Message

Dear valued customer	Need Help?

We = regret to inform you that your eBay account could be suspended if you don= 't=20 re-update your account information. To resolve this problems please click here=20 and re-enter your account information. If your problems could not be re= solved your account will be suspended for a period of 3-4 days, after=20 this period your account will be terminated.

=20 For the User Agreement, Section 9, we may immediately issue a warning, = temporarily suspend, indefinitely suspend or terminate your membership an= d refuse to provide our services to you if we believe that your actions m= ay cause financial loss or legal liability for you, our users or us. We m= ay also take these actions if we are unable to verify or authenticate any= information you provide to us.

Due to the suspension of this= account, please be advised you are prohibited from using eBay in any way= . This includes the registering of a new=20 account. Please note that this suspension does not relieve you of your = agreed-upon obligation to pay any fees you may owe to eBay.
<= STRONG>

Regards,Safeharbor Department eBay, Inc

The eBay team.

This is an automatic message. Pl= ease do not reply.

Announcements | Register | Safe Tradi= ng Tips | Policies | Feedback Forum | About eBay

Copyright =A9 1995-2003 eBay I= nc. All Rights Reserved.
Designated trademarks and brands are the prop= erty of their respective owners.
Use of this Web site constitutes acce= ptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

<= /DIV> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV + ClamSMTP From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 16 16:10:33 2005 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:10:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club References: <000001c4f9a6$b5f9c970$6401a8c0@hare>

Message-ID: <000001c4fbe6$2d6fad80$ecca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: ; "John (MadDog) Probst" Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] It happened at the local club > My purpose is to bring attention to the idea that we > must have supplementary regulations to the Laws, > and that some of what is now "Law" probably belongs > there. All too much of what is "procedure" and "well, > we always do it that way" needs to be codified in Rules > and Regulations, and these need to take into account > the level of public being served. I'm sorry that I did not > make that point clearly and immediately in my posting. > I do not wish for differing sets of laws - I do wish for > the Laws to cover the immutable structure of our game > as MadDog says in his analogy. I greatly respect the > ACBL, EBU (or is it "L"), Norwegian Bridge League, > etc., who have taken the time and effort to train the > TDs to use their good judgment when situations and > events go beyond the guidance in the Laws. > > Kojak < +=+ There is very little here that I can quarrel with. No doubt Kojak means that the Laws should define clearly the powers of regulation available; it is for the laws to state clearly what are core game matters and which are matters susceptible to variation by regulation. The laws must, of course, provide a default arrangement for all of the variable items in order not to leave a hole where regulating bodies omit to act . My personal view is that, since we are well aware of desires in several quarters of the globe to have control of a variety of (?) 'fringe subjects' under the laws, we should do our best to provide the flexibility these several authorities ask. None of them will pretend, I hope, to an absolute judgement of what is 'right' for the whole world in such things, and it would be 'brave' of a central authority to seek to impose a single universal rule. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rmfszzozpr@adelphia.net Mon Jan 17 05:17:07 2005 From: rmfszzozpr@adelphia.net (Juliet Todd) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:17:07 -0200 Subject: [blml] Välúim and XàÑªx Siavgns Message-ID: <20050117052411.0DDA818B@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------331137351620140 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----36686829299240661" ------36686829299240661 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Canuck Prhamayc *****on premediation requisite***** * Lowest Prices * Valor, Xray, Vitality, Supa, Amor, Philosophy, moo!! * Fearful Desire *****on premeditation requisite***** ------36686829299240661 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =

------36686829299240661-- ------331137351620140 Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhswGlAHcAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALAEAAQCx AaIAgQAAAIAAgP///wECAwL/hI+py+0Po5y0uoCzrRrvlIWBoX3miabqyrbuC8dNIIS1DNCjh4rY rcMJh8Si8YhMKnikWyy4YpJ2TqX1is1qt73q9CD6hhBjsG03mpZ8aVC7+Qub12z6W672SKXcvv8P qMIHUhOXYwN0BlYYxKNj+GjoNhkJ5ZMXlykZ6VSZUzUYKDpKOhoKh2oJ1JmY1kjluhr7hgnJCpua ePt1aMb7iloqPEyMdUoy99mm5wqc6poM1UsoUF0968vUuKv8rNYt1lw8Tl7+ROv2I+t7qJO4iIa5 zkt2GTwtMq+K3V4ITvbOnMCBBCcMOhNGmh5Gzrot7ICLHrsloGBlCAhun7Ix/9LqdSwIMiTBjg23 LYvnzZvCiNPqMVjZsiS3RxX/OSohMqdOcpVMHprXC+I6SLhsnVyC7t7Dnygz7nLUaenGnVSrlqJh TVsNRjbRbF3zNaC7DjUnLYAZh6tWfiYvzvLy0arcucZwRoM2EWI0enpzuDR79m+7oHfIGP7mN5lg uowbO358D7LkyZTNSaqMObNmQMc2e/4MOrTo0aRLmz6NOrXq1axbu34NO7bs2bRr276NO7fu3bx7 +/4NPLjw4cSLGz+OPLny5cybO38OPbr06dSrW7+OPbv27dy7e/8OPrx46nb33DmveCKmGfbata9z soxH8+9vyoGPxz19wHPyw/+fTwsfEDVTHxu1oGPeYgIm5VtCHOGHBlkBnsSIFwApstFFt9iDlTp3 VLgMQ9cEU0krmrgFj4fw8AeHhvG9B+JiDkWFyCwcivhihP85aNdvLkII5EJwxbciUhf+kxGDgy1p U1T16PNhlEd2xcqQRprh5EuglLWiJefxcyWJQeL3CVfD4YTmfoiNxc5HcS2IJD4MkiTVXYREBGeR Yl4pX0vqJallgFl2OWgucwpKYHpdEUkcMxnmoUYrsmgjzp1himHhTewlFdefPvnpJ0lAdXnZQYhK JOMvp3ppVqegtkUggZLG09luO4CRWK4g4Gqjk52aemRPXhpYZnlK6rfJoJf/IflpsHgiyAaN93Fa KaGxophhGcD6tcxLvH47nk91plpiLNZcEyKx/fgDKjVZpdtih5ZaSxFKmrqLbo50nIWRoU2cuxaH 0I4HA6v3sohsutii+pJRm/Y5bJ+RNUtqSgDS2fBZ1fqrH1wW/tkuwSnsc7CeICvFJYsUD7ZWkbWK urHFkVwKk8Y2v8oWvJHJ6KrIJijErpsfnwIzwzuP65CUgF7gccxyzkdzylNimCerLn+Mas8+bwB0 RTojPLG090W1IVNZQ/lA0Wta/e/AU9fxzIgtkljojMRGe+zWFqjN1LKpHr3KuXJnInfbhQuINtNK 9334qQhvI/iWbmlViORn/1MReeAA691Cjwv2+DeT2cDdH7TGImVv3sZOePrjpidMX535PZ0Omepy jjsReefOe+++/w588MIPT3zxxh+PfPLKL898884/D3300k9PffXWX4999tpvz3333n8Pfvjij09+ +eafj3766q/PfvushQK6EdTOfrL7tOkxbxIHZc4p1vbD1p6dyQ9BDPGb6P43G4nFSTCUysvrIDUl lSCDXG5DoGcU+KsO4SlLGlwEuoqVv3DQpBmNKyG7LJgZ/IUwXiPcUz4sMiDHPUMRnIChfeKHws+8 CV4PsUhNrLa/F9KtKY5qUd1yCJoduoQZjuoJiBp4Jzy0DHFCnBkSSaPEbP/gqIfTGhwBD5WiTBXw JoW7YhKHhh73mK1mJGyKyRiIkSJOsI1mDM2bZvIKMEmlIW/MSxyJWDkw1XEzwsqD5ZqELaqdcIF8 mRSsNoTDQU6GdGpUzOoolSY1hckOmIydJD8JylCKcpSkLKUpT4nK0WwLbLR7ged2dw7U1UoGAURC JNlzsyioa5YSgCUFbskZTc1OaGAMmS4jaEsxAvMJOLLCMi9Vvw840Wlc86VBeNmHiFnRU0rCZhcE mcwJ1SV0QzBg2qx5gqJ58wLotAoQ4SfOSj4tQUxETNr6Jc8ATusouKzYeuy0z5cN6UWl0xHUILBN ZFWynnxJkzwD5SyJXfL/hv0paITWRqvP7e4Sr+xkrFyW0XpZ6xHzfApCzClLAJEtWSjSyAzKAhUV ZUtHMPSfoi7kpUAG0pAbZUlafiqPSnlCGVuxKbN0sQmB7ZSkGyHbGJuZx1LtlJ2EA1pSR9TCpd0q l3sUywa/ajSKNI1jB4up1rqCKWxo5BVSE6t81voUfRi1WZArikkbOhWtCStxUNwXPuLaVXF8arCq m5TdDJXIxN2zKDwULGD3hNAyTrGx9lTgzYAYjR+C4qYak+lkHRiTuSqLn3SllWb5qaXIVUt2f1SV P53iWEDKlp1DDBUR01iylz5LRcJ8bExgubCOzbYfezDqa2+IVfSsRKa9/+SjHPvqIqomkrT9amIB p2pMFkIxKNe9bVppqLMGyuREemULdgmToqSG1UhmJUpaZYZa3Vq1pTwsoAd9uTAu9uW92qWts5aI Wv3adJp4TRqAZ+rTY7lKvGP0LncNtF0Gy1ZYCjbvsp57N2ryi23OCOxvo1nb0E6YS8Hd1GlHRy+0 6va/8EWxAE1WErXeFS1tRSYDE+zgkmEYtOP9bYVr+1ml4CW7qLta6pLWWtdGzV7JDaO5jpxdpvIX VoPF44ZpeFe8Tjaex5WxWhNVWoYtmLQMhS5YI3yUHq91W3D9coqSpuEN3/dBv/jKjpWMzLZ8RcTZ murK8mwjOuQLkdqak//gFFbWNEN4rJSgLk05yCYVBzFjqrJzgeU1VDRrcbiZRmOIM/2hPS8tAhpF r49N/eF2mcqgd14SxC5KaQfSKhw4g3JnP3djWbcyZK1u4nZFh1tqxVqTqT41aC/tYHsesNiY5Fnr 1unMdgoB2giN6S+lXTBs21LbO6F2Zbj9BFfG6JdcALf8dGhu3NEvlexut7vfrQWi3e4K66Z0uuE9 DhUC5NDV7De+zETbs+I7JLWE3d6MG+v0ohTA9x74VTCYboHnEsbG9bbDBSLl0BWIGUF7q7YWGSdt js7j/0wYZy9O762CrVwZemLLa2pQGz8ytjSerhQbjvJyjtHVrQ0zdEX/ymIDdziORI9zzv0w75YC nMojTNAKo+pecdlQzQg/erwP5Wd52Y2jHVS1Min8YFqDnZ44tzot+zcuh/WMvkB3ss2GNSr1JNTs gYBnlw9La4tRfLXWtZGuF1R1uqf8ypiOEUlrOFNlz1RyhUakwmP2TMEP/taCbnbfSldRi07ohAwF tpSpKHmqbLScPah26MFj2dNjR+Kql47FWw/72Mt+9rSvve1vj/vc6373vO+9738P/OALf/jEL77x j4/85Ct/+cxvPk92paAASfMqSN9C2V0JfU9lv1FWknsaD0gfkF/shjffJf00oXlLQjhIHlnkK2X5 avMnFNec9HiGa+l0/4nk6UwPGhMThfR95TI/0bVX1/JxGFILYsNSCfhUPsB4UsVlFtVxd5MvNZNi eKNd5Kd1PLIj/fd6rjE5fTM5J5UJINQmjMYfK5Nb0acnbENWX5Jn3EA33cczR6QoLoh3oDdmb9Nd L4QQl9colmc2U7EmorZrAgQnbqJhdMIS36CDdVNcSsNmpVJBbWJobvOEkBd3nkIjWPJRlfWBr+Fr nARBffdObSd3o+JXV4aGKpMzKThWdxRSYuY48nZZqwKF4AQyvlaG+8KHxoFzWYU0dFhF1wVJbzVo 65UweCREe7dAwICDi6cvK3iEhNWIYKdqgegzUsdI+8NvL+dR8edFivdTgjO4OTHYhCnBR/Hifhl2 h5aiTZzXYHQoPSRDTauGiIKETQ4zbIc0b0eVigYmjHD0fSunhc/Sgv4DetFji2LmaXImZA0jTkro Ri4lUFL4RSK2SirWhpX4hn5UTH3EPPN1NMIGjZCFhi6ojlamOFPDaFFYhaM2L4qEW4XiUtAUhrzD NwQGTW+kgWBBgZeIh0YHjAo3iveFjwoIkNGlXew4UgFVYs7DN2UCcKxETBR5ij9RRhrJeQMTiSEk Kon4Ks8YLPyDJehSEe8CUrCYOZpTkcyIjy/TTW9HSYp3U1OoiBN0GB7Rj9s4cvhnHzyZfVMoMJEn GQUAADs= ------331137351620140-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Mon Jan 17 05:44:18 2005 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 06:44:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Regarding Your Paypal Account Message-ID: PayPal - Account System Cleanup Notice

Account System Cleanup

IMPORTANT
Dear PayPal Member,

Due to overwhelming reports of fraudulent transactions and account abuse, PayPal now requires all active members who have an account to verify that they rightfully own it.

You must click the link below and enter your email, password and reference code on the following page to verify your account.

This is NOT a SCAM or HOAX. Please check your address bar to make sure you are on the authentic PayPal website.

https://www.paypal.com/accountcleanup/

Your reference code is : PPA-2546-5437

You will be guided through a series of steps which will require you to enter personal information, such as credit card number and/or bank details.

ALL accounts not re-verified within 5 days of receiving this email will be automatically frozen.

PayPal is doing this to protect it's valued members from fraud and scams. Paypal will not share your personal information with other companies and corporations. Privacy Policy

Thank you for your co-operation,
PayPal

Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Due to security reasons your name and personal information cannot be mentioned in this email.

To receive email notifications in plain text instead of HTML, update your preferences here.

Protect Your Account Info

A genuine PayPal link will always begins with "http://www.paypal.com"

Remember to check your browser's Address/URL Bar to be sure you are on an authentic PayPal site.

Please make sure the link you click on starts with "https://www.paypal.com"

Paypal will never ask for sensitive information. PayPal sites that ask for Passport information, Driver's licence details are definitely scams.

For more information on protecting yourself from fraud, please visit the Security Center.

Protect Your Password

You should never give your PayPal password to anyone, including PayPal employees.

------01894251396540248-- ------712116114778284 Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhswGlAHcAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALAEAAQCx AaIAgQAAAIAAgP///wECAwL/hI+py+0Po5y0uoCzrRrvlIWBoX3miabqyrbuC8dNIIS1DNCjh4rY rcMJh8Si8YhMKnikWyy4YpJ2TqX1is1qt73q9CD6hhBjsG03mpZ8aVC7+Qub12z6W672SKXcvv8P qMIHUhOXYwN0BlYYxKNj+GjoNhkJ5ZMXlykZ6VSZUzUYKDpKOhoKh2oJ1JmY1kjluhr7hgnJCpua ePt1aMb7iloqPEyMdUoy99mm5wqc6poM1UsoUF0968vUuKv8rNYt1lw8Tl7+ROv2I+t7qJO4iIa5 zkt2GTwtMq+K3V4ITvbOnMCBBCcMOhNGmh5Gzrot7ICLHrsloGBlCAhun7Ix/9LqdSwIMiTBjg23 LYvnzZvCiNPqMVjZsiS3RxX/OSohMqdOcpVMHprXC+I6SLhsnVyC7t7Dnygz7nLUaenGnVSrlqJh TVsNRjbRbF3zNaC7DjUnLYAZh6tWfiYvzvLy0arcucZwRoM2EWI0enpzuDR79m+7oHfIGP7mN5lg uowbO358D7LkyZTNSaqMObNmQMc2e/4MOrTo0aRLmz6NOrXq1axbu34NO7bs2bRr276NO7fu3bx7 +/4NPLjw4cSLGz+OPLny5cybO38OPbr06dSrW7+OPbv27dy7e/8OPrx46nb33DmveCKmGfbata9z soxH8+9vyoGPxz19wHPyw/+fTwsfEDVTHxu1oGPeYgIm5VtCHOGHBlkBnsSIFwApstFFt9iDlTp3 VLgMQ9cEU0krmrgFj4fw8AeHhvG9B+JiDkWFyCwcivhihP85aNdvLkII5EJwxbciUhf+kxGDgy1p U1T16PNhlEd2xcqQRprh5EuglLWiJefxcyWJQeL3CVfD4YTmfoiNxc5HcS2IJD4MkiTVXYREBGeR Yl4pX0vqJallgFl2OWgucwpKYHpdEUkcMxnmoUYrsmgjzp1himHhTewlFdefPvnpJ0lAdXnZQYhK JOMvp3ppVqegtkUggZLG09luO4CRWK4g4Gqjk52aemRPXhpYZnlK6rfJoJf/IflpsHgiyAaN93Fa KaGxophhGcD6tcxLvH47nk91plpiLNZcEyKx/fgDKjVZpdtih5ZaSxFKmrqLbo50nIWRoU2cuxaH 0I4HA6v3sohsutii+pJRm/Y5bJ+RNUtqSgDS2fBZ1fqrH1wW/tkuwSnsc7CeICvFJYsUD7ZWkbWK urHFkVwKk8Y2v8oWvJHJ6KrIJijErpsfnwIzwzuP65CUgF7gccxyzkdzylNimCerLn+Mas8+bwB0 RTojPLG090W1IVNZQ/lA0Wta/e/AU9fxzIgtkljojMRGe+zWFqjN1LKpHr3KuXJnInfbhQuINtNK 9334qQhvI/iWbmlViORn/1MReeAA691Cjwv2+DeT2cDdH7TGImVv3sZOePrjpidMX535PZ0Omepy jjsReefOe+++/w588MIPT3zxxh+PfPLKL898884/D3300k9PffXWX4999tpvz3333n8Pfvjij09+ +eafj3766q/PfvushQK6EdTOfrL7tOkxbxIHZc4p1vbD1p6dyQ9BDPGb6P43G4nFSTCUysvrIDUl lSCDXG5DoGcU+KsO4SlLGlwEuoqVv3DQpBmNKyG7LJgZ/IUwXiPcUz4sMiDHPUMRnIChfeKHws+8 CV4PsUhNrLa/F9KtKY5qUd1yCJoduoQZjuoJiBp4Jzy0DHFCnBkSSaPEbP/gqIfTGhwBD5WiTBXw JoW7YhKHhh73mK1mJGyKyRiIkSJOsI1mDM2bZvIKMEmlIW/MSxyJWDkw1XEzwsqD5ZqELaqdcIF8 mRSsNoTDQU6GdGpUzOoolSY1hckOmIydJD8JylCKcpSkLKUpT4nK0WwLbLR7ged2dw7U1UoGAURC JNlzsyioa5YSgCUFbskZTc1OaGAMmS4jaEsxAvMJOLLCMi9Vvw840Wlc86VBeNmHiFnRU0rCZhcE mcwJ1SV0QzBg2qx5gqJ58wLotAoQ4SfOSj4tQUxETNr6Jc8ATusouKzYeuy0z5cN6UWl0xHUILBN ZFWynnxJkzwD5SyJXfL/hv0paITWRqvP7e4Sr+xkrFyW0XpZ6xHzfApCzClLAJEtWSjSyAzKAhUV ZUtHMPSfoi7kpUAG0pAbZUlafiqPSnlCGVuxKbN0sQmB7ZSkGyHbGJuZx1LtlJ2EA1pSR9TCpd0q l3sUywa/ajSKNI1jB4up1rqCKWxo5BVSE6t81voUfRi1WZArikkbOhWtCStxUNwXPuLaVXF8arCq m5TdDJXIxN2zKDwULGD3hNAyTrGx9lTgzYAYjR+C4qYak+lkHRiTuSqLn3SllWb5qaXIVUt2f1SV P53iWEDKlp1DDBUR01iylz5LRcJ8bExgubCOzbYfezDqa2+IVfSsRKa9/+SjHPvqIqomkrT9amIB p2pMFkIxKNe9bVppqLMGyuREemULdgmToqSG1UhmJUpaZYZa3Vq1pTwsoAd9uTAu9uW92qWts5aI Wv3adJp4TRqAZ+rTY7lKvGP0LncNtF0Gy1ZYCjbvsp57N2ryi23OCOxvo1nb0E6YS8Hd1GlHRy+0 6va/8EWxAE1WErXeFS1tRSYDE+zgkmEYtOP9bYVr+1ml4CW7qLta6pLWWtdGzV7JDaO5jpxdpvIX VoPF44ZpeFe8Tjaex5WxWhNVWoYtmLQMhS5YI3yUHq91W3D9coqSpuEN3/dBv/jKjpWMzLZ8RcTZ murK8mwjOuQLkdqak//gFFbWNEN4rJSgLk05yCYVBzFjqrJzgeU1VDRrcbiZRmOIM/2hPS8tAhpF r49N/eF2mcqgd14SxC5KaQfSKhw4g3JnP3djWbcyZK1u4nZFh1tqxVqTqT41aC/tYHsesNiY5Fnr 1unMdgoB2giN6S+lXTBs21LbO6F2Zbj9BFfG6JdcALf8dGhu3NEvlexut7vfrQWi3e4K66Z0uuE9 DhUC5NDV7De+zETbs+I7JLWE3d6MG+v0ohTA9x74VTCYboHnEsbG9bbDBSLl0BWIGUF7q7YWGSdt js7j/0wYZy9O762CrVwZemLLa2pQGz8ytjSerhQbjvJyjtHVrQ0zdEX/ymIDdziORI9zzv0w75YC nMojTNAKo+pecdlQzQg/erwP5Wd52Y2jHVS1Min8YFqDnZ44tzot+zcuh/WMvkB3ss2GNSr1JNTs gYBnlw9La4tRfLXWtZGuF1R1uqf8ypiOEUlrOFNlz1RyhUakwmP2TMEP/taCbnbfSldRi07ohAwF tpSpKHmqbLScPah26MFj2dNjR+Kql47FWw/72Mt+9rSvve1vj/vc6373vO+9738P/OALf/jEL77x j4/85Ct/+cxvPk92paAASfMqSN9C2V0JfU9lv1FWknsaD0gfkF/shjffJf00oXlLQjhIHlnkK2X5 avMnFNec9HiGa+l0/4nk6UwPGhMThfR95TI/0bVX1/JxGFILYsNSCfhUPsB4UsVlFtVxd5MvNZNi eKNd5Kd1PLIj/fd6rjE5fTM5J5UJINQmjMYfK5Nb0acnbENWX5Jn3EA33cczR6QoLoh3oDdmb9Nd L4QQl9colmc2U7EmorZrAgQnbqJhdMIS36CDdVNcSsNmpVJBbWJobvOEkBd3nkIjWPJRlfWBr+Fr nARBffdObSd3o+JXV4aGKpMzKThWdxRSYuY48nZZqwKF4AQyvlaG+8KHxoFzWYU0dFhF1wVJbzVo 65UweCREe7dAwICDi6cvK3iEhNWIYKdqgegzUsdI+8NvL+dR8edFivdTgjO4OTHYhCnBR/Hifhl2 h5aiTZzXYHQoPSRDTauGiIKETQ4zbIc0b0eVigYmjHD0fSunhc/Sgv4DetFji2LmaXImZA0jTkro Ri4lUFL4RSK2SirWhpX4hn5UTH3EPPN1NMIGjZCFhi6ojlamOFPDaFFYhaM2L4qEW4XiUtAUhrzD NwQGTW+kgWBBgZeIh0YHjAo3iveFjwoIkNGlXew4UgFVYs7DN2UCcKxETBR5ij9RRhrJeQMTiSEk Kon4Ks8YLPyDJehSEe8CUrCYOZpTkcyIjy/TTW9HSYp3U1OoiBN0GB7Rj9s4cvhnHzyZfVMoMJEn GQUAADs= ------712116114778284-- From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Jan 21 10:27:23 2005 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:27:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181743A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Imps Dlr: South Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1H 2D 4H Pass Pass 4S Pass(1) Pass ? (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing You, South, hold: Q8 AK742 J6 AT74 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? ----------------------------------------- 5H Double It's an insane partnership agreement, however. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jan 21 11:30:59 2005 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:30:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} References: Message-ID: <002101c4ffac$de745440$baaa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Of good and evil much they argued then, Of happiness and final misery, Passion and apathy, and glory and shame, Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy." ['Paradise Lost'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:41 AM Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} > > Whichever way you go, I don't see how the > agreement to open 1C on 2 can be "conventional" - > it is simply a consequence of your *other* agreements. > +=+ This thread exemplifies the difficulty arising when a term of the art is created, such as 'conventional', which then calls for definition. According to the laws, in order not to be conventional a call must convey a willingness to play in the denomination named or it must show high card strength or at least three cards in the suit. The 1C opener discussed, potentially having neither of these alternative meanings, is conventional by law book definition unless it is made to *convey* a willingness to play in clubs. The fact is that it is not bid in order to express, save for the strength of the hand, a willingness to play in clubs; the most that it allows is that the caller will accept that fate if it is passed out because he has no other bid for the hand. This is not the same thing at all as telling partner 'I am willing to play this hand in clubs". There is no unqualified suggestion that the hand is suitable for play in that denomination. The only significant consequence of this fact is that the use of this bid itself may be regulated. The question what defences may be used against it does not hinge upon the fact that it is a conventional bid; that question is determined by whether *those defences* are subject to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 21 12:14:33 2005 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:14:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} In-Reply-To: <002101c4ffac$de745440$baaa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <002101c4ffac$de745440$baaa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41F0F229.8010903@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ This thread exemplifies the difficulty arising when > a term of the art is created, such as 'conventional', which > then calls for definition. According to the laws, in order not > to be conventional a call must convey a willingness to play > in the denomination named or it must show high card > strength or at least three cards in the suit. As I've said before, this is an oversimplification of the words of the definition. However, from a member of the WBFLC, such a statement may be accepted, perhaps as conveying a hint as to the intent of the committee. > The 1C opener discussed, potentially having neither > of these alternative meanings, is conventional by law > book definition unless it is made to *convey* a willingness > to play in clubs. Whereas the 'showing length or strength' is an objective criterion (by virtue of the addition of 3-cards to length) the 'willingness to play' is far less objective. > The fact is that it is not bid in order to > express, save for the strength of the hand, a willingness > to play in clubs; No single bid is ever intended to be merely 'to play'. All bids express a certain strength and shape. The 'willingness' is exactly as big as it is when 1 club promises three. > the most that it allows is that the caller > will accept that fate if it is passed out because he has no > other bid for the hand. This is not the same thing at all as > telling partner 'I am willing to play this hand in clubs". > There is no unqualified suggestion that the hand is suitable > for play in that denomination. But is there ever? Is that not true for a 3-card opening as well? Is it not true for a 1NT opener as well? There is no quantification for 'willingness' in the definition, so although I may be more or less happy to play there, I certainly am willing to do so. > The only significant consequence of this fact is that > the use of this bid itself may be regulated. The question > what defences may be used against it does not hinge > upon the fact that it is a conventional bid; that question is > determined by whether *those defences* are subject to > regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And now for my main reason for replying to this thread once more: Grattan is wrong in saying that this is not significant, save for use in a regulation. This discussion is highly significant when it comes to the application of L27. If the 1Cl opener is considered natural, as it is in Belgium and France, then a correction to 2Cl (if not itself conventional) is permitted. If the 1Cl is considered conventional (as it is in England and the Netherlands) then such a correction is not permitted. So this discussion is important, and yet again I ask the question: do we really believe that diamonds4 is such a different system than better minor? To give you one more example. Last wednesday, my partner opened 1Cl. Fourth in hand asked me (at the proper time) what system we were playing. I honestly did not know. We play together once a month, and even have a CC at hand (I told opponent to look it up), but when starting, I check what our responses to 4NT are (mistakes there can be very costly) and how our scheme against multi works, and a few others. But what kind of minors we open, I don't care. Of course this is in Belgium, where the 1Cl is not alertable, so I do not need the information until a 4432 comes up. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 17/01/2005 From ksm@bib.aarhus.dk Fri Jan 21 12:24:00 2005 From: ksm@bib.aarhus.dk (Klavs Skovgaard Madsen) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:24:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Klavs Skovgaard Madsen/BIB/M4/AAK =?ISO-8859-1?Q?tr=E6ffes_ikke=2E?= Message-ID: Jeg er ikke p=E5 kontoret fra 21-01-2005 og vender ikke tilbage f=F8r 03-02-2005. Jeg besvarer din besked, n=E5r jeg vender tilbage. Vi fik en dreng den.= 20 januar= From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 21 12:39:39 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:39:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} In-Reply-To: <41F0F229.8010903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c4ffb6$45ea99f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ................ > And now for my main reason for replying to this thread once more: > Grattan is wrong in saying that this is not significant, save for use > in a regulation. This discussion is highly significant when it comes > to the application of L27. > If the 1Cl opener is considered natural, as it is in Belgium and > France, then a correction to 2Cl (if not itself conventional) is > permitted. If the 1Cl is considered conventional (as it is in England > and the Netherlands) then such a correction is not permitted. It is permitted all right, it is the consequence that depends upon conventional or not. > To give you one more example. Last wednesday, my partner opened 1Cl. > Fourth in hand asked me (at the proper time) what system we were > playing. I honestly did not know.=20 In that case the 1C bid does not qualify as "incontrovertibly not conventional" so for the application of Law 27 it should be ruled "conventional". You can include Norway in the areas where we interpret "conventional" as = any call that does not by agreement convey information "other than" = (including "in addition to") high-card strength or length (at least 3) in the named denomination, or willingness to play in the (last) named denomination = (by virtue of the nature of the call). This means that any opening bid in a suit which may be less that 3 cards long is considered conventional regardless of what the opening bid = shows. =20 Opening 3NT on a long running minor suit ("gambling 3NT") is = conventional. Any call showing length in two or three suits is conventional. Just to mention a few examples. Sven From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jan 21 15:23:49 2005 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:23:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Jan 21, 2005 08:07:52 AM Message-ID: <200501211523.j0LFNn9C005560@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 2D 4H Pass Pass > 4S Pass(1) Pass ? > > (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing A deranged agreement. But partnerships are entitled. > > You, South, hold: > > Q8 > AK742 > J6 > AT74 > > What call do you make? 5H -- assuming that the pass shows fair defense (in context), I don't expect to beat 4S very often. > What other calls do you consider making? Pass (yes I read the agreement. I'm pretty confident in light of partner's pass that defending 4s making is our best score). I'm fairly confident it's our best available score. I don't pass forcing calls no matter how tempting. But I seriously considered it. Double. It won't be right very often, but it's so profitable. Downside is the doubled overtricks. (I don't fear a redouble. I'm running) The right bits and pieces and a lucky layout and we can beat this. Maybe with a tap on the West hand if he doesn't really have a 4S call. I want to double or pass, I just think 5H is more likely to work out. From david.barton@boltblue.com Fri Jan 21 18:10:40 2005 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:10:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing References: Message-ID: <000601c4ffe4$857ffb40$0307a8c0@Plusnet> > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 2D 4H Pass Pass > 4S Pass(1) Pass ? > > (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing > > You, South, hold: > > Q8 > AK742 > J6 > AT74 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general guru > Interesting question. I know that in my partnership forcing passes cause more grief than any other aspect. To be effective forcing passes should only apply after your side has demonstrated possession of sufficient high cards to expect to beat whatever contract the opposition are playing in. ie the only question that remains is can we make our contract if we bid on. So to answer this particular question I would need to know (a) What has N shown with 4H? (b) What has N denied by his failure to splinter, fit jump, make a cue bid etc? (c) What has S shown with his 1H (4 or 5 card suit, sound or aggressive opening style)? (d) Why is the pass forcing in this partnership? (e) What is the N/S style of forcing pass? (bid 5H unless you have reason not to, - my style, or I don't know who can make what so I'll hope partner does) Having sat on the fence this long I expect to come down on the side of double on the grounds that I would not expect to make 5H unless partner could bid it. I could easily be convinced that 5H was the right bid. **************************************** david.barton@boltblue.com **************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.302 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 19/01/2005 From schoderb@msn.com Fri Jan 21 19:27:38 2005 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:27:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: Snip(Nigel) I fear that Kojak is again right about the frustration suffered by players who would like their arguments for simpler, less subjective, more complete, or more universal laws to be accorded serious and sympathetic consideration. (Kojak) And yet again Nigel misses the point. The things he looks for in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, xxxx, have been provided, IN THEIR PROPER FORMAT AND PLACE by the administrators and officials. They do not belong in the Laws. To adopt these or modify them as necessary is a simple matter for an RA, and has been done in numerous places. His contention that the Laws of.... should provide him with what he wants there and his refusal to recognize that he MIGHT be wrong in tasking and bad mouthing the WBFLC for not doing it is silly. There are those who want the filling out of a convention card included, how to use screens, regulation of conventions and systems, ad nauseum, yet all these items, and many more have been published by the WBF in its various and proper places. As to "baulking at" -- the WBFLC is, by WBF ByLaws instructed to undertake a review of the Laws at ten year intervals, and has done so for at least the last 4 decades since that provision was stated. To make changes, constantly, and randomly between reviews would cause much confusion and mistakes, and is the underlying reason for the ten year provision. There are well established and many avenues for individual players to voice their opinions - BLML is one of them, no? -- and they are actively used in concerned RAs. And, as to heresies. Careful reading will show that I declaim on only those heresies that pertain to what is the intent of Law. When someone will not, cannot, or does not care to accept the intent of the Law, then I usually have some caustic remark to make. Understanding the Law, and wishing it to be different is different matter. If in this area I have been overly strong in my objections, I ask for forgiveness, tolerance, and understanding that most of what is "new" isn't that at all -- I've heard it too many times before. Kojak From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 21 20:05:02 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:05:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing - a sidetrack In-Reply-To: <000601c4ffe4$857ffb40$0307a8c0@Plusnet> Message-ID: <000001c4fff4$7e491b80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Barton > > Imps > > Dlr: South > > Vul: All > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- --- 1H > > 2D 4H Pass Pass > > 4S Pass(1) Pass ? > > > > (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > Q8 > > AK742 > > J6 > > AT74 > > > > What call do you make? > > What other calls do you consider making? > Interesting question. > > I know that in my partnership forcing passes cause more > grief than any other aspect. To be effective forcing > passes should only apply after your side has demonstrated > possession of sufficient high cards to expect to beat > whatever contract the opposition are playing in. ie the > only question that remains is can we make our contract if > we bid on. One of my interesting memories is from when (in matchpoints) my partner and I comfortably reached a contract of 4S and then my RHO sacrificed in 5H. In this position my PASS was obviously a demand for partner to decide whether to bid 5S or double with the understanding that I would be comfortable with either alternative. My partner did neither; he bid 6S! His logic was that with my pass I showed some interesting more cards than I had been able to show so far and as he had already been a bit in doubt whether to land in 4S or go for slam he changed his mind. And what happened? 6S made (of course!). Morale: A forcing PASS should show something to partner and not just be a sleepy transfer of responsibility. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jan 21 21:19:34 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:19:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] A novelty criss-cross squeeze In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Some blmlers genuflect before the Laws of Bridge with way too much reverence. An appropriate trampling of the Laws of Bridge was undertaken at the Novelty Pairs in the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Each round of Neville Moses' Novelty Pairs had special rules which modified the normal rules of bridge. On board 15, the novelty modification to the Laws of Bridge was a rule that the *partner* of the player who won the last trick would be required to lead to the next trick. Dlr: South Richard Hills Vul: North-South AQ743 Q7 J T8653 West East T9 865 J843 KT95 T9862 AQ7543 76 --- Andrew Struik KJ2 A62 K AKQJ92 As North, I declared 4S, and East led a trump. As the Novelty Pairs was scored by matchpoints (not the imps of the previous week) it was vital to win 13 tricks, rather than merely 12. I drew trumps in three rounds, and then I played on clubs, carefully blocking the fifth round of clubs with the ten of clubs. This criss-crossed the lead to dummy, which allowed me to cash the sixth round of clubs to discard the jack of diamonds. Back in my hand now, I carefully cashed a fourth round of trumps *before* playing a Vienna Coup ace of hearts. The play of dummy's ace of hearts criss-crossed me back to my North hand, thus allowing me to lead the S7 squeeze card in this two-card ending: Richard Hills 7 Q --- --- West East --- irrelevant K A --- Andrew Struik --- 6 K --- East could not discard the HK, as that would give me a heart winner. So East discarded the DA. I now discarded dummy's H6, and the lead was now criss-crossed to dummy, which allowed dummy's "entryless" DK to score the thirteenth trick. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 21 21:52:33 2005 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:52:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: <200501211523.j0LFNn9C005560@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200501211523.j0LFNn9C005560@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050121164412.02bcbeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:23 AM 1/21/05, Ron wrote: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > Imps > > Dlr: South > > Vul: All > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- --- 1H > > 2D 4H Pass Pass > > 4S Pass(1) Pass ? > > > > (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing > >A deranged agreement. But partnerships are >entitled. Deranged if you play 4H in the modern style, where responder could have nothing. But not unreasonable if you play it the old-fashioned way, showing a hand that lacks the high-card values for a forcing raise but has enough compensating distributional values to expect to make 4H. > > You, South, hold: > > > > Q8 > > AK742 > > J6 > > AT74 > > > > What call do you make? > >5H -- assuming that the pass shows fair >defense (in context), I don't expect to >beat 4S very often. I agree, but I'm assuming the latter agreement about 4H. > > What other calls do you consider making? > >Pass (yes I read the agreement. I'm pretty >confident in light of partner's pass that >defending 4s making is our best score). I'm >fairly confident it's our best available score. Indeed. If 4H is in the modern style, I would have crossed my fingers when I agreed to play this absurd forcing pass, and would pass now. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 22 01:29:39 2005 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:29:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181743A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000e01c50021$d886c980$289468d5@James> {Richard James Hills] Imps S/GA: Q8 AK742 J6 AT74 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1H 2D 4H Pass Pass 4S Pass(1) Pass ? (1) 100% forcing [Migel] X=10 5H=3 but what point is Richard making? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 17/01/2005 From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 22 02:00:40 2005 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:00:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: Message-ID: <005501c50026$2cb761a0$289468d5@James> [Kojak] And, as to heresies. Careful reading will show that I declaim on only those heresies that pertain to what is the intent of Law. When someone will not, cannot, or does not care to accept the intent of the Law, then I usually have some caustic remark to make. Understanding the Law, and wishing it to be different is different matter. If in this area I have been overly strong in my objections, I ask for forgiveness, tolerance, and understanding that most of what is "new" isn't that at all -- I've heard it too many times before. [Nigel] Apology accepted, Kojak (if it was intended for me). I can well believe that obvious Bridge Law improvements have been suggested many times before. Repetition can make an opinion boring but that does not necessarily make it wrong. Good ideas often suffer repeated rejection. For example: "It feels wrong"; It's not new"; "It will disrupt our way of doing things"; "Its foreign to our philosophy"; "Just look who is proposing it"; and even (rarely) "We tried it and it didn't work". -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 17/01/2005 From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Sat Jan 22 04:28:13 2005 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (Vitold) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:28:13 +0300 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41F1D65D.4040303@elnet.msk.ru> Hi all:) How do you think is it permitted for player, participant of bridge contest, to make bets on result of this contest? On his own results, on results of his pair or team? On results of another pair or team in this contest? On difference between his (his team's) result and result of another team? As I know it is forbidden at ACBL-land (paragraph 3.1 at ACBL Code of Disciplinary regulation) but I could not find the item at WBF or EBL documents. So: are there any restrictions in contests under auspices of WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO? My personal opinion: such betting violates basic principles of sporting ethics and should be forbidden in bridge events of any kind. Thx in advance Vitold From ksm@bib.aarhus.dk Sat Jan 22 06:01:03 2005 From: ksm@bib.aarhus.dk (Klavs Skovgaard Madsen) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:01:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Klavs Skovgaard Madsen/BIB/M4/AAK =?ISO-8859-1?Q?tr=E6ffes_ikke=2E?= Message-ID: Jeg er ikke p=E5 kontoret fra 21-01-2005 og vender ikke tilbage f=F8r 03-02-2005. Jeg besvarer din besked, n=E5r jeg vender tilbage. Vi fik en dreng den.= 20 januar= From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Jan 22 06:55:02 2005 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:55:02 +1300 Subject: [blml] betting Message-ID: <20050122065502.XNMP16943.pop2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.136]> > > From: Vitold > Date: 2005/01/22 Sat PM 05:28:13 GMT+13:00 > CC: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] betting > > Hi all:) > How do you think is it permitted for player, participant of bridge > contest, to make bets on result of this contest? On his own results, on > results of his pair or team? On results of another pair or team in this > contest? On difference between his (his team's) result and result of > another team? > As I know it is forbidden at ACBL-land (paragraph 3.1 at ACBL Code of > Disciplinary regulation) but I could not find the item at WBF or EBL > documents. So: are there any restrictions in contests under auspices of > WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO? > My personal opinion: such betting violates basic principles of sporting > ethics and should be forbidden in bridge events of any kind. > Thx in advance > Vitold > No betting. No Cavendish. Wayne From john@asimere.com Sat Jan 22 16:04:31 2005 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:04:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <41F1D65D.4040303@elnet.msk.ru> References: <41F1D65D.4040303@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: <0qDsmIAPmn8BFwqi@asimere.com> In article <41F1D65D.4040303@elnet.msk.ru>, Vitold writes >Hi all:) >How do you think is it permitted for player, participant of bridge >contest, to make bets on result of this contest? On his own results, on >results of his pair or team? On results of another pair or team in this >contest? On difference between his (his team's) result and result of >another team? >As I know it is forbidden at ACBL-land (paragraph 3.1 at ACBL Code of >Disciplinary regulation) but I could not find the item at WBF or EBL >documents. So: are there any restrictions in contests under auspices of >WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO? >My personal opinion: such betting violates basic principles of sporting >ethics and should be forbidden in bridge events of any kind. >Thx in advance Of course I bet on the outcome of bridge. If Rotweiller and I are playing a Swiss we pay a pound a VP, matchpoints 5 pounds a percent. If we didn't we might mess around. It's about the same as playing for a pound a hundred money game, but the ethical standards are lower in duplicate :) cheers John >Vitold > >_______________________________________________ >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 lashanda edwards" Age should be nothing more than a number
It's okay to want to hold on to your young body as long as you can

