BBO Discussion Forums: A BIT of all right - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

A BIT of all right Careful thought for a bridge reason

#41 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-October-26, 10:09

View Postjallerton, on 2015-October-26, 02:06, said:

The purpose of the WB is to provide guidance to TDs. It contains many examples, but it is not reasonable to expect a guidance document to describe every situation exactly. Readers are allowed to use their intelligence in assessing whether the example of hesitating with two small cards is explaining a principle rather than issuing a directive about one specific situation.


Fine, but when the writers specify two small cards one wonders whether there was a reason. There are languages which contain only the numbers "one" and "many", but Engjish is not one of them.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
1

#42 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-October-26, 10:26

View PostRMB1, on 2015-October-26, 06:08, said:

The EBU position is that you cannot appeal suspension from the current session before the end of the session. In principal, the decision could be reviewed later by an appeals committee, who could suggest the TD ameliorate [change for the better] the consequences of the suspension.

How is he going to do that, after the session is over?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
1

#43 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-26, 10:44

View Postlamford, on 2015-October-26, 03:41, said:

FWIW, I would reduce the White Book rather than increase it. On this topic, I would write, briefly, "It is up to the TD (or AC) to decide whether a BIT is for a demonstrable bridge reason".

I think the point of examples like this is to make it more likely that this decision will be consistent across different TDs. When you have imprecise language like "demonstrable bridge reason" and "must be particularly careful", TDs need some guidance about how to interpret it.

Perhaps this argues that the Laws themselves should be more precise, so that we don't need RAs to fill in the details (since that means they'll likely be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions).

#44 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2015-October-26, 10:51

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-October-26, 10:26, said:

How is he going to do that, after the session is over?

That would be for the AC to suggest but obvious things would be awarding AVE+ for the boards the pair did not play, refunding (a proportion of) their entry fee, the TD apologising for misjudging the situation.
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#45 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-26, 16:22

View PostVampyr, on 2015-October-26, 10:09, said:

Fine, but when the writers specify two small cards one wonders whether there was a reason. There are languages which contain only the numbers "one" and "many", but Engjish is not one of them.


The reason is probably because this is an example that the L&EC had come across in practice. I've certainly heard about cases where declarer has a 9-card fir with a 2-way finesse for a Q. He leads the J from hand and then the next hand pauses from xx. When asked by the TD, the defender explains what he was deciding whether or not to give count.
0

#46 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-October-26, 17:01

View Postjallerton, on 2015-October-26, 16:22, said:

The reason is probably because this is an example that the L&EC had come across in practice. I've certainly heard about cases where declarer has a 9-card fir with a 2-way finesse for a Q. He leads the J from hand and then the next hand pauses from xx. When asked by the TD, the defender explains what he was deciding whether or not to give count.

I would regard that as not a demonstrable bridge reason, unless the player can convince me that whether he has two or three trumps could matter.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#47 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2015-October-27, 06:56

View Postjallerton, on 2015-October-26, 02:06, said:

Why is the regulation illegal? Isn't it just explaining that deciding which low card to play when following suit is not considered to be a demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo in the context of Law 73?


That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
2

#48 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-October-27, 09:34

View Postgnasher, on 2015-October-27, 06:56, said:

That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."

If the player only ate a banana when he had a seven-card suit, that would be illegal communication, unless it was just coincidence.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#49 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-October-27, 09:56

View Postlamford, on 2015-October-27, 09:34, said:

If the player only ate a banana when he had a seven-card suit, that would be illegal communication, unless it was just coincidence.

He wrote: "Eat a banana". He didn't write: "Bring a giraffe" or "Wear Cologne".

:)

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
1

#50 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-27, 10:33

View Postgnasher, on 2015-October-27, 06:56, said:

That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."

I think they're interpreting the law as actually meaning a good, demonstrable bridge reason. Otherwise, players could come up with all sorts of fanciful reasons, and we would have to respect them.

Or maybe they're just saying that you can't really demonstrate a reason why you have to wait until the last moment before deciding whether to give count in a particular suit. So it's not "demonstrable".

#51 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-28, 01:46

View Postjallerton, on 2015-October-26, 02:06, said:

Why is the regulation illegal? Isn't it just explaining that deciding which low card to play when following suit is not considered to be a demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo in the context of Law 73?

