Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ping Richard re: Another Baseball Question
19 views
Skip to first unread message
M C Hamster
May 19, 2012, 5:15:01 PM5/19/12
to
In yesterday's Cubs - White Sox game, there was this interesting play.
http://tinyurl.com/7e6sndr
The Cubs' David DeJesus was thrown out trying to stretch a single into
a double. The replay (despite the ridiculous commentary of the White
Sox announcers who are almost universally recognized as the worst in
all of baseball) shows clearly that the Sox second baseman knocked
DeJesus off the base after he was already safely on the base, then
tagged him and thus DeJesus was ruled out.
The discussion at the bottom of this page (http://tinyurl.com/8ybtbag)
seems to suggest that there is no clear rule in the books preventing a
defensive player from pushing a player off a base and then tagging him
out.
I really wanted the Cubs' first baseman, the next time the Sox had a
runner on first, to just grab him and shove him off the base and then
tag him and claim that he was out. Y'know, just to see what would
happen.
It seems like areas like "interference" and "obstruction" don't really
apply, but I suppose they would be invoked.
--
"Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
http://tinyurl.com/7e6sndr
The Cubs' David DeJesus was thrown out trying to stretch a single into
a double. The replay (despite the ridiculous commentary of the White
Sox announcers who are almost universally recognized as the worst in
all of baseball) shows clearly that the Sox second baseman knocked
DeJesus off the base after he was already safely on the base, then
tagged him and thus DeJesus was ruled out.
The discussion at the bottom of this page (http://tinyurl.com/8ybtbag)
seems to suggest that there is no clear rule in the books preventing a
defensive player from pushing a player off a base and then tagging him
out.
I really wanted the Cubs' first baseman, the next time the Sox had a
runner on first, to just grab him and shove him off the base and then
tag him and claim that he was out. Y'know, just to see what would
happen.
It seems like areas like "interference" and "obstruction" don't really
apply, but I suppose they would be invoked.
--
"Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
doc...@gmail.com
May 19, 2012, 8:33:06 PM5/19/12
to
Richard R. Hershberger
May 20, 2012, 6:37:37 PM5/20/12
to
On May 19, 5:15 pm, M C Hamster <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In yesterday's Cubs - White Sox game, there was this interesting play.http://tinyurl.com/7e6sndr
That being said, you are correct that this is not obstruction, as by
definition obstruction only applies to as fielder not in possession of
or in the act of fielding the ball.
So why can't a fielder, while holding the ball, simply push a runner
off the bag? One of my recurring themes is that the written rules for
sports are never complete. There is always stuff that "everyone
knows". This can get interesting when a sport is expanding by written
word rather than through personal contact. This occurred in the late
1850s when the "New York game," the direct ancestor of the modern
game, was expanding outside the New York metro area. The Q & A
columns in the sporting papers are fascinating. They show you what
concepts were unfamiliar. There were, for example, a lot of questions
about foul territory, which was not a feature of most of the pre-
modern versions of baseball generally familiar throughout the country.
So far as I know, there has never been a rule that a fielder cannot
push a runner off the bag. Everyone has always known this, and were a
fielder to try this, the umpires would enforce the tacit rule. This
sort of situation is exactly why 9.01(c) is there.
As for the play in question here, my guess is that the umpire's logic
was that the collision and removal from the bag was an organic part of
how the play worked out, not the result of any intentional effort by
the fielder. My gut reaction is that I would have ruled the other
way, but there may be some established precedent on this sort of thing
not in the published rules (or perhaps there is, and I missed it).
Richard R. Hershberger
> In yesterday's Cubs - White Sox game, there was this interesting play.http://tinyurl.com/7e6sndr
>
> The Cubs' David DeJesus was thrown out trying to stretch a single into
> a double. The replay (despite the ridiculous commentary of the White
> Sox announcers who are almost universally recognized as the worst in
> all of baseball) shows clearly that the Sox second baseman knocked
> DeJesus off the base after he was already safely on the base, then
> tagged him and thus DeJesus was ruled out.
>
> The discussion at the bottom of this page (http://tinyurl.com/8ybtbag)
> seems to suggest that there is no clear rule in the books preventing a
> defensive player from pushing a player off a base and then tagging him
> out.
>
> I really wanted the Cubs' first baseman, the next time the Sox had a
> runner on first, to just grab him and shove him off the base and then
> tag him and claim that he was out. Y'know, just to see what would
> happen.
>
> It seems like areas like "interference" and "obstruction" don't really
> apply, but I suppose they would be invoked.
There are no gaps in the rules, on account of 9.01(c).
> The Cubs' David DeJesus was thrown out trying to stretch a single into
> a double. The replay (despite the ridiculous commentary of the White
> Sox announcers who are almost universally recognized as the worst in
> all of baseball) shows clearly that the Sox second baseman knocked
> DeJesus off the base after he was already safely on the base, then
> tagged him and thus DeJesus was ruled out.
>
> The discussion at the bottom of this page (http://tinyurl.com/8ybtbag)
> seems to suggest that there is no clear rule in the books preventing a
> defensive player from pushing a player off a base and then tagging him
> out.
>
> I really wanted the Cubs' first baseman, the next time the Sox had a
> runner on first, to just grab him and shove him off the base and then
> tag him and claim that he was out. Y'know, just to see what would
> happen.
>
> It seems like areas like "interference" and "obstruction" don't really
> apply, but I suppose they would be invoked.
That being said, you are correct that this is not obstruction, as by
definition obstruction only applies to as fielder not in possession of
or in the act of fielding the ball.
So why can't a fielder, while holding the ball, simply push a runner
off the bag? One of my recurring themes is that the written rules for
sports are never complete. There is always stuff that "everyone
knows". This can get interesting when a sport is expanding by written
word rather than through personal contact. This occurred in the late
1850s when the "New York game," the direct ancestor of the modern
game, was expanding outside the New York metro area. The Q & A
columns in the sporting papers are fascinating. They show you what
concepts were unfamiliar. There were, for example, a lot of questions
about foul territory, which was not a feature of most of the pre-
modern versions of baseball generally familiar throughout the country.
So far as I know, there has never been a rule that a fielder cannot
push a runner off the bag. Everyone has always known this, and were a
fielder to try this, the umpires would enforce the tacit rule. This
sort of situation is exactly why 9.01(c) is there.
As for the play in question here, my guess is that the umpire's logic
was that the collision and removal from the bag was an organic part of
how the play worked out, not the result of any intentional effort by
the fielder. My gut reaction is that I would have ruled the other
way, but there may be some established precedent on this sort of thing
not in the published rules (or perhaps there is, and I missed it).
Richard R. Hershberger
M C Hamster
May 21, 2012, 12:40:01 AM5/21/12
to
rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>As for the play in question here, my guess is that the umpire's logic
>was that the collision and removal from the bag was an organic part of
>how the play worked out, not the result of any intentional effort by
>the fielder. My gut reaction is that I would have ruled the other
>way, but there may be some established precedent on this sort of thing
>not in the published rules (or perhaps there is, and I missed it).
>
Hrbek and Ron Gant of the Braves, in the 1991 World Series, which
resembled the play in the Cubs - White Sox game. It's included on a
web site of the "Worst 10 Umpiring Calls in Major League Baseball".
http://tinyurl.com/77qouae
As the Twins won that game 3-2 and won the series 4 games to 3, it was
a pretty momentous play. Remarkably, I cannot find video of the play
online anywhere, but it seems nearly everyone feels Hrbek shoved Gant
off the base and then he was called out, and should not have been.
D.F. Manno
May 21, 2012, 7:41:24 PM5/21/12
to
In article <ksgjr7t2hrvbtml59...@4ax.com>,
in these rules."
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"You won't like me when I'm angry. Because I always back up my rage with
facts and documented sources." - The Credible Hulk
M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
> Richard R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> >So far as I know, there has never been a rule that a fielder cannot
> >push a runner off the bag. Everyone has always known this, and were a
> >fielder to try this, the umpires would enforce the tacit rule. This
> >sort of situation is exactly why 9.01(c) is there.
>
> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> Richard R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> >So far as I know, there has never been a rule that a fielder cannot
> >push a runner off the bag. Everyone has always known this, and were a
> >fielder to try this, the umpires would enforce the tacit rule. This
> >sort of situation is exactly why 9.01(c) is there.
>
> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
in these rules."
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"You won't like me when I'm angry. Because I always back up my rage with
facts and documented sources." - The Credible Hulk
M C Hamster
May 22, 2012, 12:07:02 AM5/22/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>
wrote:
>In article <ksgjr7t2hrvbtml59...@4ax.com>,
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So far as I know, there has never been a rule that a fielder cannot
>> >push a runner off the bag. Everyone has always known this, and were a
>> >fielder to try this, the umpires would enforce the tacit rule. This
>> >sort of situation is exactly why 9.01(c) is there.
>>
>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>
>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>in these rules."
Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
whining". It seems kind of meta.
Are there rules like that for policemen, and other authority figures?
It's kind of like vigilante law.
It's also the fact that "during the course of a game each umpire has
the authority to make a call which may be in clear violation of the
rules but needs to be accepted at that time. A team can play a game
under protest and file an appeal later on." The first part of that
seems like a rule that doesn't really need to be a rule... only the
part about filing a protest.
wrote:
>In article <ksgjr7t2hrvbtml59...@4ax.com>,
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So far as I know, there has never been a rule that a fielder cannot
>> >push a runner off the bag. Everyone has always known this, and were a
>> >fielder to try this, the umpires would enforce the tacit rule. This
>> >sort of situation is exactly why 9.01(c) is there.
>>
>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>
>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>in these rules."
I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
whining". It seems kind of meta.
Are there rules like that for policemen, and other authority figures?
It's kind of like vigilante law.
It's also the fact that "during the course of a game each umpire has
the authority to make a call which may be in clear violation of the
rules but needs to be accepted at that time. A team can play a game
under protest and file an appeal later on." The first part of that
seems like a rule that doesn't really need to be a rule... only the
part about filing a protest.
Greg Goss
May 22, 2012, 1:24:41 AM5/22/12
to
M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
>>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
>>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>>
>>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>>in these rules."
>
>Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
>I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
>happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
>up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
>whining". It seems kind of meta.
Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
>>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
>>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>>
>>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>>in these rules."
>
>Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
>I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
>happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
>up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
>whining". It seems kind of meta.
something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Richard R. Hershberger
May 22, 2012, 7:18:54 AM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 1:24 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> M C Hamster <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com>
"God rule".
Richard R. Hershberger
> M C Hamster <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
> >>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
> >>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>
> >>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> >>in these rules."
>
> >Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
> >I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
> >happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
> >up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
> >whining". It seems kind of meta.
>
> Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
> something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
> It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
A buddy of mine who used to be an amateur umpire called 9.01(c) the
> >>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
> >>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
> >>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>
> >>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> >>in these rules."
>
> >Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
> >I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
> >happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
> >up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
> >whining". It seems kind of meta.
>
> Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
> something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
> It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
"God rule".
Richard R. Hershberger
Mark Steese
May 22, 2012, 3:18:47 PM5/22/12
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:a20m95...@mid.individual.net:
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
>>>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
>>>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>>>
>>>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically
>>>covered in these rules."
>>
>>Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>>
>>I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
>>happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
>>up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
>>whining". It seems kind of meta.
>
> Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
> something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
> It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
On the contrary. Baseball is the ultimate "bunch of guys standing around
and scratching themselves while nothing happens" game. The players let the
ump have all the responsibility because they don't want any of it: they're
content to let him be the Dean Wormer to their Delta House.
--
"Create"? A slip of the word processor? No. The word signals Watsonville's
belated entry into modern madness where technicians make promises
traditionally reserved for the gods. -Frank Bardacke
news:a20m95...@mid.individual.net:
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
>>>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
>>>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>>>
>>>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically
>>>covered in these rules."
>>
>>Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>>
>>I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
>>happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
>>up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
>>whining". It seems kind of meta.
>
> Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
> something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
> It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
and scratching themselves while nothing happens" game. The players let the
ump have all the responsibility because they don't want any of it: they're
content to let him be the Dean Wormer to their Delta House.
--
"Create"? A slip of the word processor? No. The word signals Watsonville's
belated entry into modern madness where technicians make promises
traditionally reserved for the gods. -Frank Bardacke
Mark Brader
May 22, 2012, 4:50:34 PM5/22/12
to
D.F. Manno quotes:
Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
See <http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "This man must be very ignorant, for he answers
m...@vex.net | every question he is asked." -- Voltaire
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>> in these rules."
"M C Hamster":
>> in these rules."
> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
See <http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "This man must be very ignorant, for he answers
m...@vex.net | every question he is asked." -- Voltaire
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Richard R. Hershberger
May 22, 2012, 8:09:10 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 3:18 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote innews:a20m95...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > M C Hamster <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com>
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote innews:a20m95...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > M C Hamster <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
> >>>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
> >>>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>
> >>>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically
> >>>covered in these rules."
>
> >>Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
> >>I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
> >>happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
> >>up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
> >>whining". It seems kind of meta.
>
> > Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
> > something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
> > It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
>
> On the contrary. Baseball is the ultimate "bunch of guys standing around
> and scratching themselves while nothing happens" game.
I take it that you are unfamiliar with cricket.
>
> >>>> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
> >>>> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
> >>>> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>
> >>>"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically
> >>>covered in these rules."
>
> >>Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
> >>I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
> >>happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
> >>up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
> >>whining". It seems kind of meta.
>
> > Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
> > something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
> > It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
>
> On the contrary. Baseball is the ultimate "bunch of guys standing around
> and scratching themselves while nothing happens" game.
Richard R. Hershberger
May 22, 2012, 8:18:09 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 12:07 am, M C Hamster <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net>
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <ksgjr7t2hrvbtml59uchrl50hs1g0j7...@4ax.com>,
the umpire (most likely borrowing the concept from cricket) was a
great advance in making the game suitable for organized adult play.
But you need to say who is this guy and what is he there for. Hence
rules specifying the authority of the umpire go very far back. In the
1845 Knickerbocker rules we have rule 2, "When assembled for exercise,
the President, or in his absence the Vice-President, shall appoint an
Umpire, who shall keep the game in a book provided for that purpose,
and not all violations of the By-Laws and Rules during the time of
exercise" and rule 17, "All disputes and differences relative to the
game, to be decided by the Umpire, from which there is no appeal."
Fun fact: through 1857 the custom when two clubs met in a match game
was that each club had its own umpire. If they could not agree on
some point of dispute, they turned to a neutral referee. This worked
as well as you would expect, so in 1858 they dropped the two club
umpires, kept the neutral referee, but reassigned the word "umpire" to
him.
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:24 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <ksgjr7t2hrvbtml59uchrl50hs1g0j7...@4ax.com>,
> >> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> >> >So far as I know, there has never been a rule that a fielder cannot
> >> >push a runner off the bag. Everyone has always known this, and were a
> >> >fielder to try this, the umpires would enforce the tacit rule. This
> >> >sort of situation is exactly why 9.01(c) is there.
>
> >> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
> >> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
> >> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>
> >"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> >in these rules."
>
> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
> I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
> happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
> up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
> whining". It seems kind of meta.
Remember that modern baseball evolved from a schoolyard game. Adding
>
> >> >So far as I know, there has never been a rule that a fielder cannot
> >> >push a runner off the bag. Everyone has always known this, and were a
> >> >fielder to try this, the umpires would enforce the tacit rule. This
> >> >sort of situation is exactly why 9.01(c) is there.
>
> >> What is 9.01(c)? Like "if the umpires aren't clear as to whether a
> >> rule applies or not, they are permitted to make up whatever rulings
> >> they want?" Decisions of the judges are final. Like that?
>
> >"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> >in these rules."
>
> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
> I mean, I don't know if you really need a rule that says "if something
> happens which isn't covered by a rule, then whatever the umpire makes
> up needs to be obeyed by everyone, and just shut up about it and stop
> whining". It seems kind of meta.
the umpire (most likely borrowing the concept from cricket) was a
great advance in making the game suitable for organized adult play.
