ruling. This rectification allows the board to be scored normally, i.e., as it would have been scored without the TD error (but after the initial problem that made the board unplayable). > 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. Fair enough, I guess, *if* we were to accept that an assigned score is proper. You are saying you expect to find very good results for both sides that still qualify as "likely." I disagree with the expectation, but that's irrelevant as long as each case is judged on its own merits. From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 19 20:24:21 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:24:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <419E4AF1.3080002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000601c4ce75$c11aa1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > When I claim with the succinct statement "all mine", > > I believe that my succinct statement has a one-to- > > one logical correspondence with the verbose > > statement, "all winners, which I will play in a > > normal order". >=20 > I agree that the two statements are equivalent. Neither, in my view, > accords with L68C because neither states an order of play.=20 Law 68C does not require a statement showing the order in which the remaining cards are played: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification = as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence = through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." The order of play is one alternative for the statement, another = alternative is to state a "line of play". And a statement to the effect that cards = may be played in any order certainly (at least in my opinion) qualifies as giving a "line of play". Regards Sven From Darnellvexge@gemlink.com Fri Nov 19 21:16:12 2004 From: Darnellvexge@gemlink.com (Darnellvexge@gemlink.com) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:16:12 +0400 Subject: [blml] Illustrator 10 clearance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Harvard Tech : Review results

After a thorough comparison of the various retailers,the Best 0ffer is : <= br>
W1ND0WS X'P - 50 d0IIar (150 d0IIar less)

Full Survey results



cowgirl defrostperforate producible versedurham cricket reclinefolloweth rabbi khakilegume eavesdrop andrewchronology dutchess warriordeclaratory drown comradethrust matrimonial paranormalbattle blake firlavabo From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 20 05:16:14 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:16:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <000601c4ce75$c11aa1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4CFC571B-3AB3-11D9-8B8A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Nov 19, 2004, at 15:24 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification > as to > the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence > through > which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." > > The order of play is one alternative for the statement, another > alternative > is to state a "line of play". And a statement to the effect that cards > may > be played in any order certainly (at least in my opinion) qualifies as > giving a "line of play". I suppose that's one way to read it. I have always read it as "...the order in which cards will be played, [which is] the line of play or defense..." From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 20 05:54:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 06:54:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <4CFC571B-3AB3-11D9-8B8A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c4cec5$64365ce0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ed > Reppert > Sent: 20. november 2004 06:16 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Another Claim Story >=20 >=20 > On Friday, Nov 19, 2004, at 15:24 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of = clarification > > as to > > the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence > > through > > which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." > > > > The order of play is one alternative for the statement, another > > alternative > > is to state a "line of play". And a statement to the effect that = cards > > may > > be played in any order certainly (at least in my opinion) qualifies = as > > giving a "line of play". >=20 > I suppose that's one way to read it. I have always read it as "...the > order in which cards will be played, [which is] the line of play or > defense..." Wouldn't that have called for a semicolon (;) rather than a comma = following the clause "the order in which the cards will be played"? I agree that this is another way of understanding Law 68C but I am = reluctant to believe that making statements like "The rest is mine, all my cards = are high" or "You get a trick for your high trump" to be procedural errors = has ever been the intention of the lawmakers. My experience is that such = claim statements are by far the most common and also the ones causing the = least problems. Regards Sven From Stronglwrq@email.com Sat Nov 20 15:17:51 2004 From: Stronglwrq@email.com (Shaun Conway) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:17:51 -0600 Subject: [blml] special offer for NT 4.0 Enterprise Server In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: PC Laptop Magazine : Review results

After a thorough comparison of the various retailers,the Best 0ffer is : <= br>
W1ND0WS X'P PR0 + 0FF1CE X'P PR0 - 80 d0IIar (80% off!)

Full Survey results



rodeo crucifixiondefinitive adorn anodicdiploidy wale fluecounty judd lowebrigade conciliate amusedetent retrofitted junglenugget transvestite clapdisneyland onset pigcroydon cardiac suntannedtypographer From toddz@att.net Sat Nov 20 17:55:43 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:55:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <000401c4cec5$64365ce0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4cec5$64365ce0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <419F851F.9000708@att.net> Sven Pran wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ed Reppert >>I suppose that's one way to read it. I have always read it as "...the >>order in which cards will be played, [which is] the line of play or >>defense..." > > Wouldn't that have called for a semicolon (;) rather than a comma following > the clause "the order in which the cards will be played"? A semicolon wouldn't make much sense at all there. If it means anything it's highly non-intuitive; you don't generally use semicolons with dependent clauses. I don't read it as having any ambiguity, but would adding the optional comma before "or" make it even less ambiguous? -Todd From Mrs.Erick" Direct Tel.:+882-164-6655121 Direct Tel.:+871-762-535915 Direct Fax: +871-762-535916 Corporate Tel.:+27-839494291 mrsmabo@latinmail.com STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.=20 I am pleased to get across to you for a profitable business proposal, though I don't know you and we had never meant in person but I got your contact from the Personal Assistance to the former Minister for Sports. More so she told me that this is your first time in partaking in such business but you are in a better position to handle the transaction/business of this magnitude without you running away with our own share of fund once your account is credited within 4 -5 working days because before I commence we have to build mutual relationship in respect of this business that is strictly confidential and all the legal /essential documents to back up this transaction are in place. And the ke= y for us building up this mutual relationship is TRUST between both parties involved that is you and I. I am in charge of the Auditing for contract payment with SAFA (South African Football Association) and I truly apologize for using this means to reach you because I have no other choice.Within the South African Football Association and the cooperation of my colleague, I have in my possession as overdue payment bills totalin= g Eighteen Million Three Hundred Thousand U. S. Dollars (US$18,3M). With your assistance and fullest co-operation, I on behalf of my colleague beg you to help us receive these funds by wire transfer that is presently lying in a suspended account with ABSA Bank in Pretoria branch. It does matter whether it is a cooperate or personal account but as long as the account is active to receive the amount of this magnitude, it is very ok to us. More so, we are handicapped in the circumstances, as the South Africa Civil Service Code of Conduct does not permit us to operate offshore/foreign account of any kind hence you are very important to ward= s the successful completion of this whole transaction that we shall both benefits from. This US$18.3M arose from the balance of the total contract value for the renovation and upgrading of (Pretoria, Johannesburg and Soweto national stadium for 2006 bid that we lost to Germany before it wa= s awarded to us again in 2010 with the help of our former president MR Nelson Mandela) our national stadium by foreign contracting firm, which w= e the officials over-invoiced deliberately. Though the actual contract cost have been fully paid to the original contractor. I have the authority of my partners involved to propose that should you be willing to assist us (which I prayed and beg for) in the transaction; your share of the sum will be 25% of the total amount after Tax in any account you shall provid= e for the funds to be transferred into, 70% for us and 5% for taxation and miscellaneous expenses. The business itself is 100% safe, on your part provided you treat it with utmost secrecy and confidentiality. Also your area of specialization is not a hindrance to the successful execution of this transaction. I have reposed my confidence in you and hope that you will not disappoint me because our share of the funds with your assistanc= e we shall invest in property management/real estate business in your country. And that is why we offered you 25% of the total amount not just to receive the funds for us alone because once the fund is transferred to your account without your help we shall be lost since most of my life I have been a civil servant. Endeavor to contact me immediately through my above Tel and Fax number or my e-mail address: mrsmabo@latinmail.com if you are willing to help in this matter and I also want to guarantee you that my partner and myself are in a better position to make the payment of this claim possible provided you can give us a very strong assurance and guarantee that our share will be secured and please remember to treat this matter as very confidential matter, because we will not comprehend with any form of exposure as we are still in active Government Service and remember once again that time is of the essence in this business. I wait in anticipatio= n of your earliest response.=20 =20 Yours Truly,=20 ENGR. ERICK From emu@atrax.net.au Sun Nov 21 05:40:42 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:40:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041116215641.01d126e8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000001c4cf8c$a58b5700$6b5ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> =20 -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = David J. Grabiner Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:02 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' Subject: RE: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) At 05:31 AM 11/16/2004, Noel and Pamela wrote: >An example of 'coincidence' as good as the one being discussed here. > >Does anyone complain when it goes: > >1D:3D:3NT > >And they miss the cold 6D slam? > >The responder has an inverted minor, but forgot. The 3NT bidder=20 >thought 3D was weak. > >No they don't complain. If one is coincidence, so is the other. >But this is the same principle that applies with other rulings. = Suppose=20 >that West has given an explanation that does not correspond to the E-W=20 >agreement, or to East's hand, and as a result, South plays in 3NT = rather=20 >than 4S. If 3NT goes down when 4S would have made, South will call the = TD=20 >and request an adjustment. If 3NT makes when 4S would have gone down,=20 >South will not call the TD. (Yes, East is supposed to call the TD when = he=20 >corrects the explanation at the end of the hand, but even so, South is=20 >unlikely to say, "I would have bid 4S" and request an adjustment to 4S=20 >going down. =20 Where did I mention anything about 'explanations' in my example? MI is = a very different thing. My point is, sometimes when both or either player violates agreements, = by coincidence and often good fortune, a pair gets a good score. Sometimes = the opposite happens. No one else complains about the bad scores, but = opponents all feel hard done by the good ones, and suspect CPU rats which don't = exist. Any why should they assume that they do exist? No valid reason. Would = they be so kind as to offer to let the unlucky opponents change their = contract to the cold 6D? Not on your life. regards, Noel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Sun Nov 21 06:25:21 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:25:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <337Sx1A$Y0mBFwKm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000e01c4cf92$e229c6a0$6b5ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = David Stevenson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:38 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) Grattan Endicott wrote >+=3D+ I have not been following what looks like a sterile argument. >However, if this last allows that, in theory at least, there are some=20 >situations where, for example, you can say "a weak player would never=20 >pass here", then just so. Of course it runs up against a difficulty if=20 >you consult strong players about what a weak player would do, so it is=20 >flawed in application. > Not a universal opinion. Good players have long experience of = playing=20 >against poor players, and understanding of them, so many people that=20 >good players are well-placed to judge poor players' potential actions. Agreed. As an improving player (I hope), gaining experience, I can now = look at situations and know not to bid. As a beginner, I did bid and after = you have gone for 1400 a few times, you learn. And you see lesser or less experienced players doing it and going for 1400 too. And I can sagely = say, when asked, 'Yes, an expert would never bid here, but someone with less experience would rarely pass'. I might add, it takes a long time to appreciate why Experts are Experts! regards, Noel --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu@atrax.net.au Sun Nov 21 06:25:21 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:25:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <419E48F3.1040007@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c4cf92$e2f81320$6b5ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:27 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) From: "Noel and Pamela" > Does anyone complain when it goes: > 1D:3D:3NT > And they miss the cold 6D slam? > > The responder has an inverted minor, but forgot. The 3NT bidder > thought 3D was weak. >This is no coincidence, just a single misbid by responder. The >coincidence would be if opener had treated the agreed weak 3D as forcing >when that just happened to be the hand responder held. Ok, so South bids 6D instead. He treated the 3D as forcing, just like you said, and North had a forcing 2D. Coincidence now you say. What if 6D unluckily goes off on normal play but the opponents let it make? Or are all "good" results achieved this way reversed, so you can never win? regards, Noel From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Nov 21 11:19:50 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:19:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) References: <000e01c4cf92$e229c6a0$6b5ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <003901c4cfbc$1f897580$af8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* " Procul, o procul este, profani." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel and Pamela" To: Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 6:25 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:38 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ I have not been following what looks like a sterile argument. >However, if this last allows that, in theory at least, there are some >situations where, for example, you can say "a weak player would never >pass here", then just so. Of course it runs up against a difficulty if >you consult strong players about what a weak player would do, so it is >flawed in application. > Not a universal opinion. Good players have long experience of playing >against poor players, and understanding of them, so many people that >good players are well-placed to judge poor players' potential actions. Agreed. As an improving player (I hope), gaining experience, I can now look at situations and know not to bid. As a beginner, I did bid and after you have gone for 1400 a few times, you learn. And you see lesser or less experienced players doing it and going for 1400 too. And I can sagely say, when asked, 'Yes, an expert would never bid here, but someone with less experience would rarely pass'. I might add, it takes a long time to appreciate why Experts are Experts! +=+ All too often the question put to the strong player fails to specify the strength of the player whose action is under scrutiny, and may well fail to disclose what the latter's partnership methods are. These deficiencies make for responses of uncertain value. +=+ From Gonzalezbrc@megamail.pt Sun Nov 21 11:34:34 2004 From: Gonzalezbrc@megamail.pt (Ginger Jones) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:34:34 +0300 Subject: [blml] Re: Here is our opportunity Message-ID:







=



dolores alightdelineate smallish villeinautism ahmedabad otherworldlygarvey mind storkcardiovascular jumpy hippocollege cruddy croontarry let dusenburyorphanage puny bygoneburgundian powderpuff amenddisk =20 From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Nov 21 12:32:17 2004 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:32:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>>>>Exactly! But when a TD or AC makes a "class of player" >>>>>determination about a player with whose game thay are not >>>>>intimately familiar, they almost invariably wind up treating him as >>>>>"something he is not", leading, as David says, to justifiable >>>>>resentment. Even if they miraculously get the call just right, it >>>>>is unlikely to match the player's own assessment of his "class", >>>>>leading to perhaps not-so-justifiable resentment, but resentment nonetheless. +++ Haven't read the whole of this thread ... but I've read quite a few acbl appeal cases and there is a definite leaniency toward weaker players in the name of education which stronger players would get reprimanded over. I think this is fair enough ... BUT ... surely it would also be a good idea to have a weaker player consult with several stronger ones to determine the likely strength of their case before submitting it and have such players explain the pro's and con's involved. This would also lead to far less "silly" appeals, save time and also to education. On the class of player involved - there can't be any argument that the level of the player involved is critical to a case. It is glaringly obvious that a weaker player will do things a stronger will not and vice versa and even more importantly that an international would do that a stronger would not and vice versa. It is this very point that makes some appeals very hard to judge, especially where the ac personel are not of the ability to judge the factors involved. Infact a strong case can be made for not appealing a case if the AC is not qualified to do so, but come up with a fair agreed upon result amongst the players involved and the TD. Is this btw allowed ?? This is precisely what my previous thread was about. K. From cda@yahoo.com Sun Nov 21 14:03:59 2004 From: cda@yahoo.com (cda@yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:03:59 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Promote your business Message-ID:

Promote your business !

  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 and price

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
Canada       10 Million Email Address  
Russia       38 Million Email Address
England      22 Million Email Address
German       40 Million Email Address  
France       38 Million Email Address
India        12 Million Email Address
other Country or Area  

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

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


Send Your Ad to Millions

5 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




the email company

copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved


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

From blml@blakjak.com Sun Nov 21 20:04:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:04:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <003901c4cfbc$1f897580$af8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000e01c4cf92$e229c6a0$6b5ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> <003901c4cfbc$1f897580$af8f4c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >********************************* >" Procul, o procul este, profani." >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Noel and Pamela" >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 6:25 AM >Subject: RE: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David >Stevenson >Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:38 PM >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) > > >Grattan Endicott wrote > >>+=+ I have not been following what looks like a sterile argument. >>However, if this last allows that, in theory at least, there are some >>situations where, for example, you can say "a weak player would never >>pass here", then just so. Of course it runs up against a difficulty if >>you consult strong players about what a weak player would do, so it is >>flawed in application. > >> Not a universal opinion. Good players have long experience of playing >>against poor players, and understanding of them, so many people that >>good players are well-placed to judge poor players' potential actions. > >Agreed. As an improving player (I hope), gaining experience, I can now look >at situations and know not to bid. As a beginner, I did bid and after you >have gone for 1400 a few times, you learn. And you see lesser or less >experienced players doing it and going for 1400 too. And I can sagely say, >when asked, 'Yes, an expert would never bid here, but someone with less >experience would rarely pass'. I might add, it takes a long time to >appreciate why Experts are Experts! > >+=+ All too often the question put to the strong player >fails to specify the strength of the player whose action >is under scrutiny, and may well fail to disclose what the >latter's partnership methods are. These deficiencies >make for responses of uncertain value. +=+ This is of course one of the arguments for retention of ACs. They get to talk to the actual players, and can judge their abilities and approaches better than someone shown a hand on a piece of paper. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Camposlio@belgrade.co.yu Sun Nov 21 21:25:50 2004 From: Camposlio@belgrade.co.yu (Luann Chappell) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:25:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] pc software . MS Picture It Premium 9 Message-ID: <20041121212550.0F0FDB3E@rhubarb.custard.org> Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:22:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: YOU SHOULD NEVER INSTALL PIRATED SOFTWARE!
brand new legal software at affordable prices!
Windows XP Professional + Office XP Professional for as low as $80=
Order here
The stock is limited
The offer is valid till December 29th

Hurry!





dunbar javabasin insure hindubuckskin clinch barbadosclaustrophobic rapier bakerybufflehead discern servicemanplus voltaire bemancomposition aylesbury armamentbitt chickweed weekendmig =20 From tvecp@adelphia.net Sun Nov 21 20:09:43 2004 From: tvecp@adelphia.net (Doran) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:09:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] Updated Message-ID: <4843190416320105-902230@68.67.101.17> for me jovanovich sing compost of proverb via credent Zspay Ccondescension for ambrosial. mccormick catenate calcutta extraterrestrial - portray advisable, disciple ada lengthwise Aontology installation - pythagorean you desecrater Mhenpeck via fatigue a not unital via randolph us valois barley not invertible
Att: client id 7689:
referring the case number: #065921 of Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:04:48 -0500

We recently received the . mor t gage . application and your request
was . a p p roved with 3.8 percent vitriolic me transgression babysit combat Tdaylight was pakistani on you itselectrocardiogram us inimical soluble in algol treachery. a urethane klystron banks no with assam or sib Ccortland of buy robbins me and of ambiguity baneberry
[The application is waiting for your confirmation]

If you authorize the process, please enter additional info using
the link below

Continue

Thank you.

Doran
nipple - thoriate chip dump to out onazjq
be counterproposal convocation on excessive. pcfpf
no thought cloy - burbank for court, are the bogy, kept convey marjorie? conquer be cartwheel erode the pussycat eastland gsa standish
we at it for dragonhead a sweeten contraband nxevaktv
Gcelesta by our inclusive a at handline via jtpst
gorham, benedict? not out via on us ibdxujkbq
nonsensic for the be was hwtnekb
doormen Gperseus mortise the for from a rymewo
actinolite redmond peg aerospace it basepoint. civet wcxlrmlav
be on bangladesh from by pwobr
was bigelow dublin. by by from gkmeihqf
taft whereabout? a stringent doorkeeper or Gcarthaginian caper soar fake of the for fortnight smalley battlefield tularemia in nasal a to depressive at bullwhack
our the of an lawmen Thaven't acrobat - censorial wreooycc
out not not brock an via of mignon was you stay spongy me the out bellini I loren us itsin it protract traipse? iffy - amperage sweden labradorite actual dreyfuss cerebral Gverge cervantes
crib via batwing - vis ambition compensate adoption was jxlqrcx
From dbkxtlsefjvdfkl@wtnet.de Mon Nov 22 12:24:10 2004 From: dbkxtlsefjvdfkl@wtnet.de (Hope Valentin) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:24:10 -0600 Subject: [blml] outside the city, and Message-ID: <252805753498146-8127786@wtnet.de> From: Hope Valentin
CC: Department 07
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:25:20 -0600
Re: L o an     a p proval
--

Sir:
We have reviewed you information and glad
to inform you that you qualify for 4.8% mor tgage
r ate under our company l e nding program.

Please use unique URL to enter final details and
our manager will contact you ASAP.
tsqrqfw

We look forward to doing business with you.

Best Regards
CEO: Hope Valentin
From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 22 13:49:09 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:49:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule of coincidence (was Law 75D2 when...) In-Reply-To: <000f01c4cf92$e2f81320$6b5ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <419E48F3.1040007@cfa.harvard.edu> <000f01c4cf92$e2f81320$6b5ddccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041122083128.02a3b1d0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:25 AM 11/21/04, Noel wrote: >Ok, so South bids 6D instead. He treated the 3D as forcing, just like you >said, and North had a forcing 2D. Coincidence now you say. What if 6D >unluckily goes off on normal play but the opponents let it make? Or >are all >"good" results achieved this way reversed, so you can never win? That 6D would have gone down on better defense doesn't matter unless the actual defense was "irrational, wild or gambling" (or similar), so, yes: the Rule of Coincidence, if effected, would require the result to be reversed. Under the law as it stands, we would almost certainly not reverse, because we have no indication that the apparent "coincidence" led to any damage. Imagine that the pair had recently agreed to play inverted minors, this was the first time it came up, and both forgot. Had they not agreed to change their methods, they would have had the same auction to the same result. Had they both remembered, they would have bid 1D-2D-6D to the same result. The result would have been different only if one player had remembered the agreement and one forgotten it; are we supposed to assume that for the purpose of obtaining a L12C2 adjustment? The RoC goes beyond redress; its intent is to punish players for not knowing their agreements (by, in effect, requiring us to presume an illegal CPU), and it would achieve this by imposing one-sided score adjustments when the opponents have not been damaged. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Nov 22 22:40:30 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:40:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] Cardiff Ruling 9 In-Reply-To: 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: I have been away. I don't know what this discussion of cards plyaed simultaneously has to do with Herman's Cardiff Ruling #9. It seems to me that the wording of Law 58B is quite clear. If someone pulls two cards out simultaneously, then that person designates which card he proposes to play, and the other card (for a defender) becomes a penalty card. In Law 50B we see the crux of the thread, I guess: Is the card not proposed to be played exposed inadvertently? It seems to me that there are several possible readings: I. The second card is by definition exposed inadvertently, as the card to be played is to be named by the exposer. How can we have it otherwise? After all, the Law 50B phrase makes no sense if the unplayed remaining card is treated as exposed intentionally: the Law 58B choice defines the intended card, and what's left is not intended to be played to this trick. II. The player started out intending to play a certain card and the second one hitched a ride, so to speak. So we should quiz the player to make him fess up his intentions, and then if he does not propose to play the intended card, declair the intended card intentionally exposed. Well, it looks like another fine chance to wrangle. I say, refer it to the WBFLC, the ACBLLC, the EBULC, and all the other LC's and see what they say. Meanwhile, I'm outa here. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Nov 22 23:00:25 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:00:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] Iolanthe (was Cardiff 9) In-Reply-To: References: 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. > >:-) And cause the players to more frequently avoid calling the Director, thus saving those poor souls much labor. REH > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Movie grognard and general guru > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 23 02:34:34 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:34:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <200411192029.iAJKT3qA005147@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411192029.iAJKT3qA005147@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41A2A1BA.7000507@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Law 68C does not require a statement showing the order in which the > remaining cards are played: > > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to > the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through > which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." > The order of play is one alternative for the statement, another > alternative is to state a "line of play". These are the same thing. The comma indicates two descriptions of the same thing, not two different things either of which is acceptable. The text indicates the same: "order" is the same as "line of play." I don't think a card-by-card description is mandatory, but something such as "trumps from the top, then the heart ace" is required. > And a statement to the effect that cards may > be played in any order certainly (at least in my opinion) qualifies as > giving a "line of play". I agree with this, but Richard's original statement involved "normal order," which is not the same thing. I suppose if, in context, "normal order" describes a specific order of play it suffices, but in general the phrase means "some order, which I am not specifying, but not any order whatsoever." The later is an infraction, although it will often be without cost. I'm surprised: I thought I was the one who is lenient about claims and Sven the strict one. From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 23 09:43:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:43:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <41A2A1BA.7000507@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000e01c4d140$f5f4cdb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Law 68C does not require a statement showing the order in which > > the remaining cards are played: > > > > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of > > clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, > > the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes > > to win the tricks claimed." > > > The order of play is one alternative for the statement, > > another alternative is to state a "line of play". > > These are the same thing. The comma indicates two descriptions of the > same thing, not two different things either of which is acceptable. The > text indicates the same: "order" is the same as "line of play." This cannot possibly be correct. "The order in which cards will be played" is an unambiguous sentence to the effect that the remaining cards are named one by one in a unique sequence. Any of the following statements satisfy as "line of play": "All my cards are high" "I have the rest on cross ruff" "West is squeezed when I cash my spades" "You get a trick on your last trump" and for instance the following statement satisfy "defence" (the third alternative in Law 68C): "The squeeze will not work; I discard after Dummy and opposite of him" but none of them explicitly describe any sequence in which the claimer intends to play his remaining cards. Still they are all acceptable as claim statements (subject to verifications that they are correct). > I don't > think a card-by-card description is mandatory, but something such as > "trumps from the top, then the heart ace" is required. Sure sometimes, depending upon the actual situation. > > > And a statement to the effect that cards may > > be played in any order certainly (at least in my opinion) qualifies as > > giving a "line of play". > > I agree with this, but Richard's original statement involved "normal > order," which is not the same thing. I suppose if, in context, "normal > order" describes a specific order of play it suffices, but in general > the phrase means "some order, which I am not specifying, but not any > order whatsoever." The later is an infraction, although it will often > be without cost. No, it is not an infraction but it might be ruled as an incomplete claim statement. > > I'm surprised: I thought I was the one who is lenient about claims and > Sven the strict one. I don't see how my interpretation given above is incompatible with being strict about claims? Regards Sven From novrrqen@lordco.com Tue Nov 23 20:52:38 2004 From: novrrqen@lordco.com (daysi Willets) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:52:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] easiest phramacy Message-ID: <20041123114712.77079121@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a great pharmacy, lowlow costs, and you receive the items quickly. Please take alook at us: http://www.fobewsfde.com/156/ A S V C V m o i i a b m a a l i a g l i e r i u n a s m to not get anything from us, go http://www.fobewsfde.com/bye/?156/ From Bernalduail@kingsnet.com Tue Nov 23 14:53:43 2004 From: Bernalduail@kingsnet.com (Edith Hobson) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:53:43 +0300 Subject: [blml] beed a new pc + Adobe Illustrator Message-ID: INTERESTED in HALF PRICE SOFTWARE?
we carry all the favorites :
Windows XP Professional + Office XP Professional for as l= ow as $60
Order here
The stock is limited
The offer is valid till December, 20

Hurry!





