headers
eliz riley | 1 Jun 2005 02:31

Feel young again

information update

Recapture your youth and Feel the Energy
For Many, This is a Powerful Second Chance

press here to read about
This common element can change the way you experience the next half of your life



-----Original Message-----
From: jewell [mailto:dino <at> lf.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2005 6:42AM
To: damion; herta <at> vbi.com; hilaria; janita; katharine
Subject: within 24 hours I received my order



cancel it for me the post office address is listed in link
The force of repulsion, which is little known, but just as powerful, is another that mankind may direct.
Then there are the Polar electric forces, attracting objects toward the north or south poles.

You have guessed something of this by the use of the compass, or electric needle. But only for a time, replied the Wizard, shaking his head gloomily. 

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Jun 2005 02:33
Picon

Re: Miscall


Nigel Guthrie:

[snip]

>I would go even further. IMO, the director should penalize
>an illegal agreement even if ...
>(A) Neither partner ever fields it!
>(B) Opponents are never damaged!!
>(C) The partnership have never had an opportunity to use
>it!!!

Richard Hills:

Technically, Nigel has a point.  (A) and (B) are infractions
of Law 40D.  But (C) is a lesser infraction of Law 40E1, a
convention card merely listing an illegal agreement.

I (as TD) would award a standard PP for any *use* of an
illegal agreement.  But I (as TD) would merely award a PP of
a warning - "Delete that illegal agreement from your CC, or
else" - in situation (C).

Best wishes

Richard Hills
Movie grognard and paronomasiac

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Grattan Endicott | 1 Jun 2005 03:27
Picon

Re: L35D


from Grattan Endicott
grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk]
*******************************
tolerate  = to accept different 
                beliefs or opinions
               (Chambers dictionary)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran <at> online.no>
To: "blml" <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:22 PM
Subject: RE: [blml] L35D 

I am not going to discuss the views of the EBU 
examiners, but I strongly suspect that they have 
not thought of the UI implications with L35D. 
<
+=+ Unlikely suggestion. The supervising
examiner is the WBF CTD. +=+ 

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Wayne Burrows | 1 Jun 2005 04:22
Picon
Favicon

Re: Miscall


>From: "GUTHRIE" <Guthrie <at> ntlworld.com>
>To: "BLML" <blml <at> rtflb.org>
>Subject: Re: [blml] Miscall
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:57:20 +0100
>
>[Eric Landau]
> > J. At any time, for any reason, provided that partner's
> > subsequent choice of actions in no way allows for the
> > possibility that you might hold less than 10 HCP.
>
>[Nigel]
>IMO Eric has drawn attention to the nub of my differences
>with some BLMLers. If your partnership has an illegal
>agreement (for example to open something on less than 10
>HCP), then that is an infraction, whether or not partner
>allows for it.  After all, opponents may be damaged by your
>illegal bid, even when partner bids quite normally.
>
>I would go even further. IMO, the director should penalize
>an illegal agreement even if ...
>(A) Neither partner ever fields it!
>(B) Opponents are never damaged!!
>(C) The partnership have never had an opportunity to use
>it!!!
>

This seems reasonable.  Although the laws of bridge are not
primarily designed to be punative.  Therefore depending on
the circumstances a warning may be sufficient.

On the other hand, ...

IMO, the director should not penalize a departure from system
on the assumption that it is an illegal agreement when there is
actually no agreement even if ...

(A) Partner fields it;
(B) Partner also departs from our agreements on the same hand;
(C) Partner allows for the departure in some other way (maybe
this is just fielding).

Wayne

_________________________________________________________________
Become a fitness fanatic  <at>   http://xtramsn.co.nz/health

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 36 comments |
headers
GUTHRIE | 1 Jun 2005 05:37

Re: Miscall

]Wayne Burrowa]
> IMO, the director should not penalize a departure from
> system on the assumption that it is an illegal agreement
> when there isactually no agreement even if ...
> (A) Partner fields it;
> (B) Partner also departs from our agreements on
> the same hand;
> (C) Partner allows for the departure in some other
> way (maybe this is just fielding).

[Nigel]
Given that that there is no illegal partnership agreement. 
Wayne's corolary is manifestly true.

In real life, such cetainty is unlikely. But this leads on 
naturally to the next issue on which I am at odds with most 
BLMLers. In particular Richard Jsmes Hills advances strong 
arguments against my point of view - which is as follows...

Suppose that, on the contrary, the director feels that there 
may be an illegal agreement or unauthorised information, 
then, IMO, fielding is circumtantial evidence that 
reinforces such suspisions. The coincidence of both partners 
departing from disclosed agreements on the same hand (the 
second departure seemingly an attempt to mitigate adverse 
effects of the first) is suspicious.  I contend that one 
swallow can sometimes make a Summer!  Of coure, I concede 
that if the director rules against the putative offenders on 
the basis of one unlikely coincidence, then he may be 
mistaken. But many rulings are a matter of judgment and the 
balance of probability.  A civil dispute rather than a 
criminal prosecution is the better legal analogy.  Although 
some murder convictions have hinged on less convincing 
evidence!

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 35 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Jun 2005 08:57
Picon

Re: L35D


Sven Pran:

>>I am not going to discuss the views of the EBU
>>examiners, but I strongly suspect that they have
>>not thought of the UI implications with L35D.

Grattan Endicott:

>+=+ Unlikely suggestion. The supervising
>examiner is the WBF CTD. +=+

Law 16C2:

"For the offending side, information arising from
its own **withdrawn** action and from **withdrawn**
actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised..."