View more about a new lifespan enhancement press here

"With increasing longevity for an increasing segment of the population, this is THE frontier for the new millennium"
- Dr David Howard

don't say goodbye to your younger side cross me out po box above in site

I must be home again by Saturday, to meet the Demon, so I'll have to make every day count Without waiting for breakfast, since he had eaten a tablet the evening before, he crept through the window and mounted into the fresh morning air until the great city with its broad waterway lay spread out beneath him

Then he sped away to the southeast and, crossing the channel, passed between Amiens and Rouen and reached Paris before ten o'clock

From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 22 20:42:00 2005 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:42:00 -0000 Subject: Stinking fish - was Re: [blml] conventional or not? References: <002101c4ffac$de745440$baaa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41F0F229.8010903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c500c3$bf8e8ba0$170ae150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} > >> The fact is that it is not bid in order to >> express, save for the strength of the hand, a willingness >> to play in clubs; > > No single bid is ever intended to be merely 'to play'. All bids > express a certain strength and shape. The 'willingness' is exactly as > big as it is when 1 club promises three. > >> the most that it allows is that the caller >> will accept that fate if it is passed out because he has no >> other bid for the hand. This is not the same thing at all as >> telling partner 'I am willing to play this hand in clubs". >> There is no unqualified suggestion that the hand is suitable >> for play in that denomination. > > But is there ever? Is that not true for a 3-card opening as well? Is > it not true for a 1NT opener as well? There is no quantification for > 'willingness' in the definition, so although I may be more or less > happy to play there, I certainly am willing to do so. > +=+ The mention of three card openers is a red herring. Such openers are established to be 'not conventional' by a quite separate provision of the definition in the laws. The question of willingness to play in the suit does not enter into it. As to the Hermanic assertion that "I certainly am willing to do so" this is no more than an allegation on his part; the judgement whether the bid tells his partner that the suit is one in which he is proactively willing to play is made by those within whose jurisdiction the tournament is played. Neither the WBF nor the EBL sides with Herman in the matter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From aadrews1@netscape.net Sat Jan 22 21:42:11 2005 From: aadrews1@netscape.net (wudAndrew Adams) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:42:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Urgent Help hpyaw Message-ID: <20050122214220.9B79A14A@rhubarb.custard.org> Dear Friend As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because, I believe everyone will die someday. My name is Andrew Adams a merchant in PHILIPPINES, I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer .It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have only about a few months to live, according to medical experts. I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone (not even myself) but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous, I was always hostile to people and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world.I believe when God gives me a second chance to come to this world I would live my life a different way from how I have lived it. Now that God has called me, I have willed and given most of my property and assets to my immediate and extended family members as well as a few close friends.I want God to be merciful to me and accept my soul so, I have decided to give alms to charity organizations, as I want this to be one of the last good deeds I do on earth. So far, I have distributed money to some charity organizations in the U.A.E, Algeria and Malaysia, Indian and Pakistan. Now that my health has deteriorated so badly, I cannot do this myself anymore. I once asked members of my family to close one of my accounts in Switzerland and distribute the money which I have there to charity organization in Bulgaria and Pakistan, they refused and kept the money to themselves. Hence, I do not trust them anymore, as they seem not to be contended with what I have left for them. The last of my money which no one knows of is the huge cash deposit of $36,000.000.00 million united states dollars that I have with a finance/Security Company abroad. I will want you to help me collect this deposit and dispatched it to charity organizations. I have set aside twenty percent for you and for your time. God be with you. regards Andrew Adams twdelcdoyuaceaqrwdu From rassilka.com Sat Jan 22 22:28:09 2005 From: rassilka.com (rassilka.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:28:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] OEM Message-ID: <20050122224528.74D3C33@rhubarb.custard.org>

OEM=20 Software Most popular

http://xqktjl.goodlist.info/?hedmrp= z440zqsiqop

http://lvchkl.prodlist.info/?trlniw= z440zdjccab

http://ckajha.hellosoft.info/?afbg= dwz440zoabdvp

=D3=C1=D9=CF=D1=CB =D4=CC=D9=D9=D3=CC=CE=C5 =D3=D2= =D7=C4 =C1=CB=C7=CE=C1=CF =D5=C1=D0=C5=D3=CF=CC=C5=CC=CE=D5 =C9=D6=CF=D8=CC= =D1=D3=D1=D2=CE =CF=C7=C5=C9=D2=C5=D1 =CD=CF=D9=D4 =CF=C4=D5=D3 =C1=D8=CF= =CC=D9=C2=CF=D0 =CC=C5=D9=CE =CF=C0=C9=C1 =CC=C9=DA=C1=C4=CC

=00 From irem76@hotmail.com Sun Jan 23 21:12:29 2005 From: irem76@hotmail.com (irem76@hotmail.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:12:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACýL SATILIK Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------------DE4E7014FA51490C6095C325SCALAR(0x84d8988) Content-Type: text/plain; VÝDALI HAVA KOMPRESORLER model kapasite m3/min motor dba 7 bar 10bar 13bar Kw/Hp BV 15 1,8 1,4 1,0 11/15 68 BV 20 2,6 2,0 1,7 15/20 68 BV 25 3,0 2,6 2,0 18/25 68 BV 30 3,6 2,9 2,5 22/30 68 BV 40 5,0 4,2 3,3 30/40 73 BV 50 6,0 5,0 4,3 37/50 73 BV 60 7.0 5.9 5.1 45/60 75 BV 75 9,4 8,0 7,0 55,75 76 BV 100 13,0 11,0 9,0 75/100 76 BV 125 15,0 13,0 10,9 90/125 78 BV 150 18,2 15,7 14,1 110/150 78 BV 220 25,7 22,0 18,6 160/220 79 HAVA TANKI 750Lt HAVA TANKI 1.000Lt HAVA TANKI 2.000Lt Deðerler ÝSO 1217 uygun emiþ 1 bar ortam sýcaklýðý 20 C' dýr. FROM:"BAHAMAK KOMPRESOR" BAHAMAK KOMPRESOR OLARAK AMACIMIZ TURK SANAYINE ONCE LAIK OLDUGU HIZMET VE URUN KALITESINI SUNMAKTIR.BASINCLI HAVA SEKTORUNDE KALITE KONUSUNDA ISRARLI OLAN FIRMAMIZ,URETMIS OLDUGU HAVA KOMPRESORLRINDE KULLANDIGI EKIPMANLARA VE SATIS SONRASI VERDIGI HIZMETLER ILE BU ANLAYISIN ONCUSU OLMUSTUR.AMACIMIZ 2000'LI YILLAR TURKIYE'SINE DUNYA STANDARTLARINDA USTUN KALITELI VIDALI HAVA KOMPRESORLERI IMAL EIÝP,EN EKONOMIK SEKLI ILE MUSTERILERIMIZE SUNMAKTIR. *VIDALI HAVA KOMPRESORUNDE YUKSEK TEKNOLOJI ILE URETIM... *AGIR CALISMA SARTLARINA UYGUN TASARIM... *DUSUK ISLETME MALIYETI... *GERCEK KALITE VE HIZMET ANLAYISI... *2YIL FABRIKA GARANTISI... *24 SAAT TEKNIK SERVIS HIZMETI... Bu mektup size tekrar yollanmasýný istemiyorsunuz lütfen adresimize mail atýnýz. ----------------DE4E7014FA51490C6095C325SCALAR(0x84d8988) Content-Type: text/plain; ----------------DE4E7014FA51490C6095C325SCALAR(0x84d8988)-- From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 24 00:29:49 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:29:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club In-Reply-To: References: <3rySm7NuL77BFwzE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >DWS wrote: >> > >> >The timing in the case described by Nancy sounds as if this doesn't >> apply >> >but one might rule differently after hearing from those present - the >> >failure of two players to notice makes me wonder if the actions were >> >closer together than described. >> >> When asked a query on BLML, RGB, IBLF, IACF or by email, Fax or >> telephone there is one presumption I make: that the facts I am told are >> the facts. So when Nancy says they were *not* simultaneous, then for >> the purposes of the query I assume they were not simultaneous. >> That is not the same as if I was the TD at the table. Now if one >> player tells me they were not simultaneous I am still going to get all >> the evidence and then make my decision. > >Nancy didn't actually state how far apart the actions were. A half-second >or so between the two leads would be "non-simultaneous" in quantum terms >yet might be considered simultaneous in bridge terms. True, and when a poster says that dummy was faced he does not mention that in fact it was faced by a player at a different table. It is really unhelpful to answer queries on the presumption that the poster does not know what she is talking about. When Nancy said >These two plays are not simultaneous I think we can assume they are not simultaneous for the purposes of answering Nancy's query. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jan 24 00:30:35 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:30:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050120135710.02a8bd70@pop.starpower.net> References: <3rySm7NuL77BFwzE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.1.1.1.0.20050120135710.02a8bd70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:32 AM 1/20/05, David wrote: > >> While I do have problems with many of the replies on BLML, >>interestingly enough this is an RGB habit, namely of assuming the >>facts are otherwise than stated by the original poser of the problem. >>A typical answer to an RGB problem: >> >>Question: Do you have to alert a 3C overcall in New Zealand if it can >>be weak? >> >>Answer: It is not alertable: ACBL regulations clearly say so. >> >> Trust me: I am not joking: that was posted about 18 months ago on RGB! > >To an American, this isn't at all odd. A Brit like David would find >the widespread ignorance of geography in the U.S., even among the >highly educated, quite appalling. It is not unlikely that the >confusion over the facts here was about whether New Zealand is >somewhere in North America. I never thought of 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 bogus@does.not.exist.com Mon Jan 24 01:26:28 2005 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com (MAILER DAEMON) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:26:28 +0000 (WET) Subject: [blml] Banned file: message.scr in mail from you Message-ID: <20050124012611.CF004D005D85@asfw.ptmail.sapo.pt> This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1106529988-973-31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QkFOTkVEIEZJTEVOQU1FIEFMRVJUDQoNCllvdXIgbWVzc2FnZSB0bzogbGF1 cmFtYW5zYUBzYXBvLnB0DQp3YXMgYmxvY2tlZCBieSBvdXIgU3BhbSBGaXJl d2FsbC4gVGhlIGVtYWlsIHlvdSBzZW50IHdpdGggdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBz dWJqZWN0IGhhcyBOT1QgQkVFTiBERUxJVkVSRUQ6DQoNClN1YmplY3Q6IE1h aWwgRGVsaXZlcnkgKGZhaWx1cmUgbGF1cmFtYW5zYUBzYXBvLnB0KQ0KDQpB biBhdHRhY2htZW50IGluIHRoYXQgbWFpbCB3YXMgb2YgYSBmaWxlIHR5cGUg dGhhdCB0aGUgU3BhbSBGaXJld2FsbCBpcyBzZXQgdG8gYmxvY2suDQoNCg0K ------------=_1106529988-973-31 Content-Type: message/delivery-status Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Delivery error report Reporting-MTA: dns; asfw.ptmail.sapo.pt Received-From-MTA: smtp; asfw.ptmail.sapo.pt ([127.0.0.1]) Arrival-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:26:28 +0000 (WET) Final-Recipient: rfc822; lauramansa@sapo.pt Action: failed Status: 5.7.1 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 Message content rejected, id=00973-01-606 - BANNED: message.scr Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:26:28 +0000 (WET) ------------=_1106529988-973-31 Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Undelivered-message headers Received: from sapo.pt (a83-132-28-148.netcabo.pt [83.132.28.148]) by asfw.ptmail.sapo.pt (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CF004D005D85 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:26:11 +0000 (WET) From: blml@rtflb.org To: lauramansa@sapo.pt Subject: Mail Delivery (failure lauramansa@sapo.pt) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:26:21 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: <20050124012611.CF004D005D85@asfw.ptmail.sapo.pt> ------------=_1106529988-973-31-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 24 02:19:53 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:19:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1H 2D 4H Pass Pass 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H Pass Pass Pass (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing, but also perpetrated with a break in tempo The complete deal (I sat West): 732 QJT953 AT KQ AK95 JT64 --- 86 KQ9843 752 965 J832 Q8 AK742 J6 AT74 Result: North-South +650 At the conclusion of play I summoned the TD. After consultation, the directing staff would have really liked to adjust the score to 4S passed out, North-South +200, but they were hamstrung by a note on the North-South system card which specifically stated that North's pass was 100% forcing. So, the TDs thought that they had no option but to rule that the table result stood. The point of this problem was whether a violation of system would be a logical alternative. I am retrospectively pleased to note that 2 or 3 blmlers would commonsensically ignore the 100% of Nothing agreement (which might, on another deal, force a choice between -790 and -800), and voted to perhaps pass 4S at the table. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 24 02:36:58 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:36:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Beyond the horizon: [was Re: Supposed dummy] In-Reply-To: <000001c4f9aa$63e253b0$e3a6403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: [big snip] >As Coordinator my current task is, in collaboration >with the Chairman, to propose a refreshed expression >in concise, explicit language and presentation, [snip] Richard Hills: When designing the 2006 Laws "concise" and "explicit" are partially complementary ideas, but also partially incompatible ideas. In those drafting situations for which "concise" and "explicit" are incompatible, I recommend that (in general) the tie break should be resolved in favour of "explicit". Exception: If a Law is misinterpreted by *only* the blmlers, then "concise" should win the tie break over an unnecessary "explicit". :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 24 03:30:56 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:30:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Parnassus of Halicarnassus In-Reply-To: <005501c50026$2cb761a0$289468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel of Guthrie: >>I can well believe that obvious Bridge Law improvements >>have been suggested many times before. Repetition can >>make an opinion boring but that does not necessarily >>make it wrong. Good ideas often suffer repeated >>rejection. For example: "It feels wrong"; It's not >>new"; "It will disrupt our way of doing things"; "It's >>foreign to our philosophy"; [snip] Dionysius of Halicarnassus: >History is philosophy from examples. Richard of the Hills: The number of possible permutations of Laws which *could* be adopted in 2006 is infinite. The actual 2006 Lawbook's philosophy *should* be guided by examples from the history of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From kgrauwel@hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 11:17:36 2005 From: kgrauwel@hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:17:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace Message-ID: IMP N/- 1S-(DBL)-P-(1NT) P-(2D)-P-(3D) P-(5D)-all pass LHO (5D bidder) discusses bidding of his partner. He does not understand why he bids 1NT and then bids 3D... After partner leads closed, I ask what the DBL is and LHO explains that it always shows the other Major - 4 card H - and that the 2D bid is run away from 1NT and means that he does not want to play in 1NT. It does not show extras (this was not explained by his partner, but by himself). Partner's lead is a small spade and this is the full deal: xx Kxxxx xx xxxx xx QTxx J xxx AKJxx Qxxx AKxxx QJ AKJ9x AQxx xx xx (I don't remember the exact cards). I cashed two spade tricks (9 and A). Because I really thought that RHO had 4 hearts, I didn't think it was urgent to cash Heart Ace. I played spade J (asking for a heart switch) and now the contract 5D was made. What is your ruling? _________________________________________________________________ Op zoek naar een soulmate? http://match.msn.be/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=216657 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 24 12:19:48 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:19:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5020e$ff75b8f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Koen Grauwels > IMP > N/- >=20 > 1S-(DBL)-P-(1NT) > P-(2D)-P-(3D) > P-(5D)-all pass >=20 > LHO (5D bidder) discusses bidding of his partner.=20 > He does not understand why he bids 1NT and then bids > 3D... After partner leads closed, I ask what the > DBL is and LHO explains that it always shows the other=20 > Major - 4 card H -and that the 2D bid is run away from=20 > 1NT and means that he does not want to play in 1NT. > It does not show extras (this was not explained by his > partner, but by himself). > Partner's lead is a small spade and this is the full deal: > xx > Kxxxx > xx > xxxx > xx QTxx > J xxx > AKJxx Qxxx > AKxxx QJ > AKJ9x > AQxx > xx > xx > (I don't remember the exact cards). I cashed two spade=20 > tricks (9 and A). Because I really thought that RHO had=20 > 4 hearts, I didn't think it was urgent to cash Heart Ace. > I played spade J (asking for a heart switch) and now > the contract 5D was made. > What is your ruling? As a Director summoned to the table I would have a problem understanding what you could expect to gain with a heart lead from your partner that = would not be accomplished by immediately playing a heart from your own hand.=20 And particularly at IMPs I consider it tremendously careless play to = delay cashing the setting trick with prospects of cashing even more tricks in = case declarer really has that many losers.=20 Give declarer KH and you have only one trick in hearts whatever you do (unless there is no way declarer can get rid of his losers in Hearts). = Give partner KH and you have nothing to gain from not playing a heart. My ruling is 5D made. (I assume RHO is a typo for LHO?) Regards Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Jan 24 12:37:33 2005 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 24 Jan 2005 13:37:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace Message-ID: <20050124123733.822E52BC06D@poczta.interia.pl> Sven Pran napisa=B3(a): > My ruling is 5D made. I agree but only for NOS (not cashing the HA is "irrational, wild or gambling" for me). For OS I rule 5D -1 as they did benefit from MI. I would certainly ask a lot=20 of questions to East-West but from the facts presented it looks to me definitely that there *was* MI (but I might be persuaded=20 otherwise by the players). Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Galerie zdjec MOTO >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1844 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Jan 24 13:04:41 2005 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:04:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181744F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Imps Dlr: South Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1H 2D 4H Pass Pass 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H Pass Pass Pass (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing, but also perpetrated with a break in tempo The complete deal (I sat West): 732 QJT953 AT KQ AK95 JT64 --- 86 KQ9843 752 965 J832 Q8 AK742 J6 AT74 Result: North-South +650 At the conclusion of play I summoned the TD. After consultation, the directing staff would have really liked to adjust the score to 4S passed out, North-South +200, but they were hamstrung by a note on the North-South system card which specifically stated that North's pass was 100% forcing. So, the TDs thought that they had no option but to rule that the table result stood. The point of this problem was whether a violation of system would be a logical alternative. I am retrospectively pleased to note that 2 or 3 blmlers would commonsensically ignore the 100% of Nothing agreement (which might, on another deal, force a choice between -790 and -800), and voted to perhaps pass 4S at the table. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ I don't understand the point you are trying to make, other than you think playing a forcing pass in this auction is wrong. North's hand is entirely consistent with NS playing 4H as a strong call setting up a forcing pass. The "other deal" where the choice is -790 or -800 is much less likely for this pair. It is to my mind irrelevant whether violating system is an LA. Once it is clear that pass is systemically forcing, the UI from partner's BIT = does not suggest any action. Partner can't decide whether to bid or double, so he takes the middle action (pass). In my experience,=20 forcing pass auctions only give UI when someone doubles very quickly. The pass is always slow, because it always shows someone isn't sure=20 whether to bid or double. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 24 12:42:52 2005 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:42:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} References: <002101c4ffac$de745440$baaa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <41F0F229.8010903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00a101c50216$61be88a0$7a74893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Of good and evil much they argued then, Of happiness and final misery, Passion and apathy, and glory and shame, Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy." ['Paradise Lost'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} > > > And now for my main reason for replying to this thread > once more: Grattan is wrong in saying that this is not > significant, save for use in a regulation. This discussion > is highly significant when it comes to the application of L27. > If the 1Cl opener is considered natural, as it is in Belgium > and France, then a correction to 2Cl (if not itself > conventional) is permitted. If the 1Cl is considered > conventional (as it is in England and the Netherlands) > then such a correction is not permitted. So this discussion > is important, and yet again I ask the question: do we really > believe that diamonds4 is such a different system than > better minor? > +=+ I should perhaps have said that I was discussing only the aspects raised in the thread. However, it is apparent that in Belgium (and as it may be France) the translator of the English wording of the law has failed to appreciate the positive significance of 'willingness' and has misled his NBO accordingly. As for what we believe about diamonds4 this is not relevant to the understanding of the law. The law is not fashioned to the system. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 24 13:08:27 2005 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:08:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer plays card from wrong hand References: Message-ID: <00a201c50216$62cc0100$7a74893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Of good and evil much they argued then, Of happiness and final misery, Passion and apathy, and glory and shame, Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy." ['Paradise Lost'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Koen Grauwels" Cc: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer plays card from wrong hand > > On Thursday, Jan 20, 2005, at 11:04 US/Eastern, Koen Grauwels wrote: > > > Declarer is in Dummy, but plays a card from his own hand. > > If I remember well then both opponents can accept or reject the lead > > from the wrong hand. > > The following happened: > > Opponents are in contract is 3Dx. > > The 10th trick the lead is in dummy and declarer can play any card > > from dummy to make the contract, but he plays a Spade from his own > > hand, which will result in -1 because I get another ruff. > > My partner is LHO of declarer and says: "lead is in dummy". > > I'm RHO of declarer and immediatly after my partner I say: "I accept > > the lead from declarer". > ------------ \x/ ------------- > > "Lead is in dummy" points out an irregularity [Law 9A] - it does *not* > accept or reject the improper lead. However... Law 9B1 now requires all > players to call the Director - and 9B2 prohibits any player from taking > any other action until the Director explains the ramifications of the > situation. So the correct procedure after the LOOT and partner's > drawing attention to it is to call the Director who will, assuming he's > competent, give you the opportunity to accept the lead. Your acceptance > of the lead when you did is technically incorrect, but I don't see any > reason that should change anything. > +=+ I agree that attention has been called to an irregularity and the Director should be called. However, I differ in respect of what the Director should do. He should confirm that the LOOT has been accepted and has become a correct lead per Law 53A, see also Law 55A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 24 13:13:54 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:13:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: <20050124123733.822E52BC06D@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000201c50216$8eee11b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Konrad Ciborowski > Sven Pran napisa=B3(a): >=20 > > My ruling is 5D made. >=20 >=20 > I agree but only for NOS > (not cashing the HA is "irrational, > wild or gambling" for me). > For OS I rule 5D -1 as they > did benefit from MI. Although I frown when players volunteer "correct" information that mis-describes their actual hand I do not really see that this is much relevant in this case. The three small hearts in dummy eliminate every reason for not leading a heart to the third trick.=20 1: Doubling an opening bid in majors generally implies that the player = is prepared for an answer from partner in the other major suit even at high level. Or what shall partner do with something like 10 HCP, four decent hearts and a promising distribution after the sequence 1S - X - 3S - ? (3S is a weak raise) 2: Had LHO any reason to suspect that his "correct" explanation of = showing four hearts could "damage" opponents at the time he gave this = information? 3: before ruling that EW benefit from MI you have to establish that = there was indeed MI; something I seriously doubt in this case. But it does = appear to me that "showing four hearts" is usually "general knowledge" rather = than an explicit agreement. > I would certainly ask a lot > of questions to East-West but > from the facts presented it looks > to me definitely that there *was* > MI (but I might be persuaded > otherwise by the players). Very wise, I would too.=20 And had for instance the HK been in dummy I would most probably have adjusted the score to 5D-1 effective for both sides.=20 =20 Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 24 13:43:00 2005 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <41F1D65D.4040303@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: Betting on oneself (or pair/team) is perfectly normal and causes no ethical problems. Betting on other pairs/teams is also fine providing one does not then "dump" to help them (but dumping for this reason is no better/worse than dumping to help a friend). In EBUland you should generally avoid backing a pair playing in the same event (or at least the same section) and will not be eligible to sit on an AC if you have money riding on it. It's a shame the ACBL forbids sporting bets (but then the Americans are a bit prissy about such things). Luckily the ACBL does not forbid the payment of "win bonuses" by "sponsors". For a fee I am happy to arrange such sponsor bonuses. The best pairs/teams can expect to earn a win bonus of 2-3 times their original fee, lesser pairs may negotiate a possible bonus of up to 50 times the fee. The exact level of bonus remains the subject of individual negotiations :) Tim West-Meads From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 24 13:43:00 2005 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > Whichever way you go, I don't see how the > agreement to open 1C on 2 can be "conventional" - it is simply a > consequence of your *other* agreements. When a pair opens a "precision 1C" I really don't care if they say this is a "function of their other agreements" or "the core of their system". I will investigate what hand types are shown by their 1C opening and compare those with the definition of conventional. I will do the same if whatever "system" they play. If the bid promises 3+ clubs I am likely (but not certain) to rule it as natural. If the bid promises 2+ (or fewer) clubs I'll certainly rule it as being conventional. Basically I don't care how pair tries to *describe* their bid - I only care about what they use it to show. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 24 13:57:36 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:57:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer plays card from wrong hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Koen Grauwels wrote >Declarer is in Dummy, but plays a card from his own hand. >If I remember well then both opponents can accept or reject the lead >from the wrong hand. >The following happened: >Opponents are in contract is 3Dx. >The 10th trick the lead is in dummy and declarer can play any card from >dummy to make the contract, but he plays a Spade from his own hand, >which will result in -1 because I get another ruff. >My partner is LHO of declarer and says: "lead is in dummy". >I'm RHO of declarer and immediatly after my partner I say: "I accept >the lead from declarer". >Declarer now also realises that he better plays from dummy. >Question: Can I still accept the lead from declarer's hand after my >partner made the remark that the lead is in dummy (he did not >explicitly accept or reject the lead from declarer's hand)? You may accept the lead from declarer. Your partner's remark drew attention to an irregularity as is his right under the Law 9. It would not matter if you had said nothing - as you should. Once your partner has drawn attention to the irregularity the TD must be summoned, and he would have given you the chance to accept the LOOT. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jan 24 14:01:49 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:01:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181743A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181743A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <4sMhHUCN$P9BFwDq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote > >Imps >Dlr: South >Vul: All > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1H >2D 4H Pass Pass >4S Pass(1) Pass ? > >(1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing > >You, South, hold: > >Q8 >AK742 >J6 >AT74 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > >----------------------------------------- >5H >Double > >It's an insane partnership agreement, however. That's what I thought until I read the previous reply, which asks whether 4H is a "normal" strong raise! Apart from complete beginners, I know no-one who plays this as a strong raise. Even ordinary club players in England play this as pre-emptive. For it to be a forcing pass and have any sense whatever I presume that 4H must be a strong raise. Now I double and collect my 800. But I also find a new partner! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 24 14:03:35 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:03:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050121164412.02bcbeb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200501211523.j0LFNn9C005560@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <6.1.1.1.0.20050121164412.02bcbeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 10:23 AM 1/21/05, Ron wrote: > >>richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: >> >> > Imps >> > Dlr: South >> > Vul: All >> > >> > The bidding has gone: >> > >> > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> > --- --- --- 1H >> > 2D 4H Pass Pass >> > 4S Pass(1) Pass ? >> > >> > (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing >> >>A deranged agreement. But partnerships are >>entitled. > >Deranged if you play 4H in the modern style, where responder could have >nothing. But not unreasonable if you play it the old-fashioned way, >showing a hand that lacks the high-card values for a forcing raise but >has enough compensating distributional values to expect to make 4H. Perhaps this is where the problem comes from. 4H was weak and pre-emptive in England when I learnt bridge in the fifties. But if someone plays bridge as in the forties or the thirties .......... -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jan 24 14:07:12 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:07:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <41F1D65D.4040303@elnet.msk.ru> References: <41F1D65D.4040303@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: Vitold wrote >Hi all:) >How do you think is it permitted for player, participant of bridge >contest, to make bets on result of this contest? On his own results, on >results of his pair or team? On results of another pair or team in this >contest? On difference between his (his team's) result and result of >another team? >As I know it is forbidden at ACBL-land (paragraph 3.1 at ACBL Code of >Disciplinary regulation) but I could not find the item at WBF or EBL >documents. So: are there any restrictions in contests under auspices of >WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO? >My personal opinion: such betting violates basic principles of sporting >ethics and should be forbidden in bridge events of any kind. I do not believe there are such things as sporting ethics, and anyway, bridge is not a sport. In the EBU you are permitted to bet on yourself but no-one else. Seems fair to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 24 14:11:51 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:11:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: <000101c5020e$ff75b8f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5020e$ff75b8f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Koen Grauwels >> IMP >> N/- >> >> 1S-(DBL)-P-(1NT) >> P-(2D)-P-(3D) >> P-(5D)-all pass >> >> LHO (5D bidder) discusses bidding of his partner. >> He does not understand why he bids 1NT and then bids >> 3D... After partner leads closed, I ask what the >> DBL is and LHO explains that it always shows the other >> Major - 4 card H -and that the 2D bid is run away from >> 1NT and means that he does not want to play in 1NT. >> It does not show extras (this was not explained by his >> partner, but by himself). >> Partner's lead is a small spade and this is the full deal: >> xx >> Kxxxx >> xx >> xxxx >> xx QTxx >> J xxx >> AKJxx Qxxx >> AKxxx QJ >> AKJ9x >> AQxx >> xx >> xx >> (I don't remember the exact cards). I cashed two spade >> tricks (9 and A). Because I really thought that RHO had >> 4 hearts, I didn't think it was urgent to cash Heart Ace. >> I played spade J (asking for a heart switch) and now >> the contract 5D was made. >> What is your ruling? > >As a Director summoned to the table I would have a problem understanding >what you could expect to gain with a heart lead from your partner that would >not be accomplished by immediately playing a heart from your own hand. Declarer has to handle a four card heart suit. Surely it will be easier if you cash the heart ace? >And particularly at IMPs I consider it tremendously careless play to delay >cashing the setting trick with prospects of cashing even more tricks in case >declarer really has that many losers. > >Give declarer KH and you have only one trick in hearts whatever you do >(unless there is no way declarer can get rid of his losers in Hearts). Give >partner KH and you have nothing to gain from not playing a heart. > >My ruling is 5D made. Why? You have suggested that South's defence was poor. Maybe it was - though i ma not sure your logic is right - but why not give him redress? The aim of the Laws is *not* to give advantage to the offending side whenever possible. One down. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Mon Jan 24 14:13:31 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:13:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer plays card from wrong hand In-Reply-To: <00a201c50216$62cc0100$7a74893e@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <206F803B-6E12-11D9-93A3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 08:08 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ I agree that attention has been called to an irregularity and > the Director should be called. However, I differ in respect of > what the Director should do. He should confirm that the LOOT > has been accepted and has become a correct lead per Law 53A, > see also Law 55A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I guess I was unclear. Given that Koen has said that he accepts the lead, Grattan is of course correct. I was trying to show what *should* have happened, ie, the correct procedure when declarer leads from the wrong hand and someone points that out. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 24 14:13:40 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:13:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: <20050124123733.822E52BC06D@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050124123733.822E52BC06D@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >Sven Pran napisa³(a): > >> My ruling is 5D made. > > >I agree but only for NOS >(not cashing the HA is "irrational, >wild or gambling" for me). >For OS I rule 5D -1 as they >did benefit from MI. We "know" that declarer is 2=4=6=1 or the like. It cannot possibly cost not to cash the heart ace. Please explain why it is irrational, wild or gambling not to cash the heart ace? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Mon Jan 24 14:17:01 2005 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:17:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E10181744F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000a01c5021f$5f7aeb20$4a9468d5@James> [Frances Hinden] > I don't understand the point you are trying > to make, other than you think playing a forcing > pass in this auction is wrong [SNIP] > It is to my mind irrelevant whether violating > system is an LA. Once it is clear that pass is > systemically forcing, the UI from partner's BIT > does not suggest any action. [Nigel] Frances' argument seems valid. How can partner's forcing pass convey unauthorised information? Well, if it conveys any message at all, partner's slow pass suggests that partner is most reluctant to bid or double. Thus, if anything, it suggests you pass. Hence, for you, even if an antisystemic pass ever was a permitted logical alternative, it is no longer. -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 17/01/2005 From J.P.Pals@uva.nl Mon Jan 24 14:20:18 2005 From: J.P.Pals@uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] betting Message-ID: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D40F@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> David Stevenson wrote: > I do not believe there are such things as sporting ethics,=20 > and anyway, bridge is not a sport. >=20 > In the EBU you are permitted to bet on yourself but no-one=20 > else. Seems fair to me. Since the Dutch Bridge League is part of the Dutch Sports Federation I am curious how you define ' a sport'.=20 Cheers, JP From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 24 14:25:21 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:25:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 08:43 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Basically I don't care how pair tries to *describe* their bid - I only > care about what > they use it to show. Then *any* bid is conventional. :-( Frankly, TFLB's definition of "convention" needs a complete overhaul. From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 24 14:28:21 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:28:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c50220$f4b37da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > The aim of the Laws is *not* to give advantage to the offending = side > whenever possible. One down. Is there any offending side if the volunteered explanation is a correct description of their agreements? (I would certainly expect either four hearts in West from this auction or if he runs away from a heart = response a hand holding at least 18HCP). And do you consider failing to lead a heart to trick three acceptable = when the scoring is IMPS and seeing three small hearts in dummy? The possible extra IMP that can be gained by having declarer solve the hearts with = bad luck is no match to the 10 IMPs at stake for making or setting the = contract. Those are my main reasons for not adjusting the result effective for = either side. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 24 14:34:36 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:34:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c50221$d4364570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .................. > We "know" that declarer is 2=4=6=1 or the like. According to explanation, yes. (And I tend to accept this explanation as probably correct). How do you handle a player who has given the correct explanation of his agreements in spite of knowing that he has bid in conflict with these agreements? (I assume that investigation will establish beyond any doubt that the explanation given was indeed correct). Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 24 14:47:41 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:47:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c50223$a83eb540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > Basically I don't care how pair tries to *describe* their bid - I = only > > care about what > > they use it to show. >=20 > Then *any* bid is conventional. :-( >=20 > Frankly, TFLB's definition of "convention" needs a complete overhaul. Ed has reached the correct understanding of what is a "convention". Terms such as "pass", "double" and "1S" are codes that convey absolutely = no information without conventions on how to understand them. Such understandings were established during the first some thirty years = of the 20th century for all 38 possible "codes" constituting the language = used during the auction period. In the thirties Ely Culbertson and his team established norms for this language and today's definition of what are "conventions" must mainly be seen as attempts to define understandings alternative to the "natural" understandings established by him (which then are considered to be = "natural" as opposed to being "conventions"). Regards Sven=20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 24 14:59:31 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:59:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D40F@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <8D401427-6E18-11D9-93A3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 09:20 US/Eastern, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > Since the Dutch Bridge League is part of the Dutch Sports Federation > I am curious how you define ' a sport'. sport, noun 1 a : a source of diversion : RECREATION b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in -- Merriam-Webster online dictionary It would appear that the DSF has used definition 1a, while David (and others) have used definition 1c. (Does anyone define bridge as a sport under definition 1b? :) From kgrauwel@hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 14:59:18 2005 From: kgrauwel@hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:59:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer plays card from wrong hand Message-ID: " You may accept the lead from declarer. Your partner's remark drew attention to an irregularity as is his right under the Law 9. It would not matter if you had said nothing - as you should. Once your partner has drawn attention to the irregularity the TD must be summoned, and he would have given you the chance to accept the LOOT." Are following statements technically correct? If declarer plays from his hand when lead is in dummy then: - LHO of declarer is allowed to accept this without calling TD by playing a card. - Either Opponent can accept this by saying that he accept that lead - If either opponent says that lead is in dummy (draws attention to an irregularity), then the TD has to be called before accepting or rejecting the lead. And if either opponent says that lead is in dummy (draws attention to an irregularity), but other opponent accepts or reject the lead before TD is called then this is not technically correct, but it will be like that? _________________________________________________________________ Gratis en voor niks je eigen blog ! http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=nl-be From kgrauwel@hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 15:26:27 2005 From: kgrauwel@hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:26:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace Message-ID: Some more info below -------------------- IMP S/- 1S-(DBL)-P-(1NT) P-(2D)-P-(3D) P-(5D)-all pass LHO (5D bidder) discusses bidding of his partner. He does not understand why he bids 1NT and then bids 3D... After partner leads closed, I ask what the DBL is and LHO explains that it always shows the other Major - 4 card H - and that the 2D bid is run away from 1NT and means that he does not want to play in 1NT. It does not show extras (this was not explained by his partner, but by himself). Partner's lead is a small spade and this is the full deal: xx Kxxxx xx xxxx xx QTxx J xxx AKJxx Qxxx AKxxx QJ AKJ9x AQxx xx xx (I don't remember the exact cards). I cashed two spade tricks (9 and A). Because I really thought that LHO had 4 hearts, I didn't think it was urgent to cash Heart Ace. I played spade J (asking for a heart switch) and now the contract 5D was made. What is your ruling? ----------------- Some more info to help David and Sven in their disagreement: - I had a problem that West was complaining about East's bidding therefor I did ask some more info about the bidding. Without this complaining I would have asked nothing and suppose that DBL and then bidding another suit is strong and not necessarily showing hearts. - During this explanation West said that the DBL always shows 4 hearts. (This was not a correction of a MI). This is information is not to be given by West, but by East should if asked for it. - Also the info that the DBL always shows 4 card H is incomplete and should be: shows 4 card H or strong. - reason that I did not play hearts is that I hoped to play it more then one down (encouraged by West's complaining about East's bidding) _________________________________________________________________ Geef het leven van zieke en gehospitaliseerde kinderen terug kleur! http://www.msn.be/simonodil From toddz@att.net Mon Jan 24 15:37:51 2005 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:37:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41F5164F.9080805@att.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > It's a shame the ACBL forbids sporting bets (but then the Americans are a > bit prissy about such things). Calcutta auctions are the only allowable wagers in ACBL that I know of, but even at that it seems rare. I only know one club that holds one. http://www.acbl.org/documentlibrary/about/bod3_2000.htm -Todd From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Jan 24 16:07:44 2005 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 24 Jan 2005 17:07:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace Message-ID: <20050124160744.57F773C2F0@poczta.interia.pl> David Stevenson napisa=B3(a): > Konrad Ciborowski wrote > >Sven Pran napisa=B3(a): > > > >> My ruling is 5D made. > > > > > >I agree but only for NOS > >(not cashing the HA is "irrational, > >wild or gambling" for me). > >For OS I rule 5D -1 as they > >did benefit from MI. >=20 > We "know" that declarer is 2=3D4=3D6=3D1 or the like. It cannot possi= bly=20 > cost not to cash the heart ace. Please explain why it is irrational,=20 > wild or gambling not to cash the heart ace? >=20 At second thought - you are right, it is not. So 5D -1 to both sides. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 24 16:21:11 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:21:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c50230$b84d0bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Koen Grauwels > Some more info below > -------------------- > IMP > S/- >=20 > 1S-(DBL)-P-(1NT) > P-(2D)-P-(3D) > P-(5D)-all pass >=20 > LHO (5D bidder) discusses bidding of his partner. He does not = understand > why > he bids 1NT and then bids 3D... After partner leads closed, I ask what = the > DBL is and LHO explains that it always shows the other Major - 4 card = H - > and that the 2D bid is run away from 1NT and means that he does not = want > to > play in 1NT. It does not show extras (this was not explained by his > partner, > but by himself). > Partner's lead is a small spade and this is the full deal: > xx > Kxxxx > xx > xxxx > xx QTxx > J xxx > AKJxx Qxxx > AKxxx QJ > AKJ9x > AQxx > xx > xx > (I don't remember the exact cards). I cashed two spade tricks (9 and = A). > Because I really thought that LHO had 4 hearts, I didn't think it was > urgent > to cash Heart Ace. I played spade J (asking for a heart switch) and = now > the > contract 5D was made. > What is your ruling? > ----------------- > Some more info to help David and Sven in their disagreement: > - I had a problem that West was complaining about East's bidding=20 So would I. I find East's calls quite ordinary. > therefor I > did ask some more info about the bidding. Without this complaining I = would > have asked nothing and suppose that DBL and then bidding another suit = is > strong and not necessarily showing hearts. Indeed. > - During this explanation West said that the DBL always shows 4 = hearts. > (This was not a correction of a MI).=20 So much I inferred from the original description. > This is information is not to be given > by West, but by East should if asked for it. This information is _preferably_ given by East, but West has a duty to = give it if he feels that East has given an incorrect or incomplete = explanation. > - Also the info that the DBL always shows 4 card H is incomplete and > should > be: shows 4 card H or strong. Quite (if that is the agreement, and I assume it is) > - reason that I did not play hearts is that I hoped to play it more = then > one > down (encouraged by West's complaining about East's bidding) Your inference from what is said is at your own risk unless either: The information given is wrong, or: The information given although correct could have been given for the = purpose of misleading opponents. (This requires some probability of intent for deception). I maintain my opinion unless it should appear that West in fact gave the wrong information. Regards Sven From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Jan 24 18:10:10 2005 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:10:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer plays card from wrong hand References: Message-ID: <006b01c50240$05407500$f9493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koen Grauwels" To: Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer plays card from wrong hand > > " You may accept the lead from declarer. > Your partner's remark drew attention to an irregularity as is his right > under the Law 9. > It would not matter if you had said nothing - as you should. Once your > partner has drawn attention to the irregularity the TD must be summoned, and > he would have given you the chance to accept the LOOT." > > Are following statements technically correct? > If declarer plays from his hand when lead is in dummy then: > - LHO of declarer is allowed to accept this without calling TD by playing a > card. Yes: there is no difference in doing it intentionally or while sleeping. > - Either Opponent can accept this by saying that he accept that lead Yes, but whereafter his partner is not allowed to resist > - If either opponent says that lead is in dummy (draws attention to an > irregularity), then the TD has to be called before accepting or rejecting > the lead. Yes, Law9B1a > > And if either opponent says that lead is in dummy (draws attention to an > irregularity), but other opponent accepts or reject the lead before TD is > called then this is not technically correct, but it will be like that? Yes, because the choice is made and there just one choice. Please read the LAWS of DUPLICATE CONTRACT BRIDGE > > _________________________________________________________________ > Gratis en voor niks je eigen blog ! http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=nl-be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 24 18:25:28 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:25:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D40F@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D40F@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: Jan Peter Pals wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I do not believe there are such things as sporting ethics, >> and anyway, bridge is not a sport. >> >> In the EBU you are permitted to bet on yourself but no-one >> else. Seems fair to me. > >Since the Dutch Bridge League is part of the Dutch Sports Federation >I am curious how you define ' a sport'. Sports exercise the body. Mindsports exercise the mind. Do you have to run around the table in the Netherlands? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jan 24 18:32:26 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:32:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: <000501c50220$f4b37da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c50220$f4b37da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> The aim of the Laws is *not* to give advantage to the offending side >> whenever possible. One down. > >Is there any offending side if the volunteered explanation is a correct >description of their agreements? (I would certainly expect either four >hearts in West from this auction or if he runs away from a heart response a >hand holding at least 18HCP). No, of course if there is no misinformation we do not adjust. I appreciate the original poster did not say the explanation was wrong but it was rather suggested by his post. >And do you consider failing to lead a heart to trick three acceptable when >the scoring is IMPS and seeing three small hearts in dummy? The possible >extra IMP that can be gained by having declarer solve the hearts with bad >luck is no match to the 10 IMPs at stake for making or setting the contract. It is acceptable. If every time you can get an extra trick at imps you do not because the hand may be totally different form what you accept you will actually lose quite a number of imps. When one down is perfectly safe, players do not always take it one down. You could argue that they should, but to deny redress for this - which lots of players are doing at any one time - seems just unfair. >Those are my main reasons for not adjusting the result effective for either >side. You have no knowledge of the first: you are just guessing that there was no misinformation with no suggestion whatever of that in the original post. If you are giving no adjustment to either side based on IWoG action then you are incredibly harsh on the non-offenders and have ruled wrong for the Os. I think "beating up" on NOs to be against the spirit of the game and very bad for it, and a split score is mandatory when you deny redress under IWoG. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Jan 24 18:32:19 2005 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:32:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace References: Message-ID: <009501c50243$9229bb40$f9493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koen Grauwels" To: Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace > Some more info below > -------------------- > IMP > S/- > > 1S-(DBL)-P-(1NT) > P-(2D)-P-(3D) > P-(5D)-all pass > > LHO (5D bidder) discusses bidding of his partner. He does not understand why > he bids 1NT and then bids 3D... After partner leads closed, I ask what the > DBL is and LHO explains that it always shows the other Major - 4 card H - > and that the 2D bid is run away from 1NT and means that he does not want to > play in 1NT. It does not show extras (this was not explained by his partner, > but by himself). > Partner's lead is a small spade and this is the full deal: > xx > Kxxxx > xx > xxxx > xx QTxx > J xxx > AKJxx Qxxx > AKxxx QJ > AKJ9x > AQxx > xx > xx > (I don't remember the exact cards). I cashed two spade tricks (9 and A). > Because I really thought that LHO had 4 hearts, I didn't think it was urgent > to cash Heart Ace. I played spade J (asking for a heart switch) and now the > contract 5D was made. > What is your ruling? > ----------------- > Some more info to help David and Sven in their disagreement: > - I had a problem that West was complaining about East's bidding therefor I > did ask some more info about the bidding. Without this complaining I would > have asked nothing and suppose that DBL and then bidding another suit is > strong and not necessarily showing hearts. > - During this explanation West said that the DBL always shows 4 hearts. > (This was not a correction of a MI). This is information is not to be given > by West, but by East should if asked for it. > - Also the info that the DBL always shows 4 card H is incomplete and should > be: shows 4 card H or strong. > - reason that I did not play hearts is that I hoped to play it more then one > down (encouraged by West's complaining about East's bidding) > > The convention card is not given. Did west have other possibilities to describe his hand? Ben From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 24 18:33:23 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:33:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: <000601c50221$d4364570$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c50221$d4364570$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >.................. >> We "know" that declarer is 2=4=6=1 or the like. > >According to explanation, yes. (And I tend to accept this explanation as >probably correct). > >How do you handle a player who has given the correct explanation of his >agreements in spite of knowing that he has bid in conflict with these >agreements? (I assume that investigation will establish beyond any doubt >that the explanation given was indeed correct). No misinformation, no adjustment, WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jan 24 18:34:27 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:34:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Koen Grauwels wrote >Some more info below >-------------------- >IMP >S/- > >1S-(DBL)-P-(1NT) >P-(2D)-P-(3D) >P-(5D)-all pass > >LHO (5D bidder) discusses bidding of his partner. He does not >understand why he bids 1NT and then bids 3D... After partner leads >closed, I ask what the DBL is and LHO explains that it always shows the >other Major - 4 card H - and that the 2D bid is run away from 1NT and >means that he does not want to play in 1NT. It does not show extras >(this was not explained by his partner, but by himself). >Partner's lead is a small spade and this is the full deal: > xx > Kxxxx > xx > xxxx >xx QTxx >J xxx >AKJxx Qxxx >AKxxx QJ > AKJ9x > AQxx > xx > xx >(I don't remember the exact cards). I cashed two spade tricks (9 and >A). Because I really thought that LHO had 4 hearts, I didn't think it >was urgent to cash Heart Ace. I played spade J (asking for a heart >switch) and now the contract 5D was made. >What is your ruling? >----------------- >Some more info to help David and Sven in their disagreement: >- I had a problem that West was complaining about East's bidding >therefor I did ask some more info about the bidding. Without this >complaining I would have asked nothing and suppose that DBL and then >bidding another suit is strong and not necessarily showing hearts. >- During this explanation West said that the DBL always shows 4 hearts. >(This was not a correction of a MI). This is information is not to be >given by West, but by East should if asked for it. >- Also the info that the DBL always shows 4 card H is incomplete and >should be: shows 4 card H or strong. Exactly: misinformation was present. >- reason that I did not play hearts is that I hoped to play it more >then one down (encouraged by West's complaining about East's bidding) > >_________________________________________________________________ >Geef het leven van zieke en gehospitaliseerde kinderen terug kleur! >http://www.msn.be/simonodil > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 19:40:03 2005 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:40:03 -0600 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 20:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 2D 4H Pass Pass > 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing, but > also perpetrated with a break in tempo > > The complete deal (I sat West): > > 732 > QJT953 > AT > KQ > AK95 JT64 > --- 86 > KQ9843 752 > 965 J832 > Q8 > AK742 > J6 > AT74 > > Result: North-South +650 > > At the conclusion of play I summoned the TD. > After consultation, the directing staff would > have really liked to adjust the score to 4S passed > out, North-South +200, but they were hamstrung by > a note on the North-South system card which > specifically stated that North's pass was 100% > forcing. So, the TDs thought that they had no > option but to rule that the table result stood. I was somewhat disappointed that the full agreements* were not made available, because, to me they are very relevant in UI situations. As in this case. As best as I can make out, 4H systemically promises pretty respectable values. So to opener's view the plus score should be coming his way. Opener needs cover for 2S, 0.3H, 2D, and 1.5C on this auction. Neither he nor responder has suggested the partnership has the values for 11 tricks [no slam move] so how many covers can responder be expected to supply? 3? 2.5? *I have found that when inferior system is in effect, that UI seems to overcome defects in many partnerships [my opinion of course]. To my mind, given his aces and spaces opener's systemic call in this 'forcing situation is double- (clearly over and above all other calls since going minus is a definite likelihood in 5H but not definte in 4SX). Consider what the situation looks like when opener chooses some call other than double. It looks like there was some influence other than AI at work. Now, had partner not paused (or had some other significant mannerism), I would not be in a position to judge what that influence was. Nor would I care to be concerned over it. But in this case there was a pause; a pause that carries inferences that include suggesting that raising the contract could be more profitable** than double. ** [a] A slow FP can suggest several inferences, one of which that the chosen action may be anti-systemic(eg. shaded for 4H)/deviation from system (doesn't have the controls to pull 4SX)/the system does not fit the situation very well (eg. Should have bid 5H instead pass). [b] Another inference is that responder is concerned about beating 4S [a heart void out there-ie v.v. long hearts] while not being able to take at least 11 tricks [balanced]. To be frank, such a pause provides inferences that demonstrably suggests any of many actions- including pass, double, 5H, and slamming. Which is my answer to Hinden [who asserted that the pause didn't suggest anything}. Even if I had the system and knowledge of responder's proclivities, there would not be compelling certainty which inferences were the accurate ones [but they would help significantly]. That may be where the line is for demonstrably suggest over another. But if that is the case then the boundary condones way too much unfair play of the wrong kind. To my mind, the most noticeable feature of UI is that it draws attention to a situation that is indeed likely to be 'special this time- in a certain way' and therefore brings notice to a not usual action. Anyway, I found it discouraging that the TD wanted to rule adjusted score to 4S [without first disproving the FP agreement], and in fact determined that tempo did not provide inferences that suggested taking a risky 5H instead of a sound double. > The point of this problem was whether a violation > of system would be a logical alternative. I suspect that you did not write accurately. Do you not mean that when considering an adjusted score it is right [not right] to consider an outcome that the system would not achieve? I think it is not right just as it is not right to adjust the score to 2S for MI that occurred at the five level. It is my belief, whether or not founded in law, that a player should not be subject to adjustment for any action if there were no UI available to him; and conversely, he must take care to not deviate from his system once UI is made available. regards roger pewick > I am > retrospectively pleased to note that 2 or 3 blmlers > would commonsensically ignore the 100% of Nothing > agreement (which might, on another deal, force a > choice between -790 and -800), and voted to perhaps > pass 4S at the table. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills From qqvlmvwaqt@pyrontechnologies.com Mon Jan 24 20:07:14 2005 From: qqvlmvwaqt@pyrontechnologies.com (Abbey Ziai) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:07:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] High OctaneSt0ck VCSC picture Message-ID: MarketMakers Profit Guide 2005 With Over 97% Winning Trades! Featured Company Is: Vocalscape Inc, Breaking News released by the company on Friday after the close - this is an inside tip to our subscribers to get it immediately since the company is planning on a massive marketing campaign starting tuesday for the entire week. So do not miss out on it our advice is get it monday at the opening or tuesday morning the latest. This is a great company with great gains to be expected. Ticker:VCSC Current Price:.15 Price in 5 days:.62 Price in 15 days:.85 VocalScape Networks Inc. is building a company that's revolutionizing the telecommunications industry with the most affordable phone systems, hardware, online software, and rates in Canada and the US. VocalScape, a company with global reach, is receiving international attention for the development of Voice over IP (VoIP) application solutions, including the award-winning EyefonTM, a softphone for real-time PC-to-phone. We are an advanced implementer of PBX systems for companies, call centers, ITSPs and service providers. Breaking News - Partnership with VBS Telecom! KATONAH, N.Y., Jan. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ Vocalscape Inc. "VCSC", announces that the company has entered into a partnership agreement with VBS Telecom to represent Vocalscape's proprietary Eyefon, an award winning VoIP soft phone and Vocalscape's pre-paid calling card solution to their clients. Don't Sleep On This One, It will produce unreal profits all week. So get in early on Monday morning. =Legal-Information: In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of VCSC shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward looking statements. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an invitation to get position in or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. This newsletter was paid 49000 from third party to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as " Projected Speculative Price" "expect", "believe", "may", "will", " Soar" "move", "undervalued" and "intend" or similar terms plating transcendental From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 24 21:22:36 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:22:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid not to cash H Ace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >We "know" that declarer is 2=4=6=1 or the like. It cannot possibly >cost not to cash the heart ace. Please explain why it is irrational, >wild or gambling not to cash the heart ace? Richard Hills: In the just-finished Aussie Nationals, I was defending a 3NT contract, and, when I gained the lead during the midgame, I could have claimed my two winners for a one-trick set. However, because it could not possibly cost to cash my two winners, and then see if another undertrick happened later, I followed that strategy instead. But, when cashing my first winner, partner perpetrated a revoke. Although the revoke was not established, the ensuing penalty card resulted in mutual red faces as we now had to concede -600. :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jan 24 22:04:13 2005 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:04:13 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <41F1D65D.4040303@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Vitold wrote: > As I know it is forbidden at ACBL-land (paragraph 3.1 at ACBL Code of > Disciplinary regulation) but I could not find the item at WBF or EBL > documents. So: are there any restrictions in contests under auspices of > WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO? It is forbidden on paper in the ACBL. But betting on your own results is still very common, and is done even by a number of ACBL officials. I don't think the ACBL's concern was with people betting privately on themselves, anyway. What they want is to avoid legal issues involved with allowing/promoting gambling, and to avoid having their employees make extra money as bookmakers. (If Jerry Machlin's "Tournament Bridge: An Uncensored Memoir" is to be believed, in the past this was very common.) > My personal opinion: such betting violates basic principles of sporting > ethics and should be forbidden in bridge events of any kind. Personally, I see nothing wrong with betting on oneself, or with betting on participants in an event I am not playing in at all. I *do* see a problem with betting against oneself, and with owning a stake in another player in the same event you play. But even if there is no rule against betting, there IS a rule about always playing your best bridge and not throwing matches to friends. That rule could be interpreted or expanded to prohibit anything that gives you a financial reason to want to help someone else to place higher. GRB From mustikka@charter.net Mon Jan 24 22:18:13 2005 From: mustikka@charter.net (raija d) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:18:13 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] 100% of Nothing Message-ID: <002001c50262$988fab10$3bbcbe44@DFYXB361> Sorry, sent this to Roger Pewick only, meant for blml. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija d" To: "Roger Pewick" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Pewick" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:40 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 20:19 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing >> >> >> >>> Imps >>> Dlr: South >>> Vul: All >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- --- 1H >>> 2D 4H Pass Pass >>> 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H >>> Pass Pass Pass >>> >>> (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing, but >>> also perpetrated with a break in tempo >>> >>> The complete deal (I sat West): >>> >>> 732 >>> QJT953 >>> AT >>> KQ >>> AK95 JT64 >>> --- 86 >>> KQ9843 752 >>> 965 J832 >>> Q8 >>> AK742 >>> J6 >>> AT74 >>> >>> Result: North-South +650 >>> >>> At the conclusion of play I summoned the TD. >>> After consultation, the directing staff would >>> have really liked to adjust the score to 4S passed >>> out, North-South +200, but they were hamstrung by >>> a note on the North-South system card which >>> specifically stated that North's pass was 100% >>> forcing. So, the TDs thought that they had no >>> option but to rule that the table result stood. >> >> I was somewhat disappointed that the full agreements* were not made >> available, because, to me they are very relevant in UI situations. As in >> this case. As best as I can make out, 4H systemically promises pretty >> respectable values. So to opener's view the plus score should be coming >> his >> way. Opener needs cover for 2S, 0.3H, 2D, and 1.5C on this auction. >> Neither he nor responder has suggested the partnership has the values for >> 11 >> tricks [no slam move] so how many covers can responder be expected to >> supply? 3? 2.5? >> >> *I have found that when inferior system is in effect, that UI seems to >> overcome defects in many partnerships [my opinion of course]. >> >> To my mind, given his aces and spaces opener's systemic call in this >> 'forcing situation is double- (clearly over and above all other calls >> since >> going minus is a definite likelihood in 5H but not definte in 4SX). >> >> Consider what the situation looks like when opener chooses some call >> other >> than double. It looks like there was some influence other than AI at >> work. >> Now, had partner not paused (or had some other significant mannerism), I >> would not be in a position to judge what that influence was. Nor would I >> care to be concerned over it. But in this case there was a pause; a >> pause >> that carries inferences that include suggesting that raising the contract >> could be more profitable** than double. >> >> ** [a] A slow FP can suggest several inferences, one of which that the >> chosen action may be anti-systemic(eg. shaded for 4H)/deviation from >> system >> (doesn't have the controls to pull 4SX)/the system does not fit the >> situation very well (eg. Should have bid 5H instead pass). [b] Another >> inference is that responder is concerned about beating 4S [a heart void >> out >> there-ie v.v. long hearts] while not being able to take at least 11 >> tricks >> [balanced]. >> >> To be frank, such a pause provides inferences that demonstrably suggests >> any >> of many actions- including pass, double, 5H, and slamming. Which is my >> answer to Hinden [who asserted that the pause didn't suggest anything}. > > Without being a TD, I beg to differ. Pass is out of the question, since > they had the funny agreement that they were in a forcing pass situation > which required either a X or a bid. Certaintly any pause CANNOT suggest a > call that violates partnership agreements. So PASS is not a logical > option. As to how to determine what the pause suggests, I don't know how > one can determine what it suggests, let alone *demonstrably suggests*. > Raija > > >> >> Even if I had the system and knowledge of responder's proclivities, >> there >> would not be compelling certainty which inferences were the accurate ones >> [but they would help significantly]. That may be where the line is for >> demonstrably suggest over another. But if that is the case then the >> boundary >> condones way too much unfair play of the wrong kind. To my mind, the >> most >> noticeable feature of UI is that it draws attention to a situation that >> is >> indeed likely to be 'special this time- in a certain way' and therefore >> brings notice to a not usual action. >> >> Anyway, I found it discouraging that the TD wanted to rule adjusted score >> to >> 4S [without first disproving the FP agreement], and in fact determined >> that >> tempo did not provide inferences that suggested taking a risky 5H instead >> of >> a sound double. >> >> >> >>> The point of this problem was whether a violation >>> of system would be a logical alternative. >> >> I suspect that you did not write accurately. Do you not mean that when >> considering an adjusted score it is right [not right] to consider an >> outcome >> that the system would not achieve? I think it is not right just as it is >> not right to adjust the score to 2S for MI that occurred at the five >> level. >> It is my belief, whether or not founded in law, that a player should not >> be >> subject to adjustment for any action if there were no UI available to >> him; >> and conversely, he must take care to not deviate from his system once UI >> is >> made available. >> >> regards >> roger pewick >> >>> I am >>> retrospectively pleased to note that 2 or 3 blmlers >>> would commonsensically ignore the 100% of Nothing >>> agreement (which might, on another deal, force a >>> choice between -790 and -800), and voted to perhaps >>> pass 4S at the table. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Richard Hills >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 24 22:28:28 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:28:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <44F9061D-6E57-11D9-B482-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 14:40 US/Eastern, Roger Pewick wrote: > To be frank, such a pause provides inferences that demonstrably > suggests any > of many actions- including pass, double, 5H, and slamming. Which is my > answer to Hinden [who asserted that the pause didn't suggest anything}. What are the logical alternatives? Which of them is *demonstrably* suggested over the others by the UI? If pass, double, 5H and slamming are all "suggested", but none seems to be suggested *over* the others, then the bidder has no legal constraints. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 24 22:58:18 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:58:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: >I was somewhat disappointed that the full agreements* were >not made available, because, to me they are very relevant >in UI situations. As in this case. [snip] >*I have found that when inferior system is in effect, that >UI seems to overcome defects in many partnerships [my >opinion of course]. Richard Hills: This deal occurred in the giant Swiss Pairs (268 partnerships) at the recent Aussie Nationals. Therefore, a large collection of TDs were available. So, the final decision was not made by the summoned TD, but rather collectively by all TDs present. After preliminary consultation with other TDs, the summoned TD returned to the table to interrogate North-South on exactly when their forcing passes were applicable. Apparently North- South have a daft agreement that such forcing passes apply whenever responder raises an opening bid to game. Roger Pewick: [snip] >** [a] A slow FP can suggest several inferences, one of which >that the chosen action may be anti-systemic(eg. shaded for 4H) >/deviation from system (doesn't have the controls to pull 4SX) >/the system does not fit the situation very well (eg. Should >have bid 5H instead pass). [b] Another inference is that >responder is concerned about beating 4S [a heart void out >there-ie v.v. long hearts] while not being able to take at >least 11 tricks [balanced]. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the most likely inference is [c] -> (1) A super-fast forcing pass is not forcing, saying "Pard, I've forgotten the system." (2) An in-tempo forcing pass is obviously forcing, saying "Pard, I've remembered the system, and - on this auction - it is certain that you will remember the system too." (3) A super-slow forcing pass is a system reminder, saying "Pard, I'm not sure if you will remember that 'forcing passes' are very neatly typed on our system card." Roger Pewick: [snip] >To my mind, the most noticeable feature of UI is that it draws >attention to a situation that is indeed likely to be 'special >this time- in a certain way' and therefore brings notice to a >not usual action. > >Anyway, I found it discouraging that the TD wanted to rule >adjusted score to 4S [without first disproving the FP agreement], Richard Hills: My apologies to the Aussie TDs at the Nationals, for previously writing an over-succinct posting which could be misinterpreted. The TDs only wanted to adjust to 4S passed out *if and only if* the North-South forcing pass agreement was a merely notional agreement which had implicitly agreed exceptions. Roger Pewick: >and in fact determined that tempo did not provide inferences that >suggested taking a risky 5H instead of a sound double. Richard Hills: Disagree with the evaluation that doubling 4S is "sound". This could easily be a points-schmoints -790 or -990 defending 4Sx, on the AI from the West bidding and the South cards. Roger Pewick: [snip] >It is my belief, whether or not founded in law, that a player >should not be subject to adjustment for any action if there were >no UI available to him; and conversely, he must take care to not >deviate from his system once UI is made available. Richard Hills: But what if the UI demonstrably suggests that a player should abide by their system? I note that, about a decade ago, half of The Master Solvers' Club in the The Bridge World (a group containing a large number of world champions) deliberately and publicly violated system because they thought it was right. Unfortunately, since the system violators were a plurality (not an absolute majority) they did not get the maximum 100 points, but were awarded a mere 40 points by MSC Director Jeff Rubens. Jeff and Roger seem to share the hypermodern belief in the inviolate sanctity of partnership agreements. However, the Aussie TDs' ruling may well have been correct. The table TD's interrogation of North-South resulted in a balance of probabilities Law 85A determination that North-South also hold the hypermodern belief in the inviolate sanctity of partnership agreements. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Mon Jan 24 23:32:42 2005 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:32:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D40F@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >Jan Peter Pals wrote >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> I do not believe there are such things as sporting ethics, >>> and anyway, bridge is not a sport. >>> >>> In the EBU you are permitted to bet on yourself but no-one >>> else. Seems fair to me. >> >>Since the Dutch Bridge League is part of the Dutch Sports Federation >>I am curious how you define ' a sport'. > > Sports exercise the body. Mindsports exercise the mind. > > Do you have to run around the table in the Netherlands? Nope but I have to have from table to table, serious exercise IMO. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 00:23:22 2005 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:23:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing References:

