headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Jan 2008 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
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Jan 2008 01:01
Favicon

BLML Usage statistics

BLML usage statistics for December 2007

Posts   From
-----   ----
   67   svenpran (at) online.no
   54   ehaa (at) starpower.net
   48   gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk
   39   jfusselman (at) gmail.com
   39   hermandw (at) skynet.be
   35   ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com
   31   agot (at) ulb.ac.be
   31   Gampas (at) aol.com
   30   richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au
   26   guthrie (at) ntlworld.com
   21   twm (at) cix.co.uk
   20   john (at) asimere.com
   15   schoderb (at) msn.com
   13   dalburn (at) btopenworld.com
   12   cibor (at) poczta.fm
   11   swillner (at) nhcc.net
    6   t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl
    6   harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com
    5   richard.willey (at) gmail.com
    5   paul.vdm (at) skynet.be
    5   adam (at) irvine.com
    4   kgrauwel (at) hotmail.com
    4   bmeadows666 (at) gmail.com
    4   blml (at) dybdal.dk
    4   ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au
    4   PeterEidt (at) t-online.de
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sven Pran | 1 Jan 2008 01:30
Picon
Picon

Re: re claim. CORRECTION.

> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert
> On Dec 31, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Sven Pran wrote:
> 
> > In claim/concession situations I consider the side making a claim 
> > or a concession an offending side as they caused a deviation from 
> > the regular progress of play: trick by trick. Their opponents are
> > of course a non-offending side.
> 
> So a claim or concession is an offense under the laws? I don't think so.
, 
I didn't say that it is; I said that the player making a claim or a
concession causes a deviation from the regular progress of play: trick by
trick.

> > Law 70A even says so much with the words: "any doubtful point as to
> > a claim shall be resolved against the claimer."
> 
> So what? That doesn't make him an offender.

And I didn't say that it does.

But the laws instruct us to rule against him whenever there is a question of
doubt. The easy way to remember this is to treat him as the offending side,
and the reason for doing so is that he interrupts the normal progress of
play.

> >> 2. Would you allow the defender who made the claim deviate from
> >> his claim statement?
> >
> > That depends entirely upon the nature of the claim statement (and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ed Reppert | 1 Jan 2008 01:48
Picon

Re: re claim. CORRECTION.


On Dec 31, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Sven Pran wrote:

> The easy way to remember this is to treat him as the offending side,

So, he's not an offender, we just treat him like he's one? Huh.

I don't seem to have any trouble remembering that he's not an  
offender, and has not committed an offense, but we nonetheless give  
the benefit of the doubt when adjudicating his claim to his opponent  
(which is what the law actually *says*, after all).

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
gesta | 1 Jan 2008 03:52
Picon

Re: re claim


Grattan Endicott<gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"Le congres ne marche pas, il danse"
 (The Congress makes no progress ,
  but it dances.)
                           Prince de Ligne
+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert <at> rochester.rr.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml <at> amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] re claim

On Dec 31, 2007, at 11:58 AM, gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk wrote:

> +=+ There are evidently differing opinions as to why the
> Drafting Subcommittee (not the WBFLC) did what it did,
> and what was the intention.

I gather from your following comments that you consider the DSC's
intentions irrelevant, now that the 2007 laws have been published.

> No individual can interpret the law with authority

Um. Careful, Grattan. You are undermining the authority of the TD on
site.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Jan 2008 13:26
Picon

Re: re claim. CORRECTION.

Sven Pran wrote:
>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
> 3> Sven Pran wrote:
>>> A more interesting question is if he said for instance "three tricks to
>> each
>>> of us". In that case I would have ruled neither claim nor concession
>> until
>>> he presented a corrected statement. In the meantime I would consider his
>>> statement to be just another extraneous remark.
>>>
>> I would not. A claim has been made. The sentence is part of the claim
>> statement. I do not believe you should allow him to correct this, any
>> more than you would allow corrections to other claim statements.
>> Of course you will ask him to elaborate, all the while keeping in mind
>> that doubtful points will count against him.
>>
>> But to not consider this a claim is, IMHO, wrong.
> 
> Maybe, I don't really think it matters because particularly if this happened
> in a serious event I would request him to make his claim/concession in an
> orderly way right away. (But for instance in an ordinary weekly club event I
> might just let him play on like I do with the player who thinks loud and
> says, mainly to himself, "I don't think you will get any more tricks",
> apparently without any intention of claiming.)
> 
>> We don't know yet how many tricks he claimed, but that is no different
>> from a player just showing his cards and saying nothing. That too
>> happens, and that too we must rule upon.
> 
> Well, that _is_ a claim (and/or a concession), no question about it.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
gesta | 1 Jan 2008 13:23
Picon

Re: re claim


Grattan Endicott<gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"Le congres ne marche pas, il danse"
 (The Congress makes no progress ,
  but it dances.)
                           Prince de Ligne
+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran <at> online.no>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml <at> amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] re claim

> 
> What is required now is to have as soon as absolutely 
> possible an official statement from WBFLC to settle this 
> dispute.
> 
+=+ Under its agreed procedures the WBFLC only acts 
corporately in a meeting. It acknowledges the issue of 
interim interpretations by Zonal Authorities with effect in 
their respective zones.  Each NBO, and each Director in 
charge of  a tournament, has power to fill any vacuum left 
by default of interpretation.  
          In my opinion, past statements of principle by the 
WBFLC continue to apply unless incompatible with law;
the words 'play continues' are unconditional and place
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Martin Oyston | 1 Jan 2008 23:16
Picon

Re: New Law 27

>From an outsider it looks like the intent of the law is to allow any sort of
"normal" auction to continue without reaching a contract based on UI.

The technicalities on this one are going to have some Directors in the
appeals room far too often!

Martin Oyston

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 2 Jan 2008 00:58
Picon

Re: 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard Hills:

[snip]

>>For example, an opponent asks partner about your bid.  Pard
>>gives an answer showing that he has completely forgotten.  You
>>have a prior agreement with pard to vary your understandings
>>to avoid disaster (and a prior agreement to vary your later
>>explanations a la De Wael School to prevent pard having UI
>>restrictions).

Konrad Ciborowski:

>De Wael School has nothing to do with varying understandings.

Richard Hills:

I agree, which is why the reference to the De Wael School was
restricted inside the brackets which referred merely to varying
explanations.

Konrad Ciborowski:

>Coming up: Richard explaining why L1 makes dWS illegal.

Grattan Endicott:

+=+ In a sense Law 40B3 is a 'belt and braces' law. If there is
a pre-announced agreement to change the meaning it is subject
to regulation in the RA's discretion under 40B2(a). If there is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 2 Jan 2008 10:12
Picon

Re: 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


Hello Richard,

I see that you have not yet mellowed. Although, why should you?

richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au wrote:
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Konrad Ciborowski:
> 
>> De Wael School has nothing to do with varying understandings.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> I agree, which is why the reference to the De Wael School was
> restricted inside the brackets which referred merely to varying
> explanations.
> 

which is not forbidden by L16 (any version).

> Konrad Ciborowski:
> 
>> Coming up: Richard explaining why L1 makes dWS illegal.
> 
> Grattan Endicott:
> 
> +=+ In a sense Law 40B3 is a 'belt and braces' law. If there is
> a pre-announced agreement to change the meaning it is subject
> to regulation in the RA's discretion under 40B2(a). If there is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane