headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Jun 2006 01:01
Favicon

List of BLML Abbreviations

(Automated, regular posting)

              Usenet Bridge Abbreviations

ABF        Australian Bridge Federation
AC         Appeals committee
ACBL       American Contract Bridge League
AI         Authorised information
ArtAS      Artificial adjusted score
AssAS      Assigned adjusted score
ATF        Across-the-field [matchpointing]
ATTNA      Appeal to the National Authority
BBL        British Bridge League [now defunct]
BGB        Bridge Great Britain
BIT        Break in Tempo
BLML       Bridge-laws mailing list
BoD        Board of directors [ACBL]
BoG        Board of governors [ACBL]
BOOT       Bid-Out-Of-Turn
CD         Convention Disruption
C&E        Conduct and ethics [often hearings]
CC         Convention card
CHO        Center Hand Opponent [ie partner]
CoC        Conditions of contest
COOT       Call-Out-Of-Turn
CoP        Code of practice
CPU        Concealed partnership understanding
CTD        Chief Tournament director
DBF        Danish Bridge Federation
DIC        Director in charge
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
tOM Trottier | 1 Jun 2006 08:59

Re: [games] Re: Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick
> .........
> > What is the appropriate remedy for taking extra turns at play?  When a
> > defender does so the remedy includes offering declarer the option that the
> > original card be a PC.

How can anyone have "extra turns" at play without 14+ cards?

tOM

---

          -- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur --
   ,__ <at>  	tOM Trottier, 758 Albert St,
 _-\_<, 	Ottawa ON Canada  K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*)	N45.412 W75.714 +1 613 860-6633
		Seattle: +1 206 350-6633  
                Abacurial Information Architecture
                            SETI stats

                  This world, after all our science 
                and sciences, is still a miracle; 
               wonderful, inscrutable, magical and 
              more, to whosoever will think of it. -
                         -Thomas Carlyle

> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim West-Meads | 1 Jun 2006 11:57
Picon

Re: Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

I'm not sure what point is being made here.

If declarer deliberately plays from the wrong hand that's an infraction 
and the TD imposes whatever penalty he sees fit.

If declarer accidentally plays from the wrong hand his opponents may 
accept the lead if such is to their advantage, or decline if not.
The declarer will be subject to an adverse adjusted score if either 
"could have known" or "possible UI gained" apply.

OTOH if the suggestion is that all the randomising mechanical penalties 
be scrapped and replaced with a simple "5% penalty, that's UI to partner 
and AI to NOS - play on" then I'd agree wholeheartedly.  Revoke 
penalties/PCs/Boots etc range in effect from 0 to 20+ IMPs in fairly 
random/arbitrary fashion - very silly IMO.

Tim

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 2 Jun 2006 10:07
Picon

Re: Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Grattan Endicott:

>+=+ For comparison I wonder if Richard considers the
>change to the application of the law adopted in 1998
>made the game "fairer and more equitable" ? -
>Viz:
>
>"There was a discussion of the procedure in awarding
>assigned adjusted scores following an irregularity.
>A change was made by the Committee in the
>interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is
>to be applied so that advantage gained by an
>offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to
>the infraction and not obtained solely by the good
>play of the offenders, shall be construed as an
>advantage in the table score whether consequent or
>subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-
>offending side shall be a consequence of the
>infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted
>score."
>                     ~ Grattan (wimp, 1987) ~  +=+

WBF Code of Practice, pages 5 and 6:

>>The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law
>>12C2) is appropriate when a violation of law
>>causes damage to an innocent side (although the
>>extent of redress to this side may be affected,
>>see below, if it has contributed to its own damage
>>by irrational, wild or gambling, action
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Tim West-Meads | 2 Jun 2006 11:42
Picon

Re: Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard wrote:

> As I interpret the 1998 minute, the adjusted score
> required at Table 2 is a split score of NS -100
> and EW -650.
> 
> As I interpret the CoP, the adjusted score
> required at Table 2 is a split score of NS +300
> and EW -650.

I think you are misinterpreting both.  Whatever score is assigned must 
be based on a contract of 4S so awarding NS -100/+300 assumes only 9 
tricks in that contract.

> My preference would be for neither of the above
> interpretations, as I consider neither of them
> "fair and equitable".  Rather, I would prefer
> the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split
> adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620.

Whereas I would assign a L12c3 score of:
20% of 650, 80% of 620 to both sides on the grounds that there is some 
chance that in the less pressured contract of 4S the lead may have been 
more helpful and/or the misplay not occurred.

