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

BLML Usage statistics

BLML usage statistics for June 2008

Posts   From
-----   ----
   53   gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk
   47   richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au
   33   john (at) asimere.com
   28   svenpran (at) online.no
   26   ehaa (at) starpower.net
   25   Gampas (at) aol.com
   22   daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com
   20   agot (at) ulb.ac.be
   19   Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com
   10   rfrick (at) rfrick.info
    9   hermandw (at) skynet.be
    8   swillner (at) nhcc.net
    8   geller (at) nifty.com
    7   wjburrows (at) gmail.com
    7   larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk
    6   dalburn (at) btopenworld.com
    6   anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com
    6   PeterEidt (at) t-online.de
    5   rbusch (at) ozemail.com.au
    5   harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com
    4   jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr
    3   ziffbridge (at) t-online.de
    3   karel (at) esatclear.ie
    3   jpgss (at) uq.net.au
    3   fab.maillist (at) unetmail.nl
    3   ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Jul 2008 01:14
Picon

Re: Unwritten Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Law 45C4(a):

"A card must be played if a player names or otherwise
designates it as the card he proposes to play."

Law 74B4:

"As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on
although he knows that all the tricks are surely his)
for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent."

Brian asked:

>Richard,
>
>Could you please explain how you determine that any
>player who does the above is doing so "for the
>purpose of disconcerting an opponent", rather than to
>demonstrate that any pause for thought is not
>concerned with which card to play to the current
>trick?
>
>As regards L45C4(a), doesn't that just ensure that
>the player plays the face-down card? Wouldn't our all-
>knowing lawmakers have written "A card must
>immediately be played..." if that was what they had
>intended?

Richard Hills:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John (MadDog) Probst | 1 Jul 2008 01:38

Re: check on revoke law


I'm fairly clear in my own mind that the NOs get the best of all the 
successive expectations and that this is what the EBU TDs are taught to do. 
I had a case like this one while playng with 1T (Mathias Shueller) in 
Wiesbaden under Kojak and Kojak was for 120, but was happy to be convinced 
oherwise, bearing in mind I was arguing as a probst cheat.  1T was with me 
on this and it entertaind the three of us for a couple of days. I talked to 
Max about it and he said 150 because during the hand there was a point where 
150 was the expectation. With the new Laws I'd still rule this way; probst 
cheats cannot be allowed to prosper.  John

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthias Berghaus" <ziffbridge <at> t-online.de>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml <at> amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] check on revoke law

Matthias Schüller schrieb:
> Sven Pran wrote:
>> Please explain exactly how the offending side can gain on a second 
>> revoke?
>
> The contract is 2NT by South. The club position is:
>
>       AKQJ9
> 854          T76
>       32
>
> Dummy has no other entries; declarer holds the three other aces but
> nothing else in his hand. Declarer plays a club to the ace; East revokes
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Robert Frick | 1 Jul 2008 01:43
Favicon

Re: check on revoke law

My memory is that a few months ago John Probst said this was resolved in  
favor of treating the revokes separately.

I cannot imagine any other way of doing it.

1. One of the main goals of the laws is to prevent players from gaining  
when they commit an irregularity. Who would want to interpret the laws  
otherwise?

2. I think the new laws are clear on this:

  When, after ANY established revoke, including those not
subject to rectification, the Director deems that the
non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this
Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted
score. (emphasis mine).

3. Hmm, the old 72B1 seems to be hiding. It would have applied (or does  
apply) also.

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Jul 2008 04:15
Favicon

Re: How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

> From: "gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk" <gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk>
> Board 10, Dealer E, Game ALL
> E: J72 Q654 4 AQ765

> E pass, S pass, W 1S, N pass
> E 2S, all pass.

FWIW, I agree that the 2S bid is amber.  It's just enough of an underbid 
to be suspicious but not enough to be crazy.  (As noted earlier, I'd 
consider 2C green.)

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Jul 2008 04:23
Favicon

Re: Unwritten Laws

> From: Gampas <at> aol.com
> I watched many European Championship tables on
> BridgeBaseOnline, and noted down the estimated time for the partner of the  
> opening leader to play at trick one. The highest I found was 20 seconds and  
> there was something to think about on that hand; when the play was routine, the  
> average was around 4 seconds.

That sounds consistent with what I see at (much) lower levels.  Based on 
this, I'd expect pauses of, say, 2 to 8 seconds seldom to carry UI but 
longer or shorter ones often to do so.  As others have written, though, 
each case should be judged on its own merits.  (That may not be easy 
unless there's a _skilled_ monitor at the table.)

I'm slightly surprised no jurisdiction (as far as I know) requires 
mandatory pauses.

> I have seen players detach a card face down  but not 
> play it, and then say "I am thinking about the hand". Is this regarded  by 
> directors as good or bad form?

I think it's incredibly rude, though not everyone agrees.  If you want 
to think, play your card face up and leave it that way.  That avoids any 
possible deception and gives your opponent a fair chance to think, too. 
  No need to say anything; remarks are likely to deceive.

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 25 comments |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Jul 2008 04:28
Favicon

Re: check on revoke law

> From: Matthias Schüller <matthias.schueller <at> gmx.de>
> - the second revoke is an infraction;
> - per L12B1, "[d]amage exists when, because of an infraction, an 
> innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have 
> been the expectation had the infraction not occured".

This seems completely clear to me, both from the text and in logic.  Why 
would anyone want to give a player who revokes multiple times a better 
score than a player who revokes only once?!

If the EBL has been doing it the wrong way, as it seems, the rewording 
of several laws seems a good excuse to revise their practice.

I confess I don't know of any official guidelines or case law in the 
ACBL.  Anyone else know of any?

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 24 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Jul 2008 09:11
Picon

Re: revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Sven Pran:

>Where I play bridge this is a game for honorable gentlemen and fair
>ladies;

Richard Hills:

...and bespectacled, bearded ex-Tasmanians...

Sven Pran:

>we do care for our honor.
>
>And a player here that repeatedly attempts the "heads they don't
>realize it, tails I'm even" trick will soon be revealed as a cheat
>and be excluded from all good parties.
>
>I don't know what kind of player attitudes you are used to, but
>some of the entries here on blml do indeed worry me.

Richard Hills:

I agree.

Arbitrary mechanical score adjustment "rectifications" for revokes
may lead to ludicrous outcomes.  For example, a grand slam making
when the ace of trumps is offside.

But, in fairness to blmlers on the other side of this philosophical
debate, it seems to me that they are advocating ludicrous score
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Guthrie | 1 Jul 2008 09:26

Re: check on revoke law

[Robert Frick]
1. One of the main goals of the laws is to prevent players from gaining
when they commit an irregularity. Who would want to interpret the laws
otherwise?

[Nige1]
IMO "Discouraging law-breaking" *should* be a main aim of the laws but 
it isn't. On the contrary, the main aim is "equity": restoring the 
status quo. In theory such a policy is neutral, neither rewarding nor 
deterring law-breakers. In practice, however ...

- Not all infractions attract a director call or adverse ruling.
- If an infraction does attract an averse ruling, then 12C3 tends to 
eliminate any vestigial deterrent effect.

Hence "equity" law significantly encourages and rewards law-breaking :( 
Furthermore, this is a conscious and deliberate policy :(

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane