paulg Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 I'd really like to ask the Drafting Subcommittee what the Hell they were thinking when they drafted this piece of... legislation.I'm guessing they were thinking about the ACBL, so the EBL's use of it is probably a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 I'm guessing they were thinking about the ACBL, so the EBL's use of it is probably a surprise.I know the ACBL gets a bad rap in many law-related issues, but why do you think this clause was put in for our benefit? I'm not aware that we have a history of truncating the appeals process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 I'm guessing they were thinking about the ACBL, so the EBL's use of it is probably a surprise. I know the ACBL gets a bad rap in many law-related issues, but why do you think this clause was put in for our benefit? I'm not aware that we have a history of truncating the appeals process.A guess purely on the basis that the ACBL runs the largest tournaments and, given the size of the appeal teams for the NABCs, is most likely to want flexibility in this area. I expect that whoever put it in did not have a need for it immediately, but thought it might be useful in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 My guess is that some of the people responsible for the new EBL non-appeals procedure were also instrumental in the inclusion of Law 93C(b) in the 2007 Laws. This seems more likely than some EBL official reading through his Law Book looking to see what changes can be made to the Conditions of Contest and saying to his colleagues: "Oh look what we can do now!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VixTD Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 Chambers English dictionary has, among other definitions for junior: [noun] a bridge-player on declarer's rightThis is not a use I've come across. There is no similar entry under senior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 Chambers English dictionary has, among other definitions for junior: [noun] a bridge-player on declarer's right This is not a use I've come across. There is no similar entry under senior. In my Encyclopedia of Bridge 1935 (Edited by Ely Culbertson) I find: JUNIOR ADVERSARY, the player to the right of the Declarer, as distinguished from the Senior Adversary and SENIOR ADVERSARY, the player to the leftt of the Declarer. Formerly in Whist, the player to the left of the Dealer, called the age, or eldest hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 The Supplementary Conditions of Contest for the European Youth Team Championships, that start today, state the same Reviewer system will be used instead of Appeal Committees. Interestingly at the Captains' meeting yesterday, it was announced that Appeal Committees had been reinstated for this championship. I wonder if this is a result of the EBL's analysis of Ostend, a surfeit of EBL people to do the job or a lack of TD resources. Or something else of course. I shall send my spies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 I've seen some comparisons between bridge and other sports, they fail in something basic, I am not sure about rugby, but in most popular (team) sports it's taken for granted that it is ok for a player to break the rules if he is willing to accept the penalty, it is quite common in soccer, and also in basketball, not sure about rugby but I'd bet it is as well. In bridge it shall not be such a position ever, and indeed it is enforced in the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 I've seen some comparisons between bridge and other sports, they fail in something basic, I am not sure about rugby, but in most popular (team) sports it's taken for granted that it is ok for a player to break the rules if he is willing to accept the penalty, it is quite common in soccer, and also in basketball, not sure about rugby but I'd bet it is as well. In bridge it shall not be such a position ever, and indeed it is enforced in the rules.Not only is it OK in many sports, my my impression is that (for instance) in Soccer you are supposed to deliberately kicking the ball off the field or sacrifice into a free kick for opponents in order to disturb their attack. And a rule violation resulting in a penalty kick, a yellow card or even a red card is excpected as the last action to avoid a scoring by opposing team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Not only is it OK in many sports, my my impression is that (for instance) in Soccer you are supposed to deliberately kicking the ball off the field or sacrifice into a free kick for opponents in order to disturb their attack. Is it a rule that you are not allowed to kick the ball over the side lines? I think there is a big difference between a tactic of kicking the ball (so that ends up not on the field of play)and the tactic of kicking an opponent (so that the opponent has to leave the field of play). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Definitely Basketball. It's not only OK, if you don't intentionally foul several times at the end of a closeish game, trading points for time, you'll be out of a coaching job really fast. They keep players around with minimal fouls just so they can put them in to soak these up without fouling out their better scorers. Gridiron football - frequently it's "if you're not pushin' you're not playin'", especially with wide receivers and their covers. I'm sure in association football as well, if you're defending a break, and you can foul outside the box, and it'll give your team some time to get back, it'll get done. Not "kill the player", but "make sure the ref sees you 'going for the ball and missing'" and blows the whistle. "Advantage" rules tend to mitigate this, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 I don't think it's any more OK to intentionally break the rules of football (soccer) than to intentionally break the rules of bridge. The rules of football include a section headed "fouls and misconduct" which refers to "offences" and to "disciplinary sanctions" for "persistent infringement of the Laws". The fact that breaking the rules is regarded as OK by some people is a cultural matter, not a legal one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 I don't think it's any more OK to intentionally break the rules of football than to intentionally break the rules of bridge. The rules of football include a section headed "fouls and misconduct" which refers to "offences" and to "disciplinary sanctions" for "persistent infringement of the Laws". The fact that breaking the rules is regarded as OK by some people is a cultural matter, not a legal one. Bridge-players belong to the same species as players of other games. Bridge-players are aware that Law-makes are concerned with restitution rather than deterrence and are keen to devolve responsibility to local regulators and directors. Otherwise few players concern themselves with divining rule-makers' intentions. They are guided by the way directors implement the rules. For example, current