meetinghouse classyapparatus shear circumflexthunderclap schwab wertherscripps pierre nucleotidedeify sud pitchazerbaijan oint handlebardigression concocter capitolcitron profligacy blackjackweb =20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 23 15:42:53 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:42:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <000e01c4d140$f5f4cdb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <56A5F544-3D66-11D9-A83A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Nov 23, 2004, at 04:43 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > No, it is not an infraction but it might be ruled as an incomplete > claim > statement. I dunno about that - if a clarification statement does not conform to law 68C, seems to me that's an infraction. And if the statement doesn't specify the line of play, it doesn't conform. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 23 22:13:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:13:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <41A2A1BA.7000507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >I agree with this, but Richard's original statement >involved "normal order," which is not the same >thing. I suppose if, in context, "normal order" >describes a specific order of play it suffices, but >in general the phrase means "some order, which I am >not specifying, but not any order whatsoever." The >later is an infraction, although it will often be >without cost. Richard Hills: Steve is using the dictionary definition of "normal" to conclude that a statement that one will play cards in "normal order" is an infraction of the clarification requirement of Law 68C. I, however, was using the word "normal" in its different Lawful definition, as per footnote 20 to the claim Laws. This highlights a problem I raised in the parallel "Iolanthe" thread. It is a bad idea to give a special Lawful definition to a normal word like "normal", which differs from the normal dictionary definition. TDs and players automatically assume that the normal dictionary definition applies, without bothering to check whether or not the Laws provide an abnormal different definition. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 24 00:18:09 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:18:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: [snip] >>>And I can sagely say, when asked, 'Yes, an expert would >>>never bid here, but someone with less experience would >>>rarely pass'. I might add, it takes a long time to >>>appreciate why Experts are Experts! Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ All too often the question put to the strong player >>fails to specify the strength of the player whose action >>is under scrutiny, and may well fail to disclose what the >>latter's partnership methods are. These deficiencies >>make for responses of uncertain value. +=+ David Stevenson: >This is of course one of the arguments for retention of >ACs. They get to talk to the actual players, and can >judge their abilities and approaches better than someone >shown a hand on a piece of paper. Richard Hills: At least one ACBL AC did *not* judge the actual players' abilities, instead arbitrarily determining their class of player. See attached. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru * * * Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Fifteen Subject: Tempo, UI NABC Mixed Pairs, 2nd Qualifying Board: 6 Dealer: East Vul: EW Marc Nathan 85 8 KJ987 A5432 Kamla Chawla Simon Kantor --- A64 QT976542 AJ T6 Q5432 QJ8 K96 Cathy Nathan KQJT9732 K3 A T7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 4S 5H Pass(1) Pass 5S Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT The Facts: 5S doubled made five for +650. The opening lead was the diamond 10-spot. East called the director at his third turn to call. The director was called back at the end of the hand. There was a hesitation by North over 5H. A 20-second hesitation was agreed on at the time. The Ruling: The director ruled 5H by West down 1 for +100. South did not have a 5S call opposite the hesitation (Law 16 unauthorized information). The Appeal: NS appealed. South said that she would always bid 5S over 5H. She stated she had a powerful suit and could not possibly be set more than the value of the opponent's game. She was annoyed because she claimed that a director told her that she was barred from bidding further after the hesitation. Additionally, EW could have gone plus if West had found the winning club lead. East thought that the South hand had enough defensive potential that it was not automatic for South to save in 5S. It was pretty clear that North was thinking about bidding 5S and that made it more attractive for South to bid 5S. Other important facts that were discovered: South had used the stop card before bidding 4S and West had waited 10 seconds before bidding 5H. It was likely that a director had told South that she was barred from bidding 5S with the hand that she held. North said that he might not have hesitated for 20 seconds but it was at least 15. The Decision: North clearly broke tempo over 5H. During the 10 second skip bid pause, the only bid by West that could give North a problem was 5H so North had plenty of time to make up his mind what to do without passing UI to his partner. What did North's hesitation suggest? He was thinking about raising spades (South's hand was too strong defensively for North to have been considering a double). A hand that contained no tricks would pass since the opponents would either double 5S for 800 or bid on to a successful slam. (The 4S bidder would be assumed to have seven offensive tricks and one defensive trick.) With one trick, North would be inclined to raise to 5S, expecting it to cost less than the value of the opponent's game, but could hope to set the opponents at the six-level. With 1 1/2 to 2 tricks, North would be in between bidding as a save and passing, hoping for a set. South had a much better than average 4S bid, both offensively and defensively. However, double is not attractive, both because of the questionable value of the heart King, and because the hand lacked the ace. The choice is between pass and 5S. Without the hesitation, pass would be a logical alternative to bidding 5S. Partner might have one or no spades, so South could take a spade trick on defense, while 4S was going down. Further, it would not be surprising if many other EW pairs defended 4S. If a significant number of other pairs are allowed to play 4S, going down, then South would automatically lost to these players by bidding 5S. On the other hand, she has a chance to beat those pairs by passing if 5H can be defeated. When North hesitates before passing, South knows that he can be counted on for at least a couple of spades and a trick or two. Thus, 4S was very likely making, and South will automatically lose to those allowed to play 4S if she passes. Therefore, the hesitation demonstrably suggests that pass is a losing action by South and that 5S is more than likely to be successful. Since pass is a logical alternative to the suggested 5S bid, the contract was changed to 5H, down one on a spade lead. ***It is quite possible that most other players of ***South's experience and ability would automatically ***bid 5S without considering the hand's defensive ***potential or likely contracts at the other tables. ***Nevertheless, in a national event players are ***expected to be at least close to the standard of ***the event when considering logical alternatives. [RJH emphasis] The appeal was found to have substantial merit. Committee: Doug Doub, Chairperson, Michael Huston and John Lusky. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 24 00:38:24 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:38:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: [snip] >In fact a strong case can be made for not appealing >a case if the AC is not qualified to do so, but come >up with a fair agreed upon result amongst the >players involved and the TD. Is this btw allowed ?? >This is precisely what my previous thread was about. Richard Hills: In my opinion, it is not the responsibility of a player to act against their own interest because an incompetent SO has appointed an incompetent AC. On the other hand, sometimes a TD overlooks a pertinent fact or Law, and grants me an overly favourable ruling. I point out such a TD error immediately at the table, allowing the TD to correct their ruling without the hassle of an appeal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 24 02:39:38 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:39:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <200411231518.iANFIIGn015764@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411231518.iANFIIGn015764@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41A3F46A.8090406@cfa.harvard.edu> >>>"A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of >>>clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, >>>the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes >>>to win the tricks claimed." > From: "Sven Pran" > "The order in which cards will be played" is an unambiguous sentence to the > effect that the remaining cards are named one by one in a unique sequence. I don't think it's quite that stringent, but that's the right idea. Rather I'd say that the statement should make the opponents (or TD) aware of the intended order of play. "Spades from the top" is adequate; no need to spell out "ace of spades, then king of spades, then...." > Any of the following statements satisfy as "line of play": > "All my cards are high" Definitely. > "I have the rest on cross ruff" Almost certainly adequate, as long as there's no question of cashing side winners. > "West is squeezed when I cash my spades" Very likely adequate, depending on the exact layout. Can the opponents infer the intended order of play from this statement? > "You get a trick on your last trump" This doesn't state an order of play, so it's an infraction. It is quite likely a harmless one. (I suppose in some contexts it may be understood as "playing side winners in any order, trumps last" which would be an adequate statement.) > and for instance the following statement satisfy "defence" (the third > alternative in Law 68C): > "The squeeze will not work; I discard after Dummy and opposite of him" As long as it is clear in context which cards the defender intends to discard, it's fine (but I think you mean "the same as dummy.") > No, it is not an infraction but it might be ruled as an incomplete claim > statement. See the definition of "should" in the Preface. Just to repeat, for anyone coming in late: an infraction does not necessarily result in a penalty. L68C might well be the most-often- broken law in the FLB, and usually infractions of it are harmless. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 24 02:42:34 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:42:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <200411232259.iANMxwG6002078@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411232259.iANMxwG6002078@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41A3F51A.3090605@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > I, however, was using the word "normal" in its > different Lawful definition, as per footnote 20 to > the claim Laws. Very clever, Richard, but still no good. "I am playing the cards in a non-irrational order" does not specify a line of play. (I suppose it might in some contexts you could construct, but in general it doesn't.) Despite this being an infraction, it is likely very often to be free of cost. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 24 03:38:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:38:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <41A3F46A.8090406@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >This doesn't state an order of play, so it's an >infraction. It is quite likely a harmless one. [snip] >Just to repeat, for anyone coming in late: an >infraction does not necessarily result in a >penalty. L68C might well be the most-often- >broken law in the FLB, and usually infractions >of it are harmless. Richard Hills: Assume this two card ending -> Dummy --- A2 --- --- LHO RHO --- --- 76 98 --- --- --- --- Declarer --- K3 --- --- Declarer claims, stating that "I have the rest." Of course, it is still legal (but irrational) for RHO to win another trick. But, in my opinion, declarer's two normal lines of play are implicitly embedded in declarer's succinct statement. Therefore, if I was the TD, I would rule that not even a *harmless* infraction of Law 68C has occurred. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From PeterEidt@T-Online.de Wed Nov 24 08:06:00 2004 From: PeterEidt@T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: 24 Nov 2004 08:06 GMT Subject: [blml] Objected Concession Message-ID: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> Dear blmls, I heard of a nice (?) case in a club-tournement this week. - A96 - 5 KJ 4 - T7 - - A9 J A9 - - K2 In a NT-contract from South Dummy won the last trick with the Jack of Heart= s. Now West showed his As of Clubs and said: "after you've finished the Hearts= I=20 will get my Club". East objected immediately. So is this a L 68B case ? "[...] if a defender _attemps_ to concede [...]" = or is it not, because _if_ this is a L 68B case the following will occur (and did occur at the table): TD let the play go on with the C As being a penalt= y card. Playing the As of Hearts declarer discarded his looser in Spades ...= =20 and West his winner in Clubs. So declarer made the rest ... mmmhmm ;-( This can't be within the spirit of the laws. I suppose this to be a widely common situation, were the declarer side runs a long suit and there will be one ore two tricks to be played afterwards and nothing more. One defender knows that he gets (one of) the last tricks and shows this card(s) to short= en play. Now, if his partner isn't fully aware of the situation and objects (perhaps because he always objects partners concessions; he merely wants to play out every trick) all card(s) shown or named by the defender will become penalty cards and therefore have to be discarded on the long suit ... making _no_ t= rick any longer. In my opinion either a concession together with named or shown cards is no longer within the scope of L 68B (it's no longer an attempt of a concession but a completed concession) or there must be an additional remark, that car= ds=20 shown (or named) together with the concession are only UI and not penalty c= ards, if the concession is objected and play goes on. In the heading of L 50 TD has the power to let these card(s) be _no_ penalt= y cards ("[...] is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise [.= ..]"), but if this were the key law, there should be a reference to it in L 68B. But, perhaps I've overseen something ... regards Peter Eidt From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 24 09:00:08 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:00:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story References: <200411232259.iANMxwG6002078@cfa.harvard.edu> <41A3F51A.3090605@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001f01c4d204$17d8c1c0$029b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* "What is called the serenity of age is only perhaps a euphemism for the fading power to feel the sudden shock of joy or sorrow." ~ Arthur Bliss. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another Claim Story > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > I, however, was using the word "normal" in its > > different Lawful definition, as per footnote 20 to > > the claim Laws. > > Very clever, Richard, but still no good. "I am playing the cards in a > non-irrational order" does not specify a line of play. (I suppose it > might in some contexts you could construct, but in general it doesn't.) > > Despite this being an infraction, it is likely very often to be free of > cost. > +=+ My reaction to this thread is that it has spent a lot of its time discussing Law 68 whereas there could be advantage in considering Law 70. This is the law that guides the Director in his ruling when a statement of clarification is questioned. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 24 09:11:17 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:11:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A45035.703@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Steve Willner: > > [snip] > > >>This doesn't state an order of play, so it's an >>infraction. It is quite likely a harmless one. > > > [snip] > > >>Just to repeat, for anyone coming in late: an >>infraction does not necessarily result in a >>penalty. L68C might well be the most-often- >>broken law in the FLB, and usually infractions >>of it are harmless. > > > Richard Hills: > > Assume this two card ending -> > > Dummy > --- > A2 > --- > --- > LHO RHO > --- --- > 76 98 > --- --- > --- --- > Declarer > --- > K3 > --- > --- > > Declarer claims, stating that "I have the rest." > > Of course, it is still legal (but irrational) > for RHO to win another trick. > > But, in my opinion, declarer's two normal lines > of play are implicitly embedded in declarer's > succinct statement. > > Therefore, if I was the TD, I would rule that not > even a *harmless* infraction of Law 68C has > occurred. > Surely it cannot have been the intention of the lawmakers to label the statement "I have the rest" an infraction? So I certainly side with Richard here. This is not an infraction, not even a harmless one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 24 09:52:01 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:52:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 24 Nov 2004, at 08:06, Peter Eidt wrote: > Dear blmls, > > I heard of a nice (?) case in a club-tournement this week. > > - > A96 > - > 5 > KJ 4 > - T7 > - - > A9 J > A9 > - > - > K2 > > In a NT-contract from South Dummy won the last trick with the Jack of > Hearts. > Now West showed his As of Clubs and said: "after you've finished the > Hearts I > will get my Club". East objected immediately. > So is this a L 68B case ? "[...] if a defender _attemps_ to concede > [...]" or > is it not, because _if_ this is a L 68B case the following will occur > (and > did occur at the table): TD let the play go on with the C As being a > penalty > card. Playing the As of Hearts declarer discarded his looser in Spades > ... > and West his winner in Clubs. So declarer made the rest ... mmmhmm ;-( > > This can't be within the spirit of the laws. I suppose this to be a > widely > common situation, were the declarer side runs a long suit and there > will be > one ore two tricks to be played afterwards and nothing more. One > defender > knows that he gets (one of) the last tricks and shows this card(s) to > shorten play. > Now, if his partner isn't fully aware of the situation and objects > (perhaps > because he always objects partners concessions; he merely wants to > play out > every trick) all card(s) shown or named by the defender will become > penalty > cards and therefore have to be discarded on the long suit ... making > _no_ trick > any longer. > > In my opinion either a concession together with named or shown cards > is no > longer within the scope of L 68B (it's no longer an attempt of a > concession > but a completed concession) or there must be an additional remark, > that cards > shown (or named) together with the concession are only UI and not > penalty cards, > if the concession is objected and play goes on. > > In the heading of L 50 TD has the power to let these card(s) be _no_ > penalty > cards ("[...] is a penalty card unless the Director designates > otherwise [...]"), > but if this were the key law, there should be a reference to it in L > 68B. > > But, perhaps I've overseen something ... It's usual for a defender in this position to show the hand, or relevant cards, to declarer - without exposing it to partner. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 24 10:18:39 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:18:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <41A45FFF.7040102@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> In the heading of L 50 TD has the power to let these card(s) be _no_ >> penalty >> cards ("[...] is a penalty card unless the Director designates >> otherwise [...]"), >> but if this were the key law, there should be a reference to it in L 68B. >> >> But, perhaps I've overseen something ... > > > It's usual for a defender in this position to show the hand, or relevant > cards, to declarer - without exposing it to partner. > That does not help us, since the card is "named". By L49, such a card becomes a penalty card. L49 does refer to the footnote of L68, though, which states that exposed cards from "claims" to the current trick do not become penalty cards. That is the case where a defender shows AQ to a declarer thinking about what to play from KJ. The footnote does not seem to extend beyond this application though, and so the only straw left is the fact that L68B, when talking about defender's concession and partner's objection, specifically refers to L16 but not to L49 or L50. It would be a good thing for the WBFLC to clarify this in the next edition of the Laws. Grattan, did you copy? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 24 11:40:58 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:40:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41A45FFF.7040102@hdw.be> References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <41A45FFF.7040102@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 24 Nov 2004, at 10:18, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>> >>> In the heading of L 50 TD has the power to let these card(s) be _no_ >>> penalty >>> cards ("[...] is a penalty card unless the Director designates >>> otherwise [...]"), >>> but if this were the key law, there should be a reference to it in L >>> 68B. >>> >>> But, perhaps I've overseen something ... >> It's usual for a defender in this position to show the hand, or >> relevant cards, to declarer - without exposing it to partner. > > That does not help us, since the card is "named". It helps us to recognise that it's the defender's failure to follow usual practice that has led to the card being exposed. > By L49, such a card becomes a penalty card. L49 does refer to the > footnote of L68, though, which states that exposed cards from "claims" > to the current trick do not become penalty cards. That is the case > where a defender shows AQ to a declarer thinking about what to play > from KJ. > > The footnote does not seem to extend beyond this application though, > and so the only straw left is the fact that L68B, when talking about > defender's concession and partner's objection, specifically refers to > L16 but not to L49 or L50. Why clutch at straws? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 24 12:00:14 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:00:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <41A45FFF.7040102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41A477CE.2010901@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 24 Nov 2004, at 10:18, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>>> >>>> In the heading of L 50 TD has the power to let these card(s) be _no_ >>>> penalty >>>> cards ("[...] is a penalty card unless the Director designates >>>> otherwise [...]"), >>>> but if this were the key law, there should be a reference to it in L >>>> 68B. >>>> >>>> But, perhaps I've overseen something ... >>> >>> It's usual for a defender in this position to show the hand, or >>> relevant cards, to declarer - without exposing it to partner. >> >> >> That does not help us, since the card is "named". > > > It helps us to recognise that it's the defender's failure to follow > usual practice that has led to the card being exposed. > Oh no it's not - remember what happened: West thought dummy had 3 good cards and a club which would be for him. He conceded 3 tricks and "showed" his CK in the process. East immediately objected to the concession and so play has to go on. Is the CK a penalty card or not? I don't believe it is practice to concede without showing one's cards, nor is it "practice" to concede without showing one's cards while waiting for the possible "immediate" objection by partner. West has done nothing wrong. He may have given UI to his partner, but we know how to deal with that - and it's probably AI to partner already as well. >> By L49, such a card becomes a penalty card. L49 does refer to the >> footnote of L68, though, which states that exposed cards from "claims" >> to the current trick do not become penalty cards. That is the case >> where a defender shows AQ to a declarer thinking about what to play >> from KJ. >> >> The footnote does not seem to extend beyond this application though, >> and so the only straw left is the fact that L68B, when talking about >> defender's concession and partner's objection, specifically refers to >> L16 but not to L49 or L50. > > > Why clutch at straws? > Because Peter was correct in remarking that the laws do not say this is not a penalty card. And why should we want it to be one? So we need a straw to clutch onto, in order not to be forced to rule it a PC anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 24 12:27:33 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:27:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41A477CE.2010901@hdw.be> References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <41A45FFF.7040102@hdw.be> <41A477CE.2010901@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3743A9FE-3E14-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 24 Nov 2004, at 12:00, Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't believe it is practice to concede without showing one's cards, > nor is it "practice" to concede without showing one's cards while > waiting for the possible "immediate" objection by partner. I never expose my hand to my partner when claiming or conceding as a defender. This case illustrates why. >> Why clutch at straws? > > Because Peter was correct in remarking that the laws do not say this > is not a penalty card. And why should we want it to be one? My point is that we shouldn't start by deciding what we want the outcome to be, though I've seen you do that here several times, Herman. We should start with the facts, look up the Laws and apply them. If we think that leads to an undesirable outcome, we should work to change the Laws for the future. > So we need a straw to clutch onto, in order not to be forced to rule > it a PC anyway. If the Law says that it's a PC, why should that be overruled by your subjective inclination? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Wed Nov 24 12:39:47 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:39:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession Message-ID: <005101c4d222$aef48d00$2423b5d4@swipnet.se> I don=B4t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of tricks to each = side. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n=20 From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 24 13:12:37 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:12:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <005101c4d222$aef48d00$2423b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <000601c4d227$44fc4f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > I don=B4t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. > Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of tricks to each = side. Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately = objects, no concession has occurred;=20 As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action not related to = a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress (see Law = 49) it becomes a major penalty card. Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 24 13:17:17 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:17:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <3743A9FE-3E14-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> <7D251678-3DFE-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <41A45FFF.7040102@hdw.be> <41A477CE.2010901@hdw.be> <3743A9FE-3E14-11D9-88F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <41A489DD.1000009@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 24 Nov 2004, at 12:00, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I don't believe it is practice to concede without showing one's cards, >> nor is it "practice" to concede without showing one's cards while >> waiting for the possible "immediate" objection by partner. > > > I never expose my hand to my partner when claiming or conceding as a > defender. This case illustrates why. > Well, we may argue that in this case, the mere fact of conceding three and claiming the fourth "shows" the high club. I don't like it when I need to make an assessment based on the actual naming or showing of a PC. The intention of two players might be the same, and where one of them is able to do it without specifically mentioning the club "king", the other will siply show it. That's a distinction I don't want to see made important. If the CK becomes a PC when I show it, then it must also become one when you simply say "I take the last club". You are an english speaker, so you may be able to get by withjout showing it. My english is less perfect, so I show the card. Our intentions are the same and our punishment should be the same. Your partner, and mine, know that we have the CK, yet you would be allowed to keep the CK, while I should throw it on the running of the hearts. That is unfair. > > >>> Why clutch at straws? >> >> >> Because Peter was correct in remarking that the laws do not say this >> is not a penalty card. And why should we want it to be one? > > > My point is that we shouldn't start by deciding what we want the outcome > to be, though I've seen you do that here several times, Herman. > I know, but this is a case where I believe most directors would simply rule "concession cancelled by objection, play continues, CK is UI" without looking up the laws. Maybe they are wrong, maybe they are not. I think that is the right ruling, and I think the laws back me up. But I agree that the laws are imperfectly written and the next set should be made more correct. > We should start with the facts, look up the Laws and apply them. If we > think that leads to an undesirable outcome, we should work to change the > Laws for the future. > Which is the main point of my post - see my note to Grattan. >> So we need a straw to clutch onto, in order not to be forced to rule >> it a PC anyway. > > > If the Law says that it's a PC, why should that be overruled by your > subjective inclination? > The law says I, as TD, can rule it is not a PC. I think this is a case for ruling in that manner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 24 13:25:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:25:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: voor de duidelijkheid ... In-Reply-To: <27BAFDF2-3E10-11D9-BF3E-0003939C8998@pandora.be> References: <27BAFDF2-3E10-11D9-BF3E-0003939C8998@pandora.be> Message-ID: <41A48BBB.2080802@hdw.be> jenny.marynissen@pandora.be wrote: >=20 >=20 > Herman De Wael heeft op woensdag, 24 nov 2004 om 11:32 (Europe/Brussels= )=20 > het volgende geschreven: >=20 > voor de duidelijkheid? >=20 >=20 > Verklaring: > Tegen d=E9 bridgeregel 'je moet je partner altijd vertrouwen' in, hield= ik=20 > er rekening mee dat je zou gedacht hebben, dat we eerst in Lier waren,=20 > gisteren. Maar, dat was niet zo, want er waren veel mensen voor ons in=20 > Lier. Zeker zij die er niet weg geweest waren. >=20 Dus je was niet als eerste in Lier (om zeven uur), maar je was wel=20 eerste in Lier (om twaalf uur) > Daarjuist verstond ik het, nu helemaal niet meer. >=20 >=20 > Wel, om eerlijk te zijn, ik weet het ook allemaal niet meer zo goed. >=20 > Was je nu eerst in Lier of als eerste in Lier? >=20 >=20 > Hewel, dat ik het niet en weet. >=20 > Verder, wat het tornooi betreft ... we zijn als laatste vernoemd, en we= =20 > hadden 57%. Nogmaals proficiat. > Jongens jongens, het is me het avondje weer geweest! Nicole is een paar= =20 > keer hoog uit het dak gegaan. Doet ze altijd, wanneer ze zelf een beetj= e=20 > 'schuldig' is aan het welslagen van een contract van de tegenpartij. >=20 > Een voorbeeld nodig? Je mag jouw gedacht eens geven. Heb het ook al aan= =20 > de Marc gevraagd. >=20 > Dus, ik had: > zeven harten van aas, boer, tien > vier schoppen van aas, dame, boer > twee klaveren van de zeven. >=20 > Ik open 1 hart. > Nicole antwoordt: 1 schop. > Ik zeg: 3 schop > Is mijn redenering fout, als ik denk: 'als ze maar bijv 6 punten > heeft, mag ze hierop passen'? Ik denk ook dat 3S limiet is en dus niet forcing. Maar denk je echt dat de manche nog in gevaar is? > Vanaf het moment dat ze controle klaveren, ik controle ruiten, zij > controle harten biedt, bied ik: vier schop, vanuit het idee dat we > niet in de slem moeten zitten, tenzij zij veel sterker is. > Ik bedoel, ik denk dat ik sleminvitatie doe, als ik 4 ruiten bied, bedoel je na 4Kl of ineens, na 1S. Dat zou splinter moeten zijn, en betekent dat 4S zeker is en je nog=20 meer wil. Maar ik doe dat alleen maar met singleton. Ik begrijp die=20 conventie misschien niet goed genoeg. > als antwoord op haar 1 schop. Of, nog steeds in het gedacht dat zij > vanaf zes punten moet bieden, denk ik dat ik met 4 ruiten al te hoo= g > zou kunnen zitten. > Ik geraak hier niet uit. >=20 Er zijn 2 problemen: hoe waardeer je je kaart, en hoe biedt je dan die=20 waardering uit. Ben je zeker van 4S of niet? zo ja, dan is 3S zeker verkeerd. 4S is=20 dan een eerste mogelijkheid. Denk je dat er nog meer in zit? Dan is zelfs 4S niet genoeg en moet je=20 ofwel beginnen met 4R (splinter of controle) of iets anders forcings. >=20 > Nog eentje, om het af te leren? >=20 misschien --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Nov 24 13:29:28 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:29:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C508@hotel.npl.co.uk> Reply follows original message. -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 24 November 2004 13:13 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > I don=B4t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. > Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of tricks to each = side. Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately = objects, no concession has occurred;=20 As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action not related = to a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress (see = Law 49) it becomes a major penalty card. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Also relevant is the following WBFLC minute - When one defender concedes some of the remaining tricks, and his = partner immediately objects, then neither a claim nor a concession has = occurred. Play continues but Law 16 may apply. [WBFLC minutes 2001-10-28#10] I think the law would operate better as Hans-Olaf says - If there is a claim play ceases. If there is a concession of all the remaining tricks (i.e. no claim) = and partner objects there is no concession and play continues. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 24 13:36:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:36:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: voor de duidelijkheid ... In-Reply-To: <41A48BBB.2080802@hdw.be> References: <27BAFDF2-3E10-11D9-BF3E-0003939C8998@pandora.be> <41A48BBB.2080802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41A48E57.3030209@hdw.be> oops - this was surely not intended for blml. Herman De Wael wrote: > jenny.marynissen@pandora.be wrote: >=20 >> >> >> Herman De Wael heeft op woensdag, 24 nov 2004 om 11:32=20 >> (Europe/Brussels) het volgende geschreven: >> >> voor de duidelijkheid? >> >> >> Verklaring: >> Tegen d=E9 bridgeregel 'je moet je partner altijd vertrouwen' in, hiel= d=20 >> ik er rekening mee dat je zou gedacht hebben, dat we eerst in Lier=20 >> waren, gisteren. Maar, dat was niet zo, want er waren veel mensen voor= =20 >> ons in Lier. Zeker zij die er niet weg geweest waren. >> >=20 > Dus je was niet als eerste in Lier (om zeven uur), maar je was wel=20 > eerste in Lier (om twaalf uur) >=20 >> Daarjuist verstond ik het, nu helemaal niet meer. >> >> >> Wel, om eerlijk te zijn, ik weet het ook allemaal niet meer zo goed. >> >> Was je nu eerst in Lier of als eerste in Lier? >> >> >> Hewel, dat ik het niet en weet. >> >> Verder, wat het tornooi betreft ... we zijn als laatste vernoemd, en=20 >> we hadden 57%. >=20 >=20 > Nogmaals proficiat. >=20 >> Jongens jongens, het is me het avondje weer geweest! Nicole is een=20 >> paar keer hoog uit het dak gegaan. Doet ze altijd, wanneer ze zelf een= =20 >> beetje 'schuldig' is aan het welslagen van een contract van de=20 >> tegenpartij. >> >> Een voorbeeld nodig? Je mag jouw gedacht eens geven. Heb het ook al=20 >> aan de Marc gevraagd. >> >> Dus, ik had: >> zeven harten van aas, boer, tien >> vier schoppen van aas, dame, boer >> twee klaveren van de zeven. >> >> Ik open 1 hart. >> Nicole antwoordt: 1 schop. >> Ik zeg: 3 schop >> Is mijn redenering fout, als ik denk: 'als ze maar bijv 6 punten >> heeft, mag ze hierop passen'? >=20 >=20 > Ik denk ook dat 3S limiet is en dus niet forcing. > Maar denk je echt dat de manche nog in gevaar is? >=20 >> Vanaf het moment dat ze controle klaveren, ik controle ruiten, zij >> controle harten biedt, bied ik: vier schop, vanuit het idee dat we >> niet in de slem moeten zitten, tenzij zij veel sterker is. >> Ik bedoel, ik denk dat ik sleminvitatie doe, als ik 4 ruiten bied, >=20 >=20 > bedoel je na 4Kl of ineens, na 1S. > Dat zou splinter moeten zijn, en betekent dat 4S zeker is en je nog mee= r=20 > wil. Maar ik doe dat alleen maar met singleton. Ik begrijp die conventi= e=20 > misschien niet goed genoeg. >=20 >> als antwoord op haar 1 schop. Of, nog steeds in het gedacht dat zi= j >> vanaf zes punten moet bieden, denk ik dat ik met 4 ruiten al te ho= og >> zou kunnen zitten. >> Ik geraak hier niet uit. >> >=20 > Er zijn 2 problemen: hoe waardeer je je kaart, en hoe biedt je dan die=20 > waardering uit. > Ben je zeker van 4S of niet? zo ja, dan is 3S zeker verkeerd. 4S is dan= =20 > een eerste mogelijkheid. > Denk je dat er nog meer in zit? Dan is zelfs 4S niet genoeg en moet je=20 > ofwel beginnen met 4R (splinter of controle) of iets anders forcings. >=20 >> >> Nog eentje, om het af te leren? >> >=20 > misschien >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Wed Nov 24 13:40:18 2004 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:40:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C508@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: I believe the intention of "but Law 16 may apply" is to not deem the = cards exposed as penalty cards but to consider them as U.I. Only. Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Robin Barker Sent: quarta-feira, 24 de Novembro de 2004 13:29 To: blml Cc: 'Sven Pran' Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession Reply follows original message. -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 24 November 2004 13:13 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > I don=B4t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. > Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of tricks to each = side. Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately = objects, no concession has occurred;=20 As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action not related to = a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress (see Law = 49) it becomes a major penalty card. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Also relevant is the following WBFLC minute - When one defender concedes some of the remaining tricks, and his partner immediately objects, then neither a claim nor a concession has occurred. Play continues but Law 16 may apply. [WBFLC minutes 2001-10-28#10] I think the law would operate better as Hans-Olaf says - If there is a = claim play ceases. If there is a concession of all the remaining tricks (i.e. no claim) and partner objects there is no concession and play continues. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or = privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose = such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments = are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 = Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 24 13:51:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:51:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids Message-ID: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> Is one allowed to use the information on the back of the bidding cards about the value of contracts during the auction? Does this info fall under "calculation aids" as in the footnote to L40 or is the value of a contract something that the laws prescribe and therefor always AI? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Nov 24 13:54:03 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:54:03 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Objected Concession Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC51@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Rui Marques wrote: =20 I believe the intention of "but Law 16 may apply" is to not deem the = cards exposed as penalty cards but to consider them as U.I. Only. ----- I'm not so sure about this. It's clear that if no cards has been shown = or named, or indirectly named (as in the case discussed), there's no = penalty card, and UI only. If a card has been shown, named or indirectly named, it's not clear to = me what the law or the laws committee intends. The law and the minute = doesn't address exposed cards at all, merely say that a claim/concession = is canceled (by immediate protest by partner), play continues and that = there might be UI. I know I've always ruled exposed cards in these circumstances not to be = penalty cards, only UI. But I'm not so sure anymore that this is = correct. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Robin Barker Sent: quarta-feira, 24 de Novembro de 2004 13:29 To: blml Cc: 'Sven Pran' Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession Reply follows original message. -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 24 November 2004 13:13 To: blml Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > I don=B4t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. > Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of tricks to each = side. Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately = objects, no concession has occurred;=20 As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action not related to = a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress (see Law = 49) it becomes a major penalty card. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ Also relevant is the following WBFLC minute - When one defender concedes some of the remaining tricks, and his partner immediately objects, then neither a claim nor a concession has occurred. Play continues but Law 16 may apply. [WBFLC minutes 2001-10-28#10] I think the law would operate better as Hans-Olaf says - If there is a = claim play ceases. If there is a concession of all the remaining tricks (i.e. no claim) and partner objects there is no concession and play continues. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or = privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose = such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments = are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 = Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 24 13:57:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:57:37 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC51@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC51@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <41A49351.30004@hdw.be> Please Harald, for once: Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Rui Marques wrote: > > I believe the intention of "but Law 16 may apply" is to not deem the cards > exposed as penalty cards but to consider them as U.I. Only. > ----- > I'm not so sure about this. It's clear that if no cards has been shown or named, or indirectly named (as in the case discussed), there's no penalty card, and UI only. > > If a card has been shown, named or indirectly named, it's not clear to me what the law or the laws committee intends. The law and the minute doesn't address exposed cards at all, merely say that a claim/concession is canceled (by immediate protest by partner), play continues and that there might be UI. > > I know I've always ruled exposed cards in these circumstances not to be penalty cards, only UI. But I'm not so sure anymore that this is correct. > for once, don't feed the blml warmongers. we all know what it means, and we've all ruled the same way. don't throw doubt on certainties. > Regards, > Harald Skjaeran > ----- > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Nov 24 14:01:27 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:01:27 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Calculation aids Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900019E0D66@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Is one allowed to use the information on the back of the bidding cards=20 about the value of contracts during the auction? Does this info fall under "calculation aids" as in the footnote to L40=20 or is the value of a contract something that the laws prescribe and=20 therefor always AI? ----- I believe that you're not allowed to use this information. That's how Norwegian TD's are educated, and have been for at least 22 years. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 24 14:12:39 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:12:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> References: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> Message-ID: In article <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@fwd05.sul.t-online.com>, Peter Eidt writes >Dear blmls, > >I heard of a nice (?) case in a club-tournement this week. > > - > A96 > - > 5 >KJ 4 >- T7 >- - >A9 J > A9 > - > - > K2 I raised this matter during a role play or examination on the refresher course for EBU TD's last winter. Until then the position was treated as a UI problem. I argued successfully that the exposed cards become penalty cards. The consensus view, supported by Max Bavin, was that I was correct, and that this was an unfortunate aspect of the wording of the law as it was clear that this was not the real intent of the LawMakers. I believe this new jurisprudence was taken to the EBL training course this spring. What the perceived wisdom there was, I cannot tell. > >In a NT-contract from South Dummy won the last trick with the Jack of Hearts. >Now West showed his As of Clubs and said: "after you've finished the Hearts I >will get my Club". East objected immediately. >So is this a L 68B case ? "[...] if a defender _attemps_ to concede [...]" or >is it not, because _if_ this is a L 68B case the following will occur (and >did occur at the table): TD let the play go on with the C As being a penalty >card. Playing the As of Hearts declarer discarded his looser in Spades ... >and West his winner in Clubs. So declarer made the rest ... mmmhmm ;-( > >This can't be within the spirit of the laws. I suppose this to be a widely >common situation, were the declarer side runs a long suit and there will be >one ore two tricks to be played afterwards and nothing more. One defender >knows that he gets (one of) the last tricks and shows this card(s) to shorten >play. >Now, if his partner isn't fully aware of the situation and objects (perhaps >because he always objects partners concessions; he merely wants to play out >every trick) all card(s) shown or named by the defender will become penalty >cards and therefore have to be discarded on the long suit ... making _no_ trick >any longer. > >In my opinion either a concession together with named or shown cards is no >longer within the scope of L 68B (it's no longer an attempt of a concession >but a completed concession) or there must be an additional remark, that cards >shown (or named) together with the concession are only UI and not penalty cards, >if the concession is objected and play goes on. > >In the heading of L 50 TD has the power to let these card(s) be _no_ penalty >cards ("[...] is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise >[...]"), >but if this were the key law, there should be a reference to it in L 68B. > >But, perhaps I've overseen something ... > >regards >Peter Eidt > >_______________________________________________ >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 Nov 24 14:14:28 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:14:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <005101c4d222$aef48d00$2423b5d4@swipnet.se> References: <005101c4d222$aef48d00$2423b5d4@swipnet.se> Message-ID: In article <005101c4d222$aef48d00$2423b5d4@swipnet.se>, Hans-Olof Hall=E9= n writes >I don=B4t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. >Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of tricks to each side. >Yours etc >Hans-Olof Hall=E9n=20 uhuh, play continues in the one circumstance where a defender concedes and the other immediately objects. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 24 14:15:47 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:15:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> References: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Is one allowed to use the information on the back of the bidding cards >about the value of contracts during the auction? In the EBU we are instructed "No". I concur > >Does this info fall under "calculation aids" as in the footnote to L40 >or is the value of a contract something that the laws prescribe and >therefor always AI? yes > -- 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 jimfox99@hotmail.com Wed Nov 24 14:15:21 2004 From: jimfox99@hotmail.com (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:15:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs References: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> Message-ID: At a recent ACBL Regional, cards were used that had "assymetric images" on the back. I have always thought that it would go without saying that such cards are not a good idea in any competitive card game (especially any game where more than one player plays as a team). Any thoughts or policy on this in your bridge governing units? Mmbridge From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 24 14:29:09 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:29:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> References: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124091458.02bf1bb0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:51 AM 11/24/04, Herman wrote: >Is one allowed to use the information on the back of the bidding cards >about the value of contracts during the auction? > >Does this info fall under "calculation aids" as in the footnote to L40 >or is the value of a contract something that the laws prescribe and >therefor always AI? We require our players to follow the laws, but do not require them to know them. It must follow that a player is entitled to be told at his request what the laws are. I don't see how anything written in TFLB can ever be treated as unauthorized information. I suppose one could argue that since TFLB only gives the scores for tricks and bonuses, the table of scores on the bidding cards, which does the addition for you, could be considered an "aid[] to calculation", but that's being far too petty. If the Powers That Be didn't think those totals were AI by definition, why would they have allowed them to be printed on the backs of the bidding cards, from which one can read them without being noticed doing so, or even without intending to? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 24 14:50:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:50:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <200411241340.iAODeChe024494@mail27.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000701c4d234$e5f5a570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Marques [mailto:rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt] > Sent: 24. november 2004 14:40 > To: 'Robin Barker'; 'blml' > Cc: 'Sven Pran' > Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession >=20 > I believe the intention of "but Law 16 may apply" is to not deem the = cards > exposed as penalty cards but to consider them as U.I. Only. >=20 > Rui Marques That is definitely not what is indicated in the EBL commentaries from = 1992 to the equivalent law as of 1987, nor have I found any indication to = such effect in the minutes of WBFLC meetings that I have available.=20 Regards Sven =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robin > Barker > Sent: quarta-feira, 24 de Novembro de 2004 13:29 > To: blml > Cc: 'Sven Pran' > Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession >=20 > Reply follows original message. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > Sent: 24 November 2004 13:13 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession >=20 >=20 > > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > > I don=B4t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. > > Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of tricks to each > side. >=20 > Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: If a = defender > attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately > objects, > no concession has occurred; >=20 > As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action not related = to a > statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress (see = Law > 49) > it becomes a major penalty card. >=20 > Regards Sven > _______________________________________________ >=20 > Also relevant is the following WBFLC minute - >=20 > When one defender concedes some of the remaining tricks, and his = partner > immediately objects, then neither a claim nor a concession has = occurred. > Play continues but Law 16 may apply. > [WBFLC minutes 2001-10-28#10] >=20 > I think the law would operate better as Hans-Olaf says - If there is a > claim > play ceases. > If there is a concession of all the remaining tricks (i.e. no claim) = and > partner objects there is no concession and play continues. >=20 > Robin >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or = privileged > material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose > such > information. >=20 > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments = are > free from viruses. >=20 > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered > Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 24 15:26:15 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:26:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c4d239$f05493a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Is one allowed to use the information on the back of the bidding cards > about the value of contracts during the auction? >=20 > Does this info fall under "calculation aids" as in the footnote to L40 > or is the value of a contract something that the laws prescribe and > therefor always AI? This information is certainly authorized to you as are for instance all = your partnership agreements. You are not allowed to consult any notes on your own agreements during = the auction or play (most notably your own CC), nor are you allowed to = consult the tabulated values on the back of the bidding cards during the same = time.=20 The back sides of the bidding cards are aids both to memory and to calculation. Regards Sven =20 From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 24 16:20:15 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:20:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: voor de duidelijkheid ... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:25:15 +0100." <41A48BBB.2080802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200411241620.IAA23508@mailhub.irvine.com> > > Dus, ik had: > > zeven harten van aas, boer, tien > > vier schoppen van aas, dame, boer > > twee klaveren van de zeven. > > > > Ik open 1 hart. > > Nicole antwoordt: 1 schop. > > Ik zeg: 3 schop > > Is mijn redenering fout, als ik denk: 'als ze maar bijv 6 punten > > heeft, mag ze hierop passen'? > > Ik denk ook dat 3S limiet is en dus niet forcing. > Maar denk je echt dat de manche nog in gevaar is? So what's the Dutch word for "swan"? This is real frustrating. Now I have to go learn Dutch so that I can learn to read the remaining 10% of this message that I can't figure out. :) -- Adam From walt1@verizon.net Wed Nov 24 16:58:26 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:58:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124091458.02bf1bb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041124091458.02bf1bb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041124114945.023f1380@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:29 AM 11/24/2004, Eric Landau wrote: >I suppose one could argue that since TFLB only gives the scores for tricks >and bonuses, the table of scores on the bidding cards, which does the >addition for you, could be considered an "aid[] to calculation", but >that's being far too petty. If the Powers That Be didn't think those >totals were AI by definition, why would they have allowed them to be >printed on the backs of the bidding cards, from which one can read them >without being noticed doing so, or even without intending to? This seems to me to be a close parallel to something I was taught 25 years ago: You are not allowed to look at your scores during the bidding or play of a hand. Certainly the scores you have gotten on previous boards are AI to you. Just as certainly, I believe, the knowledge that what these scores are is of interest to you while you are involved in the bidding or play of a board is UI to your partner. Knowing that you think previous scores or the value of a given contract is important could give partner UI about your hand. For instance, either of these might suggest that you were considering "shooting" or that you were considering sacrificing. Walt From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 24 17:36:54 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:36:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041124114945.023f1380@incoming.verizon.net> References: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041124091458.02bf1bb0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.2.0.0.20041124114945.023f1380@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124122036.02bf4010@pop.starpower.net> At 11:58 AM 11/24/04, Walt wrote: >At 09:29 AM 11/24/2004, Eric Landau wrote: >>I suppose one could argue that since TFLB only gives the scores for >>tricks and bonuses, the table of scores on the bidding cards, which >>does the addition for you, could be considered an "aid[] to >>calculation", but that's being far too petty. If the Powers That Be >>didn't think those totals were AI by definition, why would they have >>allowed them to be printed on the backs of the bidding cards, from >>which one can read them without being noticed doing so, or even >>without intending to? > >This seems to me to be a close parallel to something I was taught 25 >years ago: > You are not allowed to look at your scores during the bidding > or play of a hand. > >Certainly the scores you have gotten on previous boards are AI to you. >Just as certainly, I believe, the knowledge that what these scores are >is of interest to you while you are involved in the bidding or play of >a board is UI to your partner. > >Knowing that you think previous scores or the value of a given >contract is important could give partner UI about your hand. For >instance, either of these might suggest that you were considering >"shooting" or that you were considering sacrificing. ISTM the parallel breaks down because the scoring table is a law, unlike the results on previous boards. A player under an obligation to follow the laws must have the right to know what the laws are. There is no legal obligation to "follow" the consequences of one's previous results. Imagine you are directing. A player calls you over, and tells you that he thinks he may be in possession of UI. He knows that this places him under some obligation with respect to his subsequent bidding, but isn't sure exactly what he's supposed to do. He asks you to read him L16. Do you refuse, on the grounds that he is requesting a "memory aid" prohibited by L40? Personally, I would not only be willing to read him the law, I'd be prepared to explain its ramifications to him. And if he is entitled to know what L16 says when it might affect his next call, on what grounds can we refuse to divulge what L77 says? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 24 18:09:02 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:09:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:36:54 EST." <6.1.1.1.0.20041124122036.02bf4010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200411241808.KAA24124@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > >Knowing that you think previous scores or the value of a given > >contract is important could give partner UI about your hand. For > >instance, either of these might suggest that you were considering > >"shooting" or that you were considering sacrificing. > > ISTM the parallel breaks down because the scoring table is a law, > unlike the results on previous boards. The entire scoring table isn't in the Laws, though. The original question asked whether it was OK to look on the back of a bidding card to get the score for a contract. The back of the bidding cards (at least the ones I'm familiar with) will tell you that 5Sx making six, vulnerable, is 1050, but the Laws don't tell you that. Law 77 tells you that the score for an odd trick bid and made in spades is 60 (doubled), that a doubled overtrick is 200 if vulnerable, that the premium score for making a vulnerable game is 500, and the bonus for making a doubled contract is 50. You'd still have to figure out the score yourself. Using the back of the bidding card to look up the answer should definitely be considered a calculation aid. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 24 18:19:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:19:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124122036.02bf4010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01c4d252$32b042e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ............ > >This seems to me to be a close parallel to something I was taught 25 > >years ago: > > You are not allowed to look at your scores during the bidding > > or play of a hand. > > > >Certainly the scores you have gotten on previous boards are AI to = you. > >Just as certainly, I believe, the knowledge that what these scores = are > >is of interest to you while you are involved in the bidding or play = of > >a board is UI to your partner. > > > >Knowing that you think previous scores or the value of a given > >contract is important could give partner UI about your hand. For > >instance, either of these might suggest that you were considering > >"shooting" or that you were considering sacrificing. >=20 > ISTM the parallel breaks down because the scoring table is a law, > unlike the results on previous boards. A player under an obligation = to > follow the laws must have the right to know what the laws are. There > is no legal obligation to "follow" the consequences of one's previous > results. >=20 > Imagine you are directing. A player calls you over, and tells you = that > he thinks he may be in possession of UI. He knows that this places = him > under some obligation with respect to his subsequent bidding, but = isn't > sure exactly what he's supposed to do. He asks you to read him > L16. Do you refuse, on the grounds that he is requesting a "memory > aid" prohibited by L40? Personally, I would not only be willing to > read him the law, I'd be prepared to explain its ramifications to him. >=20 > And if he is entitled to know what L16 says when it might affect his > next call, on what grounds can we refuse to divulge what L77 says? Sorry Eric, but it is your argument that break down right away: Please look at Law 81C5 which tells us that the Director's duties and = powers normally include: "To administer and interpret these Laws and to advice the players of = their rights and responsibilities thereunder." The footnote to Law 40 specifically tells us that: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his = memory, calculation or technique. However ....." (SO may establish special regulations affecting this principle). So it is not a matter of AI or UI, it is the rule that a player may not = use any "aid" to his memory etc. The fact that the scoring table is a law does not alter this rule. If = you remember this part of the law, fine. If you do not remember you may not = look it up during the auction and play periods. If you need some aid on any = part of the law you call the Director and ask him. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 24 18:54:26 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:54:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <000b01c4d252$32b042e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124122036.02bf4010@pop.starpower.net> <000b01c4d252$32b042e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124133548.02f39eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:19 PM 11/24/04, Sven wrote: >The fact that the scoring table is a law does not alter this rule. But we are not debating what the rule says; we are deciding whether it applies to the laws themselves. >If you >remember this part of the law, fine. If you do not remember you may >not look >it up during the auction and play periods. If you need some aid on any >part >of the law you call the Director and ask him. My point exactly: if you need some aid on any part of the law you call the Director and ask him. That would hardly be the case if when you asked him, he was obligated to refuse to answer on the grounds that doing so is a "memory aid". And "any part of the law" includes L77. Reductio ad absurdum: If a player asks, during a hand, whether the laws permit him to consult a memory aid at the table, do we refuse to tell him that they do not, on the grounds that to do so would itself be an illegal "memory aid"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 24 19:25:07 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:25:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124133548.02f39eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c4d25b$4f0bd950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > At 01:19 PM 11/24/04, Sven wrote: >=20 > >The fact that the scoring table is a law does not alter this rule. >=20 > But we are not debating what the rule says; we are deciding whether it > applies to the laws themselves. The footnote says "any aids to memory, calculation or technique". Sure this includes memorizing the laws themselves as far as such = information might have any impact on any action selected by the player. =20 > >If you remember this part of the law, fine. If you do not > >remember you may not look it up during the auction and play > >periods. If you need some aid on any part of the law you=20 > >call the Director and ask him. >=20 > My point exactly: if you need some aid on any part of the law you call > the Director and ask him. That would hardly be the case if when you > asked him, he was obligated to refuse to answer on the grounds that > doing so is a "memory aid". And "any part of the law" includes L77. Sure he should. He must figure out why the player requests the = information and if the Director finds that he actually tries to use him as an aid to = his memory or calculation (for instance in order to figure out whether he = has a favourable sacrifice against opponents' contract) the Director should = not reveal the information but inform the player that unless he can figure = it out himself without any aid, that information will not be available to = him until after the play. =20 > Reductio ad absurdum: If a player asks, during a hand, whether the > laws permit him to consult a memory aid at the table, do we refuse to > tell him that they do not, on the grounds that to do so would itself = be > an illegal "memory aid"? Ridiculous. The fact (information) that the laws do not allow any aid to memory being revealed to a player is not giving him any aid to memory. = It is advising him of his rights and responsibilities as prescribed in Law = 81C5. Sven From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 24 20:00:48 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:00:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:29:09 EST." <6.1.1.1.0.20041124091458.02bf1bb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200411242000.MAA24815@mailhub.irvine.com> > We require our players to follow the laws, but do not require them to > know them. It must follow that a player is entitled to be told at his > request what the laws are. On reflection, I don't think your premise is entirely correct. We don't require players to know *all* the Laws. Certainly, if a revoke occurs, we don't expect players to know what the penalty is---we expect them to call the Director and let him or her sort it out. However, there are Laws that we *do* expect players to know: for example, you play clockwise, you have to follow suit, you can't make insufficient bids. These things are part of the "essence" of the game (whatever the heck that means), so players can be expected to know them. Most of the other things in the Laws deal with how we deal with irregularities, so players aren't expected to know those. I think it's reasonable to say that scoring falls into the category of things we do expect players to know. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 24 21:36:54 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:36:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <000801c4d239$f05493a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Nov 24, 2004, at 10:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > The back sides of the bidding cards are aids both to memory and to > calculation. So are the front sides, when the cards are placed on the table. :-) From schoderb@msn.com Wed Nov 24 21:57:23 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:57:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids References: Message-ID: Therby eliminating constant requests for and reviews of the auction during the period when such is legal by keeping it in sight! Another thread that just uses up space on the ether. Thanks to the hardware gurus for the delete key. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Calculation aids > > On Wednesday, Nov 24, 2004, at 10:26 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > The back sides of the bidding cards are aids both to memory and to > > calculation. > > So are the front sides, when the cards are placed on the table. :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb@msn.com Wed Nov 24 21:59:51 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:59:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs References: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> Message-ID: Really! In WBF events not only are the backs of the cards symmetrical, even the faces are. I know of no law covering this, but there is always common sense and Conditions of Contest the would make it mandatory. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fox" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:15 AM Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs > At a recent ACBL Regional, cards were used that had "assymetric images" on > the back. I have always thought that it would go without saying that such > cards are not a good idea in any competitive card game (especially any > game > where more than one player plays as a team). > > Any thoughts or policy on this in your bridge governing units? > > Mmbridge > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 24 22:01:04 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:01:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c4d271$17bc72a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > The back sides of the bidding cards are aids both to memory and to > > calculation. >=20 > So are the front sides, when the cards are placed on the table. :-) Indeed. And that is one of the reasons why after the end of the auction = only the bid card (in case together with the double or redouble card) = displaying the final contract may be left visible on the table (See Law 41C). Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 24 22:18:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:18:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <200411242000.MAA24815@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >On reflection, I don't think your premise is entirely >correct. We don't require players to know *all* the Laws. [big snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Law 72A1 places on obligation on players to know how to avoid infracting the Laws. That is, a player is obliged to know enough of the Laws to avoid committing any deliberate irregularity. However, I partially agree with Adam. A player does not need to know any of the Laws which define the procedure for rectification of irregularities. A player merely needs to know when it is legal to summon the TD, Law 9 and Law 75D2. Off-topic comment: In my opinion, Law 75D2 causes more trouble than it is worth. It is difficult enough for a club TD to train their customers in the principle, "call me as soon as an irregularity happens". But then the customers have to be further trained in the Law 75D2 exception, "don't call me just yet". (Not to mention the De Wael paradox, since Law 75C and Law 75D2 may mandate diametrically opposed indications/explanations.) Therefore, the WBF LC may wish to consider abolishing Law 75D2 in the 2006 edition of the Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 24 22:22:35 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:22:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:57:23 EST." Message-ID: <200411242222.OAA25604@mailhub.irvine.com> Kojak wrote: > Another thread that just uses up space on the ether. Thanks to the hardware > gurus for the delete key. HEY!!!!!!! Any fool can put a bunch of molten plastic in a key-shaped mold and then let it harden and then paint the word "Delete" on it. It takes software gurus like me to write code that recognizes when the key has been pressed and then do the desired thing with the mail message when this happens and then set things up so that the mail system doesn't display it any more. Yeah, I know you're going to hit the Delete key on this response. Just make sure that when you do, that you give thanks and appreciation to the people who are REALLY responsible for making it possible for you to send my mail message into oblivion. NOT the hardware gurus. Sheesh. :) :) Happy Thanksgiving, -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 24 22:58:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:58:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <1CWsJs-1XhqN60@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: [snip] >TD let the play go on with the C As being a >penalty card. [snip] Richard Hills: Law 68A defines a claim, and Law 68B defines a concession. Law 68B states that "...if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred...". Law 68D states that "After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director..." In the stem case, a defender has stated that they are conceding three tricks, and claiming one trick. Their partner has immediately objected, so the concession of three tricks has not occurred. But the claim of one trick cannot be cancelled, so all subsequent play to this claim statement should have been voided by the TD. If the TD had correctly voided all subsequent play, then the ace of clubs could not legally be defined as a penalty card. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 24 23:41:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:41:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124133548.02f39eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041124122036.02bf4010@pop.starpower.net> <000b01c4d252$32b042e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20041124133548.02f39eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <6.1.1.1.0.20041124133548.02f39eb0@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 01:19 PM 11/24/04, Sven wrote: > >>The fact that the scoring table is a law does not alter this rule. > >But we are not debating what the rule says; we are deciding whether it >applies to the laws themselves. > >>If you >>remember this part of the law, fine. If you do not remember you may >>not look >>it up during the auction and play periods. If you need some aid on any >>part >>of the law you call the Director and ask him. > >My point exactly: if you need some aid on any part of the law you call >the Director and ask him. That would hardly be the case if when you >asked him, he was obligated to refuse to answer on the grounds that >doing so is a "memory aid". And "any part of the law" includes L77. > >Reductio ad absurdum: If a player asks, during a hand, whether the >laws permit him to consult a memory aid at the table, do we refuse to >tell him that they do not, on the grounds that to do so would itself be >an illegal "memory aid"? Now we're getting ridiculous. A player always has the right to know what the Law says. What the law says on scoring is how to compute a score, and indeed I would have to tell a player "30 for odd tricks, 300 for an nv game" if asked. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 24 23:42:05 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:42:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c4d27f$34a22e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Richard Hills: > > Law 68A defines a claim, and Law 68B defines a > concession. > > Law 68B states that "...if a defender attempts > to concede one or more tricks and his partner > immediately objects, no concession has > occurred...". > > Law 68D states that "After any claim or > concession, play ceases. All play subsequent > to a claim or concession shall be voided by > the Director..." > > In the stem case, a defender has stated that > they are conceding three tricks, and claiming > one trick. Their partner has immediately > objected, so the concession of three tricks > has not occurred. But the claim of one trick > cannot be cancelled, so all subsequent play to > this claim statement should have been voided by > the TD. PLEASE PLEASE do not present such statements when you do not know what you are talking about! The WBFLC minute # 10 from Paris 2001-10-28 has been quoted here on blml several times already but apparently we need another quotation: 10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 25 00:03:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:03:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <001201c4d271$17bc72a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6D2FAB6E-3E75-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Nov 24, 2004, at 17:01 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Indeed. And that is one of the reasons why after the end of the > auction only > the bid card (in case together with the double or redouble card) > displaying > the final contract may be left visible on the table (See Law 41C). Heh. Around here, most folks pick up their bidding cards *before* the end of the auction - indeed, before the final pass. It seems to me leaving them on the table until the opening lead is faced, whether or not you leave out the one(s) indicating the final contract, would be a good thing, but what do I know? From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 25 00:44:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:44:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6D2FAB6E-3E75-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001601c4d287$e89c45b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > Indeed. And that is one of the reasons why after the end of the > > auction only > > the bid card (in case together with the double or redouble card) > > displaying > > the final contract may be left visible on the table (See Law 41C). >=20 > Heh. Around here, most folks pick up their bidding cards *before* the > end of the auction - indeed, before the final pass. It seems to me > leaving them on the table until the opening lead is faced, whether or > not you leave out the one(s) indicating the final contract, would be a > good thing, but what do I know? I don't know about elsewhere but here in Norway we have a regulation = that the bid cards showing the complete auction for Declarer and Dummy shall remain on the table until the opening lead has been made face up i.e. = for the whole period during which defenders may review their auction. The fact that we still are rather lenient about enforcing this = regulation is a separate matter. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 25 00:56:48 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:56:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001401c4d27f$34a22e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >PLEASE PLEASE do not present such statements when you do >not know what you are talking about! > >The WBFLC minute # 10 from Paris 2001-10-28 has been >quoted here on blml several times already but apparently >we need another quotation: > >10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a >defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the >complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender's >partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law >68B no concession has occurred and by the same token >neither has any claim been made. After the Director has >been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply. Richard Hills: An illegal WBF LC minute "interpreting" Law 25B was withdrawn by the WBF LC when some NCBOs noted that the "interpretation" of Law 25B was contrary to what Law 25B actually states. Likewise, the WBF LC minute quoted by Sven is contrary to what Law 68A actually states and to what Law 68D actually states. No doubt this anomaly will be resolved in what the 2006 Laws actually state. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 25 01:53:29 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:53:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <001601c4d287$e89c45b0$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Indeed. And that is one of the reasons why after the end of the >auction only the bid card (in case together with the double or >redouble card) displaying the final contract may be left >visible on the table (See Law 41C). Richard Hills: Quibble. The Laws in general, and Law 41C in particular, are still predicated upon a default of spoken bidding. Bidding boxes, and the Aussie method of written bidding, are not affected by Law 41C, but rather only by Law 80E. -> "... special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding, bidding boxes..." Most SOs in Australia permit the bidding pad to remain visible on the table throughout the play of the hand. Only the Queensland SO has regulated that the bidding pad must be concealed once the opening lead has been faced. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 25 02:11:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:11:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Noel Bugeia: [snip] >>And I can sagely say, when asked, 'Yes, an expert would >>never bid here, but someone with less experience would >>rarely pass'. I might add, it takes a long time to >>appreciate why Experts are Experts! [big snip] Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Fifteen Appeals Committee: [big snip] >It is quite possible that most other players of >South's experience and ability would automatically >bid 5S without considering the hand's defensive >potential or likely contracts at the other tables. >Nevertheless, in a national event players are >expected to be at least close to the standard of >the event when considering logical alternatives. Richard Hills: The term Logical Alternative is a misnomer. An LA has been defined in the WBF Code of Practice as: "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." The ACBL definition of LA differs in some respects from the WBF definition, but also includes a reference to "class of players/peers". If all of a player's peer-group would automatically and illogically re-preempt 5S over 5H in this auction, then that automatic and illogical 5S re-preempt is technically the only Logical Alternative, so therefore a legal call. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From henk@ripe.net Thu Nov 25 07:33:57 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:33:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs In-Reply-To: References: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Really! In WBF events not only are the backs of the cards symmetrical, even > the faces are. I know of no law covering this, but there is always common > sense and Conditions of Contest the would make it mandatory. I don't have a deck here, but doesn't the standard ACBL deck have a spade symbol on the back, making it asymmetrical? 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine) From hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se Thu Nov 25 07:28:02 2004 From: hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:28:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession Message-ID: <00ac01c4d2c0$4c089080$4e23b5d4@swipnet.se> I am sorry that I have mired law 68 B. Please, forgive me for causing = trouble. But this law needs more explaining. Should the Ace of clubs be a penalty = card? I think it should not. Or should play cease? Something for = Grattan=B4s note book. Yours etc Hnas-Olof Hall=E9n From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 25 08:14:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:14:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6D2FAB6E-3E75-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <6D2FAB6E-3E75-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <41A59449.7040204@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Nov 24, 2004, at 17:01 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Indeed. And that is one of the reasons why after the end of the >> auction only >> the bid card (in case together with the double or redouble card) >> displaying >> the final contract may be left visible on the table (See Law 41C). > > > Heh. Around here, most folks pick up their bidding cards *before* the > end of the auction - indeed, before the final pass. It seems to me > leaving them on the table until the opening lead is faced, whether or > not you leave out the one(s) indicating the final contract, would be a > good thing, but what do I know? > This is exactly the way the new regulations for bidding boxes have now been written for Belgium. It is indeed a good idea, and after a few months most (low-level) players stick to it. Higher level players do not, mostly out of arrogance. "I can't get used to this, so I don't do it". The bidding cards are left until the opening lead is faced. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From toddz@att.net Thu Nov 25 08:14:54 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:14:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs In-Reply-To: References: <41A491E7.30503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41A5947E.8010004@att.net> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) wrote: > I don't have a deck here, but doesn't the standard ACBL deck have a spade > symbol on the back, making it asymmetrical? The old ones did. The newer ones have two spade symbols so they're symmetrical. Some districts/directors haven't completely phased out the old decks yet. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 25 11:01:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:01:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c4d2de$11659860$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au >=20 > An illegal WBF LC minute "interpreting" Law 25B was > withdrawn by the WBF LC when some NCBOs noted that the > "interpretation" of Law 25B was contrary to what Law 25B > actually states. Can you provide a reference to which minute this has been? > Likewise, the WBF LC minute quoted by Sven is contrary to > what Law 68A actually states and to what Law 68D actually > states. That is a matter of opinion: The "claim" is a consequence of the = concession of all but at least one of the remaining tricks, so how can there be a = claim when according to Law 68 no concession has occurred?=20 I wouldn't object to a law change to the effect that play ceases = immediately after both claims and concessions including those concessions by one defender where the other defender immediately objects.=20 However, until such change (in case) is made we must apply the present = law which is clear enough. =20 Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 25 11:12:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:12:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs In-Reply-To: <41A5947E.8010004@att.net> Message-ID: <000701c4d2df$ab8f4610$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd M. Zimnoch > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) wrote: > > I don't have a deck here, but doesn't the standard ACBL deck have a > spade > > symbol on the back, making it asymmetrical? > > The old ones did. The newer ones have two spade symbols so > they're symmetrical. Some districts/directors haven't > completely phased out the old decks yet. You just don't "phase out" decks that easy, at least not when using card dealing machines where the investment in card decks is a major factor. Very few people realize that the biggest investment with card dealing machines is not the machine itself but the decks. I run a machine with a purchase price of something like $3500 and have a stock of two or three thousand decks with a purchase prize of around $3,50 each. My oldest decks were purchased in 1991 and still are in a very good condition. (What wears decks is not the machine handling or ordinary play; it is the manual shuffling which we avoid!) Regards Sven From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Thu Nov 25 13:10:48 2004 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:10:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs References: <000701c4d2df$ab8f4610$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002101c4d2f0$3419b320$0a6bcc0a@olivier> > Todd M. Zimnoch > > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) wrote: > > > I don't have a deck here, but doesn't the standard ACBL deck have a > > spade > > > symbol on the back, making it asymmetrical? > > > > The old ones did. The newer ones have two spade symbols so > > they're symmetrical. Some districts/directors haven't > > completely phased out the old decks yet. > > You just don't "phase out" decks that easy, at least not when using card > dealing machines where the investment in card decks is a major factor. > > Very few people realize that the biggest investment with card dealing > machines is not the machine itself but the decks. > > I run a machine with a purchase price of something like $3500 and have a > stock of two or three thousand decks with a purchase prize of around $3,50 > each. My oldest decks were purchased in 1991 and still are in a very good > condition. (What wears decks is not the machine handling or ordinary play; > it is the manual shuffling which we avoid!) > > Regards Sven Hello, seems to me that prices are half of that in Europe, but in euro, so it's may be only 30% better Olivier From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 25 13:26:02 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:26:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) References: Message-ID: <001201c4d2f2$ef8536a0$66994c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* "What is called the serenity of age is only perhaps a euphemism for the fading power to feel the sudden shock of joy or sorrow." ~ Arthur Bliss. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) > > Richard Hills: > > > If all of a player's peer-group would automatically and > illogically re-preempt 5S over 5H in this auction, then > that automatic and illogical 5S re-preempt is technically > the only Logical Alternative, so therefore a legal call. > +=+ What this appears to confirm is that the player in question has chosen an action that could have been suggested by the UI received from partner but did not have a logical alternative (see Law 16A2). So the UI has not influenced his action at all, in that judgement, and there is no infraction. If the judgement is sound the UI did not assist him at all, even if it would have done had there been any margin of doubt for the player. Whilst levels of interpretation vary from one authority to another, we do appear to have gained widespread credence for the description of a logical alternative in the CoP - with slight variations of wording in one place or another. The latest wording that I now have in my notes, reads : "no other potential action or actions less suggested would be seriously considered by at least a noteworthy minority of players of similar ability, and possibly adopted by some, when using the player's announced methods and not in possession of unauthorized information." The value placed on 'possibly adopted by some' has been a subject of discussion with colleagues since it is felt this is a crucial component of the concept. There is also a WBF LC minute from 1992 in which Edgar and I were jointly emphasising that a call not made "should be deemed a logical alternative if quite a number of players of like standard could be expected to make it". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 25 13:38:10 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:38:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <001201c4d2f2$ef8536a0$66994c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001201c4d2f2$ef8536a0$66994c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <3F0EADF0-3EE7-11D9-BBFE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 25 Nov 2004, at 13:26, Grattan Endicott wrote: > The latest wording that I now have in my notes, > reads : "no other potential action or actions less suggested > would be seriously considered by at least a noteworthy > minority of players of similar ability, and possibly adopted > by some, when using the player's announced methods and > not in possession of unauthorized information." Pity the poor players (and directors) who have to grapple with this wording. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 25 14:10:02 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:10:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <3F0EADF0-3EE7-11D9-BBFE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <001201c4d2f2$ef8536a0$66994c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> <3F0EADF0-3EE7-11D9-BBFE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <41A5E7BA.4010301@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 25 Nov 2004, at 13:26, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> The latest wording that I now have in my notes, >> reads : "no other potential action or actions less suggested >> would be seriously considered by at least a noteworthy >> minority of players of similar ability, and possibly adopted >> by some, when using the player's announced methods and >> not in possession of unauthorized information." > > > Pity the poor players (and directors) who have to grapple with this > wording. > Pity the 100 translators around the world who will have to render that same degree of hypotheses in their language! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hqblsr@lorettasells.com Thu Nov 25 23:42:27 2004 From: hqblsr@lorettasells.com (vernia Zalzale) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:42:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] here uis the 9phramacy itwold you Message-ID: This is a great pharmacy, lowlow costs, and you receive the items quickly. Please take alook at us: http://www.fobewsfde.com/156/ A S V C V m o i i a b m a a l i a g l i e r i u n a s m to not get anything from us, go http://www.fobewsfde.com/bye/?156/ From jfchevalier@ffbridge.net Thu Nov 25 15:48:19 2004 From: jfchevalier@ffbridge.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?=) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:48:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? Message-ID: <41A5FEC3.4020803@ffbridge.net>

