headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Oct 2007 01:01
Favicon

BLML Usage statistics

BLML usage statistics for September 2007

Posts   From
-----   ----
   81   richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au
   33   agot (at) ulb.ac.be
   27   hermandw (at) skynet.be
   22   Gampas (at) aol.com
   21   john (at) asimere.com
   20   ehaa (at) starpower.net
   17   guthrie (at) ntlworld.com
   17   ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com
   17   dalburn (at) btopenworld.com
   14   jfusselman (at) gmail.com
   14   grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk
   13   geller (at) nifty.com
   11   svenpran (at) online.no
    6   wjburrows (at) gmail.com
    6   willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu
    6   twm (at) cix.co.uk
    6   adam (at) irvine.com
    5   swillner (at) nhcc.net
    5   brian (at) meadows.pair.com
    4   mustikka (at) charter.net
    4   gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk
    4   ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au
    4   JffEstrsn (at) aol.com
    3   jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr
    3   andre.kriner (at) gmail.com
    2   t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 1 Oct 2007 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
Gampas | 1 Oct 2007 01:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

In a message dated 30/09/2007 19:27:05 GMT Standard Time,  
ereppert <at> rochester.rr.com writes:

>If you want the laws changed, you should  
>consider all the  beginners who have trouble enough remembering what  
>they're  supposed to be doing with *natural* bidding. You gonna make  
>their  forgets illegal too? Aside from that, save it until about 2015  
>-  when we can talk about changing the *next* iteration of the laws.   
>The 2007 changes are already in place, so you're just spinning  your  
>wheels.

Indeed you make some good points; and I am not in favour of having  different 
rules for beginners, so you persuade me that the current rules whereby  
misbids are permitted without penalty have to stand, and indeed now is not the  
time to propose changes.

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Oct 2007 01:52
Picon

October the First is Too Late [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>From the "...sixth sheep..." thread ->

Richard Hills (September 27th):

>>That sort of law change makes a considerable amount of
>>sense, since the TD would have fewer MI rulings to make
>>(albeit counter-balanced by more UI rulings, but in my
>>experience an accurate UI ruling is easier to assess than
>>an accurate MI ruling).
>>
>>The only technical problem

[snip]

Herman De Wael (September 27th):

>Good analysis Richard.

[snip]

Richard Hills (October the First):

Actually my analysis was a very bad analysis.  Although it
traversed what would be the technical problem in an ideal
world, it totally ignored the psychological problem in the
real world.

>From the "self-serving?" thread ->
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Grabiner | 1 Oct 2007 04:42
Picon
Favicon

When should an AC award a PP?

Appeals committees often award procedural penalties, and they do have the right 
to do so (they have all the powers of the Director except for the power to 
overrule the Director on a matter of law), but there aren't good guidelines.

I looked at Kaplan's articles on the role of an appeals committee.  The director 
is considered to be the expert on ascertaining the facts and interpreting the 
laws, but not on bridge judgement.  And from article 14, "Procedural penalties 
are rarely established initially by a Committee, although they may be (i.e., if 
a violation of correct procedure comes to light during a hearing into a related 
matter).  Normally, the penalty is imposed by a Director and is considered by 
Committee only on appeal.... Still, a Committee should tend strongly to uphold 
the Director's ruling, unless the case for lessening or removing the penalty is 
overwhelming, since the Director usually has the best knowledge of the facts, 
and is the one responsible for the operation of the contest."

Therefore, here is what I think the guidelines should be.

An appeals committee should freely award or modify a procedural penalty that it 
believes is justified:
For a procedural infraction that was made in the appeal itself (appeal without 
merit, behavior before the committee).
If the facts justifying the penalty or modification were not available to the 
Director.
If the justification for the penalty or modification is a matter of bridge 
judgement and the judgement was not clear to the Director.
If the comittee determines that the level of the penalty was inappropriate for 
the level of the player who committed the procedural infraction.

An appeals committee should normally accept a Director's ruling, but may award 
or modify a procedural penalty if it believes the Director made a mistake:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gampas | 1 Oct 2007 01:35
Picon
Favicon

Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

In a message dated 30/09/2007 19:27:05 GMT Standard Time, ereppert <at> rochester.rr.com writes:
>If you want the laws changed, you should 
>consider all the beginners who have trouble enough remembering what 
>they're supposed to be doing with *natural* bidding. You gonna make 
>their forgets illegal too? Aside from that, save it until about 2015 
>- when we can talk about changing the *next* iteration of the laws. 
>The 2007 changes are already in place, so you're just spinning your 
>wheels.
Indeed you make some good points; and I am not in favour of having different rules for beginners, so you persuade me that the current rules whereby misbids are permitted without penalty have to stand, and indeed now is not the time to propose changes.
 
