Herman De Wael | 1 Sep 08:43 2003
Picon

Re: Deleting a thread.

I've been following this discussion and had nothing to add, until now:

Jaap van der Neut wrote:
> 
> 4. Whatever you say about the interaction bewteen consultation and AC's, you
> twist historical relevance. Consultation is a new thing (in a way it is an
> AC with the TD as chair). Limited TD's and all powerful AC's is an old
> thing. They don't fit. With 'bad' TD's you need an AC. With good TD's and
> good consultation you don't need AC's. In a way you say so yourself. An AC
> should check if the consultation is done ok, if the AC players start
> overruling the consultation players you might as well skip the consultation.
> Why do everything twice. We are playing a game for god's sake. Like in any
> other sport you can expect the referee to take it serious, but apart from
> real glaring ridiculous mistakes (and in most sports not even that) you get
> only one ruling.
> 

Bridge is not like most sports, Jaap.
In Football, when the referee decides to award a penalty, there is 
nothing the infracting player can reasonably add to make the TD change 
his mind.
In Bridge however, the TD has to take into account a number of 
elements, some of which he needs to find out from the players, all 
four of them. Yet they are playing a different board next, and he does 
not want to disturb them even more than he already had to.
So there can arise situations where the party that has been ruled 
against finds itself with things left unsaid. They are allowed their 
"day in court".

Yes Jaap, you are allowed to argue in favour of abolishing committees. 
(Continue reading)

Herman De Wael | 1 Sep 08:54 2003
Picon

Re: The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"

Sven Pran wrote:

> 
>>What silly exceptions? The "exceptions" are part of the rules, and it
>>is your task as a TD to know them. I find all the rules in the lawbook
>>simple, straight and easy to understand. I have no problem with any of
>>them. But then I am a acting TD and you are not. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Are they? When the player making a mistake knows that he has a great
> possibility for recourse in calling the director and claim that what he did
> was not his intention: "everybody should understand that"
> 

No Sven. There is no player "making a mistake".
What we have here is a player being less than totally clear about 
which card he wants to play. And what we have is an opponent who wants 
to take advantage of the unclarity.
I am not talking of a player pointing to the wrong card and trying to 
change it.
I am not talking of a player who does not know diamonds are trumps and 
says "any red card".
I am talking of a player who is in full possession of his senses but 
fails to make this clear to the table.
That player has not made a mistake (under the current laws) and he 
does not need to "get away with it". Rather he has done something 
risky, because he has only "gotten away with it" because the TD 
decided it was incontrovertible.

"Everybody should understand that" - your words. Wrong choice of 
(Continue reading)

Skjaran, Harald | 1 Sep 09:30 2003
Picon

SV: Equity

Ed wrote:
> Law 93C - although I understand some places get around this by claiming
> the appeals committee at (some?) major tournaments *is* the National
> Authority. Seems a bit irregular to me. <shrug>

In Norway we have our LC present as AC at our national championships. The LC is tha NA. So no problem. At other
tournaments the AC decisions my be appealed to the LC. The final ranking and
prizes may be changed by the LC.

Regards,
Harald Skjæran, Oslo
_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

**********************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports
**********************************************************************

**************************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error 
please notify NIF at postmaster <at> nif.idrett.no. 

Abuse can be reported to abuse <at> nif.idrett.no
(Continue reading)

Kooijman, A. (Ton | 1 Sep 10:01 2003
Picon

RE: Deleting a thread.


Grattan:

>        So there it is, Jaap. Enough said on this. 

Jaap:

I probably have been too agressive with you on this
one.

One big difference between you and me is that I always react
to what you (or anybody) say.

***But the most important information you mostly deliver is that your
counterpart isn't able to play bridge and you are a top player, suggesting
that further discussion is not very useful. Try to skip those sentences for
a while and concentrate on the content. 

ton***

I have sat there many times in my early days
> on the tour listening to Pencharz telling the TDs at the
> preliminary meeting between the TAC and the TDs
> that they were expected to make the correct ruling
> called for in the law and not to rule automatically
> for the 'non-offenders'. +=+

Jaap:

Well, I don't keep books. But there was a long period, well after 1980,
(Continue reading)

Sven Pran | 1 Sep 10:41 2003
Picon
Picon

RE: The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"

> Herman De Wael 
> Sven Pran wrote:
> 
> >
> >>What silly exceptions? The "exceptions" are part of the rules, and it
> >>is your task as a TD to know them. I find all the rules in the lawbook
> >>simple, straight and easy to understand. I have no problem with any of
> >>them. But then I am a acting TD and you are not. Sorry.
> >
> >
> > Are they? When the player making a mistake knows that he has a great
> > possibility for recourse in calling the director and claim that what he
> did
> > was not his intention: "everybody should understand that"
> >
> 
> No Sven. There is no player "making a mistake".

No?

> What we have here is a player being less than totally clear about
> which card he wants to play. And what we have is an opponent who wants
> to take advantage of the unclarity.

What is wrong with training and requiring players to be precise in their
actions? And I am not talking about the inexperienced player striving to
master the game while his opponents tries to take advantage of him. 

