Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Idea for handling opening pass out of turn
172 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Hightower
Jan 24, 2013, 7:17:59 PM1/24/13
to
In a recent thread, East opened out of turn with a pass, not accepted by
South. I've always felt that reverting the bidding to West but requiring
East to pass encouraged gambling and perhaps unethical bidding; I certainly
would not like to be North with a good hand. Here's another idea: Let the
bidding start with North rather than West, with East required to pass at his
first turn. Although East's pass if North opens is not exactly the same as
an opening pass, it's close enough that I think this arrangement will result
in a normal bridge result far more often than forcing West into a blind
guess and forcing North to bid over that. The basic penalty is that West is
bumped from first position to fourth, generally a disadvantage but not
necessarily catastrophic. And I think it would be OK to treat East's pass as
AI to West. Thoughts?
South. I've always felt that reverting the bidding to West but requiring
East to pass encouraged gambling and perhaps unethical bidding; I certainly
would not like to be North with a good hand. Here's another idea: Let the
bidding start with North rather than West, with East required to pass at his
first turn. Although East's pass if North opens is not exactly the same as
an opening pass, it's close enough that I think this arrangement will result
in a normal bridge result far more often than forcing West into a blind
guess and forcing North to bid over that. The basic penalty is that West is
bumped from first position to fourth, generally a disadvantage but not
necessarily catastrophic. And I think it would be OK to treat East's pass as
AI to West. Thoughts?
patmp...@gmail.com
Jan 24, 2013, 10:23:31 PM1/24/13
to
This is a fairly basic situation so surely there is an established ruling. Is it permissible to make a bid you wouldn't normally make? Someone must know.
Herb
Jan 25, 2013, 2:16:12 AM1/25/13
to
On 1/24/2013 7:23 PM, patmp...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is a fairly basic situation so surely there is an established ruling.
> Is it permissible to make a bid you wouldn't normally make? Someone must know.
Absolutely. While partner's lack of an opening bid is UI, the FACT that
> This is a fairly basic situation so surely there is an established ruling.
> Is it permissible to make a bid you wouldn't normally make? Someone must know.
partner must pass at first opportunity is AI and can be used in any
conceivable way.
- Herb
Dave Flower
Jan 25, 2013, 4:31:25 AM1/25/13
to
On Friday, 25 January 2013 00:17:59 UTC, Paul Hightower wrote:
> In a recent thread, East opened out of turn with a pass, not accepted by South. I've always felt that reverting the bidding to West but requiring East to pass encouraged gambling and perhaps unethical bidding; I certainly would not like to be North with a good hand. Here's another idea: Let the bidding start with North rather than West, with East required to pass at his first turn. Although East's pass if North opens is not exactly the same as an opening pass, it's close enough that I think this arrangement will result in a normal bridge result far more often than forcing West into a blind guess and forcing North to bid over that. The basic penalty is that West is bumped from first position to fourth, generally a disadvantage but not necessarily catastrophic. And I think it would be OK to treat East's pass as AI to West. Thoughts?
The spirit of the Laws is to try to get an outcome that is as close to what would have happened absent the offence; the benefit of any reasonable doubt being given to the non-offending side.
> In a recent thread, East opened out of turn with a pass, not accepted by South. I've always felt that reverting the bidding to West but requiring East to pass encouraged gambling and perhaps unethical bidding; I certainly would not like to be North with a good hand. Here's another idea: Let the bidding start with North rather than West, with East required to pass at his first turn. Although East's pass if North opens is not exactly the same as an opening pass, it's close enough that I think this arrangement will result in a normal bridge result far more often than forcing West into a blind guess and forcing North to bid over that. The basic penalty is that West is bumped from first position to fourth, generally a disadvantage but not necessarily catastrophic. And I think it would be OK to treat East's pass as AI to West. Thoughts?
This is why I do not like your proposal, as it moves further away from what may happen at other tables.
That is not to say that I like the present Law - I do not. The problem with the present Law is that it gives a random outcome, affecting not only the result at the table, but scores at other tables.
My personal preference would be that the pass out of turn is cancelled, and becomes UI to partner, AI to opponents.
A further suggestion - at match-pointed pairs, would it be possible to score results at other tables without consideration of the score at any offending table? Score the results at non-offending tables as if averages were awarded at the offending table(s), and then use these scores to award scores at the offending table(s). This seems complicated, but with the widespread use of computer scoring, perfectly feasible.
Dave Flower
Barry Margolin
Jan 25, 2013, 10:27:44 AM1/25/13
to
In article <bd915675-cc9b-4c75...@googlegroups.com>,
Are you asking if the Laws address it? They certainly do. The OP is
suggesting changing the law because he doesn't think it's appropriate as
currently written.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
suggesting changing the law because he doesn't think it's appropriate as
currently written.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Kenny McCormack
Jan 25, 2013, 1:56:28 PM1/25/13
to
In article <c338dac0-dbd1-41b8...@googlegroups.com>,
Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
...
with just about any irregularity was to mark the hand as a NP (no play) (at
the table where the infraction occurred). ACBLScore handles this perfectly
well, so there is no technical problem with doing this. And, it strikes me
as the cleanest approach to the problem. It certainly results in the least
amount of player-blowback, which, I'm pretty sure is why this director
favored it so highly (Given her clientele, keeping people happy was her
top priority). But, just to be clear, I liked the method. I liked it a lot.
But, I know that many RGBers go very non-linear at this idea. Why, I'm not
really sure. But I suspect that any attempts to clean up the OPOOT handling
will meet with the same sort of blowback here in RGB.
Now, having said all that, I think it is clear that in this and similar
situations, you never really end up with a "normal" result - the hand always
ends up being a "jump ball" event (exceptions do exist - for example, in the
OPOOT case, if the NOS has a normal, uncontested auction to game or slam -
in which the OS was going to pass at every turn anyway). So, what I think is
that the hand should be scored as A+/A- (NOS/OS) and not played. I assume
that ACBLScore handles this already, and that doing so (awarding A+/A-) has
no effect on the matchpointing at the other tables. Right?
--
First of all, I do not appreciate your playing stupid here at all.
- Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn -
Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
...
>A further suggestion - at match-pointed pairs, would it be possible to
>score results at other tables without consideration of the score at any
>offending table? Score the results at non-offending tables as if
>averages were awarded at the offending table(s), and then use these
>scores to award scores at the offending table(s). This seems
>complicated, but with the widespread use of computer scoring, perfectly
>feasible.
At a club where I used to play frequently, the director's method for dealing
>score results at other tables without consideration of the score at any
>offending table? Score the results at non-offending tables as if
>averages were awarded at the offending table(s), and then use these
>scores to award scores at the offending table(s). This seems
>complicated, but with the widespread use of computer scoring, perfectly
>feasible.
with just about any irregularity was to mark the hand as a NP (no play) (at
the table where the infraction occurred). ACBLScore handles this perfectly
well, so there is no technical problem with doing this. And, it strikes me
as the cleanest approach to the problem. It certainly results in the least
amount of player-blowback, which, I'm pretty sure is why this director
favored it so highly (Given her clientele, keeping people happy was her
top priority). But, just to be clear, I liked the method. I liked it a lot.
But, I know that many RGBers go very non-linear at this idea. Why, I'm not
really sure. But I suspect that any attempts to clean up the OPOOT handling
will meet with the same sort of blowback here in RGB.
Now, having said all that, I think it is clear that in this and similar
situations, you never really end up with a "normal" result - the hand always
ends up being a "jump ball" event (exceptions do exist - for example, in the
OPOOT case, if the NOS has a normal, uncontested auction to game or slam -
in which the OS was going to pass at every turn anyway). So, what I think is
that the hand should be scored as A+/A- (NOS/OS) and not played. I assume
that ACBLScore handles this already, and that doing so (awarding A+/A-) has
no effect on the matchpointing at the other tables. Right?
--
First of all, I do not appreciate your playing stupid here at all.
- Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn -
Wes Powers
Jan 25, 2013, 2:56:25 PM1/25/13
to
On 1/25/2013 13:56, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <c338dac0-dbd1-41b8...@googlegroups.com>,
provides an "out" for any player who knows he's getting a bad result.
"Oops, that was a bad defensive mistake I just made. Ah, I can just lead
out of turn and the board won't count."
"Grr, I don't remember if I play transfers with this partner. I'll just
make an insufficient bid, the board won't count, and we can discuss it."
This is cheating, to be sure, but it's impossible to prove it intentional.
Wes
> In article <c338dac0-dbd1-41b8...@googlegroups.com>,
> At a club where I used to play frequently, the director's method for dealing
> with just about any irregularity was to mark the hand as a NP (no play) (at
> the table where the infraction occurred). ACBLScore handles this perfectly
> well, so there is no technical problem with doing this. And, it strikes me
> as the cleanest approach to the problem. It certainly results in the least
> amount of player-blowback, which, I'm pretty sure is why this director
> favored it so highly (Given her clientele, keeping people happy was her
> top priority). But, just to be clear, I liked the method. I liked it a lot.
>
> But, I know that many RGBers go very non-linear at this idea. Why, I'm not
> really sure. But I suspect that any attempts to clean up the OPOOT handling
> will meet with the same sort of blowback here in RGB.
>
One problem with this approach (aside from its being illegal) is that is
> with just about any irregularity was to mark the hand as a NP (no play) (at
> the table where the infraction occurred). ACBLScore handles this perfectly
> well, so there is no technical problem with doing this. And, it strikes me
> as the cleanest approach to the problem. It certainly results in the least
> amount of player-blowback, which, I'm pretty sure is why this director
> favored it so highly (Given her clientele, keeping people happy was her
> top priority). But, just to be clear, I liked the method. I liked it a lot.
>
> But, I know that many RGBers go very non-linear at this idea. Why, I'm not
> really sure. But I suspect that any attempts to clean up the OPOOT handling
> will meet with the same sort of blowback here in RGB.
>
provides an "out" for any player who knows he's getting a bad result.
"Oops, that was a bad defensive mistake I just made. Ah, I can just lead
out of turn and the board won't count."
"Grr, I don't remember if I play transfers with this partner. I'll just
make an insufficient bid, the board won't count, and we can discuss it."
This is cheating, to be sure, but it's impossible to prove it intentional.
Wes
derek
Jan 25, 2013, 3:00:12 PM1/25/13
to
On Friday, January 25, 2013 2:56:28 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <c338dac0-dbd1-41b8...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> ...
> >A further suggestion - at match-pointed pairs, would it be possible to
> >score results at other tables without consideration of the score at any
> >offending table? Score the results at non-offending tables as if
> >averages were awarded at the offending table(s), and then use these
> >scores to award scores at the offending table(s). This seems
> >complicated, but with the widespread use of computer scoring, perfectly
> >feasible.
>
> At a club where I used to play frequently, the director's method for dealing
> with just about any irregularity was to mark the hand as a NP (no play) (at
> the table where the infraction occurred). ACBLScore handles this perfectly
> well, so there is no technical problem with doing this. And, it strikes me
> as the cleanest approach to the problem. It certainly results in the least
> amount of player-blowback, which, I'm pretty sure is why this director
> favored it so highly (Given her clientele, keeping people happy was her
> top priority). But, just to be clear, I liked the method. I liked it a lot.
Except it's ILLEGAL. NP is for hands that are NOT played. MY players are smart enough and knowledgable enough about the scoring system to know that it is NOT fair. It's unfair to the non-offending side and it's unfair to the other players in the same direction as the offending side.
> In article <c338dac0-dbd1-41b8...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> ...
> >A further suggestion - at match-pointed pairs, would it be possible to
> >score results at other tables without consideration of the score at any
> >offending table? Score the results at non-offending tables as if
> >averages were awarded at the offending table(s), and then use these
> >scores to award scores at the offending table(s). This seems
> >complicated, but with the widespread use of computer scoring, perfectly
> >feasible.
>
> At a club where I used to play frequently, the director's method for dealing
> with just about any irregularity was to mark the hand as a NP (no play) (at
> the table where the infraction occurred). ACBLScore handles this perfectly
> well, so there is no technical problem with doing this. And, it strikes me
> as the cleanest approach to the problem. It certainly results in the least
> amount of player-blowback, which, I'm pretty sure is why this director
> favored it so highly (Given her clientele, keeping people happy was her
> top priority). But, just to be clear, I liked the method. I liked it a lot.
>
> But, I know that many RGBers go very non-linear at this idea.
Nope, I'm quite linear about it. We have rules, and directors who can't or won't enforce those rules shouldn't be directing. It has absolutely nothing to do with what her players liked - it was the easiest way for the director to handle it.
> But, I know that many RGBers go very non-linear at this idea.
> So, what I think is
> that the hand should be scored as A+/A- (NOS/OS) and not played. I assume
> that ACBLScore handles this already, and that doing so (awarding A+/A-) has
> no effect on the matchpointing at the other tables. Right?
Patrick Powers
Jan 25, 2013, 10:53:09 PM1/25/13
to
On Jan 25, 3:16 pm, Herb <H...@the.Herb.garden> wrote:
But it's not clear whether the UI is being used or not. Back in that
original example, can opener bid 3C? I would say no. Opener can bid
to make, but he may not preempt because that would be using the UI
that partner doesn't have an opening bid. It is hard to say whether
that bid is a preempt or to make, so one must follow the rule that if
in doubt the action is forbidden. Then how about 2C, or 3NT? It's
very unclear. If I were bidding in that situation I would play it
safe and stick with 1C, which is certainly legal, and tempts Them to
bid so there is a chance partner will get into the act.
original example, can opener bid 3C? I would say no. Opener can bid
to make, but he may not preempt because that would be using the UI
that partner doesn't have an opening bid. It is hard to say whether
that bid is a preempt or to make, so one must follow the rule that if
in doubt the action is forbidden. Then how about 2C, or 3NT? It's
very unclear. If I were bidding in that situation I would play it
safe and stick with 1C, which is certainly legal, and tempts Them to
bid so there is a chance partner will get into the act.
