Richard Hills | 21 Jul 14:11 2016
Picon

Local regulation.

Agatha Christie, The Murder at the Vicarage:


"The young people think that the old people are fools --- but the old people know that the young people are fools."

Nigel Guthrie:

.....I feel that  the objectors to a level playing-field  are mostly rule-makers and directors.....

Richard Hills:

I know that the objectors to bidding boxes are mostly grass-roots Aussie players, disinclined to changing the habits of a lifetime.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Thursday, July 21, 2016, Nigel Guthrie <g3 <at> nige1.com> wrote:

[Richard Hills]
The tribe of bridge players on the island of Great Britain universally use bidding boxes. But for most Aussie national championships (for example, the recent Victor Champion Cup) written bidding is used.

Hence I agree with Gordon Rainsford's support of geographical diversity of bridge regulation in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

 

[Nigel]

I accept that Bidding boxes aren’t always appropriate e.g. for on-line play.  

 

I feel that  the objectors to a level playing-field  are mostly rule-makers and directors.

 

E.g. Scottish players experienced no problem changing from our local rules to standard WBF regulations; although, like most current rules, WBF regulations are improvable.

 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Matthias Berghaus | 19 Jul 16:36 2016
Picon

Re: Local regulation.

Am 19.07.2016 um 15:21 schrieb Nigel Guthrie:
>
> {Gordon Rainsford]
>
> Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the 
> Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that 
> they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that 
> to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it 
> seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as 
> removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure.
>
> Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU’s ishere 
>
<http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/notes-on-polling-&-consulting.pdf>) 
> and it’s part of a TD’s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel’s 
> suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement.
>
> [Nigel]
>
> This topic merits a separate thread. Currently, you could argue that 
> local regulations are needed in a few areas like system-regulation.
>

You think knock-out teams have basically the same structure in England, 
Germany, and whatever country you would like to think of? Dream on.... 
And what good would it do to have Iceland, where Bridge is played nearly 
exclusively in Rejkjavik, and Norway, where 2000 km might be the 
distance to cover, have the same regulation for local encounters? Not to 
mention the U.S. where 2000 might look like a bargain. Fat lot of good 
would it do for anybody. Of course I can see where Iceland and China are 
fundamentally the same... except for the differences....

> IMO, for other purposes (e.g. bidding-boxes, polling), players would 
> benefit from a single set of rules.
>

The Australians are going to thank you profusely for your high-headed 
attempt to foist bidding-boxes on them. Why don`t you learn written 
bidding, instead?

> In principle, such integrated rules would take **less** space.
>

Rofl

> They would be easier for players to understand and to follow.
>

Oh sure, players would find it easy to follow bidding-box regulations, 
when they have never seen such a thing, and, more importantly, are not 
going to do so anytime soon. Do you think they would care to learn 
regulations that will have _no_ relevance to their way of playing 
Bridge? And no, the Australians are not alone. Why should they learn 
abbout bidding-box regulations? Because you use them? Well, so do I, but 
so what?

> Directors would need only one book of rules. Ruke-makers would be able 
> to distil best practice from the current tower of Babel.
>

And what, pray, is the best practice to run an event in Monaco? India? 
Practically the same thing, isn`t it? Both are a couple of 1000 m 
across. OK, it`s _k_m in the case of India, and slighly more people, but 
what is factor of 1000 or so for standardization? The fact that England 
and Germany have 1 language each (let us forget about Yorkshire and 
Bavarian dialects for the purpose of this discussion, they are not in 
the regulations anyway), where India has...? 40? 50? Not dialects, 
_languages_. Even Belgium has 3, even if there is no club in the part 
where German is spoken. Switzerland has 3, 4 if you count in 
Rhaeto-Roman (which is probably as relevant to Bridge as German is in 
Belgium), and those 3 languages are spoken in different parts of the 
country. Sure, some are bi- or even trilingual, and others are not. Let 
us try the Belgian way. where English is the official language in the 
top division. I imagine that is not actually used all the time, people 
preferring to understand French or Flemish instead, but I might be 
wrong. Herman can surely tell us. On the other hand, it would be much 
more fair to let the whole learn some language from a country where 
Bridge is not played at all. That way no one would be at an advantage, 
right?

