[lamford]

smerriman, on 2018-October-15, 14:15, said:

If they wanted to restrict to the examples only, then they wouldn't have used the word 'as'. Removing the word 'as' would give exactly the definition you are wanting. Perhaps it doesn't to you, but as by in this context clearly means for example to me.

I would not attach any importance to some words in the laws which seem to be added by a shuffling machine dealing the boards. Two examples will suffice, the unnecessary "intently" in 74C5 and the ridiculous "accidentally" in 16D1. In any case, it is completely irrelevant what it means to you, or even what it means to me, other than in events at which you or I direct; it is only relevant what it means to the TD who has to interpret it. When I direct at the North London club, I only class as UI information similar to the examples given. Your interpretation is, in any case, ridiculous, as it leads to many TD calls per round when a player has UI because he saw or noticed something from the next table quite unrelated to the examples given.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-October-15, 05:42, said:

The meaning of "as by" (which I am told by a Professor of Law is not in any of the legal dictionaries) has to be taken in context.

"As by" is indeed quite unusual, it's not something I would ever choose to write.
Google is no longer a pure search engine, but for what it's worth, the first six pages it presents to me reveal only "as by fire" and "as by ultrashort optical excitation" as quotes from actual documents. I'm not sure if anything other than fire or ultrashort optical excitation would have done the trick.

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-October-15, 09:31, said:

It is somewhat different to "for example" or they would have used the latter. There is a definitive implication that the UI would need to be of the same type, else why give (a long list of) examples?

My Webster gives "for instance" and "for example" among a huge amount of (different) explanations for constructions with "as".
There is obviously no single meaning for that word, it must be understood from thee context.

And a list of examples following the words "as by" is by its nature not exhaustive.

[lamford]

pran, on 2018-October-15, 16:09, said:

My Webster gives "for instance" and "for example" among a huge amount of (different) explanations for constructions with "as".
There is obviously no single meaning for that word, it must be understood from thee context.

And a list of examples following the words "as by" is by its nature not exhaustive.

From the Introduction: The trend, begun in 2007, to give Tournament Directors more discretion in enforcing the Law has been continued and attempts have been made to clarify interpretations.

And, from 81C: Director’s Duties and Powers
<snip>
The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:
<snip>
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder

So, it is not the role of this forum, nor mine, nor the role of pran, sanst or smerriman to interpret the meaning of "as by", but the role of the TD. By all means, get the WBFLC to clarify what is UI and what is not.

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-October-15, 17:48, said:

From the Introduction: The trend, begun in 2007, to give Tournament Directors more discretion in enforcing the Law has been continued and attempts have been made to clarify interpretations.

And, from 81C: Director’s Duties and Powers
<snip>
The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:
<snip>
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder

So, it is not the role of this forum, nor mine, nor the role of pran, sanst or smerriman to interpret the meaning of "as by", but the role of the TD. By all means, get the WBFLC to clarify what is UI and what is not.

I do not know your capacity (although I have suspicions), but when I write here it is in my capacity as TD (licensed since 1980).

[lamford]

pran, on 2018-October-16, 02:42, said:

I do not know your capacity (although I have suspicions), but when I write here it is in my capacity as TD (licensed since 1980).

I was not suggesting that you were not a TD, and I cannot match your experience. I was pointing out that our opinions on what "as by" means is not that relevant, as it is the opinion of the TD at an event that matters. And only the WBFLC can clarify the matter, as by a circulated minute.

However, your opinion is indeed valuable. Do you think the following are UI:
a) the length of time the board takes to arrive
b) who the declarer was at the previous table
If so, should everyone call the director when the board arrives quickly or slowly, or they notice, either accidentally or deliberately, who the declarer was when the board was previously played?

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2018-October-15, 03:18, said:

The adaptation of the laws to internet bridge give rise to another question, viz. should the software make infractions like BOOT, IB and the like impossible? If so, to what extent? But another question arises, too, viz. what is the role of the RA’s and which RA should be responsible for cross-border bridge? AFAIK these questions are being discussed but whether that will lead to a clear set of laws, remains to be seen.
To have more frequent revisions would probably be hard to handle for the WBFLC, the RA’s, the directors and the players. Don’t forget that the committee has members from all over the world who meet once every two years. Of course a lot of the discussions between the members take the form of mailing lists like BLML, but they certainly also have to talk face to face in a language which is not the mother tongue of the majority. Then there is the need for the national unions to give their input and feedback - which in the case of the ACBL is pretty strong - which also takes a lot of time. Don’t forget that most of this work is done by volunteers and it takes a while to evaluate a new set of laws. I’m afraid that a ten year period is more or less the most practical.