But you need to say who is this guy and what is he there for. Hence
rules specifying the authority of the umpire go very far back. In the
1845 Knickerbocker rules we have rule 2, "When assembled for exercise,
the President, or in his absence the Vice-President, shall appoint an
Umpire, who shall keep the game in a book provided for that purpose,
and not all violations of the By-Laws and Rules during the time of
exercise" and rule 17, "All disputes and differences relative to the
game, to be decided by the Umpire, from which there is no appeal."
Fun fact: through 1857 the custom when two clubs met in a match game
was that each club had its own umpire. If they could not agree on
some point of dispute, they turned to a neutral referee. This worked
as well as you would expect, so in 1858 they dropped the two club
umpires, kept the neutral referee, but reassigned the word "umpire" to
him.
Richard R. Hershberger
doc...@gmail.com
May 22, 2012, 8:58:01 PM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:18:09 PM UTC-4, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> > >"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> > >in these rules."
> >
> > Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
Such a provision is pretty standard in any complicated sport, except it's usually not EACH official, but the head official. It's that way for the referee in American, Canadian, and rugby football, at least.
> > >"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> > >in these rules."
> >
> > Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
> Fun fact: through 1857 the custom when two clubs met in a match game
> was that each club had its own umpire. If they could not agree on
> some point of dispute, they turned to a neutral referee. This worked
> as well as you would expect, so in 1858 they dropped the two club
> umpires, kept the neutral referee, but reassigned the word "umpire" to
> him.
Bob in the Bronx
M C Hamster
May 23, 2012, 1:02:09 AM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:50:34 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>D.F. Manno quotes:
>>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>>> in these rules."
>
>"M C Hamster":
>> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
>See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
>
>Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
>
> The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
> Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
> particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
>
>See <http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
>D.F. Manno quotes:
>>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>>> in these rules."
>
>"M C Hamster":
>> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>
>See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
>
>Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
>
> The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
> Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
> particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
>
>See <http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
"Nope, nope, sorry, you took too long making your next bid...that's
500 points above the line for your opponents."
"Oh, too bad, the dummy hand you just displayed shows the suits in the
wrong order left to right... that automatically awards the game to
your opponents. Sorry!"
bill van
May 23, 2012, 2:11:53 AM5/23/12
to
In article <a91or717vu63kbgsu...@4ax.com>,
to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
victims were world-class bridge players or the little old ladies at the
community centre, they would tear you limb from limb.
bill
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:50:34 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
> >D.F. Manno quotes:
> >>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> >>> in these rules."
> >
> >"M C Hamster":
> >> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
> >
> >See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
> >
> >Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
> >
> > The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
> > Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
> > particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
> >
> >See
> ><http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
>
> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
Sorry, but rubber bridge is never played at tournaments. There is no way
>
> >D.F. Manno quotes:
> >>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
> >>> in these rules."
> >
> >"M C Hamster":
> >> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
> >
> >See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
> >
> >Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
> >
> > The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
> > Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
> > particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
> >
> >See
> ><http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
>
> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
>
> "Nope, nope, sorry, you took too long making your next bid...that's
> 500 points above the line for your opponents."
>
> "Oh, too bad, the dummy hand you just displayed shows the suits in the
> wrong order left to right... that automatically awards the game to
> your opponents. Sorry!"
You wouldn't last more than three seconds doing that. Whether your
> "Nope, nope, sorry, you took too long making your next bid...that's
> 500 points above the line for your opponents."
>
> "Oh, too bad, the dummy hand you just displayed shows the suits in the
> wrong order left to right... that automatically awards the game to
> your opponents. Sorry!"
victims were world-class bridge players or the little old ladies at the
community centre, they would tear you limb from limb.
bill
Mark Steese
May 23, 2012, 11:27:45 AM5/23/12
to
bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
news:billvan-7C3AAF...@news.shawcable.net:
Cf. the famous cry of the disgruntled baseball fan: "Kill the umpire!"
--
Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
conversation. -Rebecca Solnit
news:billvan-7C3AAF...@news.shawcable.net:
--
Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
conversation. -Rebecca Solnit
M C Hamster
May 23, 2012, 1:47:00 PM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 23:11:53 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:
>In article <a91or717vu63kbgsu...@4ax.com>,
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:50:34 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>> >D.F. Manno quotes:
>> >>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>> >>> in these rules."
>> >
>> >"M C Hamster":
>> >> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>> >
>> >See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
>> >
>> >Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
>> >
>> > The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
>> > Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
>> > particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
>> >
>> >See
>> ><http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
>>
>> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
>> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
>
>Sorry, but rubber bridge is never played at tournaments. There is no way
>to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
>only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
>our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
>duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
I did know that. My penalties would need to be aligned with it being
duplicate bridge, agreed.
>>
>> "Nope, nope, sorry, you took too long making your next bid...that's
>> 500 points above the line for your opponents."
>>
>> "Oh, too bad, the dummy hand you just displayed shows the suits in the
>> wrong order left to right... that automatically awards the game to
>> your opponents. Sorry!"
>
>You wouldn't last more than three seconds doing that. Whether your
>victims were world-class bridge players or the little old ladies at the
>community centre, they would tear you limb from limb.
>
I would think that would be grounds for severe penalties being
imposed.
wrote:
>In article <a91or717vu63kbgsu...@4ax.com>,
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:50:34 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>> >D.F. Manno quotes:
>> >>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>> >>> in these rules."
>> >
>> >"M C Hamster":
>> >> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>> >
>> >See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
>> >
>> >Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
>> >
>> > The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
>> > Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
>> > particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
>> >
>> >See
>> ><http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
>>
>> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
>> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
>
>Sorry, but rubber bridge is never played at tournaments. There is no way
>to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
>only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
>our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
>duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
duplicate bridge, agreed.
>>
>> "Nope, nope, sorry, you took too long making your next bid...that's
>> 500 points above the line for your opponents."
>>
>> "Oh, too bad, the dummy hand you just displayed shows the suits in the
>> wrong order left to right... that automatically awards the game to
>> your opponents. Sorry!"
>
>You wouldn't last more than three seconds doing that. Whether your
>victims were world-class bridge players or the little old ladies at the
>community centre, they would tear you limb from limb.
>
imposed.
M C Hamster
May 23, 2012, 2:01:00 PM5/23/12
to
>In article <a91or717vu63kbgsu...@4ax.com>,
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:50:34 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>> >D.F. Manno quotes:
>> >>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>> >>> in these rules."
>> >
>> >"M C Hamster":
>> >> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>> >
>> >See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
>> >
>> >Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
>> >
>> > The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
>> > Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
>> > particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
>> >
>> >See
>> ><http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
>>
>> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
>> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
>
>Sorry, but rubber bridge is never played at tournaments. There is no way
>to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
>only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
>our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
>duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
Actually I think there are rubber bridge tournaments, small t. Here's
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:50:34 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>> >D.F. Manno quotes:
>> >>> "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered
>> >>> in these rules."
>> >
>> >"M C Hamster":
>> >> Wait. Is that a joke? Is that actually what 9.01(c) says?
>> >
>> >See <http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp>.
>> >
>> >Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
>> >
>> > The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
>> > Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
>> > particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
>> >
>> >See
>> ><http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
>>
>> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
>> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
>
>Sorry, but rubber bridge is never played at tournaments. There is no way
>to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
>only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
>our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
>duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
an example: http://www.spsimpson.com/bcsa/flyer_rubber_bridge.pdf They
may not be govered by the World Bridge Association's laws, agreed.
When some small local organization does a duplicate bridge tournament,
how do they do that logistically? If there are, say, 12 tables of
teams competing, and, er, let's just say 10 deals which comprise the
small tournament, that's 120 decks which would need to have the cards
separated.
Or is what happens is that the decks are kept separated during the
playing of a hand, and those are then passed on to the next team? (Or
do the teams just move from table to table and the cards stay at the
table?) I guess that must be what happens.
Are the teams two-person teams only? Or are there 4 people on a
"team"? If only two-person teams, then I don't quite understand how
you can compare those who play North-South at one table against
players who played East-West at that same table. I do understand the
scores are compared to others who played the same hands, but if, say,
playing the North-South hand is "trickier", and the East-West hand is
pretty much a "no brainer", then those playing East-West have less
opportunity to distinguish themselves from their opponents. If there
are 4 person teams, then you could force your team to play both the
North-South and East-West hands, equalizing everything.
Of course in this case I would try to cheat and let my teammates who
are going to play that table what to expect. I suppose that sort of
thing is frowned on.
Mark Brader
May 23, 2012, 3:11:02 PM5/23/12
to
Mark Brader:
that most tournament bridge players exist in.
> They may not be govered by the World Bridge Association's
(Federation, actually.)
> laws, agreed.
Well, they're not governed by the duplicate bridge laws, which are what
I quoted. There's a separate set of laws for rubber bridge, which,
notably, do not require a director to exist.
> When some small local organization does a duplicate bridge tournament,
> how do they do that logistically? If there are, say, 12 tables of
> teams competing, and, er, let's just say 10 deals which comprise the
> small tournament,
A deal is called a "board", for reasons which will be obvious in a
few sentences. 10 boards is too short for a reasonable match.
With 12 tables you will usually play either play 24 boards, 2 each
against 12 of the other pairs, or 27 boards, 3 each against 9 of the
other pairs.
> that's 120 decks
Actually 24 or 27 decks.
> which would need to have the cards separated.
See below.
> Or is what happens is that the decks are kept separated during the
> playing of a hand,
Exactly. As each person plays a card they leave it in front of them,
not in the middle of the table.
> and those are then passed on to the next team?
Exactly. A holder called a duplicate board is used; it has 4 slots,
one for each hand of 13 cards. Hence "board".
http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
In practice the cards are stored in the boards between game. A bridge
club will have several sets of boards (depending on how large their
game is), typically 36 boards in a set, with one deck of cards in each
one. Organizations running big tournaments have lots of boards.
> (Or do the teams just move from table to table and the cards stay
> at the table?) I guess that must be what happens.
This format is also possible, but not usual.
> Are the teams two-person teams only?
The most common type of duplicate bridge is "pairs", where the answer
is yes.
> Or are there 4 people on a "team"?
This form of play is also possible, and is what is meant by "teams".
There are also "individual" events, where you play with a succession
of partners as well as against a succession of opponents. They aren't
common here and I've never played in one, or wanted to.
> If only two-person teams, then I don't quite understand how
> you can compare those who play North-South at one table against
> players who played East-West at that same table.
There are several ways of arranging and scoring pairs game. The
simplest, the basic Mitchell movement, is a "two-winner" movement:
it produces a North-South winner and a separate East-West winner
(and a N-S second place and E-W second place, and so on for as
many positions as they choose to recognize).
However, if the N-S winner gets 63% of the total number of possible
matchpoints (comparison points) available, and the E-W winner gets
65%, then in some events the E-W winner will be declared the
overall winner.
A fairer comparison involves having pairs play E-W some of the time
and N-S some of the time, but I don't have time to go into that now.
> I do understand the
> scores are compared to others who played the same hands, but if, say,
> playing the North-South hand is "trickier", and the East-West hand is
> pretty much a "no brainer", then those playing East-West have less
> opportunity to distinguish themselves from their opponents.
There's no distinction as to whether you got a good score on any
particular board because you were brilliant or because your opponents
were stupid, or because you had the "no brainer" side and your
opponents got it wrong, or because you had the "tricky" side and
nevertheless got it right. This stuff averages out from one board
to another.
> If there are 4 person teams, then you could force your team to play
> both the North-South and East-West hands, equalizing everything.
Actually, what really equalizes things at teams is that if N-S of
team 1 and E-W of team 2 play a particular deal, then when E-W of
team 1 play that same board, *they play against N-S of team 2*.
So there is a direct comparison. This isn't true at pairs.
> Of course in this case I would try to cheat and let my teammates who
> are going to play that table what to expect. I suppose that sort of
> thing is frowned on.
Hell yeah!
Now as to "needing the cards separated": There are three common ways
that the hands get prepared into deals before play. The simplest way
is that before the first round of the game, the players take the cards
in their boards, shuffle, and deal them out. The downside of this is
that even today there are still too many players who don't shuffle
enough times. (The recommended number is 7 riffle shuffles.)
Another way is that a computer prepares the deals using a pseudo-random
number generator, and a dealing machine (using OCR, or sometimes a
bar-code on each card) identifies the cards and deals them into four
stacks representing the hands:
http://www.bridgeguys.com/graphics/Duplimate.jpg
The in-between way is that the pseudo-random deals are printed on paper
and a few of them are handed to the players, who set up the decks
appropriately. Typically one player takes all the clubs and then
hands them out to the other players as indicated, and similarly for
the other suits. It only takes a couple of minutes to prepare a board.
The movement must then be arranged so that neither the N-S pair nor the
E-W pair will play this board.
In either case where a computer prepares the deals, a record of all
the hands is made available out to the players after the session, so
they can discuss to their heart's content whether they should have
played board 27 in a contract of 4 spades or 3 no trump.
You might like to read http://www.pagat.com/boston/bridge.html
for a general introduction to the procedures of bridge, including
the two major types of duplicate and other variations.
--
Mark Brader "By this time I was feeling guilty. No, correction,
Toronto I was feeling that I *should* feel guilty ..."
m...@vex.net -- Jude Devereaux
>>>> Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
>>>>
>>>> The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
>>>> Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
>>>> particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
>>>>
>>>> See
>>>> <http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
"M C Hamster":
>>>>
>>>> The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
>>>> Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
>>>> particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
>>>>
>>>> See
>>>> <http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp>.
>>> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
>>> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
"bill van":
>>> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
>> Sorry, but rubber bridge is never played at tournaments. There is no way
>> to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
>> only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
>> our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
>> duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
"M C Hamster":
>> to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
>> only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
>> our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
>> duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
> Actually I think there are rubber bridge tournaments, small t. Here's
> an example: http://www.spsimpson.com/bcsa/flyer_rubber_bridge.pdf
Yes, rubber bridge tournaments exist; they're just outside of the world
> an example: http://www.spsimpson.com/bcsa/flyer_rubber_bridge.pdf
that most tournament bridge players exist in.
> They may not be govered by the World Bridge Association's
> laws, agreed.
Well, they're not governed by the duplicate bridge laws, which are what
I quoted. There's a separate set of laws for rubber bridge, which,
notably, do not require a director to exist.
> When some small local organization does a duplicate bridge tournament,
> how do they do that logistically? If there are, say, 12 tables of
> teams competing, and, er, let's just say 10 deals which comprise the
> small tournament,
few sentences. 10 boards is too short for a reasonable match.
With 12 tables you will usually play either play 24 boards, 2 each
against 12 of the other pairs, or 27 boards, 3 each against 9 of the
other pairs.
> that's 120 decks
Actually 24 or 27 decks.
> which would need to have the cards separated.
> Or is what happens is that the decks are kept separated during the
> playing of a hand,
not in the middle of the table.
> and those are then passed on to the next team?
one for each hand of 13 cards. Hence "board".
http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
In practice the cards are stored in the boards between game. A bridge
club will have several sets of boards (depending on how large their
game is), typically 36 boards in a set, with one deck of cards in each
one. Organizations running big tournaments have lots of boards.
> (Or do the teams just move from table to table and the cards stay
> at the table?) I guess that must be what happens.
> Are the teams two-person teams only?
is yes.
> Or are there 4 people on a "team"?
There are also "individual" events, where you play with a succession
of partners as well as against a succession of opponents. They aren't
common here and I've never played in one, or wanted to.
> If only two-person teams, then I don't quite understand how
> you can compare those who play North-South at one table against
> players who played East-West at that same table.
simplest, the basic Mitchell movement, is a "two-winner" movement:
it produces a North-South winner and a separate East-West winner
(and a N-S second place and E-W second place, and so on for as
many positions as they choose to recognize).
However, if the N-S winner gets 63% of the total number of possible
matchpoints (comparison points) available, and the E-W winner gets
65%, then in some events the E-W winner will be declared the
overall winner.
A fairer comparison involves having pairs play E-W some of the time
and N-S some of the time, but I don't have time to go into that now.
> I do understand the
> scores are compared to others who played the same hands, but if, say,
> playing the North-South hand is "trickier", and the East-West hand is
> pretty much a "no brainer", then those playing East-West have less
> opportunity to distinguish themselves from their opponents.
particular board because you were brilliant or because your opponents
were stupid, or because you had the "no brainer" side and your
opponents got it wrong, or because you had the "tricky" side and
nevertheless got it right. This stuff averages out from one board
to another.
> If there are 4 person teams, then you could force your team to play
> both the North-South and East-West hands, equalizing everything.
team 1 and E-W of team 2 play a particular deal, then when E-W of
team 1 play that same board, *they play against N-S of team 2*.
So there is a direct comparison. This isn't true at pairs.
> Of course in this case I would try to cheat and let my teammates who
> are going to play that table what to expect. I suppose that sort of
> thing is frowned on.
Now as to "needing the cards separated": There are three common ways
that the hands get prepared into deals before play. The simplest way
is that before the first round of the game, the players take the cards
in their boards, shuffle, and deal them out. The downside of this is
that even today there are still too many players who don't shuffle
enough times. (The recommended number is 7 riffle shuffles.)
Another way is that a computer prepares the deals using a pseudo-random
number generator, and a dealing machine (using OCR, or sometimes a
bar-code on each card) identifies the cards and deals them into four
stacks representing the hands:
http://www.bridgeguys.com/graphics/Duplimate.jpg
The in-between way is that the pseudo-random deals are printed on paper
and a few of them are handed to the players, who set up the decks
appropriately. Typically one player takes all the clubs and then
hands them out to the other players as indicated, and similarly for
the other suits. It only takes a couple of minutes to prepare a board.
The movement must then be arranged so that neither the N-S pair nor the
E-W pair will play this board.
In either case where a computer prepares the deals, a record of all
the hands is made available out to the players after the session, so
they can discuss to their heart's content whether they should have
played board 27 in a contract of 4 spades or 3 no trump.
You might like to read http://www.pagat.com/boston/bridge.html
for a general introduction to the procedures of bridge, including
the two major types of duplicate and other variations.
--
Mark Brader "By this time I was feeling guilty. No, correction,
Toronto I was feeling that I *should* feel guilty ..."
m...@vex.net -- Jude Devereaux
bill van
May 23, 2012, 7:11:41 PM5/23/12
to
In article <J4ydnaXZmq3bqyDS...@vex.net>,
for, say, best of three rubbers. First team to win two rubbers moves on
to the next round, or some such. But because each deal is random, you're
letting a greater degree of luck into the game than duplicate bridge
does.
two and a half hours to play that many hands, with a little waiting time
here and there for a slow table.
> > Or is what happens is that the decks are kept separated during the
> > playing of a hand,
>
> Exactly. As each person plays a card they leave it in front of them,
> not in the middle of the table.
You also use the to keep track of who wins how many tricks. If you win a
trick you lay it down vertically, and if you lose it, horizontally. At
the end of the hand, before everyone picks the cards up and puts them
back in the board, you count the verticals to see how many tricks your
side won.
vulnerable, which affects the bidding and the scoring.
the cutoff point -- we use a Howell movement, which is more complex and
which results in every team playing (nearly) every other team.
> > I do understand the
> > scores are compared to others who played the same hands, but if, say,
> > playing the North-South hand is "trickier", and the East-West hand is
> > pretty much a "no brainer", then those playing East-West have less
> > opportunity to distinguish themselves from their opponents.
>
> There's no distinction as to whether you got a good score on any
> particular board because you were brilliant or because your opponents
> were stupid, or because you had the "no brainer" side and your
> opponents got it wrong, or because you had the "tricky" side and
> nevertheless got it right. This stuff averages out from one board
> to another.
It does. But it's still galling to make the most tricks on a deal and
discover you didn't get a top score because somebody at another table
got doubled for no good reason.
duplicate bridge, and the level of security tends to be higher as well.
If you read bridge columns, you often see references to the same hand
being played "in the other room". In one room you and your partner play
the north-south cards; in the other room the other pair in your team
plays the east-west cards. There is no opportunity to cheat. If you do
get caught cheating somehow at that level, you may be barred from
playing in sanctioned tournaments for a period of time or for life, and
you'll certainly be disgraced in bridge's highest circles.>
"goulash" hands. The cards are not shuffled, and they are dealt four,
four, and five cards at a time. The effect is usually freak
distributions such as seven- or eight-card suits in two or three hands
in a given deal. Some people argue that freak hands are a lot of fun to
bid and play, while others maintain it destroys the players' ability to
use probabilities to gauge where cards are likely to be, taking much of
the skill out of the play.
bill
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Mark Brader:
> >>>> Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
> >>>> Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
> >>>> particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
> >>>>
> >>>> See
> >>>> <http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp
> >>>> >.
>
> "M C Hamster":
> >>> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
> >>> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
>
> "bill van":
> >> Sorry, but rubber bridge is never played at tournaments. There is no way
> >> to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
> >> only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
> >> our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
> >> duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
>
> "M C Hamster":
> > Actually I think there are rubber bridge tournaments, small t. Here's
> > an example: http://www.spsimpson.com/bcsa/flyer_rubber_bridge.pdf
>
> Yes, rubber bridge tournaments exist; they're just outside of the world
> that most tournament bridge players exist in.
I assume they would do something like pit two teams against each other
> Mark Brader:
> >>>> Similarly in duplicate bridge, Law 12A1:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these
> >>>> Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
> >>>> particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
> >>>>
> >>>> See
> >>>> <http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/law12.asp
> >>>> >.
>
> "M C Hamster":
> >>> That is cool. It would be fun to be a bridge tournament director,
> >>> wreaking mayhem on rubbers left and right.
>
> "bill van":
> >> Sorry, but rubber bridge is never played at tournaments. There is no way
> >> to compare players' scores in rubber bridge because each deal is played
> >> only once. Tournaments, everything from the four-times-a-week event at
> >> our local community centre to world teams championships, always employ
> >> duplicate bridge, in which everyone plays the same hands.
>
> "M C Hamster":
> > Actually I think there are rubber bridge tournaments, small t. Here's
> > an example: http://www.spsimpson.com/bcsa/flyer_rubber_bridge.pdf
>
> Yes, rubber bridge tournaments exist; they're just outside of the world
> that most tournament bridge players exist in.
for, say, best of three rubbers. First team to win two rubbers moves on
to the next round, or some such. But because each deal is random, you're
letting a greater degree of luck into the game than duplicate bridge
does.
>
> > When some small local organization does a duplicate bridge tournament,
> > how do they do that logistically? If there are, say, 12 tables of
> > teams competing, and, er, let's just say 10 deals which comprise the
> > small tournament,
>
> A deal is called a "board", for reasons which will be obvious in a
> few sentences. 10 boards is too short for a reasonable match.
> With 12 tables you will usually play either play 24 boards, 2 each
> against 12 of the other pairs, or 27 boards, 3 each against 9 of the
> other pairs.
That's how we do it at the community centre. It typically takes about
> > When some small local organization does a duplicate bridge tournament,
> > how do they do that logistically? If there are, say, 12 tables of
> > teams competing, and, er, let's just say 10 deals which comprise the
> > small tournament,
>
> A deal is called a "board", for reasons which will be obvious in a
> few sentences. 10 boards is too short for a reasonable match.
> With 12 tables you will usually play either play 24 boards, 2 each
> against 12 of the other pairs, or 27 boards, 3 each against 9 of the
> other pairs.
two and a half hours to play that many hands, with a little waiting time
here and there for a slow table.
> > Or is what happens is that the decks are kept separated during the
> > playing of a hand,
>
> Exactly. As each person plays a card they leave it in front of them,
> not in the middle of the table.
trick you lay it down vertically, and if you lose it, horizontally. At
the end of the hand, before everyone picks the cards up and puts them
back in the board, you count the verticals to see how many tricks your
side won.
>
> > and those are then passed on to the next team?
