Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 66 67 68 69
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I realise that. Is there something in my post above that suggests not? (Genuine question, to see if I have misphrased somethng).
Jan. 18
John Larkin edited this comment Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RY: … constructed by the same people who construct statute laws or for the same purpose that people construct statute laws or at the same level of precision.
Since you ask.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DY: in reply to your mespot.
A number of examples have been given that demonstrate the difference between the circumstances surrounding the creation of the penalty card, and the existence of the penalty card per se.
Yourself and others have chosen to ignore these, in the main.
The Law makers chose not to ignore these when writing this supplementary clause to the rules.
Instead they tried to write a complex rider to the Law, which has allowed two possible interpretations.
You have chosen to go with the interpretation that you probably realise is unfair and unjust, because you feel that is legally correct, by quoting surpluses and redundancies. Yet it is your nterpretation that seems to ignore their efforts not to simply write that “knowledge of the lead's being a penalty card” is verbotten. THey made great efforts to differentiate. But you are treating those efforts as a redundancy. You are also treating the statements re restoring equity, “not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations…”… as redundant. Why do you think they put that in?

However, it is reasonable for you to choose the unjust interpretation, if you see it as legal.
In the scenario of uncertainty, I fall back on a fair and just decision.

PS as a non anti-lawyer comment. They are trained to interpret (Statute?) Laws where every effort has been made in the first place to make the laws unassailably precise. Hence the wording we mortals can find obtuse. Because it is the opposite. But the Laws of brdge probably do not have the same efforts made to make them perfect. And so the lawyerly approach may be less appropriate. Bridge is not a court of Law. it's a game.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another good example.
TO be honest, I can understand how it is an interesting intellectual exercise, and fun, to try interpreting the letter of the Law to mean that the 2H must be taken as a signal - but cannot believe that those doing this seriously believe that this is a fair and just way to interpret it.
Despite numerous examples such as the above, we still get questions like RY's “so what information do you imagin that refers to?” When he has already been given a number of them, and this is followed by more examples, met by a repeat of the “only by taking advantage of UI” line which apparently trumps anything.
I believe no-one actually thinks this is what was meant in Law.
I believe they are entertained by the fact that the wording makes this bizarre interpretation difficult to absolutely refute.
And, unlike my own ridiculous suggestion in this or another thread that the TD should receive a PP for not doing something that he may do, cos it doesn't actually say in the Laws that you can't… they are carrying on with it.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The intent of the Laws is expressed in their wording.”
Fair enough.
But wording is not always perfect.
As has been pointed out, it would be very easy to make the wording state very clearly the interpretation you have decided to put on it.
But the Lawmakers have not done that.
Instead we have wording that everyone is “arguing” about. Which seems odd. Except that the other view - that the actual existence of the penalty card is OK to know about, but that the way it was created is not AI, is a much more complex one. They don't want you to remember e.g. As I said earlier, that partner led the King of diamonds, and realise that he has the queen, but they are happy for you to know that partner is leading the card because it is there. That part of the Law relates to both major and minor penalty cards.
So, if the wording is “ambiguous”, does that suggest their actual intention was the very simple didactic interpretation you make and they failed to make that simple concept clear, or is it more likely that they were trying to produce wording for the more complex problem…and left enough ambiguity for some people to thnk that the Law for some reason wishes to punish someone who has dropped a card. With the only justification being “that's what the Law says!” When many think it doesn't?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yay.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No law at all.
I am saying it is our psychology.
Get rid of the penalty card and just get back to bridge.

It's a bit like being offered all the options after a lead out of turn, and not knowing what to do and just accepting it.
Jan. 15
John Larkin edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Player ability may come in here.
I am reading the above inferences re partner's holding, and the option of leading an honour, realising that at my level, the psychology of a minor penalty card is to get rid of it at first opportunity ( as long as no clear loss of trick). So no alalysis of partner's holding would be made, and no inference re signalling.
Indeed, the above analysis is essentially the very thing that is “disallowed” at the table -since this is now UI. And any attempt by partner to do anything other than lead the 2, allowing west to interpret with the 2, could lead to an adjustment for damage.
Life's so much simpler for us bad players.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DY: Am not sure I would interpret it like that. West is not using any interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the penalty card, only the simple fact that it WAS a penalty card. The law does not appear to disallow that.
So if the penalty card was the Kd, West would not be able to use the memory that this was led out of turn, and may suggest partner has the Queen, as opposed to being droppd accidentally, when no such inference would be taken.
Indeed, treating any played penalty card as if it had dropped accidentally might be a decent default position.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But less absolute than “must not”, apparently.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They should have put the screens out the other way…
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AB: I agree. That's why I thought = semantic and didnt take further, except to compare that with “shall not”. Since “Thou shalt not” is generally accepted as being a bigger nono than “thou mayest not” for very many years by many following what they believe to be an arguably higher authority than those making up bridge laws.

