BBO Discussion Forums: Fairness? Common sense? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Fairness? Common sense? Having none?

#1 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,955
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2019-November-27, 01:16

View Postnige1, on 2019-November-26, 10:02, said:

Bridge Rules are too complex. Many are controversial, unnecessary, add no value, and should be scrapped e.g.
  • Prevention of pro-questions.
  • Insistence that victims protect themselves from opponents' disclosure infractions..
  • Denial of redress to the victim who makes a serious error in the mix-up created by law-breaking opponents.
  • Bizarre "equity-restoration" kludges to allow a player to recover with minimal inconvenience to him from a mechanical error (illegal or stupid bid/play like insufficient bid).
  • Denial of redress to victims who don't explain how they've been damaged.
  • Almost all system regulations -- for instance alert rules.
  • And other local variations,

A more relevant example: condoning irregular behavior by a player who attempts to "prevent" an infraction. e.g.
  • Player asking "having none", ostensibly to try to prevent a revoke., This rule provides a careless or unethical partnership with information that might help them to count the hand. It's pure evil. :)

The only justification for such rules is to make the law more sophisticated for the amusement of secretary birds.

Bridge-Law Discussion-groups (like this one) illustrate that directors disagree about ruling the simplest cases with undisputed facts, Players suffer. Bridge rule-makers should gradually work towards a simple set of rules that players and directors can understand. Pulling the chain on unnecessary rules might be a good start.

View Postpescetom, on 2019-November-26, 10:39, said:

Luckily nobody does this here, nor would dream that it is legal. It was forced on WBF by ACBL as I heard it - certainly should be scrapped.
Examples illustrating a frequent kind of occurrence when defenders don't always ask. When the director is called, how should he rule in each case? Do such cases cause lots of controversial director calls in ACBL land?
Jurisdiction: ACBL. imps. A difficult defence.
Against South's game, West leads 9 to East's A and declarer's Q. East returns T, declarer plays K, and West ruffs.
East says nothing because West can't be revoking.
Judging that T might be Mckenny for the higher ranking minor, West underleads A to Easts K. East returns a to promote West's J and defeat the contract.
Jurisdiction: ACBL. imps. A superficially similar defensive problem.
Against South's game, West leads 9 to East's A and declarer's Q. East returns T, declarer plays K, and West ruffs.
East asks "Having none?" and West nods.
West cashes A. East discourages. West switches to a . East's A defeats the contract.

0

#2 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2019-November-27, 02:43

Most examples that you give are regulations from a RA. Do you propose to take away the possibility that RA’s make these kind of rules? Worldwide the game would then be played with exactly the same rules and laws. That would certainly be an improvement, but what about regulations that restrict the use of artificial bids when playing in a weak field?
I have no experience with ACBL, but from what I read here, it seems that a miracle is necessary to get this organization accept that, unless the rest of the world obediently follows the American rules.
Joost
1

#3 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,668
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-November-27, 06:48

View Postsanst, on 2019-November-27, 02:43, said:

Most examples that you give are regulations from a RA. Do you propose to take away the possibility that RA’s make these kind of rules? Worldwide the game would then be played with exactly the same rules and laws. That would certainly be an improvement, but what about regulations that restrict the use of artificial bids when playing in a weak field?
I have no experience with ACBL, but from what I read here, it seems that a miracle is necessary to get this organization accept that, unless the rest of the world obediently follows the American rules.


But as mentioned above, “having none” was imposed by the ACBL in the laws, not local regulations. The law previously was that “having none” incurred a penalty, ie if the card really was a revoke the question made it established. There was an option to not have a penalty, and as far as I know, no one except the ACBL chose this.

So everyone was happy. Why did the ACBL think that it was necessary to impose their preference onto the rest of the world? The only reason I can think of is because they can.

The influence on the laws that the ACBL have is scandalous. Remember Kaplan’s 30% rule? That law was comical, but of course was in force for 10 years.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
1

#4 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 766
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2019-November-27, 06:55

Bridge Rules are too complex. Many are controversial, unnecessary, add no value, and should be scrapped e.g.

Prevention of pro-questions.

It is up to every player to find out at their turn the information they need. If they get mollycoddled by partner then they will never develop. (Why haven't they been taught when and how they may ask questions?)

Insistence that victims protect themselves from opponents' disclosure infractions..

This is normally qualified - in other words IF you are an experienced player AND asking the question does not provide UI AND it will not wake up the opponents then you are expected to protect yourself in cases of apparant obvious misinformation

Denial of redress to the victim who makes a serious error in the mix-up created by law-breaking opponents.