>
> Exactly. A holder called a duplicate board is used; it has 4 slots,
> one for each hand of 13 cards. Hence "board".
>
> http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
The boards we use also indicate whether one or both teams are
> > and those are then passed on to the next team?
>
> Exactly. A holder called a duplicate board is used; it has 4 slots,
> one for each hand of 13 cards. Hence "board".
>
> http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
vulnerable, which affects the bidding and the scoring.
>
> In practice the cards are stored in the boards between game. A bridge
> club will have several sets of boards (depending on how large their
> game is), typically 36 boards in a set, with one deck of cards in each
> one. Organizations running big tournaments have lots of boards.
>
> > (Or do the teams just move from table to table and the cards stay
> > at the table?) I guess that must be what happens.
>
> This format is also possible, but not usual.
I haven't seen it.
> In practice the cards are stored in the boards between game. A bridge
> club will have several sets of boards (depending on how large their
> game is), typically 36 boards in a set, with one deck of cards in each
> one. Organizations running big tournaments have lots of boards.
>
> > (Or do the teams just move from table to table and the cards stay
> > at the table?) I guess that must be what happens.
>
> This format is also possible, but not usual.
>
> > Are the teams two-person teams only?
>
> The most common type of duplicate bridge is "pairs", where the answer
> is yes.
>
> > Or are there 4 people on a "team"?
>
> This form of play is also possible, and is what is meant by "teams".
>
> There are also "individual" events, where you play with a succession
> of partners as well as against a succession of opponents. They aren't
> common here and I've never played in one, or wanted to.
>
> > If only two-person teams, then I don't quite understand how
> > you can compare those who play North-South at one table against
> > players who played East-West at that same table.
>
> There are several ways of arranging and scoring pairs game. The
> simplest, the basic Mitchell movement, is a "two-winner" movement:
> it produces a North-South winner and a separate East-West winner
> (and a N-S second place and E-W second place, and so on for as
> many positions as they choose to recognize).
That's how we do it. With smaller numbers of tables -- I think seven is
> > Are the teams two-person teams only?
>
> The most common type of duplicate bridge is "pairs", where the answer
> is yes.
>
> > Or are there 4 people on a "team"?
>
> This form of play is also possible, and is what is meant by "teams".
>
> There are also "individual" events, where you play with a succession
> of partners as well as against a succession of opponents. They aren't
> common here and I've never played in one, or wanted to.
>
> > If only two-person teams, then I don't quite understand how
> > you can compare those who play North-South at one table against
> > players who played East-West at that same table.
>
> There are several ways of arranging and scoring pairs game. The
> simplest, the basic Mitchell movement, is a "two-winner" movement:
> it produces a North-South winner and a separate East-West winner
> (and a N-S second place and E-W second place, and so on for as
> many positions as they choose to recognize).
the cutoff point -- we use a Howell movement, which is more complex and
which results in every team playing (nearly) every other team.
> > I do understand the
> > scores are compared to others who played the same hands, but if, say,
> > playing the North-South hand is "trickier", and the East-West hand is
> > pretty much a "no brainer", then those playing East-West have less
> > opportunity to distinguish themselves from their opponents.
>
> There's no distinction as to whether you got a good score on any
> particular board because you were brilliant or because your opponents
> were stupid, or because you had the "no brainer" side and your
> opponents got it wrong, or because you had the "tricky" side and
> nevertheless got it right. This stuff averages out from one board
> to another.
discover you didn't get a top score because somebody at another table
got doubled for no good reason.
>
> > If there are 4 person teams, then you could force your team to play
> > both the North-South and East-West hands, equalizing everything.
>
> Actually, what really equalizes things at teams is that if N-S of
> team 1 and E-W of team 2 play a particular deal, then when E-W of
> team 1 play that same board, *they play against N-S of team 2*.
> So there is a direct comparison. This isn't true at pairs.
>
> > Of course in this case I would try to cheat and let my teammates who
> > are going to play that table what to expect. I suppose that sort of
> > thing is frowned on.
>
> Hell yeah!
Team tournaments tend to be higher-level than your average evening of
> > If there are 4 person teams, then you could force your team to play
> > both the North-South and East-West hands, equalizing everything.
>
> Actually, what really equalizes things at teams is that if N-S of
> team 1 and E-W of team 2 play a particular deal, then when E-W of
> team 1 play that same board, *they play against N-S of team 2*.
> So there is a direct comparison. This isn't true at pairs.
>
> > Of course in this case I would try to cheat and let my teammates who
> > are going to play that table what to expect. I suppose that sort of
> > thing is frowned on.
>
> Hell yeah!
duplicate bridge, and the level of security tends to be higher as well.
If you read bridge columns, you often see references to the same hand
being played "in the other room". In one room you and your partner play
the north-south cards; in the other room the other pair in your team
plays the east-west cards. There is no opportunity to cheat. If you do
get caught cheating somehow at that level, you may be barred from
playing in sanctioned tournaments for a period of time or for life, and
you'll certainly be disgraced in bridge's highest circles.>
>
> Now as to "needing the cards separated": There are three common ways
> that the hands get prepared into deals before play. The simplest way
> is that before the first round of the game, the players take the cards
> in their boards, shuffle, and deal them out. The downside of this is
> that even today there are still too many players who don't shuffle
> enough times. (The recommended number is 7 riffle shuffles.)
>
> Another way is that a computer prepares the deals using a pseudo-random
> number generator, and a dealing machine (using OCR, or sometimes a
> bar-code on each card) identifies the cards and deals them into four
> stacks representing the hands:
>
> http://www.bridgeguys.com/graphics/Duplimate.jpg
>
> The in-between way is that the pseudo-random deals are printed on paper
> and a few of them are handed to the players, who set up the decks
> appropriately. Typically one player takes all the clubs and then
> hands them out to the other players as indicated, and similarly for
> the other suits. It only takes a couple of minutes to prepare a board.
> The movement must then be arranged so that neither the N-S pair nor the
> E-W pair will play this board.
>
> In either case where a computer prepares the deals, a record of all
> the hands is made available out to the players after the session, so
> they can discuss to their heart's content whether they should have
> played board 27 in a contract of 4 spades or 3 no trump.
At the community centre, some joker will occasionally deal a few
> Now as to "needing the cards separated": There are three common ways
> that the hands get prepared into deals before play. The simplest way
> is that before the first round of the game, the players take the cards
> in their boards, shuffle, and deal them out. The downside of this is
> that even today there are still too many players who don't shuffle
> enough times. (The recommended number is 7 riffle shuffles.)
>
> Another way is that a computer prepares the deals using a pseudo-random
> number generator, and a dealing machine (using OCR, or sometimes a
> bar-code on each card) identifies the cards and deals them into four
> stacks representing the hands:
>
> http://www.bridgeguys.com/graphics/Duplimate.jpg
>
> The in-between way is that the pseudo-random deals are printed on paper
> and a few of them are handed to the players, who set up the decks
> appropriately. Typically one player takes all the clubs and then
> hands them out to the other players as indicated, and similarly for
> the other suits. It only takes a couple of minutes to prepare a board.
> The movement must then be arranged so that neither the N-S pair nor the
> E-W pair will play this board.
>
> In either case where a computer prepares the deals, a record of all
> the hands is made available out to the players after the session, so
> they can discuss to their heart's content whether they should have
> played board 27 in a contract of 4 spades or 3 no trump.
"goulash" hands. The cards are not shuffled, and they are dealt four,
four, and five cards at a time. The effect is usually freak
distributions such as seven- or eight-card suits in two or three hands
in a given deal. Some people argue that freak hands are a lot of fun to
bid and play, while others maintain it destroys the players' ability to
use probabilities to gauge where cards are likely to be, taking much of
the skill out of the play.
bill
M C Hamster
May 23, 2012, 11:46:00 PM5/23/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:11:41 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:
>In article <J4ydnaXZmq3bqyDS...@vex.net>,
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>> Yes, rubber bridge tournaments exist; they're just outside of the world
>> that most tournament bridge players exist in.