EB: :)
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks.
Following the above, I decided to take your advice and read the introduction again.
I noted the bit about “the trend…to give TDs more discretion in enforcing the law has been continued”. Spooky!

Then we get to the “established usage” re “may” etc. Whilst you state these are in no way bizarre, that is, of course only an opinion -holding the same force as my own opinion that they are.

You do contrast them with the “dictionary definition”, so I might use that as a support for my case.

Also, failure to “may” do something is not wrong, but failure to “do” something is a violation ( though not to be penalised). This makes sense. Failing to do an allowable future action is less culpable than not doing something that “happens”. So why, then would failing to comply with a “may not” be more culpable than a “shall not”?

All a bit semantic, and I should probably go no further trying to analyse understandably imperfect wording.

One thing. Though I tried very hard to find the bit where it says that these “definitions” are only for the players, but couldn't - or were you just using your common sense?

Cheers.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ER: Your post almost confirms my argument.
“Transgression” you are happy to use a dictionary version of, whilst sticking to the bizarre bridge laws concept of “may”.
Meantime, I do not need to read the introduction again as I specifically mentioned that the interpretation of “may” was given “elsewhere”, and suggested that the juxtaposition of that and the wording of the laws re UI was the problem.
I suggested (rather than believed that it was obligatory) that a PP would best be used if “chicanery” was suspected, rather than simply someone's best efforts failing to agree with a poll (be it the first poll….or perhaps a second…). I stand by that suggestion.
The “what gives the TD authority…” paragraph actually repeats what I am “accusing” (not really at that level) you of. Because the laws “allow” that the TD “may also assess” a PP, you want him/her to give one. That's an absence of assessing. (Note of interest: if the TD does not assess for a PP should he himself be given one, since it says he “may also assess” and failure to follow a “may” will incur a PP more often than not).

I am rambling. Sorry. The laws are, of necessity, imperfect. Common sense should prevail where the laws give it a chance to do so. Here they do.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With screens, would simply “explaining” 4s as “slam force” work?
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep.
The absence of a full stop at end of previous post suggests this “self-serving” statement is true.
But some may still discount it purely on basis of selfservingness….
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We cannot assume it is a “transgression” by the player. They may have done their best to avoid taking any advantage from the UI, but, as MR has pointed out, it is impossible to know how it has changed one's mindset.
So a poll shows that there was an LA etc…..
That means a score adjustment.
The PP is not a necessity, and it seems not only harsh but often unjust to assume that a “transgression” has occurred. As TD, you are not obliged to do it. The wording of the law is universally acknowledged as less than ideal. But it does leave a flexibility loophole.The use of “may not”, arguably, is about how to decide on whether to adjust score rather than whether to penalise. This interpretation is available, and allows common sense to (sometimes) prevail. To PP because somewhere else it says “may not” being “broken” should mean a penalty “more often than not” is not sensible. Let the other TDs, with other decisions to make, keep the % of PPs above 50.
You can just make a sensible decision on this one.
Adjust the score. But don't assume deliberate chicanery unless you have reason.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wasn't sure if first comment aimed at me, and not sure if it was a “don't think so” comment.
So will explain that this was gradings just at club level, and after a run-in of a number of match-point tournqment with % scorings, provisional gradings were given, and then gradings changed up and down in further tournaments in similar fashion to the Elo system (sigmoid curve etc.) for chess.
The calculation for “expected - actual” performance for each partnership's score in a tourney was based on the average grading of those playing in same direction, discounting the partnership themselves. Only mentioned it to point out the simplicity of arranging that adding Meckwell as N/S to the tournament would result in all N/S playing against stronger opposition….except Meckwell.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I usually enjoy and agree with your approaches to these things, DB… but are you getting over-entangled here? If you read through your posts, are you happy with where you have reached?
That one of a partnership not quite understanding properly a convention is “an agreement that we do not know what we are doing”?
And that, despite their not yet realising that one of them does not understand it, they must let the opposition know that their agreement is that they do not know what they are doing.
And the convention card doesn't count?
It's a bit surreal.
I realise your argument comes from the presumption (law) that the opps have a right to know the partnership's position, and any adjustment may include the hypothetical position of their having receved that info…
But the way you present it, it does sound a bit weird.

Though I agree N/S should not come out of this too well.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RY: when I ran a grading system for match points tournaments, the strength of field for calculation of each pair's performance was the average strength of all competitors playing the same direction, except themselves.
Pace arrow-switches.
Jan. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 66 67 68 69
.

Bottom Home Top