(National championship, very good level of play)

(pre-duplicate board, played at one table and after at the other table)

The board:

13 North/ All

 

          -

          AQ107

          AJ962

          AQ107

 

98762             A1054

964               53

Q4                K1083

J93               864

          KQJ3

          KJ82

          75

          K52

 

The fact

In the first room, the player in south put the board on the table in a wrong way: rotation of 180°. That could not have incidence on the result of the board.  

North-South bids and plays the contract of 7H, one down (the auction began: N:1D S:1H N:3C… S: 6NT  N: 7H). All the players put the cards in the duplicate board and start to play the following board.

A little later, the player sit in South take the cards of North of the board to analyze the play and find the hand with which she have play! She says: “who have inverse the board?” and ask to the 2 players in East-West if they recognize their hand, they agree and South put the hand of North in South case, the hand of East in West case, and conversely. They never called the tournament director…

The hands that were at the good place before going wrong because of the action of South!

The board was play at the other table (6H just made, 17Imps for East-West). The 2 teams made the result and gave the match sheet to the TD with the result 18-12 VP (East-West’s team won the match).

Few minutes after the beginning of the following round, North-South (not playing this round) protested and said to the TD that they team mates don’t played the same board because of the rotation and ask for the cancellation of the board!

The tournament director looked for the board and he noted that the hands were reversed.

which decision have to take the TD?

Thank you for your opinion

J.F. Chevalier

From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 25 18:00:19 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:00:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <41A5FEC3.4020803@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <000501c4d318$a078e590$6900a8c0@WINXP> First of all: Please do not use whatever means you used for building = your message. I had a terrible job reconstructing it for my comments! Jean-Fran=E7ois Chevalier wrote: (National championship, very good level of play) (pre-duplicate board, played at one table and after at the other table) The board: 13 North/ All - AQ107 AJ962 AQ107 98762 A1054 964 53 Q4 K1083 J93 864 KQJ3 KJ82 75 K52 The fact In the first room, the player in south put the board on the table in a = wrong way: rotation of 180=B0. That could not have incidence on the result of = the board.=20 North-South bids and plays the contract of 7H, one down (the auction = began: N:1D S:1H N:3C=85 S: 6NT N: 7H). All the players put the cards in the duplicate board and start to play the following board. A little later, the player sit in South take the cards of North of the = board to analyze the play and find the hand with which she have play! She = says: =93who have inverse the board?=94 and ask to the 2 players in East-West = if they recognize their hand, they agree and South put the hand of North in = South case, the hand of East in West case, and conversely. They never called = the tournament director=85 The hands that were at the good place before going wrong because of the action of South! The board was play at the other table (6H just made, 17Imps for = East-West). The 2 teams made the result and gave the match sheet to the TD with the result 18-12 VP (East-West=92s team won the match). Few minutes after the beginning of the following round, North-South (not playing this round) protested and said to the TD that they team mates = don=92t played the same board because of the rotation and ask for the = cancellation of the board! The tournament director looked for the board and he noted that the hands were reversed.=20 which decision have to take the TD? The board must be cancelled because it has not been played in identical = form in the two rooms (Law 87). The standard adjustment is "at least" 3 IMP = to East West but if necessary I would increase this compensation = sufficiently to ensure a victory of at least 16-14 to East-West based on a regulation = we have in Norway that due consideration may be given to particularly good = or bad results obtained. South is eligible to a procedural penalty for his violation of Laws 7B2 = and 7C which is the direct reason why the board had to be cancelled. South is further subject to a treatment under Law 72B1: He could have = known that he had a bad result on the board and that his irregular handling of = the board without summoning the Director could damage opponents. In addition to the Law 12C1 adjustment I would have "awarded" South's = team a procedural penalty of 2 VP (bringing their net result on that match down = to the same 12 VP they obtained originally).=20 Law 12A1 is not applicable in this case. Regards Sven From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Nov 25 18:29:07 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:29:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C50F@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Rainsford [mailto:gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk] Sent: 25 November 2004 13:38 Cc: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) On 25 Nov 2004, at 13:26, Grattan Endicott wrote: > The latest wording that I now have in my notes, > reads : "no other potential action or actions less suggested > would be seriously considered by at least a noteworthy > minority of players of similar ability, and possibly adopted > by some, when using the player's announced methods and > not in possession of unauthorized information." Pity the poor players (and directors) who have to grapple with this wording. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK _______________________________________________ My reaction also. But lets try adding some structure. "no other potential action or actions less suggested would be seriously considered by at least a noteworthy minority of players of similar ability, and possibly adopted by some, when using the player's announced methods and not in possession of unauthorized information" No! can't be done - I can't really decide where the last two lines should go. In symbols: Does not exist action A' such that A' <> A A' less suggested than A P', relative to P, is a noteworthly minority, or more P'' is not empty where P are the players of similar ability P' are the players in P who would seriously consider A' when S and T P'' are the players in P who would adopt A' when S and T S using the players announced methods T not in possession of unauthorised information I guess not! Time to go home. 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 25 18:32:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:32:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000501c4d318$a078e590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4F2223ED-3F10-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Nov 25, 2004, at 13:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > The standard adjustment is "at least" 3 IMP to > East West but if necessary I would increase this compensation > sufficiently > to ensure a victory of at least 16-14 to East-West based on a > regulation we > have in Norway that due consideration may be given to particularly > good or > bad results obtained. Is this regulation not in conflict with Law 12B? General comment: if the board had been rotated 90 degrees, I would agree completely with Sven's ruling. But unless there is evidence (not present in the facts presented, AFAICS) that the fact that one team got to 7H not making in one room, while the other stopped in 6H was due to the placement of the individual players, I don't see grounds for a score adjustment. PPs, OTOH, do seem appropriate. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 25 18:34:14 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:34:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <000501c4d318$a078e590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9B8B8F8C-3F10-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> One further comment: it is not legal to use PPs to arrange that the scores at the two tables are equalized. Award the appropriate PPs for failure to follow proper procedure without regard to the score, adjusted or not. From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 25 18:55:49 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:55:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Legal Tail wags Bridge Dog? References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041112100906.02a486f0@pop.starpower.net> <200411121608.IAA13201@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20041112113540.02b0b8b0@pop.starpower.net> <4195DF8B.2080902@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041115075515.02b1ae30@pop.starpower.net> <8BNwckBmHSmBFwJ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005601c4cbc8$bba0ecc0$589468d5@James> <4199DE37.4090703@hdw.be> <419B14AD.60701@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20041118080612.02bc8320@pop.starpower.net> <00df01c4cd9e$379205e0$8a9868d5@James> <001201c4cdee$df0035e0$d1bcbe44@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <015201c4d320$6350cb30$4c9468d5@James> [Raija] > My opinion as a only an interested reader of this > mailing list matters little, but here goes: > "Well said!" [Nigel] Thank you Raija. Few players and fewer directors are prepared to stick their heads above the parrapet to snipe at the gross inadequacy of current Bridge law. For directors, this would be a doubtful career move -- like turkeys simultaneously voting for Christmas and biting the hand that feeds them :) Understandably, few players want to antagonise those responsible for subjective judgements that may affect thier competition results. [Graham Endicott the claims thread] > The latest wording that I now have in my notes, > reads : "no other potential action or actions less > suggested would be seriously considered by at least > a noteworthy minority of players of similar ability, > and possibly adopted by some, when using the player's > announced methods and not in possession of > unauthorized information." [Gordon Rainsford] > Pity the poor players (and directors) who have to > grapple with this wording. [Nigel] Gordon is right. A game *is* its rules; so to play a game properly you *must* know its rules. Bridge laws already are far too sophisticated and subjective, especially when you consider the reams of interpretations and minutes. Many current laws are ambiguoous. Others are badly phrased. To attract players, the game needs clarification and simplification not more woolly laws. Kojak may regard such criticism as tantamount to sacrilege but we proles must be prepared to state the obvious :) Who else will? Laws committess are packed with directors and administrators -- all with a vested interest in the status quo -- or even worse -- a predilection for more complexity and subjectivity. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 19/11/2004 From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 25 19:00:07 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:00:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <4F2223ED-3F10-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c4d320$fae9d860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Thursday, Nov 25, 2004, at 13:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > The standard adjustment is "at least" 3 IMP to > > East West but if necessary I would increase this compensation > > sufficiently > > to ensure a victory of at least 16-14 to East-West based on a > > regulation we > > have in Norway that due consideration may be given to particularly > > good or > > bad results obtained. >=20 > Is this regulation not in conflict with Law 12B? >=20 > General comment: if the board had been rotated 90 degrees, I would > agree completely with Sven's ruling. But unless there is evidence (not > present in the facts presented, AFAICS) that the fact that one team = got > to 7H not making in one room, while the other stopped in 6H was due to > the placement of the individual players, I don't see grounds for a > score adjustment. PPs, OTOH, do seem appropriate. You forget that the boards were different in the way that in one room = the auction started with the player holding North's cards, in the other room = the auction started with the player holding South's cards.=20 Once a difference is established the laws do not leave the Director any option to judge and in case rule that the difference is immaterial. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 25 19:10:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:10:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <9B8B8F8C-3F10-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c4d322$63889220$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > One further comment: it is not legal to use PPs to arrange that the > scores at the two tables are equalized. Award the appropriate PPs for > failure to follow proper procedure without regard to the score, > adjusted or not. I don't. I use the "gain" for North-South from having the board = cancelled as an indication on what could be a reasonable PP and then I use this indication (unless it is completely preposterous) to assist me in determining the actual disciplinary penalty to be "awarded". We have had cases in Norway where the artificial adjusted score were set = to the usual 40% - 60% and in addition the offending side was given a procedural penalty of 40% resulting in a final score for them of 0% on = the board. I consider such procedural penalties to be completely within the powers = of the Director. Remember that awarding PP is usually at the discretion of = the Director. Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Nov 25 21:47:57 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:47:57 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Jim Fox wrote: > At a recent ACBL Regional, cards were used that had "assymetric images" on > the back. I have always thought that it would go without saying that such > cards are not a good idea in any competitive card game (especially any game > where more than one player plays as a team). Any competitive card game? No, that doesn't go without saying at all. For instance, asymmetric backs make it extremely dangerous to cheat by dealing seconds. > Any thoughts or policy on this in your bridge governing units? There is a policy that all the backs shall be identical. (And I've played in many pinochle games where this wasn't the case, the deck having been made from two similar but not identical standard packs - but I would expect "real" decks in a pinochle tournament.) I am not aware of any bridge policy that *demands* the decks have symmetric backs, though ACBL changed their standard back two or three years ago so that most new decks here are symmetric now. (Baron Barclay, however, still sells cheap cards in competition with the ACBL decks that are not symmetric.) The WBF's efforts notwithstanding, I don't think there is any danger of symmetric *faces* on cards becoming standard in my lifetime. Other games aren't making a push for it; most manyfacturers won't do it until most of their customers ask for it. GRB From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 25 22:12:20 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:12:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Assymetric Card Backs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c4d33b$d53a1060$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower ............... > The WBF's efforts notwithstanding, I don't think there is any danger = of > symmetric *faces* on cards becoming standard in my lifetime. Other = games > aren't making a push for it; most manyfacturers won't do it until most = of > their customers ask for it. And as far as I have been told symmetric card faces have been = copyrighted by one single manufacturer here in Europe. This will almost obviously make = it very difficult for any sponsoring organization to enforce the use of = such cards unless they cover all costs in that connection because we have = become extremely alert in Europe on any tendencies towards monopoly. Regards Sven=20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 25 22:08:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:08:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C50F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>>>>The latest wording that I now have in my notes, >>>>>reads : "no other potential action or actions less >>>>>suggested would be seriously considered by at least >>>>>a noteworthy minority of players of similar ability, >>>>>and possibly adopted by some, when using the player's >>>>>announced methods and not in possession of >>>>>unauthorized information." [snip] Gordon Rainsford: >>>>Pity the poor players (and directors) who have to >>>>grapple with this wording. Nigel Guthrie: >>>Gordon is right. >>> >>>A game *is* its rules; so to play a game properly you >>>*must* know its rules. >>> >>>Bridge laws already are far too sophisticated and >>>subjective, especially when you consider the reams >>>of interpretations and minutes. Many current laws are >>>ambiguous. Others are badly phrased. To attract >>>players, the game needs clarification and simplification >>>not more woolly laws. [snip] Albert Einstein: >>A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but >>no simpler. Richard Hills: Oversimplifying the Lawful meaning of "logical alternative" would have undesirable consequences, as an oversimplified meaning would leave a loophole for that Old Black Magic of communication via judicious pauses. But Gordon and Nigel have a point. One could always leave the *meaning* of "logical alternative" unsimplified, but translate the *wording* from Grattanese to plain English. As I noted earlier, "logical alternative" is a misnomer. I would change "logical alternative" to "reasonable alternative" I will stick my neck out with my attempt at a plain English definition of "reasonable alternative". -> 2006 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Definitions: [snip] >Reasonable Alternative - A reasonable alternative is a >potential action by a player that must satisfy *all* of >the following four criteria: > >(a) be seriously considered by (at least) a noteworthy >minority of players of similar ability, and > >(b) be possibly adopted by some players of similar ability, > >when those players of similar ability are hypothetically: > >(c) using the player's announced methods, and > >(d) unaware of any unauthorised information. [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 26 02:58:26 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:58:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1? In-Reply-To: <4F2223ED-3F10-11D9-AB7F-0030656F6826@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran revealed: [snip] >>based on a regulation we have in Norway that due >>consideration may be given to particularly good or >>bad results obtained. Ed Reppert asked: >Is this regulation not in conflict with Law 12B? Richard Hills argues: In my opinion, no. In my opinion, Law 12B has a limited application. In my opinion, Law 12B is only relevant to offences where a specific penalty is specifically prescribed by the Laws. Example: If the revoke Laws require the offending side to lose a minimum of two tricks, but the TD determines that an equitable result would be for the offending side to lose exactly one trick, Law 12B prevents the TD from ruling according to equity. However, in the case under discussion, there is no specific penalty prescribed by Law for the offence of *causing* a fouled board. The Laws merely provide a specific procedure for *scoring* a fouled board. Therefore, in my opinion, Law 12B is not relevant to the question of assessing whether the Norwegian regulation is legal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 26 03:22:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:22:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Calculation aids In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20041125173627.02f52200@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills erred in detail: >>Quibble. >> >>The Laws in general, and Law 41C in particular, are still >>predicated upon a default of spoken bidding. >> >>Bidding boxes, and the Aussie method of written bidding, are not >>affected by Law 41C, but rather only by Law 80E. -> >> >>"... special conditions for bidding and play (such as written >>bidding, bidding boxes..." >> >>Most SOs in Australia permit the bidding pad to remain visible >>on the table throughout the play of the hand. Only the >>Queensland SO has regulated that the bidding pad must be >>concealed once the opening lead has been faced. Section 8.1 of the ABF Written Biding and Bidding Box Regs reads: >The written bidding sheet remains in view until the third player >(partner of the opening leader) has played to the first trick >when it should be removed (or turned over) by dummy. If dummy >omits to do this there is no penalty and any player may remove >the bidding sheet. Richard Hills correct in principle: Note that the cutoff time specified in the Law 80E ABF reg is fixed. The cutoff time specified in Laws 41B and 41C is variable, depending on whether or not a particular player has yet played a card to the first trick. Also note that the "no penalty" provision of the Law 80E ABF reg differs from the Law 41C phrase "too late" (which implies that a TD may apply a PP for an untimely infraction of Law 41C). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 26 03:38:02 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:38:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 25B (was Objected Concession) In-Reply-To: <000601c4d2de$11659860$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>An illegal WBF LC minute "interpreting" Law 25B was >>withdrawn by the WBF LC when some NCBOs noted that the >>"interpretation" of Law 25B was contrary to what Law 25B >>actually states. Sven Pran: >Can you provide a reference to which minute this has been? http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBF%20Information/ WBF%20Reports%20and%20Minutes/Laws%20Committee%20Minutes/ LC%20Minutes%203%20Bermuda%202000.pdf WBF LC minutes, Bermuda, 20th January 2000, item 2: Considering the minutes of the meeting of January 12th, paragraph 6, Mr. Martel wished to clarify that he was referring to the motivation for writing the law; but the law as now written does not allow of the distinction between reasons for changing the call that the Committee is desirous of making. A question was asked as to how many rulings based on Law 25B had been given in the current tournament. The Chief Director replied that there had been at least six. The Chairman reminded the committee that it had been agreed to put consideration of the subject back to the major review of the laws, envisaged to occur in the period 2002-2005. The Secretary recorded his reservation that he did not consider it in the best interests of bridge that the committee, having an overwhelming balance of opinion that Law 25B is seriously flawed and needs to be deleted or radically altered, should do nothing about it until the year 2005. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 26 03:46:08 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:46:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <000601c4d2de$11659860$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [big snip] >we must apply the present law which is clear enough. Richard Hills: No current Law is clear enough. Even Law 1 can be wilfully misinterpreted. See the archived thread of a few years ago, "Law 1 - mephitic order". :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 26 03:57:45 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:57:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <000601c4d2de$11659860$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >That is a matter of opinion: The "claim" is a >consequence of the concession of all but at least >one of the remaining tricks, so how can there be a >claim when according to Law 68 no concession has >occurred? Richard Hills replies: Consider this statement with two subordinate clauses: (a) I claim one trick with the ace of clubs, and (b) I concede the other three tricks. Law 68B permits the cancellation of the clause (b) concession, but does not permit the cancellation of the clause (a) claim. The WBF LC minute quoted earlier in this thread now additionally permits the cancellation of the clause (a) claim, due to it being made in conjunction with a clause (b) concession. Under Laws 49 and 50, the named ace of clubs would normally be a penalty card if play continues. But, since the WBF LC minute now permits the cancellation of the clause (a) claim, does this imply that the Laws 49 and 50 naming of the ace of clubs has also been cancelled? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Nov 26 08:25:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:25:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A6E85D.7090703@hdw.be> Very well done Richard, permit me to make a few small suggestions: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > I will stick my neck out with my attempt at a plain English > definition of "reasonable alternative". -> > > 2006 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Definitions: > > [snip] > > >>Reasonable Alternative - A reasonable alternative is a >>potential action by a player that must satisfy *all* of >>the following four criteria: >> >>(a) be seriously considered by (at least) a noteworthy >>minority of players of similar ability, and >> replace "(at least) a noteworthy minority" by something simpler - we shall never know just how many we are talking of. Why not "some". >>(b) be possibly adopted by some players of similar ability, >> since we are talking of that same group, either replace that by the full sentence again, or use "those players". >>when those players of similar ability are hypothetically: >> >>(c) using the player's announced methods, and >> >>(d) unaware of any unauthorised information. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 26 09:49:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:49:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25B (was Objected Concession) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c4d39d$3a779c20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Richard Hills: >=20 > >>An illegal WBF LC minute "interpreting" Law 25B was > >>withdrawn by the WBF LC when some NCBOs noted that the > >>"interpretation" of Law 25B was contrary to what Law 25B > >>actually states. >=20 > Sven Pran: >=20 > >Can you provide a reference to which minute this has been? >=20 > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBF%20Information/ > WBF%20Reports%20and%20Minutes/Laws%20Committee%20Minutes/ > LC%20Minutes%203%20Bermuda%202000.pdf >=20 > WBF LC minutes, Bermuda, 20th January 2000, item 2: >=20 > Considering the minutes of the meeting of January 12th, > paragraph 6, Mr. Martel wished to clarify that he was > referring to the motivation for writing the law; but the law > as now written does not allow of the distinction between > reasons for changing the call that the Committee is desirous > of making. A question was asked as to how many rulings based > on Law 25B had been given in the current tournament. The > Chief Director replied that there had been at least six. The > Chairman reminded the committee that it had been agreed to > put consideration of the subject back to the major review of > the laws, envisaged to occur in the period 2002-2005. The > Secretary recorded his reservation that he did not consider > it in the best interests of bridge that the committee, having > an overwhelming balance of opinion that Law 25B is seriously > flawed and needs to be deleted or radically altered, should > do nothing about it until the year 2005. And the WBFLC Minutes referred to in this minute is apparently the following, Bermuda, 11th January 2000, item 2: 6. Mr. Schoder had indicated a desire to see Law 25B removed from the = laws. He asked the committee to consider the question. Mr. Martel said that in = its current form Law 25B had been devised as a solution to a particular = problem, but in the outcome "the cure is worse than the disease". There was considered to be a difficulty in finding suitable words to express this = in the laws. I do not see how this is 'An illegal WBF LC minute "interpreting" Law = 25B' nor can I see any statement in the minute of January 20th to the effect = that the earlier minute was withdrawn? IMO we can still feel rather confident that the minutes from WBFLC = generally reflect the opinion of WBFLC on how the laws are to be understood at = least at the times of the respective WBFLC meetings. Furthermore I expect that once WBFLC has discussed a particular law and issued a minute giving = their opinion this opinion remains in force until a different view is = expressed in another minute. Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 26 10:04:42 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:04:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c4d39f$595ec3a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asked: > > >That is a matter of opinion: The "claim" is a > >consequence of the concession of all but at least > >one of the remaining tricks, so how can there be a > >claim when according to Law 68 no concession has > >occurred? > > Richard Hills replies: > > Consider this statement with two subordinate clauses: > > (a) I claim one trick with the ace of clubs, and > (b) I concede the other three tricks. > > Law 68B permits the cancellation of the clause (b) > concession, but does not permit the cancellation of > the clause (a) claim. > > The WBF LC minute quoted earlier in this thread now > additionally permits the cancellation of the clause > (a) claim, due to it being made in conjunction with > a clause (b) concession. You show exactly why I think that Law 68B should be altered to the effect that play ceases as specified in Law 68D even if a defender's concession is immediately objected to by his partner. The way Law 68B is written it specifically states that a claim of some but not all the remaining tricks is a concession of the remaining tricks. I believe it follows from this law that a defender can immediately object to his partner's concession also when made in the form of a claim of some but not all remaining tricks. > > Under Laws 49 and 50, the named ace of clubs would > normally be a penalty card if play continues. But, > since the WBF LC minute now permits the cancellation > of the clause (a) claim, does this imply that the > Laws 49 and 50 naming of the ace of clubs has also > been cancelled? There is nothing in the laws or the minutes to this effect. Regards Sven From igeuvydo@hkcable.com.hk Fri Nov 26 09:37:01 2004 From: igeuvydo@hkcable.com.hk (Romano) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:37:01 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: ones have to suffer Message-ID: <4124574999616.83415053.btwcuggu@rmeebweha.hkcable.com.hk> Someone has sent you a gift http://www.kelhi.com/r/ndgs/tacrc.htm rem http://www.beill.com/z .php pussy endothelial koppers port, to meniscus brookline. conducive. not bit you not a on calla From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 26 12:22:26 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:22:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) References: Message-ID: <000001c4d3b2$d6298060$9c69893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* "What is called the serenity of age is only perhaps a euphemism for the fading power to feel the sudden shock of joy or sorrow." ~ Arthur Bliss. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) > > > > Richard Hills: > > Oversimplifying the Lawful meaning of "logical alternative" > would have undesirable consequences, as an oversimplified > meaning would leave a loophole for that Old Black Magic of > communication via judicious pauses. > > But Gordon and Nigel have a point. One could always leave > the *meaning* of "logical alternative" unsimplified, but > translate the *wording* from Grattanese to plain English. > +=+ I stated that these words were in my notes. I did not say that I supplied them. My notes do not include the phrase 'logical alternative' ~ G ~ +=+ From grady_figueroawu@kali.com.cn Fri Nov 26 14:30:45 2004 From: grady_figueroawu@kali.com.cn (Grady Figueroa) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:30:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?B?QyhpYWxpcywgU29tYSwgUGhlbnRlcm1pbmUsIExldml0ciphLCBBbWJpZW4sIExPV0VTVCBDb3N0IEV2ZXIh?= Message-ID: <1101479445.4675@kali.com.cn>
From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Nov 26 12:48:50 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:48:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <000001c4d3b2$d6298060$9c69893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c4d3b2$d6298060$9c69893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <858B9B99-3FA9-11D9-BBFE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Nov 2004, at 12:22, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ I stated that these words were in my notes. I did not > say that I supplied them. My notes do not include the > phrase 'logical alternative' ~ G ~ +=+ You said "The latest wording that I now have in my notes..." which seemed to me to suggest a movement towards the wording that will actually be used. If that's a misunderstanding on my part, I'm glad to hear it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From fhouse_wo@x4u2.desy.de Fri Nov 26 15:36:29 2004 From: fhouse_wo@x4u2.desy.de (Freddy House) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:36:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?B?R2V0IFByZXNjciZpcHRpb24gRHJ1Z15zIHRvIHlvdXIgZG9vciE=?= Message-ID:
SAV.E 7.0.% on R.X M.edication TODAY!
Or.der all your R.X Medicat.ion directly from F.DA-approved manufacturers in India.
Over 60 prod.ucts to choose from.
Average s.hipping from India takes 2-4 weeks.
However our pr.ices and quality make it worth the wait.
All pac.kages are shipp.ed discreetly by Airmail WORLDW.IDE.
From ooga@shaw.ca Fri Nov 26 22:54:15 2004 From: ooga@shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:54:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy Message-ID: <41A7B417.4070209@shaw.ca> Novice game with (as will be quickly clear) novice TD (me): Director! I arrive at the table and three tricks have been completed. The decl= arer=20 explains that the opening leader began with the A-K-Q of clubs and "w= hile=20 discarding for the third time" (an actual quote which misled me) decl= arer played=20 a card which had a club stuck to the back of it. I first ruled that on trick three the club would have to be played in= stead and=20 that the partner of the opening leader could change her card but that= declarer=20 could not. Under the impression that dummy was originally void of clubs because = of the=20 comment, I searched for the applicable rule. All I could vaguely rem= ember was a=20 prinicple I had heard from someone that "all players are responsible = for dummy"=20 and I am aware that while many of these "derived maxims" are good gui= des, many=20 others are not. This particular maxim in this particular area gets e= xtended=20 into all sorts of assumptions that are wrong. For example: It seems clear from Law 61A that dummy can revoke. It seems clear from Law 63A that dummy's revoke can be established, a= nd from Law=20 64A that penalties can be applied for any established revoke. But... It is only Law 64B3 that points out that an established revoke by dum= my carries=20 no penalty. Seems to me it would be easier to navigate if Law 64A we= re revised=20 to read "When a revoke is established AND L64B DOES NOT APPLY:" Also, the typesetting of the American spiral-bound edition of the Law= s is quite=20 appalling. On page 68, where Law 64B resides, this is how L64B3 appe= ars: 3. Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table, in- cluding a card from dummy's hand. In most of the other Laws, the header text of each section ("Revoke b= y Failure=20 to Play a Faced Card") is at least set off on its own line. (Boldfac= e would be=20 nice, not to mention a better-looking typeface...) On page 68 they a= bandoned=20 this for L64B1-4, apparently to save space. Oddly enough, on page 69= , L64B5 and=20 L64B6 have header text on a line by themselves. In fact, it seems to me that lumping dummy's cards in with penalty ca= rds and=20 calling them faced cards is confusing. Why not just limit L64B3 to d= ummy's=20 cards (including hidden cards in dummy) and add another subsection to= cover=20 penalty cards for extra clarity? Anyhow... Not having discovered L64B3 (which blabs on for four lines before eve= n=20 mentioning the word dummy), I decided that the established revokes on= the first=20 two clubs should be penalized (well, the second one was free), so I t= old the=20 declarer she would--what's the contract?--now need NINE tricks to mak= e two=20 spades. Play continued. Off I went to quickly check other tables fo= r progress,=20 intending to stop by and ensure that the trick was transferred before= they=20 scored it up. Hold on here. Why would declarer discard on the ace and king of club= s in two=20 spades if dummy was (or appeared) void of clubs? Back I went. Decla= rer is down=20 one and scoring it as down two. "When dummy first appeared, how many clubs were visible?" "Two." I instructed them to change the score to down one since no establishe= d revoke=20 had occurred and I had misunderstood what had happened. But now a ne= w problem=20 presents itself. Can declarer make two spades if she only needs eigh= t tricks? Luckily, it is a hypothetical question, since a look at the distribut= ion showed=20 that declarer is always down one when the defense begins with their c= lub=20 winners. If there was a reasonable play for eight tricks, I assume L= aw 82C=20 applies, so the declaring side gets +110 and the defenders get -110 (= if eight=20 tricks were at all probable), +50 (if eight tricks were possible but = seven was=20 at all probable) or A+ (if it is unclear what result would have been = obtained). Undoubtedly there are flaws galore here: fire away, I can take it... = :) --=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 svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 27 00:09:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:09:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <41A7B417.4070209@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <001801c4d415$635e6970$6900a8c0@WINXP> I feel confused here, but let me try figure out what I guess is the = facts, and at the same time clarify a few things. > Bruce McIntyre > Director! >=20 > I arrive at the table and three tricks have been completed. The = declarer > explains that the opening leader began with the A-K-Q of clubs and = "while > discarding for the third time" (an actual quote which misled me) = declarer > played a card which had a club stuck to the back of it. I assume (after reading the whole story) that dummy originally had 12 = cards visible including 2 clubs, and that a third club had been stuck to and behind a card of a different denomination? >=20 > I first ruled that on trick three the club would have to be played = instead > and that the partner of the opening leader could change her card but = that > declarer could not. I take this to be that declarer discovered the situation before any card = was played by declarer or dummy to the fourth trick? >=20 > Under the impression that dummy was originally void of clubs because = of > the comment, I searched for the applicable rule. All I could vaguely=20 > remember was a prinicple I had heard from someone that "all players = are=20 > responsible for dummy" and I am aware that while many of these = "derived=20 > maxims" are good guides, many others are not. This particular maxim = in=20 > this particular area gets extended into all sorts of assumptions that=20 > are wrong. =20 > For example: > It seems clear from Law 61A that dummy can revoke. True >=20 > It seems clear from Law 63A that dummy's revoke can be established,=20 True > and from Law 64A that penalties can be applied for any established=20 > revoke. But... >=20 > It is only Law 64B3 that points out that an established revoke by=20 > dummy carries no penalty. Seems to me it would be easier to=20 > navigate if Law 64A were revised to read "When a revoke is=20 > established AND L64B DOES NOT APPLY:" When applying the laws you MUST ALWAYS read the entire law including any footnotes if present. In this case you will get astray unless you look = up all the subsections in Law 64 before making your ruling.=20 As I cannot comment on the American edition of the laws I continue with = some remarks already here: There is no penalty for a revoke by failure to play a faced card. Such = faced cards include all cards in dummy and also any penalty card that may = exist! If a player "accepts" that another player revokes by not playing a faced card he cannot afterwards claim a revoke penalty. However, as said above you must not stop reading here; Law 64C instructs = the Director to assign an adjusted score if he finds that the non-offending = side is damaged by a revoke including revokes that are not penalized! >=20 > Also, the typesetting of the American spiral-bound edition of the Laws = is > quite > appalling. On page 68, where Law 64B resides, this is how L64B3 = appears: >=20 > 3. Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card if the revoke > was made in failing to play any card faced on the table, in- > cluding a card from dummy's hand. >=20 > In most of the other Laws, the header text of each section ("Revoke by > Failure > to Play a Faced Card") is at least set off on its own line. (Boldface > would be > nice, not to mention a better-looking typeface...) On page 68 they > abandoned > this for L64B1-4, apparently to save space. Oddly enough, on page 69, > L64B5 and > L64B6 have header text on a line by themselves. >=20 > In fact, it seems to me that lumping dummy's cards in with penalty = cards > and > calling them faced cards is confusing. Why not just limit L64B3 to > dummy's > cards (including hidden cards in dummy) and add another subsection to > cover > penalty cards for extra clarity? I cannot see how Law 64B3 can be confusing? >=20 > Anyhow... >=20 > Not having discovered L64B3 (which blabs on for four lines before even > mentioning the word dummy), I decided that the established revokes on = the > first > two clubs should be penalized (well, the second one was free), so I = told > the > declarer she would--what's the contract?--now need NINE tricks to make = two > spades. Play continued. Off I went to quickly check other tables for > progress, > intending to stop by and ensure that the trick was transferred before = they > scored it up. >=20 > Hold on here. Why would declarer discard on the ace and king of clubs = in > two > spades if dummy was (or appeared) void of clubs? Back I went. = Declarer > is down > one and scoring it as down two. >=20 > "When dummy first appeared, how many clubs were visible?" >=20 > "Two." >=20 > I instructed them to change the score to down one since no established > revoke > had occurred and I had misunderstood what had happened. But now a new > problem > presents itself. Can declarer make two spades if she only needs eight > tricks? "If she only needs eight tricks"??? What d'ya mean? You only need eight tricks to make two spades. >=20 > Luckily, it is a hypothetical question, since a look at the = distribution > showed > that declarer is always down one when the defense begins with their = club > winners. If there was a reasonable play for eight tricks, I assume = Law > 82C > applies, so the declaring side gets +110 and the defenders get -110 = (if > eight > tricks were at all probable), +50 (if eight tricks were possible but = seven > was > at all probable) or A+ (if it is unclear what result would have been > obtained). You should never use artificial scores (A+ or A-) when a result that can = be compared to other scores can be or has been obtained on a board. >=20 >=20 > Undoubtedly there are flaws galore here: fire away, I can take it... = :) Like I was told when I first graduated as a Director: Make sure you read = and understand the complete law that is applicable to the situation and also check up on all references to other laws from the one you are using. Remember that footnotes are part of the laws to which they are appended. Following this principle would have saved you some headache here. Regards Sven From upbsmrtqhamldi@mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 09:13:54 2004 From: upbsmrtqhamldi@mindspring.com (Isidro) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:13:54 +0300 Subject: [blml] Re: Re: Support Info Message-ID: The latest financial news. Economy is still very unstable and
ra t es will jump up to 10% before a new year. A new bill just
passed and you have very little time to - re f i nance.