<001c01c50262$77e19450$3bbcbe44@DFYXB361> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija d" To: "Roger Pewick" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 16:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Pewick" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:40 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 20:19 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > > > > > > > >> Imps > >> Dlr: South > >> Vul: All > >> > >> The bidding has gone: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> --- --- --- 1H > >> 2D 4H Pass Pass > >> 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H > >> Pass Pass Pass > >> > >> (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing, but > >> also perpetrated with a break in tempo > >> > >> The complete deal (I sat West): > >> > >> 732 > >> QJT953 > >> AT > >> KQ > >> AK95 JT64 > >> --- 86 > >> KQ9843 752 > >> 965 J832 > >> Q8 > >> AK742 > >> J6 > >> AT74 > >> > >> Result: North-South +650 > >> > >> At the conclusion of play I summoned the TD. > >> After consultation, the directing staff would > >> have really liked to adjust the score to 4S passed > >> out, North-South +200, but they were hamstrung by > >> a note on the North-South system card which > >> specifically stated that North's pass was 100% > >> forcing. So, the TDs thought that they had no > >> option but to rule that the table result stood. > > > > I was somewhat disappointed that the full agreements* were not made > > available, because, to me they are very relevant in UI situations. As in > > this case. As best as I can make out, 4H systemically promises pretty > > respectable values. So to opener's view the plus score should be coming > > his > > way. Opener needs cover for 2S, 0.3H, 2D, and 1.5C on this auction. > > Neither he nor responder has suggested the partnership has the values for > > 11 > > tricks [no slam move] so how many covers can responder be expected to > > supply? 3? 2.5? > > > > *I have found that when inferior system is in effect, that UI seems to > > overcome defects in many partnerships [my opinion of course]. > > > > To my mind, given his aces and spaces opener's systemic call in this > > 'forcing situation is double- (clearly over and above all other calls > > since > > going minus is a definite likelihood in 5H but not definte in 4SX). > > > > Consider what the situation looks like when opener chooses some call other > > than double. It looks like there was some influence other than AI at > > work. > > Now, had partner not paused (or had some other significant mannerism), I > > would not be in a position to judge what that influence was. Nor would I > > care to be concerned over it. But in this case there was a pause; a pause > > that carries inferences that include suggesting that raising the contract > > could be more profitable** than double. > > > > ** [a] A slow FP can suggest several inferences, one of which that the > > chosen action may be anti-systemic(eg. shaded for 4H)/deviation from > > system > > (doesn't have the controls to pull 4SX)/the system does not fit the > > situation very well (eg. Should have bid 5H instead pass). [b] Another > > inference is that responder is concerned about beating 4S [a heart void > > out > > there-ie v.v. long hearts] while not being able to take at least 11 tricks > > [balanced]. > > > > To be frank, such a pause provides inferences that demonstrably suggests > > any > > of many actions- including pass, double, 5H, and slamming. Which is my > > answer to Hinden [who asserted that the pause didn't suggest anything}. > > Without being a TD, I beg to differ. Pass is out of the question, since > they had the funny agreement that they were in a forcing pass situation > which required either a X or a bid. Certaintly any pause CANNOT suggest a > call that violates partnership agreements. So PASS is not a logical option. > As to how to determine what the pause suggests, I don't know how one can > determine what it suggests, let alone *demonstrably suggests*. > Raija Raija, Just in case there is some matter of semantics. Tempo can provide one or more inferences. An inference or combination of inferences can make one or more suggestions more attractive [eg as in lower risk]. Such suggestions may or may not be systemic. For instance. Consider the case when N has an off color preempt [eg 2-3-2-6] for 4H instead of the honors he ought to have. Well, from responder's view he is in a pickle since system is going to catapult them too high and now he is trying to think of some way out of the pickle. Well, by the time he has figured it out it has shown up in his tempo. Couldn't that be explain responder's tempo? What is the primary inference? Responder has deviated from system and that suggests opener may improve the contract by being non systemic, say by Pass. Now, if what you are talking about are 12C2/C3 scores then that is a different matter. I believe that the TD ought to be constrained from assigning anti-systemic scores [and nowhere did I suggest otherwise]. 'Demonstrably suggests over' are slippery words, I agree. My personal view is that the focus is not in the right direction. But what drew me to the case was that bridge judgment suggests that the systemic call for opener was clearly 'Double' [undoubtedly debatable, but highly defensible from my premise that 4H promises good honors]. And to me, the problem was why opener chose a different call- which I attributed to tempo demonstrably sugg esting 5H over X.. regards roger pewick > > Even if I had the system and knowledge of responder's proclivities, there > > would not be compelling certainty which inferences were the accurate ones > > [but they would help significantly]. That may be where the line is for > > demonstrably suggest over another. But if that is the case then the > > boundary > > condones way too much unfair play of the wrong kind. To my mind, the most > > noticeable feature of UI is that it draws attention to a situation that is > > indeed likely to be 'special this time- in a certain way' and therefore > > brings notice to a not usual action. > > > > Anyway, I found it discouraging that the TD wanted to rule adjusted score > > to > > 4S [without first disproving the FP agreement], and in fact determined > > that > > tempo did not provide inferences that suggested taking a risky 5H instead > > of > > a sound double. > > > > > > > >> The point of this problem was whether a violation > >> of system would be a logical alternative. > > > > I suspect that you did not write accurately. Do you not mean that when > > considering an adjusted score it is right [not right] to consider an > > outcome > > that the system would not achieve? I think it is not right just as it is > > not right to adjust the score to 2S for MI that occurred at the five > > level. > > It is my belief, whether or not founded in law, that a player should not > > be > > subject to adjustment for any action if there were no UI available to him; > > and conversely, he must take care to not deviate from his system once UI > > is > > made available. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > >> I am > >> retrospectively pleased to note that 2 or 3 blmlers > >> would commonsensically ignore the 100% of Nothing > >> agreement (which might, on another deal, force a > >> choice between -790 and -800), and voted to perhaps > >> pass 4S at the table. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> Richard Hills From mustikka@charter.net Tue Jan 25 00:44:13 2005 From: mustikka@charter.net (raija d) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:44:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing References:

