[aguahombre]

Let's bring back Kayuga.

[gnasher]

 axman, on 2015-May-20, 12:55, said:

Yes. Very much so.

For the law to serve its true use- provide solutions- there is great value from knowing empirically that the solutions satisfy the notion of justice. Lamford's hypotheticals test via examination; raising to consciousness the multitude of issues that can occur. And thus by bringing issues to the surface, creating understanding with regards (a) how the words operate and (b) whether we like the outcome of how the words operate.

After which, if we have any sense, we disregard the literal meaning of the Laws, and continue to play and rule exactly as we did before.

Has anyone here actually done something different, either as a player or as a director, as a result of reading one of Lamford's constructed threads?

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2015-May-21, 01:22, said:

Has anyone here actually done something different, either as a player or as a director, as a result of reading one of Lamford's constructed threads?

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

[ArtK78]

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 08:42, said:

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

Is this North London club a hypothetical club?

Really? 85 "deliberate" insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call? That is absurd.

Deliberate insufficient bids are an issue for your Conduct & Ethics Committee. Players who make deliberate insufficient bids should receive a procedural penalty and perhaps a suspension.

If this North London club is real, then it most likely holds the record for insufficient bids, penalty cards and attempts to change unintended calls over a 7 day period.

[lamford]

 ArtK78, on 2015-May-21, 08:59, said:

Deliberate insufficient bids are an issue for your Conduct & Ethics Committee.

Under which Law are they an infraction?

 ArtK78, on 2015-May-21, 08:59, said:

That is absurd.

As was taking the post seriously.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 09:00, said:

 ArtK78, on 2015-May-21, 08:59, said:

Deliberate insufficient bids are an issue for your Conduct & Ethics Committee.

Under which Law are they an infraction?

Try Law 72B1 for a starter

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 09:00, said:

 ArtK78, on 2015-May-21, 08:59, said:

That is absurd.

As was taking the post seriously.

As has in my opinion most of this forum grown.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 08:42, said:

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 09:00, said:

Under which Law are they an infraction?

Bravo, Paul. Two shots -- first at yourself, then at ******** (reference censored).

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-May-21, 09:13, said:

Try Law 72B1 for a starter

Law 72B1 makes no mention of insufficient bids being an infraction. Is the Norwegian translation different to the English version?

[mycroft]

Law 72B1 of course.

And yes, I don't think the "North London" (would that be Newcastle, or slightly less north London?) club exists. However, for a game or two, it would be as fun to play at as the Griffins, the CryptoClub, or Punkydoodle's Corners - though it is equally unlikely I would wish to be a regular at any.

[lamford]

 mycroft, on 2015-May-21, 09:44, said:

Law 72B1 of course.

The question was which Law makes an insufficient bid an infraction, not which Law prevents one committing a deliberate infraction. And this issue has been discussed on another thread already.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-May-20, 17:48, said:

Assuming that the "He" in the above refers to me, I would like to make a few observations. Every deal in bridge is equally likely, although the most probable hand appears to be when all four players get a complete suit, judging by the number of such occasions reported throughout history, so no hand can ever be an "implausible hypothetical". Every hand I have constructed on here has been based on some aspect of a real situation usually embellished and changed to isolate the point of law at issue, uncluttered by other aspects. If you really want an example of an "implausible hypothetical" then I suggest you turn to:

It's not the hands that I consider unlikely, it's the actions of the players and TD -- those are what your threads are about.

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 08:42, said:

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

And this isn't "implausible"?

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 09:54, said:

The question was which Law makes an insufficient bid an infraction, not which Law prevents one committing a deliberate infraction. And this issue has been discussed on another thread already.

And I thought that was one of the rare cases where we came to a concensus that my reading of all the relevant Laws made them an infraction.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2015-May-21, 01:22, said:

After which, if we have any sense, we disregard the literal meaning of the Laws, and continue to play and rule exactly as we did before.

I am totally in favour of that, although I think dburn is not. But first we have to decide which of the Laws we follow as they are written and which of them we consider should say something else. With some occasional help from the WBFLC of course.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2015-May-21, 10:00, said:

And I thought that was one of the rare cases where we came to a concensus that my reading of all the relevant Laws made them an infraction.

I didn't think that was the case. Can anyone provide a link?

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2015-May-21, 10:00, said:

And I thought that was one of the rare cases where we came to a concensus that my reading of all the relevant Laws made them an infraction.

There were two groups. Those that thought that there was no Law preventing insufficient bids but that there should be and we should rule as though there was, and those that thought one could infer from other Laws that insufficient bids were not allowed. It would be harsh to give any procedural penalty to someone making a deliberate insufficient bid when there is no express law preventing it. And as for referring them to the Conduct and Ethics Committee ... who will give them 100 lines: "Thou shalt read the Laws in full and find any inferences that affect other incorrectly worded Laws and bid accordingly".

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 09:32, said:

 pran, on 2015-May-21, 09:13, said:

Try Law 72B1 for a starter

Law 72B1 makes no mention of insufficient bids being an infraction. Is the Norwegian translation different to the English version?

No

Definitions said:

Infraction A player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.

And I get more convinced every day now that further participation in this forum is just a waste of time and effort.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2015-May-21, 09:59, said:

 lamford, on 2015-May-21, 08:42, said:

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

And this isn't "implausible"?

An astute observation. But it was not an opening post.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2015-May-21, 09:44, said:

And yes, I don't think the "North London" (would that be Newcastle, or slightly less north London?) club exists. However, for a game or two, it would be as fun to play at as the Griffins, the CryptoClub, or Punkydoodle's Corners - though it is equally unlikely I would wish to be a regular at any.

The club exists. I'm sure that a lot of people have guessed which club it is.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-May-21, 10:13, said:

Definitions said:
Infraction A player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.

So we are going round in circles and now looking for the Law or Lawful regulation which makes a deliberate insufficient bid an infraction. And we will again do so, as we did in the previous thread on this subject, by inference from other Laws or headings which allow us to conclude that Law 18 forgot to require bids to be sufficient. We cannot apply a procedural penalty against someone who, to quote George Carman successfully defending Ian and Kevin Maxwell, did not "trawl through the regulations like a legal gymnast".

[lamford]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-21, 10:16, said:

The club exists. I'm sure that a lot of people have guessed which club it is.

Indeed, many hands have been based on occurrences from the club.