David Stevenson
Jan 26, 2013, 7:48:29 AM1/26/13
to
Patrick Powers wrote
Let us consider your comment "certainly legal", since I believe it to
be illegal.
While people get very used to the approach to UI when there is a
hesitation, they tend to go wrong in their thinking in other UI
situations. So let us see whether 1C is "certainly legal".
When you have UI from partner you may not choose amongst LAs one which
is suggested over another by the UI. Now, in my view, 1C and 3NT are
LAs, ie at least one in five people would consider them, of whom some
would actually choose them, but the knowledge that partner has not got
an opening bid suggests 1C over 3NT. Do you accept this? If you do
then 1C is definitely and certainly illegal.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@gmail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
be illegal.
While people get very used to the approach to UI when there is a
hesitation, they tend to go wrong in their thinking in other UI
situations. So let us see whether 1C is "certainly legal".
When you have UI from partner you may not choose amongst LAs one which
is suggested over another by the UI. Now, in my view, 1C and 3NT are
LAs, ie at least one in five people would consider them, of whom some
would actually choose them, but the knowledge that partner has not got
an opening bid suggests 1C over 3NT. Do you accept this? If you do
then 1C is definitely and certainly illegal.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@gmail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Lorne
Jan 26, 2013, 11:24:32 AM1/26/13
to
For example consider when west has a weak 2 in spades and north a
normal 1S opener. At other tables the bidding may be:
P (2S) P (P)
X all pass
After your adjustment N will open 1S and west will be off the hook
giving N/S little chance of a good score.
Paul Hightower
Jan 26, 2013, 2:49:13 PM1/26/13
to
"Lorne" <lorne_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:irTMs.86410$sm1....@newsfe22.iad...
Is your scenario MORE LIKELY than, let us say David Stevenson bidding an
"ethical" 3NT, not bid elsewhere, and making? The current system practically
guarantees a randomized result. N/S will FREQUENTLY have no chance at a
normal or good score in the face of a guess by the non-barred opponent. What
kind of bridge is that? To take your example, far more likely is that North
has a 1H opener and gets to bid it before West opens 2S. That's an
advantage, but not one that practically guarantees an abnormal result, not
duplicated at other tables. That's what I'm aiming for -- an auction that is
relatively likely to produce a fairly normal result. The current law fails
miserably IMO.
news:irTMs.86410$sm1....@newsfe22.iad...
"ethical" 3NT, not bid elsewhere, and making? The current system practically
guarantees a randomized result. N/S will FREQUENTLY have no chance at a
normal or good score in the face of a guess by the non-barred opponent. What
kind of bridge is that? To take your example, far more likely is that North
has a 1H opener and gets to bid it before West opens 2S. That's an
advantage, but not one that practically guarantees an abnormal result, not
duplicated at other tables. That's what I'm aiming for -- an auction that is
relatively likely to produce a fairly normal result. The current law fails
miserably IMO.
patmp...@gmail.com
Jan 26, 2013, 11:18:52 PM1/26/13
to David Stevenson
patmp...@gmail.com
Jan 26, 2013, 11:20:29 PM1/26/13
to
David Stevenson
Jan 27, 2013, 10:03:51 AM1/27/13
to
wrote
No, not indubitably: it is *my* opinion that 3NT is legal, and 1C, 2C
and 3C are not. But [a] others may not agree with my judgement, and [b]
6S is also legal.
Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
and 3C are not. But [a] others may not agree with my judgement, and [b]
6S is also legal.
Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
David Stevenson
Jan 27, 2013, 10:05:19 AM1/27/13
to
Paul Hightower wrote
such as a pass out of turn, a non-random result is pretty much
eliminated. That seems logical, obvious, and perfectly fair.
>Is your scenario MORE LIKELY than, let us say David Stevenson bidding an
>"ethical" 3NT, not bid elsewhere, and making? The current system practically
>guarantees a randomized result. N/S will FREQUENTLY have no chance at a
>normal or good score in the face of a guess by the non-barred opponent. What
>kind of bridge is that? To take your example, far more likely is that North
>has a 1H opener and gets to bid it before West opens 2S. That's an
>advantage, but not one that practically guarantees an abnormal result, not
>duplicated at other tables. That's what I'm aiming for -- an auction that is
>relatively likely to produce a fairly normal result. The current law fails
>miserably IMO.
When a player does not follow the rules, and makes an illegal call,
>"ethical" 3NT, not bid elsewhere, and making? The current system practically
>guarantees a randomized result. N/S will FREQUENTLY have no chance at a
>normal or good score in the face of a guess by the non-barred opponent. What
>kind of bridge is that? To take your example, far more likely is that North
>has a 1H opener and gets to bid it before West opens 2S. That's an
>advantage, but not one that practically guarantees an abnormal result, not
>duplicated at other tables. That's what I'm aiming for -- an auction that is
>relatively likely to produce a fairly normal result. The current law fails
>miserably IMO.
such as a pass out of turn, a non-random result is pretty much
eliminated. That seems logical, obvious, and perfectly fair.
Kenny McCormack
Jan 27, 2013, 12:54:56 PM1/27/13
to
In article <i$$n6cCvI...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
David Stevenson <webj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
...
I assume you misspelled "guaranteed". Too bad your spelling checker didn't
catch it.
There's a document floating around the InterWebs about the types of errors
that spelling checkers don't catch. Very entertaining as well as
enlightening.
--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
David Stevenson <webj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
...
> When a player does not follow the rules, and makes an illegal call,
>such as a pass out of turn, a non-random result is pretty much
>eliminated. That seems logical, obvious, and perfectly fair.
.==========
>such as a pass out of turn, a non-random result is pretty much
>eliminated. That seems logical, obvious, and perfectly fair.
I assume you misspelled "guaranteed". Too bad your spelling checker didn't
catch it.
There's a document floating around the InterWebs about the types of errors
that spelling checkers don't catch. Very entertaining as well as
enlightening.
--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
Barry Margolin
Jan 27, 2013, 5:36:21 PM1/27/13
to
In article <ke3plg$jeo$3...@news.xmission.com>,
gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> In article <i$$n6cCvI...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson <webj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > When a player does not follow the rules, and makes an illegal call,
> >such as a pass out of turn, a non-random result is pretty much
> >eliminated. That seems logical, obvious, and perfectly fair.
> .==========
>
> I assume you misspelled "guaranteed". Too bad your spelling checker didn't
> catch it.
Huh? Did you miss the "non-" prefix?
> In article <i$$n6cCvI...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson <webj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > When a player does not follow the rules, and makes an illegal call,
> >such as a pass out of turn, a non-random result is pretty much
> >eliminated. That seems logical, obvious, and perfectly fair.
> .==========
>
> I assume you misspelled "guaranteed". Too bad your spelling checker didn't
> catch it.