>
>I assume they would do something like pit two teams against each other
>for, say, best of three rubbers. First team to win two rubbers moves on
>to the next round, or some such. But because each deal is random, you're
>letting a greater degree of luck into the game than duplicate bridge
>does.
Like championship poker.
>>
>> Exactly. A holder called a duplicate board is used; it has 4 slots,
>> one for each hand of 13 cards. Hence "board".
>>
>> http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
>
>The boards we use also indicate whether one or both teams are
>vulnerable, which affects the bidding and the scoring.
What is the thing with Japanese writing on it sliding out of the slot
on the green board in that photo?
wrote:
>In article <J4ydnaXZmq3bqyDS...@vex.net>,
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>> Yes, rubber bridge tournaments exist; they're just outside of the world
>> that most tournament bridge players exist in.
>
>I assume they would do something like pit two teams against each other
>for, say, best of three rubbers. First team to win two rubbers moves on
>to the next round, or some such. But because each deal is random, you're
>letting a greater degree of luck into the game than duplicate bridge
>does.
>>
>> Exactly. A holder called a duplicate board is used; it has 4 slots,
>> one for each hand of 13 cards. Hence "board".
>>
>> http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
>
>The boards we use also indicate whether one or both teams are
>vulnerable, which affects the bidding and the scoring.
on the green board in that photo?
Kevin
May 24, 2012, 12:10:46 AM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:11:41 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:
I'm going to copy this whole conversation, do a global search and
replace with "cricket" replacing "bridge" and "a hundred for four
overs and a sticky wicket" replacing "three no trump" and post it to a
sporting forum. I bet no one even notices anything is wrong.
wrote:
replace with "cricket" replacing "bridge" and "a hundred for four
overs and a sticky wicket" replacing "three no trump" and post it to a
sporting forum. I bet no one even notices anything is wrong.
bill van
May 24, 2012, 2:07:09 AM5/24/12
to
In article <v7brr79mr1cosiqo3...@4ax.com>,
No idea. I've never seen one before. The ones I'm used to look like this:
http://img1.etsystatic.com/il_fullxfull.117494985.jpg
bill
http://img1.etsystatic.com/il_fullxfull.117494985.jpg
bill
Mark Brader
May 24, 2012, 3:04:30 AM5/24/12
to
Mark Brader:
>>> http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
"bill van":
the vulnerability markings are the red or green colors in the same area.
"M C Hamster":
recorded after each time the board is played.
http://www.jazclass.aust.com/bridge/scoring/scoresh.gif
In North America the traveler is usually fitted in the slot with the
North cards rather than having its own separate slot.
If the players are not to be allowed to see previous scores on the
same board during a session, the game can be scored on "pickup
slips" instead:
http://bridgebuddy.net/mart/images/pickupslips.gif
and these days it's also possible for the results at each table to
be entered directly into the computer by the players, using a small
wireless terminal at the table:
http://www.englishbridge.org.uk/images/Bridgemate.jpg
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "(And then there were the mtimes.
m...@vex.net | Oh, the mtimes...)" --Steve Summit
>>> http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
"bill van":
>> The boards we use also indicate whether one or both teams are
>> vulnerable, which affects the bidding and the scoring.
In the photo you can see the "dealer" markings near the board numbers;
>> vulnerable, which affects the bidding and the scoring.
the vulnerability markings are the red or green colors in the same area.
"M C Hamster":
> What is the thing with Japanese writing on it sliding out of the slot
> on the green board in that photo?
It must be a traveling scoresheet ("traveler"), where the score is
> on the green board in that photo?
recorded after each time the board is played.
http://www.jazclass.aust.com/bridge/scoring/scoresh.gif
In North America the traveler is usually fitted in the slot with the
North cards rather than having its own separate slot.
If the players are not to be allowed to see previous scores on the
same board during a session, the game can be scored on "pickup
slips" instead:
http://bridgebuddy.net/mart/images/pickupslips.gif
and these days it's also possible for the results at each table to
be entered directly into the computer by the players, using a small
wireless terminal at the table:
http://www.englishbridge.org.uk/images/Bridgemate.jpg
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "(And then there were the mtimes.
m...@vex.net | Oh, the mtimes...)" --Steve Summit
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
May 24, 2012, 11:03:41 PM5/24/12
to
On 05/23/2012 08:27 AM, Mark Steese wrote:
>
> Cf. the famous cry of the disgruntled baseball fan: "Kill the umpire!"
Everyone always talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything
>
> Cf. the famous cry of the disgruntled baseball fan: "Kill the umpire!"
about it. Except in Columbia.
Xho
Paul Madarasz
May 25, 2012, 9:00:18 AM5/25/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:03:41 -0700, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
<xho...@gmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
Is that near Colombia?
<xho...@gmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
Greg Goss
May 25, 2012, 12:05:25 PM5/25/12
to
Mark Brader
May 25, 2012, 3:11:21 PM5/25/12
to
"M C Hamster":
3-board rounds, there need to be 36 boards. That is from a supplies
point of view, which is what M.C. was talking about; any particular
pair will play only 27 of them. (It would theoretically be possible
to play 30, 33, or all 36 boards, but it would make for too long a
session. 27 boards at pairs will already probably run over 3 hours.)
The bit about not playing all the boards adds some randomness to the
results -- maybe the boards you aren't playing are the ones with
deals best suited to your particular methods -- but usually this
isn't considered a big deal, no pun intended. At one club where
I play, for some numbers of tables where this issue arises, they like
to use what's called a "web movement", which requires two complete
sets of identically machine-dealt boards, and in some cases more,
but allows all the players to play the same deals or nearly so.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Something doesn't become ethical just because
m...@vex.net | you can get away with it." --Barry Margolin
> > When some small local organization does a duplicate bridge tournament,
> > how do they do that logistically? If there are, say, 12 tables of
> > teams competing, and, er, let's just say 10 deals which comprise the
> > small tournament,
Mark Brader:
> > how do they do that logistically? If there are, say, 12 tables of
> > teams competing, and, er, let's just say 10 deals which comprise the
> > small tournament,
> A deal is called a "board", for reasons which will be obvious in a
> few sentences. 10 boards is too short for a reasonable match.
> With 12 tables you will usually play either play 24 boards, 2 each
> against 12 of the other pairs, or 27 boards, 3 each against 9 of the
> other pairs.
> > that's 120 decks
>
> Actually 24 or 27 decks.
Whoops, I meant 24 or 36 decks. If there are 12 tables playing
> few sentences. 10 boards is too short for a reasonable match.
> With 12 tables you will usually play either play 24 boards, 2 each
> against 12 of the other pairs, or 27 boards, 3 each against 9 of the
> other pairs.
> > that's 120 decks
>
> Actually 24 or 27 decks.
3-board rounds, there need to be 36 boards. That is from a supplies
point of view, which is what M.C. was talking about; any particular
pair will play only 27 of them. (It would theoretically be possible
to play 30, 33, or all 36 boards, but it would make for too long a
session. 27 boards at pairs will already probably run over 3 hours.)
The bit about not playing all the boards adds some randomness to the
results -- maybe the boards you aren't playing are the ones with
deals best suited to your particular methods -- but usually this
isn't considered a big deal, no pun intended. At one club where
I play, for some numbers of tables where this issue arises, they like
to use what's called a "web movement", which requires two complete
sets of identically machine-dealt boards, and in some cases more,
but allows all the players to play the same deals or nearly so.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Something doesn't become ethical just because
m...@vex.net | you can get away with it." --Barry Margolin
Charles Bishop
May 26, 2012, 4:19:00 AM5/26/12
to
In article <a20m95...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
[snip]
>
>Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
>something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
>It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
Sometimes even when one says something, nothing happened. At least I think
that's the case in the recent Dodgers, Padres(?) game where the Dodgers
got a (I think) underserved triple play.
Padres are up, runners on 2nd and 1st, no one out. Batter "hits" ball and
umpire, well, it looks to the padres like he signals "foul ball", so they
stop. The Dodgers didn't though - the catcher throws to third, the third
baseman throws to 2nd, who throws to first. (It could have been that the
catcher tags the batter, then to third, then to 2nd).