<001c01c50262$77e19450$3bbcbe44@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000301c50276$fe2dfb70$3bbcbe44@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "raija d" > To: "Roger Pewick" > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 16:17 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Roger Pewick" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:40 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing >> >> >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: >> > To: >> > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 20:19 PM >> > Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing >> > >> > >> > >> >> Imps >> >> Dlr: South >> >> Vul: All >> >> >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> >> --- --- --- 1H >> >> 2D 4H Pass Pass >> >> 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H >> >> Pass Pass Pass >> >> >> >> (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing, but >> >> also perpetrated with a break in tempo >> >> >> >> The complete deal (I sat West): >> >> >> >> 732 >> >> QJT953 >> >> AT >> >> KQ >> >> AK95 JT64 >> >> --- 86 >> >> KQ9843 752 >> >> 965 J832 >> >> Q8 >> >> AK742 >> >> J6 >> >> AT74 >> >> >> >> Result: North-South +650 >> >> >> >> At the conclusion of play I summoned the TD. >> >> After consultation, the directing staff would >> >> have really liked to adjust the score to 4S passed >> >> out, North-South +200, but they were hamstrung by >> >> a note on the North-South system card which >> >> specifically stated that North's pass was 100% >> >> forcing. So, the TDs thought that they had no >> >> option but to rule that the table result stood. >> > >> > I was somewhat disappointed that the full agreements* were not made >> > available, because, to me they are very relevant in UI situations. As > in >> > this case. As best as I can make out, 4H systemically promises pretty >> > respectable values. So to opener's view the plus score should be >> > coming >> > his >> > way. Opener needs cover for 2S, 0.3H, 2D, and 1.5C on this auction. >> > Neither he nor responder has suggested the partnership has the values > for >> > 11 >> > tricks [no slam move] so how many covers can responder be expected to >> > supply? 3? 2.5? >> > >> > *I have found that when inferior system is in effect, that UI seems to >> > overcome defects in many partnerships [my opinion of course]. >> > >> > To my mind, given his aces and spaces opener's systemic call in this >> > 'forcing situation is double- (clearly over and above all other calls >> > since >> > going minus is a definite likelihood in 5H but not definte in 4SX). >> > >> > Consider what the situation looks like when opener chooses some call > other >> > than double. It looks like there was some influence other than AI at >> > work. >> > Now, had partner not paused (or had some other significant mannerism), >> > I >> > would not be in a position to judge what that influence was. Nor would > I >> > care to be concerned over it. But in this case there was a pause; a > pause >> > that carries inferences that include suggesting that raising the > contract >> > could be more profitable** than double. >> > >> > ** [a] A slow FP can suggest several inferences, one of which that the >> > chosen action may be anti-systemic(eg. shaded for 4H)/deviation from >> > system >> > (doesn't have the controls to pull 4SX)/the system does not fit the >> > situation very well (eg. Should have bid 5H instead pass). [b] Another >> > inference is that responder is concerned about beating 4S [a heart >> > void >> > out >> > there-ie v.v. long hearts] while not being able to take at least 11 > tricks >> > [balanced]. >> > >> > To be frank, such a pause provides inferences that demonstrably >> > suggests >> > any >> > of many actions- including pass, double, 5H, and slamming. Which is my >> > answer to Hinden [who asserted that the pause didn't suggest anything}. >> >> Without being a TD, I beg to differ. Pass is out of the question, since >> they had the funny agreement that they were in a forcing pass situation >> which required either a X or a bid. Certaintly any pause CANNOT suggest >> a >> call that violates partnership agreements. So PASS is not a logical > option. >> As to how to determine what the pause suggests, I don't know how one can >> determine what it suggests, let alone *demonstrably suggests*. >> Raija > > Raija, > > Just in case there is some matter of semantics. Tempo can provide one or > more inferences. An inference or combination of inferences can make one > or > more suggestions more attractive [eg as in lower risk]. Such suggestions > may or may not be systemic. > > For instance. Consider the case when N has an off color preempt [eg > 2-3-2-6] for 4H instead of the honors he ought to have. Well, from > responder's view he is in a pickle since system is going to catapult them > too high and now he is trying to think of some way out of the pickle. > Well, > by the time he has figured it out it has shown up in his tempo. Couldn't > that be explain responder's tempo? What is the primary inference? > Responder has deviated from system and that suggests opener may improve > the > contract by being non systemic, say by Pass. > > Now, if what you are talking about are 12C2/C3 scores then that is a > different matter. I believe that the TD ought to be constrained from > assigning anti-systemic scores [and nowhere did I suggest otherwise]. > 'Demonstrably suggests over' are slippery words, I agree. My personal > view > is that the focus is not in the right direction. But what drew me to the > case was that bridge judgment suggests that the systemic call for opener > was > clearly 'Double' [undoubtedly debatable, but highly defensible from my > premise that 4H promises good honors]. And to me, the problem was why > opener chose a different call- which I attributed to tempo demonstrably > sugg > esting 5H over X.. > > regards > roger pewick Thank you for the explanation. My problem was why you considered Pass a logical alternative when a) it is excluded, by partnership agreement (silly as the agreement may be) and b) if inference could be drawn - though I don't understand how that COULD be drawn - that passer broke tempo because he had a weak hand then Pass again becomes non-allowable if that was what the UI suggested. Maybe if a deep look into NS agreements reveals that the "forcing pass situation" agreement did not exist after all, then it is a different case altogether. Again, I am no TD, just an interested reader, so correct if I am wrong. Raija From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 25 01:31:44 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:31:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 17:58 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Apparently North-South have a daft agreement that such forcing passes > apply > whenever responder raises an opening bid to game. It is not within the purview of the TD or AC, for ruling purposes, to judge whether a particular agreement is daft, but only whether it exists. > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > >> ** [a] A slow FP can suggest several inferences, one of which >> that the chosen action may be anti-systemic(eg. shaded for 4H) >> /deviation from system (doesn't have the controls to pull 4SX) >> /the system does not fit the situation very well (eg. Should >> have bid 5H instead pass). [b] Another inference is that >> responder is concerned about beating 4S [a heart void out >> there-ie v.v. long hearts] while not being able to take at >> least 11 tricks [balanced]. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the most likely inference is [c] -> > > (1) A super-fast forcing pass is not forcing, saying "Pard, I've > forgotten the system." > > (2) An in-tempo forcing pass is obviously forcing, saying "Pard, > I've remembered the system, and - on this auction - it is certain > that you will remember the system too." > > (3) A super-slow forcing pass is a system reminder, saying "Pard, > I'm not sure if you will remember that 'forcing passes' are very > neatly typed on our system card." This is not an inference, it's a supposition. On the evidence of this one hand, there is no basis for "inferring" that this pair is cheating (consciously or unconsciously) in this way. > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > >> To my mind, the most noticeable feature of UI is that it draws >> attention to a situation that is indeed likely to be 'special >> this time- in a certain way' and therefore brings notice to a >> not usual action. >> >> Anyway, I found it discouraging that the TD wanted to rule >> adjusted score to 4S [without first disproving the FP agreement], > > Richard Hills: > > My apologies to the Aussie TDs at the Nationals, for previously > writing an over-succinct posting which could be misinterpreted. > The TDs only wanted to adjust to 4S passed out *if and only if* > the North-South forcing pass agreement was a merely notional > agreement which had implicitly agreed exceptions. I would say that no agreement is absolute. But if a player violates a partnership agreement, he should do it for a reason, and he should expect his partner to treat the call systemically. But to rule one way because a pair *might* violate system in this way, and another because they (presumably) won't, makes no sense to me. > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > >> It is my belief, whether or not founded in law, that a player >> should not be subject to adjustment for any action if there were >> no UI available to him; and conversely, he must take care to not >> deviate from his system once UI is made available. > > Richard Hills: > > But what if the UI demonstrably suggests that a player should > abide by their system? Law 16 is one thing. There are other laws which might lead to a score adjustment in the absence of UI. That said, when we speak of "UI" it is not sufficient to say that "something happened, which was not a call or play, and which may have conveyed information to a player" and then conclude that he is constrained in his actions. The law requires a *demonstrable* suggestion of one action over a logical alternative. In order to demonstrate such a suggestion, it seems necessary to identify what information was conveyed. I do not believe that the assertion that the information conveyed by the BIT in this case was that the passer's partner "should abide by the system" is valid. Nor do I believe that it can be. It seems to me that only thing which might lead to invocation of Law 16 in this guise is a positive comment to the effect that partner should bid according to system. > I note that, about a decade ago, half of The Master Solvers' Club > in the The Bridge World (a group containing a large number of > world champions) deliberately and publicly violated system because > they thought it was right. Unfortunately, since the system > violators were a plurality (not an absolute majority) they did > not get the maximum 100 points, but were awarded a mere 40 points > by MSC Director Jeff Rubens. Jeff and Roger seem to share the > hypermodern belief in the inviolate sanctity of partnership > agreements. It seems to me that such sanctity is itself a matter for partnership agreement - and that the pair in this case seems to have agreed on it. That said, it seems to me that violating system (by either partner) cannot be a logical alternative. > However, the Aussie TDs' ruling may well have been correct. The > table TD's interrogation of North-South resulted in a balance of > probabilities Law 85A determination that North-South also hold the > hypermodern belief in the inviolate sanctity of partnership > agreements. It seems we agree on this point. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 25 02:32:49 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:32:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [big snip] Ed Reppert: >This is not an inference, it's a supposition. On the evidence of >this one hand, there is no basis for "inferring" that this pair is >cheating (consciously or unconsciously) in this way. [big snip] Richard Hills: I agree and disagree with Ed. I carefully eschewed the use of the adjective "deliberate" before my use of the descriptors "super-fast" and "super-slow". In my opinion, "unconsciously cheating" is an oxymoron. In my opinion, Edgar Kaplan and the WBF LC carefully redesigned Law 16 so that "cheating" - unconscious or otherwise - is not an issue. In my opinion, it is useful that TDs no longer have to subjectively investigate *motives* for varying tempo (as they were required to do in the pre-Kaplan days). Nowadays, TDs have much easier and more objective Law 16 judgement decisions *only* about: (a) whether or not a break in tempo occurred, (b) whether or not a demonstrably suggested logical alternative was selected, (c) whether or not an alternative logical alternative exists, and (d) whether or not the non-offending side have been damaged. If all four criteria are fulfilled, the TD is technically required to adjust the score. If at least one criterion is not fulfilled, then the TD is technically required to avoid adjusting the score. Of course, "consciously cheating" is an infraction of Law 73B2 (Prearranged Communication). But since Law 73B2 states that an infraction is the "gravest possible offence", natural justice would require grave and convincing evidence for its application by a TD, *not* a mere inference or supposition. What gets rewarded is what gets done. The post-Kaplan version of Law 16 prevents the rare conscious cheat from profiting from their actions, thus encouraging the rare conscious cheat to have a Road to Damascus conversion to conscious ethics. But in the pre-Kaplan 1950s, Law 16 was basically unenforceable, thus encouraging sorcerers to profit from that Old Black Magic. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 25 03:07:47 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] I know it was stupid to misbid In-Reply-To: <000601c50221$d4364570$6900a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >How do you handle a player who has given the correct explanation of his >agreements in spite of knowing that he has bid in conflict with these >agreements? (I assume that investigation will establish beyond any doubt >that the explanation given was indeed correct). Richard Hills: As TD, I would congratulate that player for impeccably following the requirements of Law 75B and Law 75C. A few years ago I tried to recapture the glory days of my youth by reverting to a Yellow (HUM) Forcing Pass system in an Aussie national championship. In this Forcing Pass system, to pass as dealer guaranteed 15+ hcp. But, on one hand, I had a senior moment (since I am now as old as the Hills) and passed as dealer with a balanced 6 hcp. I was awoken from my snooze by an Alert from pard, which placed me under UI constraint. Therefore, for the rest of the auction, the UI constrained me to bid as if I was playing our partnership's once and future non-HUM Strong Club system, but Law 75 required me to give explanations as if I was playing our current HUM Forcing Pass system. We reached a ridiculous spot in a non-fit. Fortunately, the non-MI that I gave to the opponents meant that neither of them could double. As a result of this debacle, at all subsequent events in which the Ali- Hills partnership have played, we use our simple strong club Symmetric Relay system, and have had vastly greater success. Copies of our current Symmetric Relay system will be emailed on request. Copies of our former Forcing Pass system have been shredded, to protect the guilty. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 03:20:05 2005 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:20:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 16:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 100% of Nothing > > > > > Roger Pewick: > > >I was somewhat disappointed that the full agreements* were > >not made available, because, to me they are very relevant > >in UI situations. As in this case. > > [snip] > > >*I have found that when inferior system is in effect, that > >UI seems to overcome defects in many partnerships [my > >opinion of course]. > > Richard Hills: > > This deal occurred in the giant Swiss Pairs (268 partnerships) > at the recent Aussie Nationals. Therefore, a large collection > of TDs were available. So, the final decision was not made by > the summoned TD, but rather collectively by all TDs present. > After preliminary consultation with other TDs, the summoned TD > returned to the table to interrogate North-South on exactly > when their forcing passes were applicable. Personally, I am not only highly interested in the responses to the FP, but also the range of what is promised/'denied' by 4H. etc > Apparently North- > South have a daft agreement that such forcing passes apply > whenever responder raises an opening bid to game. Such a quaint view . > Roger Pewick: > [snip] > > >** [a] A slow FP can suggest several inferences, one of which > >that the chosen action may be anti-systemic(eg. shaded for 4H) > >/deviation from system (doesn't have the controls to pull 4SX) > >/the system does not fit the situation very well (eg. Should > >have bid 5H instead pass). [b] Another inference is that > >responder is concerned about beating 4S [a heart void out > >there-ie v.v. long hearts] while not being able to take at > >least 11 tricks [balanced]. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the most likely inference is [c] -> > (1) A super-fast forcing pass is not forcing, saying "Pard, I've > forgotten the system." > > (2) An in-tempo forcing pass is obviously forcing, saying "Pard, > I've remembered the system, and - on this auction - it is certain > that you will remember the system too." > > (3) A super-slow forcing pass is a system reminder, saying "Pard, > I'm not sure if you will remember that 'forcing passes' are very > neatly typed on our system card." Hey. A new convention. I'll call it Multi-Forcing Pass. Which is neither here nor there. I was not suggesting that any listing was neccessarily exhaustive. > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >To my mind, the most noticeable feature of UI is that it draws > >attention to a situation that is indeed likely to be 'special > >this time- in a certain way' and therefore brings notice to a > >not usual action. > > > >Anyway, I found it discouraging that the TD wanted to rule > >adjusted score to 4S [without first disproving the FP agreement], > > Richard Hills: > > My apologies to the Aussie TDs at the Nationals, Well, I will not be out done. I certainly did not mean any ill toward the TD staff. After sending off it did occur to me that your prose was just a little untidy so it was not right for me to get so steamed up. I apologize. > for previously > writing an over-succinct posting which could be misinterpreted. > The TDs only wanted to adjust to 4S passed out *if and only if* > the North-South forcing pass agreement was a merely notional > agreement which had implicitly agreed exceptions. > Roger Pewick: > > >and in fact determined that tempo did not provide inferences that > >suggested taking a risky 5H instead of a sound double. > > Richard Hills: > > Disagree with the evaluation that doubling 4S is "sound". This > could easily be a points-schmoints -790 or -990 defending 4Sx, on > the AI from the West bidding and the South cards. I did suggest a premise that FP inferred that 4H would be made systemically with good cards. I did this since satisfactory knowledge was not given. If systemically, 4H is so undefined that it could be motivated by say a five-ba gger preempt through a game going hand in hearts, then there may be a L73B issues because it certainly seems that N has bitten more than he can stomach. It is unfair to overcome a defective system with such unsteady tempo. As you have pointed out, the NS system was daft. It was their judgment that selected it. and it was N's judgment to bid 4H. It is convincing that these two issues heavily weight the outcome of the hand. as for a L85 determination, whatever FP means systemically it is easy to convince me that is the agreement in force. as to 4H, it is difficult to convince me that systemically it includes preemptive in nature [primarily due to the interrelationship with FP] . And conversely, since responder did not bid 5H, he should have the beefy version and the balance of probabilities suggest that 4H in combination with FP is systemically beefy as for a L85 determination of fact. But I prefer to hear from NS first on the matter. > Roger Pewick: > > [snip] > > >It is my belief, whether or not founded in law, that a player > >should not be subject to adjustment for any action if there were > >no UI available to him; and conversely, he must take care to not > >deviate from his system once UI is made available. > > Richard Hills: > > But what if the UI demonstrably suggests that a player should > abide by their system? If the player continues to be only systemic then who cares. First of all, if the player who has UI takes only systemic calls then it appears that he is likely to be playing fair, particularly when the systemic calls are clear. When no systemic call was clearly indicated he needs a recipe to follow to avoid selecting systemic calls that appear to be unfair. The worst that would 'happen' would be a score equal to someone with the same agreements who knows what he is doing. > I note that, about a decade ago, half of The Master Solvers' Club > in the The Bridge World (a group containing a large number of > world champions) deliberately and publicly violated system because > they thought it was right. Unfortunately, since the system > violators were a plurality (not an absolute majority) they did > not get the maximum 100 points, but were awarded a mere 40 points > by MSC Director Jeff Rubens. It is my understanding that the premise of MSC is the solving of hands within the BWS system. And it necesarily 'must' be accepted that BWS will mangle some number of hands. And it seems to me that hands arrive because some problem exists, and master players can often gain a sense of what it is merely from knowing it is a problem, hence the compulsion to deviate when the system doesn't cooperate. My personal view is that agreements are for using. There are just too many hands that knife a system to death. Yeah, I read further down before writing that. >Jeff and Roger seem to share the > hypermodern belief in the inviolate sanctity of partnership > agreements. Whatever that means one should invoke devine care in deciding roger and jeff share any view. From the correspondence I have had with Jeff there is little that would be common ground. > However, the Aussie TDs' ruling may well have been correct. The > table TD's interrogation of North-South resulted in a balance of > probabilities Law 85A determination that North-South also hold the > hypermodern belief in the inviolate sanctity of partnership > agreements. Does that mean that South must not reopen with a double in that sequence? regards roger pewick > Best wishes > > Richard Hills From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 25 03:32:43 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:32:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: <44F9061D-6E57-11D9-B482-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: >What are the logical alternatives? Which of them is *demonstrably* >suggested over the others by the UI? If pass, double, 5H and slamming >are all "suggested", but none seems to be suggested *over* the others, >then the bidder has no legal constraints. Richard Hills replies: My understanding of the ruling by the Aussie TDs is that their opinion was that the hesitation suggested action - *either* 5H *or* Double - over inaction (Pass). Therefore, *if* Pass was a logical alternative, *then* Pass would be the only legal logical alternative. *If* the TDs were correct in determining that Double and 5H were the *only* logical alternatives, *then* I do not quarrel with their assessment that the break in tempo did neither demonstrably suggest 5H nor demonstrably suggest Double. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 25 05:03:35 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:03:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Last train In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/events/playoffs/2006/lasttrain.html = LAST TRAIN = (TO THE 2006 OPEN = PLAYOFF) = = = The ABF Tournament = Committee has recommended = that the 2006 Playoff = format be similar to the = one used in 2004. Sixteen = pairs will play a round = robin scored as a Butler = followed by a final. = However, the major = difference is the = proposal below. = Interested players are = invited to submit their = comments about this = proposal to: = tournamentchair@abf.com.a = u. = = = For the Open Playoff = only, it is proposed to = rank 14 nominations by = Playoff Qualifying Points = (PQP) in the usual = manner. The last 2 places = in the 16-pair field will = be reserved for = qualifiers from a "Last = Train" event. Part of the = rationale for this = proposal is to provide an = opportunity for players, = otherwise ineligible for = the Playoff, to try out = for the 2006 Australian = Open Team. The most = common reasons for = ineligibility would be = i. possession of = insufficient PQP, or = ii. possession of = insufficient PQP with = one's chosen partner = = = Pairs may board the "Last = Train" even though they = possess no PQPs. Entry to = the "Last Train" event = will be open, that is not = restricted to players = committed to = participating in the 2006 = Open Playoff. = = = Characteristics of this = "Last Train" will include = 1. Held in conjunction = with the Summer Festival = on Thursday and Friday = 12-13 January 2006 = 2. Commence after the = PQP rankings are = complete = 3. Conclude before the = closing date for = nominations for the 2006 = Open Playoff = 4. Butler-style = format, in principle, = with exact detail of the = movement and scoring = dependent on the size of = the field = 5. Entries open to any = pair and free of all = restriction relating to = PQPs. = 6. Pairs may enter the = "Last Train" even though = they have no intention of = contending for the = Playoff. (However, all = pairs desiring to = participate in the = Playoff must complete a = declaration of = availability before the = commencement of the "Last = Train" advising the = Convener of their = contending or = non-contending status.) = 7. A partnership = qualifying on the "Last = Train" has committed = itself and must play in = the 2006 Playoff in that = partnership. = 8. Entry fee = approximately $200 per = player, no travel = subsidy = 9. Pairs that reach = the 2006 Open Playoff via = the "Last Train" are = liable for the standard = entry fee to the Playoff = and can not expect to = receive any travel = subsidy for the Playoff. = = = John Brockwell, Eric = Ramshaw, David Stern (for = the ABF Tournament = Committee) = = Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru= From J.P.Pals@uva.nl Tue Jan 25 07:23:28 2005 From: J.P.Pals@uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:23:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] betting Message-ID: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D413@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> > Jan Peter Pals wrote > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> I do not believe there are such things as sporting ethics, > >> and anyway, bridge is not a sport. > >> > >> In the EBU you are permitted to bet on yourself but no-one > >> else. Seems fair to me. > > > >Since the Dutch Bridge League is part of the Dutch Sports Federation > >I am curious how you define 'a sport'. >=20 > Sports exercise the body. Mindsports exercise the mind. >=20 > Do you have to run around the table in the Netherlands? In our movement from table to table we sometimes do :-) In the NL we differentiate "sweat"sports from mindsports. Cheers=20 JP From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Jan 25 08:18:39 2005 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:18:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <8D401427-6E18-11D9-93A3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <8D401427-6E18-11D9-93A3-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On 24 Jan 2005, at 14:59, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 09:20 US/Eastern, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > >> Since the Dutch Bridge League is part of the Dutch Sports Federation >> I am curious how you define ' a sport'. > > sport, noun > 1 a : a source of diversion : RECREATION b : sexual play c (1) : > physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity > (as an athletic game) so engaged in -- Merriam-Webster online > dictionary > > It would appear that the DSF has used definition 1a, while David (and > others) have used definition 1c. (Does anyone define bridge as a sport > under definition 1b? :) I've seen a number of married couple pairs who seem to play it as a form of sado-masochistic game. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 25 09:29:04 2005 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:29:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D40F@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <41F61160.2090005@hdw.be> An old discussion David, but: David Stevenson wrote: > Jan Peter Pals wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> I do not believe there are such things as sporting ethics, >>> and anyway, bridge is not a sport. >>> >>> In the EBU you are permitted to bet on yourself but no-one >>> else. Seems fair to me. >> >> >> Since the Dutch Bridge League is part of the Dutch Sports Federation >> I am curious how you define ' a sport'. > > > Sports exercise the body. Mindsports exercise the mind. > Where do you class Billiards (Snooker), Bowls (Petanque), Archery (Darts) and even such passtimes as Sailing, Horse Riding and Motor Racing? Every sport has a physical and a mental aspect, and it is impossible to draw a line somewhere between the marathon and a game of chess and expect some sane distinction on either side of this line. The IOC has clearly accepted Bridge and Chess as Sports. > Do you have to run around the table in the Netherlands? > You yourself should know how taxing on the body a long session of bridge can be - or two weeks of it, day in day out. English teams at European Championships have the benefit of a physical trainer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 21/01/2005 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Jan 25 11:06:44 2005 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:06:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817455@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > 2D 4H Pass Pass > 4S Pass(1) Pass 5H > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) By partnership agreement, 100% forcing, but > also perpetrated with a break in tempo > > The complete deal (I sat West): > > 732 > QJT953 > AT > KQ > AK95 JT64 > --- 86 > KQ9843 752 > 965 J832 > Q8 > AK742 > J6 > AT74 > > Result: North-South +650 > > At the conclusion of play I summoned the TD. > After consultation, the directing staff would > have really liked to adjust the score to 4S passed > out, North-South +200, but they were hamstrung by > a note on the North-South system card which > specifically stated that North's pass was 100% > forcing. So, the TDs thought that they had no > option but to rule that the table result stood. I was somewhat disappointed that the full agreements* were not made available, because, to me they are very relevant in UI situations. As = in this case. As best as I can make out, 4H systemically promises pretty respectable values. So to opener's view the plus score should be coming = his way. Opener needs cover for 2S, 0.3H, 2D, and 1.5C on this auction. Neither he nor responder has suggested the partnership has the values = for 11 tricks [no slam move] so how many covers can responder be expected to supply? 3? 2.5? *I have found that when inferior system is in effect, that UI seems to overcome defects in many partnerships [my opinion of course]. To my mind, given his aces and spaces opener's systemic call in this 'forcing situation is double- (clearly over and above all other calls = since going minus is a definite likelihood in 5H but not definte in 4SX). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------- I disagree with you, but it doesn't matter. I think 4Sx is likely to go for 800 on normal play and defence. Think about the = play on a heart lead. (I've also thought of a not abnormal line for declarer that results in = 1100, though that also is irrelevant.) From ifnnhi@yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 11:13:56 2005 From: ifnnhi@yahoo.com (Brad Osborne) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:13:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] re[11] Message-ID: <20050125112128.1DC1E9E@rhubarb.custard.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000504000705000706020004 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pamela Anderson in 1843 Quotes in 1965

at six in 1845

--------------000504000705000706020004 Content-Type: image/gif; name="crease.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="crease.GIF" R0lGODlh/AE8AfVfAAYJAMDAwP8AAAAA/////wAzMzMzZjMzmTNmmTNmzDOZzGZmZmZmzGaZM2aZmWaZzGbMM5mZZpmZzJnMM5nMZpnMmZnMzJnM/8yZM8yZZszMmczMzMzM//8zAP8zM/9mM/+ZAP+ZM/+ZZv/M AP/MM//MZv/Mmf/MzP//zAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAADxATUBAAb/QIJwSCwaj8ikcslsOp/Q qHRKrVqv2Kx2y+16v+CweEwum8/otHrNbrvf8Lh8Tq/b7/i8fs/v+/+AgYKDhIWGh4iJiouMjY6PkJGS kwQClpeYl5WWRZpCmZhHoJ2gnJuepaNJqkSpAqejrrCeS6xDtK2vpK6cuKe3qUa2s6aiurvGn6VNmcLN u7y8ucfKpMbPwMvO1Nncm9eh09bE0aG+T+e+tOfXv9nt38hMuPTF4tvw7O/7yvbVSun8rfPXrp4uduGm eTNlECDDYw35weunMFdFeRFrBRS4kaLEYvo83pPScWTIewMXEpTnUCXElQhhglzpzmTCf6sIqpvpDV/N /5TbXHIUSXSkUZEnd76cCc3nT5pNo3ZzChRnzYkSoZTkd3Jf1aNOc7rMWrTs055Xkd6MJzbs2XkPl2bt xXFnUX0xx5qdG5cpsLRfu/bjhu2bUq4PWWLdC1cvYrQYeQZtqREtKpk985JN6/VVvcpuv7Z9e9fz0M+c 8xKmeRky4L4vLR5W67obtcJ0V8ulqBNqat+UFZMGnfHiYredM2OeqDmfab+jj4pGoikjarsJ4yIfDNZj 0rqDD94Wr/sxs5vYtNtcujz65vNCtZGzXHi+7ePCkz8LZt8dXtaJPQUaNPLxR2B5r31E3l+/QbYfgOTV N1tubLEVkUH13VfNQAouOP8VOGttFYWIw1GWnW9rcZafd+2tKN92/u0GHInTFZRSipIxGGNZXZkDIWMN GkaXRUS9qKIzO3JY5DAZHskjcO6VttuANUoF5JGt4adZSP+JN9WMvSHoZHLv2GXTlx52dyB9aR73oGk6 0vZabRsmdhlL1dVFYn6CURcmnlCSJthsUZK5XXNd+ullmbXRmGNwMbYpjVV5PkknMYoCuRFsCrGS5Xvj vBleeurxBl6hfbp56pjmsTpnY1S12F2VQVo1y4DSPRrdpzv6pGebrprq2HfxhRenoSXmZOwv7QVW6ph7 OuHolJDyGuWgf5rVHKBsxkogrnxRmymLMiq3qIaEEpf/LbRh8hSbr4/2ySmz5sppL7uXarXuvcHVqOuV S45X76H2JKrgZJCGCyqyDTUrVMDK8lscwQITGVnFwcY7JLwYX4hioPo6RtswowocS5OpYuoiZieLGVRv +IFFqCxr5gpVpRw3eeDLIlN8ZqaH0TwOiG0FDZ7QtVKi9NJMN+3001BHLfXUXABg9dVYZ6311lx37fXX YIct9thkl2322WinrfbabLft9ttwxy232VTXbffdeOet99589+3334AHLvjghBdu+OGIJ6744ow37vjj kEcu+eSUV2755ZhnrvnmnHfu+eeghy766KSXbvrpqKeu+uqst+7667DHLvvstNdu//vtuOeu++689+77 78AHL/zwxBdv/PHIJ6/88sw37/zz0Ecv/fTUC4ICGljvkX313KNgQgkiiHACFNs/YXUf51edNRJac386 CiHE/0EHHWzgRPoEAEC+/nzgrwX+/ssf/4YQQPeB7gQfkN/8NFCBAAwBBRowQgHNN0AhTPANF6yC/wBY QQOirgTxC8H8PBCABjSAAiicAATsR4QMMiGALmRDDKWwwQHO0IOfE4ECO/CBCjQAAhCYgAojIEEXls+C 21sfDCtowyMKUIBNNOIRnfjEqx2hhkjEoeoQKD/6iSACPxSiCitwxQlikYAd5GARNmjBFjLxjE9MAhzj iMQOrv/xjVnUIupMIAINaICPHdCACYMoRAg4sIxLdKMiF5lHKBKQfXhkJB2LKMk5lhGNmNTj6TZggQs8 4AEW2EAJCTlEFkKyiZRspCo5aENIVjKNdszkJBsZw/bJUpOj44ACHnABBSQgARZAQQUICYEIkHEJVpwl HRMpS/2l741ThKYtL6lKWsZSktjEJeg2oABP+jIBASCBCU7gRw2U4Hov5F8B1YjN86nTmYyc4w2baUd2 yvGa89Sm5T7pzV9qAAMgGAEJBgoCUyrhmfVEZTvhWcVbyvOarqzmMiEq0Vvq03O77OU3MwBQgZJgBBm4 n0JXCcs75i+LI50kM5vw0GyaNKL/F/XcBhLwyW8+gAQY8OhHI3jFV/o0my2t40LXeM+fVtSlaExjTC9n gQcEYAMbeAA4MZDTgZIgBAa9YzK1mtAiRrKaSUxpUqXo1a4elKJ13OpSNbeBE3R0oAKF6lrnmogTXHWg GTgkXfdKiXL49a+ADaxgB0vYwPL1sIhNrGIXy9jGCo+KMjweZKcQ1nwyLV8yjCUAMUhU9knws22krBk0 m9YMTlMNZmylG5jIUioq9ZFZIC0U1cpVy26BTe3CLGU1q9o2vLannW0hbGl4ht/+NrihRS1vhxtZ5lLT ochFK/mCe1zhWtcMtoCOhXQbBYY+UrrFRa54vZtcDWKPufUE/+51/8fSkwoXvKNdr3rXW92qoRe04nUv GXrxj6FU6L9bIO9Je5vWNm7VietzYw2tmODo6vfBrXQtg8dK3+s2WL2sze+DQ+tMVsJ3w55VKoFna2AP 15arCt7afDurxOzBcsFoJXB68QvbDkfxw376RH9XYyuQEVe/6rzvd487YhnLl6KszXBy2YjeIA9Xye6t 73vzK1vrwlC+cmwvkJdc4Ss/mboVdq6GuRzm8jq5vD2tb5VrTGQrMCQZOPGvF85MZzFveMb4xK+Uv0zm Ptf4szOOsqDR/EIaExrEZyY0eBdN5t6uGdGHhrSZD5plNCv50SCmsqEVbelNo+MgiioYj/+/EGE+Z1rN kQ70nvtsZE5DWtUG9rOWj+xZC2v6lKcFs6PtjOpMSxrClK71nW296RgbOs/EFjM+J0sOi2kXwOyNNatX rOrywRrLRBUxmFkMaD1LW5rGfjFtU8xkZc862AM29aOrfWBv2/ndWy4zb3Od7dpC9LS9vsKi/CvnLkB5 18f29KCTHenv1pvgHO62rg0ubHcXfMzDhji2aXxpXt8atNd++L2dW3GBCxvK6A64xNGx41CNes7ytjiW kZ3xh6d7yggfOMNtXeqGb9vl8M53yCs9aVl3esyJ9rOxKe7gQ+O41YW2eaBJAup48Pvk/ub5v38db1MD e+LYbrnQE13/XZAj2+o7XznWR15wpL885QSf+llf+vOeJ3zixr0fz4VMhTeLOk7Ptu/HUXxq2l6YxCs3 7Yqr3mR3Uni8Jx68zMPO63FfYeOWTua8xS3u8Upx3G1OMblt/vakK57Zn8aR6FPm2NKTxPSorwN3U8/6 1rv+9bDHoXRx/GPU+o72bFg96BiNTCzgmwq4J3tsMe94K/xduaA3727XWfwp4LZYmeM947t7c+obfwxw BHls47Bq5e8vnmOXFm7eFWfdF07Aihd+77kt2uuLAc8eD7/8y7D07VvfyvGHSyVKTqR+Tw79JCZN70V8 gsdtEgZjN5Z4A+Z3amVjSDZ9nheBDlhg/5uneQJobppXgRQWdF+XfnXXdAHCIP4XOUUGfk+mdqmGcSh4 dXT3WuV2adoHb74WgetHUggnY0i3dB1ndc8EdBDofE1nMfx3LCRId3/GfvinYfCHhDyIcZyHfkHnazFm Wx/mdRAXhVjYdlSXhMkGefcUfEiyf0MzhLZShG53hFyIhioHdotHeEtYbJJWfzKoYGelYiHXdeSWhXH4 d+wmeQ7nhchkWsz2Ijkygo8Td0zYeWxGb7NVbmoodHpmbQqXhik4XTR4h4j3c3hmh17HiYlYdYB4blVw LrDgdFBHgtP0ho/YhpyHgS0nh4oobZQohff3g0XHca6miplYibOYZP+2mH/SUoYieIqHCFy62IZR2Iq5 6HBbuIpQ6GqDp4c1KIGZeIzJCI0dGIvANnS9OIogSB/H4mPnh2EmuGQreGpzB4m4CHZ6CINjl33zN4NE R2tmhoPrWGUuWI6zNHtfFYOfpmOysl2Vs2YuloElxnzFF4oQRoCHN1YjBmQNCHiBiJBg+IU9SI8FJoDg 9m43ppEWqH4HWJG2oRvPF3sohzciGQYpCQbmZ5IqOTX+yFl30JIuSWpUk3y+VZM6uZM82ZN0MHv9AzU4 CQcrqWOsJ33p6HsnWYt1OIWX13yXqJRgUJRi2CnokSIGhJTK6H0B1n7TiIlKB3xLOZYfiJU6knf/3AOA ZEeVshhtTOmBFxeX5gMIKclf0CaQQug+AFiQDbmAFNlek3eQfTmBiXd8OIeBcOiXg1lZlOeQHBeRIfmQ +mKUABKONEk8JdhMFraC3NhmXmaOZaaN2QaVsLiHt8iChHd2iuiORsiK/1iVOWaZsteayLiMEmd269iN tTaFWFeauphxx0iLttmbhxkxjTIeY5iWtNmOTnibtBlxulla14iYcpmb+faQyfh11piHZTeIJPNfhig9 iKibm8iIbbduzXmDLuebAvd7YmeOqWhtkjic7Fic81CG/ieOyWOHcZieq9iU7SZy5Omf0fiEW3mdc5h1 Psecn1h3PaYSyTk9/7K1nf0pdwSqhdrIoEmZjcJJbX84l+lJocH5mqQIYOEJPfiojyllhZ93XzoIXU2G c+cYkwrJmYkoYFwXc/Yoj/q3f+GJluI5X3xJgQeZUM1HkH5YVgP4l1HUlFRGmkkpkZHXgPIZoINJcRPG o40REGKhnz7ZWJf5pTwZpmJapmZ6pmiapmrqfnoXdV/JOWwplu/XBWR6fuYpivZXVlQYlTnHn3l4Q3H6 ixR0pwCXoHJaWogEbpjmZi1BknXKNKXJp2xqeSD6g0cHl4Kap1JpoakZqGe4kItUUupXGelylo+qNJH6 ppuqhJwapV45qrAqB5cKjKu6dw2aquchhkB6ov97U39T5Eh3Jokh2aFH5ndFuqTd54MhRqXMmmSG96tJ iqh9mX9D+k7RSqR+yY2V9oCJ+YGUSX7J6aVSg4cneJpRxpkcqo4cxpqf6qoz6IgvaoPlqp6o6ZyaqYXs +q5axq3dynRGKRuoQYR+46cUupsXmq61maHY2Kr2dpH0SokFi2nLZkvAWX0Ki6mpqazxCGfDAq53yTda l7AOqaEcabDbFrF4SpwW+5sHu4Yla6Cyhp3QOHIxSayp5p2kYnIROrDG2LL36LPtKZ2bVaExB5c1+pgU e2s6yJiTdbQx64pBm478Wp3OR4amuLN9M6FAK6JRa7GfKI1ACYFaF4oFO4n/klqxOjqzKvuOLYoF+zZq vKo3Wvu1UEu3bSuPJOtz1LqhuSmgzphlVci3T0ufvKix/7mo4vetD7q4gxOvC0pfYItUomqdq4SY2nqg zKiJbJexmblnUzu00MmCkTq6kTS5G8uxFaJdQJq19Parlmd4VDek9oZrGUaYC/uLXDOzzVqCrgu5u2uR 0QS7C8mBEXmFDVt5I+uu4jd6ubVWnqoHz8sI0YuxJGeS03sH16sI2WufzOCS2/uTgpO937um5Fu+5hs8 44sH6ds0p7pXQ1l7erq+GtiVyktDUGmu8Bur98kzokZ6HmRJtVqs2GO6AXy60whfNZuy3EuqdxebH6tN /7iavwoaX7RaqXOqvxXpePf7j+dSmXl5UfzIRgdmrK0YYR5mdgg7ZB2pws76mURqmGX3h8EbttTbox0M jh+sT9oqVucId2DFhP7Im/T4gjY6c4V7cdqXwAoJhP9qlXkprhIadhyYuT6sparFUEssf3kLijUMrO9Z r6maxSMShBEDnu27n1KMoRn7spM3tFgstdeavESrbl2cVJaLkTIoxo4Zat/BuM6bxsGaiq4qjY3mmsLp q4TLxYk6q694vGJLp8JotVAcpILbfUucmTRnxMraayh7mIH7ayxqwfpbC5F8tTmswz5ryVGKyV9WcyWs xltcqNPXyWqsqgscm2+rs/+nDMH9mLZFG3lfrFI0W7YI5cuoiaNz92+4GboeV5R2B64N/MA6TIAxeGH3 dnyBGcoAKpl8abugzHeNOJFG6l0vNr8KKK1uJiEZojPnK72ec8bt3AjyWzfwHM+LMM/2nM/6vM/83M/+ /M8AHdACPdAEXdAGfdAIndAKvdAM3dAO/dAQHdESPdEUXdEWfdEYndEavdEc3dEe/dEgHdIiPdLVYwB6 NZUbjEEpTdKSEAAFIFJUiM/2O2cTi6l3ytJLIAGftNM7XQASEAASENRB/VxHJ9Pd5akajJAwdVQ4rQQM gABQHdUMUAAGINRB7QASkEq7tbmyitSpZaTP1dRW8AD/CMAADHAAZY0APi0BBrAAVq3VM41Uq+XV6eVl zCfWWEDWZo3WU13VEkDVb61VTlqBLba5K6xII/yUF4jYF9Rho8liBIzXU6DXT23WBYDVErAAmD3UXhXW lmRPlQuqdkxPa+dQ0NR7V0bEXC3ZUkDZZq3WVh3buGbYXyWvXrxsQ2VRRqVSQMlk8FrbrN3aZW3WZ23S sS3UdajboM3boy2Ftb1SWn3XTM1m1B2juh3cT+DaZ10A3O3Wsp3cyrTc8OiwjfjcuQtT0q1MKljdiCZW 2J3dw03cUF0ACwDUgV3a6Q3dDbXf1rTb6aTc7h2JEDmyI/zek73XfG3Zmm0A9M3Z//htVvtYUu804KYt 10QN4TOESgqF29Nt4Eeg1whwACIu4txN1d6d1YFY4RaVSBO+osCdT0HV4QO+4eht1BOt3cR92faN3NFl 3rm926z0490J5DTM3M5Nhwbc1E8d1VLd4FeN1YucqHAtVCp+eMuNzmGNrTKOZGoJVjDs4QTAAWI+5mPO 1mFO5mCePC+d5h5UWG7+5nAe53Ie52xe53Z+53iez0WuvoRTzwOtlXWswBWspTWcfMx202EQH1fpv/oM 6IPOsPWb5ISOwFVsqLfFzngpzf7c5Qkap5xu6YQOjJTOqqPMxCVqqlgL0HuZpdjqzVoeYlJuzZBJzdba 2KKMjv8GaGLprLhwZsYHzcqgS+Fn2JkO5rjw2qDICshKm3neCpu97usGvcyxrLbVh55227OlHcOkDrGP Hioa8cR+zpPSnsiEzIzWHp3lvZ5d67Kd2p44i5X5Ge46OZ5/u4eE6rXMLLL5qOxU657UOYr4eYqTvKb8 ybXITrvB3rcXO6L/3vD6GswAD+3gXtBzO6AH72nZqbSp/KYcirj5XpFvJvGySdApeq+g2ZrpamTGjq4y Gpr1mnPz2Oxwcsqr289IKrxS6urh/MoN2azJjmJNapFPWoCft9KNCjN8nOewI+9KTzpM3/RQH/VSP/Vo PK6U8/S49L5vKcfIZ1uCHuow/cn/t2y8XGAu48foegncBQzMxRXZk9rtYEmNby/pfIycDjzwlEz37urx ZDn2ka6pt5zBX60FdrmrxIjK4ryk03rJKrzHx7yVgonO3uzqyLvzHgicM3y2WRDyhp/qmrTDK+7yVezC MhfEKT7E+Wqjniu4L6/Ef2/DIGL3AgvBgIygyjidfPbGkG/F5M6GYI955k61MO+2ZHz3h0/7lYzEg2x0 DRZk04m8bTzteot7VtqEEE/2ANqlfSzyMTW1sXjeDw+0hfz8JjvEW8uRWq/vxXrTely1HxuCpfz5tW+v d4ugrhy1nHz+ngyijWzA7Q8EBOGQWBwKhAKkMblUFp9M6ZRa/7VesVntltv1egHGMGFMHJeFaPFUnR6q 2+WwnExt1/HvdV7Pd//9pO4Cz/b44LYGA7uinByhHomivigrLS8xMzWtANA6+wDjiugERz0NyU7Nqj5H AUFT01QJYU8RS2vNSF95FRd5vRoJJieHl5qOjjeXmZudn786W3WnF6WrFa+rgVM/Z7nFtGHfpPHmysfz 4NC7t8Pdr9VNPeMF68nZv5T2lY35jfj1gzaQYEGDBxEmjKaQYUMoDiFGlDiRYsUsvixmDKaRY0ePH0Fe wRiSZEmTJ1GmVLmSZUuXL2HGlDmTZk2TI21KyrmTZ09m2nB22cUkqKx7l45WEugvoKR/Pv+hRqV5a9NQ VJxcIV2ltGmyKcSWShU7lqSoqj+vCk2r5UkkY1KKvSU7l65Hs/jiJI2361who+6AFWKXNOtWRk6QJQbY L25dx48b3j1kOJQuUNv8pqMVi3K2tViELX6qmDRk06cJUt1MNPDlPTjNqgYneUtoKmAhoda9uxnQwrXE rbZqTmRh2b8ODQrOJGBjp6Wd85Y+Xcu3dvdu3R0uh/BfbL/B/UXOtvRzuV6pp1dfvDOb14a24wJPeTVW S24XQw+7nr967e6z+q811j7zgzYAg0FMrrgaYWy//iDk7Q6rhpqGHtcCnA85yYIqCi7EcENPsegiLFE3 5fBaxxtq5sD/0LDlNOSmOxYvaQ6S0ZLZx8QdeewRIB+BDFJI0IYs0sgjkUxSySWZbNLJJ6GMUsopqazS yiuxzFLLLbns0ssvwQxTzDHJLNPMM9FMU8012WzTzTfhjFPOOems08478cxTzz357NPPPwENVNBBCS3U 0EMRTVTRRRlt1NFHIY1U0QEorXSAIiqVIlNMLaWU00uJ8LSKTT8VotNOTT0V1CFUJTXUVi39NFYrYL3U 1VdZrdXTWlM9dVRdV+11ViqABfXWXoX1VVNUXw02V2cJUNWIVpv10VVSj0W22me5zfWKbDfNVttoRR1X C3HJXRXdbqcFF1pz4d023SzQxbbcb+9l/3fbdUtNVd5/54XXXnXzjZBfca8tuF9ysXDXWIXNHbgLhPM9 GGJmcWXi2Hrv5VdfgD3+ON6AQw542XcTdjblfSFez2OKCX6335bbRVlUjoOVmAuHNaYZ5oIvBrrllfG1 2eiGFebZ5F9lHlnnhYkumbeXg46Z1l2b7vnopRc2WWqAnfY5aK6rrnkKoq/eumtik2774azBjvtpeaOm mbqQYR7ZbLvX1hZnfb8W+e+Tl003Z5k3HrpcqRNvGm+3tda75rLN5prlw9/e8XHEb+bbcLgnhzXZYcOt mNq0K4/8ZGU7X5xzaEX323PBFQfd8s9Pj11rt3m9XXarJU9vc8J9l//VdrlbP1vZuFHvW+TnGR6XcuZx P552xz1XeubZnzV968FLd9163YZXffOvlf678YmFxt79woX1V3XqMw18feKZnv9y9juGvPjwhxW8u2WP csNjnP/A5z3+pY6Bzote/KYHPZJxz3KDy18Df+cF0iGwdpILHGqo9joJdqtk6etgxCj4PO3pL2PciqAH xUcv/zkQg7cL3xfmxi7tWbBEIcSfDwUYtszhz2spFCILHdi+F/6vf8db4QiR9z0j6nCGOzyh5uyWNyii TXlSfB8Vxwe9W1mMc6EjIgwxhzQRUq+GJgwj3WZItiYyaYzAa2AdP0ZG810xgzu7IhDbtbszMlGAZQT8 YvGQaMPk4etfT8zhB3sore75qnEYq6DYvCjJ9fWObVmTJNOktcR49e5+nexkAIuWSAAuz3gKxOAnJQhJ Sc2SlrW0ZUyKlUtd7pKXvfTlL4EZTGEOk5jFNOYxkWnMWy6Tmc105jOhGU1pTpOa1bTmNbGZTW1uk5vd 9GZCggAAIf5waHFnaHVtZWF5bG5sZmR4ZmlyY3ZzY3hnZ2J3a2ZucWR1eHdmbmZvenZzcnRranByZXBn eWhodHhtamZtcWxmd3pqZnF2YmVubGVybGt5YXdvbHZidHkAOw== --------------000504000705000706020004-- From kgrauwel@hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 11:32:49 2005 From: kgrauwel@hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:32:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? Message-ID: If during play an oppenent pulls the wrong card from his hand: is this a minor or major penalty card? Declarer plays Club ace - LHO and dummy follow - but RHO plays a small spade (spade 3). He says he accidently pulled the wrong card from his hand and plays a club instead. TD is called at that moment. Becomes spade 3 a Minor or Major Penalty card? >From the law 50B " A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently... " I would say Minor Penalty card. Correct? _________________________________________________________________ De nieuwe Pirelli kalender voor 2005 al gezien? http://www.msn.be/pirelli2005/ From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Mon Jan 24 21:58:46 2005 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (Vitold) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:58:46 +0300 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D40F@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <41F56F96.30105@elnet.msk.ru> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010303070801030003090507 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all:) David Stevenson wrote: > Sports exercise the body. Mindsports exercise the mind. > > Do you have to run around the table in the Netherlands? Yeah, and autosports execise autos... Opera singers exercise their vocal chords and take part in vocal contests. Another body sport?:) What about such strictly body contest as "Miss World" competition? One more extremely popular (especially among men) body sport?:)) You shalt not create more Universes than it is needed (Ockegem - sorry, do not know how one should write the name in English). By the way and sorry for being nasty - starting question was: are there any restrictions on betting in contests under auspices of WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO (except EBU that does not forbid players' betting on their own results, thx David)?. Thx in advance Vitold --------------010303070801030003090507 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all:)

