headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Oct 2006 01:01
Favicon

BLML Usage statistics

BLML usage statistics for September 2006

Posts   From
-----   ----
   44   richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au
   35   svenpran (at) online.no
   34   twm (at) cix.co.uk
   28   agot (at) ulb.ac.be
   18   ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com
   15   willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu
   12   john (at) asimere.com
   12   herman (at) hdw.be
   11   geller (at) nifty.com
   11   Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com
   10   ehaa (at) starpower.net
   10   axman22 (at) hotmail.com
    7   PeterEidt (at) t-online.de
    6   tkooij (at) tiscali.nl
    6   picatou (at) uqss.uquebec.ca
    6   Martin.Sinot (at) Micronas.com
    5   grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu
    4   ziffbridge (at) t-online.de
    4   hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu
    4   ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au
    3   schoderb (at) msn.com
    3   richard.willey (at) gmail.com
    3   moranl (at) netvision.net.il
    3   jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr
    3   guthrie (at) ntlworld.com
    3   Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Oct 2006 01:01
Favicon

List of BLML Abbreviations

(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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Oct 2006 03:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: Live exam question

> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm <at> cix.co.uk>
> While it is legal to ask declarer doing so is not without risk.
> If declarer *has* revoked there's no problem since partner will be able 
> to correct under Law62c1 (declarer having no option but to correct his 
> own revoke#). 

Doesn't this work only if the revoking defender is West (declarer 
South), and it's East who asks?  Otherwise it's East who will have to 
correct his revoke (if any) first.

> If declarer *hasn't* revoked the question will be deemed 
> to be directed at partner.

This is what I'm having trouble with.  If declarer has followed suit, 
I'm with you all the way: the question can be directed only at partner. 
And if partner has followed suit, there's no problem at all.  So the 
problem only exists when both declarer and a defender have failed to 
follow suit.

>  If we permit questions of declarer all the 
> "awake" player need do is leave his own card face up until the others 
> have turned their cards and then ask declarer "Excuse me, but did you 
> just revoke?".

If declarer didn't follow suit, in my view the defender can ask any 
time; he doesn't have to be tricky.  And if declarer did follow suit, we 
agree on what to do.

> #Obviously if partner has revoked *before* declarer it is almost 
> certainly better to try to let both revokes become established rather
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Oct 2006 04:16
Picon

Re: Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Geller:

[snip]

>>The warning to partner is not authorized information.
>>Had it not been for the UI partner would have committed
>>an irregularity,

[snip]

Ton Kooijman:

>If north has to call and south picks a card form his
>box, regardless what kind of card it is and how he keeps
>it, may be he just touched it even, this action is an
>irregularity. And any player at the table may call
>attention to it, at any stage.

Richard Hills:

Ye, I agree with Ton.  In my opinion, Robert Geller has
misinterpreted the concept of unauthorised information
from partner.

Under Law 16A, extraneous information from one partner is
defined as UI when it will assist the other partner in
choosing amongst logical alternatives.  An irregularity is
never a logical alternative.

On the other hand, suppose that in Ton's example North
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
gesta | 1 Oct 2006 12:44
Picon

Re: Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


Grattan Endicott<gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk
[also grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*****************************************
"The true genius is a mind of large general
powers, accidentally determined to some
particular direction."
                      ~ Dr. Samuel Johnson.
=====================================
+=+ In the WBF regulations there is a clear prohibition of
a player's touching the bidding box 'until he has determined
his call'. Unless I have overlooked something the European
regulations fail to include such words, and perhaps should
be improved. An action is only an infraction if it contravenes
law or regulation and the question should be asked in the
light of the regulations appertaining to the tournament.
       Touching the bidding box when not making a call is in
any event an extraneous action and may be the source of UI.
                                         ~ Grattan ~  +=+
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au>
To: <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

> Robert Geller:
>
> [snip]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim West-Meads | 1 Oct 2006 14:45
Picon

Re: Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Ton wrote:

> This sounds as another example of a problem created in blml and not 
> at the bridge table. 
> 
> If north has to call and south picks a card form his box, regardless 
> what kind of card it is and how he keeps it, may be he just touched
> it even, this action is an irregularity. And any player at the table
> may call attention to it, at any stage.   
> 
> What is wrong with acting like that and having laws saying so? 

I don't see any problem with acting like that and there would be no 
issue if the laws *explicitly* stated that such preventative action was 
permitted.  While I'm of the opinion that such actions are legitimate 
(although as with other legitimate actions *capable* of transmitting UI) 
others, misinterpreting (IMO) the WBFLC minute, are of the belief that 
any such action is illegal.  This becomes an "at the table" problem 
rather than merely a BLML one when TDs start ruling differently on the 
same facts.