This is against the laws - the extremely serious error must be unrelated to the infraction. (Directors also look favourably at the non-offenders since they know that they are in a situation that won't occur at other tables).

Bizarre "equity-restoration" kludges to allow a player to recover with minimal inconvenience to him from a mechanical error (illegal or stupid bid/play like insufficient bid).

A mechanical error (making a call you did not intend by pulling out the wrong card from the bidding box) is fully protected if spotted in time(although there may be a procedural penalty if they find out their error due to UI from partner). There is no redress for a stupid play or bid. There IS potential redress if you can in fact recover from an insufficient bid/ call out of turn without providing your partner with additional information. This is basically under the ethos of trying to get a sensible result at the table rather than dishing out tops and bottoms (the removal of the best result at all possible, worst result likely has helped and the use of weighted rulings helps) - if you can't your partner is silenced for one or more rounds and lead penalties may apply (and if the information of the withdrawn call helps the offenders the director will rule back to what would likely have happened if the infraction had not taken place) (If the partner makes use of the withdrawn call and it is NOT comparable then rectification happens anyway). That seems a reasonable interpretation in that it gives the offenders a chance to recover if possible - and penalises them if not.

Denial of redress to victims who don't explain how they've been damaged.

This is certainly not in the laws. It is up to the drector to assess if the victms have been damaged.

"The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non‐offending side and to take
away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage 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 occurred."

Normally a director will ask question to ascertain how players think they have been damaged - answers will typically be "If I had known this I might have....". Directors will also try and work out the progress of the hand after a revoke to see if damage is more than one or two tricks. (Usually defenders/ declarer can spot when a running suit isn't as a result of the revoke) - at least they should!

Almost all system regulations -- for instance alert rules.

These are designed so that the other side can be made aware of any unusual partnership agreements - as is required by law 20. If you don't have alerts then you would have to ask at every call whether the call was natural or not. Of course having two identical convention cards fully completed would assist - and a TD can impose a procedural penalty if they are not. (for various reasons)

And other local variations,

The rules are there to cover virtually any circumstance that may happen during the course of the game. Many of them ARE specialised e.g. both sides revoke to a trick and one of them leads to the next trick (the solution came out in 2017!), but it is important to have a consistant set of rules rather than having a director (or, worse, the players) making up rectifications.

The laws DO allow RAs some flexibility, but not much.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
0

#5 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,729
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-November-27, 08:45

View PostVampyr, on 2019-November-27, 06:48, said:

But as mentioned above, “having none” was imposed by the ACBL in the laws, not local regulations. The law previously was that “having none” incurred a penalty, ie if the card really was a revoke the question made it established. There was an option to not have a penalty, and as far as I know, no one except the ACBL chose this.

In which law version did this change happen? I expect it's been a while, since I don't recall it.

View PostVampyr, on 2019-November-27, 06:48, said:

So everyone was happy. Why did the ACBL think that it was necessary to impose their preference onto the rest of the world? The only reason I can think of is because they can.

The influence on the laws that the ACBL have is scandalous. Remember Kaplan’s 30% rule? That law was comical, but of course was in force for 10 years.

Remember Lord Acton? "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#6 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,899
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2019-November-27, 09:39

In 2007, they got rid of Law 63B, that established the revoke if defenders asked when the regulation didn't allow it - but the regulation was still allowed. Not sure what the penalty was with the regulation but without L63B.

In 2017, the express right for a RA to prohibit defenders asking each other in L61B3 was removed.
0

#7 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,058
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-November-27, 09:40

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-November-27, 08:45, said:

In which law version did this change happen? I expect it's been a while, since I don't recall it.

In 1949 Law 71 said: Any player, including dummy, may ask a player who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led, and may demand that an opponent correct his revoke.
In 1976 Law 61 said: [.....] Any player, including dummy, may ask a player who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.
In 1987 Law 61B said: Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led (.....), Dummy may ask declarer. Defenders may ask declarer but not one another.
In 2007 Law 61B said:
1. Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led
2(a) Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2{b}).
2(b) Dummy may not ask a defender, and Law 16B may be used.
3. Defenders may ask declarer and unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information).

(I assume quoting the 2017 laws is unnecessary?)

Turbulent law?
0

#8 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,729
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-November-27, 14:42

View Postpran, on 2019-November-27, 09:40, said:

Turbulent law?

So it seems. B-)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#9 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,955
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2019-November-29, 13:59

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:

- Prevention of pro-questions. It is up to every player to find out at their turn the information they need. If they get mollycoddled by partner then they will never develop. (Why haven't they been taught when and how they may ask questions?).
IMO, The TD needs mind-reading skills to enforce this unnecessary law :(

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:

- Insistence that victims protect themselves from opponents' disclosure infractions..This is normally qualified - in other words IF you are an experienced player AND asking the question does not provide UI AND it will not wake up the opponents then you are expected to protect yourself in cases of apparent obvious misinformation
IMO, it's still unfair and unnecessary.

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:

- Denial of redress to the victim who makes a serious error in the mix-up created by law-breaking opponents.
This is against the laws - the extremely serious error must be unrelated to the infraction. (Directors also look favourably at the non-offenders since they know that they are in a situation that won't occur at other tables).
Whether the serious error is consequent or merely subsequent to the infraction is often controversial. Anyway such denial of redress seems unfair and unnecessary.

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:

- Bizarre "equity-restoration" kludges to allow a player to recover with minimal inconvenience to him from a mechanical error (illegal or stupid bid/play like insufficient bid).
A mechanical error (making a call you did not intend by pulling out the wrong card from the bidding box) is fully protected if spotted in time(although there may be a procedural penalty if they find out their error due to UI from partner). There is no redress for a stupid play or bid. There IS potential redress if you can in fact recover from an insufficient bid/ call out of turn without providing your partner with additional information. This is basically under the ethos of trying to get a sensible result at the table rather than dishing out tops and bottoms (the removal of the best result at all possible, worst result likely has helped and the use of weighted rulings helps) - if you can't your partner is silenced for one or more rounds and lead penalties may apply (and if the information of the withdrawn call helps the offenders the director will rule back to what would likely have happened if the infraction had not taken place) (If the partner makes use of the withdrawn call and it is NOT comparable then rectification happens anyway). That seems a reasonable interpretation in that it gives the offenders a chance to recover if possible - and penalises them if not.
IMO the laws that cater for and allow players to recover from "mechanical errors" are unfair and unnecessary. They cause avoidable controversy and resentment. They reward those who claim that their "slip of the mind" was a "slip of the hand". Similarly, the laws that minimize inconvenience to players who make illegal bids/plays are too sophisticated -- especially the law about insufficient bids.

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:

- Denial of redress to victims who don't explain how they've been damaged. This is certainly not in the laws. It is up to the director to assess if the victims have been damaged. "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non‐offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage 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 occurred." Normally a director will ask question to ascertain how players think they have been damaged - answers will typically be "If I had known this I might have....". Directors will also try and work out the progress of the hand after a revoke to see if damage is more than one or two tricks. (Usually defenders/ declarer can spot when a running suit isn't as a result of the revoke) - at least they should!
I like WeeJonnie's interpretation of the Law but top gurus like Sven Pran seem to interpret/apply it differently:

View Postpran, on 2019-October-27, 01:53, said:

If a player cannot indicate how he feels damaged then the Director should rule that there is no damage.

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:

- Almost all system regulations -- for instance alert rules. These are designed so that the other side can be made aware of any unusual partnership agreements - as is required by law 20. If you don't have alerts then you would have to ask at every call whether the call was natural or not. Of course having two identical convention cards fully completed would assist - and a TD can impose a procedural penalty if they are not. (for various reasons).
It would be simpler and fairer if players announced what their partners' calls meant (without the need to ask or alert). Apparently, In Italy and Norway, this is now the norm for most opening bids. So progress is possible. Eliminating alert regulations would simplify the law (especially for peripatetic players).

Thank you, WeeJonnie, for your polite, detailed and reasoned criticism. In the past, (e.g. In the Bridge Laws Mailing List) suggestions were dismissed as "bullshit". Nowadays, IMO, Bridge players are becoming more aware and vocal about perceived legal failings. Some of these short-comings result from the WBF concept of "equity" i.e. restoration of the status-quo. As Vampyr points out, in many cases, "that bird has flown". Simplicity, deterrence, and a more common-sense idea of fairness are sacrificed to this so-called "Equity".
1

#10 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,955
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2019-November-29, 14:47

View Postsanst, on 2019-November-27, 02:43, said:

Most examples that you give are regulations from a RA. Do you propose to take away the possibility that RA's make these kind of rules? Worldwide the game would then be played with exactly the same rules and laws. That would certainly be an improvement, but what about regulations that restrict the use of artificial bids when playing in a weak field?
I have no experience with ACBL, but from what I read here, it seems that a miracle is necessary to get this organization accept that, unless the rest of the world obediently follows the American rules.
IMO
  • WBF laws should be as comprehensive as possible (e.g. disclosure, bidding-boxes, scoring methods, tie-breaking, etc ...)
  • RAs should be allowed to adjust conditions of contest (e.g. written-bidding). If WBF laws were simpler. better, and more comprehensive, there might be less temptation to vary and augment them.