> Admittedly, , in practice, when rule-makers  introduce simpler rules 
> that players and directors can understand, they **might not** save 
> space -- even after they expurgate unnecessary rules.  Well-organised, 
> well-structured, comprehensive rules,  using short active sentences, 
> and plain unambiguous words, without elegant variation,  might end up 
> being longer.
>
> IMO, it’s also possible to have uniform system/disclosure rules; but 
> that’s more controversial and a different argument.
>

Ah, OK, then we have one bloated rulebook, and _still_ another one for 
e.g. systems regulations. That is a big step forward, giving us _two_ 
books where previously we had , err, two? If you can read German, or 
know someone who does, have a look at Austrian and German systems and 
alert regulations, which are radically different in some areas, even 
though we can actually talk to each other. I am going to Austria (I 
would like to go to Australia, too, but it is too far for my liking) to 
play in 3 weeks, and I am going to take the time to actually look them 
up and learn the differences, and explain them to my partner on the 
voyage. And tell you what: those differences are there for a purpose, 
and they actually make sense for the relevant countries, but not for the 
other, else they would be the same.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Richard Hills | 19 Jul 16:16 2016
Picon

Margarine

Tonight and for the next three Tuesday evenings the Canberra Bridge Club is holding a Butler pairs tournament. The format is a Mitchell movement, with three 9-board matches per session. I had arranged to play with Hashmat Ali in this event, but a few days before its start Hashmat informed me that he had the dreaded lurgy. Therefore I had to organise a substitute for the first session.


This I did, choosing a forgetful friend. The friend did not forget to turn up. Instead, shortly before the starting time the friend was told  by another player that they had entered the tournament, so the fair-weather substitute promptly decamped.

Thus I had to get a last-minute second substitute. The new substitute understandably arrived three boards late. But both he and I are very quick players, so we finished the first 9-board match with time to spare.

Suppose, however, that we had completed only eight boards. Should we have been awarded Average Minus for the board that we missed, because we were "directly at fault" (Law 12C2)? In my opinion, no. The person directly at fault was the forgetful "first substitute", and he was now part of a rival contestant.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Larry | 19 Jul 00:26 2016
Picon

Re: Fwd: Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a))

Quite, you do NOT want a group discussion.
 
Give them a problem as in a newspaper bidding quiz. They will know something is afoot 'cos that's why your asking ! Need the 'right' people.
 
I had one (very experienced) chap said he'd bid 4H. I queried this and he said 'I've played the hand and it makes'. Never asked him again !
 
L.
 

I agree that polling should be individual. I learned from William Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" that multiple opinions are most useful when they are formed independently.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Adam Wildavsky | 18 Jul 01:28 2016

Re: Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a))

Thanks for the good wishes!

As for the proposed polling procedure, I like it but I think it will encounter difficulties in practice. The TD will not want to return to each player he has polled for a second or third pass. He may not even be able to find them.

I also like the ACBL’s Polling Technique. Unfortunately, it’s not always followed.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie <g3 <at> nige1.com> wrote:

I applaud Adam’s attempt to clarify laws. 

 

The passive tense,  sophisticated wording (e.g. “demonstrably”),  the subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.” should”, “must”, “may”, “may not”), and indeterminate  fudging e.g. “could” combine to  undermine clarification attempts.

 

UI rulings on simple basic cases with agreed facts  split discussion groups down the middle, however,  so it’s obvious that drastic clarification is needed.

 

I think rule-makers should radically simplify the rules of Bridge. .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical  terms, that players can understand. 

 

Below is my suggestion to explain  the UI decision process (FWIW – so far it has attracted ridicule)


1. The director asks pollees which options they consider.
2. The director collates suggested calls into a list.
3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list.
4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference.
5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it‘s AI. He asks them to re-order the list in that light
6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's chosen call ascends in the average rankings.
7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the basis of a thought-experiment.

 

An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds).

 

Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it’s urgently needed. 

 

Regards, Nigel
g3 <at> nige1.com
+447578626916

 

 


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jerry Fusselman | 17 Jul 23:38 2016
Picon

Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)



On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote:

I applaud Adam’s attempt to clarify laws. 

 

The passive tense,  sophisticated wording (e.g. “demonstrably”),  the subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.” should”, “must”, “may”, “may not”), and indeterminate  fudging e.g. “could” combine to  undermine clarification attempts.

 

UI rulings on simple basic cases with agreed facts  split discussion groups down the middle, however,  so it’s obvious that drastic clarification is needed.

 

I think rule-makers should radically simplify the rules of Bridge. .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical  terms, that players can understand. 

 

Below is my suggestion to explain  the UI decision process (FWIW – so far it has attracted ridicule)


1. The director asks pollees which options they consider.
2. The director collates suggested calls into a list.
3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list.
4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference.
5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it‘s AI. He asks them to re-order the list in that light
6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's chosen call ascends in the average rankings.
7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the basis of a thought-experiment.

 

An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds).