This happens in a few seconds, during which time the umpire calls the ball
fair, which means everyone is out. The replay seems to show that the ball
did hit behind the plate before rolling into fair territory, but no
matter, everyone is out, and the Dodgers score next to win the game.
--
charles
[snip]
>
>Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
>something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
>It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
that's the case in the recent Dodgers, Padres(?) game where the Dodgers
got a (I think) underserved triple play.
Padres are up, runners on 2nd and 1st, no one out. Batter "hits" ball and
umpire, well, it looks to the padres like he signals "foul ball", so they
stop. The Dodgers didn't though - the catcher throws to third, the third
baseman throws to 2nd, who throws to first. (It could have been that the
catcher tags the batter, then to third, then to 2nd).
This happens in a few seconds, during which time the umpire calls the ball
fair, which means everyone is out. The replay seems to show that the ball
did hit behind the plate before rolling into fair territory, but no
matter, everyone is out, and the Dodgers score next to win the game.
--
charles
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
May 26, 2012, 10:07:15 PM5/26/12
to
On 05/24/2012 12:04 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Mark Brader:
>>>> http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
>
> "bill van":
>>> The boards we use also indicate whether one or both teams are
>>> vulnerable, which affects the bidding and the scoring.
>
> In the photo you can see the "dealer" markings near the board numbers;
> the vulnerability markings are the red or green colors in the same area.
>
> "M C Hamster":
>> What is the thing with Japanese writing on it sliding out of the slot
>> on the green board in that photo?
>
> It must be a traveling scoresheet ("traveler"), where the score is
> recorded after each time the board is played.
>
> http://www.jazclass.aust.com/bridge/scoring/scoresh.gif
>
> In North America the traveler is usually fitted in the slot with the
> North cards rather than having its own separate slot.
>
> If the players are not to be allowed to see previous scores on the
> same board during a session, the game can be scored on "pickup
> slips" instead:
>
> http://bridgebuddy.net/mart/images/pickupslips.gif
>
> and these days it's also possible for the results at each table to
> be entered directly into the computer by the players, using a small
> wireless terminal at the table:
>
> http://www.englishbridge.org.uk/images/Bridgemate.jpg
I never that bridge was so capital intensive.
> Mark Brader:
>>>> http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/300/831/287/287831300_728.jpg
>
> "bill van":
>>> The boards we use also indicate whether one or both teams are
>>> vulnerable, which affects the bidding and the scoring.
>
> In the photo you can see the "dealer" markings near the board numbers;
> the vulnerability markings are the red or green colors in the same area.
>
> "M C Hamster":
>> What is the thing with Japanese writing on it sliding out of the slot
>> on the green board in that photo?
>
> It must be a traveling scoresheet ("traveler"), where the score is
> recorded after each time the board is played.
>
> http://www.jazclass.aust.com/bridge/scoring/scoresh.gif
>
> In North America the traveler is usually fitted in the slot with the
> North cards rather than having its own separate slot.
>
> If the players are not to be allowed to see previous scores on the
> same board during a session, the game can be scored on "pickup
> slips" instead:
>
> http://bridgebuddy.net/mart/images/pickupslips.gif
>
> and these days it's also possible for the results at each table to
> be entered directly into the computer by the players, using a small
> wireless terminal at the table:
>
> http://www.englishbridge.org.uk/images/Bridgemate.jpg
Xho
--
As opposed to bridges.
M C Hamster
May 27, 2012, 1:56:01 PM5/27/12
to
trying to bunt, with men on 1st and 2nd.
Even Vin Sculley knew it was a bad call. http://tinyurl.com/6pwjoln
The play happened six weeks ago.
My town is gearing up for a HUGE series starting tomorrow, between the
Cubs and the Padres. It promises to be truly epic.
Charles Bishop
May 28, 2012, 10:34:30 PM5/28/12
to
In article <j1q4s7lhknn60rtac...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
bad call. OTH the Dodgers had a bad call against them just a few weeks
before that so what they gain on the swings, they lose on the roundabouts.
surely you're not saying that we can't use history to make a point, yes?
--
charles
<davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 May 2012 00:19:00 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
>Bishop) wrote:
>
>>In article <a20m95...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
>>>something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
>>>It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
>>
>>Sometimes even when one says something, nothing happened. At least I think
>>that's the case in the recent Dodgers, Padres(?) game where the Dodgers
>>got a (I think) underserved triple play.
>>
>>Padres are up, runners on 2nd and 1st, no one out. Batter "hits" ball and
>>umpire, well, it looks to the padres like he signals "foul ball", so they
>>stop. The Dodgers didn't though - the catcher throws to third, the third
>>baseman throws to 2nd, who throws to first. (It could have been that the
>>catcher tags the batter, then to third, then to 2nd).
>>
>>This happens in a few seconds, during which time the umpire calls the ball
>>fair, which means everyone is out. The replay seems to show that the ball
>>did hit behind the plate before rolling into fair territory, but no
>>matter, everyone is out, and the Dodgers score next to win the game.
>
>Yep, Opus posted this play a couple of weeks ago. The batter was
>trying to bunt, with men on 1st and 2nd.
>
>Even Vin Sculley knew it was a bad call. http://tinyurl.com/6pwjoln
Yeah, I heard his comments. Anyone who watched the replay knew it was a
>On Sat, 26 May 2012 00:19:00 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
>Bishop) wrote:
>
>>In article <a20m95...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>Baseball is rather proud of their "I'm the umpire. Until I say
>>>something happened, then nothing at all has happened." attitude.
>>>It's a much more authoritarian game than some others.
>>
>>Sometimes even when one says something, nothing happened. At least I think
>>that's the case in the recent Dodgers, Padres(?) game where the Dodgers
>>got a (I think) underserved triple play.
>>
>>Padres are up, runners on 2nd and 1st, no one out. Batter "hits" ball and
>>umpire, well, it looks to the padres like he signals "foul ball", so they
>>stop. The Dodgers didn't though - the catcher throws to third, the third
>>baseman throws to 2nd, who throws to first. (It could have been that the
>>catcher tags the batter, then to third, then to 2nd).
>>
>>This happens in a few seconds, during which time the umpire calls the ball
>>fair, which means everyone is out. The replay seems to show that the ball
>>did hit behind the plate before rolling into fair territory, but no
>>matter, everyone is out, and the Dodgers score next to win the game.
>
>Yep, Opus posted this play a couple of weeks ago. The batter was
>trying to bunt, with men on 1st and 2nd.
>
>Even Vin Sculley knew it was a bad call. http://tinyurl.com/6pwjoln
bad call. OTH the Dodgers had a bad call against them just a few weeks
before that so what they gain on the swings, they lose on the roundabouts.
>
>The play happened six weeks ago.
Well, I mentioned it at the time, or commented on Opus' mention. But
>The play happened six weeks ago.
surely you're not saying that we can't use history to make a point, yes?
>
>My town is gearing up for a HUGE series starting tomorrow, between the
>Cubs and the Padres. It promises to be truly epic.
What's the over/under, odds, anyone taking bets?
>My town is gearing up for a HUGE series starting tomorrow, between the
>Cubs and the Padres. It promises to be truly epic.
--
charles
D.F. Manno
May 29, 2012, 3:45:33 PM5/29/12
to
In article
<ctbishop-280...@global-66-81-104-5.dialup.o1.com>,
The over/under is 14.
Oh, you weren't referring to attendance?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"You won't like me when I'm angry. Because I always back up my rage with
facts and documented sources." - The Credible Hulk
<ctbishop-280...@global-66-81-104-5.dialup.o1.com>,
Oh, you weren't referring to attendance?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"You won't like me when I'm angry. Because I always back up my rage with
facts and documented sources." - The Credible Hulk
M C Hamster
May 30, 2012, 1:13:01 PM5/30/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:34:30 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
Certainly I'm not saying that. It's just that you called it a
"recent" play, which made me think maybe it was something more recent
than the one six weeks ago. But in the history of baseball back to
pre-1900, yes, it was recent.
"recent" play, which made me think maybe it was something more recent
than the one six weeks ago. But in the history of baseball back to
pre-1900, yes, it was recent.
0 new messages