Jim Fox | 16 Jul 23:55 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
Jerry Fusselman
Sent: 07/14/2014 12:30 AM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY
(was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Jim Fox <jimfox00 <at> cox.net> wrote:
> For now, I will just state that checkers and tic-tac-toe are deterministic
in the sense that a person who knows the correct strategy can never lose no
matter what his opponent does.  More later.

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

Does any single human on earth know this correct strategy for
checkers?  No.  Therefore, I'm not sure of the relevance of this one
observation to the subject at hand, but I look forward to hearing your
later thoughts.

Thanks for continuing the discussion.  I've already learned some
things.  (For example, I had no idea that checkers had been "solved"
by a battery of computers.)

Mmbridge:  As has qubic (a kind of 3-dimensional tic-tac-toe)

Jerry Fusselman

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

(Continue reading)

Jim Fox | 14 Jul 05:53 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

For now, I will just state that checkers and tic-tac-toe are deterministic in the sense that a person who
knows the correct strategy can never lose no matter what his opponent does.  More later.

Mmbridge

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman
Sent: 07/13/2014 7:58 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

>> Bridge is a probabilistic game and that is a good thing.  Most interesting
>> games are.
>>
>
> Go and chess are very interesting games.
>
> Mmbridge:  Although I believe that Go and chess are also probabilistic games, I won't argue the point other
than to say that when you make a move in those games, there is some finite probability your opponent won't
find the best move in response.  One would probably try to estimate that probability when choosing which of
several moves to make.  More to the point, I guess I cannot tell whether or not you differ with "most".

This is revisionist history.  In this thread, you wrote that "Checkers
and tic-tac-toe are deterministic games."  In those games too, your
opponent's reply to your move is unknowable.  You can't logically
claim that go and chess are probabilistic immediately after claiming
the checkers is not.  Besides, "probabilistic" would lose all meaning
if any game in which your opponent has choices is deemed
probabilistic.

(Continue reading)

Jim Fox | 13 Jul 23:34 2014
Picon
Picon

IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

My comments embedded below.

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman
Sent: 07/13/2014 1:40 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Jim Fox <jimfox00 <at> cox.net> wrote:
> You are missing the point.
>

Well, most of your points are questionable.

>
> Bridge is a probabilistic game and that is a good thing.  Most interesting
> games are.
>

Go and chess are very interesting games.

Mmbridge:  Although I believe that Go and chess are also probabilistic games, I won't argue the point other
than to say that when you make a move in those games, there is some finite probability your opponent won't
find the best move in response.  One would probably try to estimate that probability when choosing which of
several moves to make.  More to the point, I guess I cannot tell whether or not you differ with "most".

> Any bidding system must adjust to take into account what the
> opponents are doing in their bidding. Thus there can never be a “correct
> bidding strategy” unless you somehow know exactly how your opponents will
> bid and how they will adjust to every situation and your actions.
(Continue reading)

Jim Fox | 13 Jul 18:36 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

You are missing the point.

 

Bridge is a probabilistic game and that is a good thing.  Most interesting games are.  Any bidding system must adjust to take into account what the opponents are doing in their bidding. Thus there can never be a “correct bidding strategy” unless you somehow know exactly how your opponents will bid and how they will adjust to every situation and your actions.

 

Let’s suppose there were a few players, pairs or teams who knew “the correct playing strategy” and everybody else didn’t.  Those lucky few would then win every event.

 

Do you think there is a “correct playing strategy” for golfers or is it a combination of how one player’s strategy meshes with many random, unpredictable events on a golf course.

 

How important is the strategy compared with execution of physical actions and ability to execute the strategy.

 

My stated objective is not “to get random outcomes”.  My unstated objective is to have the game be as interesting to as many people as possible.  I don’t need bridge in my life to get a “serious test of skill and judgment”.  My work provides more than enough of that.   For me, the purpose of playing bridge is to have an interesting way to exercise my brain that I can do with people I love or like.  Nothing more.

 

Winning top bridge tournaments (like golf tournaments) is mostly a “battle of numbers”.  Everybody is good.  You execute strategy to give yourself the best chance to win.  “Actually winning” is very much a random event.  The fact of the matter is that the more individuals you allow to achieve that random event, the more popular the game will be.  Scoring idiosyncrasies adds slightly to that number.

 

Checkers and tic-tac-toe are deterministic games.  Most people don’t find them particularly interesting.

 

Mmbridge

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Bill Hood
Sent: 07/13/2014 6:41 AM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

FAO MMbridge

 

 Whether or not you think it is a good idea that players do not know what the correct bidding strategy is depends on whether or not you think the game is intrinsically a serious test of skill and judgement. [Please also refer to my earlier post clarifying that my reference to bidding strategy (and tactics) is not about methods/ conventions of bidding – conventions and treatments such as the 4/5 card major openings may be employed in support of a given strategy but they are not in themselves a strategy.]

 

You can obviously choose to do as you see fit and, since your stated objective is to get random outcomes, you can be take comfort from the fact that, if different pairs do  different things, they will get different rewards (some fair/ fortunate and some less so). In that sense, everyone can (sometimes) win but they can’t all be said to be pursuing winning strategies and, given near equivalent skill levels, the most consistent winners will be those whose strategy has been developed to take advantage of the way the scoring is done.

 

LIFE – ‘tis a puzzlement!

 

Bill

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jim Fox
Sent: 10 July 2014 23:31
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

Comment below in snipped text.

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Bill Hood
Sent: 07/10/2014 10:54 AM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

<snipped>

 

Bill:   [If you ask different groups of bridge players what they think the correct bidding strategy is, you will get different answers.]

 

MMbridge:  And we think that is a BAD thing?

 

<snipped>

 

Bill

 

Mmbridge

 

_______________________________________________

Blml mailing list

Blml <at> rtflb.org

http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jim Fox | 11 Jul 00:30 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Comment below in snipped text.

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Bill Hood
Sent: 07/10/2014 10:54 AM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

<snipped>

 

Bill:   [If you ask different groups of bridge players what they think the correct bidding strategy is, you will get different answers.]

 

MMbridge:  And we think that is a BAD thing?

 

<snipped>

 

Bill

 

Mmbridge

 

_______________________________________________

Blml mailing list

Blml <at> rtflb.org

http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jim Fox | 7 Jul 23:54 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Here’s my suggestion:  “nothing”.

 

Seriously, my suggestion is let  BLML be about “bridge laws”, but not “bridge lawyering” nor esoterica.

 

Mmbridge

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jim Fox
Sent: 07/06/2014 7:49 PM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Cc: hildalirsch <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

Most of my contributions were made 40 years ago (not in BLML).

 

Your comments are nonsense since they are sensible only in the context of “expert” players.  I speak of ALL players who in fact do gain from the randomness of the imp scale, random seeding, and the like.

 

Try to think out of your box.

 

Mmbridge

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard James HILLS
Sent: 07/06/2014 7:23 PM
To: Laws Bridge
Cc: hildalirsch <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

UNOFFICIAL

 

I do not wish to start a flame war, but in my opinion writing “Your high-

toned rhetoric is overdone” about the enthusiastic contribution of a blml

newbie is unfair. Especially when I cannot recall the critic making a

single useful suggestion himself over the past decade.

 

As for the reason why the Law 78B imps scale has been unchanged

during the past half-century, it is NOT “The majority of players want

there to be the amount of [imps] scoring randomness we have now (even

if they don’t consciously realize it)”.

 

Rather the reason for the unchanging Law 78B imps scale is that it is an

adequate solution to the flaws of total-point scoring (as discussed by

David Grabiner), and that the gains from a slightly more adequate

hypothetical 2015 Law 78B would not overcome the lock-in costs. See:

 

UNOFFICIAL

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


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

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jim Fox | 7 Jul 01:48 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Most of my contributions were made 40 years ago (not in BLML).

 

Your comments are nonsense since they are sensible only in the context of “expert” players.  I speak of ALL players who in fact do gain from the randomness of the imp scale, random seeding, and the like.

 

Try to think out of your box.

 

Mmbridge

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard James HILLS
Sent: 07/06/2014 7:23 PM
To: Laws Bridge
Cc: hildalirsch <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

UNOFFICIAL

 

I do not wish to start a flame war, but in my opinion writing “Your high-

toned rhetoric is overdone” about the enthusiastic contribution of a blml

newbie is unfair. Especially when I cannot recall the critic making a

single useful suggestion himself over the past decade.

 

As for the reason why the Law 78B imps scale has been unchanged

during the past half-century, it is NOT “The majority of players want

there to be the amount of [imps] scoring randomness we have now (even

if they don’t consciously realize it)”.

