headers
Tony Musgrove | 1 Feb 2008 04:23
Picon

Re: ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

RHH:

>Three highly unusual Directors (highly unusual
>expertise) gave a seminar on the new Lawbook at
>the recently concluded Aussie Summer Festival
>of Bridge.
>
>Director in charge Laurie Kelso must have drawn
>the short straw, as he was the one tasked with
>explaining the 2007 Law 27C.
>
>Laurie was forced to draw Venn diagrams on the
>whiteboard in order to describe the official
>South Pacific Zone interpretation of the key
>Law 27C1 word "incorporates".  He stated that if
>the replacement call for an insufficient bid
>contained more information than the insufficient
>bid it would still be legal, provided that all
>the information given by the insufficient bid
>was included (and provided that the replacement
>call met the other criteria of Law 27C1).
>
>A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that
>the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised
>information for both sides.  A perceptive Little
>Old Lady posed this tricky scenario:
>
>WEST      NORTH     EAST
>1S        2C        1NT  = 6-9 hcp, replaced by
>                     Pass = 0-9 hcp
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Feb 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 Feb 2008 01:01
Favicon

BLML Usage statistics

BLML usage statistics for January 2008

Posts   From
-----   ----
  184   hermandw (at) skynet.be
  125   gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk
  119   svenpran (at) online.no
  102   daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com
  100   ehaa (at) starpower.net
   74   jfusselman (at) gmail.com
   74   agot (at) ulb.ac.be
   64   ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com
   60   richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au
   59   guthrie (at) ntlworld.com
   40   geller (at) nifty.com
   38   hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net
   35   john (at) asimere.com
   30   swillner (at) nhcc.net
   29   t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl
   28   dalburn (at) btopenworld.com
   27   mustikka (at) charter.net
   22   cibor (at) poczta.fm
   17   ziffbridge (at) t-online.de
   14   JffEstrsn (at) aol.com
   13   adam (at) tameware.com
   13   PeterEidt (at) t-online.de
   11   twm (at) cix.co.uk
    9   schoderb (at) msn.com
    9   Gampas (at) aol.com
    8   martino (at) bridgenz.co.nz
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Feb 2008 01:01
Picon

Re: Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

2007 Law 40B2(a):

>The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction
>to ..... allow conditionally, any special partnership
>understanding .....

Richard Hills:

Under a literal reading of "without restriction" it seems
that a Regulating Authority could perpetrate this rule:

"You may use the Ghestem convention on the condition that
you never claim, never misbid, and also never bid a slam."

So I still argue that "without restriction" should be read
as "without restriction, unless contrary to another more
specific Law".

That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific
Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more
arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find
another Law".

Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Governance & Graduates Section
National Training Branch
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 8439
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Feb 2008 01:23
Picon

Re: Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

>>- it is not used against players with less than a certain masterpoints
>>rating

Stefanie Rohan:

>This is not permitted, is it? Changing one's system continuously during
>the event?

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, Stefanie has got the legal situation backwards.  The 2007
Law 40B2(a) has a default that both members of a pair play the same
methods, but that Law does not necessarily preclude both members of the
pair simultaneously changing to a set of new methods during a session.

On the other hand, a Regulating Authority is empowered to specify when
and how one may change one's methods during a session or event.

So in some ABF matchpoint pairs events my partnership's conditional
approval to use "Brown Sticker" two-bids is dependent on whether our
opponents for the round are "Orange Sticker" novices.

Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Governance & Graduates Section
National Training Branch
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 8439
Email: richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wayne Burrows | 1 Feb 2008 01:51
Picon

Re: Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

On 01/02/2008, richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au <richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au> wrote:
> 2007 Law 40B2(a):
>
> >The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction
> >to ..... allow conditionally, any special partnership
> >understanding .....
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Under a literal reading of "without restriction" it seems
> that a Regulating Authority could perpetrate this rule:
>
> "You may use the Ghestem convention on the condition that
> you never claim, never misbid, and also never bid a slam."
>
> So I still argue that "without restriction" should be read
> as "without restriction, unless contrary to another more
> specific Law".
>
> That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific
> Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more
> arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find
> another Law".
>

This would be a major philosophical change we have just had 20 or more
years in which the laws are interpreted to mean whatever the director
or Sponsoring Organization or National Authority want them to mean
even if plainly contrary to the written laws.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Wayne Burrows | 1 Feb 2008 02:28
Picon

Re: Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

On 01/02/2008, Stefanie Rohan <daisy_duck <at> btopenworld.com> wrote:
> RH :
> >
> > Note that while the 2007 Law 40B2(d) empowers the Regulating
> > Authority to restrict artificial calls which are psychic, the
> > RA has not been given a parallel power to restrict artificial
> > calls which are misbid.
>
> The problem might be solved simply by treating a misbid exactly as a psyche.
> >
> >
> AG:
>
> I think it's more general than that.
> Authorities, including TDs, are responsible for ensuring smoothness of
> bridge play, and convention disruption is, er, disruptive.
> Disallowing some behavior that spoils pleasure wuthout helping in any
> aspect is within the scope of their authority.
>
> SR:
>
> Yes. Working out "how" is tricky though.
>
> AG:
>
>  L75C, however, is general enough to cover this case.
> Adding "provided he remembered the system", with the underlying
> knowledge that "it happened before",  comes within range of "knowledge
> of partner".
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Feb 2008 02:31
Favicon

Re: When both players are dWSists

[As I wrote some time ago, my BLML postings will be irregular.  Sorry 
not to have responded to these earlier.]

> From: Eric Landau <ehaa <at> starpower.net>
> [someone could] use a DWS-like approach as a means to cheat, 
...
>  "Getting away with cheating", were one so inclined,  
> would be as simple as "forgetting" to follow through with [an
 > accurate explanation at the proper time].  I'm
> cynical enough to think that this might prove tempting even to some  
> who would never cheat proactively.

All agree that "school" doesn't matter to outright cheats; the question 
here is a player who might be tempted if he thought he could get away 
with it.  In the MS, all such a player has to do is convince himself 
that "Yes, of course it's partner's explanation that is correct."  That 
seems to me quite a lot easier to do, and a lot harder to penalize, than 
"forgetting to correct."

[MI may go unnoticed, Eric again:]
>  You ask for a minor suit preference at the five- 
> level, partner describes your call as "Blackwood", he bids 5D, you  
> describe his call as "one ace", you make a call consistent with his  
> having one ace, you play the hand out, and you expect an opponent to  
> work out after the fact that *your* hand was systemically suited for  
> a systemic minor-suit-preference-ask but not for Blackwood?

MI is a lot easier to recognize than "use of UI."  That's one of the 
strengths of the dWS.  Of course if the players are cheats, they will 
get away with it for awhile in either school.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Feb 2008 02:34
Favicon

Re: L42A1 question

> From: Robert Geller <geller <at> nifty.com>
> Could someone please explain to me how dummy, or, for that matter,
> ANY player, could give information to the Director "as to law"?

Why do I suspect Robert hasn't played much in the ACBL? :-(

We do have some fine directors here (including the ones at clubs I play 
at -- not a coincidence!), but you can't rely on finding them at a 
typical tournament.

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Feb 2008 02:36
Picon

Re: Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Stefanie Rohan:

>Does it say anywhere else in the Laws that a misbid
>may not be treated as identical to a psyche?

Richard Hills:

The Lawbook's Definitions distinguish a psyche as
being "deliberate".

An erstwhile EBU regulation permitted a misbid of an
artificial game force 2C, but prohibited a psyche of
that bid.

Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Governance & Graduates Section
National Training Branch
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 8439
Email: richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au

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. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane