Asking about no "stop"

[pran]

Similar to: there are only 2 classes of mathematical problems: "unsolved/unsolvable" and "trivial"

Pardon me for pointing out that "Fermat's last theorem" remained unsolved (and was seriously considered unsolvable) for 350 years until eventually solved by Andrew Wiles in 1994.

 

I think it will take many years before it can be considered "trivial".

[mycroft]

That's a joke, son!"</Leghorn, F.>

 

As for the author of the original quote, "I only steal from the best."

[barmar]

Writing something like the complete rules for any game is a difficult task. If a major rewrite of the Laws were done, I think the likely result would be that many of the places that we currently recognize as confusing will be fixed up, but there would undoubtedly be many new ambiguities added. Just like when they thought they were improving the IB law, but inadvertently wrote it wrong the first time, and the 11th-hour fixup is still hard to understand.

 

So if we're quoting aphorisms, my contribution is "be careful what you wish for...".

[aguahombre]

Writing something like the complete rules for any game is a difficult task. If a major rewrite of the Laws were done, I think the likely result would be that many of the places that we currently recognize as confusing will be fixed up, but there would undoubtedly be many new ambiguities added. Just like when they thought they were improving the IB law, but inadvertently wrote it wrong the first time, and the 11th-hour fixup is still hard to understand.

 

So if we're quoting aphorisms, my contribution is "be careful what you wish for...".

Yes. These thoughts are all important ones. "Major rewrite" naturally scares people ---both users who are afraid they won't be able to find anything and have to memorize new numbers, and the powers that be who are cowed by the perceived amount of work involved.

 

What I was hoping for was a reorganization. Certainly out there we have technical writers with the skills to put the Laws into an outline format where the subsections belong within a subject title; who can differentiate between policy and procedure; and who can correlate/cross reference laws which impact one another.

[blackshoe]

What I was hoping for was a reorganization. Certainly out there we have technical writers with the skills to put the Laws into an outline format where the subsections belong within a subject title; who can differentiate between policy and procedure; and who can correlate/cross reference laws which impact one another.

That would be a good start, but I don't see it happening.

[barmar]

What I was hoping for was a reorganization. Certainly out there we have technical writers with the skills to put the Laws into an outline format where the subsections belong within a subject title; who can differentiate between policy and procedure; and who can correlate/cross reference laws which impact one another.

ACBL seems to be deathly afraid of significant change. IIUC, a technical writer offered to work on reorganizing and rewriting ACBL's regulations pro bono, and they turned him down.

[jallerton]

There's one law prohibiting communication between partners by means of "extraneous remarks" (73A), but another that allows any player to draw attention to an irregularity (9A1). What if an action ("You didn't use the stop card, partner!") does both?

 

An interesting question. My first thought was to ask whether it matters whether the irregularity was not the one the player perceived. My second thought was to look up the exact wording of Law 9A1:

 

A. Drawing Attention to an Irregularity

 

1. Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

 

Well, communicating with partner in this way is prohibited by Law (see Laws 73A1, 73A2 & 73B1), so I don't think that Law 9A1 can be used to justify the "Did you mean to bid 2♠, partner?" question.

[VixTD]

An interesting question. My first thought was to ask whether it matters whether the irregularity was not the one the player perceived. My second thought was to look up the exact wording of Law 9A1:

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

Well, communicating with partner in this way is prohibited by Law (see Laws 73A1, 73A2 & 73B1), so I don't think that Law 9A1 can be used to justify the "Did you mean to bid 2♠, partner?" question.

Yes, this solution had occurred to me, and could provide a basis for giving redress for any damage caused, but I still don't feel very happy giving penalties to players who are following a law which specifically addresses the situation but falling foul of another that applies only indirectly.

 

I tried to find examples of laws which explicitly prevent players from doing things they are normally allowed to do, and I thought the most obvious place to look was under players required by law to pass. Oddly, they are forbidden to ask for a review of the auction (law 20B), but not to ask for an explanation (law 20F). (One could of course argue that a player required to pass can only be asking for partner's benefit and rule under law 20G1).

