[FrancesHinden]

cardsharp, on Jun 25 2010, 11:09 PM, said:

MickyB, on Jun 25 2010, 08:51 PM, said:

There was some discussion about how David+Tom must have changed some stuff from their CC, and whether that was allowed or not. I'm sure I'd have realised what was going on if I'd not been 98% concentrating on poker. Don't they have flags and names on the screen?

The 'changes' were to opening two bids in third and fourth seat. Pairs are not always so diligent about documenting these so it was possible.

Also both pairs played a short 1♣ with transfer responses, so other auctions could have been right.

Makes more sense now though

No it was more than that, Townsend/Gold open 1D with 4 diamonds, shorter clubs and a weak NT and open 1S with a 4-card suit when in range, and "they" did neither of these things but opened a short club instead.

[Ant590]

It's just been announced that the replay will be on Vugraph.

[Tomi2]

jallerton, on Jun 26 2010, 02:51 AM, said:

jeremy69, on Jun 26 2010, 08:14 AM, said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs it is wrong to present this as an "offer" to replay. It is an instruction from the organisers to do so.

Well it's quite right that the organisers (preferably using regulations determined in advance), not the players, should decide what happens.

If I were in one of the other teams I woud not be complaining too much. Whilst all of the other teams take a well earned rest on Saturday afternoon, these 8 players will have to play another set. The cumulative effect of tiredness is difficult to quantify but the teams who do not have to pay this afternoon may gain an advantage worth more than 3VPs by being less tired later in the tournament.

I think most teams will lose that advantage in the casino later this evening

[nige1]

Fluffy, on Jun 25 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

I don't really understand the rematch thing, they truly deserve 12 VPs, and the netherlands and Rusia have something really to argue about this thing. We are on a different league so I don't really care much, but if I was Polaand Ireland or some strong contender in the group I'd be outraged.

For decades, I've argued that complete default regulations should be specified in the official WBF law book. Sloppy conditions of contest would have a less detrimental impact. Of course, a bolshy local jurisdiction could still impose an idiosyncratic local variant. But most jurisdictions would be relieved not to bear responsibility for plugging current gaps. And, globally, players would benefit from a level playing field.

[blackshoe]

Toss game of bridge into blender. Add water. Purée until smooth. Remove from blender. If you find lumps of different systems, or different approaches to regulations, pound flat with a heavy mallet and purée again. When the mix is completely homogeneous, spread over entire world. Enjoy (or not).

[paulg]

nige1, on Jun 26 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jun 25 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

I don't really understand the rematch thing, they truly deserve 12 VPs, and the netherlands and Rusia have something really to argue about this thing. We are on a different league so I don't really care much, but if I was Polaand Ireland or some strong contender in the group I'd be outraged.

For decades, I've argued that complete default regulations should be specified in the official WBF law book. Sloppy conditions of contest would have a less detrimental impact. Of course, a bolshy local jurisdiction could still impose an idiosyncratic local variant. But most jurisdictions would be relieved not to bear responsibility for plugging current gaps. And, globally, players would benefit from a level playing field.

The WBF already provides a generic Conditions of Contest for its competitions. It does not cover this case. The WBF regulations for the World Bridge Series in Philadelphia in October, both the general CoC and Supplemental Conditions do not appear to cover this problem.

The EBL does appear to base its documents on the WBF ones. It would not surprise me if they have the same editor.

So it is happening. But there will always be topics that are not covered.

Paul

btw I think law book is the wrong term to use in this context.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Jun 26 2010, 12:36 PM, said:

Toss game of bridge into blender. Add water. Purée until smooth. Remove from blender. If you find lumps of different systems, or different approaches to regulations, pound flat with a heavy mallet and purée again. When the mix is completely homogeneous, spread over entire world. Enjoy (or not).

• More enjoyable for players as the rules gradually became simpler, clearer, and more complete but
  
• More boring for directors and administrators, deprived of interesting controversies over the interpretation and application of sophisticated and incompatible laws, regulations, minutes, conditions of contest and so on.

[PeterGill]

I wonder if the teams were following the Dress Code
http://www.eurobridge.org/administration/c...ress/index.html.
The Dress Code is also on page 21 of the regs referred to below.

C2.2 (and C23. in particular) of the regs http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/10O...gulations10.pdf
clearly says that Netherlands and Russia should have been fined 5 VP each for finishing 20 to 25 minutes late, but they were fined only 3 VPs each. People in this thread seem to be writing as if the regs were exactly followed in that case.

L2 and N on page 21 of these regs also are of interest, regarding wearing of name tags.

Regulation Q makes the outrage expressed by some in this thread totally unjustified IMO.The EBL can do what it likes, can't it?

[Fluffy]

sure, the same way charlie whitting can give no penalty to hamilton each time he does whatever he likes to, because he likes him, but that doesn't make it fair.