David Stevenson wrote:

Sports exercise the body. Mindsports exercise the mind.

Do you have to run around the table in the Netherlands?

Yeah, and autosports execise autos... Opera singers exercise their vocal chords and take part in vocal contests. Another body sport?:)
What about such strictly body contest as "Miss World" competition? One more extremely popular (especially among men) body sport?:))
You shalt not create more Universes than it is needed (Ockegem - sorry, do not know how one should write the name in English).
By the way and sorry for being nasty - starting question was: are there any restrictions on betting in contests under auspices of WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO (except EBU that does not forbid players' betting on their own results, thx David)?.
Thx in advance
Vitold

--------------010303070801030003090507-- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Jan 25 12:47:12 2005 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:47:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? References: Message-ID: <00a001c502dc$8aa8b4e0$8ee6f1c3@LNV> > > If during play an oppenent pulls the wrong card from his hand: is this a > minor or major penalty card? > Declarer plays Club ace - LHO and dummy follow - but RHO plays a small spade > (spade 3). He says he accidently pulled the wrong card from his hand and > plays a club instead. > TD is called at that moment. > Becomes spade 3 a Minor or Major Penalty card? > From the law 50B " A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed > inadvertently... " I would say Minor Penalty card. Correct? > This is an interesting question. for which the answer in my opinion is hidden in the way you put it. If this wrong card being the spade 3 is inadvertently taken ( meaning he wanted to play a club but took the spade three instead, as one can take the wrong bidding card from the box) it can be dealt with as a minor PC, otherwise it is a major one. The difficulty is that it is almost impossible to decide what happened and it rarely happens that you take such card inadvertently. So without a very convincing story I would deal with it as a major one. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jan 25 12:57:14 2005 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:57:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050125075158.02c839c0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:58 PM 1/24/05, richard.hills wrote: >I note that, about a decade ago, half of The Master Solvers' Club >in the The Bridge World (a group containing a large number of >world champions) deliberately and publicly violated system because >they thought it was right. Unfortunately, since the system >violators were a plurality (not an absolute majority) they did >not get the maximum 100 points, but were awarded a mere 40 points >by MSC Director Jeff Rubens. Jeff and Roger seem to share the >hypermodern belief in the inviolate sanctity of partnership >agreements. That's not really analogous to the thread case. The system violators in the MSC, after all, were playing a system which was not of their own choosing. That makes deliberate system violations in the MSC a great deal more common than they are in real life. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From darwine@bluelagoon.gr Tue Jan 25 11:32:00 2005 From: darwine@bluelagoon.gr (hisako jones) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:32:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] Harassing phone calls from collectors, allow us to show you how to stop them. Message-ID: Why consolidate into a new loan or declare bankruptcy when you can legally & ethically destroyt all For the rest of the story about destroying debt, visit us here http://njb.67.royalmastersitems.com/e3/ Our site is here to help you answer that question for yourself so you can make an informed decision as to whether or not our program is the right direction for you to take no thank you address on link above It seems hard to entrust such great scientific discoveries to the discretion of a mere boy; but they are quite harmless, so if you exercise proper care you can not get into trouble through their possession. And who knows what benefits to humanity may result? One week from to-day, at this hour, I will again appear to you, at which time you shall receive the second series of electrical gifts I'm not sure, said Rob, that I shall be able again to make the connections that will strike the Master Key. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Jan 25 13:14:04 2005 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:14:04 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCCB8@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Koen Grauwels wrote: =20 If during play an oppenent pulls the wrong card from his hand: is this a minor or major penalty card? Declarer plays Club ace - LHO and dummy follow - but RHO plays a small spade=20 (spade 3). He says he accidently pulled the wrong card from his hand and plays a club instead. TD is called at that moment. Becomes spade 3 a Minor or Major Penalty card? >From the law 50B " A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently... " I would say Minor Penalty card. Correct? ----- No, this is not correct. If you accidentally drop one card or pulls two cards simultaneously from your hand and the card you don't play to the trick is exposed, a card below the rank of an honour becomes a minor penalty card. Any other exposed card from a defenders hand become a major penalty card. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- _________________________________________________________________ De nieuwe Pirelli kalender voor 2005 al gezien?=20 http://www.msn.be/pirelli2005/ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Tue Jan 25 13:25:26 2005 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:25:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64BF@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Koen Grauwels > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:33 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? >=20 >=20 >=20 > If during play an oppenent pulls the wrong card from his=20 > hand: is this a=20 > minor or major penalty card? > Declarer plays Club ace - LHO and dummy follow - but RHO=20 > plays a small spade=20 > (spade 3). He says he accidently pulled the wrong card from=20 > his hand and=20 > plays a club instead. > TD is called at that moment. > Becomes spade 3 a Minor or Major Penalty card? > From the law 50B " A single card below the rank of an honour=20 > and exposed=20 > inadvertently... " I would say Minor Penalty card. Correct? I think "exposed inadvertently" here means: you play some card and another card comes with it, or you drop a card; in other words: the card is exposed without offender playing it. At least, the given examples seem to suggest this. The S3 in this case is no such card; it is not dropped, but played. Even if RHO didn't mean to pull that particular card from his hand. That makes it a Major Penalty card. --=20 Martin Sinot From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jan 25 17:10:28 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:10:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Koen Grauwels wrote > >If during play an oppenent pulls the wrong card from his hand: is this >a minor or major penalty card? >Declarer plays Club ace - LHO and dummy follow - but RHO plays a small >spade (spade 3). He says he accidently pulled the wrong card from his >hand and plays a club instead. >TD is called at that moment. >Becomes spade 3 a Minor or Major Penalty card? >From the law 50B " A single card below the rank of an honour and >exposed inadvertently... " I would say Minor Penalty card. Correct? Major: he intended to expose a card so it was not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the card intended. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 26 03:25:36 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:25:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 21:32 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Nowadays, TDs have much easier and more > objective Law 16 judgement decisions *only* about: > > (a) whether or not a break in tempo occurred, > (b) whether or not a demonstrably suggested logical alternative was > selected, > (c) whether or not an alternative logical alternative exists, and > (d) whether or not the non-offending side have been damaged. > > If all four criteria are fulfilled, the TD is technically required > to adjust the score. If at least one criterion is not fulfilled, > then the TD is technically required to avoid adjusting the score. Precisely. Yet the decision to adjust the score in this case hinges on the supposition that an out of tempo pass suggests either passing (if it was fast) or not passing (if it was slow). I don't buy it. Item (c) above is not fulfilled for this pair, therefore, whether item (b) is or is not fulfilled is irrelevant. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 26 03:30:48 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:30:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 22:32 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > *If* the TDs were correct in determining that Double and 5H were the > *only* logical alternatives, *then* I do not quarrel with their > assessment that the break in tempo did neither demonstrably suggest 5H > nor demonstrably suggest Double. To say that they were incorrect is to say that a deviation from system may well be a "logical alternative" and that in any UI case where such a deviation might be made (not sure, but it seems likely to be *all* cases), we must adjust the score. No, I don't buy it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 26 03:39:00 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:39:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <41F56F96.30105@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 24, 2005, at 16:58 US/Eastern, Vitold wrote: > You shalt not create more Universes than it is needed (Ockegem - > sorry, do not know how one should write the name in English). William of Occam (or Ockham). Occam's Razor. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jan 26 08:58:27 2005 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:58:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? References: Message-ID: <008701c50385$5a05a420$89b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Of good and evil much they argued then, Of happiness and final misery, Passion and apathy, and glory and shame, Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy." ['Paradise Lost'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? > > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the > card intended. > +=+ The Laws provide that any card deliberately taken from the hand and displayed, as to play it, is a played card. The alternative to that is that it is accidentally dropped. I do not think there is any provision by which it may be deemed inadvertent exposure if you play a card in the manner of Law 45 that you did not intend to play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jan 26 10:59:44 2005 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:59:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? References: <008701c50385$5a05a420$89b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001f01c50396$2885c400$93e8f1c3@LNV> > > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was > > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the > > card intended. I don't understand one word of what you say here. If he intented to expose a spade and instead took a club without intent that we call inadvertent. > > > +=+ The Laws provide that any card deliberately > taken from the hand and displayed, as to play it, is > a played card. The alternative to that is that it is > accidentally dropped. I do not think there is any > provision by which it may be deemed inadvertent > exposure if you play a card in the manner of Law 45 > that you did not intend to play. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ You do not think so, we have to accept that, but it would be nice to give at least one argument supporting your thoughts. When I read L50B the description there covers what happens if someone shows a card he didn't want to show and the examples given there are certainly not an exhaustive enumeration. Tell me what the difference is with an inadvertent bidding card taken out of the bidding box and dealt with using L25A? So please, do something more than just turning down this idea. That sounds too easy. ton From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jan 26 11:33:25 2005 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:33:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} References: <000701c50223$a83eb540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c5039a$f0b6b5c0$c2b487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Of good and evil much they argued then, Of happiness and final misery, Passion and apathy, and glory and shame, Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy." ['Paradise Lost'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:47 PM Subject: RE: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} Ed Reppert > > Frankly, TFLB's definition of "convention" needs > a complete overhaul. < +=+ Rely on it +=+ < Sven: >In the thirties Ely Culbertson and his team established norms for this language and today's definition of what are "conventions" must mainly be seen as attempts to define understandings alternative to the "natural" understandings established by him (which then are considered to be "natural" as opposed to being >"conventions"). < +=+ We should be wary of assuming 'natural' to be the converse of 'conventional'. The latter is a defined term of the art in bridge whereas 'natural' has its dictionary meaning. The converse of 'natural' is 'artificial'. Not everything that is conventional is necessarily artificial, nor is 'natural' necessarily synonymous at all times with 'not conventional'. Having regard to the law book it appears to me that to be natural a bid would constitute an offer to play in the denomination named and attempt the number of odd tricks specified. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jan 26 12:15:08 2005 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:15:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? References: <008701c50385$5a05a420$89b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001f01c50396$2885c400$93e8f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001b01c503a0$cdf31dc0$7a974c51@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Of good and evil much they argued then, Of happiness and final misery, Passion and apathy, and glory and shame, Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy." ['Paradise Lost'] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? > > > > > > > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was > > > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the > > > card intended. > > > I don't understand one word of what you say here. > +=+ You must apply to the person who wrote that for his clarification. +=+ < > If he intented to expose a spade and instead took a club > without intent that we call inadvertent. > > > > > > > +=+ The Laws provide that any card deliberately > > taken from the hand and displayed, as to play it, is > > a played card. The alternative to that is that it is > > accidentally dropped. I do not think there is any > > provision by which it may be deemed inadvertent > > exposure if you play a card in the manner of Law 45 > > that you did not intend to play. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > You do not think so, we have to accept that, but it > would be nice to give at least one argument supporting > your thoughts. > > When I read L50B the description there covers what > happens if someone shows a card he didn't want to show > and the examples given there are certainly not an exhaustive > enumeration. Tell me what the difference is with an inadvertent > bidding card taken out of the bidding box and dealt with using > L25A? > +=+ Law 25A is not concerned with play of cards and has no relevance here. In 50B there is a provision for a card exposed through deliberate play. To select a single card from the hand and play it as Law 45 specifies, even if it is not the intended card, is a deliberate action. Law 45 does not allow of its being anything but a card played and Law 50 is not a qualification of Law 45. Inadvertency in Law 50 does not relate to situations in which the player's actions have conformed to Law 45. (I refer to mechanical play of a card not to designation.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Jan 26 13:14:22 2005 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:14:22 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCCBD@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] P=E5 vegne av = Ton Kooijman Sendt: 26. januar 2005 12:00 Til: Grattan Endicott; blml@rtflb.org Emne: Re: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? > > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was > > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the > > card intended. I don't understand one word of what you say here. If he intented to expose a spade and instead took a club without intent = that we call inadvertent. > > > +=3D+ The Laws provide that any card deliberately > taken from the hand and displayed, as to play it, is > a played card. The alternative to that is that it is > accidentally dropped. I do not think there is any > provision by which it may be deemed inadvertent > exposure if you play a card in the manner of Law 45 > that you did not intend to play. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ You do not think so, we have to accept that, but it would be nice to = give at least one argument supporting your thoughts. When I read L50B the description there covers what happens if someone = shows a card he didn't want to show and the examples given there are certainly = not an exhaustive enumeration. Tell me what the difference is with an inadvertent bidding card taken out of the bidding box and dealt with = using L25A? ----- L50B read: A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed = inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card = accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or = any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or = in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one = defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major = penalty cards. The unanimous interpretation of this law, as far as I know, has been as = Grattan explains above since before I started directing, some 25 years = ago. That's how TD's have been trained at EBL TD courses and how all = Norwegian TD's have been trained as long as I know. You might argue that picking the wrong card from your hand and playing = it is inadvertent, but that is not what the lawmakers have intended. I agree with you that it's strange to have a different approach to = inadvertency when dealing with the play of a card and bidding with = bidding boxes - after all we're talking about the same mechanics. This = stems from the obsolete method of bidding orally. It's time the laws = considered bidding boxes the normal method of bidding. If we want to have different rules on inadvertency when dealing with = play of cards and use of bidding boxes, the laws could preferably use = different words. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- So please, do something more than just turning down this idea. That = sounds too easy. ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed Jan 26 13:34:24 2005 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:34:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64C0@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Skjaran, Harald > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 14:14 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: SV: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? >=20 > I agree with you that it's strange to have a different=20 > approach to inadvertency when dealing with the play of a card=20 > and bidding with bidding boxes - after all we're talking=20 > about the same mechanics. This stems from the obsolete method=20 > of bidding orally. It's time the laws considered bidding=20 > boxes the normal method of bidding. >=20 There is a difference. With an inadvertent call, the call inadvertently shown does not give information about the hand. With an inadvertently played card it is different; whether intentional or not, everybody has seen the card and thus gained information about the hand. --=20 Martin Sinot From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 26 23:34:41 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:34:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>*If* the TDs were correct in determining that Double and 5H were the >>*only* logical alternatives, *then* I do not quarrel with their >>assessment that the break in tempo did neither demonstrably suggest 5H >>nor demonstrably suggest Double. Ed Reppert: >To say that they were incorrect is to say that a deviation from system >may well be a "logical alternative" and that in any UI case where such >a deviation might be made (not sure, but it seems likely to be *all* >cases), we must adjust the score. No, I don't buy it. Richard Hills: Ed "not buying it" is correct in theory, but ignores practice. Huge numbers of players violate system because they temporarily forget their agreed system. And, from my experience, an innocuous pass being forcing is a more accident-prone agreement than some others. In a recent Bridge World article, Larry Cohen provided excellent advice on UI situations. On one hand in the article, Larry retold the story of the time he was on lead against 7NT with a yarborough. Cohen-Berkowitz have an agreement that the partner of the opening leader will double 7NT with the ace of spades, but pass otherwise. Holding the wrong ace, David Berkowitz passed in tempo. And, because Cohen had not been awakened by UI from a hesitation, Cohen forgot their agreement, found the wrong lead, so lost a grand slam swing. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 27 04:53:58 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:53:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E101817455@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>The complete deal (I sat West): [snip] Frances Hinden: [snip] >4Sx is likely to go for 800 on normal play and defence. [snip] Richard Hills: A probably just assessment of my declarer play (as West) in a hypothetical 4Sx contract. However, I have read Reese On Play, which suggests that when you are in danger of being forced off, you should play on your long side suit *before* you play on trumps. *If* I had remembered that advice at the table, *then* I would not have gone for more than 500. Of course, my memory is not what it used to be, so at the table an 800 or 1100 penalty could be "at all probable". :-) Suppose there had hypothetically been a different auction, with North making a slooow penalty double of 4S, and South successfully removing 4Sx to 5H. Hypothetically using UI to remove a hypothetical 4Sx contract to a hypothetical 5H contract is not only hypothetically poor ethics, it is also poor bridge. Ethically pure hypothetical players gain a winning option, since declarer may misplay the legal contract of 4Sx. But ethically challenged hypothetical players shoot themselves in the foot by removing a hypothetical 4Sx contract to a hypothetically illegal 5H contract. When the TD inevitably adjusts the score back from the hypothetically illegal contract of 5H to a result in the hypothetically legal 4Sx, the TD must assume that declarer will *not* misplay 4Sx (unless, for the class of player that declarer is, it would be irrational for declarer to play correctly). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 27 06:30:43 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:30:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Last train In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In a private email, a blmler asked: >Interesting, but why in the world would anyone use Butler in a >serious event? I do not claim to be privy to the inner workings of the ABF, but my best guess is based on the known ABF incentives which favour the development of long-term(1) expert partnerships (who gain a points bonus when determining eligibility for the ABF international selection trials). Australia has a much more limited talent pool than the ACBL. It has been three decades since the days of our last long- standing partnership of world-class ability, Tim Seres and Dick Cummings. In recent times, development of long-standing partnerships of world-class ability has been further inhibited by the distortions of sponsors buying expert players to be their partners. Therefore, the ABF now alternates. In odd-numbered years it runs team trials to select the international Australian Open and Women's teams. In even-numbered years it runs a Butler trials to select the international Australian Open and Women's teams. The Butler trials is a useful succession planning tool, since it gives a chance for up-and-coming long-term expert partnerships to gain experience by playing in international events. In a Butler event, short-term partnerships cannot hide any "grey areas" in their methods (and consequent misunderstandings) by being "carried" by strong team-mates. Succession planning is more difficult in the ACBL, as only rarely does an up-and-coming expert (such as Adam Wildavsky) get the chance to experience strong international events. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru (1) Unfortunately, the definition of a "long-term" expert partnership in Australia is one that has lasted for a mere twelve months. The constant chopping and changing of partners amongst Aussie international players places Australia at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis decades-long partnerships such as Rosenberg-Zia or Meckstroth-Rodwell. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 27 08:40:05 2005 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:40:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64C0@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <000c01c5044b$d458e0e0$02f9f0c3@LNV> There is a difference. With an inadvertent call, the call inadvertently shown does not give information about the hand. With an inadvertently played card it is different; whether intentional or not, everybody has seen the card and thus gained information about the hand. -- Martin Sinot *********** That is true but not relevant. We deal with UI gained from such card in the laws and we have introduced the minor penalty card knowing this. ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 27 08:58:01 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:58:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <000c01c5044b$d458e0e0$02f9f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman > To: Sinot Martin > There is a difference. With an inadvertent call, the call > inadvertently shown does not give information about the hand. > With an inadvertently played card it is different; whether > intentional or not, everybody has seen the card and thus > gained information about the hand. > *********** > That is true but not relevant. We deal with UI gained from > such card in the laws and we have introduced the minor > penalty card knowing this. ----- That is also true, but the way I read Law 50B it specifically distinguishes between a card exposed in an act of playing it (always a major penalty card regardless of whether the play was intentional or not) and an act of inadvertently exposing it (which includes accidentally dropping a card or playing more than one card to a trick). This distinction is apparent also in the corresponding law 24 on card exposed during the auction. Regards Sven From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Tue Jan 25 12:34:47 2005 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (Vitold) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:34:47 +0300 Subject: [blml] betting In-Reply-To: <41F56F96.30105@elnet.msk.ru> References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F0227D40F@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <41F56F96.30105@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: <41F63CE7.6070204@elnet.msk.ru> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040007080907020801000100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Stevenson wrote: >> Sports exercise the body. Mindsports exercise the mind. >> >> Do you have to run around the table in the Netherlands? > Yeah, and autosports execise autos... Opera singers exercise their vocal chords and take part in vocal contests. Another body sport?:) What about such strictly body contest as "Miss World" competition? One more extremely popular (especially among men) body sport?:)) You shalt not create more Universes than it is needed (Ockegem - sorry, do not know how one should write the name in English). By the way and sorry for being nasty - starting question was: are there any official restrictions on betting in contests under auspices of WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO (except EBU that does not forbid players' betting on their own results, thx David)?. Thx in advance Vitold P.S. My first post was cancelled by admin so I'm sending it once more: for any case sorry for dubling:) --------------040007080907020801000100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Stevenson wrote:

Sports exercise the body. Mindsports exercise the mind.

Do you have to run around the table in the Netherlands?