Law 35D:

"...calls are **cancelled** without penalty."

Law 16:

"...To base a call or play on other extraneous
information **may** be an infraction of law."

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, Sven has made an unwarranted logical
leap by assuming that "cancelled" is a subset of
"withdrawn".

In my opinion, it "may" be possible that information
from a "cancelled" call "may" in fact be authorised
information to all.

No doubt this ambiguity will be resolved in the next
(2006 or 2007 or 2008) edition of the fabulous Lawbook.

Best wishes

Richard Hills
Movie grognard and paronomasiac

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 32 comments |
headers
Sven Pran | 1 Jun 2005 10:24
Picon
Picon

RE: L35D

> On Behalf Of richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au
> Sven Pran:
> 
> >>I am not going to discuss the views of the EBU
> >>examiners, but I strongly suspect that they have
> >>not thought of the UI implications with L35D.
> 
> Grattan Endicott:
> 
> >+=+ Unlikely suggestion. The supervising
> >examiner is the WBF CTD. +=+

Then please consider what I now write at the bottom of this post

> 
> Law 16C2:
> 
> "For the offending side, information arising from
> its own **withdrawn** action and from **withdrawn**
> actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised..."
> 
> Law 35D:
> 
> "...calls are **cancelled** without penalty."
> 
> Law 16:
> 
> "...To base a call or play on other extraneous
> information **may** be an infraction of law."
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> In my opinion, Sven has made an unwarranted logical
> leap by assuming that "cancelled" is a subset of
> "withdrawn".

No, I do not explicitly need L16C, the preamble in L16 is sufficient because
the "cancelled" calls have never been "legal" and so IMO are embraced in the
clause: "other extraneous information".

> 
> In my opinion, it "may" be possible that information
> from a "cancelled" call "may" in fact be authorised
> information to all.
> 
> No doubt this ambiguity will be resolved in the next
> (2006 or 2007 or 2008) edition of the fabulous Lawbook.

I certainly hope so!

Herman originally posted essentially this question:

W      N      E          S
1NT  - Pass - 3NT     - Pass
Pass - Pass - Pass(1) - 1S(2) 

According to Law 35D call (1) and all subsequent calls are cancelled without
penalty. Does this mean that South here has a free way with his bid (2) to
tell North that he wants a Spade led? 

The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; the situation
does not change if South bids 4S. And I have not found any law other than
L16 that can be applied against North leading a spade in this situation?

I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this "loophole" to be
available for South?

Regards Sven 

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 28 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Jun 2005 11:03
Picon

Re: L35D

Sven Pran wrote:

> 
> I certainly hope so!
> 
> Herman originally posted essentially this question:
> 
> W      N      E          S
> 1NT  - Pass - 3NT     - Pass
> Pass - Pass - Pass(1) - 1S(2) 
> 
> According to Law 35D call (1) and all subsequent calls are cancelled without
> penalty. Does this mean that South here has a free way with his bid (2) to
> tell North that he wants a Spade led? 
> 
> The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is immaterial; the situation
> does not change if South bids 4S. And I have not found any law other than
> L16 that can be applied against North leading a spade in this situation?
> 
> I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want this "loophole" to be
> available for South?
> 

I believe this question has been answered, Sven. 1S (or 4S) is 
retracted _without penalty_, and this includes the lead penalties from 
L26 as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do ...).

Still, this does not exonerate South, against whom adjustments from 
L73 are still available.

This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which 
there has been no discussion.

--

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Sven Pran | 1 Jun 2005 11:39
Picon
Picon

RE: L35D

> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
> > Herman originally posted essentially this question:
> >
> > W      N      E          S
> > 1NT  - Pass - 3NT     - Pass
> > Pass - Pass - Pass(1) - 1S(2)
> >
> > According to Law 35D call (1) and all subsequent 
> > calls are cancelled without penalty. Does this mean
> > that South here has a free way with his bid (2) to
> > tell North that he wants a Spade led?
> >
> > The fact that South made an "insufficient" bid is 
> > immaterial; the situation does not change if South
> > bids 4S. And I have not found any law other than
> > L16 that can be applied against North leading a 
> > spade in this situation?
> >
> > I am sure WBF CTD (or anybody else) does not want 
> > this "loophole" to be available for South?
> >
> 
> I believe this question has been answered, Sven. 1S (or 4S) is
> retracted _without penalty_, and this includes the lead penalties from
> L26 as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do ...).
> 
> Still, this does not exonerate South, against whom adjustments from
> L73 are still available.

Had you written L72B1 I could follow you but L73? (against South?)

L73 does not authorize any sanction (adjustment) except as specified in
L73F1 which refers to L16. (L73F1 is actually a duplication of L16A2).

So if we say that L35D "cancels" not only L26 but also L16 then L73 cannot
help us because also L73 (like L16) must be "cancelled" by L35D.

Regards Sven

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Gordon Rainsford | 1 Jun 2005 12:40
Picon

Re: L35D


On 1 Jun 2005, at 10:03, Herman De Wael wrote:

> as well as the "penalties" from L16 (saying that North cannot do ...).

I don't think it helps any of us to pretend that the requirement to 
play the game by its Laws is a "penalty".

> This seems to be about the only thread this year so far, on which 
> there has been no discussion.
>
I thought there had been plenty of discussion. Perhaps you mean it's 
about the only thread this year on which your views haven't provoked 
loud disagreement? :)

--
Gordon Rainsford
London UK

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane