BBO Discussion Forums: Comparable Call - BBO Discussion Forums

gordontd, on 2017-February-08, 02:40, said:

Are you just referring to subsection 3 below, or to subsections 1 and 2 also?

Quote

jallerton, on 2017-February-09, 16:01, said:

All of it, but mainly subsection 2. If it appears to an onlooker that there are three likely possibilities for the insufficient bid having been made and the player replaces the call with another that appears to have one of those meanings, the requirements of the law will have been fulfilled.

gordontd, on 2017-February-09, 11:10, said:

AFAIK it all started with the insufficient Blackwood response (actually occurring).
The first remedy was the "play for Maximum AVE-" rule in 1997 Law 25B2b2

pran, on 2017-February-10, 04:45, said:

I thought that was just a part of L25 for if you changed your mind, and that the issue was a passed Blackwood response by a player who wanted to sign off.

gordontd, on 2017-February-09, 11:10, said:

I am not the only person in the world who thinks that if you want to play a game, you should follow the rules. If you fail to, there should be onsequences. I mean, we are just talking about the basic mechanics. Children are capable of this.

Vampyr, on 2017-February-09, 10:24, said:

Yes, there were several reasons I thought there was something wrong with it. It sometimes gave a massive unearned bonus to the opponents. It sometimes gave a similarly massive penalty to the offenders, but sometimes did not penalise them at all. The variation in these was independent of the seriousness of the offence.

The new law is a bit better, in that these effects occur slightly less often, but still awful.

gnasher, on 2017-February-10, 12:43, said:

I agree. I thought on balance dburn's suggestion was best, which, as I recall, was that a bid is made sufficient. The original bid, and the possible reasons for it, are UI to the offenders, but AI to the non-offenders. That might be tough on some club directors to handle, however, but I think that TDs should always have to go on the excellent courses that the EBU (and I hope other RAs) run.

gnasher, on 2017-February-10, 12:43, said:

What alternative do you have in mind?

lamford, on 2017-February-10, 13:16, said:

Going on the course it's not going to help very much with dealing with UI cases, and in any case many clubs have to rely on directors that have not had any training. What would you want them to do, have the two or three people who have been on the course direct all of the sessions? That would be unfair on those people.

Also, UI is often not understood well by the players. You were there when the opponents' auction went 1NT-2♦. No announcement was made, and the responder tapped her bid several times. The opener said no that is a suit, and the respondent said no it's a transfer to hearts. The director told opener that she should proceed as if under her misunderstanding, and she then bid 2♥ on a three-card suit.

The pre-2007 Laws that gave pretty harsh penalties to the offenders of several irregularities may have had a beneficial effect that people, once so penalised, would thereafter pay more attention to the game.

I suspect that the problem being addressed by these two changes is people who are for some reason incapable of playing to the basic rules, as other cases are very rare. Maybe a bit of understanding towards handicapped and infirm players would be more beneficial than these changes. e.g. announcing who is dealer and calling the bids that are made, and possibly the cards that are played, would be better.

Vampyr, on 2017-February-10, 12:10, said:

It was, but the basic idea propagated through to the 2008 Law 27 (although the AVE- score as an option disappeared again).

Vampyr, on 2017-February-09, 10:24, said:

The primary defect that I can devise is that a system of extraneous communication (read 73B) can be concocted in relation to say, the existence of the IB, or say its correction in the same suit. Also, I would think that such concoctions could in general be fashioned where remedies amount to a do over. I would tend to believe that there are few (probably am not on firm ground here) who are skillful enough to pull it off, and fewer of those still- inclined to want to pull it off- which makes 1987wbf27 a reasonable approach to a remedy as it is rather restrictive and thus less likely to be prone to abuse. There is much to be said for simplicity. Going into the myriad of issues could get tedious.

Vampyr, on 2017-February-10, 13:32, said:

The illegal action is withdrawn, the auction continues with legal calls, the withdrawn action is AI to the non-offenders and UI to the offenders, and we all get on with playing bridge rather than Throw The Matchpoints Up In The Air And See Where They Land.

Offender receives whatever PP the director considers appropriate.

Vampyr, on 2017-February-10, 12:14, said:

Yet insufficient bids and bids out of turn happen all the time. Do you really think that this is because the punishment isn't severe enough? So we should stop pandering to these players who can't play by the rules, and throw the book at them? Do you really think that will make them pay more attention? Or just turn them off of the game?

But maybe it's good riddance. The dozens of players who are left will enjoy the game more.

gnasher, on 2017-February-10, 17:23, said:

You don't play much club bridge, as far as I am aware, Andy. And when you do I suspect that you do, you play at a club which has a non-playing director who is an expert bridge player.

The volunteer club director struggles with UI.

barmar, on 2017-February-10, 18:43, said:

What do you mean by "all the time"? Once per every 100 tables in a session? And the vast majority of these are COOT, which often don't cost. For example I was dealer recently and Lefty opened the bidding. But I passed, so all was well.

Vampyr, on 2017-February-10, 20:12, said:

Our club usually gets 6-8 tables, and my estimate is that we get an average of one director call for these types of errors per session. You're probably right that opening the bidding out of turn is the most common, I'm just lumping all these simple errors of procedure together, since the underlying legal philosophy seems to be the same.

gordontd, on 2017-February-10, 02:28, said:

So, perhaps even more significant then the change to the wording of the Law, we'll have a different recommended way for the TD to determine the "meaning" of the insufficient bid. Presumably the TD will no longer have to go through the rigmarole of taking the IBer away from the table.

jallerton, on 2017-February-11, 17:44, said:

I don't get it. The TD determines what the IB was supposed to "mean"? And somehow discover whether there is a call in the player's system that means the same? What guidance is going to be given to club directors to enable them to do this? Or any ditectors? What is the procedure going to be? I really do not understand of any of this.

One thing seems clear; the IBer will still need to be taken away from the table to help the director determine whether there is a penalty-free replacement. If it turns out that there is not, the IBer's partner cannot be privy to the discussion. Please Gordon, or someone, explain how this is supposed to work. I was under the impression that it was the same as before, t the bid doesn't necessarily need to be a subset or the intended meaning of the IB.

I think that there needs at least to be a different version for clubs, possibly returning to the pre-2007 law, awarding A+/A, or... well, who knows? Not this, unless I am missing something and it is a lot simpler than it seems.

jallerton, on 2017-February-11, 17:44, said:

I hope so, but we'll all find out more once the laws have actually been agreed and the EBL has run a course for its TDs, which is in May. Thereafter, in the EBU we'll have a course for our panel TDs, so that they are able to run a series of courses across the country for county & club TDs.

gordontd, on 2017-February-12, 02:10, said:

What's the point in the draft Laws being sent out for comment, if we can't get them to clarify important things like this? The Laws need to say either:
1. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should find this out without making the information available to the other players.
or
2. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should allow any correction which is comparable with one of the possible intended meanings.
There's really no excuse for leaving this sort of thing open to interpretation!

dcrc2, on 2017-February-12, 03:59, said:

Absolutely. This is something completely new and a procedure should be provided. On the other hand, it is perhaps exactly the same, except that the director just has to see if the layer has a similar bid, not a more precise one. No procedure is noted because it will be the same, but the criteria are different.

Also if the withdrawn bid gives more information, as apparently it now can, why does Law 16 not apply?

Why have the words "in the director's opinion" been removed? Is the director supposed to call in someone else to make the determination? Who?