 
_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Eric Landau | 1 Oct 2007 15:29
Favicon

Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick

On Sep 30, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Gampas <at> aol.com wrote:

> We are reluctant to change the rules of bridge yet there seems no good
> reason why a misbid should not be an infraction. If you forget to  
> sign your
> scorecard in golf you are disqualified. If, in chess, you forget to  
> press your
> clock on the last move before the time control you lose (unless you  
> notice in
> time). Yet forgetting a convention such as Ghestem might incur no   
> penalty; this
> is because of some illogical belief that forgetting your own   
> system should be
> allowed without penalty unless UI occurs. But I expect that a   
> change to the
> laws to make a misbid an infraction will not take place. And there   
> is the
> problem of distinguishing it from a psyche.

Those who have never heard of chess or golf already know how to press  
buttons and how to sign their names.  They do not need to understand  
their respective games before applying those skills.  They do not  
have to practice them.  Learning a bidding method is a whole  
different kettle of fish.  It must be learned in context.  If it is  
non-trivial, It may require considerable practice to master it  
fully.  Learning requires trial and error; learning as a partnership  
inevitably involves some significant potential for confusion and  
misunderstanding.

Making it illegal to forget or screw up a convention thus effectively  
prohibits partnerships from trying out new methods: you can't master  
it without practicing it, but you can't practice it without having  
mastered it.

Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa <at> starpower.net

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Robert Geller | 1 Oct 2007 15:57
Favicon

Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick

Something that seems to be missing from this discussion is the fact the
bridge is inherently a probabilistic game.   If your oppts fail to bid a game 
that goes down only when trumps are 5-0, and they get the only plus
score in the room you get a bottom, whereas the other 96% of the time 
you would have gotten a top.   That's just "the rub of the green."

Similarly, if your opponents in all innocence forget or screw up a convention
most of the time you get a good score.  Once in a while the "forget"
works out helping the oppts and you get a bad score.  That's also just
"the rub of the green."   There's no law guaraneeing you a good score
every time the oppts forget a convention.  You just have to take the
bitter with the sweet.

Of course intentional and repeated psychs of conventions 
are another kettle of fish altogether.....  The above is not intended to refer
to those.

-Bob

Eric Landau さんは書きました:
>On Sep 30, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Gampas <at> aol.com wrote:
>
>> We are reluctant to change the rules of bridge yet there seems no good
>> reason why a misbid should not be an infraction. If you forget to  
>> sign your
>> scorecard in golf you are disqualified. If, in chess, you forget to  
>> press your
>> clock on the last move before the time control you lose (unless you  
>> notice in
>> time). Yet forgetting a convention such as Ghestem might incur no   
>> penalty; this
>> is because of some illogical belief that forgetting your own   
>> system should be
>> allowed without penalty unless UI occurs. But I expect that a   
>> change to the
>> laws to make a misbid an infraction will not take place. And there   
>> is the
>> problem of distinguishing it from a psyche.
>
>Those who have never heard of chess or golf already know how to press  
>buttons and how to sign their names.  They do not need to understand  
>their respective games before applying those skills.  They do not  
>have to practice them.  Learning a bidding method is a whole  
>different kettle of fish.  It must be learned in context.  If it is  
>non-trivial, It may require considerable practice to master it  
>fully.  Learning requires trial and error; learning as a partnership  
>inevitably involves some significant potential for confusion and  
>misunderstanding.
>
>Making it illegal to forget or screw up a convention thus effectively  
>prohibits partnerships from trying out new methods: you can't master  
>it without practicing it, but you can't practice it without having  
>mastered it.
>
>Eric Landau
>1107 Dale Drive
>Silver Spring MD 20910
>ehaa <at> starpower.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml <at> amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller <at> nifty.com

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gampas | 1 Oct 2007 17:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick

In a message dated 01/10/2007 14:30:50 GMT Standard Time,  ehaa <at> starpower.net 
writes:

>Making it illegal to forget or screw up a convention thus  effectively  
>prohibits partnerships from trying out new methods:  you can't master  
>it without practicing it, but you can't practice  it without having  
>mastered it.

Yes; another good reason why forgets or misbids should occur no penalty per  
se. An ill-considered proposal my me!

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Gampas | 1 Oct 2007 18:01
Picon
Favicon

Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick

In a message dated 01/10/2007 16:57:46 GMT Standard Time, Gampas <at> aol.com  
writes:

>Yes; another good reason why forgets or misbids should occur no penalty  per 

>se. An ill-considered proposal my me!

That should have read "incur".

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane