Richard Hills | 30 Aug 05:58 2014
Picon

Both players forget & numbering

Fortunately, the Lawbook is nuanced. In addition to Law 40C1 (which describes *frequent* deviations - caused either by forgetfulness or by intent - as creating an implicit partnership understanding), there is also Law 75C (which describes *infrequent* deviations - caused either by forgetfulness or by intent - as not requiring any disclosure). Law 75C emphasises that it is the partnership understanding, *not* a partner's cards, which much be disclosed.

This brings up one of my hobby-horses; the numbering of the Laws. Law 40 is located nowhere near Law 75 in the Lawbook, making it easier for a novice Director to rule incorrectly. Another classic example of poor numbering is Law 23. It is surrounded by Laws which deal exclusively with irregularities in the auction, yet Law 23 is applicable both to the auction and also to the play.

Christopher Smart (1722-1771), final stanza of his poem Jubilate Agno celebrating his cat:

 

For God has blessed him in the variety of his movements.

For, tho he cannot fly, he is an excellent clamberer.

For his motions upon the face of the earth are more than any other quadruped.

For he can tread to all the measures upon the music.

For he can swim for life.

For he can creep.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 29 Aug 03:56 2014
Picon

Both players forget

Sven Pran quoting Ian Fleming's "Goldfinger":
 
>He said, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago:
>Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. The
>third time it's enemy action."
 
Richard Hills:
 
And indeed the Goldfinger principle is imbedded
in Law 40C1.
 
For example a partnership may explicitly have a
pre-existing mutual understanding that after an opponent opens the bidding with 1S, a 3C jump overcall shows a weak hand with 5/5 in the red suits. But 50% of the time an alternating partner forgets, jumping to 3C with a weak hand and seven clubs.
 
Law 40C1 mandates that the partnership's intial
explicit understanding has now been replaced by a new multi-meaning understanding; the 3C jump overcall is now EITHER seven clubs OR 5/5 in the red suits. This may or may not be an illegal convention (depending upon local regulations).
 
BUT...
 
Even if the multi-meaning convention is legal
under local rules (for example, such a multi-
meaning overcall is permitted by ABF rules), full
disclosure is required. Disclosing merely the
original 5/5 red suits understanding is a
misinformation infraction.
 
"Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to
use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks, months, maybe
years."
 
 
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Ray Gur über LinkedIn | 6 Aug 20:10 2014
Picon

Richard Bley, bitte fügen Sie mich zu Ihrem beruflichen Netzwerk auf LinkedIn hinzu.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard Bley,
 
ich möchte Sie gerne in mein Netzwerk auf LinkedIn einladen.
 
Ray Gur
 
Principal Member of Technical Staff at AT&T
 
 
 
 
Sie erhalten folgende E-Mails: Einladung. Abbestellen
 
Diese E-Mail war an Richard Bley gerichtet. Erfahren Sie, warum wir dies hinzufügen. © 2014, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct., Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
 
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Mike Amos | 6 Aug 02:16 2014

Law 79B

B. Disagreement on Tricks Won

If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then:

1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69.

2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side’s score.


I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. 

I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it)

Any thoughts?

Mike 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Robert Frick | 5 Aug 19:02 2014

both players forget

N    E     S    W
1D  P    3C

alerted and (eventually) described as criss-cross. The player had  
forgotten and had a weak jump shift in clubs. But both players agree that  
3C is criss-cross and it's on their card. No rectification, right?

N    E     S    W
1D  P    3C   P
   P

Today, both players forgot they were playing criss-cross. When asked,  
North was woken up and answered "criss-cross". Did the opponents receive  
an accurate description of the Nourth-South agreement? (All the other  
elements are present for rectification).
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Jim Fox | 29 Jul 06:47 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: Imp Tables (was QWERTY (was (Imp Tables (was QWERTY (was IMP tables))))

Test

 

QWERTY

 

Mmbridge

 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jim Fox | 16 Jul 23:55 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
Jerry Fusselman
Sent: 07/14/2014 12:30 AM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY
(was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Jim Fox <jimfox00 <at> cox.net> wrote:
> For now, I will just state that checkers and tic-tac-toe are deterministic
in the sense that a person who knows the correct strategy can never lose no
matter what his opponent does.  More later.