Kenny McCormack
Jan 27, 2013, 5:53:31 PM1/27/13
to
In article <barmar-1CD1EB....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Yes. It appears I did.
But just to be clear: The goal (aka, "the spirit") of the Laws is to try to
somehow (almost, one might say, "magically") produce a non-random result in
these sorts of circumstances. If that goal were dropped (as I think it
should be - but note that I don't write the Laws), then, it seems to me, you
might as well follow my earlier advice and just assign A+/A-. It is a
random result, but a lot less stupid than letting the hand play out and
achieve a random result. Saves time, too.
So, for historical reasons, shall we say, I assumed that DS was defending
the Laws (and their "goal"/"spirit") and was thus trying to maintain that
the Laws would generate a non-random result. Hence my mis-reading of his
post.
But just to be clear: The goal (aka, "the spirit") of the Laws is to try to
somehow (almost, one might say, "magically") produce a non-random result in
these sorts of circumstances. If that goal were dropped (as I think it
should be - but note that I don't write the Laws), then, it seems to me, you
might as well follow my earlier advice and just assign A+/A-. It is a
random result, but a lot less stupid than letting the hand play out and
achieve a random result. Saves time, too.
So, for historical reasons, shall we say, I assumed that DS was defending
the Laws (and their "goal"/"spirit") and was thus trying to maintain that
the Laws would generate a non-random result. Hence my mis-reading of his
post.
David Stevenson
Jan 27, 2013, 7:41:59 PM1/27/13
to
Kenny McCormack wrote
I get fairly tired of people saying things about what the Laws should
be. As the Laws are, you make a normal mechanical infraction, you get a
non-normal result. Going for averages is unnecessary, unhelpful, and
will upset people who want to play bridge, and, of course, means a
change in the current Laws. If you want to change the Laws, change
them, but under current Laws you get artificial results from mechanical
infractions. Actually, I don't think you can change them to avoid that,
but why does anyone want to? If players want to avoid these things they
should follow the Laws.
be. As the Laws are, you make a normal mechanical infraction, you get a
non-normal result. Going for averages is unnecessary, unhelpful, and
will upset people who want to play bridge, and, of course, means a
change in the current Laws. If you want to change the Laws, change
them, but under current Laws you get artificial results from mechanical
infractions. Actually, I don't think you can change them to avoid that,
but why does anyone want to? If players want to avoid these things they
should follow the Laws.
patmp...@gmail.com
Jan 27, 2013, 10:34:03 PM1/27/13
to David Stevenson
Dave Flower
Jan 28, 2013, 3:50:50 PM1/28/13
to David Stevenson
On Monday, 28 January 2013 03:34:03 UTC, patmp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:41:59 AM UTC+7, David Stevenson wrote: > Kenny McCormack wrote > > >In article <barmar-1CD1EB....@news.eternal-september.org>, > > >Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > >>In article <ke3plg$jeo$3...@news.xmission.com>, > > >> gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: > > >> > > >>> In article <i$$n6cCvI...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, > > >>> David Stevenson <webj...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >>> ... > > >>> > When a player does not follow the rules, and makes an illegal call, > > >>> >such as a pass out of turn, a non-random result is pretty much > > >>> >eliminated. That seems logical, obvious, and perfectly fair. > > >>> .========== > > >>> > > >>> I assume you misspelled "guaranteed". Too bad your spelling checker didn't > > >>> catch it. > > >> > > >>Huh? Did you miss the "non-" prefix? > > > > > >Yes. It appears I did. > > > > > >But just to be clear: The goal (aka, "the spirit") of the Laws is to try to > > >somehow (almost, one might say, "magically") produce a non-random result in > > >these sorts of circumstances. If that goal were dropped (as I think it > > >should be - but note that I don't write the Laws), then, it seems to me, you > > >might as well follow my earlier advice and just assign A+/A-. It is a > > >random result, but a lot less stupid than letting the hand play out and > > >achieve a random result. Saves time, too. > > > > > >So, for historical reasons, shall we say, I assumed that DS was defending > > >the Laws (and their "goal"/"spirit") and was thus trying to maintain that > > >the Laws would generate a non-random result. Hence my mis-reading of his > > >post. > > > > I get fairly tired of people saying things about what the Laws should > > be. As the Laws are, you make a normal mechanical infraction, you get a > > non-normal result. Going for averages is unnecessary, unhelpful, and > > will upset people who want to play bridge, and, of course, means a > > change in the current Laws. If you want to change the Laws, change > > them, but under current Laws you get artificial results from mechanical > > infractions. Actually, I don't think you can change them to avoid that, > > but why does anyone want to? If players want to avoid these things they > > should follow the Laws. > I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT benefit the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a lucky make.
There is all the question, at match-point pairs, of wild results affecting scores at other tables. I can imagine pairs bidding and making a difficult 7C being more than a little irritated at not getting a top when a revoke allowed 7S to make missing the ace of trumps!
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:41:59 AM UTC+7, David Stevenson wrote: > Kenny McCormack wrote > > >In article <barmar-1CD1EB....@news.eternal-september.org>, > > >Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > >>In article <ke3plg$jeo$3...@news.xmission.com>, > > >> gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: > > >> > > >>> In article <i$$n6cCvI...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, > > >>> David Stevenson <webj...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >>> ... > > >>> > When a player does not follow the rules, and makes an illegal call, > > >>> >such as a pass out of turn, a non-random result is pretty much > > >>> >eliminated. That seems logical, obvious, and perfectly fair. > > >>> .========== > > >>> > > >>> I assume you misspelled "guaranteed". Too bad your spelling checker didn't > > >>> catch it. > > >> > > >>Huh? Did you miss the "non-" prefix? > > > > > >Yes. It appears I did. > > > > > >But just to be clear: The goal (aka, "the spirit") of the Laws is to try to > > >somehow (almost, one might say, "magically") produce a non-random result in > > >these sorts of circumstances. If that goal were dropped (as I think it > > >should be - but note that I don't write the Laws), then, it seems to me, you > > >might as well follow my earlier advice and just assign A+/A-. It is a > > >random result, but a lot less stupid than letting the hand play out and > > >achieve a random result. Saves time, too. > > > > > >So, for historical reasons, shall we say, I assumed that DS was defending > > >the Laws (and their "goal"/"spirit") and was thus trying to maintain that > > >the Laws would generate a non-random result. Hence my mis-reading of his > > >post. > > > > I get fairly tired of people saying things about what the Laws should > > be. As the Laws are, you make a normal mechanical infraction, you get a > > non-normal result. Going for averages is unnecessary, unhelpful, and > > will upset people who want to play bridge, and, of course, means a > > change in the current Laws. If you want to change the Laws, change > > them, but under current Laws you get artificial results from mechanical > > infractions. Actually, I don't think you can change them to avoid that, > > but why does anyone want to? If players want to avoid these things they > > should follow the Laws. > I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT benefit the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a lucky make.
