Fundamentals

[mycroft]

So, as others have said, Adam, you're arguing for making the double-shot explicitly legal - i.e. a rescinding of 12C1b. I don't have a problem with that per se, but it's a major change from what currently exists.

 

Once I know that an irregularity took place, my "best likely result" is banked, and I can go for the Hail Mary Top. After all, if the 5% slam comes home, great; if it goes down, my opponents are getting a "better score than they would have got without the irregularity" and I get my average. If I'm going over the top, how about the "just-in-case sacrifice" of the (cold) game they bid after/using the irregularity? It might have been reasonable before, but when -500 becomes -500 and -800 becomes -620, it's more than reasonable.

 

The double-shot is a respected part of many sports - it's not wrong in any way. But it is a *big* change from the game as she is currently played, and the ACBL (with its very stringent opinions of "serious error", "wild or gambling", and others) doesn't think it's a great idea. That may not be what you intend, but if so, you'll have to be very careful to explain the situation, as people will push it, and the judgement of the TD will be exercised more.

 

Specifically with the "expected to protect yourself" on missing alerts, okay, put complete onus on the alerters. 1NT-p-2D. I get to bid as if it's natural, knowing that I will get a "best likely" result if it's a transfer. Of course, I still get to ask if it's a transfer if I have diamonds... Or, 1D ("Could be short." on ask, "11-15, 2+ diamonds, may have longer clubs")-1H; 1NT. 1NT is 14-*an average 16*. Oops. Now do I get my 2C call back if it goes for 800? Do I get it back if opener has a 15 count?

 

What happens if there are two infractions, one by each side, on the same hand? What if one of them isn't an "infraction", per se, just passing UI? Do we still put UI transmitter's partner under the traditional restrictions? What if that gives a worse result than would have happened without the infraction?

 

Misbid/misinformation/psychic decisions are going to be much much uglier in this world. Misbid rulings let me keep my lucky score (just because I, personally, hate fixing the opponents (even though I take them, just as I quietly eat their fixes of me) doesn't mean that everyone does); misinformation means that I get "worst likely score"; deviation vs psychic, excessive psychic tendencies vs "should have gone to bed instead of playing tonight",...

 

It is a laudable goal - but as David says, probably a much bigger change to the game than it looks like at first glance, and will likely open more loopholes than it closes.

[axman]

So, as others have said, Adam, you're arguing for making the double-shot explicitly legal - i.e. a rescinding of 12C1b. I don't have a problem with that per se, but it's a major change from what currently exists.

 

Once I know that an irregularity took place, my "best likely result" is banked, and I can go for the Hail Mary Top. After all, if the 5% slam comes home, great; if it goes down, my opponents are getting a "better score than they would have got without the irregularity" and I get my average. If I'm going over the top, how about the "just-in-case sacrifice" of the (cold) game they bid after/using the irregularity? It might have been reasonable before, but when -500 becomes -500 and -800 becomes -620, it's more than reasonable.

 

The double-shot is a respected part of many sports - it's not wrong in any way. But it is a *big* change from the game as she is currently played, and the ACBL (with its very stringent opinions of "serious error", "wild or gambling", and others) doesn't think it's a great idea. That may not be what you intend, but if so, you'll have to be very careful to explain the situation, as people will push it, and the judgement of the TD will be exercised more.

 

Specifically with the "expected to protect yourself" on missing alerts, okay, put complete onus on the alerters. 1NT-p-2D. I get to bid as if it's natural, knowing that I will get a "best likely" result if it's a transfer. Of course, I still get to ask if it's a transfer if I have diamonds... Or, 1D ("Could be short." on ask, "11-15, 2+ diamonds, may have longer clubs")-1H; 1NT. 1NT is 14-*an average 16*. Oops. Now do I get my 2C call back if it goes for 800? Do I get it back if opener has a 15 count?

 

What happens if there are two infractions, one by each side, on the same hand? What if one of them isn't an "infraction", per se, just passing UI? Do we still put UI transmitter's partner under the traditional restrictions? What if that gives a worse result than would have happened without the infraction?

 

Misbid/misinformation/psychic decisions are going to be much much uglier in this world. Misbid rulings let me keep my lucky score (just because I, personally, hate fixing the opponents (even though I take them, just as I quietly eat their fixes of me) doesn't mean that everyone does); misinformation means that I get "worst likely score"; deviation vs psychic, excessive psychic tendencies vs "should have gone to bed instead of playing tonight",...

 

It is a laudable goal - but as David says, probably a much bigger change to the game than it looks like at first glance, and will likely open more loopholes than it closes.

it is difficult to get the context not knowing what the antecedents are. But I would term "I don't have a problem with that per se, ... " are dangerous words when referring to the construction of law. But talking about them can be useful when discussing fundamentals.

 

Where I am heading starts with "Misbid/misinformation/psychic decisions are going to be much much uglier in this world. "

 

perhaps the most overlooked [while being the most important] consideration when constructing law reduces down to the above statement. Namely, that law needs to be constructed based upon the premise that the game will be played in strict accordance with the law; and especially, with the expectation that every irregularity is remedied, and, in strict accordance with law.

 

Which comes down to the question, for instance- if decisions are going to be ugly, is that a satisfactory norm? Apparently, Adam feels "I don't have a problem with that per se, ... " that state of affairs is satisfactory.

 

So, if such apprach is the correct approach, yet is ugly, does the question not then become, 'Is there some underlying principle that is wrong? Else, why is the outcome ugly?'

 

WHat I'm suggesting is [a] that ugly is an unsatisfactory standard for an outcome. when fundamental principles are tested, if they are correct [they may not yield beauty, but] they will not yield ugly. and [c] if tested and they yield beauty then it is as close to certainty as possible that they are correct.

 

in other words, fundamental principle #1:

 

Law needs to be constructed based upon the premise that the game will be played in strict accordance with the law; and especially, with the expectation that every irregularity is remedied, and, in strict accordance with law.

[mycroft]

Axman, my "I have no problems with it, per se" was referring to Adam's:

 

I believe that the following should be fundamental:

 

"If there is a violation of law or regulation, then the offending pair should never receive a better result than would have been likely if they had not violated the law or regulation."

 

And then pointing out that first, that gives me carte blanche to doubleshot (which, as I said, I don't have a problem with, we could go the Gridiron Football way; but it's not bridge as she is currently played), and then, that "hand doesn't meet explanation" director calls are already the ugliest common rulings, and they're going to get worse if the "NOS'" reward is even bigger than it is currently if the TD rules "infraction".