-----------------------

Does any single human on earth know this correct strategy for
checkers?  No.  Therefore, I'm not sure of the relevance of this one
observation to the subject at hand, but I look forward to hearing your
later thoughts.

Thanks for continuing the discussion.  I've already learned some
things.  (For example, I had no idea that checkers had been "solved"
by a battery of computers.)

Mmbridge:  As has qubic (a kind of 3-dimensional tic-tac-toe)

Jerry Fusselman

-----------------------------------------------------------

Mmbridge

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

Jim Fox | 14 Jul 05:53 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

For now, I will just state that checkers and tic-tac-toe are deterministic in the sense that a person who
knows the correct strategy can never lose no matter what his opponent does.  More later.

Mmbridge

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman
Sent: 07/13/2014 7:58 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

>> Bridge is a probabilistic game and that is a good thing.  Most interesting
>> games are.
>>
>
> Go and chess are very interesting games.
>
> Mmbridge:  Although I believe that Go and chess are also probabilistic games, I won't argue the point other
than to say that when you make a move in those games, there is some finite probability your opponent won't
find the best move in response.  One would probably try to estimate that probability when choosing which of
several moves to make.  More to the point, I guess I cannot tell whether or not you differ with "most".

This is revisionist history.  In this thread, you wrote that "Checkers
and tic-tac-toe are deterministic games."  In those games too, your
opponent's reply to your move is unknowable.  You can't logically
claim that go and chess are probabilistic immediately after claiming
the checkers is not.  Besides, "probabilistic" would lose all meaning
if any game in which your opponent has choices is deemed
probabilistic.

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

Jim Fox | 13 Jul 23:34 2014
Picon
Picon

IMP and VP Tables and Bridge Scoring (was RE: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL])

My comments embedded below.

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman
Sent: 07/13/2014 1:40 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Jim Fox <jimfox00 <at> cox.net> wrote:
> You are missing the point.
>

Well, most of your points are questionable.

>
> Bridge is a probabilistic game and that is a good thing.  Most interesting
> games are.
>

Go and chess are very interesting games.

Mmbridge:  Although I believe that Go and chess are also probabilistic games, I won't argue the point other
than to say that when you make a move in those games, there is some finite probability your opponent won't
find the best move in response.  One would probably try to estimate that probability when choosing which of
several moves to make.  More to the point, I guess I cannot tell whether or not you differ with "most".

> Any bidding system must adjust to take into account what the
> opponents are doing in their bidding. Thus there can never be a “correct
> bidding strategy” unless you somehow know exactly how your opponents will
> bid and how they will adjust to every situation and your actions.
>

I doubt that anyone thinks that there exists some perfect bidding
strategy.  We only try to do our best for most circumstances given
limitations on memory.  You can never completely overcome the
limitations on memory.

Mmbridge:  IAW, you agree.

>
> Let’s suppose there were a few players, pairs or teams who knew “the correct
> playing strategy” and everybody else didn’t.  Those lucky few would then win
> every event.
>

Nonsense.  For some hands, ultra-strong jump-shifts are clearly
wonderful.  For some situations, fourth best is demonstrably superior
to anything else.  No set of methods dominates all other methods on
100% of the hands.

Further, methods do not guarantee success if execution is lacking.

Mmbridge:  IAW, you agree.  And I speak to the point of execution later (which you don’t excerpt).

>
> My stated objective is not “to get random outcomes”.  My unstated objective
> is to have the game be as interesting to as many people as possible.  I
> don’t need bridge in my life to get a “serious test of skill and judgment”.

Speak for yourself.  A serious test of skill and judgement is exactly
what I am after.

Mmbridge:  Of course, I speak for myself.  And I realize that others connect Duplicate bridge with their
competitive and esteem issues.

> My work provides more than enough of that.   For me, the purpose of playing
> bridge is to have an interesting way to exercise my brain that I can do with
> people I love or like.  Nothing more.
>

Maybe rubber bridge is your game.

Mmbridge:  I enjoy rubber bridge AND duplicate bridge.  I don't have to love or like my opponents, (LOL) only
my partner or teammates.  I will not play in a partnership or team with people I don't like away from bridge.
I'm pretty sure that many do.

>
> Winning top bridge tournaments (like golf tournaments) is mostly a “battle
> of numbers”.  Everybody is good.  You execute strategy to give yourself the
> best chance to win.  “Actually winning” is very much a random event.  The
> fact of the matter is that the more individuals you allow to achieve that
> random event, the more popular the game will be.

Also wrong.  If the rules were changed to the extent that pros were in
the bottom half half of the time, such as if results were 100% chance,
I am sure that bridge would lose all of its popularity.  Winning would
be meaningless, essentially a lottery.  Why bother holding cards in
your hand if your efforts amount to nothing?

Mmbridge:  I believe it's obvious I am not talking about causing pros to be pushed to the bottom half.  What I am
advocating is the situation we have right now.  If you look at the results of most National events you will
find pros all through the rankings from top to bottom alternating with non-pros.  Sometimes non-pros even WIN!!!

> Scoring idiosyncrasies
> adds slightly to that number.
>

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Mmbridge:  This "straw man" won't float.

Jerry Fusselman
_______________________________________________
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
Jim Fox | 13 Jul 18:36 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

You are missing the point.

 

Bridge is a probabilistic game and that is a good thing.  Most interesting games are.  Any bidding system must adjust to take into account what the opponents are doing in their bidding. Thus there can never be a “correct bidding strategy” unless you somehow know exactly how your opponents will bid and how they will adjust to every situation and your actions.

 

Let’s suppose there were a few players, pairs or teams who knew “the correct playing strategy” and everybody else didn’t.  Those lucky few would then win every event.

 

Do you think there is a “correct playing strategy” for golfers or is it a combination of how one player’s strategy meshes with many random, unpredictable events on a golf course.

 

How important is the strategy compared with execution of physical actions and ability to execute the strategy.

 

My stated objective is not “to get random outcomes”.  My unstated objective is to have the game be as interesting to as many people as possible.  I don’t need bridge in my life to get a “serious test of skill and judgment”.  My work provides more than enough of that.   For me, the purpose of playing bridge is to have an interesting way to exercise my brain that I can do with people I love or like.  Nothing more.

 

Winning top bridge tournaments (like golf tournaments) is mostly a “battle of numbers”.  Everybody is good.  You execute strategy to give yourself the best chance to win.  “Actually winning” is very much a random event.  The fact of the matter is that the more individuals you allow to achieve that random event, the more popular the game will be.  Scoring idiosyncrasies adds slightly to that number.

 

Checkers and tic-tac-toe are deterministic games.  Most people don’t find them particularly interesting.

 

Mmbridge

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Bill Hood
Sent: 07/13/2014 6:41 AM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

FAO MMbridge

 

 Whether or not you think it is a good idea that players do not know what the correct bidding strategy is depends on whether or not you think the game is intrinsically a serious test of skill and judgement. [Please also refer to my earlier post clarifying that my reference to bidding strategy (and tactics) is not about methods/ conventions of bidding – conventions and treatments such as the 4/5 card major openings may be employed in support of a given strategy but they are not in themselves a strategy.]

 

You can obviously choose to do as you see fit and, since your stated objective is to get random outcomes, you can be take comfort from the fact that, if different pairs do  different things, they will get different rewards (some fair/ fortunate and some less so). In that sense, everyone can (sometimes) win but they can’t all be said to be pursuing winning strategies and, given near equivalent skill levels, the most consistent winners will be those whose strategy has been developed to take advantage of the way the scoring is done.

 

LIFE – ‘tis a puzzlement!

 

Bill

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jim Fox
Sent: 10 July 2014 23:31
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

Comment below in snipped text.

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Bill Hood
Sent: 07/10/2014 10:54 AM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

<snipped>

 

Bill:   [If you ask different groups of bridge players what they think the correct bidding strategy is, you will get different answers.]

 

MMbridge:  And we think that is a BAD thing?

 

<snipped>

 

Bill

 

Mmbridge

 

_______________________________________________

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
Jim Fox | 11 Jul 00:30 2014
Picon
Picon

Re: QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Comment below in snipped text.

 

From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Bill Hood
Sent: 07/10/2014 10:54 AM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] QWERTY (was IMP tables) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

<snipped>

 

Bill:   [If you ask different groups of bridge players what they think the correct bidding strategy is, you will get different answers.]

 

MMbridge:  And we think that is a BAD thing?

 

<snipped>

 

Bill

 

Mmbridge

 

_______________________________________________

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

Gmane