BBO Discussion Forums: Simultaneous opening calls out of rotation - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

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

Simultaneous opening calls out of rotation

#61 User is offline   Vampyr 

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

Posted 2016-May-22, 05:51

How about this:

Quote

When there has been an irregularity, the Director shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed).When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.


Isn't this what everyone wants?
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

#62 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,666
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2016-May-22, 07:40

View PostVampyr, on 2016-May-22, 05:51, said:

Isn't this what everyone wants?

That is no good as it throws out the rub of the green results Stefanie. For example, you receive UI from partner that they are weaker than they might be and do the ethical thing by bidding a tight game. That turns out to be a lucky make requiring 3 or 4 things to be right. You would never have bid the game without the irregularity so your suggestion would take it away. Is this really what you want?
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#63 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2016-May-22, 08:44

View PostVampyr, on 2016-May-18, 13:37, said:

In any case, how do we rule when A. Player would certainly be aware, but the player is question is not known to ever be aware of anything?
Perhaps you rule that the latter player couldn't have been aware.
0

#64 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2016-May-22, 13:05

View PostVampyr, on 2016-May-22, 05:51, said:

Isn't this what everyone wants?

No.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#65 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2016-May-23, 09:25

View Postgordontd, on 2016-May-22, 13:05, said:

No.

I agree. But I would guess that over half of bridge players would not want an intentional irregularity to gain, even if the perpetrator could not work out how it would. I would go further and get rid of the requirement "could have been aware" altogether, so that an irregularity can never gain. Pran says it is just there so that there is no accusation of cheating.

Rub of the green. Bah ... humbug ... there is enough luck in bridge already.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 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