.........
> I am talking of a player who is in full possession of his senses but
(Continue reading)

Herman De Wael | 1 Sep 11:33 2003
Picon

Re: "Play anything"

Karel, please.

Karel wrote:

> [snip ...]
> 
> 
> As other contributors have pointed out - why do we as TD's have to go such mental
> anguish and hardship in such cases when in reality declarer was
> 
> (a) asleep in which case we've done the opps out of a good score
> (b) a lazy sod who could not bother to make a more astute claim
> (c) forgot about the outstanding trump (extremely likely)
> (d) fancied he give the TD a work out.
> 
> To be honest a few "Burns" like ruling would swiftly put this operator out of
> business and would see such ridiculous TD time wasting cases substancially reduced.
>  One has to draw the line somewhere.  IMO when a declarer claims the rest or
> any other nebulous claim and an opponent has an outstanding trump he should
> be automatically ruled against.  If he knows there is an outstanding trump his
> claim should cover it specifically otherwise we assume he forgot about it.
> 

Karel, please.
You give four examples, each of which, in itself, would be enough to 
rule against the lazy sod.
You use that as an argument to criticize laws which do not rule 
against a player who has done far less than any of those four.
Please.
The TD has to decide whether any of the four things you cite above is 
(Continue reading)

Herman De Wael | 1 Sep 11:49 2003
Picon

Re: The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"

Sven Pran wrote:

>>Herman De Wael 
>>
>>No Sven. There is no player "making a mistake".
> 
> 
> No?
> 

No. I am talking of people who made no mistake other than inclarity.
I am trying to find out why this player would have said "play 
anything" rather than "a heart", and when I have found out, I will 
rule if he has made a mistake. If he has, I rule against him. So then 
we have no discussion. We are only discussing the cases where I find 
out he has made no mistake (he knew the diamonds were trumps and he 
intended to say "play anything but a diamond"). So, no, there is no 
player "making a mistake".

> 
>>What we have here is a player being less than totally clear about
>>which card he wants to play. And what we have is an opponent who wants
>>to take advantage of the unclarity.
> 
> 
> What is wrong with training and requiring players to be precise in their
> actions? And I am not talking about the inexperienced player striving to
> master the game while his opponents tries to take advantage of him. 
> 

(Continue reading)

dalburn | 1 Sep 12:20 2003

Re: The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"

Herman wrote:

>I am trying to find out why this player would have said "play  anything" rather than "a heart", and when I have
found out, I will rule if he has made a mistake.

Why, Herman, do you persist in this mind-reading approach to tournament directing? Do you think that
everyone in the world will honestly tell you why they acted as they did? If it becomes established that the
director will only rule on what you did after he has found out the innermost workings of your mind, then
players are simply going to say whatever will obtain for them the most favourable ruling.

This simply will not work, and I cannot believe that anyone could be so naive as to assume that it has any
chance of working. If a player says "play anything", then he has indicated that he does not care what is
played; he is therefore assumed for legal purposes to play that card least advantageous to his side. This,
contrary to the Mystic Meg School of Ruling, will work, and is the only way of being both consistent and fair.

David Burn
London, England

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Sven Pran | 1 Sep 12:31 2003
Picon
Picon

RE: The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"

> Herman De Wael
.......
> >>"Everybody should understand that" - your words. Wrong choice of
> >>words. If everybody should understand it, it means some don't. When
> >>some don't, it's not incontrovertible and the TD should rule against.
> >
> >
> > I am glad reading you expressing that view. So the next time my
> opponents
> > claim and eventually utter the words "everybody should understand that I
> > would ....." I can just say: "No, that is not obvious to me" and we have
> > ended that discussion?
> >
> 
> Yes, if the TD agrees with you that it is not obvious, he should rule
> against you.

Against me? I hope that was just a simple misprint?

But how can the TD read my mind and say that I am wrong in stating it is not
obvious to me? I do not need his "agreement". According to your own words
(with which I heartily agree) I may say that "this is not obvious to me"
(and that must be considered a fact), hence it is not incontrovertible.

..........
> > There is no "conflict" between a game strictly regulated by rules and
> that
> > same game played gentlemanly.
> >
> 
(Continue reading)

Skjaran, Harald | 1 Sep 13:00 2003
Picon

SV: The terms: "Incontrovertible" and "Irrational"

David Burn wrote:

Herman wrote:

>I am trying to find out why this player would have said "play  anything" rather than "a heart", and when I have
found out, I will rule if he has made a mistake.

Why, Herman, do you persist in this mind-reading approach to tournament directing? Do you think that
everyone in the world will honestly tell you why they acted as they did? If it becomes established that the
director will only rule on what you did after he has found out the innermost workings of your mind, then
players are simply going to say whatever will obtain for them the most favourable ruling.

This simply will not work, and I cannot believe that anyone could be so naive as to assume that it has any
chance of working. If a player says "play anything", then he has indicated that he does not care what is
played; he is therefore assumed for legal purposes to play that card least advantageous to his side. This,
contrary to the Mystic Meg School of Ruling, will work, and is the only way of being both consistent and fair.

-----
Well put.

Regards,
Harald Skjæran, Oslo
-----

David Burn
London, England

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
(Continue reading)


Gmane