Dave Flower
Mark Brader
Jan 28, 2013, 6:20:09 PM1/28/13
to
David Stevenson:
responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
--
Mark Brader | "...i will have hideous nightmares involving huge
Toronto | monsters in academic robes carrying long bloody
m...@vex.net | butcher knives labelled Excerpt, Selection,
| Passage and Abridged." -- Helene Hanff
> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
Well, not *all* of it. Some of it is people doing what you did here:
responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
--
Mark Brader | "...i will have hideous nightmares involving huge
Toronto | monsters in academic robes carrying long bloody
m...@vex.net | butcher knives labelled Excerpt, Selection,
| Passage and Abridged." -- Helene Hanff
bhmwe...@gmail.com
Jan 29, 2013, 4:06:26 AM1/29/13
to David Stevenson
Den måndagen den 28:e januari 2013 kl. 21:50:50 UTC+1 skrev Dave Flower:
> There is all the question, at match-point pairs, of wild results affecting scores at other tables. I can imagine pairs bidding and making a difficult 7C being more than a little irritated at not getting a top when a revoke allowed 7S to make missing the ace of trumps!
This could of course happen also at IMP:s.
> There is all the question, at match-point pairs, of wild results affecting scores at other tables. I can imagine pairs bidding and making a difficult 7C being more than a little irritated at not getting a top when a revoke allowed 7S to make missing the ace of trumps!
Kenny McCormack
Jan 29, 2013, 5:52:45 AM1/29/13
to
In article <5c957570-ab69-4924...@googlegroups.com>,
<patmp...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
work the system to my advantage, whenever the opps did something bad and the
director was called, they always ended up winning the board. Like the real
world justice system, it is designed not to "restore equity" or help the
little guy, but instead to reward those who know how to game the system.
That again, is why my proposal (just give A+ to the NOS) is so much better.
<patmp...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT benefit
>the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a lucky make.
Indeed, when I first started playing (ACBL) bridge, until I learned how to
>the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a lucky make.
work the system to my advantage, whenever the opps did something bad and the
director was called, they always ended up winning the board. Like the real
world justice system, it is designed not to "restore equity" or help the
little guy, but instead to reward those who know how to game the system.
That again, is why my proposal (just give A+ to the NOS) is so much better.
derek
Jan 29, 2013, 11:43:24 AM1/29/13
to David Stevenson
On Monday, January 28, 2013 4:50:50 PM UTC-4, Dave Flower wrote:
>
> There is all the question, at match-point pairs, of wild results affecting scores at other tables. I can imagine pairs bidding and making a difficult 7C being more than a little irritated at not getting a top when a revoke allowed 7S to make missing the ace of trumps!
But how is that different, really, than the situation I faced last week, where our opponents bid fairly easily to a making Grand, and _nobody_ else even bid a small slam (everyone in spades made 7)? Sure, they're entitled to their top, but it was pure random chance that they were facing us when they got it!
>
> There is all the question, at match-point pairs, of wild results affecting scores at other tables. I can imagine pairs bidding and making a difficult 7C being more than a little irritated at not getting a top when a revoke allowed 7S to make missing the ace of trumps!
Sometimes you get a poor result because of chance, and most of us figure that, being chance, it'll balance out in the long run (of course, some of us like to consider our poor results "chance", in any case).
derek
Jan 29, 2013, 11:48:32 AM1/29/13
to
On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:52:45 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> Indeed, when I first started playing (ACBL) bridge, until I learned how to
> work the system to my advantage, whenever the opps did something bad and the
> director was called, they always ended up winning the board. Like the real
> world justice system, it is designed not to "restore equity" or help the
BS. It's exactly designed to do that - which is why we have a catchall law that says if equity hasn't been restored, the director can adjust.
>
> Indeed, when I first started playing (ACBL) bridge, until I learned how to
> work the system to my advantage, whenever the opps did something bad and the
> director was called, they always ended up winning the board. Like the real
> world justice system, it is designed not to "restore equity" or help the
> little guy, but instead to reward those who know how to game the system.
Do please come to my game and try to "game the system".
Steve Foster
Jan 30, 2013, 9:29:59 AM1/30/13
to
--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net
derek
Jan 30, 2013, 12:06:52 PM1/30/13
to
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:29:59 AM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:
In the specific case of Law 23's footnote "As, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.", I am pretty sure it really means a situation where a player might, for instance, double a final contract when his partner is barred, knowing that if the partner wasn't barred he might have pulled it. For instance:
1S (2H) X (4H)
4C!
Now, the insufficient bidder corrects to 4S - his partner is banned - and opps bid 5H which is doubled by opener. If partner has a hand which would likely have pulled a double, you should adjust under Law 23.
It is not "gaining an advantage" when you gamble that you can make 3N opposite any possible hand from 0 to 12 HCP (or 11, or whatever, depending on your partnership style).
> patmp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT
> > benefit the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a
> > lucky make.
>
> See L23.
Ugh. That's a director's call, and you _can_ adjust, but it's horrible. You're essentially arguing that an offending side should _never_ be entitled to a good result.
>
> > I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT
> > benefit the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a
> > lucky make.
>
> See L23.
In the specific case of Law 23's footnote "As, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.", I am pretty sure it really means a situation where a player might, for instance, double a final contract when his partner is barred, knowing that if the partner wasn't barred he might have pulled it. For instance:
1S (2H) X (4H)
4C!
Now, the insufficient bidder corrects to 4S - his partner is banned - and opps bid 5H which is doubled by opener. If partner has a hand which would likely have pulled a double, you should adjust under Law 23.
It is not "gaining an advantage" when you gamble that you can make 3N opposite any possible hand from 0 to 12 HCP (or 11, or whatever, depending on your partnership style).
Steve Foster
Jan 30, 2013, 5:10:52 PM1/30/13
to
derek wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:29:59 AM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:
> > patmp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT
> > > benefit the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a
> > > lucky make.
> >
> > See L23.
>
> Ugh. That's a director's call, and you can adjust, but it's horrible.
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:29:59 AM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:
> > patmp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT
> > > benefit the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a
> > > lucky make.
> >
> > See L23.
>
> You're essentially arguing that an offending side should never be
> entitled to a good result.
No, I am not.
> In the specific case of Law 23's footnote "As, for example, by
> partner’s enforced pass.", I am pretty sure it really means a
> situation where a player might, for instance, double a final contract
> when his partner is barred, knowing that if the partner wasn't barred
> he might have pulled it.
> It is not "gaining an advantage" when you gamble that you can make 3N
> opposite any possible hand from 0 to 12 HCP (or 11, or whatever,
> depending on your partnership style).
don't get a lucky top as an offending side (when the gamble has indeed
given you an advantage).
derek
Jan 30, 2013, 6:56:16 PM1/30/13
to
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:10:52 PM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:
> derek wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:29:59 AM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:
>
> > > patmp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT
> > > > benefit the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a
> > > > lucky make.
>
> > > See L23.
> >
> > Ugh. That's a director's call, and you can adjust, but it's horrible.
> > You're essentially arguing that an offending side should never be
> > entitled to a good result.
>
> No, I am not.