[blackshoe]

Yes, this solution had occurred to me, and could provide a basis for giving redress for any damage caused, but I still don't feel very happy giving penalties to players who are following a law which specifically addresses the situation but falling foul of another that applies only indirectly.

 

I tried to find examples of laws which explicitly prevent players from doing things they are normally allowed to do, and I thought the most obvious place to look was under players required by law to pass. Oddly, they are forbidden to ask for a review of the auction (law 20B), but not to ask for an explanation (law 20F). (One could of course argue that a player required to pass can only be asking for partner's benefit and rule under law 20G1).

I don't think 20G1 applies here — all four players at the table are entitled to understand the meaning of the auction, whether or not they're required to pass. "Can only be asking for partner's benefit" does not follow from the facts.

 

When a player violates Law 73B1 ("…shall not…") or Law 73C ("…must…"), the law says that the former "should incur a procedural penalty more often than not" and the latter is "a serious matter indeed". So I don't see why issuing a procedural penalty should be a problem, except that we have created for ourselves a culture where that's "just not done" — wrongly, in my opinion. We do have the option, in "first offense" cases, to issue a warning rather than a score-affecting penalty, but it should be clear to both the player and the director that a second offense — and not just in this event — will result in a material penalty.

 

We have an interpretation of Law 25A that says that it doesn't matter how a player who made an unintended call becomes aware that he has done so, provided the other criteria of Law 25A are met. But the only player who would know that a call is unintended is the player who made the call. Law 9A1 ("…may do…") does not require a player to draw attention to an irregularity, nor does it specify the manner in which the drawing should be done. So it's a very general law, and Laws 73B and 73C are more specific. So even if 2♠, being unintended is an irregularity, care needs to be taken in how attention is drawn to it.

[aguahombre]

Just out of curiosity....with screens, a player who did a finger-fumble is still allowed to apply 25A before his partner has bid. But what is the procedure? Does he say "Stop"? Does he toss the "Stop" or the "Director" card under the screen? How does he know whether partner has bid?

[WellSpyder]

Just out of curiosity....with screens, a player who did a finger-fumble is still allowed to apply 25A before his partner has bid. But what is the procedure? Does he say "Stop"? Does he toss the "Stop" or the "Director" card under the screen? How does he know whether partner has bid?

Erm, how does he become aware of his finger-fumble? If he can see the errant bid then presumably the tray has not yet been passed to the other side of the table, so his partner has not yet had a chance to call. If the tray is already the other side of the screen then he should no longer be able to see what bid he placed on the tray....

[chrism]

Erm, how does he become aware of his finger-fumble? If he can see the errant bid then presumably the tray has not yet been passed to the other side of the table, so his partner has not yet had a chance to call. If the tray is already the other side of the screen then he should no longer be able to see what bid he placed on the tray....

He might notice that the bid he intended to make is still in his bidding box, or that a higher bid than intended is missing from it.

[WellSpyder]

He might notice that the bid he intended to make is still in his bidding box, or that a higher bid than intended is missing from it.

Good point. Looking at the EBU regulations for using screens suggests that the possibility of a 25A correction remains after the tray has been moved, but I can see no suggestions about how this should be approached by the player concerned.

[aguahombre]

Some people even carry a visual image of the bids they have made... and after the tray is moved, it sinks in what they have done. The bid was still unintended.

 

Anyway, I don't think the question is answered by saying it can't happen.

[pran]

Just out of curiosity....with screens, a player who did a finger-fumble is still allowed to apply 25A before his partner has bid. But what is the procedure? Does he say "Stop"? Does he toss the "Stop" or the "Director" card under the screen? How does he know whether partner has bid?

As far as I know all screen regulations specify (explicitly or implicitly) that you cannot apply Law 25A on an unintended call once the tray with it has been pushed to the other side of the screen.

[aguahombre]

As far as I know all screen regulations specify (explicitly or implicitly) that you cannot apply Law 25A on an unintended call once the tray with it has been pushed to the other side of the screen.

Wow. I didn't see where the screen regs had that kind of effect on the Laws themselves.