Yeah, and autosports execise autos... Opera singers exercise their vocal chords and take part in vocal contests. Another body sport?:)
What about such strictly body contest as "Miss World" competition? One more extremely popular (especially among men) body sport?:))
You shalt not create more Universes than it is needed (Ockegem - sorry, do not know how one should write the name in English).
By the way and sorry for being nasty - starting question was: are there any official restrictions on betting in contests under auspices of WBF, EBL or any zones or NBO (except EBU that does not forbid players' betting on their own results, thx David)?.
Thx in advance
Vitold
P.S. My first post was cancelled by admin so I'm sending it once more: for any case sorry for dubling:)
--------------040007080907020801000100-- From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Jan 25 13:03:36 2005 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:03:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] betting Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C589@hotel.npl.co.uk> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C502DE.47FBB280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Vitold > You shalt not create more Universes than it is needed > (Ockegem - sorry, do not know how one should write the name in English). I guess you mean "Ockham" (latinised as "Occam") Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C502DE.47FBB280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

Vitold

> You shalt not create more Universes than it is needed

> (Ockegem - sorry, do not know how one should write the name in English).

I guess you mean "Ockham" (latinised as "Occam")

Robin

-------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or
privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only.
If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or
disclose such information.

NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any
attachments are free from viruses.

NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881
Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------_=_NextPart_001_01C502DE.47FBB280-- From clvgklihztqja@yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 09:44:41 2005 From: clvgklihztqja@yahoo.com (Sherri Bates) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:44:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] re[15]: Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050004070207030301020003 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Shania Twain Harry Potter come and see Wait a minute

in 1911 dog

--------------050004070207030301020003 Content-Type: image/gif; name="hexafluoride.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="hexafluoride.GIF" R0lGODlhEAAEAPOtAAYGAIAAAMDAwMDcwECggGCggGDAgIDAgIDAwKDAwP/78P8AAAAA/////wAAAAAA ACH5BAQAAAAALAAAAAAjApwAAAT/sMlJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgs Go/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdsvter/gsGdBLo/K6AyaXFmzKe6Je5620BeXux7PodvnfXEae3VwhIAY dx+Ii36Jh2YdkHyBa4+TkQ2YlIaMYiFuAo17f2iicqGdZaebpxKHbZtkrmpztJq2l3q6sKiyt7ikG4qS hHmYwMeTw46xv6/IqsSfo6tjkKWZwaa+q6zR0L3hrZVrt3TJy9nY4+DtwrW5g+rShMnr4sqpzuTbh670 qJWbVSygvwUA9x1MOImhvW7u4pnjx42iMYu9ZBF8d5FXRY8d/znquYcxZEmE+CB9awhxpMCC1phtqrdS 0MKWe2qK04hSps2DMXGa1CiKp0OVIAvpQyr0Dsl6/5b+FPkQqEur015K3DjPnICvAuTdxKqz50KwaNG+ S6swbVivbgd+dIqRrcKzaOW5DeW27Ky8UyG+DVrSrqWWfdPC/At44rrBXCfshasYb+Kyhglrxfd07TnH Y+mOHd1Vc1yPnZOaFY3480fSa1FvRfjVmdrHoC2Ctb079om7vilCNjubJHDZFE5vltqZr9R6VIt6RbxY W7XI1wczHE7LOT6adZGnvNebeWCg5GvrRgFcLOLz68WXVrr82mvm4kOZs3QX08k31aW2FP9k43AHHn5U XcUZagIOKJ1mZ4Fi0HxMSVNbbghKtQtU9NUnX4bxLbSfKf2x1NRhFDYoHDckvnZccL/c8yJpGx4YWInN YOUehfa4FhN81KnmHjsegmhkkCK2uAqOUSWXz5GLQfYgQrnNqFArxmGIpI4+btRelaxFxONIwOwzY3Ap sSbBcDkWuSWUNCpJ2zbcdWdiBWwCCZt9BFnjDZj3IYnMU1YCuuN07XRJnIJizkamg4Kl6Kiakpnk5plo HpigX5o1KhlYbWoKwkTo+GNnoDCq1JyWaCoYJ31MXnmnTzmlYyiAcOp4ZmMourlniMBe5aplfXnApoys DjQliy4mK6v/KV958uGWrvbTapiUFRtgtPBZuyCDlxmL6UvjHsTcqfIMW+55haKqrGemWnSuoHr++g6e 3M4li7zJ5RtUuXIdhWuCWQFr8HPf+rruVIeiI3CnyUIVXq7zYZYoRhNf626mEmdMVMdQCaxicaLqWmqu C/eKnq8EK/VxYRyqdyIjz1C8lcXxcpiTqNIerDOjNc98sskqk4zTf5S++TPN3hY5K5ZpohtoP1DbzAvO Wladac9KL30yT5wQ/WyFkoIM9rRCO6b1pWSLPWfUMaeJ7T9ZblxxN+qx2pCiZTobccvQYpbYl6o+POy0 ZmbLK3Ycp60v3SwDzjjkGsrMUd9P91i2/4T/dg4h4JZzzLW9Xv9VstKqIg3wcYi0+/mZ3lIe+ayfOlz3 1KyLmSdjtBKXHd6RYuBv4FByDfDw3ljuHcL42o5522jL/l3Ccg+9plOhs3yZchckxoG2+FYW/va3jS/+ BtyDcH75DZwvPPjdu/+p/O3Tn4H38bOff3kW4P8++fq7n/0A2Jn0rcl+ByRg9uoHv8g58IEQjKAEJ0jB ClrwghjMoAY3yMEOevCDIAyhCEdIwhKa8IQoTKEKV8jCFrrwhTCMoQxnSMMa2vCGOMyhDnfIwx768IdA DKIQPxCAIhqxAkW8QBIbYMQmBkADS7TAESngxCdSsYpWlAAWpzgBLP8qMYtSrGIXt/hFDGzRilykoha9 eEU2kjGMTdyAGJHoRDqacYlvXKMbz6jHOdLRj32MYiDTGMZCtpGQghwjE9l4xzpesYxjjOMgI6nEQaYR kIuUZAsuGcVErvGTj2zkF7PISVKCcZGQ/KMdV6nKUHryjrAUpRRBSUlaGlKRobRlG3NZylq2MpGdPGUs cylHYfoyk7hM5i2T2UtdfhKYxrSlIF8ZTGJC05hojKY0TUlMFXiymob8ZjQJmUluslKcy1SmLjWpTlS6 kwOvfOcsv+lMcKaSmaeMJzTbGUxhShKd8swAQOGpzYEOdJnT9Kc57XjQbtrTlfkEIzADykRnqhP/jxHd 5DizCcmGdjGgT8RoLD3q0UZmFIraZKVKkbhOi4p0mPj0QDwt6s6Q5rOmCqXpSikK027isqTbbCcoqWnT dF50oRAtJktBqtOZznQF+uRoOHNayYTidKRU9elTfyrRlPL0nj79qDRdKlWwvpOcZg1rTeWZxJcmlaBG 7alQr7rTt9LUrY8E6kSFitGU7pWtTY2qV1EQVbKus6C0lGphQYrNrKI0qCjF5FzziNSyQtSP+zykXzc7 0sQOlap51Coj/+jIxWZWoJY1bWMZi1pAEjWSr1XjWMvJTkdqFgaq7ehoZ0lXvF7WtjtNKBetus0pbnWy iGWmYb9KW7TSVq5q/8XjZ6fLy8FS9Lh33aglrcvOr/r2mbtd6UOPisibKpe5sFWoc02Q26nOVayoNGd7 mVvSh46XunBNqxZXaVmuova9xwSwaRUp39FiF6hx9W5ZsVtP7fK0rUg163cV3NWl/lSncJQlVB0cW+Ka Ebb+1W10HYtPzK4WvSMWKH+X69QKKzXB2d1vH0MMXaMyeLHuBbBosVpGD0u4v4F16IpRXFcMk8CgJz4t byF73QjHNrhAvu+E9evUQkY5wg51MXLPmVUt07XGUJZpQbt80heH2bBKPnOHy8xUhgbZrkYeQTMPy89x WtOUXcVyfTOL5JPe2MGVzDBjsVxnZbZYy3P28v+U49xkMbd2lw3Obyv1mOVIg9XHZ/Vym3855uqqNQWS ba6mXfpYzbL5qK3VZEMZyUc4lvaNjc0mJlv95FCTVpzd5Sx6Wy3a8KJ41if+r0mJatsnmxrXuQYuZke5 XTyXt7tDjLa0p03talv72tjOtra3ze1ue/vb4A63uMdN7nKb+9zoTre6183udrv73fDe4HrjTW8L8roD vgaxoOkogDOGVsP4trWr551ewd57lGMmNrQDPGlRE1wuYQvHJSbeDWUQcb0LL/hmiT1wL2a8nJB+ib+P e/Db/vEWRuz3yJ3YmZSLOd/HfurIO17FlhfxHilH+b8jSRKXN5vBGhpYMGz/5btwHKUUDQJuenG+8/TC Uef+FoXPn+6KqVMj52j5eBPTsnCWn5zfonAL1hGox9RsPevOPTtYuj52lQcA6tsjaKwtp/avQNvqXy87 2oGON145Qx9IP4prkr71gQOj7m6P9c3zzvNwIZPqbRzZFfDevrTfHO5Pv6bOmf52EVAe8pEfZejwfnY8 dT70R1484/W++kz2XPWuNz3fhz74TnSp9r54i21eDvulg57nmY/o6YEf2cP3PvYiP/6MT54Mcqa891a/ fCMlj/zWLtD50t8367vX+hA8m+7Zb3j1n0581BdkgdqA2Ftwb/TIfE700HQ73JuPa5XTgvTK177rMZ/8 /+G3/vPj53qldH/+131yZ3MFWH5lN33md4DsNVz4l4ALqICMR3kAqAzIshrYMQsb6H4ciCvvF3wEKH8G GIDPJ1z8F1nOZnwSCAYXOICvJ3xSN3x4t0ATCAIXuH+P1ng7eIMO+ICnl3ORF4MNWIHKl4O2VzedEAuD kYS2hwvb8XIzOEZ2B33hp38uB3sRKCA+J4Ql+AUvqIX5p4BZSINjyIDed4YBaIQteIMfR34ncEReSIFs GINVd4Rq+ITxEIXQcCEa6Dt+8oeE13mqt3jRp4aHSIhmWIBISElzWIRiEIaL+BSJeAr9NDKNCIdouIk5 mIgPt3I4eHMWiIhi2IZTt/+FDRKCQ5d7qPANfMiKuACLDmhciuh/nWiFQYhnUFdyJ9iCmagFkniHbTh+ XZiLw6iJFzeMtziJxXdrGbdymFh6X1h9wUiGv7iKe2gICeGKsmh0feiNAZeL9jeDtkiK5SiOPuhwhXdr NniNWFCN6bh6xShr0XiMoteM1keHkJh4Srd//hOOb0d/yliKdqhxWDcKhOKBlOAlAGI6ehgJqoh6XkeM 5kiAxpiObSc/0niP/VeQ8diAp1iL9Uh9y0iJBImP/VOFW+hNY1iS+uiGW2SD2TiT3uiQUIiNeniTEVl+ XliJKEmNIjmNyDiUkXiGITmQ53iH5DiSnleRKOmS6JP/bPYohZvIkWvIk5eXeCKgioQRiHbyIJizjThZ TMzog1AJk0splNPojpNnlAH5kmZphVeZj2mIlCZZllX5k2xJl0RpfvAIlLPHlR0oHV8JhWFpCGOplzLj k3xJkSaYh2sJmVsAgBFofRY5gu64l0iIcVfImW8ZjpfJkqZ4aIvplngJcqMidLnnGjfpC625e624k+kY miH3exRJgpD4k33pgi15fJTpm8CZmZIplL/JiL1pi3o5nD9olf8nWKVpnFPZjTkpGLeHgcJBlY05lyup WSkImugjk17weY9Iabb5mMIZnbkpfttXmzyIXJ/5kXJmjqLXndaYgA/3d4H3GPqJ/3TX6Z3Z+XjM15zb iZ0QFIHveUikxYK7iJ5zqZsIl6APeki7CKHp2ZRIKXwSiH0HOop8Byvvhzs2OZ05s5zMuXywpaDsqJYV CqACAY0kwY9qR5TrSKDJeHAwepDdc0b8o47jCYp1WUA62o5BaoBv2D/Yk4FF5y4QYjcr+nk3mpUyaqBN 16BU2gVBCp6WJKT2eZ4kOXIsuJGpNp6fgkU7yqPKCZ/OeKA5ynLZU5zWFTIJ+TawyZ/8MIh3GYNgCokz +nP5d5YC4XjGYkD9kgwB9J3Ux0CAOqiFuj9lmpIIBEAi0KiMiqXzI6kMJECUaj6UaqmcukCLmj+GqgEN FD774/+oiTqooVpvqrqqrNqqrvqqsBqrsjqr2UYAtnqrtkqruppDuNoAuPqrubqrwgpDwOqrwFqsw5qs KvSrEnCsyKqs0FpCvyoAzgqshxqt2PpA01qt05qp2fqtEMStzlqoAAAAE1Cu5RoC6Xqu6Gqu4PquTyCu 1hpA7SoB7uquHnCv57qv8NqvTCCvuOo++NoA5qqv+UoBBkuw/rqwSQCwtno+64qwCbsBA2uvEVuxDJux QQCwEMsBGHsBH2uv/KqxJCsEfXGrpxGxGhCyCHuwJfuyP6BAp8CyFvCx61qw7RqyNAuzPAsD1aotO1uz A3uvE6uzQduzSHsCDrsbKkuwQ1v/r/w6tCI7siCbtFbbAg4brBibsPhasU2rsFK7skd7tWSLAVmLq1vb sgo7tWwrtGpLsWUbtyBwtmi7tmnbtVRbtXmbAWMrt2RLtwGbrka7r18Lty7rt4hLAdxKreIqAIULsn37 tny7tolbuY0rr976uB67s5pbuX97rGmBuZt7Ap0buZ77suMaF4v7FJ37AeiKAaZ7uiQLul8RsMb6s3wb u2ILtZQru3GbutTKuATQrD8LDK1LAjm7t75rtcA7vFkbOsdbAryru8vbr817uxzrCtFLunhbvZ+busS7 tLQguNRLsRfrvd9LuxPwvLfAuylAvt2Lvkkrr5Ihvu3buyiQ/7Px6wQKIL+12riKm716qwKvWwHl2wMH MAD+W20cG6zYW7wXu735arNSoAC2qsALHG0N7MCY67hdK8EdULgH3AMDcKsYfAMMkMIqXAEpnAEqvMIW 8MItTAEzHMMMoAE1zMI3PAEyLMM83MM7bMNAHMQ6PMQ5/MMv/AFHXMRAfAFJLMQ+DMU2vAEwLMQY0MNO 3MRQjMU8kLooe6vr27hf8cFbq7/sqr8fDLkF7AQJgKsnLANGHMRLjMRVLAFx/MNZTMVETMNEfMd2PMRZ DMiBbMRMHMUcMMd0zMVMPMiGTMdTjMN1jMRb/MR8rMWVbMk64MUPi7Ki0MGOe8ZCm7wWi//G7KrGIBwE CPCrb+wCkVzFiIzHRRzLf/zIkHzFfbzHtPzHuPzKh4zLklzJHcDLvLzIudwArUzJswzJS4zMxnzExyzL sDwEzUsAwgsWnkzGoTy9aEzG27zGT2AAwLrKKhDJPBzNtgzNLGzOzRzMvrzO6lzM7szHJYDI5NzM7SzP LnzPOpzM+NzPs+zM+rzOzhzP9hzI/szPCL2x4EvNuVq71wzKBmzGoyzRTtvN3sy/zpoALTDMCV3MHE3Q H03Q/jzMy7zLAV3LeXzOeozSvdzRJb3PdUzSN5zDLUzT92zTHn3SObC4CdQ+9ovNES3KFU3RFu2+IaAA A5DUSr3UTN3/1E791FDdxhk9zjot0rkc0jUc0laN0DINz1oNz1t90GD9zir90vuMzzhdyzid1QHN1jld BOL6KWcLFl6bzWvczWdc1CUg1YDb14Cr0SeA1W19yx4ww18dxzYtyFZd0orN0mJ91vmszJgM0nts1rDs yoOdzIYtx5nt0pVNyF0c131N1wZs1xFMyhNt0Xvt16wNuP07z1Xd1WSdx19tz6Cty5YM0IzcyJE91rP9 27atyFz92ZAdzW6N0pvNz7It0ow92TiAuYCLFnUd1NqM2kOt2iTA16293dWKAK8N24Xd2R1ty8y80ik9 3pdc3ujNzuet0r3t3o4N0MJtzsnN0pR8/9zv3djAHdrcHbCkLbmpLcFFfdEgMAAGcOAInuAKvuAM3uAO XgDd/d0mINjmvd6xXM/wPdKDzduPHd7t/eG+HdZindjqTdkWHs/3zdkV7twnvgP93a1jXNrUTeC5O+BT AM7A6t0rQOHxHduc7ePwvdxhXduPLeQg3uHp3chpXdwCLd4mfuL4vdVEXgMv/rB0bd15TeOwO+AjvAOp /Ks6vtE6beQfndjs3d5k7stTjt6vzNHCfNJ+nNCW/c9OvuQibueLXdWZ3N9psc2m3bdc3uU5UMK4Guas TM/7Ld9XrM4Y3uF4ntMmDd4GbcUVfuSOruLAPOKNbuFmTulyrttIwP/dbuHnMy7gXA4FhG6rhg4Dx4zp 7/3LsM7Yla7hs17QSN7S5I3Orx7iQ+7qsJ7nRs7krc7ktt7iPiC8dNsXeF3qgH7qGK3qEg7Ht33H8x3n c7zp9HzLin3tJD7fGV7IJT7JT2zt7Rzlsa7mwa7pzs3tP87iPIAW2avsgT7v9E7RTADOq14Dk03tHL7v 5d7m/57kKZ7ruO3tlp7kSgzafvzmbF7fuh7i2a7eEV/wHH7sMpsYem3K9e7sTIAA+Z7B1nbx0o3lWb7x 9d4EChDtIL9tBETqf27y9E5BiD3zNF/zNn/zOJ/zOr/zPN/zPv/zQB/0Ow8FHM/sMB/zK1+5RW9w9Ee/ 9Ekft06v8U2f8U/vt/MuvVNv1FVPtie/Aia/9VZ/9CwQ6GAvt1mv9SNA9WV/tWdP8iKw7GvP9m3v8m/v 9nHPs3MP93Uv1HePtHmv9+rK932P939v9xOM9oOf+Iq/+Izf+I7/+JAf+ZI/+RsQAQAh/mFzdXh0bW91 dWF4bW93aXp1dWRyZWdjY295eW5mc2p2anNkeHJoADt= --------------050004070207030301020003-- From john@asimere.com Thu Jan 27 15:33:07 2005 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:33:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c5044b$d458e0e0$02f9f0c3@LNV> <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9dee7vAzmQ+BFwIn@asimere.com> In article <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Ton Kooijman >> To: Sinot Martin >> There is a difference. With an inadvertent call, the call >> inadvertently shown does not give information about the hand. >> With an inadvertently played card it is different; whether >> intentional or not, everybody has seen the card and thus >> gained information about the hand. >> *********** >> That is true but not relevant. We deal with UI gained from >> such card in the laws and we have introduced the minor >> penalty card knowing this. >----- >That is also true, but the way I read Law 50B it specifically distinguishes >between a card exposed in an act of playing it (always a major penalty card >regardless of whether the play was intentional or not) and an act of >inadvertently exposing it (which includes accidentally dropping a card or >playing more than one card to a trick). > >This distinction is apparent also in the corresponding law 24 on card >exposed during the auction. Here I am with Sven. A card is played by detaching it from one's hand and exposing it. There is no question of your intent to play this card. It was detached and it was played. A minor penalty card occurs if and only if there was no intent to detach a card; e.g. it fell out of your hand or the waitress flicked it out with her decollage. I'm really concerned that ton is stretching his interpretation of the Law here beyond 1) what the Law says, and 2) beyond even what the Law intended (despite he being in a better position to know this than I) John > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 27 15:45:56 2005 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:45:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <9dee7vAzmQ+BFwIn@asimere.com> References: <000c01c5044b$d458e0e0$02f9f0c3@LNV> <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <9dee7vAzmQ+BFwIn@asimere.com> Message-ID: <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > hand or the waitress flicked it out with her decollage. I'm really I'd like to see that! Decollage is the action of a plane taking off. Decollet=E9 is the word John was looking for. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be --=20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 21/01/2005 From john@asimere.com Thu Jan 27 16:27:49 2005 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:27:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be> References: <000c01c5044b$d458e0e0$02f9f0c3@LNV> <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <9dee7vAzmQ+BFwIn@asimere.com> <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> hand or the waitress flicked it out with her decollage. I'm really > >I'd like to see that! >Decollage is the action of a plane taking off. >Decollet=E9 is the word John was looking for. yeah yeah herman. Thanks for correcting my English - AGAIN! > >--=20 >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From schoderb@msn.com Thu Jan 27 18:34:40 2005 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:34:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? References: <000c01c5044b$d458e0e0$02f9f0c3@LNV> <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <9dee7vAzmQ+BFwIn@asimere.com> <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be> Message-ID: Come on, you guys! One French meaning for Decollage is aircraft takeoff. Decolletage is English for low neckline and the word MadDog was looking for. Both wrong at the same time? Zounds! Wie ist denn so eine Sache moeglich? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In article <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> hand or the waitress flicked it out with her decollage. I'm really > >I'd like to see that! >Decollage is the action of a plane taking off. >Decolleté is the word John was looking for. yeah yeah herman. Thanks for correcting my English - AGAIN! > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 27 20:18:02 2005 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:18:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] betting Message-ID: <01f301c504ad$4db33290$1b9468d5@James> [Vitold] > You shalt not create more Universes than it is needed > (Ockegem - sorry, do not know how one should write the > name in English). {Nigel] Ockham or Occam. (: I like this definition from an On-line Dictionary of Philosophy :) [FOLDOC] Occam's Razor The English philosopher, William of Occam (1300-1349) propounded Occam's Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem". (Latin for "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary"). That is, the fewer assumptions an explanation of a phenomenon depends on, the better it is. For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities. The negation of Occam's Razor would suggest that an arbitrarily complex explanation is just as good as the simplest one. (E.g. God and his cat created a robot called Sparky who built the universe from parts bought from a shop in another dimension). See also KISS Principle. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 25/01/2005 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Jan 27 22:29:19 2005 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:29:19 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <008701c50385$5a05a420$89b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ The Laws provide that any card deliberately > taken from the hand and displayed, as to play it, is > a played card. The alternative to that is that it is > accidentally dropped. I do not think there is any > provision by which it may be deemed inadvertent > exposure if you play a card in the manner of Law 45 > that you did not intend to play. Here we have a nice example of a law where "involuntary" works a lot better than "inadvertent." It is possible to interpret "inadvertent" as "if the card he wanted to play is not the card that winds up faced on the table" and turn a LOT of what 99% of us now call MPCs into mPCs. The initial post in this thread is one where we have all been trained since birth to rule MPC, but the actual wording doesn't support that as emphatically as I would like. "Involuntary" would make it clear that only something completely beyond the player's control (dropping a card, but NOT reaching for one card and pulling out the one next to it) could create mPC. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 27 22:54:15 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:54:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote -> >>>A minor penalty card occurs if and only if there was no >>>intent to detach a card; e.g. it fell out of your >>>hand or the waitress flicked it out with her decollage. Herman De Wael wrote -> >>I'd like to see that! >>Decollage is the action of a plane taking off. >>Decollet=E9 is the word John was looking for. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote -> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decollage > >Decollage, in art, is the opposite of collage; instead of >an image being built up of all or parts of existing images, >it is created by cutting, tearing away or otherwise >removing, pieces of an original image. Richard Hills writes -> A collection of cards held in your hand is often a satisfying original image. An artistic waitress removing a card is practising decollage, therefore MadDog's use of the English language is entirely appropriate. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jan 28 00:41:11 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:41:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050125075158.02c839c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Rubber bridge Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double 2S 3H Pass 4D Pass ? You, South, hold: AQ62 J742 6 T853 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From schoderb@msn.com Fri Jan 28 01:02:48 2005 From: schoderb@msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:02:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? References: Message-ID: But Richard, wasn't Mad Dog using a noun and not a verb? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? John (MadDog) Probst wrote -> >>>A minor penalty card occurs if and only if there was no >>>intent to detach a card; e.g. it fell out of your >>>hand or the waitress flicked it out with her decollage. Herman De Wael wrote -> >>I'd like to see that! >>Decollage is the action of a plane taking off. >>Decolleté is the word John was looking for. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote -> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decollage > >Decollage, in art, is the opposite of collage; instead of >an image being built up of all or parts of existing images, >it is created by cutting, tearing away or otherwise >removing, pieces of an original image. Richard Hills writes -> A collection of cards held in your hand is often a satisfying original image. An artistic waitress removing a card is practising decollage, therefore MadDog's use of the English language is entirely 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 Fri Jan 28 01:13:19 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:13:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} In-Reply-To: <000b01c5039a$f0b6b5c0$c2b487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ We should be wary of assuming 'natural' to be the >converse of 'conventional'. The latter is a defined term >of the art in bridge whereas 'natural' has its dictionary >meaning. The converse of 'natural' is 'artificial'. Not >everything that is conventional is necessarily artificial, >nor is 'natural' necessarily synonymous at all times with >'not conventional'. > Having regard to the law book it appears to me >that to be natural a bid would constitute an offer to >play in the denomination named and attempt the >number of odd tricks specified. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The WBF system regulations, which have been partially used as a template for the ABF system regulations, do define "natural" as the converse of "conventional". Furthermore, the word "natural" is used only once in the 1997 Lawbook. "Natural" appears in Example 1 of the Law 75 footnote, but the call described as "natural" is also "non-conventional". Meanwhile, the word "artificial" appears frequently in the 1997 Lawbook. However, most instances refer to artificial adjusted scores. The Law 75 footnote is the only place that "artificial" is used to describe a call. And the call described as "artificial" is also "conventional". In my opinion, the Law 40 use of "partnership understanding" and the Law 75 use of "partnership agreement" merely reflect elegant periphrasis (a poor policy for an instruction manual). Likewise, in my opinion, the eschewing of "conventional" and "non-conventional" in the Law 75 footnote, with the terms being replaced by "artificial" and "natural", again merely reflect elegant periphrasis (again a poor policy for an instruction manual). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From john@asimere.com Fri Jan 28 02:04:47 2005 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:04:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c5044b$d458e0e0$02f9f0c3@LNV> <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <9dee7vAzmQ+BFwIn@asimere.com> <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be>

Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >Come on, you guys! One French meaning for Decollage is aircraft takeoff.= =20 >Decolletage is English for low neckline and the word MadDog was looking = for.=20 >Both wrong at the same time? Zounds! Wie ist denn so eine Sache moeglic= h? > >Kojak corrected by a Yank! My shame knows no bounds :) > > >----- Original Message -----=20 >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 11:27 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? > > >In article <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael >writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> hand or the waitress flicked it out with her decollage. I'm really >> >>I'd like to see that! >>Decollage is the action of a plane taking off. >>Decollet=E9 is the word John was looking for. > >yeah yeah herman. Thanks for correcting my English - AGAIN! --=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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jan 28 02:11:44 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:11:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak: >>But Richard, wasn't Mad Dog using a noun and not a verb? Morris Bishop (The New Yorker, 27th September 1947): >I lately lost a preposition >It hid, I thought, beneath my chair >And angrily I cried, "Perdition! >Up from out of in under there." > >Correctness is my vade mecum, >And straggling phrases I abhor, >And yet I wondered, "What should he come >Up from out of in under for?" Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jan 28 04:30:32 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:30:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Obiter dictum In-Reply-To: <02f001c504e9$afff4380$1b9468d5@James> Message-ID: DQoNCg0KDQpOZXcgT3JsZWFucyAyMDAzIEFDQkwgQ2FzZSAyMiBBcHBlYWxzIENvbW1pdHRlZSBv Yml0ZXIgZGljdHVtOg0KDQpbc25pcF0NCg0KPkZpbmFsbHksIE5vcnRoIGFza2VkIGlmIGhlIHdh cyBzdXBwb3NlZCB0byB2b2x1bnRlZXINCj5pbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhYm91dCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQg bWVhbmluZyBvZiBoaXMgMk5UIGJpZCBvbmNlIGhpcw0KPnNpZGUgYmVjYW1lIHRoZSBkZWNsYXJl cnMuIEhlIHdhcyB0b2xkIHRoYXQsIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byBsYXcsDQo+YSBtZW1iZXIgb2YgdGhl IGRlY2xhcmluZyBzaWRlIG11c3QgY29ycmVjdCBoaXMgcGFydG5lcidzDQo+bWlzdGFrZW4gZXhw bGFuYXRpb24gYXQgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiB0aGUgYXVjdGlvbiAoYSBkZWZlbmRlcg0KPm11c3Qgd2Fp dCB1bnRpbCB0aGUgaGFuZCBpcyBvdmVyKSBidXQgbmVlZCBub3QgZGlzY2xvc2UgaGlzIG93bg0K Pm1pc2JpZC4NCj4NCj5BcyBhIG1hdHRlciBvZiBzZWxmLWludGVyZXN0LCB0aG91Z2gsIGEgcGxh eWVyIHNob3VsZCBzdHJvbmdseQ0KPmNvbnNpZGVyIGV4cGxhaW5pbmcgdGhlIGludGVuZGVkIG1l YW5pbmcgb2YgaGlzIGJpZCBzaW5jZSBieQ0KPm5vdCBkb2luZyBzbyBoZSByaXNrcyBhbiBhZHZl cnNlIHNjb3JlIGFkanVzdG1lbnQgaWYgaGUgY2FuJ3QNCj5jb252aW5jZSBhIERpcmVjdG9yIG9y IENvbW1pdHRlZSB0aGF0IGhpcyBwYXJ0bmVyJ3MgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24NCj53YXMgY29ycmVjdCBh bmQgaWYgdGhlIG9wcG9uZW50cyBhcmUgZGFtYWdlZCBpbiB0aGUgYXVjdGlvbiBvcg0KPnRoZSBz dWJzZXF1ZW50IHBsYXkuIEJ1dCBieSBleHBsYWluaW5nIGhpcyB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIG9mIGhp cw0KPnBhcnRuZXJzaGlwIGFncmVlbWVudCBhdCB0aGUgZW5kIG9mIHRoZSBhdWN0aW9uLCBoZSB3 aWxsIGJlDQo+YWJsZSB0byBrZWVwIGhpcyB0YWJsZSByZXN1bHQsIGdvb2Qgb3IgYmFkLCBhcyBs b25nIGFzIHRoZQ0KPm9wcG9uZW50cycgYmlkZGluZyB3YXMgbm90IGFmZmVjdGVkIGFuZCBoaXMg dm9sdW50ZWVyZWQNCj5leHBsYW5hdGlvbiBwcmV2ZW50cyBmdXJ0aGVyIGRhbWFnZSBkdXJpbmcg dGhlIHBsYXkuIEFzIGENCj5wbGF5ZXIsIHRoZW4sIG9uZSBtdXN0IGp1ZGdlIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Ig bm90IG9uZSB3aWxsIGJlIGFibGUgdG8NCj5jb252aW5jZSBhIERpcmVjdG9yIG9yIENvbW1pdHRl ZSB0aGF0IGl0IHdhcyB5b3VyIGJpZCB0aGF0IHdhcw0KPm1pc3Rha2VuIGFuZCBub3QgeW91ciBw YXJ0bmVy4oCZcyBleHBsYW5hdGlvbi4gU2luY2UgdGhpcyBpcyBhDQo+dG91Z2ggY2FzZSB0byBt YWtlIHdpdGhvdXQgd3JpdHRlbiBldmlkZW5jZSAoc3VjaCBhcyBhIG5vdGF0aW9uDQo+b24gdGhl IENDIG9yIHN5c3RlbSBub3RlcykgYSBwbGF5ZXIgd2lsbCBvZnRlbiBiZSBiZXR0ZXIgb2ZmDQo+ ZXhwbGFpbmluZyBoaXMgb3duIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgb2YgYSBkaXNwdXRlZCBjYWxsLCByZWdh cmRsZXNzDQo+b2Ygd2hpY2ggcGFydG5lciB3YXMgbWlzdGFrZW4uDQoNClJpY2hhcmQgSGlsbHM6 DQoNCkkgZnVsbHkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB0aGUgQUNCTCBBQydzIGZpcnN0IHBhcmFncmFwaCBvZiBh ZHZpY2UuDQoNCkFzIGZvciB0aGUgc2Vjb25kIHBhcmFncmFwaCBvZiBhZHZpY2UsIGl0IHdvdWxk IGdsYWRkZW4gdGhlDQpoZWFydCBvZiBIZXJtYW4gRGUgV2FlbC4gIEhvdyBjYW4gaXQgYmUgbGVn YWwgdG8gc3VnZ2VzdCB0aGF0IGENCnBsYXllciBsaWUgYWJvdXQgYSBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCBhZ3Jl ZW1lbnQsIG1lcmVseSBiZWNhdXNlIGEgcGxheWVyDQpoYXMgaW5zdWZmaWNpZW50IGV2aWRlbmNl IHRvIHByb3ZlIHRoZSBleGlzdGVuY2Ugb2YgYSBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcA0KYWdyZWVtZW50PyAgQW5k IGhvdyBjYW4gb25lIGF2b2lkIGFuIE1JLWNhdXNlZCBhZGp1c3RlZCBzY29yZSBieQ0KZ2l2aW5n IG9wcG9uZW50cyB0d28gZGlmZmVyaW5nIHZlcnNpb25zIG9mIGEgcGFydG5lcnNoaXANCmFncmVl bWVudCB3aXRob3V0IHRlbGxpbmcgdGhlIG9wcG9uZW50cyB3aGljaCBvbmUgaXMgdHJ1ZT8gIFdo eQ0KZG9lcyB0aGUgQUNCTCBBQydzIGZpcnN0IHBhcmFncmFwaCBvZiBhZHZpY2UgbWVudGlvbiB0 aGF0IGl0IGlzDQpiYXNlZCBvbiBMYXcsIGJ1dCB0aGUgc2Vjb25kIHBhcmFncmFwaCBvZiBhZHZp Y2UgbWVudGlvbiB0aGF0IGl0DQppcyBiYXNlZCBvbiBzZWxmLWludGVyZXN0Pw0KDQo6LSgNCg0K DQpCZXN0IHdpc2hlcw0KDQpSaWNoYXJkIEhpbGxzDQpNb3ZpZSBncm9nbmFyZCBhbmQgZ2VuZXJh bCBndXJ1 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Jan 28 07:26:55 2005 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:26:55 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] 100% of Nothing Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCCC2@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard Hills wrote: Rubber bridge Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double 2S 3H Pass 4D Pass ? You, South, hold: AQ62 J742 6 T853 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? ----- Partner has shown a very strong hand with diamonds. He would have bid 3S with a strong hand with heart support. The bids I would consider making is pass, 4NT and 5D. I would bid 4NT, hoping it would make, but expecting to go down. But 4D might also go down. Pass would be my second choice, a bid I really might make. 5D is so likely to go down I think I never would bid it. Regards, Harald Skjaeran ----- Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 28 08:10:05 2005 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:10:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Obiter dictum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41F9F35D.10805@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > New Orleans 2003 ACBL Case 22 Appeals Committee obiter dictum: >=20 > [snip] >=20 [snip] >=20 >=20 > Richard Hills: >=20 > I fully agree with the ACBL AC's first paragraph of advice. >=20 So do I. > As for the second paragraph of advice, it would gladden the > heart of Herman De Wael. =20 Yes it does. > How can it be legal to suggest that a Who cares about the legality of a suggestion? It is the legality of=20 the action we should be focusing on. > player lie about a partnership agreement,=20 I believe the suggestion is not to lie about a partnership agreement,=20 but rather to volunteer information about what one thinks the=20 partnership agreement is? > merely because a player > has insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a partnership > agreement? =20 Merely? If a player has insufficient evidence - isn't that in itself reason to=20 doubt that the explanation is right? I really don't understand this point. > And how can one avoid an MI-caused adjusted score by > giving opponents two differing versions of a partnership > agreement without telling the opponents which one is true? I saw nothing in the paragraph above that suggested that one sought to=20 avoid an MI-caused AS from things in the bidding. Those MI have passed=20 and cannot be changed. One seeks to avoid MI-based AS during play. Why=20 should one need to tell the opponents which is the true meaning of the=20 call, if one tells them what one holds in his hand? Example: 1NT X 2Di all pass. Before the lead, declarer explains he=20 intended 2Di as transfer. How can it be important which of the two=20 partners is right, when all declarer does is tell opponents he has=20 hearts, not diamonds. > Why > does the ACBL AC's first paragraph of advice mention that it is > based on Law, but the second paragraph of advice mention that it > is based on self-interest? >=20 Because the advice is based on self-intrest! Why should one not give advice based on self-intrest? Suppose in the case above the TD, possibly based on lack of evidence=20 to the contrary, decides the system is indeed transfers, and the=20 explanation therefor mistaken. He further decides that the opponents=20 are not damaged in the auction since 2Di is a bad contract anyway. If declarer says nothing (not only can he be held in contempt of the=20 laws) adn defenders misdefend and allow declarer off with 2=20 downtricks, the TD might well decide best defence and give an AS of=20 -5. But if declarer tells the opponents before play starts, and they=20 slightly misdefend and allow -4, then declarer has gained a trick, has=20 he not? So of course this is self-intrest! > :-( >=20 >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and general gurunY=A5=99=A8=A5=8Ax%=8A=CB[=96ik=B5=F9[=A2= =B8!=B6=DA?=FF=0C0jk-z=B7Z=9Aw=9D=A2=B8?=99=A8=A5=99=A9=FF=96+-=8Aw=E8=FD= =B9fl=3D=3D=3D >=20 >=20 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= - >=20 > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 21/01/2005 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be --=20 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 21/01/2005 From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jan 28 11:13:00 2005 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: SV: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCCBD@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: > > > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was > > > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the > > > card intended. > > > I don't understand one word of what you say here. > > If he intented to expose a spade and instead took a club without intent > that we call inadvertent. We might call it inadvertent but nevertheless L50B says the card is a Major PC. The first card was a played card. It can be changed only to correct a revoke/lead out of turn. > L50B read: A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed > inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a > card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour > rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of > turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty > card; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards > become major penalty cards. Indeed the original example given was a revoke correction. I do not see any ambiguity here. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 28 17:53:08 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:53:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050125075158.02c839c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Rubber bridge >Dlr: South >Vul: None > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >1S Double 2S 3H >Pass 4D Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >AQ62 >J742 >6 >T853 > >What call do you make? Pass. >What other calls do you consider making? 4NT. But how many people out there actually believe it to be natural? Please tell partner not to tell me how many aces he has! -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jan 28 17:56:50 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:56:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be> References: <000c01c5044b$d458e0e0$02f9f0c3@LNV> <000001c5044e$4e67c1b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <9dee7vAzmQ+BFwIn@asimere.com> <41F90CB4.3050003@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> hand or the waitress flicked it out with her decollage. I'm really > >I'd like to see that! >Decollage is the action of a plane taking off. >Decolleté is the word John was looking for. I think the word he was actually looking for is decolletage. A lady *is* decollete because of her decolletage. But who knows with John's posting! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Jan 28 18:01:14 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:01:14 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCCBD@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990001AFCCBD@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >> I wrote, despite the mistaken cite: >> > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was >> > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the >> > card intended. >I don't understand one word of what you say here. > >If he intented to expose a spade and instead took a club without intent that >we call inadvertent. What do you call inadvertent? The choice of card or its exposure? If you intend to play a spade and take a club then your choice of card is inadvertent, and as such cannot be changed in Law unless it is a designation. But it was not *exposed* inadvertently, and thus cannot be a minor penalty card. -- David Stevenson Bridge 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 Fri Jan 28 19:06:42 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:06:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jan 26, 2005, at 18:34 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed "not buying it" is correct in theory, but ignores practice. Huge > numbers of players violate system because they temporarily forget their > agreed system. So what? That doesn't make the system violating action a logical alternative. From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 28 19:12:45 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:12:45 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5056d$5969b080$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Skjaran, Harald wrote > >> I wrote, despite the mistaken cite: > > >> > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was > >> > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the > >> > card intended. > > >I don't understand one word of what you say here. > > > >If he intented to expose a spade and instead took a club without intent > that > >we call inadvertent. > > What do you call inadvertent? The choice of card or its exposure? If > you intend to play a spade and take a club then your choice of card is > inadvertent, and as such cannot be changed in Law unless it is a > designation. > > But it was not *exposed* inadvertently, and thus cannot be a minor > penalty card. I do not quite understand which position you have taken here, but I know Harald well enough to assure you that he considers as a necessary condition for a penalty card to be a minor penalty card that the _exposure_ of the card was inadvertent. (Corroborated by the clause: "as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally"). Whether the _choice_ of card was intended or inadvertent is irrelevant here in Norway, the moment a card is exposed in an action that resembles playing the card that card is ruled a major penalty card regardless of its rank. Regards Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Jan 28 20:38:58 2005 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:38:58 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900019E10F4@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Sven Pran wrote: > David Stevenson > Skjaran, Harald wrote > >> I wrote, despite the mistaken cite: >=20 > >> > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was > >> > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the > >> > card intended. >=20 > >I don't understand one word of what you say here. > > > >If he intented to expose a spade and instead took a club without intent > that > >we call inadvertent. >=20 > What do you call inadvertent? The choice of card or its exposure? If > you intend to play a spade and take a club then your choice of card is > inadvertent, and as such cannot be changed in Law unless it is a > designation. >=20 > But it was not *exposed* inadvertently, and thus cannot be a minor > penalty card. I do not quite understand which position you have taken here, but I know Harald well enough to assure you that he considers as a necessary condition for a penalty card to be a minor penalty card that the _exposure_ of the card was inadvertent. (Corroborated by the clause: "as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally"). Whether the _choice_ of card was intended or inadvertent is irrelevant here in Norway, the moment a card is exposed in an action that resembles playing the card that card is ruled a major penalty card regardless of its rank. ----- I don't know why my name is here, since I've not written a single word of the above. I commented earlier in the thread to what Ton wrote. I'm absolutely in agreement with Grattan and David (and several other contributors). Regards, Harald ----- Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 28 23:01:15 2005 From: Guthrie@ntlworld.com (GUTHRIE) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:01:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing References: Message-ID: <008501c5058d$452fb810$459868d5@James> [Richard James Hills] > Calling "natural 4NT" is the winning action, > but in a normal anti-adjectival form of bridge, > pard is certain to interpret 4NT as Blackwood. [Nigel] This problem is unique to Australia. The rest of the world uses bidding boxes rather than written bidding. Before "4N", Kojak, David Stevenson and I would, of course, face our "Stop" card :) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 25/01/2005 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Jan 29 05:10:31 2005 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:10:31 +1300 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} Message-ID: <20050129051031.LBNZ16943.pop2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.135]> > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: 2005/01/27 Thu AM 12:33:25 GMT+13:00 > To: "blml" > Subject: Re: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} > > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "Of good and evil much they argued then, > Of happiness and final misery, > Passion and apathy, and glory and shame, > Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy." > ['Paradise Lost'] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:47 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] conventional or not? > [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} > > > Ed Reppert > > > > > Frankly, TFLB's definition of "convention" needs > > a complete overhaul. > < > +=+ Rely on it +=+ > < > Sven: > >In the thirties Ely Culbertson and his team established > norms for this language and today's definition of what > are "conventions" must mainly be seen as attempts to > define understandings alternative to the "natural" > understandings established by him (which then are > considered to be "natural" as opposed to being > >"conventions"). > < > +=+ We should be wary of assuming 'natural' to be the > converse of 'conventional'. The latter is a defined term > of the art in bridge whereas 'natural' has its dictionary > meaning. The converse of 'natural' is 'artificial'. Not > everything that is conventional is necessarily artificial, > nor is 'natural' necessarily synonymous at all times with > 'not conventional'. > Having regard to the law book it appears to me > that to be natural a bid would constitute an offer to > play in the denomination named and attempt the > number of odd tricks specified. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am not sure what you are thinking of when you say with regard to the law book with respect to "natural". I would consider some bids that do not suggest desire to play in the named denomination as "natural" e.g. new suits after a major suit has been agreed intended as a cue-bid or a "natural" game try and new suits after a minor has been agreed as a "natural" no trump probe. Norman Squire in his classic "The Theory of Bidding" even calls 4th suit forcing "supremely natural". Wayne From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 29 05:22:56 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:22:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was Alerting in Australia (was England)} In-Reply-To: <20050129051031.LBNZ16943.pop2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.135]> Message-ID: <000001c505c2$97233b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > From: "Grattan Endicott"=20 > > From: "Sven Pran"=20 > > Sven: > > >In the thirties Ely Culbertson and his team established > > norms for this language and today's definition of what > > are "conventions" must mainly be seen as attempts to > > define understandings alternative to the "natural" > > understandings established by him (which then are > > considered to be "natural" as opposed to being > > >"conventions"). > > < > > +=3D+ We should be wary of assuming 'natural' to be the > > converse of 'conventional'. The latter is a defined term > > of the art in bridge whereas 'natural' has its dictionary > > meaning. The converse of 'natural' is 'artificial'. Not > > everything that is conventional is necessarily artificial, > > nor is 'natural' necessarily synonymous at all times with > > 'not conventional'. > > Having regard to the law book it appears to me > > that to be natural a bid would constitute an offer to > > play in the denomination named and attempt the > > number of odd tricks specified. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ >=20 > I am not sure what you are thinking of when you say with regard to the = law > book with respect to "natural". >=20 > I would consider some bids that do not suggest desire to play in the = named > denomination as "natural" e.g. new suits after a major suit has been > agreed intended as a cue-bid or a "natural" game try and new suits = after a > minor has been agreed as a "natural" no trump probe. >=20 > Norman Squire in his classic "The Theory of Bidding" even calls 4th = suit > forcing "supremely natural". I am quite convinced that if the 4th suit forcing bid had been = "according to Culbertson" we might have considered it "natural" even today. Sven From rassilka.com Sat Jan 29 11:22:46 2005 From: rassilka.com (rassilka.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:22:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] OEM Message-ID: <20050129112915.E8B1133@rhubarb.custard.org>

OEM=20 Software Most popular

http://krnnhm.red-disk.info/?lcvdkc= z440zaroomp

http://hspvpv.misterguide.info/?= urxvhnz440zvmumtp

http://msksqj.eprst-s.info/?xdtdwqz4= 40zdvloqo

Hello,

I am contacting you about the only true way you will be able to really start saving.

Please review the information below.

Upon completion of the following process by this time next month you will have at least $300 to $400 Extra Cash in your pocket per month.

Your application is waiting to be received,

We are ready to give you a loan.

Approval process will take 1 minute.

CIick here and fill the quick form.

If you would prefer not to go here.

From swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jan 31 01:14:12 2005 From: swillner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:14:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Multiple penalty cards Message-ID: <41FD8664.4060700@cfa.harvard.edu> From Grattan's report of the LC progress, the following might be too late to be considered, but some of the earlier discussion got me thinking about a new suggestion for Laws revision. Right now, if a defender exposes multiple cards at his own turn to lead, the defender gets to pick the card to be led to the current trick (L58B2), while declarer gets to choose among any multiple cards that may remain at subsequent tricks (L51). In all other circumstances, declarer gets to pick. It seems to me this is a little too harsh on the clumsy defender. If cards are exposed at the defender's own turn to play -- not necessarily lead -- or at RHO's turn, neither defender has yet learned anything that he "shouldn't know." In these cases, it seems to me more equitable that the defender himself should pick which card he wishes to play to the trick in progress* (or about to be begun by his lead). Once offender's partner has a choice of plays, though, declarer should still get to dictate the offender's plays if multiple penalty cards remain. Perhaps I'm overlooking something, and this is a bad idea. If not, perhaps it's time for Grattan to start his notebook for 2017. (Sorry, Grattan. I wish I'd thought of this a year ago, but you must have realized you would need to start a new notebook some day.) *Example: declarer South has just finessed the Q from dummy's AQ, and East exposes the king and a small card simultaneously. Why not let East win the king, as equity would suggest? West's plays cannot have been affected (yet) by seeing East's cards. Similarly, if East's cards are exposed just before dummy plays, how does it serve equity to make East drop the king under the ace? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 31 02:14:13 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:14:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050125075158.02c839c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>>>That's not really analogous to the thread case. The system >>>>>violators in the MSC, after all, were playing a system which >>>>was not of their own choosing. That makes deliberate system >>>>violations in the MSC a great deal more common than they are >>>>in real life. The Bridge World, Master Solvers' Club June 1994, Problem C: >>>Rubber bridge >>>Dlr: South >>>Vul: None >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- --- Pass >>>1S Double 2S 3H >>>Pass 4D Pass ? >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>AQ62 >>>J742 >>>6 >>>T853 >>> >>>What call do you make? David Stevenson: >>Pass. Richard Hills: >>>What other calls do you consider making? David Stevenson: >>4NT. But how many people out there actually believe it to be >>natural? Please tell partner not to tell me how many aces he >>has! June 1994 MSC panellist Zia Mahmood: >Pass. Rubber bridge has its own laws. The trick is handling >the table and the varying abilities - there are _never_ four >good players in the game, so I feel the conditions [of the MSC] >are wrong. Where I play, if my partner bid four diamonds (I >play that forcing), I would bid three notrump - nobody would >notice this is insufficient. June 1994 MSC panellist Bart Bramley: >Five clubs. Four notrump is Blackwood at rubber bridge. I'm >not sure what it is elsewhere, except as an experiment in >terror. No thanks! Five diamonds is possible, but I might as >well try five clubs on the way, in case partner has four. June 1994 MSC panellist Sami Kehela: >Four notrump. Natural, but if I could not manage it in tempo I >would pass. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 31 02:39:12 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:39:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert assertion: >>So what? That doesn't make the system violating >>action a logical alternative. Footnote to Law 40E2, first sentence: >A player is not entitled, during the auction and >play periods, to any aids to his memory, >calculation or technique. Richard Hills syllogism: (1) For many people, an agreement to play high-level forcing passes is accident prone, with frequent forgetting and/or misinterpretation. (2) I used to played high-level forcing passes (an agreement now removed from my system). But, when I perpetrated an in-tempo forcing pass, my pard would often routinely pass also, for a red-faced score of +250 for us, instead of our cold slam. (3) A sloooow forcing pass is demonstrably an "aid to memory". (4) *If* a sloooow forcing pass has jogged a snoozy partner's memory, *then* violating system is a Law 16 non-suggested logical alternative. Note a parallel posting on this thread, in which Sami Kehela would bid a (natural) 4NT if he could achieve the call in tempo, but would ethically refuse to bid a sloooow (natural) 4NT, since the slowness would jog a snoozy partner's memory that this 4NT call was a special exception to the normal default of Blackwood. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and general guru From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 31 02:57:47 2005 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:57:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] conventional or not? [was... etc] In-Reply-To: <000001c50724$184a0b50$5b0de150@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >> Having regard to the law book it appears to me >>that to be natural a bid would constitute an offer to >>play in the denomination named and attempt the >>number of odd tricks specified. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [snip] >Nature contrived? >To quote Mr. Holmes, "Depend upon it, there is >nothing so unnatural as the commonplace." > ~ G ~ +=+ Doctor Watson: You astound me, Holmes. Do you mean that in this commonplace Acol sequence (LHO dealer): LHO Holmes RHO Watson Pass 1H Pass 1S my commonplace 1S response is not natural, because my commonplace 1S response is 100% forcing? Sherlock Holmes: Alimentary, my dear Watson. You have swallowed a camel while straining at a gnat. Under the Grattanic interpretation of "natural", your 1S call would only qualify if your 1S call was non-forcing (such as in Colonel Buller's old-fashioned system, or in Symmetric Relay's new-fangled system). Best wishes Mycroft Holmes Author of the bidding system "The Diogenes Club" (copies available on request) From anbessa@chetumail.com Mon Jan 31 06:55:04 2005 From: anbessa@chetumail.com (Johnathan Kincaid) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:55:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hiya. Seeking a sweet date??, You've found what you seek....,.enigmatic hoot Message-ID: What does your life need? Long lasting love. Some hot lovin. A date. Then this is what you want. Using Copy / Paste put the address below in your address bar. www.vmaso.lardtard.com/gab/chw5 __________________________________________________________ Jerrod oval dubious. Noreen secrecy slog bhoy. Deandre titian game blackberry champaign shelton circuit. Anthony conscience tog flashlight shagging. no thx www.qerdperd.com/tact/ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 31 05:10:57 2005 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:10:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] 100% of Nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7D44CD19-7346-11D9-BE82-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jan 30, 2005, at 21:39 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20= wrote: > (1) For many people, an agreement to play high-level > forcing passes is accident prone, with frequent > forgetting and/or misinterpretation. Fair enough, but "many" =A1=C1 "all". I think you have to determine = where=20 the particular pair in question fit, not make assumptions about that. > (3) A sloooow forcing pass is demonstrably an "aid to > memory". > > (4) *If* a sloooow forcing pass has jogged a snoozy > partner's memory, *then* violating system is a > Law 16 non-suggested logical alternative. Hm. That's a big if. It requires us to decide that it *did* jog his=20 memory. I don't like that. I was going to suggest law 73C, but it=20 suffers from the same problem. I guess my problem is I don't like laws=20= that in effect say "you might have violated the law, so we're going to=20= assume you did". :-( > Note a parallel posting on this thread, in which Sami > Kehela would bid a (natural) 4NT if he could achieve > the call in tempo, but would ethically refuse to bid > a sloooow (natural) 4NT, since the slowness would jog > a snoozy partner's memory that this 4NT call was a > special exception to the normal default of Blackwood. I have no problem with a player doing something designed to avoid=20 giving his partner an ethical problem, but I don't think the law=20 requires it. From ppogijd@applicacenter.com Mon Jan 31 10:04:02 2005 From: ppogijd@applicacenter.com (Josh Poole) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:04:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hoping to find a date.? You've found what you seek.,,..pasture breeze Message-ID: <20050131081100.96D3268@rhubarb.custard.org> Trying to find a lover? Need a hot time? Need to find sex? Welcome to the right place. http://zzaj.serdwerd.com/gab/dlw9 __________________________________________________________ Roseann bluestocking clothbound cornstarch broad bathroom. Dusty cress aspidistra stork. Magdalena videotape cult. Sondra trivial stockade tadpole spigot. no thx www.pardhard.com/tact/ From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 31 08:37:28 2005 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:37:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple penalty cards In-Reply-To: <41FD8664.4060700@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c50770$194a2bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > Right now, if a defender exposes multiple cards at his own turn to = lead, > the defender gets to pick the card to be led to the current trick > (L58B2), while declarer gets to choose among any multiple cards that = may > remain at subsequent tricks (L51). In all other circumstances, = declarer > gets to pick. It seems to me this is a little too harsh on the clumsy > defender. If cards are exposed at the defender's own turn to play -- > not necessarily lead -- or at RHO's turn, neither defender has yet > learned anything that he "shouldn't know." In these cases, it seems = to > me more equitable that the defender himself should pick which card he > wishes to play to the trick in progress* (or about to be begun by his > lead). Once offender's partner has a choice of plays, though, = declarer > should still get to dictate the offender's plays if multiple penalty > cards remain.=20 > Perhaps I'm overlooking something, and this is a bad idea. =20 I think you overlook the fact that at the moment the defender exposes = his cards none of them is yet a penalty card. Thus the defender has to = designate which of the cards is played and which to become penalty cards. > *Example: declarer South has just finessed the Q from dummy's AQ, and > East exposes the king and a small card simultaneously. Why not let = East > win the king, as equity would suggest? West's plays cannot have been > affected (yet) by seeing East's cards. Similarly, if East's cards are > exposed just before dummy plays, how does it serve equity to make East > drop the king under the ace? But this example shows a defender claiming one of the two applicable = tricks to spare declarer spending time deciding whether to finesse or drop. If = it happens in the twelfth trick there is nothing more to it.=20 If it happens in an earlier trick the defender is acting improperly = because the declarer now has the possibility to play the Ace and force the King = to become a major penalty card (declarer cannot requests the King under the Ace, Law 58B applies!).=20 However, if declarer has definitely played the Queen when RHO exposes = his two cards the correct ruling must be that RHO cashes his King and leads = the other card to the next trick. Again there is no problem. Regards Sven=20 From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Mon Jan 31 10:12:33 2005 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:12:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] My partner shouldn't ask..but what do you rule Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E64C2@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Koen Grauwels > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:35 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] My partner shouldn't ask..but what do you rule >=20 >=20 > Teams > N/NS > Bidding: > 2NT-3C > 3D-4D > 4H-4NT > 5C-6D > all pass >=20 > 2NT: 20-22 HCP > 3C: Niemeyer (kind of puppet stayman) > 3D: 1 or 2 4-card M > After 6D bid (bidding is not yet ended!) my partner asks=20 > meaning of bids (My=20 > partner did ask meaning of the bids during the bidding=20 > without a particural=20 > reason) and this are the answers: > 4D: 4-card H and 4-card S (Remark: this was agreed, but south forgot) > 4H: South says he took this as a cue-bid with D trump (Now it=20 > is clear for N=20 > that 4D was real) > North had a 4-card H. 5C did show 0 or 3 aces (He had 3). (North had=20 > 3=3D4=3D3=3D3) > South did have 3=3D1=3D5=3D4. I don't know the exact cards, but you=20 > can take=20 > assumptions if you answer below questions. 6D contract always make. > Questions: > - Can North pass the 6D bid? (Nothing agreed about 6D in this=20 > sequence). North knows that there is a heart fit. That there might not be one (but a diamond fit instead) he knows because of South's explanation of 4H. 6D must then be some kind of grand slam attempt. I think North should bid 6H. > - Suppose North bids 6H. Can South bid 6NT now? South knows legally that North has exactly four hearts, so there is no heart fit. He may bid 6NT. > - Suppose North bids 6H. and South bid 6NT. Can North pass=20 > now or should he=20 > bid 7H? Unless 6NT is some special agreement (not very likely), North may pass. This looks not like a grand slam attempt to me. For the following questions I will assume that 6D actually has been played (auction above). > - What is your ruling if 6D and 6NT will always make and 6H goes -2? 6D=3D. 6H is not an option (see above); 6NT scores better, so there is = no damage.=20 > - What is your ruling if 6D will always make, 6NT goes -1 on=20 > a H lead and 6H=20 > goes -2? Depends on how likely the heart lead is. If it is very unlikely, 6D=3D (see previous answer). If a heart lead is a reasonable = possibility, 6NT-1. In an AC, I might give a mixture of 6D=3D and 6NT-1, depending on how likely I judge the heart lead to be. > - What is your ruling if 6D will always make, 6NT goes always=20 > -1 and 6H goes=20 > -2? 6NT-1. --=20 Martin Sinot From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 31 15:30:10 2005 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:30:10 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Minor or Major Penalty card? In-Reply-To: <000101c5056d$5969b080$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5056d$5969b080$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Skjaran, Harald wrote >> >> I wrote, despite the mistaken cite: >> >> >> > Major: he intended to expose a card so it was >> >> > not exposed inadvertently. Sure, it was not the >> >> > card intended. >> >> >I don't understand one word of what you say here. >> > >> >If he intented to expose a spade and instead took a club without intent >> that >> >we call inadvertent. >> >> What do you call inadvertent? The choice of card or its exposure? If >> you intend to play a spade and take a club then your choice of card is >> inadvertent, and as such cannot be changed in Law unless it is a >> designation. >> >> But it was not *exposed* inadvertently, and thus cannot be a minor >> penalty card. > >I do not quite understand which position you have taken here, but I know >Harald well enough to assure you that he considers as a necessary condition >for a penalty card to be a minor penalty card that the _exposure_ of the >card was inadvertent. (Corroborated by the clause: "as in playing two cards >to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally"). > >Whether the _choice_ of card was intended or inadvertent is irrelevant here >in Norway, the moment a card is exposed in an action that resembles playing >the card that card is ruled a major penalty card regardless of its rank. I did not realise that my posting was that obscure. Surely I said the same thing? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From henk@amsterdamned.org Mon Jan 31 23:00:02 2005 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:00:02 +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 Massey@xoxocharis.com Mon Jan 31 06:52:27 2005 From: Massey@xoxocharis.com (Massey@xoxocharis.com) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 6:52:27 PM 0000 Subject: [blml] Womans Health Message-ID: <20050131235231.D66959B@rhubarb.custard.org> Cialis (Super Viagra) at $2.00 per dose
Ready to boost your sex life? Positive?
Time to do it right now. Order Cialis at incredibly low prices

$2.00 per dose. Unbelivable