 

Rather the reason for the unchanging Law 78B imps scale is that it is an

adequate solution to the flaws of total-point scoring (as discussed by

David Grabiner), and that the gains from a slightly more adequate

hypothetical 2015 Law 78B would not overcome the lock-in costs. See:

 

UNOFFICIAL

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


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

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard James HILLS | 7 Jul 01:23 2014
Picon

Re: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
I do not wish to start a flame war, but in my opinion writing “Your high-
toned rhetoric is overdone” about the enthusiastic contribution of a blml
newbie is unfair. Especially when I cannot recall the critic making a
single useful suggestion himself over the past decade.
 
As for the reason why the Law 78B imps scale has been unchanged
during the past half-century, it is NOT “The majority of players want
there to be the amount of [imps] scoring randomness we have now (even
if they don’t consciously realize it)”.
 
Rather the reason for the unchanging Law 78B imps scale is that it is an
adequate solution to the flaws of total-point scoring (as discussed by
David Grabiner), and that the gains from a slightly more adequate
hypothetical 2015 Law 78B would not overcome the lock-in costs. See:
 
UNOFFICIAL
 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


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

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jim Fox | 7 Jul 00:21 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams

Your high-toned rhetoric is overdone because there is not a significant
interest in changing anything in the area of imp scoring.  The
idiosyncrasies of the imp scale actually make the game more interesting.
The majority of players want there to be the amount of scoring randomness we
have now (even if they don't consciously realize it).

Mmbridge

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
Bill Hood
Sent: 07/06/2014 3:34 PM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams

For the attention of Herman de Wae et al:

Many thanks for your observations Herman.

I do not under-estimate the enormity of the changes that would be necessary
to overhaul the existing IMP table and the associated IMPing process.

However, nor do I under-estimate the enormity of the dis-functionality of
the existing methodology with its inconsistencies and inadequacies.

Are we really saying that we cannot have a scoring system that is fit for
purpose for the game or that, even if we could devise one, it would be too
troublesome to work towards its introduction (over time)?

Frankly, I think the game deserves better and that it is diminished (perhaps
forever) by accepting this fundamental undermining of its integrity. For
instance, is there any real point in the finely judged arguments and
mathematics for converting match IMPs to VPs if the IMP total is so
haphazardly and carelessly calculated? 

We should not let the anticipation of future administrative issues prohibit
a debate/review of a better scoring system. 

My starting point is to insist that it is a fundamental requirement of any
scoring system that not only can it can be used to derive an understanding
of how best to play the game to maximise our chances of coming out ahead but
also that the derived strategy is sensible and consistent.

>From there, it seems sensible to set design objectives for what we want the
scoring system to do. By contrast, the existing IMP table and the IMP
process is an example of having introduced a process of scoring and then
looked at what the consequences of that process are in terms of the best
bidding strategy and trying to somehow rationalise the many irregularities
and inconsistencies that it throws up. 

I do not insist that my approach is "best" or the only path to a more
acceptable solution but it offers the potential for a radical improvement
and puts the issues into some sort of context. Moreover, I have adopted this
approach to start moving gradually from the existing model and, for example,
I am not wedded to the notion of a discrete 24-point IMP scale. Indeed, I
think that this may well be intrinsically unmanageable and inconsistent with
the objectives of the desired compression.

Other approaches may indeed be better or more practical and I would be
interested in your ideas for a revised scoring table. For my part, I have
been reluctant to interfere with fundamental scoring units (trick values
etc) as they are too engrained and have restricted adjustments to bonus
values. 

You say that your revised scoring table works at the lower end of the scale
(part-scores and games) - possibly in the same way that a reduced IMP scale
"seems" to work? 

However, I don't think you can dismiss the idea of IMPing in some form and
linear IMPing simply gets you back to the problem you were trying to solve
in the first place.

Best regards

Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
Herman De Wael
Sent: 04 July 2014 07:19
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams

While this discussion is interesting, the real problem is not the 
current IMP-table, but the process of IMPing itself.
You really need to imagine what you would need to do to tweek the 
IMP-table: all documents around the world need to be re-made, and for a 
while different versions will co-exist, leading to problems. All 
programs need to be re-written, and a switch date needs to be determined.
And contrary to the new VP-scale, the two versions will not be readily 
distinguishable, because you are apparentlu staying with a discrete 
24-IMP scale.
I doubt that the changes will be worth-while to convince the powers that 
be that a change should be made.