By the way, it is possible to think about one's signal without breaking tempo. it is also highly desirable. Varying tempo before signalling provides UI to partner; this makes defending even harder for players who are trying to comply with their ethical obligations.



View Postgnasher, on 2015-October-27, 06:56, said:

That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."


I don't understand. A defender has 62 doubleton in a suit defending against 7NT. Declarer leads the jack from hand. What is the bridge reason for breaking tempo in deciding whether to play the 6 or the 2?

Quote

It is desirable, though not always required, to maintain steadying tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.


This is not some moral statement which Gordon has invented; it is a direct quote from the Law.
0

#52 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-October-28, 04:31

View Postahydra, on 2015-October-24, 04:05, said:

What if West says "sorry, need to think about the whole hand"?

This sounds like he is saying explicitly that he is not thinking of covering. He is not required to help declarer that much.

So it would be better to say "sorry, have to turn my phone off" :)
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#53 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-October-28, 06:20

View Posthelene_t, on 2015-October-28, 04:31, said:

This sounds like he is saying explicitly that he is not thinking of covering. He is not required to help declarer that much.

So it would be better to say "sorry, have to turn my phone off" :)

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.
0

#54 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-October-28, 07:30

View Postpran, on 2015-October-28, 06:20, said:

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

Any remark which suggests that you do not have an honour in the suit could be construed as misleading if you do have one. If you have no demonstrable bridge reason to break tempo, the infraction has occurred whatever you say.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#55 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-October-28, 08:40

View Postpran, on 2015-October-28, 06:20, said:

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

View Postlamford, on 2015-October-28, 07:30, said:

Any remark which suggests that you do not have an honour in the suit could be construed as misleading if you do have one. If you have no demonstrable bridge reason to break tempo, the infraction has occurred whatever you say.

I intentially wrote "appears true".

You as TD, and the other players at the table will probably be quite competent in judging the difference between a player apparently concentrating on some question and a player apparently just being absentminded?
0

#56 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-28, 09:27

View Postpran, on 2015-October-28, 06:20, said:

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

Isn't that admitting that he's violating 74B1: "paying insufficient attention to the game"? So he's just replacing one possible infraction with another.

#57 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-October-28, 11:04

View Postpran, on 2015-October-28, 06:20, said:

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

View Postbarmar, on 2015-October-28, 09:27, said:

Isn't that admitting that he's violating 74B1: "paying insufficient attention to the game"? So he's just replacing one possible infraction with another.

Sure,
but it is replacing a possibly serious violation (of Law 74C7) with a certainly more excusable violation (of Law 74B1).

Who has never accidentally failed to immediately observe when it is his turn to call (or play)?
1

#58 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-30, 09:49

View Postpran, on 2015-October-28, 11:04, said:

Sure,
but it is replacing a possibly serious violation (of Law 74C7) with a certainly more excusable violation (of Law 74B1).

Who has never accidentally failed to immediately observe when it is his turn to call (or play)?

Is it appropriate to say that you were absent-minded if that wasn't actually the case, but you're trying to hide the fact that you were thinking about the card? Isn't lying about the reason for your hesitation a violation of 73D1: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, ...".

So you can't coffeehouse, and you can't try to get away with it by saying that you weren't coffeehousing -- both of them violate 73D1. You have to be truly distracted in order to claim that you're only violating 74B1.

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

#59 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-October-30, 13:18

View Postbarmar, on 2015-October-30, 09:49, said:

Is it appropriate to say that you were absent-minded if that wasn't actually the case, but you're trying to hide the fact that you were thinking about the card? Isn't lying about the reason for your hesitation a violation of 73D1: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, ...".

So you can't coffeehouse, and you can't try to get away with it by saying that you weren't coffeehousing -- both of them violate 73D1. You have to be truly distracted in order to claim that you're only violating 74B1.

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

This is insulting.

To repeat myself - I intentially wrote "appears true". And I never accept anybody deliberately lying, so I don't appreciate (repeated) suggestions that I favour fancy excuses in order to conceal a serious infringement of the laws.
0

#60 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-October-30, 15:24

View Postbarmar, on 2015-October-30, 09:49, said:

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

I doubt very much that the lawmakers were thinking along the lines you suggest here when they made that law. I also doubt the regulating authorities were thinking along those lines when they implemented it in regulation.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users