That may not be your _intent_, but it is certainly the effect of using Law 23 in that manner.
> derek wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:29:59 AM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:
>
> > > patmp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think what is bothering them is that the random result MIGHT
> > > > benefit the offending party. For example, bidding a 3NT that is a
> > > > lucky make.
>
> > > See L23.
> >
> > Ugh. That's a director's call, and you can adjust, but it's horrible.
> > You're essentially arguing that an offending side should never be
> > entitled to a good result.
>
> No, I am not.
>
> > In the specific case of Law 23's footnote "As, for example, by
> > partner's enforced pass.", I am pretty sure it really means a
> > situation where a player might, for instance, double a final contract
> > when his partner is barred, knowing that if the partner wasn't barred
> > he might have pulled it.
>
> Of course, it doesn't mean that. If it did, it would say so.
It doesn't mean _only_ that, it certainly _does_ mean that. I'm sure you could think of another scenario that we could agree on, but certainly not making a gambling 3N after partner failed to show an opening bid.
> > In the specific case of Law 23's footnote "As, for example, by
> > partner's enforced pass.", I am pretty sure it really means a
> > situation where a player might, for instance, double a final contract
> > when his partner is barred, knowing that if the partner wasn't barred
> > he might have pulled it.
>
> Of course, it doesn't mean that. If it did, it would say so.
>
> > It is not "gaining an advantage" when you gamble that you can make 3N
> > opposite any possible hand from 0 to 12 HCP (or 11, or whatever,
> > depending on your partnership style).
>
> The point is that if there is *no* legitimate route to 3NT, then you
> don't get a lucky top as an offending side (when the gamble has indeed
> given you an advantage).
There's _always_ a legitimate route to 3N - I see it on a practically daily basis where pairs have no earthly reason to be playing in 3N - either being short on values or transportation - but they keep getting there.
> > It is not "gaining an advantage" when you gamble that you can make 3N
> > opposite any possible hand from 0 to 12 HCP (or 11, or whatever,
> > depending on your partnership style).
>
> The point is that if there is *no* legitimate route to 3NT, then you
> don't get a lucky top as an offending side (when the gamble has indeed
> given you an advantage).
Patrick Powers
Jan 30, 2013, 8:44:17 PM1/30/13
to
Well, if you want to take the element of luck out of it, that's easy.
Just give 'em a 10 IMP penalty or its equivalent and let 'em bid
whatever they like.
Just give 'em a 10 IMP penalty or its equivalent and let 'em bid
whatever they like.
Christopher
Jan 30, 2013, 11:57:32 PM1/30/13
to
Christopher Monsour
Paul Hightower
Feb 1, 2013, 4:17:12 PM2/1/13
to
"Christopher" <mc110...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:097dda78-cfd5-48f8...@googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh! More UI. If there's going to be UI, I say just treat the opening pass
as UI and no further penalty than the threat of an adjusted score. But I
would far rather have a defined penalty, such as I propose, with no UI
restrictions at all. David says he must open 3NT; and now you say he can't
play it intelligently because of UI. Absurd.
news:097dda78-cfd5-48f8...@googlegroups.com...
Ugh! More UI. If there's going to be UI, I say just treat the opening pass
as UI and no further penalty than the threat of an adjusted score. But I
would far rather have a defined penalty, such as I propose, with no UI
restrictions at all. David says he must open 3NT; and now you say he can't
play it intelligently because of UI. Absurd.
axm...@hotmail.com
Feb 1, 2013, 5:02:11 PM2/1/13
to
regards
axman
Steve Willner
Feb 4, 2013, 9:20:05 PM2/4/13
to
On 2013-01-30 5:10 PM, Steve Foster wrote:
> The point is that if there is*no* legitimate route to 3NT, then you
have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well
damage" the NOS. Here the irregularity is the OPOOT, and it's wildly
unlikely anyone would have a hand to suggest passing OOT might be a good
idea. What hand would you suggest?
On 2013-01-30 11:57 PM, Christopher wrote:
> if NS are not completely daft, North will know South does not have an
> opening bid, AI to North and UI to the opponents...
Why should it be UI to the opponents? The information doesn't arise
from the initial POOT; it arises "from the legal procedures" subsequent
to the POOT.
The enforced pass and partner's stab at a contract (often 3NT) are
likely to give the OS a bad score, but if the OS get lucky, I don't see
any reason the score gets taken away. One can certainly argue that the
Laws ought to be different, but I don't see any doubt about what they
actually say now.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
> The point is that if there is*no* legitimate route to 3NT, then you
> don't get a lucky top as an offending side
I suggest you read Law 23 again. It applies only if the offender "could
have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well
damage" the NOS. Here the irregularity is the OPOOT, and it's wildly
unlikely anyone would have a hand to suggest passing OOT might be a good
idea. What hand would you suggest?
On 2013-01-30 11:57 PM, Christopher wrote:
> if NS are not completely daft, North will know South does not have an
Why should it be UI to the opponents? The information doesn't arise
from the initial POOT; it arises "from the legal procedures" subsequent
to the POOT.
The enforced pass and partner's stab at a contract (often 3NT) are
likely to give the OS a bad score, but if the OS get lucky, I don't see
any reason the score gets taken away. One can certainly argue that the
Laws ought to be different, but I don't see any doubt about what they
actually say now.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Eric Leong
Feb 4, 2013, 11:14:43 PM2/4/13
to
On Jan 24, 4:17 pm, "Paul Hightower" <paulh...@net.invalid> wrote:
> In a recent thread, East opened out of turn with a pass, not accepted by
> South. I've always felt that reverting the bidding to West but requiring
> East to pass encouraged gambling and perhaps unethical bidding; I certainly
> would not like to be North with a good hand. Here's another idea: Let the
> bidding start with North rather than West, with East required to pass at his
> first turn. Although East's pass if North opens is not exactly the same as
> an opening pass, it's close enough that I think this arrangement will result
> in a normal bridge result far more often than forcing West into a blind
> guess and forcing North to bid over that. The basic penalty is that West is
> bumped from first position to fourth, generally a disadvantage but not
> necessarily catastrophic. And I think it would be OK to treat East's pass as
> AI to West. Thoughts?
I think if you accept a pass out of turn your opening bid should show
> In a recent thread, East opened out of turn with a pass, not accepted by
> South. I've always felt that reverting the bidding to West but requiring
> East to pass encouraged gambling and perhaps unethical bidding; I certainly
> would not like to be North with a good hand. Here's another idea: Let the
> bidding start with North rather than West, with East required to pass at his
> first turn. Although East's pass if North opens is not exactly the same as
> an opening pass, it's close enough that I think this arrangement will result
> in a normal bridge result far more often than forcing West into a blind
> guess and forcing North to bid over that. The basic penalty is that West is
> bumped from first position to fourth, generally a disadvantage but not
> necessarily catastrophic. And I think it would be OK to treat East's pass as
> AI to West. Thoughts?
something specific that you could not otherwise show.