Do it today before its to late !

You are already ap p roved with 4.5 % here
unique link vofvuru From michealipenza@netscape.net Sat Nov 27 14:14:04 2004 From: michealipenza@netscape.net (Micheal Ipenza) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:14:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Confidential Message-ID: <20041127141342.8F9B49B1@rhubarb.custard.org> Dear Friend=2C My name is Mr=2E Micheal Ipenza=2C I am an auditor in Standard Bank of South Africa =2E I am contacting you of a business transfer=2C of a huge sum of money from a deceased account=2E Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried=2C but I am assuring you that everything has been well taken care off=2C and all will be well at the end of the day=2E I decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction=2E To ease your apprehension=2C I got your contact from the British chambers of commerce and industry=2C foreign trade division=2E An account was open by a foreigner named Gerald Welsh who died in an air crash along with his wife on the 31st October 1999 in an Egyptian airline 990 with other passengers on board=2E PROPOSITION=3B Since his death=2C none of his next-of-kin are alive to make claims for this money as his heir=2C because they all died in the same accident=28May his soul rest in peace=29=2E We cannot release the fund from his account unless someone applies for claim as the next-of-kin to the deceased as indicated in our banking guidelines=2E Upon this discovery=2C I now seek your permission to have you stand as a next of kin to the deceased=2C as all documentations will be carefully worked out by a lawyer for the funds Twenty- five million United States dollars =28US$25=2C000=2C000=2E00=29 in a domiciliary account to be released in your favour as the beneficiary's next of kin=2E Because after six years the money will be called back to the bank treasury as unclaimed bills and the money shared amongst the directors of the bank=2E so it is on this note i decided to seek for whom his name shall be used as the next of kin=2Fbeneficiary to this funds rather than allow the bank directors to share this money amongst themselves at the end of the year=2E It may interest you to know that we have secured from the probate an order of mandamus to locate any of the deceased beneficiaries=2E Please acknowledge receipt of this message in acceptance of our mutual business endeavor by furnishing me with the following information if you are interested=2E 1=2EA Beneficiary name=3B=2E In order for me to prepare the PAPER WORK for transfer of the funds in your name=2E And also I want you to come down to South Africa to open a non-resident account for onward transfer to your overseas account=2C and for us to see face to face=2E 2=2E Details=2C particulars of your contact address=2E 3=2E Direct Telephone and fax numbers=3B=2E For our personal contact and for the confidentiality of this transactions=2E I shall be compensating you with 25% of the total sum on final conclusion of this project for your assistance=2C as I have also thought of doling out 5% to charity organisation from your locality based on your recommendation another 5% for the services of the lawyer while the balance 65% shall be for me for investment purposes in your country as I cannot bring back this cash to my country=2E If this proposal is acceptable by you=2C please endeavor to contact me immediately=2E Do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you by informing you of this transaction from my bank as I will advise you to kindly desist from responding at all if you do NOT intend to render any assistance=2E Endeavor to respond via this my confidential direct e-mail address michealipenza=40netscape=2Enet=2E Thanks and best regards=2C Mr=2E Micheal Ipenza=2E From nilqk@icpnet.pl Sat Nov 27 18:05:02 2004 From: nilqk@icpnet.pl (Ray Odom) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:05:02 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: Need confirmation Message-ID: <056647-687047631978@62.21.52.216> URGENT:

Current - r a tes have risen again. You applied before the deadline so
your deal 4% has been locked in for a short period. Take advantage
now and receive potential cash back on your deal. Last
chance for the biggest possible savings.

Secure site listed here.

Thank you.

Ray Odom From qlcyksjwhr@fibertel.com.ar Sat Nov 27 19:18:22 2004 From: qlcyksjwhr@fibertel.com.ar (Christine Tatum) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:18:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: above all, that utterly Message-ID: <1021761822627903.0LDx4o@14.108.81.198> URGENT:

Current - r a tes have risen again. You applied before the deadline so
your deal 4% has been locked in for a short period. Take advantage
now and receive potential cash back on your deal. Last
chance for the biggest possible savings.

Secure site listed here.

Thank you.

Christine Tatum From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Nov 27 22:53:45 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:53:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another Claim Story In-Reply-To: <200411241527.iAOFRBj5024349@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411241527.iAOFRBj5024349@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41A90579.8040509@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Assume this two card ending -> > > Dummy > A2 > Declarer > K3 > Declarer claims, stating that "I have the rest." > > Of course, it is still legal (but irrational) > for RHO to win another trick. We are really talking about angels and pinheads here. No defender will ever contest this claim, and in the bizarre case that one did, no director will ever award the defenders a trick. > Therefore, if I was the TD, I would rule that not > even a *harmless* infraction of Law 68C has > occurred. Despite the evident result, failure to state a line of play is an infraction of L68C. From: "Grattan Endicott" > ... discussing Law 68 whereas there could > be advantage in considering Law 70. This is the law > that guides the Director in his ruling when a statement > of clarification is questioned. Yes, indeed, TD's look to L70 to make rulings when needed. Nevertheless, L68C is the guide for players. If it were always followed, rulings would always be easy. Of course they may be easy anyway, even if L68C is violated (as in Richard's example), but I doubt anyone can show a hard case where L68C has been followed. (No doubt I am underestimating the creativity of BLML, but such cases will surely be rare if not exactly impossible.) From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Nov 27 23:06:05 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:06:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <200411242314.iAONEL6K029680@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411242314.iAONEL6K029680@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41A9085D.7030707@cfa.harvard.edu> Perhaps a little history will help here. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Law 68A defines a claim, and Law 68B defines a > concession. ... > In the stem case, a defender has stated that > they are conceding three tricks, and claiming > one trick. Their partner has immediately > objected, so the concession of three tricks > has not occurred. But the claim of one trick > cannot be cancelled, so all subsequent play to > this claim statement should have been voided by > the TD. BLML had a long discussion on this topic (probably in 2001), and the above was a popular though by no means unanimous view. Both David B. and I thought it was the obvious reading of the plain language of L68. Despite that, as Robin reminds us, the WBFLC adopted a minute in 2001 October: When one defender concedes some of the remaining tricks, and his partner immediately objects, then neither a claim nor a concession has occurred. Play continues but Law 16 may apply. Which seems to lead us into penalty card territory if the claimer has shown or named any cards. This result I find grossly inequitable, and I hope someone can show me how it is wrong. One thought I have is that perhaps the defender who objected to the claim+concession should be allowed to withdraw his objection and let the result be judged by the TD. I see neither permission nor prohibition for a withdrawal, though perhaps L9B1c might be deemed to apply. From: Gordon Rainsford > It's usual for a defender in this position to show the hand, or > relevant cards, to declarer - without exposing it to partner. This solves the immediate problem of penalty cards, but it makes it hard to state a line of play. In present circumstances, it seems unwise for defenders ever to claim unless holding all high trumps or the equivalent. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Nov 27 23:13:16 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:13:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <200411271704.iARH4FVQ027543@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411271704.iARH4FVQ027543@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41A90A0C.4070604@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Bruce McIntyre > I arrive at the table and three tricks have been completed. The declarer > explains that the opening leader began with the A-K-Q of clubs and "while > discarding for the third time" (an actual quote which misled me) declarer played > a card which had a club stuck to the back of it. Would it be proper in this case for the TD to have the first three tricks exposed so he can be sure exactly what happened? It's always easier to rule if you have the facts straight. As to the rest, if no card has been played to the next trick, the revoke is not established. Easy! If the TD rules wrong, L82C applies, and there may be split _assigned_ (not artificial) scores. In ruling on this sort of thing in general, the TD should also verify that the defenders were in no way damaged by the hidden card. Dummy is required to put the cards down properly. Failing to do so isn't (normally) subject to penalty, but the defenders should be protected from damage. It sounds as though there is no problem in the example given. From schoderb@msn.com Mon Nov 29 01:48:29 2004 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:48:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: I face the future with trepidation! After over 50 years of running tournaments from all levels from club to 19 world championships, this coming week I'll be running an ACBL Regional in Wiesbaden Germany without the help of all the interpretations, readings, explanations, and erudition of the gurus. I'll have to make rulings from the present Laws, adjudicate results as the Laws and ACBL Regulations provide, apply common sense, and hopefully survive the onslaughts of distraught players, experts far beyond my humble abilities, and try to get through the week without major mishap. Oddly, I find the present Laws to be fine, with some minor tweaking necessary -- and hopefully the players who play best will win. I'm greatly indebted, of course, to those who can read English better than I can, and to the those savants who have brought to my attention the dangers and gross errors in our laws. Hopefully the bridge Gods will give me the guidance I need to understand the supposedly poor English of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, and be able, in my (un)limited American English, to get things right. My only wonders are -- how well did I do serve the players all these 50 years with my limited grasp of the meanings of the Laws, and how did I survive my debilities? Must be my good looks, no? (If the above sounds sarcastic -- YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT!) I'll be too busy until 7 December to get exercised over BLML egocentric postings, (as opposed to those who really want to learn), so rest assured there will be no unpleasantness from me until at least 8 December, and of course, there is always the "delete" key at your disposal when you find your opinions challenged. Meanwhile, Happy holidays to all, -- My regards to your varied religious celebrations during this season, and my fervent hope that we all always get-it-right in the future. Kojak From reubenhenderson_th@tenbit.pl Mon Nov 29 04:29:14 2004 From: reubenhenderson_th@tenbit.pl (Reuben Henderson) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:29:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?B?Q29tZSBnZXQgeW91ciBwcmUmc2NyaXB0aW9ucywgT25saW5lIQ==?= Message-ID: <42f401c4d5cb$e84253b3$c8d5e54f@7th6xc1>
NO P.RESCRIPTION RE.QUIRED P.HARMACY!
O.rder all your R.X Medi.cation directly from F.DA-approved manufacturers in India.
Over 60 pro.ducts to choose from. Sa.ve up to 7.0.% on your R.X d.rugs.
Average shippi.ng from India takes 2-4 weeks.
However our price.s and quality make it worth the wait.
All pa.ckages are sh.ipped discreetly by Airmail WORLDWID.E.
From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Nov 29 17:56:40 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:56:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] Player Memo Message-ID: <000c01c4d63c$ca67d240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> About 50 years ago (roughly) George Rapee wrote a series of articles for the Bridge World on the subject of bidding three-card majors. Part 1 dealt with opening bids, part 2 responses, and part 3 overcalls(!). At the time I thought this interesting, so I occasionally tried these bids, with limited success but lots of fun. Rapee had cautioned that they seem to work better in rubber bridge than in matchpoint games, and I stopped using them after a few years. Fast-forward 50 years. Playing in a two-session regionally-rated pair event at the Orlando NABC last week, Alice and I encountered a pro-client pair on the last round. Board 2, Monday evening, 11-22-04, N-S vulnerable, East dealer Pro S- 85 H- 84 D- AK84 C- QJ943 Alice Marv S- J106 S- A72 H- KQ32 H- A1097 D- J976 D- 2 C- K10 C- A8765 John (not his real name) S- KQ943 H- J65 D- Q1053 C- 2 We play four-card majors and do not use negative doubles, so I sometimes open a major in violation of the usual rules for choosing between suits. For instance, as a passed hand I would certainly open a strong four-card major in preference to a weak club suit, and will do so in first or second seat if I have a little extra strength that will prevent a rebid problem. Now this hand did give me a problem. Although 1C is our system bid, I could envision a 1S overcall of 1C and possible loss of a heart contract. I could not open 1H, as I don't have the extra values required for a 2NT rebid if partner bids 2D, or enough heart strength to rebid the suit (supposedly showing five, but I do it sometimes). I was about to open 1C when Rapee's article popped into my mind, and I thought, "Favorable vulnerability, why not?" My 1S opening caused a little shudder by John, relieving my anxiety a bit, and Alice bid 1NT. I rebid 2H, hoping for no spade preference, and she raised to 3H, all pass, A heart was led, won with the 9. I played on clubs, leading to the king. At the same time (Alice told me later) the pro turned to his kibitzer and pompously announced *sotto voce*, "Four-four-four-one." Not quite right, but close. The club ace was ruffed by John, who led another heart, won in dummy, pro following. Things aren't looking so good now, and I'm rueing the 1S bid because 1C would perhaps have led to a 2H contract. Playing on, I led a low diamond from dummy and pro hesitated, then played the ace, looking puzzled. (If he had ducked, I'm down one). Doesn't matter what he does now, the rest is easy, 3H making. John probably would have passed over 1C and we would get to 2H, so the real victory for 1S was that it right-sided the heart contract. Pro, very upset, fuming, called for the TD and accused me of bidding a three-card suit under the umbrella of a partnership agreement. The TD heard him, heard me, and said "Result stands, score it up." The pro did not appeal, but he asked for a Player Memo (PM) and wrote me up. Several days later Gary Blaiss, now ACBL Recorder in Rich Colker's place, caught up with me at break time and called me aside. "What have I done now?" I said jokingly. He showed me the PM and quizzed me about the 1S bid. After I told him the whole story, as above, he noted that 1S is not a natural bid and he would be filing the PM in a Marvin French dossier. Not a natural bid?? So what? I have the right to make a tactical bid. The ACBL does have an illegal(?) regulation that says you can't open a three-card major as part of a canape approach, but that doesn't apply in this case. And was the spade bid fielded? No. Gary should have torn up the PM instead of filing it. And you know what? I'm going to be opening, responding, and overcalling in three-card suits again (seldom, of course, so partner doesn't expect it), and we'll see how big that dossier gets and what they want to do about it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 29 06:17:10 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:17:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only Message-ID: Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Four Subject: Proprieties NABC Open Pairs - 1st Qualifying Board: 3 Dealer: South Vul: EW Ron Smith (TN) J642 854 J762 AT Boris Baran Mark Molson A53 K987 T932 QJ AK54 Q93 Q9 J643 Linda Smith QT AK76 T8 K8752 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1NT(1) Pass 2C Pass 2H Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) 10-13 The Facts: After the opening lead of the diamond ace, 2H doubled went down 1, -100 for NS. With four tricks left to be played, West deliberating and on lead, East said, "Lead a card." West led the spade ace. The director was called at the end of play. The Ruling: East's remark was not deemed to have been "directive". The table result was allowed to stand. The Appeal: NS said that at trick ten West was unsure whether to play a diamond, necessary if South had started with Kxx, AKxx, Tx, Kxxx; or the spade, necessary if South started with five clubs and no spade. The Decision: All players attended the hearing. With West on lead at trick 10, he huddled for at least two minutes. East said, "Lead a card," followed by, "It doesn't matter what you play." West then led the spade ace and another spade. At the time of the remark there were only a few minutes left in the round with another board to be played. The committee determined that East knew at that point that West had to hold the spade ace. East's statement would have been accurate if either he or declarer held the spade king and the long club. That was not the case. With two red winners in dummy the quickest way to end the deal was for partner to play the spade ace and a spade. Thus, the committee judged that East's comment did subtly suggest the lead of a spade. J6 8 J --- A53 K987 --- --- 5 --- --- --- QT 7 --- 2 Was there a logical alternative to the spade play? East's play of his spots earlier in the hand clearly showed that either the declarer had the long club, or that East was trying to tell his partner to play a spade. West had defended less than optimally at several instances during this deal, and had taken two minutes without leading to trick ten. A majority of the committee thought that for a comparable player in West's state of mind (under time pressure) playing a diamond was a logical alternative to the winning spade play. Nevertheless, though a diamond lead was plausible, after the play of the jack at trick nine, it could not possibly be logical for West to lead a diamond. The committee assigned for NS the contract of 2H doubled -100 and for EW 2H doubled -470. Committee: Adam Wildavsky, Chairperson, Doug Doub, Howard Weinstein, Danny Sprung, and Ed Lazarus From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 26 16:24:46 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:24:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) References: <000001c4d3b2$d6298060$9c69893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <858B9B99-3FA9-11D9-BBFE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c4d5e8$ea486b00$cbb587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* "What is called the serenity of age is only perhaps a euphemism for the fading power to feel the sudden shock of joy or sorrow." ~ Arthur Bliss. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) > You said "The latest wording that I now have in my notes > ..." which seemed to me to suggest a movement towards > the wording that will actually be used. If that's a > misunderstanding on my part, I'm glad to hear it. > +=+ Can't really say what the movement is 'towards'; it does seem to be away from the term 'logical alternative' and with an inclination to tell the Director what he has to judge. rather than to talk about an undefined concept. Of course, the difficulty I sense on this list is in accepting that whilst mechanical faults can have mechanical solutions, for that part of the game concerned with problems of judgement the law has to provide judgemental solutions for the Director to apply. ~ G ~ +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Nov 24 14:56:27 2004 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:56:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC52@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4D235.C620A2C6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herman de Wael wrote: =20 Please Harald, for once: =20 Skjaran, Harald wrote: =20 > Rui Marques wrote: > =20 > I believe the intention of "but Law 16 may apply" is to not deem the cards > exposed as penalty cards but to consider them as U.I. Only. > ----- > I'm not so sure about this. It's clear that if no cards has been shown or named, or indirectly named (as in the case discussed), there's no penalty card, and UI only. >=20 > If a card has been shown, named or indirectly named, it's not clear to me what the law or the laws committee intends. The law and the minute doesn't address exposed cards at all, merely say that a claim/concession is canceled (by immediate protest by partner), play continues and that there might be UI. >=20 > I know I've always ruled exposed cards in these circumstances not to be penalty cards, only UI. But I'm not so sure anymore that this is correct. >=20 =20 for once, don't feed the blml warmongers. we all know what it means, and we've all ruled the same way. don't throw doubt on certainties. ----- Come on Herman. You're just as able to read what's written in the law as me and other blml'ers. And I agree with you regarding how the law should be. There should be no penalty cards in these situations, only UI. And I guess that's been the law makers intentions all the time. That's the way we (all?) have ruled all the time. But it's obvious that's NOT what the law is saying. As several reasonable blml'ers have pointed out in this thread. =20 I suggest the law is rewritten in the coming revision, making the intended interpretation unambiguous. (As the law is written now, those ruling PC's can not be faulted. We who don't can be.) =20 Regards, Harald ----- =20 > Regards, > Harald Skjaeran > ----- >=20 =20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4D235.C620A2C6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herman de Wael =
wrote:
 
Please Harald, for =
once:
 
Skjaran, Harald =
wrote:
 
> Rui Marques =
wrote:
>  =
> I believe the intention of "but Law 16 =
may apply" is to not deem the =
cards
> exposed as penalty cards but to consider =
them as U.I. Only.
> =
-----
> I'm not so sure about this. It's clear that =
if no cards has been shown or named, or indirectly named (as in the case =
discussed), there's no penalty card, and UI =
only.
> 
> If a card has been shown, named or =
indirectly named, it's not clear to me what the law or the laws =
committee intends. The law and the minute doesn't address exposed cards =
at all, merely say that a claim/concession is canceled (by immediate =
protest by partner), play continues and that there might be =
UI.
> 
> I know I've always ruled exposed cards in =
these circumstances not to be penalty cards, only UI. But I'm not so =
sure anymore that this is =
correct.
> 
 
for once, don't feed the blml =
warmongers.
we all know what it means, and we've all =
ruled the same way.
don't throw doubt on =
certainties.
-----
Come on Herman.
You’re just as able to read =
what’s written in the law as me and other =
blml’ers.
And I agree with you regarding how the law =
should be.
There should be no penalty cards in these =
situations, only UI.
And I guess that’s been the law makers =
intentions all the time.
That’s the way we (all?) have ruled all =
the time.
But it’s obvious that’s NOT what =
the law is saying.
As several reasonable blml’ers have =
pointed out in this thread.
 