[jeremy69]

Well there has been another match from the womens match where the players sat the same way and that has also been replayed. This one was not originally on BBO so less chance for anyone to pick it up.
There have been players (not many) not wearing uniform but no fines as far as I am aware but finally a mobile phone penalty of 2v.p's and some Euros for one team in the Ladies event.
In all these cases where some are fined and others are not, where the regulators talk tough at the captains's meeting but don't enforce the regulations and where they just make up regulations as and when they wish it causes players, with some justification, to believe that it is not a level playing field.
Whilst no-one particularly wishes a European Championship to be decided by the shirt someone is wearing I can't see the point of having these rules if you are going to mostly ignore them and only use them when you are, for some other reason, in a bad mood.

[MickyB]

PeterGill, on Jun 30 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

I wonder if the teams were following the Dress Code

My understanding is that they were, but the operator still didn't realise; and that, unlike the tables that aren't on vugraph, (at least some of) the vugraph tables don't have the names and flags on the screen.

As was said earlier in the thread, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to be *told* to replay the match, given that there was time to do so. Presumably they could have elected to give a PP on top of that, but it seems unwarranted if they wre in uniform. In fact, if there hadn't been time to replay the match, there would be a case for an assigned score of 15-15 IMO.

With regard to the time penalty, perhaps they had been a lengthy director call that was responsible for some of the delay - I would be interested

Quote

sure, the same way charlie whitting can give no penalty to hamilton each time he does whatever he likes to, because he likes him, but that doesn't make it fair.

Lol. I really don't like Hamilton as a person, but Alonso clearly still has a massive chip on his shoulder from 2007. The situation this weekend was pretty complicated really, there was no perfect solution.

[Fluffy]

I hate alonso ,ore than anyone I know, but it was very disappointing to think for a couple of ,iutes that finally a williams was back on the podiu, where they should have never left; to realice all was just a joke and that hamilton again takes away with nothing

[nige1]

Fluffy, on Jun 25 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

I don't really understand the rematch thing, they truly deserve 12 VPs, and the netherlands and Rusia have something really to argue about this thing. We are on a different league so I don't really care much, but if I was Poland Ireland or some strong contender in the group I'd be outraged.

nige1, on Jun 26 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

For decades, I've argued that complete default regulations should be specified in the official WBF law book. Sloppy conditions of contest would have a less detrimental impact. Of course, a bolshy local jurisdiction could still impose an idiosyncratic local variant. But most jurisdictions would be relieved not to bear responsibility for plugging current gaps. And, globally, players would benefit from a level playing field.

cardsharp, on Jun 26 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

The WBF already provides a generic Conditions of Contest for its competitions. It does not cover this case. The WBF regulations for the World Bridge Series in Philadelphia in October, both the general CoC and Supplemental Conditions do not appear to cover this problem.
The EBL does appear to base its documents on the WBF ones. It would not surprise me if they have the same editor.
So it is happening. But there will always be topics that are not covered.
btw I think law book is the wrong term to use in this context.

The suggestion was that there should be single document integrating laws, regulations, minutes, coc, and so on into a consistent whole. Hence, a suitable title might be Rules of Duplicate Bridge.
Admittedly, initially, it would be a hodge-podge, little better than the current incomprehensible mess. The rules could be web-document, undergoing frequent revision to start with, (more frequent than every decade, anyway). Then gradually, as rule-makers responded to feedback from players, it would become simpler, clearer, less subjective, more consistent and more complete.

A simple example: if anyone found an omission (for example what to do if two pairs from the same team sit the same way in a round-robin match) then a new default rule would be entered immediately into the global rule book. Local jurisdictions could re-invent the wheel, at some later date, if they wanted -- but they wouldn't have to do so, as at present.

[jeremy69]

Quote

My understanding is that they were, but the operator still didn't realise

The England Open team have worn uniform throughout the tournament. AFAIK so have the opponents.

Quote

The suggestion was that there should be single document integrating laws, regulations, minutes, coc, and so on into a consistent whole. Hence, a suitable title might be Rules of Duplicate Bridge.

We could call it the "Orange Book"

[PeterGill]

... although the photos of players in Ostend's Daily Bulletins show many players (including one member of England's Open Team) not wearing their ID tags and thus not meeting the Dress Code.

[jeremy69]

Quote

although the photos of players in Ostend's Daily Bulletins show many players (including one member of England's Open Team) not wearing their ID tags and thus not meeting the Dress Code

Well, to start all England players had their badges, wore them on the way in and a couple put them in their pocket when playing. I don't believe that breached any conditions according to the regulations I have.

[gnasher]

jeremy69, on Jul 2 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

I don't believe that breached any conditions according to the regulations I have.

That's a poorly drafted regulation.

[jeremy69]

Quote

That's a poorly drafted regulation.

It isn't the only one it will amaze you to know!