[jallerton]

Yes, this solution had occurred to me, and could provide a basis for giving redress for any damage caused, but I still don't feel very happy giving penalties to players who are following a law which specifically addresses the situation but falling foul of another that applies only indirectly.

 

I was advocating a rectification adjustment. That doesn't mean that you have to give anyone a procedural penalty, particularly if you judge that the player has acted in good faith.

 

I tried to find examples of laws which explicitly prevent players from doing things they are normally allowed to do, and I thought the most obvious place to look was under players required by law to pass. Oddly, they are forbidden to ask for a review of the auction (law 20B), but not to ask for an explanation (law 20F). (One could of course argue that a player required to pass can only be asking for partner's benefit and rule under law 20G1).

 

How about this? Law 19 says that a player may double the preceding bid, if that was made by an opponent. However, if a player has UI which (in the player's opinion) demonstrably suggests doubling over another logical alternative, then Laws 16B & 73C imply that the player must not double. The only way the player can apply with Law 19, 16A and 73C at the same time is to refrain from doubling.

[barmar]

Wow. I didn't see where the screen regs had that kind of effect on the Laws themselves.

Every now and then, you have to choose between observing the full words of the law and dealing with reality and practicality. Reality usually wins.

[aguahombre]

Every now and then, you have to choose between observing the full words of the law and dealing with reality and practicality. Reality usually wins.

Is that what the TD tells the guy who wants to make a 25A correction in a screen game? Or does he have a regulation to quote?

[gordontd]

As far as I know all screen regulations specify (explicitly or implicitly) that you cannot apply Law 25A on an unintended call once the tray with it has been pushed to the other side of the screen.

I don't see that in the WBF screen regs, which say:

An irregularity passed through the screen is subject to the normal laws, with

the following provisions:

and then don't mention L25 at all.

[barmar]

Section 1.2 of the WBF screen regs says:

A call placed and released may be changed under the Director's supervision:

1. If it is illegal or inadmissible (in which case the change is obligatory), if screens
   are in use, as soon as either screenmate is aware of this; or
   
2. If it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently selected or
   
3. Under the provisions of Law 25. Under the provisions of Law 25A it should be
   noted that if a player's attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call
   the 'pause for thought' should be assessed from the moment when he first
   recognizes his error.
   

So case b seems to override Law 25 -- if the TD determines that the call was inadvertent, he can apparently allow the change at any time.

I'm not sure what the point of case c is, then, but it still doesn't provide any guideline to deal with the question agua raised.

[aguahombre]

..... but it still doesn't provide any guideline to deal with the question agua raised.

Exactly. The question was about how the fumbler is supposed to implement a Law he is entitled to use. If he isn't entitled to use L25 at all after the tray has been passed, no one has shown me where it says that.

[RMB1]

Section 1.2 of the WBF screen regs says:

A call placed and released may be changed under the Director's supervision:

(a) If it is illegal or inadmissible (in which case the change is obligatory), if screens are in use, as soon as either screenmate is aware of this; or

...

 

You might think that (a) could only apply before the illegal/inadmissible call is passed through the screen (because there are other regulations about what happens to irregularity that are passed through the screen).

 

In which case, you might wonder if (b) and (c) also only apply before the call is passed through the screen - but there is no way to tell.

[gordontd]

Section 1.2 of the WBF screen regs says:

So case b seems to override Law 25 -- if the TD determines that the call was inadvertent, he can apparently allow the change at any time.

I'm not sure what the point of case c is, then, but it still doesn't provide any guideline to deal with the question agua raised.

I had someone ask me about this in our Premier League this year. Because he waited he was clearly out of time so no ruling was needed, but what had happened was that he saw his unintended bid just as it was going under the screen. My colleague & I thought that the regulations were such that he would have been able to correct it if he had asked immediately, but we didn't like it.

[gnasher]

Exactly. The question was about how the fumbler is supposed to implement a Law he is entitled to use.

 

He does so by calling the director, of course. The director then determines whether the conditions of Law 25A are met, and if they are he allows the change.