awm Posted August 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 The foregoing attitude bothers me a lot. Are we playing ethical bridge or gotcha? :D In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten. I suggest that this situation where a failure to alert will never lead to any adjustment (and thus creates a potential advantage to the offending side) creates a situation where ethical players (who alert their alertable bids) are at a big competitive disadvantage compared to unethical players (who do not alert their alertable bids). Thus ethical bridge and winning bridge have diverged. This is bad and should be corrected. Another similar case is where an insufficient bid provides authorized information to partner. This creates opportunities for people to benefit from an insufficient bid. Again, the ethical players (who pay attention to the auction and make sufficient calls) are at a competitive disadvantage. If you want to read this as "I am looking for ways to cheat and think I just found one" that's your choice. My view is more that "I am looking for ways where I, as an ethical player, am at a big disadvantage to people who cheat (or are simply lucky enough to frequently "forget" to alert)" Either way, these opportunities to people who intentionally violate the laws to benefit should be eliminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichMor Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten. Adam, Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing. RichM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwery_hi Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten. Adam, Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing. RichM I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten. Adam, Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing. RichM I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online. Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h2osmom Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Frances, I hear compliments and respect for your opinions on BBO forums very often. This thread didn't mention you or the people you named, but it sure doesn't indicate a lack of respect or interest in your opinions regarding bridge. I have never read anything that indicated a lack of respect for you, and I can't say that about many regular posters; even ones who are generally respected. Do you really believe that this post negates all that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 h2osmom, I'm affraid you miss Frances's point. I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online. Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do. The previous poster complained that those in "ivory towers" who "decide laws/conventions" but "never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online". Frances refuted this by listing five members of the EBU Laws and Ethics committee who contribute to these online forums (or the previous incarnation of IBLF). Members of the WBF laws commission contribute to other online discussions, and others follow the discussions and make their contributions through intermediaries (when so moved). Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwery_hi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten. Adam, Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing. RichM I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online. Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do. My apologies for hurting the feelings of EBU, the point I was making was ACBL specific.Given that awm and I am in the ACBL, and furthermore your examples are all in Europe and not the ACBL, I'd say that my point is still valid. Perhaps the members of EBU are satisfied that their voices are being heard, but as a member of the ACBL, the people deciding the laws/conventions seem distant and aloof. How many of them are participants in either rec.games.bridge or the BBO forums? Does the ACBL have a blog for conventions/laws where the members on the committees regularly post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted August 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 It seems to me that in many ways the EBU regulations are substantially better than the ACBL ones. I have to believe that part of this is due to folks like bluejak (and dburn, FrancesHinden, and any other EBU posters I might be missing) who (1) participate in online discussions (2) listen to and make logical arguments and (3) are willing to use their influence to "fix" problems with the regulations when they are compellingly pointed out. The people holding equivalent positions in ACBL seem not to participate in such forums. When I contract those who are available to the general playing population via email, their responses often seem illogical, poorly thought out, and miss the points that I'm trying to make. Since the state of ACBL regulations often seems much worse than (for example) the EBU's orange book, I have to wonder if there is some correlation here. Of course, on the particular issue at hand (adjustments for failure to alert obvious bids) it doesn't seem like the EBU situation is much different from ACBL. In fact, it may be worse, in the sense that the EBU alerting regulations are designed to be simple to understand, which means that many more commonly played conventions require alerts than in ACBL. This is not necessarily a bad thing (easy to understand regulations are nice!) but means that the situation where "everyone" plays an alertable meaning for a particular call probably comes up more frequently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 It's a fight between: a) certain pros (you know the type I mean here) and other rule-lawyerly people who make amazing inferences and show immense bridge skill until the auction goes 1NT-2C; 2D-2NT; 3NT and dummy hits with a 3=3=4=3 8-count, at which point they would have found the killing lead if they had known it couldn't have been (4-3)=3=3 (whichever way is right for the argument), but couldn't work out even the possibililty that that might be the case without their opponents' helping them along with the Alert, and b) the situations here, where because *some* opponents don't do what they're supposed to, you're frequently in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation if you have any bridge experience at all. (there's even c) where, on rare occasions, the Delayed Alert procedure harms the non-alertable-bid side. But that IS rare). In the ACBL, there are a lot of a), earning them and their clients masterpoints and emnity with their tricks (that's why the LA line in the ACBL was drawn so strongly, and why the concept of you lose redress if you do something stupid later is pushed up to "failure to play bridge for a person of your ability" as well). b) annoys those of us who get caught by it, true; but the number of times it truly causes a problem if you do the recommended "expect[ed] to protect [one]self" really is also rare (but *very* memorable). To answer the poll question, yes, there is a problem with the policy. The biggest problem with it is that it's really hard to come up with a better solution that doesn't drive the normals (as opposed to us geeks that not only read the Alert Chart, but know what parts of it apply to their system, *and are sure about it*) out of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 It seems to me that in many ways the EBU regulations are substantially better than the ACBL ones. I have to believe that part of this is due to folks like bluejak (and dburn, FrancesHinden, and any other EBU posters I might be missing) who (1) participate in online discussions (2) listen to and make logical arguments and (3) are willing to use their influence to "fix" problems with the regulations when they are compellingly pointed out. I don't want to disparage any of those people, but I think another part of it is that EBU revised their alert regulations several years after ACBL's last major revision. They took some of the good ideas (like announcements) but were also able to learn from and avoid our mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten. Adam, Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing. RichM I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online. Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do. My apologies for hurting the feelings of EBU, the point I was making was ACBL specific.Given that awm and I am in the ACBL, and furthermore your examples are all in Europe and not the ACBL, I'd say that my point is still valid. Perhaps the members of EBU are satisfied that their voices are being heard, but as a member of the ACBL, the people deciding the laws/conventions seem distant and aloof. How many of them are participants in either rec.games.bridge or the BBO forums? Does the ACBL have a blog for conventions/laws where the members on the committees regularly post? Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission, is a regular poster at the Bridge Laws Mailing List. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.