Of course this might annoy Nigel because the L12c3 ruling is more 
beneficial to NOS than the L12c2 ruling would have been and he might 
have to stop making assertions about L12c3 requiring TDs to be overly 
generous to OS.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 2 Jun 2006 12:06
Picon

Re: Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au wrote:

[snip]

> 
> Imped teams.
> 
> At Table 1, the Team A North-South reach 4S, which
> makes eleven tricks on careful play for +650.
> 
> At Table 2, the Team B North-South also reach 4S,
> but the Team A East-West infract Law 16 to reach a
> cheap 5D save, would give North-South only +300 if
> they double.  North-South correctly bid on to the
> cold 5S, but then incorrectly misplay to make only
> ten tricks.
> 
> As I interpret the 1998 minute, the adjusted score
> required at Table 2 is a split score of NS -100
> and EW -650.
> 
> As I interpret the CoP, the adjusted score
> required at Table 2 is a split score of NS +300
> and EW -650.
> 
> My preference would be for neither of the above
> interpretations, as I consider neither of them
> "fair and equitable".  Rather, I would prefer
> the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split
> adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alain Gottcheiner | 2 Jun 2006 13:55
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

At 12:06 2/06/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote:

>Let's consider the case of a finesse, or maybe better of a complicated 
>play requiring a choice of which suit to attack first, with a failure rate 
>of 30%.
>
>I would like to compare the AS for a pair going down in 5S with the one 
>for a pair who do not bid the 5S to begin with.

If the line of play expected from the NOS is "complicated", I would decide 
that missing it is definitely not "failing to play bridge", and award them 
the score they would have got if there had been no infraction, i.e. +620. 
This is equity. And in any case of doubt (ie, Was missing this line an 
egregious error or not ? Perhaps), I would restore +620.

If we act otherwise, we would sooner or later encounter a case where 
declarer played in a strange way to cater for the case where the opponents' 
action *was* ethical (freak hand), and you'll tell him his line was 
inferior because it didn't cater for "ordinary" cases, so you don't adjust. 
This looks pretty wrong.

If we have to look harsh to one side or the other (and in the case 
described by Richard, we have), I'd rather be harsh to the OS. BTA I've 
always been known to out-herod Herod in L16A and L23 cases.

Regards, Alain

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

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Roger Pewick | 2 Jun 2006 14:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au>
To: <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Cc: <gesta <at> tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

> Grattan Endicott:
>
>>+=+ For comparison I wonder if Richard considers the
>>change to the application of the law adopted in 1998
>>made the game "fairer and more equitable" ? -
>>Viz:
>>
>>"There was a discussion of the procedure in awarding
>>assigned adjusted scores following an irregularity.
>>A change was made by the Committee in the
>>interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is
>>to be applied so that advantage gained by an
>>offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to
>>the infraction and not obtained solely by the good
>>play of the offenders, shall be construed as an
>>advantage in the table score whether consequent or
>>subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-
>>offending side shall be a consequence of the
>>infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted
>>score."
>>                     ~ Grattan (wimp, 1987) ~  +=+
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ed Reppert | 2 Jun 2006 18:24
Picon

Law 24

Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that  
because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand  
were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director  
shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until  
the auction closes; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently  
becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty  
card (Law 50)."

Can anyone explain to me why declarer, rather than the TD, gets to  
decide whether such a card is a penalty card? In practice, has any TD  
ever offered this option to declarer?

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 72 comments |
headers
Matthias Berghaus | 2 Jun 2006 23:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Law 24

Hello Ed,

Ed Reppert schrieb:
> Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that 
> because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand 
> were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director 
> shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until 
> the auction closes; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes 
> a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 
> 50)."

this is possibly thr most stupid law in the book, insofar as I am at a 
loss to comprehend how any declarer could choose not to treat it as a 
penalty card. Only if I do not want the suit to be led by an opening 
leader having a penalty card could this make any sense at all, but any 
thinking defender will now lead the suit anyway (probably much faster 
than he would have done otherwise), and this time with a systemic card, 
and not a more or less random one. A couple of years ago Max Bavin 
explained to me that the current L24 is only the remnant of a longer 
L24, and that  part of the former text has been cut, leaving today`s 
version, leading to vertain difficulties to understand why it is there. 
Not being in possession of those older versions of the laws I have to 
take his word for it (anyone know where to get them?).

>
> Can anyone explain to me why declarer, rather than the TD, gets to 
> decide whether such a card is a penalty card? 

See above. Another reasoning may be that declarer should have the chance 
to make the most of it, but see above again.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 71 comments |

Gmane