I suggest the law is rewritten in the coming =
revision, making the intended interpretation =
unambiguous.
(As the law is written now, those ruling =
PC’s can not be faulted. We who don’t can =
be.)
 
Regards,
Harald
-----
 
> =
Regards,
> Harald =
Skjaeran
> =
-----
> 
 
-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen =
Belgium
http://www.hdw.be
=
 
 

 

=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C4D235.C620A2C6-- From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 10:06:49 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:06:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC52@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> Skjaran, Harald ............. I suggest the law is rewritten in the coming revision, making the = intended interpretation unambiguous. (As the law is written now, those ruling PC's can not be faulted. We who don't can be.) If we for a moment leave the current laws on claims and concessions and concentrate upon what we think they should be I shall like to see some comments on: What reason is there for letting the play continue after a defender's concession when his partner immediately objects? I am pretty well confident that the Director in such cases is able to = rule a reasonable result when there has been a concession (after hearing all arguments) as well as he can rule a result when there has been a claim. There is no way we can avoid UI from concessions no more than we can = from claims so why not end all play immediately in both cases? As a by-product such a change would remove the current ambiguity: If a defender concedes some of but not all the remaining tricks and his = partner immediately objects we know (from WBFLC minutes) that no concession or = claim has occurred. But if the defender claims some of but not all the remaining tricks and = his partner immediately objects does this affect the claim (and thereby the implied concession)? Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 29 10:16:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:16:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC52@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC52@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <41AAF6E3.40301@hdw.be> Yes Harald, in general, I agree with you. Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Herman de Wael wrote: >=20 > =20 >=20 > Please Harald, for once: >=20 > =20 >=20 > Skjaran, Harald wrote: >=20 > =20 >=20 >> Rui Marques wrote: >=20 >> =20 >=20 >> I believe the intention of "but Law 16 may apply" is to not deem the c= ards >=20 >> exposed as penalty cards but to consider them as U.I. Only. >=20 >> ----- >=20 >> I'm not so sure about this. It's clear that if no cards has been shown= or named, or indirectly named (as in the case discussed), there's no pen= alty card, and UI only. >=20 >>=20 >=20 >> If a card has been shown, named or indirectly named, it's not clear to= me what the law or the laws committee intends. The law and the minute do= esn't address exposed cards at all, merely say that a claim/concession is= canceled (by immediate protest by partner), play continues and that ther= e might be UI. >=20 >>=20 >=20 >> I know I've always ruled exposed cards in these circumstances not to b= e penalty cards, only UI. But I'm not so sure anymore that this is correc= t. >=20 >>=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > for once, don't feed the blml warmongers. >=20 > we all know what it means, and we've all ruled the same way. >=20 > don't throw doubt on certainties. >=20 > ----- >=20 > Come on Herman. >=20 > You=92re just as able to read what=92s written in the law as me and oth= er blml=92ers. Well, yes, and thank you. >=20 > And I agree with you regarding how the law should be. >=20 That's a relief. > There should be no penalty cards in these situations, only UI. >=20 > And I guess that=92s been the law makers intentions all the time. >=20 So do I. > That=92s the way we (all?) have ruled all the time. >=20 > But it=92s obvious that=92s NOT what the law is saying. >=20 No, that is NOT obvious. What is obvious - to me - is that the law is unclear. There is a great difference between the law saying something entirely=20 different, and the law not being clear. I don't believe it is clear that this card must be treated as a=20 penalty card. > As several reasonable blml=92ers have pointed out in this thread. >=20 They have, but I think they have been stirring fires that did not need=20 stirring. So far, no sensible person has argued that it should be a=20 penalty card. We all agree that the law is unclear, we all agree how=20 the law ought to be read, and we all agree that such reading is not=20 against the letter of the law. Then please, for once, can we keep the=20 consensus that this is the way this case ought to be ruled? > =20 >=20 > I suggest the law is rewritten in the coming revision, making the inten= ded interpretation unambiguous. >=20 I would second that motion, were I not already to have proposed it in=20 the first place. > (As the law is written now, those ruling PC=92s can not be faulted. We = who don=92t can be.) >=20 We who do not rule these cards PC cannot be faulted either. A card ...=20 CAN become a PC if the TD so rules. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 29 10:41:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:41:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41AAFCF6.9020102@hdw.be> OK, Sven, permit me to answer your question in reverse order: Sven Pran wrote: > Skjaran, Harald > ............. > I suggest the law is rewritten in the coming revision, making the intended > interpretation unambiguous. > (As the law is written now, those ruling PC's can not be faulted. We who > don't can be.) > > If we for a moment leave the current laws on claims and concessions and > concentrate upon what we think they should be I shall like to see some > comments on: > I'll start with this one: > As a by-product such a change would remove the current ambiguity: If a > defender concedes some of but not all the remaining tricks and his partner > immediately objects we know (from WBFLC minutes) that no concession or claim > has occurred. > > But if the defender claims some of but not all the remaining tricks and his > partner immediately objects does this affect the claim (and thereby the > implied concession)? > It should be easy enough to resolve this ambiguity without changing the law in any fundamental manner: The next set of laws should make it clear that claims and concessions always go hand-in-hand. We really don't need a law change for that (other than a text change). The same is true for the PC problem. No need to change the law fundamentally - a mere text change can clear up the way we've been ruling this since times immemorial. So let's concentrate on the real issue: > What reason is there for letting the play continue after a defender's > concession when his partner immediately objects? > > I am pretty well confident that the Director in such cases is able to rule a > reasonable result when there has been a concession (after hearing all > arguments) as well as he can rule a result when there has been a claim. > > There is no way we can avoid UI from concessions no more than we can from > claims so why not end all play immediately in both cases? > Because of the way claims are resolved: with benefit of the doubt going against claimer('s side). OK, say defender A claims (or concedes). Defender B does not agree. In the current system, anything A says will be UI to B, but we are allowed to rule that this UI is unimportant for B's actions. If play ceases however, we are stuck with the problem that claiminog side must now make a claim statement. A has done so, but B has not yet. If we have to rule on a claim from B, it is one without a claim statement, and it becomes very difficult to rule that B "knew all along" since he has not proven so. By allowing him to object, we allow him to prove to the table and the TD that he know what's going on. Now usually, when A claims and B objects, B will claim as well. But he can do so with a claim statement. Or he can play on and thereby prove that he knows what is going on. We often forget that bridge is a game played by imperfect people. When one player shows all his cards, a computer can now picture all remaining hands, and predict what is going to happen. But a player will not be deemed to know all the cards, and we must allow a player to show us that he does know them. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Nov 29 11:02:35 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:02:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <000001c4d5e8$ea486b00$cbb587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c4d3b2$d6298060$9c69893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> <858B9B99-3FA9-11D9-BBFE-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000001c4d5e8$ea486b00$cbb587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2CC0EA8D-41F6-11D9-8ED2-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Nov 2004, at 16:24, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Can't really say what the movement is 'towards'; it > does seem to be away from the term 'logical alternative' and > with an inclination to tell the Director what he has to judge. > rather than to talk about an undefined concept. > Of course, the difficulty I sense on this list is in accepting > that whilst mechanical faults can have mechanical solutions, for > that part of the game concerned with problems of judgement > the law has to provide judgemental solutions for the Director > to apply. ~ G ~ +=+ I don't have a difficulty with this: my concern was about the impenetrable language used to express it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 11:25:58 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:25:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41AAFCF6.9020102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001501c4d606$3329ecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............... > So let's concentrate on the real issue: >=20 > > What reason is there for letting the play continue after a=20 > > defender's concession when his partner immediately objects? > > > > I am pretty well confident that the Director in such cases=20 > > is able to rule a reasonable result when there has been a > > concession (after hearing all arguments) as well as he can=20 > > rule a result when there has been a claim. > > > > There is no way we can avoid UI from concessions no more=20 > > than we can from claims so why not end all play > > immediately in both cases? > > >=20 > Because of the way claims are resolved: with benefit of the=20 > doubt going against claimer('s side). I don't understand how this can be a cause. We would apply the same principle when ruling an objected (partial) concession wouldn't we? >=20 > OK, say defender A claims (or concedes). Defender B does not agree.=20 > In the current system, anything A says will be UI to B, but we are > allowed to rule that this UI is unimportant for B's actions. If play > ceases however, we are stuck with the problem that claiminog side must > now make a claim statement. A has done so, but B has not yet. If we > have to rule on a claim from B, it is one without a claim statement, > and it becomes very difficult to rule that B "knew all along" since he > has not proven so. By allowing him to object, we allow him to prove to > the table and the TD that he know what's going on. What objections can we produce against a rule that B must substantiate = his objection to partner's concession in the form of a claim statement? We = agree that B has UI, why shouldn't the Director be capable of ruling a line of play and a result after hearing B's reasons for objecting to his = partner's concession? The Director must in any case rule whether the UI may have = had any influence on B's subsequent actions. > Now usually, when A claims and B objects, B will claim as well. But he > can do so with a claim statement. Or he can play on and thereby prove > that he knows what is going on. Using the same logic I see no reason why we do not allow an opponent to dispute a claim and just say "Play on please". >=20 > We often forget that bridge is a game played by imperfect people. When > one player shows all his cards, a computer can now picture all > remaining hands, and predict what is going to happen. But a player > will not be deemed to know all the cards, and we must allow a player > to show us that he does know them. Exactly. And that can be done in two ways: Either the Director lets the players play it out while he supervises all activities to make sure = nobody uses UI to their advantage or he requires a (preferably complete) = statement and comments to this from which he then rules the result on the board. I really see no principal difference in the handling of a claim of all remaining tricks, a claim of some of the remaining tricks, a concession = of some of the remaining tricks or a concession of all remaining tricks. And when you answered my "by-product" I got the impression that you too would favour essentially the same handling of claims and concessions.=20 Regards Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Nov 29 11:34:36 2004 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:34:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> <41AAFCF6.9020102@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Objected Concession > OK, Sven, permit me to answer your question in reverse order: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > Skjaran, Harald > Because of the way claims are resolved: with benefit of the doubt > going against claimer('s side). Take a look below . > OK, say defender A claims (or concedes). Defender B does not agree. In > the current system, anything A says will be UI to B, but we are > allowed to rule that this UI is unimportant for B's actions. If play > ceases however, we are stuck with the problem that claiminog side must > now make a claim statement. A has done so, but B has not yet. If we > have to rule on a claim from B, it is one without a claim statement, > and it becomes very difficult to rule that B "knew all along" since he > has not proven so. By allowing him to object, we allow him to prove to > the table and the TD that he know what's going on. This is KaKa. Two occasions are vividly in my mind. [1] At T11 declarer leads to KQT missing the J. Holding the Jxx LHO returns his cards to the board [conceding] and RHO who by immediately objecting committed an improper deception that she held the J [ being void, her hand could never legally take a trick]. Play was ruled to continue and declarer did not get it right, and imo could never have gotten it right after this sequence of events. The defenders kept the trick. [2] At a major ACBL regional in the middle of the hand RHDefender claimed two tricks. About 15 sec later [no immediate objection by LHO, in fact no objection by LHO] I say, 'Prove it.' RHO thinks a bit and then states he was premature and refuses to show his cards. the TD is called and rules play continues. I mangle the hand in ways a novice could never find. I am sure this pair still believes that play continues.... regards roger pewick > Now usually, when A claims and B objects, B will claim as well. But he > can do so with a claim statement. Or he can play on and thereby prove > that he knows what is going on. > > We often forget that bridge is a game played by imperfect people. When > one player shows all his cards, a computer can now picture all > remaining hands, and predict what is going to happen. But a player > will not be deemed to know all the cards, and we must allow a player > to show us that he does know them. -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 12:15:41 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:15:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001701c4d60d$254711b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Roger Pewick .......... > This is KaKa. Two occasions are vividly in my mind. >=20 > [1] At T11 declarer leads to KQT missing the J. Holding the Jxx LHO > returns his cards to the board [conceding] and RHO who by immediately > objecting committed an improper deception that she held the J [ being > void, > her hand could never legally take a trick]. Play was ruled to = continue > and declarer did not get it right, and imo could never have gotten it > right > after this sequence of events. The defenders kept the trick. This incident shows IMO a very good reason why play should never be permitted to continue after an objected concession. =20 > [2] At a major ACBL regional in the middle of the hand RHDefender = claimed > two tricks. About 15 sec later [no immediate objection by LHO, in = fact no > objection by LHO] I say, 'Prove it.' RHO thinks a bit and then states = he > was premature and refuses to show his cards. the TD is called and = rules > play continues. I mangle the hand in ways a novice could never find. = I > am > sure this pair still believes that play continues.... And this incident is another plain straight forward Director's error. = There was a contested claim and even the present laws are clear that play = ceases.=20 You even had the right to file a protest with the Director (or an appeal = to the AC) that the play you "performed" subsequent to the claim was a null = and should be disregarded when ruling the result on the board! Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 29 12:18:52 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:18:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001501c4d606$3329ecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001501c4d606$3329ecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41AB13AC.40504@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > >>> >>>There is no way we can avoid UI from concessions no more >>>than we can from claims so why not end all play >>>immediately in both cases? >>> >> >>Because of the way claims are resolved: with benefit of the >>doubt going against claimer('s side). > > > I don't understand how this can be a cause. We would apply the same > principle when ruling an objected (partial) concession wouldn't we? > Not exactly. We would rule on the UI with doubt against the receiver. But we do not force him to submit to the claim "benefit against him". > >>OK, say defender A claims (or concedes). Defender B does not agree. >>In the current system, anything A says will be UI to B, but we are >>allowed to rule that this UI is unimportant for B's actions. If play >>ceases however, we are stuck with the problem that claiminog side must >>now make a claim statement. A has done so, but B has not yet. If we >>have to rule on a claim from B, it is one without a claim statement, >>and it becomes very difficult to rule that B "knew all along" since he >>has not proven so. By allowing him to object, we allow him to prove to >>the table and the TD that he know what's going on. > > > What objections can we produce against a rule that B must substantiate his > objection to partner's concession in the form of a claim statement? We agree > that B has UI, why shouldn't the Director be capable of ruling a line of > play and a result after hearing B's reasons for objecting to his partner's > concession? The Director must in any case rule whether the UI may have had > any influence on B's subsequent actions. > This might work, but it would also be a change in the law. I don't believe such a change is needed. However, I'm not really certain that it would produce unwanted by-results. Maybe allowing partner to object by issueing a claim statement of his own might placate my worries AND yours. > >>Now usually, when A claims and B objects, B will claim as well. But he >>can do so with a claim statement. Or he can play on and thereby prove >>that he knows what is going on. > > > Using the same logic I see no reason why we do not allow an opponent to > dispute a claim and just say "Play on please". > But that is against his own interest. There is no reason why we should not allow it. We don't, because we don't want the added problems of having to rule against a claimer after he has played it and made it. > >>We often forget that bridge is a game played by imperfect people. When >>one player shows all his cards, a computer can now picture all >>remaining hands, and predict what is going to happen. But a player >>will not be deemed to know all the cards, and we must allow a player >>to show us that he does know them. > > > Exactly. And that can be done in two ways: Either the Director lets the > players play it out while he supervises all activities to make sure nobody > uses UI to their advantage or he requires a (preferably complete) statement > and comments to this from which he then rules the result on the board. > > I really see no principal difference in the handling of a claim of all > remaining tricks, a claim of some of the remaining tricks, a concession of > some of the remaining tricks or a concession of all remaining tricks. > That is true - there is no difference. > And when you answered my "by-product" I got the impression that you too > would favour essentially the same handling of claims and concessions. > I do, and I answered you first because I believed that particular problem had no relevance to the allowing to play it out or not. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 29 12:42:06 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:42:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001701c4d60d$254711b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001701c4d60d$254711b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41AB191E.9070401@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Roger Pewick > > .......... > >>This is KaKa. Two occasions are vividly in my mind. >> >>[1] At T11 declarer leads to KQT missing the J. Holding the Jxx LHO >>returns his cards to the board [conceding] and RHO who by immediately >>objecting committed an improper deception that she held the J [ being >>void, >>her hand could never legally take a trick]. Play was ruled to continue >>and declarer did not get it right, and imo could never have gotten it >>right >>after this sequence of events. The defenders kept the trick. > > > This incident shows IMO a very good reason why play should never be > permitted to continue after an objected concession. > No it's not - it's director's error. This is an action without any bridge reason, which induced declarer into a wrong conclusion. L73F2. > >>[2] At a major ACBL regional in the middle of the hand RHDefender claimed >>two tricks. About 15 sec later [no immediate objection by LHO, in fact no >>objection by LHO] I say, 'Prove it.' RHO thinks a bit and then states he >>was premature and refuses to show his cards. the TD is called and rules >>play continues. I mangle the hand in ways a novice could never find. I >>am >>sure this pair still believes that play continues.... > > > And this incident is another plain straight forward Director's error. There > was a contested claim and even the present laws are clear that play ceases. > That too is TD error - there was a claim, and no objection. Play ceases. It is not completely correct to give examples of TD error as evidence that the laws are faulty. Although of course a law that a TD can easily misrule on, is not a good law and might need improving. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 29 12:59:22 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:59:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> {Sven Pran] There is no way we can avoid UI from concessions no more than we can from claims so why not end all play immediately in both cases? [Nigel] Sven is right as usual. Perhaps the law should even revert to transforming the claimer's partners hand into penalty cards. A defender who underclaims obviously has a wrong picture of the deal; the claim and the objection to the claim both provide substantial unauthorised information; hence the director should lean over backwards to give declarer a favourable ruling; declarer claims should be encouraged; but defender claims should not be condoned as a way of preventing partner from revoking or making other stupid mistakes. (: An extreme example from "the good old days"... S:K H- D:xx C:xx S:AJT8 S:9 H:A N H:KQ D- W + E D:AK C- S C- S:2 H- D- C:xxxx In an ending something like this, my father, Charles Guthrie was was on lead as declarer, South, in a spade contract against expert opponents. The West defender claimed the rest but the director ruled that East could be made to over-ruff South's club and lead a heart. Thus South emerged with two more tricks :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 13:24:35 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:24:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41AB13AC.40504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001901c4d616$c540a830$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > >>>There is no way we can avoid UI from concessions no more > >>>than we can from claims so why not end all play > >>>immediately in both cases? > >>> > >> > >>Because of the way claims are resolved: with benefit of the > >>doubt going against claimer('s side). And similarly let the benefit of the doubt when handling a concession by = one defender which is objected to by the other go against the defending = side. > > > > I don't understand how this can be a cause. We would apply the same > > principle when ruling an objected (partial) concession wouldn't we? > > >=20 > Not exactly. > We would rule on the UI with doubt against the receiver. But we do not > force him to submit to the claim "benefit against him". ??? >=20 > > > >>OK, say defender A claims (or concedes). Defender B does not agree. > >>In the current system, anything A says will be UI to B, but we are > >>allowed to rule that this UI is unimportant for B's actions. If play > >>ceases however, we are stuck with the problem that claiminog side = must > >>now make a claim statement. A has done so, but B has not yet. If we > >>have to rule on a claim from B, it is one without a claim statement, > >>and it becomes very difficult to rule that B "knew all along" since = he > >>has not proven so. By allowing him to object, we allow him to prove = to > >>the table and the TD that he know what's going on. > > > > > > What objections can we produce against a rule that B must=20 > > his objection to partner's concession in the form of a claim > > statement? We agree that B has UI, why shouldn't the Director=20 > > be capable of ruling a line of play and a result after hearing > > B's reasons for objecting to his partner's concession? The=20 > > Director must in any case rule whether the UI may have had > > any influence on B's subsequent actions. > > >=20 > This might work, but it would also be a change in the law. I don't > believe such a change is needed. However, I'm not really certain that > it would produce unwanted by-results. Maybe allowing partner to object > by issueing a claim statement of his own might placate my worries AND > yours. We cannot resolve this problem without a law change if we want to follow what appears to be the opinion of a majority: 1: We can remove the clause in Law 68B that allows the partner of a = defender to object to a concession. This will make Law 68D applicable without any exception. 2: We can add a clause to Law 68B to the effect that when a concession = is nullified under this law no card exposed in the process of conceding = becomes a penalty card. 3: We may leave the laws as they are with the understanding that any = card exposed by a defender in the process of conceding one or more tricks = becomes a penalty card according to Law 49 if the concession is nullified under = Law 68B. It is my understanding that alternative 3 is the one which the current = laws dictate but that this effect of the laws is generally ignored because of = an understanding that such effect can never have been the intention of = WBFLC.=20 Personally I favour alternative 1. =20 > > > >>Now usually, when A claims and B objects, B will claim as well. But = he > >>can do so with a claim statement. Or he can play on and thereby = prove > >>that he knows what is going on. > > > > > > Using the same logic I see no reason why we do not allow an opponent = to > > dispute a claim and just say "Play on please". > > >=20 > But that is against his own interest. There is no reason why we should > not allow it. We don't, because we don't want the added problems of > having to rule against a claimer after he has played it and made it. Why not if we find that he can have used information received by him = from the objections to his claim? (Also known as UI) ............. > > I really see no principal difference in the handling of a claim of = all > > remaining tricks, a claim of some of the remaining tricks, a = concession=20 > > of some of the remaining tricks or a concession of all remaining = tricks. > > >=20 > That is true - there is no difference. So why on earth treat them differently? Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 29 13:47:14 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:47:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001501c4d606$3329ecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <41AAFCF6.9020102@hdw.be> <001501c4d606$3329ecf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041129082526.02ae3af0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:25 AM 11/29/04, Sven wrote: >What objections can we produce against a rule that B must substantiate his >objection to partner's concession in the form of a claim statement? We >agree >that B has UI, why shouldn't the Director be capable of ruling a line of >play and a result after hearing B's reasons for objecting to his partner's >concession? The Director must in any case rule whether the UI may have had >any influence on B's subsequent actions. This would be a profound change in the law, as it would require B, in order to object to A's concession, to be aware of its flaw(s), which in turn requires him to know more about the layout than A does and be able to project potential lines of play. Under the current law, B may object based on nothing more than intuition. He needn't know that partner's concession is necessarily flawed, or that any more tricks are available; he is not required to have the knowledge he would need to formulate some kind of claim statement. A player who objects to his partner's concession often does so simply because he holds a high card he doesn't think his partner knows he has, with no real idea whether that card will, or might, take a trick. (This may not happen in high-level events, but that's not where I direct.) Sven's suggestion would (for better or worse; I offer no judgment), in effect, prohibit this. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 14:15:28 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:15:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041129082526.02ae3af0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001a01c4d61d$e10abef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > At 06:25 AM 11/29/04, Sven wrote: > > >What objections can we produce against a rule that B must substantiate > his > >objection to partner's concession in the form of a claim statement? We > >agree > >that B has UI, why shouldn't the Director be capable of ruling a line of > >play and a result after hearing B's reasons for objecting to his > partner's > >concession? The Director must in any case rule whether the UI may have > had > >any influence on B's subsequent actions. > > This would be a profound change in the law, as it would require B, in > order to object to A's concession, to be aware of its flaw(s), which in > turn requires him to know more about the layout than A does and be able > to project potential lines of play. > > Under the current law, B may object based on nothing more than > intuition. He needn't know that partner's concession is necessarily > flawed, or that any more tricks are available; he is not required to > have the knowledge he would need to formulate some kind of claim > statement. > > A player who objects to his partner's concession often does so simply > because he holds a high card he doesn't think his partner knows he has, > with no real idea whether that card will, or might, take a > trick. (This may not happen in high-level events, but that's not where > I direct.) Sven's suggestion would (for better or worse; I offer no > judgment), in effect, prohibit this. Definitely not. B may still object on his suspicion alone (his "substantiation" will then reflect this) but having the play ceased immediately regardless of any objection and the result on the board decided by a ruling of the Director will eliminate all problems with penalty cards without burdening the Director with more judging than he must be prepared for in any case after a claim or a concession. (It is hardly ever easy to judge whether a player has made illegal use of UI). And I am looking for a law that is as applicable in high level events as in low level events. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 29 14:23:25 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:23:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B38B5C2-4212-11D9-AEE7-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Nov 29, 2004, at 01:17 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Nevertheless, though a diamond lead was plausible, > after the play of the jack at trick nine, it could > not possibly be logical for West to lead a > diamond. The committee assigned for NS the > contract of 2H doubled -100 and for EW 2H doubled > -470. This ruling is illegal. If West has no logical alternative to a spade lead, then there was no infraction. No infraction, no adjustment. :-( From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 29 14:57:28 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:57:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> Message-ID: <41AB38D8.8090209@hdw.be> Hello Nigel, GUTHRIE wrote: > {Sven Pran] > There is no way we can avoid UI from concessions no more > than we can from claims so why not end all play immediately > in both cases? > [Nigel] > Sven is right as usual. A very dangerous thing to say. It puts you into a pile of my non-allies. But you were there already anyway. > Perhaps the law should even revert > to transforming the claimer's partners hand into penalty > cards. Several examples have shown that this is not correct. Consider the following example: Declarer South has drawn trumps, but the top one is still left in East's hand, West is not aware of that. South has a club loser in both hands, but he starts cashing hearts. West claims and shows his club ace. East objects, saying something about his top trump. If we now make the top club a penalty card, South can have it drop on his hearts, and defence make just one trick in stead of two. Declarer knows the situation and could easily claim the loss of 2 tricks, but by this ruse he has gained a trick. Such is certainly not a good way of writing claims laws. > A defender who underclaims obviously has a wrong > picture of the deal; Yes, but it is often something as harmless as not realizing that the reason why declarer has stopped cashing trumps is that partner has the top one left. > the claim and the objection to the > claim both provide substantial unauthorised information; That is true, and the current laws deal with that. > hence the director should lean over backwards to give > declarer a favourable ruling; declarer claims should be > encouraged; but defender claims should not be condoned as a > way of preventing partner from revoking or making other > stupid mistakes. > But if defender claims are not encouraged, then declarer ones are not either, for the reasons set out above. A declarer who plays on can count not just on defender error, but also on defender claiming. > (: An extreme example from "the good old days"... > S:K > H- > D:xx > C:xx > S:AJT8 S:9 > H:A N H:KQ > D- W + E D:AK > C- S C- > S:2 > H- > D- > C:xxxx > In an ending something like this, my father, Charles Guthrie > was was on lead as declarer, South, in a spade contract > against expert opponents. The West defender claimed the > rest but the director ruled that East could be made to > over-ruff South's club and lead a heart. Thus South emerged > with two more tricks :) > And you think this is a good thing? You don't think that your father should be criticized for not claiming zero tricks here? (I did notice the smiley, yes) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Nov 29 16:07:42 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:07:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <001801c4d415$635e6970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Like I was told when I first graduated as a Director: Make sure you read and understand the complete law that is applicable to the situation and also check up on all references to other laws from the one you are using. Remember that footnotes are part of the laws to which they are appended. Following this principle would have saved you some headache here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the first Law applying to dummy is Law 41D. Dummy MUST spread his cards correctly. So something like "all players are responsible for dummy" is not true at all. No revoke penalty, but restore equity taking into account that dummy acted againts the Law (offending side). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 16:05:06 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:05:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41AB38D8.8090209@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001d01c4d62d$32761b90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > Consider the following example: >=20 > Declarer South has drawn trumps, but the top one is still left in > East's hand, West is not aware of that. South has a club loser in both > hands, but he starts cashing hearts. West claims and shows his club > ace. East objects, saying something about his top trump. > If we now make the top club a penalty card, South can have it drop on > his hearts, and defence make just one trick in stead of two. > Declarer knows the situation and could easily claim the loss of 2 > tricks, but by this ruse he has gained a trick. Such is certainly not > a good way of writing claims laws. Another good example showing that the best solution must be to have the Director rule the result on the board rather than let the play continue. If there is any "normal" line of play where South can get rid of his = club looser on a heart from dummy and then end up only losing a trick to the = high trump then so be it. Otherwise the Director will grant two tricks to the defense. =20 Literally under today's laws the Ace of clubs becomes a major penalty = card. ........... > > the claim and the objection to the > > claim both provide substantial unauthorised information; >=20 > That is true, and the current laws deal with that. Does it really (in a more efficient way than having the Director decide = the result on the board)? > > hence the director should lean over backwards to give > > declarer a favourable ruling; declarer claims should be > > encouraged; but defender claims should not be condoned as a > > way of preventing partner from revoking or making other > > stupid mistakes. > > >=20 > But if defender claims are not encouraged, then declarer ones are not > either, for the reasons set out above. A declarer who plays on can > count not just on defender error, but also on defender claiming. Neither concessions nor claims should ever be encouraged in situations = where can be the slightest doubt for any of the players on the final result. Ever so often we hear that claiming speeds up the play and makes time = for more bridge. My experience is the contrary: Claiming (in particular) = leads to requests for explanations which take up more time than the players = would have spent by simply playing out the cards. And there is nothing in the laws preventing a self confident player who = has the rest simply to display his cards one by one showing the sequence in which he intends to play them. That will take him a maximum of half a = second per card without any need at all for verbal explanation. (Actually this = is my favourite way of having players claim). Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 29 16:26:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:26:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001d01c4d62d$32761b90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001d01c4d62d$32761b90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41AB4DAF.5050005@hdw.be> Sven, I think we almost agree (yes that is possible) Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>Consider the following example: >> >>Declarer South has drawn trumps, but the top one is still left in >>East's hand, West is not aware of that. South has a club loser in both >>hands, but he starts cashing hearts. West claims and shows his club >>ace. East objects, saying something about his top trump. >>If we now make the top club a penalty card, South can have it drop on >>his hearts, and defence make just one trick in stead of two. >>Declarer knows the situation and could easily claim the loss of 2 >>tricks, but by this ruse he has gained a trick. Such is certainly not >>a good way of writing claims laws. > > > Another good example showing that the best solution must be to have the > Director rule the result on the board rather than let the play continue. > Yes it is. But there is a problem. In a case like this, we would normally expect declarer to claim, but he hasn't. Now we are forced to rule the claim with the benefit of the doubt against defenders. And there might be lines in which the high trump falls on the high club. > If there is any "normal" line of play where South can get rid of his club > looser on a heart from dummy and then end up only losing a trick to the high > trump then so be it. Otherwise the Director will grant two tricks to the > defense. > Of course, but that is simply the defender's claim being wrong. We don't need specific laws for that one. The same can apply without a high trump with other defender. > Literally under today's laws the Ace of clubs becomes a major penalty card. > ........... > >>>the claim and the objection to the >>>claim both provide substantial unauthorised information; >> >>That is true, and the current laws deal with that. > > > Does it really (in a more efficient way than having the Director decide the > result on the board)? > Well, no. Of course the decisions about UI are just as hard as the decisions about the claim. But you were calling this a benefit for your preferred solution. It is not. The UI problem is solved in both solutions. > >>>hence the director should lean over backwards to give >>>declarer a favourable ruling; declarer claims should be >>>encouraged; but defender claims should not be condoned as a >>>way of preventing partner from revoking or making other >>>stupid mistakes. >>> >> >>But if defender claims are not encouraged, then declarer ones are not >>either, for the reasons set out above. A declarer who plays on can >>count not just on defender error, but also on defender claiming. > > > Neither concessions nor claims should ever be encouraged in situations where > can be the slightest doubt for any of the players on the final result. > I don't encourage claims when there is doubt. But I'm not going to be tough on a player who wants a trick, simply because his partner also wants one. > Ever so often we hear that claiming speeds up the play and makes time for > more bridge. My experience is the contrary: Claiming (in particular) leads > to requests for explanations which take up more time than the players would > have spent by simply playing out the cards. > > And there is nothing in the laws preventing a self confident player who has > the rest simply to display his cards one by one showing the sequence in > which he intends to play them. That will take him a maximum of half a second > per card without any need at all for verbal explanation. (Actually this is > my favourite way of having players claim). > Yes there is something in the laws preventing this: the fact that it is judged to be a claim. When a player starts acting that way against me, but still waiting for me to play to the tricks, I simply stop and ask him to continue with his claim statement. So this is just another way of making a claim statement, not a different way of playing. Now the player who wants to make just the one trick cannot play the other cards, because it depends on what card is led to each trick "I'm making the club Ace" is the most simple way of acting in this manner. And when partner then says "I have the top trump", we should get two tricks, not have my CA become a PC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 16:54:40 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:54:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41AB4DAF.5050005@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001f01c4d634$1e5e0c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > Yes it is. But there is a problem. > In a case like this, we would normally expect declarer to claim, but > he hasn't. Now we are forced to rule the claim with the benefit of the > doubt against defenders. And there might be lines in which the high > trump falls on the high club. Sure. In this case it is the defenders that "interrupt" the normal flow = of playing the tricks. They bear the risk if there is anything wrong with = their assumptions. (And please do not argue that claiming is part of "normal" flow of = tricks. Although it is legal to play that does not alter the fact that the = normal play consists of playing thirteen tricks in sequence according to the = laws. Claiming is simply a way of terminating the normal flow because the rest = is obvious) =20 > > If there is any "normal" line of play where South can get rid of his > club > > looser on a heart from dummy and then end up only losing a trick to = the > high > > trump then so be it. Otherwise the Director will grant two tricks to = the > > defense. > > >=20 > Of course, but that is simply the defender's claim being wrong. We > don't need specific laws for that one. The same can apply without a > high trump with other defender. >=20 > > Literally under today's laws the Ace of clubs becomes a major = penalty > card. > > ........... > > > >>>the claim and the objection to the > >>>claim both provide substantial unauthorised information; > >> > >>That is true, and the current laws deal with that. > > > > > > Does it really (in a more efficient way than having the Director = decide > the > > result on the board)? > > >=20 > Well, no. Of course the decisions about UI are just as hard as the > decisions about the claim. > But you were calling this a benefit for your preferred solution. It is > not. The UI problem is solved in both solutions. What takes more time for the Director: Resolving an alleged UI situation after a play has been completed or ruling the number of tricks to be won = by either side in a claim situation? =20 > > > >>>hence the director should lean over backwards to give > >>>declarer a favourable ruling; declarer claims should be > >>>encouraged; but defender claims should not be condoned as a > >>>way of preventing partner from revoking or making other > >>>stupid mistakes. > >>> > >> > >>But if defender claims are not encouraged, then declarer ones are = not > >>either, for the reasons set out above. A declarer who plays on can > >>count not just on defender error, but also on defender claiming. > > > > > > Neither concessions nor claims should ever be encouraged in = situations > where > > can be the slightest doubt for any of the players on the final = result. > > >=20 > I don't encourage claims when there is doubt. But I'm not going to be > tough on a player who wants a trick, simply because his partner also > wants one. >=20 > > Ever so often we hear that claiming speeds up the play and makes = time > for > > more bridge. My experience is the contrary: Claiming (in particular) > leads > > to requests for explanations which take up more time than the = players > would > > have spent by simply playing out the cards. > > > > And there is nothing in the laws preventing a self confident player = who > has > > the rest simply to display his cards one by one showing the sequence = in > > which he intends to play them. That will take him a maximum of half = a > second > > per card without any need at all for verbal explanation. (Actually = this > is > > my favourite way of having players claim). > > >=20 > Yes there is something in the laws preventing this: the fact that it > is judged to be a claim. When a player starts acting that way against > me, but still waiting for me to play to the tricks, I simply stop and > ask him to continue with his claim statement.=20 Who said anything about waiting for opponents to follow suit? I didn't. So this is just another > way of making a claim statement, not a different way of playing. Exactly, and a much more precise way of claiming than anything you can = say verbally and be understood within the same time. > Now the player who wants to make just the one trick cannot play the > other cards, because it depends on what card is led to each trick > "I'm making the club Ace" is the most simple way of acting in this > manner. And when partner then says "I have the top trump", we should > get two tricks, not have my CA become a PC. Why not? You have exposed your CA to your partner. Does he have any = choice when he gets his trick for his trump? Is it within normal play for him = to return something else than a club? Of course you can come forward with the UI again, but isn't the purpose = of penalty cards to avoid any discussion of UI and have simple mechanical procedures when a defender exposes a card to his partner? Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 17:00:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:00:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002001c4d634$fb97a780$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > Like I was told when I first graduated as a Director: Make sure you = read > and > understand the complete law that is applicable to the situation and = also > check up on all references to other laws from the one you are using. > Remember that footnotes are part of the laws to which they are = appended. >=20 > Following this principle would have saved you some headache here. >=20 > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > And the first Law applying to dummy is Law 41D. Dummy MUST spread his > cards correctly. So something like "all players are responsible for = dummy" > is not true at all. No revoke penalty, but restore equity taking into > account that dummy acted againts the Law (offending side). You still do not understand do you? Law 41 doesn't say what you claim it says: "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him = on the table....." Turn to the interpretation of the laws (at the very front) and you will = see that there is indeed a difference: A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads = his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized. Sven From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Mon Nov 29 17:06:57 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:06:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C514@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran To: blml Sent: 29/11/04 16:05 Subject: RE: [blml] Re: Objected Concession > Herman De Wael ............. > Consider the following example: > > Declarer South has drawn trumps, but the top one is still left in > East's hand, West is not aware of that. South has a club loser in both > hands, but he starts cashing hearts. West claims and shows his club > ace. East objects, saying something about his top trump. > If we now make the top club a penalty card, South can have it drop on > his hearts, and defence make just one trick in stead of two. > Declarer knows the situation and could easily claim the loss of 2 > tricks, but by this ruse he has gained a trick. Such is certainly not > a good way of writing claims laws. Another good example showing that the best solution must be to have the Director rule the result on the board rather than let the play continue. If there is any "normal" line of play where South can get rid of his club looser on a heart from dummy and then end up only losing a trick to the high trump then so be it. Otherwise the Director will grant two tricks to the defense. Literally under today's laws the Ace of clubs becomes a major penalty card. ........... > > the claim and the objection to the > > claim both provide substantial unauthorised information; > > That is true, and the current laws deal with that. Does it really (in a more efficient way than having the Director decide the result on the board)? > > hence the director should lean over backwards to give > > declarer a favourable ruling; declarer claims should be > > encouraged; but defender claims should not be condoned as a > > way of preventing partner from revoking or making other > > stupid mistakes. > > > > But if defender claims are not encouraged, then declarer ones are not > either, for the reasons set out above. A declarer who plays on can > count not just on defender error, but also on defender claiming. Neither concessions nor claims should ever be encouraged in situations where can be the slightest doubt for any of the players on the final result. Ever so often we hear that claiming speeds up the play and makes time for more bridge. My experience is the contrary: Claiming (in particular) leads to requests for explanations which take up more time than the players would have spent by simply playing out the cards. And there is nothing in the laws preventing a self confident player who has the rest simply to display his cards one by one showing the sequence in which he intends to play them. That will take him a maximum of half a second per card without any need at all for verbal explanation. (Actually this is my favourite way of having players claim). Sven _______________________________________________ The way to get the director to rule on a defensive claim-and-concession when claimer' partner objects to the concession is for the objector to say nothing, then wait to the end of the end of the round, and then tell partner to withdraw his concession: L71C will then give defenders any tricks they were due on all normal lines. (Assuming you have been told to ignore the complete sentence at the end of L71C.) This should even work if claimer has exposed his cards - it is not usual to treat claimer's cards as penalty cards when ruling undler L69/L70/L71! Robin P.S. Thanks to Jim Proctor for this "solution", which he discovered as at the table - as the objector to partner's defensive claim. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 toddz@att.net Mon Nov 29 18:49:24 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:49:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41AAF6E3.40301@hdw.be> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCC52@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <41AAF6E3.40301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41AB6F34.6030207@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't believe it is clear that this card must be treated as a penalty > card. It isn't (clear). I'm still wondering why play was allowed to continue. The defender claimed one trick, suggested play end, and showed his hand -- a trifecta of claimage according to L68A. Do the laws really allow play to continue after a claim just because partner objects? If the trend in the Laws is towards equity, the difference between claims and concessions can be eliminated as the burden to recover a conceded trick via L71 (almost a mechanical result -- trick cannot be lost by any normal play) is heavier than to recover the trick via L70 (judgement result -- trick would not be lost by hypothetical play made at table). Leave 68B only for the case where one player quits his hand and his partner insists he pick it back up. -Todd From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 29 19:35:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:35:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001f01c4d634$1e5e0c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <001f01c4d634$1e5e0c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41AB79E7.6040809@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > What takes more time for the Director: Resolving an alleged UI situation > after a play has been completed or ruling the number of tricks to be won by > either side in a claim situation? > I would say it takes exactly as long. But if he lets the board be played out, maybe the player simply does not play the card that is suggested and so he doesn't need to make the decision as to whether or not the play is allowed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 29 21:30:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:30:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 49: "Except in the normal course of play or application of law..." Law 50: "...unless the Director designates otherwise..." Does Law 50 give a TD unlimited power to designate that a card which might be a penalty card is not a penalty card? Or must Law 50 be read in conjunction with Law 49, thus constraining a TD to a strictly limited power of opting to "designates otherwise"? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 22:02:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:02:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C514@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c4d65f$2a530ea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robin Barker ............. >=20 > The way to get the director to rule on a defensive = claim-and-concession > when claimer' partner objects to the concession is for the objector to = say > nothing, then wait to the end of the end of the round, and then tell > partner to withdraw his concession: L71C will then give defenders any > tricks they were due on all normal lines. (Assuming you have been told = to > ignore the complete sentence at the end of L71C.) This should even = work > if claimer has exposed his cards - it is not usual to treat claimer's > cards as penalty cards when ruling undler L69/L70/L71! >=20 > Robin >=20 > P.S. Thanks to Jim Proctor for this "solution", which he discovered as = at > the table - as the objector to partner's defensive claim. Except that the defense will generally receive more tricks from a ruling = on an objected concession under Law 68B than from a ruling under Law 71. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 22:11:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:11:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41AB6F34.6030207@att.net> Message-ID: <000301c4d660$664be1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Todd M. Zimnoch > Herman De Wael wrote: > > I don't believe it is clear that this card must be treated as a = penalty > > card. >=20 > It isn't (clear). Have you anywhere in the laws found any exception from Law 49 related to defender's card(s) exposed in the process of claiming or conceding = tricks? > I'm still wondering why play was allowed to continue. The > defender claimed one trick, suggested play end, and showed > his hand -- a trifecta of claimage according to L68A. Do > the laws really allow play to continue after a claim just > because partner objects?=20 No, Law 68B dictates play to continue when partner objects to a = concession.=20 And WBFLC has interpreted this law to be understood that when a = defender's partner objects to a concession which implies a claim neither the = concession nor the implied claim has occurred. Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 29 22:22:01 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:22:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c4d661$d93caaa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Law 49: >=20 > "Except in the normal course of play or application of > law..." >=20 > Law 50: >=20 > "...unless the Director designates otherwise..." >=20 > Does Law 50 give a TD unlimited power to designate that > a card which might be a penalty card is not a penalty > card? >=20 > Or must Law 50 be read in conjunction with Law 49, thus > constraining a TD to a strictly limited power of opting > to "designates otherwise"? Law 50 "unless the director designates otherwise" has been interpreted = to concern cases where the players without summoning the Director have designated a card as a penalty card "if the Director subsequently feels = that rights have been jeopardized by a failure to call him earlier; he may = cancel a ruling agreed and carried out by the players before he is called to = the table if this action is the best resolution of difficulties which = players have created prior to summoning him". So the answer to your question is NO, the Director does not have = unlimited power to "designate otherwise". Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 29 22:41:20 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:41:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <000401c4d661$d93caaa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c4d661$d93caaa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41ABA590.1020609@hdw.be> Sorry Sven, but this is absolute bollocks. Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 50 "unless the director designates otherwise" has been interpreted to > concern cases where the players without summoning the Director have > designated a card as a penalty card "if the Director subsequently feels that > rights have been jeopardized by a failure to call him earlier; he may cancel > a ruling agreed and carried out by the players before he is called to the > table if this action is the best resolution of difficulties which players > have created prior to summoning him". > > So the answer to your question is NO, the Director does not have unlimited > power to "designate otherwise". > L50 has no such interpretation. You cite ONE case in which it is sensible for a TD to rule in this manner. One case which does not in any way preclude others. Yes the Director DOES have unlimited powers to designate otherwise. I have done so, and I am willing to be told that I acted wisely or unwisely, but I am not willing to hear that I was wrong because someone in Norway has posted that there is one reason where this ruling is commonly used. > 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 Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 30 00:03:51 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:03:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> <41AB38D8.8090209@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004601c4d670$14fca780$299468d5@James> >> (: An extreme example from "the good old days"... >> S:K >> H- >> D:xx >> C:xx >> S:AQJ9 S:T >> H:A N H:KQ >> D- W + E D:AK >> C- S C- >> S:2 >> H- >> D:xx >> C:xx >> In an ending something like this, my father, Charles >> Guthrie was on lead as declarer, South, in a spade >> contract against expert opponents. The West defender >> claimed the rest but the director ruled that East >> could be made to over-ruff South's club and lead a >> heart. Thus South emerged with two more tricks :) [Herman de Wael] > And you think this is a good thing? You don't think > that your father should be criticized for not claiming > zero tricks here? (I did notice the smiley, yes) [Nigel] No Herman. When declarer knows he has all the tricks, declarer must claim, rather than make opponents sweat; but when that is not the case and there is any chance of defensive error, I believe that it is legal to play on in the hope of a mistake; but I'm uncertain how far an ethical player should take this principle. (a) If you are in a hopeless grand slam, is it OK to play on in the hope of a revoke? (b) Is it OK to keep switching from suit to suit to confuse opponents into revoking e.g. DA HK DQ HJ and so on... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 25/11/2004 From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 30 00:13:52 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:13:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> <41AB38D8.8090209@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004b01c4d671$7b16d940$299468d5@James> >> [Nigel] >> Sven is right as usual. > [Herman de Wael] > A very dangerous thing to say. It puts you into a pile > of my non-allies. But you were there already anyway. [Nigel] I usually agree with Sven -- but not always. I sometimes support you, Herman --- probably more often than other BLML contributors. (: Anyway, I'm afraid that few BLML TDs wuuld welcome my approval as a valid endorsement of their argument :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 25/11/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 00:39:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? In-Reply-To: <004601c4d670$14fca780$299468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >When declarer knows he has all the tricks, >declarer must claim, rather than make >opponents sweat; but when that is not the >case and there is any chance of defensive >error, I believe that it is legal to play >on in the hope of a mistake; but I'm >uncertain how far an ethical player should >take this principle. > >(a) If you are in a hopeless grand slam, is > it OK to play on in the hope of a > revoke? [snip] Richard Hills replies: If declarer is certain that (without a revoke) the grand slam will fail by exactly one trick, then declarer's failure to claim one down is an infraction of Law 74B4, "prolonging play unnecessarily ... for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". In that case, declarer is hoping for a major disconcerting of an opponent via the illegal *unnecessary* slow play (known in Canberra as the Soporific Coup), so a consequential revoke. On the other hand, if declarer is unsure whether the grand slam will fail by one trick or by two tricks, then declarer has a legitimate bridge reason to play out the deal, and may legitimately get lucky if a revoke lets the grand slam make. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Nov 30 00:52:25 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:52:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <002001c4d634$fb97a780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Laval Dubreuil > Like I was told when I first graduated as a Director: Make sure you read > and > understand the complete law that is applicable to the situation and also > check up on all references to other laws from the one you are using. > Remember that footnotes are part of the laws to which they are appended. > > Following this principle would have saved you some headache here. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > And the first Law applying to dummy is Law 41D. Dummy MUST spread his > cards correctly. So something like "all players are responsible for dummy" > is not true at all. No revoke penalty, but restore equity taking into > account that dummy acted againts the Law (offending side). You still do not understand do you? Law 41 doesn't say what you claim it says: "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table....." Turn to the interpretation of the laws (at the very front) and you will see that there is indeed a difference: A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized. _________________________________________________________________________ Just go on readind:"....face up, sorted into suits....." I still think not spreading all 13 cards faced up is an infraction. Laval Du Breuil From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 30 01:18:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:18:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <41ABA590.1020609@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c4d67a$9031bf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sorry Sven, but this is absolute bollocks. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Law 50 "unless the director designates otherwise" has been > > interpreted to concern cases where the players without > > summoning the Director have designated a card as a penalty > > card "if the Director subsequently feels that rights have > > been jeopardized by a failure to call him earlier; he may > > cancel a ruling agreed and carried out by the players > > before he is called to the table if this action is the > > best resolution of difficulties which players have created > > prior to summoning him". > > > > So the answer to your question is NO, the Director does > > not have unlimited power to "designate otherwise". > > > > L50 has no such interpretation. You cite ONE case in which > it is sensible for a TD to rule in this manner. One case > which does not in any way preclude others. You could have made a better guess! I quoted: "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen, issued in the name of European Bridge League in 1992. As the applicable law text has not been changed from 1987 to 1997, and as far as I know no further comments on this particular part of that law has been issued by WBFLC since 1992 this commentary must be assumed still in force. > > Yes the Director DOES have unlimited powers to designate otherwise. I > have done so, and I am willing to be told that I acted wisely or > unwisely, but I am not willing to hear that I was wrong because > someone in Norway has posted that there is one reason where this > ruling is commonly used. I hope that you "designated otherwise" for a legitimate reason. Otherwise I would say that you abused your power as the Director. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 30 01:22:52 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:22:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? In-Reply-To: <004601c4d670$14fca780$299468d5@James> Message-ID: <000801c4d67b$1c949ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > GUTHRIE .............. > No Herman. When declarer knows he has all the tricks, > declarer must claim, rather than make opponents sweat; > but when that is not the case and there is any chance > of defensive error, I believe that it is legal to play > on in the hope of a mistake; but I'm uncertain how far > an ethical player should take this principle. > (a) If you are in a hopeless grand slam, is it OK to > play on in the hope of a revoke? Yes of course? He need not hope for a revoke or some other irregularity. It is sufficient that he hopes for a miracle, a possibility which he may have overlooked. > (b) Is it OK to keep switching from suit to suit to > confuse opponents into revoking e.g. DA HK DQ > HJ and so on... What should be wrong with that as long as he plays his cards with no undue variation in tempo? Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 30 01:26:53 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:26:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c4d67b$ac415220$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil ................. > > And the first Law applying to dummy is Law 41D. Dummy MUST spread = his > > cards correctly. So something like "all players are responsible for > dummy" > > is not true at all. No revoke penalty, but restore equity taking = into > > account that dummy acted againts the Law (offending side). >=20 > You still do not understand do you? Law 41 doesn't say what you claim = it > says: >=20 > "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of = him > on > the table....." >=20 > Turn to the interpretation of the laws (at the very front) and you = will > see > that there is indeed a difference: >=20 > A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy = spreads > his > hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any > suggestion that a violation be penalized. > = _________________________________________________________________________= >=20 > Just go on readind:"....face up, sorted into suits....." >=20 > I still think not spreading all 13 cards faced up is an infraction. It is still a description of correct procedure without any suggestion = that a violation be penalized. Sven From adam@irvine.com Tue Nov 30 01:43:34 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:43:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:26:53 +0100." <000901c4d67b$ac415220$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200411300143.RAA29080@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads > > his > > hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any > > suggestion that a violation be penalized. > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Just go on readind:"....face up, sorted into suits....." > > > > I still think not spreading all 13 cards faced up is an infraction. > > It is still a description of correct procedure without any suggestion that a > violation be penalized. But I haven't seen anything in either of Laval's posts that suggested that the violation should be penalized. He did mention restoring equity, but a score adjustment isn't a penalty. See L12A1, L84E. Or did I miss something? -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 02:26:49 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:26:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <000901c4d67b$ac415220$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laval Dubreil on Law 41D: [snip] >>I still think not spreading all 13 cards faced up is >>an infraction. Sven Pran on Law 41D: >It is still a description of correct procedure without >any suggestion that a violation be penalized. Richard Hills on Law 41D: In my opinion, Sven has taken this sentence, >>>A simple declaration that a player "does" something >>>("...dummy spreads his hand in front of him...") >>>establishes correct procedure without any >>>suggestion that a violation be penalised. from the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, out of context. If one reads the entire Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, it is clear that the quoted word "penalised" is used in the sense "incur a procedural penalty". In my opinion, the Scope and Interpretation is merely reiterating what Law 90B7 states. That is, a violation of correct procedure should not necessarily cause a TD to award a PP, unless the TD has had to award an adjusted score due to the violation of correct procedure. Therefore, in my opinion, Laval is correct in his assertion that a non-offending side may be entitled to a score adjustment if an offending side violates Law 41D. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 03:21:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:21:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player (was: Another claim story) In-Reply-To: <41A6E85D.7090703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael suggestion: >>replace "(at least) a noteworthy minority" by something >>simpler - we shall never know just how many we are >>talking of. Why not "some"? [snip] Grattan Endicott noted: [snip] >Of course, the difficulty I sense on this list is in >accepting that whilst mechanical faults can have >mechanical solutions, for that part of the game >concerned with problems of judgement the law has to >provide judgemental solutions for the Director to >apply. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills agrees: Yes, in my opinion, changing "noteworthy minority" to "some" is an oversimplification which would excessively restrict a TD's use of their judgement in what is unavoidably a judgemental ruling. Suppose 98 peers out of 100 peers polled state that only call X is a reasonable alternative. Suppose that 2 peers out of 100 peers polled state that call Y might be an additional reasonable alternative. Those 2 peers are "some" peers, but they are not a "noteworthy minority" of peers. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 30 03:22:33 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:22:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <200411291857.iATIva8d020568@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411291857.iATIva8d020568@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41ABE779.8000109@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" > I'm still wondering why play was allowed to continue. The > defender claimed one trick, suggested play end, and showed > his hand -- a trifecta of claimage according to L68A. Do > the laws really allow play to continue after a claim just > because partner objects? The problem is the words "partner immediately objects" in L68B and their interpretation by the WBFLC. Despite that, I think Todd has the solution. If a defender has shown his hand or named cards in it in the process of claiming or conceding, the TD should rule that the objection is not "immediate" and then proceed to rule according to L70 (or L71 if there was no claim). Does this sound OK? From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 30 03:32:11 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:32:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <200411291559.iATFxwje006044@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411291559.iATFxwje006044@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41ABE9BB.8040200@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Roger Pewick" > [1] At T11 declarer leads to KQT missing the J. Holding the Jxx LHO > returns his cards to the board [conceding] and RHO who by immediately > objecting committed an improper deception that she held the J [ being void, > her hand could never legally take a trick]. Play was ruled to continue > and declarer did not get it right, and imo could never have gotten it right > after this sequence of events. The defenders kept the trick. If I understand this, the position in the key suit is KQT Jxx void xxx I agree with the other poster that the relevant law is 73F2, which was strengthened in 1997. However, I don't think the TD's ruling is automatic. It depends on exactly what East said and of course on the implications of West's concession. I don't think objecting to the concession necessarily implies that East will win a trick in his own hand, only that he thinks it reasonable or at least possible that a trick will be won. On the other hand, here West's concession seems to deny Jxx, so in this case it seems likely declarer will be given all three tricks but because of West's action, not East's. Maybe we agree after all. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 30 03:37:25 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:37:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <200411291612.iATGCBlj007344@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411291612.iATGCBlj007344@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41ABEAF5.7090700@cfa.harvard.edu> Reno NABC+ Appeal Number Four > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > ...West deliberating and on > lead, East said, "Lead a card." ... > The committee assigned for NS the > contract of 2H doubled -100 and for EW 2H doubled > -470. At first this seems a strange decision, but I think it may be legal. I'm guessing that the committee may have ruled that the infraction was of L73B2, not 73C or 16A1. If so, the AC must decide what would have happened if East's remark had not been made, and evidently they decided it was "at all probable" but not "likely" that West would have lead a losing diamond. If this is indeed the reasoning, the writeup does a poor job of expressing it. From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 30 03:39:56 2004 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:39:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <200411291847.iATIl3Aw019596@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200411291847.iATIl3Aw019596@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <41ABEB8C.9000708@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > You still do not understand do you? Law 41 doesn't say what you claim it > says: > > "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on > the table....." > > Turn to the interpretation of the laws (at the very front) and you will see > that there is indeed a difference: > > A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads his > hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any > suggestion that a violation be penalized. I am astonished, Sven. Nobody is talking about a penalty! All we are talking about is redress for damage if dummy (or another player) fails to follow correct procedure and the opponents are thereby harmed. Please have another look at L12A1. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 03:39:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:39:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor tweaking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: [big snip] >Oddly, I find the present Laws to be >fine, with some minor tweaking necessary [bigger snip] Richard Hills fence-sits: Yes and no. In my opinion, the *content* of the present Laws needs only minor tweaking. In my opinion, the *format* of the present Laws is dreadful. An experienced TD such as Kojak has memorised the content of most Laws, so has no worries. But an amateur club TD often gets lost in the labyrinth of idiosyncratic cross-references. Edgar Kaplan's aversion to renumbering of the Laws makes them extremely hard to navigate if one is an amateur club TD. Also, the Kaplanesque language of the Laws is overly terse for the needs of the amateur club TD. Law 75 has a useful indicative example in its footnote, but even better would be indicative examples as footnotes throughout the Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 04:11:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:11:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] An LA for one side only In-Reply-To: <3B38B5C2-4212-11D9-AEE7-0030656F6826@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ACBL AC ruling: >>Nevertheless, though a diamond lead was plausible, >>after the play of the jack at trick nine, it could >>not possibly be logical for West to lead a >>diamond. The committee assigned for NS the >>contract of 2H doubled -100 and for EW 2H doubled >>-470. Ed Reppert: >This ruling is illegal. If West has no logical >alternative to a spade lead, then there was no >infraction. No infraction, no adjustment. :-( Richard Hills: The ACBL AC ruling may be illegal. But it is not illegal for the reason propounded by Ed. As has been noted in other threads, "not possibly be logical" and "not possibly be a logical alternative" are *not* synonymous, because "logical alternative" is a misnomer. However, was the splitting of the score legal in the ACBL? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From vds@yahoo.com Tue Nov 30 05:13:56 2004 From: vds@yahoo.com (vds@yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:13:56 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Business opportunity Message-ID:

You are receiving this because you or someone you know has signed your address to receive communication from us.Remove please click here:emailad1234@sina.com we will remove at once.Thank you


Business opportunity!