0

#11 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,955
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2019-November-29, 15:27

The OP featured 2 defensive problems. From West's point of view, the difference was whether or not East asked "having none?".

Carelessly or subconsciously, West might take advantage of inferences from that question (or its absence) -- without intent to cheat.

Cases like this probably arise several times per session. Should players call the director? How should the director rule? Especially if it's hard to establish whether defenders always, sometimes, or never ask?

Or does this merit another disciplinary penalty on law-makers? :)
0

#12 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,427
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-November-29, 15:36

View Postnige1, on 2019-November-29, 14:47, said:

IMO
  • WBF laws should be as comprehensive as possible (e.g. disclosure, bidding-boxes, scoring methods, tie-breaking, etc ...)
  • RAs should be allowed to adjust conditions of contest (e.g. written-bidding). If the WBF laws were simpler and better, there might be less temptation to vary them.



Your previous post deserves a beer and I agree with this one too, but maybe you lose focus on things like bidding boxes and written bidding - either the WBF regulates them or it allows RA liberty about them - it can't do both unless it lays down laws for every possible method, which seems excessive and anti-historical. I imagine your intended point is that it should give up some tolerance of mistakes (in these and all laws) in favour of simplicity and a small automatic advantage to opponents, like almost any other sport. Bridge is perhaps the only sport where players feel under no obligation to learn the rules and know they will usually pay no extra price for ignoring them.
The really sobering thing is that the whole paradigm is about to change with the advent of online play, and 2027 will be much too late for WBF to put a foot in that door.
0

#13 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,729
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-November-29, 17:10

View Postpescetom, on 2019-November-29, 15:36, said:

The really sobering thing is that the whole paradigm is about to change with the advent of online play, and 2027 will be much too late for WBF to put a foot in that door.

The WBF put a foot in that door, albeit a really tiny one, in 2001. And no, as far as I know they haven't done anything since.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#14 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,427
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-November-30, 08:43

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-November-29, 17:10, said:

The WBF put a foot in that door, albeit a really tiny one, in 2001. And no, as far as I know they haven't done anything since.

They set up some sort of team to work on it this year, but public requests to report on progress have had no effect.
They have also been talking about holding electronic world championships next year, but no mention of laws or software.
0

#15 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,729
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-November-30, 09:35

Mushrooms. We're all mushrooms. :lol:
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#16 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,208
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-December-01, 03:47

 Vampyr, on 2019-November-27, 06:48, said:

Remember Kaplan’s 30% rule?

No. What was that?
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#17 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,668
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-December-01, 05:50

 gordontd, on 2019-December-01, 03:47, said:

No. What was that?


This applied when you wanted to change your mind after a call. Suppose you passed a cue bid or Blackwood response, momentarily becoming confused because your actual intention was to sign off. This was not a mechanical error, but a brief mental lapse. You could change your bid and play on, but the best you could get was 30% in MP. I don’t know the equivalent in IMPs. The idea was that you didn’t have to play on in an absurd contract.

There was no redress, though, for those of us who habitually play in absurd contracts with malice aforethought.

EDIT: I had forgotten whether you could play for 30% or 40%. So it was 40% then. It was part of L25 in the 1997 Laws.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#18 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,820
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2019-December-01, 05:56

The '30% rule' was the same as the '70% rule'. If more than 70% would make a call the the alternatives were not 'logical altenatives' for Law 16B. Conversely if another call would be chosen by 30% then it was a logical alternative.

The change-of-mind change of call in Law 25 meant you could play for at most _40%_ (AVE-).
Robin

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?" (DNA)
0

#19 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,058
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-December-01, 09:29

I remember a very disputed law(?) but am unable to find it in my archives.
It must have been more recent than 1980 and it might quite possibly have been only a minute or a suggestion within the law committee, never making it's way to the laws.

The story was that Kaplan had been so confused over an unexpected answer to his Blackwood 4NT that he passed instead of correcting to the agreed trump denomination.

The rule I remember was that the offending player was (or should be) allowed to change his call to the obviously intended call, but his side could then not score better than 40% on that board. (The non-offending side would receive the table result.)
0

#20 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,729
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-December-01, 10:29

I think that was an interpretation, not something in the actual law.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users