Rather, I think we should do away with IMPing altogether. Currently, 
there are a few irregularities. An overtrick in the majors is worth one 
IMP, and two overtricks are worth two IMPs. An overtrick in the minors 
is also worth one IMP, and two overtricks ... also one. And an overtrick 
is sometimes worth nothing if the other table happens to be in a 
radically different contract (or going down in the same one).
If you bid game and they don't, you earn 10 or 12 IMPs. If you bid slam 
and they don't, you also earn 10 or 12. But if you bid slam and they 
don't even bid game, the gain is only 14 or 17.
And I could go on.

The answer is a linear IMPtable, or no IMPtable at all, so using 
straight point scoring. Of course this means that the scoring table 
needs to change.

I have developed a start of such an adapted scoring table, and for the 
low numbers (part scores, games), it works.

Any and all input may be helpful.

Herman.

Bill Hood schreef:
> Hi Roger,
>
> I am indebted to you for the links to the articles on the early history
> of IMPs as I had spent considerable effort in trying to find such
material.
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Richard James HILLS | 4 Jul 06:20 2014
Picon

Re: IMP tables and IMPing multi-pair teams [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Bill Hood:
 
[big snip]
 
>What disturbs me is that there is no consistency or sense to
>the default bidding strategy and, in the absence of a known
>or practically knowable bidding strategy, most players
>somehow trust that the scoring is organised in a way that
>rewards their best efforts even as they separately use their
>subjective and largely independent judgements.
 
Richard Hills:
 
Yes and No.
 
At standard head-to-head contests between two teams it is
well known that the break-even point for bidding a vulnerable
game is a 37.5% chance of success (if one makes the
simplifying assumption that the game will never be doubled).
 
At standard multi-pair IMPed events (Butler pairs) it is less
well known that the break-even point for bidding a vulnerable
game is a 33.3% chance of success (if one makes the
simplifying assumption that the game will never be doubled).
 
Bill Hood:
 
>I was finally prompted to raise these issues when the EBU
>proposed the use of IMP tables for multi-pair teams by
>multiplying end-range values by somewhat arbitrary
>mathematical factors as that effectively randomises the
>bidding strategy in a way that is practically unknowable to
>players.
 
[small snip]
 
Richard Hills:
 
Yes and No.
 
Old-fashioned Butler pairs scored against a datum is
deprecated by blml aficionados. They prefer cross-IMPs,
a.k.a. “multiplying end-range values by somewhat arbitrary
mathematical factors”.
 
But in both cases of Butler pair scoring the winning bidding
strategy is very similar to the winning bidding strategy at head-
to-head teams. That is, bid to thin games, avoid thin slams, do
not over-compete in a partscore battle (a plus score is a good
score at IMPs for a partscore battle in the long run).
 
John Maynard Keynes (1883 – 1946):
 
“In the long run we are all dead.”
UNOFFICIAL
 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


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

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Bill Hood | 27 Jun 16:44 2014
Picon

IMTables and IMPing multi-pair teams

Hi All,

 

I am new to BLML so please forgive my unfamiliarity with protocol/ procedures.

 

I was re-directed here by the EBU after I tried to engage them in a review of the IMP_table.

 

I submitted a paper outlining my (long-held) concerns and argued that the IMP_table was a relic that had survived from an earlier time and that it would not be acceptable in any other modern professional sport or game.  I also demonstrated that their proposed IMPing process for multi-pair teams was not fit for purpose as it effectively randomises how the game has to be played in a way that cannot be expected to be known by the vast majority of players.

 

My basic premise is that it is a fundamental requirement of any scoring system that not only can it can be used to derive an understanding of how best to play the game to maximise our chances of coming out ahead but also that the derived strategy is sensible and consistent.

 

I suggested that the IMP_table had simply been overlaid on underlying aggregate scoring with no real design objectives other than a crude compression of the scores and that it simply accepted whatever that gave rise to in terms of optimum bidding strategies. In effect, it was design by happenstance and as such it was untidy, inconsistent and beset by anomalies. I outlined an approach that would allow the building of new IMP_table based on design objectives determined by a consensus view. I pointed out that - in the absence of such a concensus – most players would continue to imagine that the game was somehow organised in such a way that it rewarded their best judgement when, in practice, their expectation is subjective and the scoring process itself is somewhat indeterminate.

 

Is this a more suitable forum in which I can initiate and promote such a debate and/or is there any interest in slaying this particular dinosaur?

 

Best regards,

 

moysian

 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Gmane