Thus an enhancement to law9 along the lines of 
Forestalling an irregularity.
With the exception of dummy (see Law42/43) any player may attempt to 
prevent an irregularity by any other player (such has by saying "it is 
not your bid/lead").  All players should be aware that both the 
forestalled/partial irregularity and the act of intervention may create 
UI.

Would clarify the matter for everybody.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tim West-Meads | 1 Oct 2006 14:45
Picon

Re: Live exam question

> *From:* Steve Willner <willner <at> cfa.harvard.edu>
> *To:* blml <at> rtflb.org
> *Date:* Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:25:42 -0400
> 
> > From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm <at> cix.co.uk>
> > While it is legal to ask declarer doing so is not without risk.
> > If declarer *has* revoked there's no problem since partner will be 
> > able to correct under Law62c1 (declarer having no option but to 
> > correct his own revoke#). 
> 
> Doesn't this work only if the revoking defender is West (declarer 
> South), and it's East who asks?  Otherwise it's East who will have to 
> correct his revoke (if any) first.

That's what my # was about.  In fact even where asking is allowed it 
will often be better to say nothing when one believes both players has 
revoked.  Partner's correction will create a penalty card whereas 
allowing both revokes to become established and a later L64c adjustment 
will tend to produce a better result.

> > If declarer *hasn't* revoked the question will be deemed 
> > to be directed at partner.
> 
> This is what I'm having trouble with.  If declarer has followed suit, 
> I'm with you all the way: the question can be directed only at 
> partner. And if partner has followed suit, there's no problem at all. 
>  So the problem only exists when both declarer and a defender have 
> failed to follow suit.
> 
> >  If we permit questions of declarer all the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert Geller | 1 Oct 2006 17:04
Favicon

Re: Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Dear Tim and all,

This discussion has been very helpful for me in understanding the issues
involved and I thank you and Ton and everyone else who's contributed
to this discussion.    I agree completely with your suggestion (below)
for an enhancement to law 9 although I would suggest that such an 
enhancement should either clearly allow the forestalling of an irregularity
such as an impending BOOT (or else a clear statement that trying to forestall 
such an irregularity 
is prohibited except in cases where a law specifically allows it) so 
TDs everywhere in the world will have a clear statement of what the law is,
and treatment of this can be made uniform.

I think one problem the next version of the laws should correct is that
in the 1997 laws and all previous versions spoken bidding is still treated
as the mainstream, and bidding boxes aren't mentioned at all,   But I suspect
that as of 2006 bidding boxes are by far and away the majority, written
bidding is second, and spoken bidding a small minority.   That (presumably)
being the case, the laws on bidding ought to be based primarily on bidding
boxes, with secondary provision for written and spoken bidding.

-Bob

Tim West-Meads さんは書きました:
>Ton wrote:
>
>> This sounds as another example of a problem created in blml and not 
>> at the bridge table. 
>> 
>> If north has to call and south picks a card form his box, regardless
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 2 Oct 2006 06:40
Picon

Re: Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Eric Landau:

>ISTM that the heart of the issue here is whether the legal auction
>to that point is one of those "things [that] can never be UI".
>The ABF seems to think so, and I would agree,

Richard Hills:

Me too.  The first phrase of Law 16 states: "Players are authorised
to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls..."

It seems to me that "the legal auction to that point" is a subset
of "information from legal calls".

Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Robert Geller | 2 Oct 2006 08:30
Favicon

Re: Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

There are only two places in the laws where it is specifically authorized
for a player to attempt to prevent an irregularity (below).   Both refer
to the same thing, namely dummy's attempts to prevent declarer from
committing an irregularity:
*********************************************************
L9A2b2 Dummy may attempt to prevent declarer from committing an irregularity 
(Law 42B2). 

L42B(2) [Dummy] may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. 
*********************************************************

OTOH, the rest of the laws authorize a player to call attention to an 
irregularity, but do not explicit authorize a player to try to prevent
an irregularity (see below). 
********************************************************
L9A1 
Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the 
auction, whether or not it is his turn to call. 

L9A2a   Declarer or Either Defender 
Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an 
irregularity that occurs during the play period. 
********************************************************


Maybe one of the drafters of the 1997 Laws (if any are reading this) can explain
how this distinction arose.  Was it intentional that "attempting to prevent an 
irregularity" was not specifically mentioned in L9A1 and L9A2a (i.e., was it
intended not to authorize this) ?   Or was this an oversight?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |

Gmane