[blackshoe]

lamford, on Jan 23 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

On your first point, very few, as it has become more and more esoteric.

That's why I left blml myself. Some people have asked me to rejoin, but I don't see the point.

[Siegmund]

I remain technically subscribed to BLML but I go weeks at a time without opening the digests, and then browse through several days' worth trying to find the start of a thread I find interesting... it's not what it used to be, that is for sure.

Speaking of "what it used to be" - when I first started directing in the mid-90s, one of the valuable lessons from that forum was the European contingent waging a successful campaign for the ACBLand TDs to abandon the "rule of coincidence" which they believed was unLawful. I was very surprised, some years later, to find EBU doing what is in essence the same thing - adjusting and/or inflicting penalties after a single case of both partners forgetting an agreement on the same deal. That's what I don't get; it's the very same people who taught me that I must never do this who are now doing it.

[bluejak]

lamford, on Jan 24 2010, 01:06 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 23 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

And what TDs do is to decide what would or might have happened, and, sorry Paul, they have an absolute right to do their job properly as they see it.

I totally agree with that; but that does not include imposing their view of the best bid on South in flagrant contradiction of the wording of 40A3:

<snip>. 3. A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding.

We were told by the OP that the methods were system on after an overcall of 2C. We were told by the OP that South knew this and elected not to bid 3H. You are regularly exhorting us to stick to the facts as presented. It seems a case of "do as I say, not do as I do."

If he did not bid 3♥ and a TD judges that he did not do so because of an undisclosed partnership understanding, that is a perfectly legal judgement for a TD. Sure, you may not agree with the judgement, but it is just not right to say he has no right to make such a judgement.

As for your final rude comment, that seems unworthy. Are you saying that if anyone ever disagrees with your impeccable judgement it means that they have failed to follow the principles they state? Why? How on earth does that follow?

lamford, on Jan 24 2010, 01:06 AM, said:

And the general view on BLML from the non-English TDs is that the EBU interpretation of the fielded misbid is at best marginal and at worst illegal. No doubt you will reply, "who cares?"

I actively dislike your ascribing things to me I have not said, especially when they are so far from what I think and have expressed. it is my view they are wrong, and I care deeply about it: why should I not?

Just because i disagree over a matter of Law [allegedly] with people who have made arguments I have not seen and do not know seems a very unreasonable basis for suggesting I do not care.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 24 2010, 08:36 PM, said:

I actively dislike your ascribing things to me I have not said, especially when they are so far from what I think and have expressed.  it is my view they are wrong, and I care deeply about it: why should I not?

Just because i disagree over a matter of Law [allegedly] with people who have made arguments I have not seen and do not know seems a very unreasonable basis for suggesting I do not care.

OK I agree that is taken out of context, and I apologise. Although you have been less than complimentary about the views of BLML members. It is a trawl to go through all the old site postings, but I certainly recall the phrase "not interested in running bridge tournaments". So the "who cares" refers to their views - sorry if I did not make this clear.