Eric Leong
Steve Foster
Feb 5, 2013, 9:00:54 AM2/5/13
to
Steve Willner wrote:
> On 2013-01-30 5:10 PM, Steve Foster wrote:
> > The point is that if there is*no* legitimate route to 3NT, then you
> > don't get a lucky top as an offending side
>
> I suggest you read Law 23 again. It applies only if the offender
> "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this
> could well damage" the NOS. Here the irregularity is the OPOOT, and
> it's wildly unlikely anyone would have a hand to suggest passing OOT
> might be a good idea. What hand would you suggest?
"was aware" or "is aware" require divination, but "could have been
> On 2013-01-30 5:10 PM, Steve Foster wrote:
> > The point is that if there is*no* legitimate route to 3NT, then you
> > don't get a lucky top as an offending side
>
> I suggest you read Law 23 again. It applies only if the offender
> "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this
> could well damage" the NOS. Here the irregularity is the OPOOT, and
> it's wildly unlikely anyone would have a hand to suggest passing OOT
> might be a good idea. What hand would you suggest?
aware" is a very broad target.
Dave Flower
Feb 5, 2013, 9:03:21 AM2/5/13
to
On Tuesday, 5 February 2013 04:14:43 UTC, Eric Leong wrote:
> On Jan 24, 4:17 pm, "Paul Hightower" <paulh...@net.invalid> wrote: > In a recent thread, East opened out of turn with a pass, not accepted by > South. I've always felt that reverting the bidding to West but requiring > East to pass encouraged gambling and perhaps unethical bidding; I certainly > would not like to be North with a good hand. Here's another idea: Let the > bidding start with North rather than West, with East required to pass at his > first turn. Although East's pass if North opens is not exactly the same as > an opening pass, it's close enough that I think this arrangement will result > in a normal bridge result far more often than forcing West into a blind > guess and forcing North to bid over that. The basic penalty is that West is > bumped from first position to fourth, generally a disadvantage but not > necessarily catastrophic. And I think it would be OK to treat East's pass as > AI to West. Thoughts? I think if you accept a pass out of turn your opening bid should show something specific that you could not otherwise show. Eric Leong
I am of the opinion that all offences where 'normal' play is possible should be corrected by cancelling the offending action which is UI to the offending side, AI to the non-offending side.
> On Jan 24, 4:17 pm, "Paul Hightower" <paulh...@net.invalid> wrote: > In a recent thread, East opened out of turn with a pass, not accepted by > South. I've always felt that reverting the bidding to West but requiring > East to pass encouraged gambling and perhaps unethical bidding; I certainly > would not like to be North with a good hand. Here's another idea: Let the > bidding start with North rather than West, with East required to pass at his > first turn. Although East's pass if North opens is not exactly the same as > an opening pass, it's close enough that I think this arrangement will result > in a normal bridge result far more often than forcing West into a blind > guess and forcing North to bid over that. The basic penalty is that West is > bumped from first position to fourth, generally a disadvantage but not > necessarily catastrophic. And I think it would be OK to treat East's pass as > AI to West. Thoughts? I think if you accept a pass out of turn your opening bid should show something specific that you could not otherwise show. Eric Leong
This could not be used to handle certain offences: established revokes and misinformation come to mind
Dave Flower
David Stevenson
Feb 5, 2013, 9:37:18 AM2/5/13
to
Mark Brader wrote
unnecessary blank line is a serious waste of time.
>David Stevenson:
>> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
>
>Well, not *all* of it. Some of it is people doing what you did here:
>responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
>into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
While I believe snipping is good, because it is easy, deleting every
>> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
>
>Well, not *all* of it. Some of it is people doing what you did here:
>responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
>into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
unnecessary blank line is a serious waste of time.
David Stevenson
Feb 5, 2013, 9:40:27 AM2/5/13
to
Dave Flower wrote
and does not get a top because some goes for a stupid penalty? Forgets
his system? And so on? The effect on other tables is totally trivial,
and perfectly normal for match-point pairs in thousands of ways.
>There is all the question, at match-point pairs, of wild results
>affecting scores at other tables. I can imagine pairs bidding and
>making a difficult 7C being more than a little irritated at not getting
>a top when a revoke allowed 7S to make missing the ace of trumps!
How does that differ from the person who makes an impossible contract
>affecting scores at other tables. I can imagine pairs bidding and
>making a difficult 7C being more than a little irritated at not getting
>a top when a revoke allowed 7S to make missing the ace of trumps!
and does not get a top because some goes for a stupid penalty? Forgets
his system? And so on? The effect on other tables is totally trivial,
and perfectly normal for match-point pairs in thousands of ways.
Herb
Feb 5, 2013, 10:57:45 AM2/5/13
to
On 2/5/2013 6:37 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
> Mark Brader wrote
>> David Stevenson:
>>> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
>>
>> Well, not *all* of it. Some of it is people doing what you did here:
>> responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
>> into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
>
> While I believe snipping is good, because it is easy, deleting every
> unnecessary blank line is a serious waste of time.
>
It's a bigger waste of time and effort having to scroll up a full page
> Mark Brader wrote
>> David Stevenson:
>>> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
>>
>> Well, not *all* of it. Some of it is people doing what you did here:
>> responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
>> into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
>
> While I believe snipping is good, because it is easy, deleting every
> unnecessary blank line is a serious waste of time.
>
for every line of intermixed comments ... by which time you've forgotten
what the previous lines were!
- Herb
Adam Beneschan
Feb 5, 2013, 11:10:14 AM2/5/13
to
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:00:54 AM UTC-8, Steve Foster wrote:
> Steve Willner wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2013-01-30 5:10 PM, Steve Foster wrote:
> > > The point is that if there is*no* legitimate route to 3NT, then you
> > > don't get a lucky top as an offending side
>
> > I suggest you read Law 23 again. It applies only if the offender
> > "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this
> > could well damage" the NOS. Here the irregularity is the OPOOT, and
> > it's wildly unlikely anyone would have a hand to suggest passing OOT
> > might be a good idea. What hand would you suggest?
>
> "was aware" or "is aware" require divination, but "could have been
> aware" is a very broad target.
No, actually, I don't think it is. As I understand the Laws, "could have been aware" should apply only when the offender has a hand that a devious person could look at and say "Hmmm, I can do something to get us a good score if I force my partner to pass." The "could have been aware" phrase is in the Laws so that directors don't have to judge whether the person was actually being devious or had just fallen asleep. But while you're right that this removes "divination" from how the Laws are applied, that still doesn't make it a broad target.
> Steve Willner wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2013-01-30 5:10 PM, Steve Foster wrote:
> > > The point is that if there is*no* legitimate route to 3NT, then you
> > > don't get a lucky top as an offending side
>
> > I suggest you read Law 23 again. It applies only if the offender
> > "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this
> > could well damage" the NOS. Here the irregularity is the OPOOT, and
> > it's wildly unlikely anyone would have a hand to suggest passing OOT
> > might be a good idea. What hand would you suggest?
>
> "was aware" or "is aware" require divination, but "could have been
> aware" is a very broad target.