practice seems to reward players who use UI or claim that slips of the mind are slips of the hand ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Bridge-players belong to the same species as players of other games. Some Bridge-players are aware that Law-makes are concerned with restitution rather than deterrence and are keen to devolve responsibility to local regulators and directors. Otherwise few players concern themselves with divining rule-makers' intentions. They are guided by the way directors implement the rules. For example, current practice seems to reward players who use UI or claim slips of the mind are slips of the hand ...You and I must inhabit different universes, or at least know very different sets of players and directors. I know very few bridge players who think it's OK to intentionally break the rules, and I don't think current directorial practice is at all as you describe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 You and I must inhabit different universes, or at least know very different sets of players and directors. I know very few bridge players who think it's OK to intentionally break the rules, and I don't think current directorial practice is at all as you describe it. I know a lot in clubs that bend the rules to breaking point, or do dodgy things they've been doing for years knowing full well the directors won't enforce the rules. The main difference between soccer and bridge is with the professional foul, which bridge has a way of nullifying by restoring equity. The defender fouling an attacker who's beating him fully prepared to take the booking and free kick rather than letting him through on goal is the equivalent of revoking, paying the 2 trick penalty but gaining 3 with the revoke, and the TD can fix that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 You and I must inhabit different universes, or at least know very different sets of players and directors. I know very few bridge players who think it's OK to intentionally break the rules, and I don't think current directorial practice is at all as you describe it.I was first authorized as TD in 1980 and have had my share of events at all levels from Club to National. To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 You and I must inhabit different universes, or at least know very different sets of players and directors. I know very few bridge players who think it's OK to intentionally break the rules, and I don't think current directorial practice is at all as you describe it. I know a lot in clubs that bend the rules to breaking point, or do dodgy things they've been doing for years knowing full well the directors won't enforce the rules. The main difference between soccer and bridge is with the professional foul, which bridge has a way of nullifying by restoring equity. The defender fouling an attacker who's beating him fully prepared to take the booking and free kick rather than letting him through on goal is the equivalent of revoking, paying the 2 trick penalty but gaining 3 with the revoke, and the TD can fix that. I was first authorized as TD in 1980 and have had my share of events at all levels from Club to National. To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules. In all my universes, players regularly gain by breaking the rules. I can only guess at intentions but I'm unaware of deliberate cheating. For example: Many write that when in receipt of UI, they make the bid they would have made, anyway, fully prepared to accept any adverse ruling that eventuates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules.Me, either. No one thinks it's OK to revoke, bid/play out of turn, or make an insufficient bid intentionally. UI is a different matter, not because they think it's OK to break the rules, but because they either don't realize that there are rules against using it, don't understand their obligations, don't realize they're in a situation where it's relevant, or don't really know what to do when it comes up. Statements like "Your hesitation prohibited me from bidding slam" are evidence of this. There are similar issues with MI. UI and MI are simply not as black-and-white as the mechanical rules regarding basic bidding and play procedures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 I was first authorized as TD in 1980 and have had my share of events at all levels from Club to National. To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules.How would you evaluate this occurrence: You have instructed everyone "do not start any new boards", it being close to the end of the round. A player pulls her cards out of a board, saying "let's play it, he won't notice"? What of the other players at the table, assuming they go along with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Me, either. No one thinks it's OK to revoke, bid/play out of turn, or make an insufficient bid intentionally. UI is a different matter, not because they think it's OK to break the rules, but because they either don't realize that there are rules against using it, don't understand their obligations, don't realize they're in a situation where it's relevant, or don't really know what to do when it comes up. Statements like "Your hesitation prohibited me from bidding slam" are evidence of this. There are similar issues with MI. UI and MI are simply not as black-and-white as the mechanical rules regarding basic bidding and play procedures.Players should realize that they receive UI all the time, simply because they receive information all the time, and most of this information is extraneous and therefore UI. Most of this information has nothing to do with bridge and is therefore of no interest at all, but it is still there (UI)! It is not illegal to (accidentally) create UI, (and there is no way a player can avoid receiving UI). What is illegal is using UI! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 What is illegal is using UI!That's why I was very careful to write "don't realize that there are rules against using it". Did I err by not putting it in bold italics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 I'll bet if you gave bridge players a test where you give them an auction where they receive UI, and ask them what they're allowed and/or required to do, at least 75% would fail. This is ignorance of the law, not flouting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Conversely, if you gave them a test with questions like, "Your RHO is dealer and opens 1♠, is there ever a situation where you may bid 1♥?", every competent bridge player would pass with flying colors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Conversely, if you gave them a test with questions like, "Your RHO is dealer and opens 1♠, is there ever a situation where you may bid 1♥?", every competent bridge player would pass with flying colors.Would they? The correct answer is "yes", btw. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Would they? The correct answer is "yes", btw. B-)OK, you got me. When? 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.