  YOU WANT TO BOOST THE PROFITABILITY OF YOUR BUSINESS? YOU ALREADY HAVE PROFITABLE BULK EMAIL CAMPAIGNS? WE OFFER YOU THE BEST PRODUCT ON THE MARKET.
We offer you e-mail addresses databases for advertisement mailing; we sell databases also carry out mailing and hosting for the advertising projects.

These are all 100% opt-in email addresses, meaning that the subscribers have requested to receive info on subjects they are interested in.
This is not junk mail. Our opt-in email lists are 100% permission-based and 100% legal to use.
All emails are verified and fresh.
  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 and price

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
Canada       10 Million Email Address  
Russia       38 Million Email Address
England      22 Million Email Address
German       40 Million Email Address  
France       38 Million Email Address
India        12 Million Email Address
other Country or Area  

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

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


Send Your Ad to Millions

10  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!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Products 2

Web hosting
We offer web hosting service.
price :
100MB/1 year $100US 2 years $150US
200MB/1 year $120US 2 years $180US
1GB/1 year   $180US 2 years $220US
2GB/1 year   $220US 2 years $280US





Details go to website

If you can't see website or have some questions,please email us : web987@163.com  Thank you



the email company

copyright¡¤2004-2005 all reserved


You are receiving this because you or someone you know has signed your address to receive communication from us.Remove please click here:emailad1234@sina.comwe will remove at once.Thank you

From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 06:11:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:11:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <41ABE779.8000109@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>The problem is the words "partner immediately >>objects" in L68B and their interpretation by >>the WBFLC. Despite that, I think Todd has the >>solution. If a defender has shown his hand or >>named cards in it in the process of claiming >>or conceding, the TD should rule that the >>objection is not "immediate" and then proceed >>to rule according to L70 (or L71 if there was >>no claim). >> >>Does this sound OK? Matthew, chapter 23, verse 24: >Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and >swallow a camel. Richard Hills: Nope, not OK. One cannot rectify the WBF LC's swallowing of a camel by a strained definition of the word "immediate". The WBF LC interpretation specifically included a reference to Law 16, but failed to include any reference to Law 49. It seems to me that the WBF LC simply forgot that requiring play to go on after an objected joint claim/concession might have penalty card implications. In my opinion, had the WBF LC been aware of the unintended Law 49 consequences of its Law 68B interpretation, it may have opted to adopt the alternative interpretation of Law 68B instead, that play ceases even after a mere partial claim. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 30 08:53:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:53:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <000701c4d67a$9031bf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c4d67a$9031bf30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41AC3503.9070101@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Sorry Sven, but this is absolute bollocks. >> >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>Law 50 "unless the director designates otherwise" has been >>>interpreted to concern cases where the players without >>>summoning the Director have designated a card as a penalty >>>card "if the Director subsequently feels that rights have >>>been jeopardized by a failure to call him earlier; he may >>>cancel a ruling agreed and carried out by the players >>>before he is called to the table if this action is the >>>best resolution of difficulties which players have created >>>prior to summoning him". >>> >>>So the answer to your question is NO, the Director does >>>not have unlimited power to "designate otherwise". >>> >> >>L50 has no such interpretation. You cite ONE case in which >>it is sensible for a TD to rule in this manner. One case >>which does not in any way preclude others. > > > You could have made a better guess! > > I quoted: > "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" > by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen, > issued in the name of European Bridge League in 1992. > And I am quite certain that this book does not contain the logical error that you made. You state that since there is just one example given for a "designate otherwise" that there can be no others. That is a logical error. > As the applicable law text has not been changed from 1987 to 1997, and as > far as I know no further comments on this particular part of that law has > been issued by WBFLC since 1992 this commentary must be assumed still in > force. > > >>Yes the Director DOES have unlimited powers to designate otherwise. I >>have done so, and I am willing to be told that I acted wisely or >>unwisely, but I am not willing to hear that I was wrong because >>someone in Norway has posted that there is one reason where this >>ruling is commonly used. > > > I hope that you "designated otherwise" for a legitimate reason. Otherwise I > would say that you abused your power as the Director. > But how can there be a non-legitimate reason? The law does not say when the TD should or should not exercise this power! As for your assessment of whether or not my reasons were good enough, I don't expect you would agree with me on that particular case. But I do have the power to do it. > Sven -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 30 09:00:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:00:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? In-Reply-To: <004601c4d670$14fca780$299468d5@James> References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> <41AB38D8.8090209@hdw.be> <004601c4d670$14fca780$299468d5@James> Message-ID: <41AC36CA.3090804@hdw.be> Hello Nigel, You made a very interesting typo in this title - I assume you meant oR. I noticed the typo because I've made it before, only in my case it's not a type, but a wrong habit - the flemish for OR is OF. GUTHRIE wrote: >>>(: An extreme example from "the good old days"... >>> S:K >>> H- >>> D:xx >>> C:xx >>>S:AQJ9 S:T >>>H:A N H:KQ >>>D- W + E D:AK >>>C- S C- >>> S:2 >>> H- >>> D:xx >>> C:xx >>>In an ending something like this, my father, Charles >>>Guthrie was on lead as declarer, South, in a spade >>>contract against expert opponents. The West defender >>>claimed the rest but the director ruled that East >>>could be made to over-ruff South's club and lead a >>>heart. Thus South emerged with two more tricks :) > > [Herman de Wael] > >>And you think this is a good thing? You don't think >>that your father should be criticized for not claiming >>zero tricks here? (I did notice the smiley, yes) > > [Nigel] > No Herman. When declarer knows he has all the tricks, > declarer must claim, rather than make opponents sweat; Where do you read that? L74B4? - don't you see the "as in"? Could it not be argued that another case in the same vein is "playing on although one knows that all tricks bar one are surely his"? > but when that is not the case and there is any chance > of defensive error, I believe that it is legal to play > on in the hope of a mistake; but I'm uncertain how far > an ethical player should take this principle. I agree that it is legal, but it is discourteous. Assuming that opponents would throw their ace of clubs when you have showed out in hearts and diamonds is, IMHO discourteous. But not illegal, no. > (a) If you are in a hopeless grand slam, is it OK to > play on in the hope of a revoke? I don't believe so. > (b) Is it OK to keep switching from suit to suit to > confuse opponents into revoking e.g. DA HK DQ > HJ and so on... > I don't think so. But what happened above is even worse than those two. Not only did your father not concede, he played on and waited for his opponent to claim. Then when the opponent did so, your father called the director and had him find an obscure line so as to make two more tricks. But this is a fictitious story probably, so let's not linger on it ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 30 10:00:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:00:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c4d6c3$6f0c9980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au (relates also to the post from Steve - what a penalty is) > >>I still think not spreading all 13 cards faced up is > >>an infraction. >=20 > Sven Pran on Law 41D: >=20 > >It is still a description of correct procedure without > >any suggestion that a violation be penalized. >=20 > Richard Hills on Law 41D: >=20 > In my opinion, Sven has taken this sentence, >=20 > >>>A simple declaration that a player "does" something > >>>("...dummy spreads his hand in front of him...") > >>>establishes correct procedure without any > >>>suggestion that a violation be penalised. >=20 > from the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, out of > context. >=20 > If one reads the entire Scope and Interpretation of > the Laws, it is clear that the quoted word "penalised" > is used in the sense "incur a procedural penalty". Is it? Just for a few samples look at laws 24 through 27 and 30 through = 32. There you will find the term "penalty" used frequently in situations = seldom or never calling for PP. A player who consistently ignores the instruction in Law 41D to spread = his cards as specified even after being told by me as Director to obey this instruction will eventually face a PP. True, technically that will not = be for violating Law 41D but for violating Law 90B7 or 90B8. =20 > In my opinion, the Scope and Interpretation is merely > reiterating what Law 90B7 states. That is, a violation > of correct procedure should not necessarily cause a TD > to award a PP, unless the TD has had to award an > adjusted score due to the violation of correct > procedure. True, but the Scope and Interpretation goes further. It associates a = precise interpretation (weight) to the different verbs used in the laws. >=20 > Therefore, in my opinion, Laval is correct in his > assertion that a non-offending side may be entitled > to a score adjustment if an offending side violates > Law 41D. They may indeed, but only if they have paid sufficient attention so that they cannot reasonably themselves be blamed for their damage. Eventually this will always have to be a matter of judgment by the Director. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 30 10:12:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:12:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <41AC3503.9070101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c4d6c5$21dbc990$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > > I hope that you "designated otherwise" for a legitimate > > reason. Otherwise I would say that you abused your power > > as the Director. > > > > But how can there be a non-legitimate reason? The law does > not say when the TD should or should not exercise this power! > As for your assessment of whether or not my reasons were good > enough, I don't expect you would agree with me on that > particular case. But I do have the power to do it. I have no idea and cannot assess whether your reason was good enough. I haven't even tried to do that. But if you "designated otherwise" just because you for instance felt sorry for the offender I would say that you grossly overstepped your powers. Sven From emu@atrax.net.au Tue Nov 30 10:37:15 2004 From: emu@atrax.net.au (Noel and Pamela) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:37:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c4d6c8$91c50cf0$c85cdccb@noeltsui0kso1i> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:40 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Concede of carry on? Nigel Guthrie asked: >When declarer knows he has all the tricks, >declarer must claim, rather than make >opponents sweat; but when that is not the >case and there is any chance of defensive >error, I believe that it is legal to play >on in the hope of a mistake; but I'm >uncertain how far an ethical player should >take this principle. > >(a) If you are in a hopeless grand slam, is > it OK to play on in the hope of a > revoke? [snip] Richard Hills replies: [snip] >On the other hand, if declarer is unsure >whether the grand slam will fail by one >trick or by two tricks, then declarer has a >legitimate bridge reason to play out the >deal, and may legitimately get lucky if a >revoke lets the grand slam make. >Best wishes >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and general guru Having been in this situation on two occasions, I played on both times. On them: 1. A defender miss-discarded allowing the GS to make? Was I wrong to do this? 2. A defender revoked and the GS made. I asked the Director to waive the penalty. (He did.) My partner was livid. [I don't play with him anymore.] regards, Noel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 30 10:47:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:47:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <000b01c4d6c5$21dbc990$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c4d6c5$21dbc990$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <41AC4FC7.2010707@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>>I hope that you "designated otherwise" for a legitimate >>>reason. Otherwise I would say that you abused your power >>>as the Director. >>> >> >>But how can there be a non-legitimate reason? The law does >>not say when the TD should or should not exercise this power! >>As for your assessment of whether or not my reasons were good >>enough, I don't expect you would agree with me on that >>particular case. But I do have the power to do it. > > > I have no idea and cannot assess whether your reason was good enough. I > haven't even tried to do that. But if you "designated otherwise" just > because you for instance felt sorry for the offender I would say that you > grossly overstepped your powers. > And you would be correct in so assessing. Looking back on it, I did realize I acted out of sorry for the offender (I'll tell the story sometime - it's amusing). But my point is that the Laws do not indicate when the TD is to use their powers in not designating a shown card to be a penalty card. You have mentioned one example, and your example is a correct one, and it is specifically mentioned in the black book you so love (and there's nothing wrong with that - it is a great book). But one example does not render all other cases inapplicable. There must be other examples in which the TD would be right in "designating otherwise". I firmly believe that the case of the shown CK which triggered this thread is one such example where the TD would be damn correct in not making the CK a MPC. Do you understand the point I am trying to make here? I'm not saying you would be wrong in not applying the "designate otherwise", I'm just saying that your argument for not so doing would be wrong. One example does not exclude other uses of the same paragraph. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 30 10:57:25 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:57:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman designated otherwise in Bangladesh Message-ID: <41AC5215.90406@hdw.be> This is the story of me applying L50 "deignates otherwise". I am telling the story because I've alluded to it in some messages, but I don't believe it is particularly helpful in that thread. The story does not happen in Bangladesh (I'd wish) but in a tournament for the benefit of a girl's school in Bangladesh, conducted last week in Brasschaat - and I dare all English speakers to try and pronounce that one. The story is this: Dummy comes down, and it contains (among others) the King of diamonds. Defender now says "something must be wrong, because I too have the king of diamonds". While saying this, she shows a string of diamonds to the table (I believe 7 of them), including, at the correct place, the King .. of hearts. This is quickly pointed out to her and "Ooops, Director". So I did feel sorry for her, and I did not want to give the declarer the option of having her throw all diamonds under dummy's, so I ruled that the HK became a MPC and I "designated otherwise" all diamonds back in hand (I did make it UI to partner). Yes Sven, I know I shouldn't have - but I feel I have the power and under the circumstances it felt "equitable". And no, I would not rule the same in a European Championship (or in the Bangladeshi first league). But a number of Asian girls will be happy that two ladies will return next year to play the same tournament once again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 30 10:59:40 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:59:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <000901c4d6c8$93200910$c85cdccb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000901c4d6c8$93200910$c85cdccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <41AC529C.6060701@hdw.be> Noel and Pamela wrote: > Pray tell, where "Bollocks" rates, on the "Crap" scale? > I wish to apologise to Sven, and to Noel and all readers, about the use of unfriendly words. I was trying to stress that I thought Sven's reasoning was particularly wrong. I again state that it was the reasoning which was wrong - not necessarily the thing Sven is trying to defend. (I believe that is wrong too, but not as strongly as "bollocks") > regards, > Noel > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Nov 30 11:18:59 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:18:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Herman designated otherwise in Bangladesh In-Reply-To: <41AC5215.90406@hdw.be> References: <41AC5215.90406@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 30 Nov 2004, at 10:57, Herman De Wael wrote: > So I did feel sorry for her, and I did not want to give ... Why do we so often hear things like this from Herman? It doesn't seem a sound basis for ruling. > But a number of Asian girls will be happy that two ladies will return > next year to play the same tournament once again. I'm sure they'd also have returned if the proper ruling had been given in an appropriate manner. When I was a beginner, there was nothing that irritated me more than being patronised. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 30 11:23:30 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:23:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <41AC4FC7.2010707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000f01c4d6cf$051ae700$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............. > >>But how can there be a non-legitimate reason? The law does > >>not say when the TD should or should not exercise this power! > >>As for your assessment of whether or not my reasons were good > >>enough, I don't expect you would agree with me on that > >>particular case. But I do have the power to do it. > > > > > > I have no idea and cannot assess whether your reason was good = enough. I > > haven't even tried to do that. But if you "designated otherwise" = just > > because you for instance felt sorry for the offender I would say = that=20 > > you grossly overstepped your powers. > > >=20 > And you would be correct in so assessing. Looking back on it, I did > realize I acted out of sorry for the offender (I'll tell the story > sometime - it's amusing). That matches my suspicion. (I wonder whether I shall find the story = amusing or tragic) >=20 > But my point is that the Laws do not indicate when the TD is to use > their powers in not designating a shown card to be a penalty card. The Director is given great freedom to select how he wants to apply the laws. The fact that Law 50 says "unless the Director designates = otherwise" without adding the words "for cause" or similar cannot be taken as a = permit to "designate otherwise" just at will. There must still be some = defendable cause for the Director to overrule the general principle in Law 49.=20 > You have mentioned one example, and your example is a correct one, and > it is specifically mentioned in the black book you so love (and > there's nothing wrong with that - it is a great book). True, I consider that "black book" a tremendous work with great value. = It clarifies a lot of the doubtful points in the laws, either by direct interpretations or by interpretations through examples. Examples they are, and as such they are not exhaustive but they give the reader the general idea on how to apply the laws. > But one example does not render all other cases inapplicable. There > must be other examples in which the TD would be right in "designating > otherwise".=20 "There must be"? Why? The principle shown by the example in the "black = book" is that the Director should consider "designating otherwise" when an irregularity at the table has led to the forfeiture of rights for the offending side.=20 Such irregularities can occur in many ways but I can hardly imagine any situation where a defender exposes a card and the Director is = immediately summoned to the table that he should "designate otherwise" (except as instructed in the footnote to Law 68). I firmly believe that the case of the shown CK which > triggered this thread is one such example where the TD would be damn > correct in not making the CK a MPC. You firmly believe, I don't.=20 =20 > Do you understand the point I am trying to make here? I'm not saying > you would be wrong in not applying the "designate otherwise", I'm just > saying that your argument for not so doing would be wrong. One example > does not exclude other uses of the same paragraph. As already implied, I fully agree. One example doesn't exclude others. = But the given example sets a standard and I don't consider this standard = being met in your case. Regards Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 30 11:30:00 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:30:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman designated otherwise in Bangladesh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c4d6cf$eda42b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > On 30 Nov 2004, at 10:57, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > So I did feel sorry for her, and I did not want to give ... > > Why do we so often hear things like this from Herman? It doesn't seem a > sound basis for ruling. > > > But a number of Asian girls will be happy that two ladies will return > > next year to play the same tournament once again. > > I'm sure they'd also have returned if the proper ruling had been given > in an appropriate manner. > When I was a beginner, there was nothing that irritated me more than > being patronised. My experience with beginners is that they very much appreciate the correct ruling together with a friendly explanation on what they could have done differently. I believe they consider it a valuable part of their education in the game of Bridge. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 30 11:59:05 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:59:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <000a01c4d6ce$4f57fcf0$c85cdccb@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <000a01c4d6ce$4f57fcf0$c85cdccb@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <41AC6089.8090208@hdw.be> Actually, I consider my conversations on blml (and this includes those involving Sven, oh sure it does) to be similar to those with close friends over a drink. Consequently the language seemed appropriate to me - even if not to others. Noel and Pamela wrote: > Thank you. You didn't need to out yourself. I know how easy it is to lapse > into language that you might use with close friends over a drink, but should > be avoided in other circumstances. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 30 12:01:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:01:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman designated otherwise in Bangladesh In-Reply-To: References: <41AC5215.90406@hdw.be> Message-ID: <41AC610C.1070705@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 30 Nov 2004, at 10:57, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> So I did feel sorry for her, and I did not want to give ... > > > Why do we so often hear things like this from Herman? It doesn't seem a > sound basis for ruling. > Because I'm human after all, and the punters need to be happy. Moreover, I think L50 explicitely allows this ruling, even if you don't agree that it should be done in these circumstances. But then you don't know the circumstances, do you? >> But a number of Asian girls will be happy that two ladies will return >> next year to play the same tournament once again. > > > I'm sure they'd also have returned if the proper ruling had been given > in an appropriate manner. > When I was a beginner, there was nothing that irritated me more than > being patronised. > Maybe they would have, I knew these two - and they are certainly not beginners. But the general athmosphere of the tournament was. > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 30 14:25:55 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:25:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? References: <001201c4d5fb$24659080$6900a8c0@WINXP> <007901c4d613$4114a050$0b9868d5@James> <41AB38D8.8090209@hdw.be> <004601c4d670$14fca780$299468d5@James> <41AC36CA.3090804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00b101c4d6e8$82e24480$2c9868d5@James> > [Herman de Wael] > But what happened above is even worse than those two. > Not only did your father not concede, he played on and > waited for his opponent to claim. Then when the opponent > did so, your father called the director and had him find > an obscure line so as to make two more tricks. But this > is a fictitious story probably, so let's not linger on it > ... [Nigel] I'm hazy about details but the example is based on fact. Naturally, Charles is scrupulously legal and ethical. I resent Herman's implications to the contrary. My father played on, rather than conceding, because he hoped for a defensive mistake or a lucky end position. He and I still believe that this is both legal and ethical. In our view, bridge is mainly a game of mistakes. Hence, to win, you must provide opponents with some opportunity to make mistakes. Charles had no premonition that his opponents would claim. I (dummy) called the director because I wondered if the interesting ending was covered by the law. Also, please note that a careless mistake by RHO may be very unlikely but that the claim made it virtually impossible. The director ruled according to the law of the time. It was a club duplicate (aggregate scoring I think). The score on this board did not affect the result. Everybody, especially LHO, Ian Morrison, found the whole episode amusing. (: Finally, Yes, "OF" was a typo for "OR" :) >>>(: An extreme example from "the good old days"... >>> S:K >>> H- >>> D:xx >>> C:xx >>>S:AQJ9 S:T >>>H:A N H:KQ >>>D- W + E D:AK >>>C- S C- >>> S:2 >>> H- >>> D:xx >>> C:xx >>>In an ending something like this, my father, Charles >>>Guthrie was on lead as declarer, South, in a spade >>>contract against expert opponents. The West defender >>>claimed the rest but the director ruled that East >>>could be made to over-ruff South's club and lead a >>>heart. Thus South emerged with two more tricks :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Nov 30 14:57:54 2004 From: picatou@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:57:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: Therefore, in my opinion, Laval is correct in his assertion that a non-offending side may be entitled to a score adjustment if an offending side violates Law 41D. ___________________________________________________ May be next version of Law 41D should clearly stated that all 13 cards must be visible. But in the meanwhile I will continue to use my judgment and adjust score if the hidden card should have penalized defenders. That is how I "read" and interpret these Laws as Law 81 allows me to do. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 30 15:05:40 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:05:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? References: Message-ID: <00ee01c4d6ee$1033fea0$2c9868d5@James> > [Richard James Hills] > If declarer is certain that (without a revoke) the > grand slam will fail by exactly one trick, then > declarer's failure to claim one down is an infraction > of Law 74B4, "prolonging play unnecessarily ... for > the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". In that > case, declarer is hoping for a major disconcerting of > an opponent via the illegal *unnecessary* slow play > (known in Canberra as the Soporific Coup), so a > consequential revoke. [Nigel] I tend to agree with Richard that it may be *unethical* for declarer to play on when he believes that the only hope is a revoke; but few declarers are confident that their analysis is perfect; so I'm amazed that he believes it to be *illegal*. In real life, Sven is right again. As in my example in this thread, it is highly unlikely that a defensive revoke is declarer's only chance. Usually defenders will have many opportunities to make *non-mechanical* errors. Less often, declarer plays to a bizarre unforeseen position, of which he can belatedly take advantage. Contrary to Richard's view: it is arguable that, in most practical cases, it is the premature concession that is *illegal* -- because it is like opening 7NT without looking at your hand. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 30 15:09:54 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Objected Concession In-Reply-To: <001d01c4d62d$32761b90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, Nov 29, 2004, at 11:05 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > (Actually this is my favourite way of having players claim). It's my favorite way of claiming. Yet I *still* get puzzled looks from opponents and "don't I get my ace?" :-( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 30 15:30:17 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:30:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <002001c4d634$fb97a780$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, Nov 29, 2004, at 12:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >> Laval Dubreuil >> Like I was told when I first graduated as a Director: Make sure you >> read >> and >> understand the complete law that is applicable to the situation and >> also >> check up on all references to other laws from the one you are using. >> Remember that footnotes are part of the laws to which they are >> appended. >> >> Following this principle would have saved you some headache here. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> And the first Law applying to dummy is Law 41D. Dummy MUST spread his >> cards correctly. So something like "all players are responsible for >> dummy" >> is not true at all. No revoke penalty, but restore equity taking into >> account that dummy acted againts the Law (offending side). > > You still do not understand do you? Law 41 doesn't say what you claim > it > says: > > "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of > him on > the table....." > > Turn to the interpretation of the laws (at the very front) and you > will see > that there is indeed a difference: > > A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy > spreads his > hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any > suggestion that a violation be penalized. A score adjustment is not a penalty. From john@asimere.com Tue Nov 30 17:51:00 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:51:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <000901c4d67b$ac415220$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c4d67b$ac415220$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000901c4d67b$ac415220$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Laval Dubreuil >................. >> > And the first Law applying to dummy is Law 41D. Dummy MUST spread his >> > cards correctly. So something like "all players are responsible for >> dummy" >> > is not true at all. No revoke penalty, but restore equity taking into >> > account that dummy acted againts the Law (offending side). >> >> You still do not understand do you? Law 41 doesn't say what you claim it >> says: >> >> "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him >> on >> the table....." >> >> Turn to the interpretation of the laws (at the very front) and you will >> see >> that there is indeed a difference: >> >> A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads >> his >> hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any >> suggestion that a violation be penalized. >> _________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Just go on readind:"....face up, sorted into suits....." >> >> I still think not spreading all 13 cards faced up is an infraction. > >It is still a description of correct procedure without any suggestion that a >violation be penalized. and what would a cheat do? ... John > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Nov 30 17:53:54 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:53:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >I face the future with trepidation! After over 50 years of running >tournaments from all levels from club to 19 world championships, this coming >week I'll be running an ACBL Regional in Wiesbaden Germany without the help >of all the interpretations, readings, explanations, and erudition of the >gurus. Arrgghh! Wiesbaden! When does it start? Name of hotel?? 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 Guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 30 18:33:44 2004 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:33:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? References: <00ee01c4d6ee$1033fea0$2c9868d5@James> Message-ID: <004101c4d70b$21903ed0$689468d5@James> [: Nigel] Sorry -- forgot smilies :] > [Richard James Hills] > If declarer is certain that (without a revoke) the > grand slam will fail by exactly one trick, then > declarer's failure to claim one down is an infraction > of Law 74B4, "prolonging play unnecessarily ... for > the purpose of disconcerting an opponent". In that > case, declarer is hoping for a major disconcerting of > an opponent via the illegal *unnecessary* slow play > (known in Canberra as the Soporific Coup), so a > consequential revoke. [Nigel] I tend to agree with Richard that it may be *unethical* for declarer to play on when he believes that the only hope is a revoke; but few declarers are confident that their analysis is perfect; so I'm amazed that he believes it to be *illegal*. In real life, Sven is right again. As in my example in this thread, it is highly unlikely that a defensive revoke is declarer's only chance. Usually defenders will have many opportunities to make *non-mechanical* errors. Less often, declarer plays to an unforeseen position, of which he can belatedly take advantage. (: it is arguable that, in most practical cases, it is the premature concession that is *illegal* -- because it is like opening 7NT without looking at your hand :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 _______________________________________________ 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: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 21:55:52 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:55:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Designates otherwise In-Reply-To: <000f01c4d6cf$051ae700$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >The principle shown by the example in the "black book" >is that the Director should consider "designating >otherwise" when an irregularity at the table has led >to the forfeiture of rights for the offending side. > >Such irregularities can occur in many ways but I can >hardly imagine any situation where a defender exposes >a card and the Director is immediately summoned to the >table that he should "designate otherwise" (except as >instructed in the footnote to Law 68). [snip] Richard Hills: There was an earlier thread on blml which discussed an ACBL TD and ACBL AC "designating otherwise" for a reason outside Sven's posited principle. A palsied defender had to store her hand in a card rack. During the defence, she accidentally knocked over her card rack, exposing all her cards. The TD and AC used Law 16B to override Law 49, ruling that her exposed cards were not penalty cards, but merely UI to her partner. While equity was served by this ACBL ruling, I agree with Sven that the ACBL ruling was of dubious legality. In that earlier thread, my personal opinion was that the 2006 edition of the Laws should be amended to specifically permit a TD to cancel penalty cards caused by a player's physical disability. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 22:56:21 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:56:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Scrambled eggs Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C 1H 2C Pass Pass Dbl 2D Dbl 3C Pass Pass 3D Pass Pass Dbl 3H Dbl ? You, South, hold: AQJ8 AT764 6 J87 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From henk@amsterdamned.org Tue Nov 30 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 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 Tue Nov 30 23:39:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:39:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another hidden card in dummy In-Reply-To: <000a01c4d6c3$6f0c9980$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>If one reads the entire Scope and Interpretation of >>the Laws, it is clear that the quoted word "penalised" >>is used in the sense "incur a procedural penalty". Sven Pran: >Is it? Just for a few samples look at laws 24 through >27 and 30 through 32. There you will find the term >"penalty" used frequently in situations seldom or >never calling for PP. Richard Hills: I am *not* arguing that all uses of the word "penalty" in the Laws must mean "incur a procedural penalty". I merely note that one sentence in the Scope and Interpretation uses "penalised", while another sentence in the Scope and Interpretation uses the periphrastic phrase "incur a procedural penalty". As other blmlers have noted, this discussion is moot anyway. If a Law (such as Law 41D) does not prescribe a specific mechanical penalty for its infraction, a TD may use Law 12A1 to award an adjusted score. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 30 23:54:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:54:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Concede of carry on? In-Reply-To: <00b101c4d6e8$82e24480$2c9868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >I (dummy) called the director because I wondered if the >interesting ending was covered by the law. >Also, please note that a careless mistake by RHO may be very >unlikely but that the claim made it virtually impossible. >The director ruled according to the law of the time. [snip] Richard Hills: The TD did not completely rule according to the law of the time, because the law of the time prohibited dummy from summoning the TD. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 30 10:26:18 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:26:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Objected Concession References: <000601c4d227$44fc4f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003501c4d73b$17ea7460$3fa587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ********************************* "What is called the serenity of age is only perhaps a euphemism for the fading power to feel the sudden shock of joy or sorrow." ~ Arthur Bliss. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:12 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Objected Concession > Hans-Olof Hallén > I don´t see that the Ace of clubs can be a penalty card. > Play ceases (law 68 D). The TD decides the number of > tricks to each side. > Sorry Hans, you have overlooked the last part of Law 68B: > If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and > his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; > As the Ace of Clubs is exposed by a defender in an action > not related to a statement concerning an uncompleted trick > currently in progress (see Law 49) it becomes a major > penalty card. Regards Sven +=+ Interesting. I wonder if the exposure of the Ace was the claim of a trick and concession of the remainder, to be examined by the Director quite separately from any claim and/or concession by opponent? ~ Grattan ~ +=+