 

Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it’s urgently needed. 

 

Regards, Nigel
g3 <at> nige1.com
+447578626916

 


I like the idea of an agreed procedure, even if just a thought experiment.  It looks like a stroke of clarity to me.  

I would like the methods of the pair to be mentioned somehow.

In all of these proposals, there has been little or no discussion of what to do for close calls.  For example, using Nigel's practical procedure, what would he do if the ordinal ranking with UI treated as AI only increased the average rank from 2.4 to 2.3?  Would that be enough to rule guilty of UI use? 

But I worry about the following case that could be a fatal flaw with Nigel's suggestion.  For simplicity, suppose an LA option falls from unanimous first to unanimous last.  Shouldn't that be the required action?  Any other action he may take is comparatively suggested by the UI.  With this example, the use-the-average-ranking idea looks wrong.  Yes, it seems clear, but not right in all cases.

So I think I like the protocol, except that I don't think the decision metric can be improved.

Jerry Fusselman
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Petrus Schuster OSB | 17 Jul 09:07 2016
Picon

hesitation

With opponents silent, the auction is

N       S                               N
PASS - 2H (hearts and a minor, weak) - slow 3H

What does the BIT suggest?
When asked what 3H shows, specifically if it is invitational or shut-out,  
North (a quite experienced player in his late 60ies) could only say that  
he had already passed.

Regards,
Petrus

--

-- 
Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Herman De Wael | 16 Jul 09:45 2016
Picon

A strange case of illegal deception

Yesterday, I was playing in my club (the top one of Flanders), in a 
reasonable field, against a pair of my strength (= not very good, but no 
beginners either).

I'm playing 4Sp on the following lay-out:

	S K Q x x
	H K x x
	D A J x
	C K Q x

	S A x x x x x
	H x x
	D x x x
	C x x x

RHO has bid hearts and LHO leads a heart. I play small and RHO wins with 
the Jack.
She goes in a small trance and returns a trump.
I cash trumps in two rounds and play a club to the King.
She goes in a small trance and ducks.
I see that I can now throw her in if she has only two diamonds, so I 
play DA and a small diamond from the table.
She takes the King without any delay.
And goes in a long trance.
And cashes Ace of Hearts and Ace of clubs.

And I claim - convinced that she has to return a heart or a club and my 
diamond will go on the KH.

But she has another diamond.

I believe I have been misled. The diamond return is so obvious that my 
conclusion that she had only two must be valid.
And my action (the claim) is based on that deception.

Of course any ruling must include a high probability of a diamond return 
after all, but I believe I could make a case for a 10% weight of 4S-1 
rather than the obvious -2.

Comments?

Herman.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Larry | 13 Jul 19:47 2016
Picon

Re: Just a little one

No big deal Ton. I think that I'm the only TD to fine anyone there for many a year. Probably 5 or 6 minimums for disciplinary purposes in 20 yrs.
 
Thoughts were that I was calling them a cheat, was even tried to be justified by the fact that the hand had 4 spades.
 
Will nail them next time.
 
L
 
Can you tell us what the reason for this disagreement with the penalty was?

 

In my opinion the penalty should have been (much) heavier.

 

ton

 

Van: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] Namens Larry
Verzonden: dinsdag 12 juli 2016 23:10
Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Onderwerp: [BLML] Just a little one

 

One of the largest clubs in the UK. Biggest night of the week, 2 sections playing an on-going competition scored across the sections. 20 + tables of a v.good club standard.

 

Our (experienced) hero opens a 12-14 NT on a 4342 12 count.

LHO calls 2H (natural)

Partner had an agreed break of tempo

RHO passes

 

Our hero doubles.

Hesitater takes it out and plays there.

 

As it happens, this was a very reasonable score for the other side.

However, I thought a 20% fine was in order but many disagreed.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks.

 

 

Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2016.0.7640 / Virusdatabase: 4627/12606 - datum van uitgifte: 07/12/16

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Tony Musgrove | 13 Jul 11:26 2016
Picon

Change of call after illegal call

Suppose I make an insufficient bid and change
it to pass before director is called, I must repeat
the pass if LHO rejects the insufficient bid.  Mission
accomplished, partner is out of auction :)

Now suppose I double partner (illegal, but have
seen him play before :)), and then pass before director
has been called.  Can I now change my bid and
bar partner as before?

Cheers,

Tony (Sydney)

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Richard Hills | 16 Jun 07:30 2016
Picon

Marmalade

Imps

Dlr: North
Vul: None

You, North, hold:

S ---
H T9765
D AKQT8654
C ---

What call do you make?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Gmane