Not only is there the relative easy question of whether the software may, must or must not prevent irregularities like BOOT and IB, but also the more problematic question of how it should behave when a player attempts to deviate from his agreements - assuming AI applied to understand bidding systems, which is only a few years away at most. Should a player be warned if his call is deviant, can he be allowed to give a false explanation, can a robot be allowed to pysche?
And now not only do we need laws that can deal with traditional (card-based) tournaments and on-line (internet based) tournaments, but also the emerging semi-traditional (tablet-based) tournament which poses new UI and organisational issues.
Once decided these and other matters, the laws must be updated and a certification process for such software established and rolled out. Again this poses the dilemma of the need for an active central authority rather than each RA doing (or not doing) it's own thing across the internet. Inter-related with this is the question of relationships between RAs and platforms, with on-line play to earn RA points and soon RA tournaments entirely on-line, with a global ranking scheme only a matter of time.
A lot of this stuff will happen well before 2027 and it isn't all going to wait until WBF is ready.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-October-16, 08:03, said:

Not only is there the relative easy question of whether the software may, must or must not prevent irregularities like BOOT and IB, but also the more problematic question of how it should behave when a player attempts to deviate from his agreements - assuming AI applied to understand bidding systems, which is only a few years away at most. Should a player be warned if his call is deviant, can he be allowed to give a false explanation, can a robot be allowed to pysche?

I think many players would welcome automated explanations, if it could be done well. BBO has a rudimentary mechanism in its "Full Disclosure" convention cards, but we long ago abandoned it as too complicated to enter all your agreements (it doesn't have any AI, you just enumerate bidding sequences and say what the meaning of each bid is).

OTOH, deviating from agreements is not considered an infraction at all (unless you do it frequently enough to form an implicit agreement that's not disclosed). And a system that prevented you from deviating would also act as a memory aid -- if you can't remember whether you're playing 1430 or 3014, just bid and it will warn you if you misbid.

Basically, it's OK to prevent simple mechanical errors, but this is a mind sport and we don't want the system to usurp the parts of the game based on memory, logic, and inference.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-October-16, 09:10, said:

I think many players would welcome automated explanations, if it could be done well. BBO has a rudimentary mechanism in its "Full Disclosure" convention cards, but we long ago abandoned it as too complicated to enter all your agreements (it doesn't have any AI, you just enumerate bidding sequences and say what the meaning of each bid is).

OTOH, deviating from agreements is not considered an infraction at all (unless you do it frequently enough to form an implicit agreement that's not disclosed). And a system that prevented you from deviating would also act as a memory aid -- if you can't remember whether you're playing 1430 or 3014, just bid and it will warn you if you misbid.

Basically, it's OK to prevent simple mechanical errors, but this is a mind sport and we don't want the system to usurp the parts of the game based on memory, logic, and inference.

That's easy to agree with and fine as far as it goes. But can the WBF leave such choices up to the software designer? I think not. And if they do, would you as a software designer choose to allow people to deviate from agreements or commit infractions when you could simply prevent this? I think not. You will probably keep the software simple and just eliminate as many human errors as possible, knowing that the mass of players will even thank you for it and the game will become easier to learn for those bored with pokemon, ruzzle and clash of clans.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-16, 09:10, said:

And a system that prevented you from deviating would also act as a memory aid -- if you can't remember whether you're playing 1430 or 3014, just bid and it will warn you if you misbid.

I am reminded of a beta version of the Bridgemate which told you if the card led was not in declarer's LHO's hand BEFORE the opponents confirmed the score. A ChCh lookalike entered 6S by North after the auction and the lead of the ♠Q and was told that this card was not in the opening leader's hand. He finessed the partner of the opening leader successfully for this card, and then corrected the lead before offering the score to the opponents. The software was quickly changed, further eroding the advantage of sitting North, but it could be argued that he had not infracted Law 16D as he obtained the UI deliberately, not accidentally.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2018-October-16, 09:43, said:

[snip] the game will become easier to learn for those bored with pokemon, ruzzle and clash of clans.

I’m afraid bridge doesn’t beat Fifa19, World of Warcraft or Tomb Raider, and bridge doesn’t have the like of Lara Croft. I know, totally OT.