I think a good example would be a hand with, say, seven running clubs and two side aces. You'd like to open 3NT to play, but in your methods a 3NT opening shows a preemptive hand with an eight-card minor, and partner usually removes it. So you bid out of turn, barring partner, and then open 3NT. That's the kind of case the Law was intended to cover.
But that's not a real common case. I think more common is, say, someone opening a normal 1NT out of turn, barring his partner, and then deciding to bid 3NT hoping partner has some high cards. (That's what I did, a long time ago. Partner obliged by putting down a 2-count in dummy.) On a hand like this, the opener can't reasonably believe that it's to his benefit to bar his partner. So the Law wouldn't apply here.
It also wouldn't apply in the case that started this discussion, where a player passed out of turn and barred *himself*. Since he can't see his partner's hand, of course he would have no way of knowing that barring himself has any decent chance to gain. So I don't think the Law should ever apply to an OPOOT.
Your interpretation, though, seems to be that if a player "could have been aware" that there is SOME possible scenario, no matter how remote, that the partnership could gain from an enforced pass, then the director can adjust. And since there is ALWAYS a possibility that an error could, under the perfect conditions, miraculously produce a good result, the condition is tautologically true, which would mean that, under this interpretation, Law 23 always applies any time a pair commits an irregularity and the penalty happens to lead to a good result. I do not believe that is a correct interpretation of the Laws.
I am not a director, however.
-- Adam
Mark Brader
Feb 5, 2013, 2:33:10 PM2/5/13
to
David Stevenson:
>>> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
Mark Brader:
>>> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
>> Well, not *all* of it. Some of it is people doing what you did here:
>> responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
>> into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
David Stevenson:
>> responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
>> into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
> While I believe snipping is good, because it is easy, deleting every
> unnecessary blank line is a serious waste of time.
It's a waste of your time -- I don't agree that it rises to the level of
> unnecessary blank line is a serious waste of time.
"serious". More important, *not* doing it is a waste of your readers'
time, and hopefully they have you outnumbered.
--
Mark Brader | "The occasional accidents had been much overemphasized,
Toronto | and later investigations ... revealed that nearly 90%
m...@vex.net | ... could have been prevented." --Wiley Post, 1931
My text in this article is in the public domain.
David Stevenson
Feb 5, 2013, 7:52:31 PM2/5/13
to
Mark Brader wrote
have to do solely because other people quote far too much using lousy
newsreaders. I do a lot of editing anyway.
>David Stevenson:
>>>> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> Well, not *all* of it. Some of it is people doing what you did here:
>>> responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
>>> into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
>
>David Stevenson:
>> While I believe snipping is good, because it is easy, deleting every
>> unnecessary blank line is a serious waste of time.
>
>It's a waste of your time -- I don't agree that it rises to the level of
>"serious". More important, *not* doing it is a waste of your readers'
>time, and hopefully they have you outnumbered.
Sure, but there is a limit to the amount of editing I think that I
>>>> Is all this unnecessary double spacing Google Groups at work again?
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> Well, not *all* of it. Some of it is people doing what you did here:
>>> responding to a posting that GG put the unnecessary double spacing
>>> into, without editing the extra blank lines out of what you requoted.
>
>David Stevenson:
>> While I believe snipping is good, because it is easy, deleting every
>> unnecessary blank line is a serious waste of time.
>
>It's a waste of your time -- I don't agree that it rises to the level of
>"serious". More important, *not* doing it is a waste of your readers'
>time, and hopefully they have you outnumbered.
have to do solely because other people quote far too much using lousy
newsreaders. I do a lot of editing anyway.
Steve Willner
Feb 6, 2013, 8:58:42 PM2/6/13
to
[Law 23, in part]
"mind reading.") Now take a look at the next part. The phrase "could
well" is quite different from "could." The latter is very general, but
the former is an idiomatic English phrase that means there has to be a
specific reason to expect the outcome. As someone else -- and I've now
forgotten who -- gave as an example: anyone now alive "could" die in the
next 24 hours, but only a person already very sick or otherwise in
danger "could well" die in the next 24 hours.
The basic purpose of Law 23 is to ban all forms of "Alcatraz Coup." It
catches the sweet old lady who innocently revokes because she can't tell
the hearts from the diamonds just as much as the sharpie who might have
done it on purpose. However, it's not enough that the OS gains in the
end; there must have been a reasonable expectation of gain at the time
of the irregularity. Adam gave a good explanation. Another example is
a player who wants to sign off at 4NT, but that would be taken as
Blackwood. No problem (absent L23): just make an insufficient bid,
barring partner, and then bid the 4NT you want. L23 takes care of that
and anything else of the kind.
As it happens, I can actually think of a specific hand type where I'd
apply L23 to an opening pass out of turn. It's a hand that has no
accurate bid, but if partner has some values and gambles 3NT, it's
likely to be successful. With that hint, you can probably figure it
out. I don't claim that's the only type, though it's the only one I can
think of, but when the initial passer has any normal hand, L23 has no
effect.
>> "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this
>> could well damage" the NOS.
>> could well damage" the NOS.
On 2013-02-05 9:00 AM, Steve Foster wrote:
> "was aware" or "is aware" require divination, but "could have been
> aware" is a very broad target.
Yes, that part is broad and requires no divination. (I usually say
> "was aware" or "is aware" require divination, but "could have been
> aware" is a very broad target.
"mind reading.") Now take a look at the next part. The phrase "could
well" is quite different from "could." The latter is very general, but
the former is an idiomatic English phrase that means there has to be a
specific reason to expect the outcome. As someone else -- and I've now
forgotten who -- gave as an example: anyone now alive "could" die in the
next 24 hours, but only a person already very sick or otherwise in
danger "could well" die in the next 24 hours.
The basic purpose of Law 23 is to ban all forms of "Alcatraz Coup." It
catches the sweet old lady who innocently revokes because she can't tell
the hearts from the diamonds just as much as the sharpie who might have
done it on purpose. However, it's not enough that the OS gains in the
end; there must have been a reasonable expectation of gain at the time
of the irregularity. Adam gave a good explanation. Another example is
a player who wants to sign off at 4NT, but that would be taken as
Blackwood. No problem (absent L23): just make an insufficient bid,
barring partner, and then bid the 4NT you want. L23 takes care of that
and anything else of the kind.
As it happens, I can actually think of a specific hand type where I'd
apply L23 to an opening pass out of turn. It's a hand that has no
accurate bid, but if partner has some values and gambles 3NT, it's
likely to be successful. With that hint, you can probably figure it
out. I don't claim that's the only type, though it's the only one I can
think of, but when the initial passer has any normal hand, L23 has no
effect.
David Stevenson
Feb 9, 2013, 12:56:06 PM2/9/13
to
Adam Beneschan wrote
Of course any situation could rebound to the player's advantage. But
for L23 to apply, it has to be more likely to gain than to lose.
for L23 to apply, it has to be more likely to gain than to lose.
0 new messages