Hypothetical or Constructed Posts

[barmar]

Assuming that the "He" in the above refers to me, I would like to make a few observations. Every deal in bridge is equally likely, although the most probable hand appears to be when all four players get a complete suit, judging by the number of such occasions reported throughout history, so no hand can ever be an "implausible hypothetical". Every hand I have constructed on here has been based on some aspect of a real situation usually embellished and changed to isolate the point of law at issue, uncluttered by other aspects. If you really want an example of an "implausible hypothetical" then I suggest you turn to:

It's not the hands that I consider unlikely, it's the actions of the players and TD -- those are what your threads are about.

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

And this isn't "implausible"?

[barmar]

The question was which Law makes an insufficient bid an infraction, not which Law prevents one committing a deliberate infraction. And this issue has been discussed on another thread already.

And I thought that was one of the rare cases where we came to a concensus that my reading of all the relevant Laws made them an infraction.

[lamford]

After which, if we have any sense, we disregard the literal meaning of the Laws, and continue to play and rule exactly as we did before.

I am totally in favour of that, although I think dburn is not. But first we have to decide which of the Laws we follow as they are written and which of them we consider should say something else. With some occasional help from the WBFLC of course.

[Vampyr]

And I thought that was one of the rare cases where we came to a concensus that my reading of all the relevant Laws made them an infraction.

 

I didn't think that was the case. Can anyone provide a link?

[lamford]

And I thought that was one of the rare cases where we came to a concensus that my reading of all the relevant Laws made them an infraction.

There were two groups. Those that thought that there was no Law preventing insufficient bids but that there should be and we should rule as though there was, and those that thought one could infer from other Laws that insufficient bids were not allowed. It would be harsh to give any procedural penalty to someone making a deliberate insufficient bid when there is no express law preventing it. And as for referring them to the Conduct and Ethics Committee ... who will give them 100 lines: "Thou shalt read the Laws in full and find any inferences that affect other incorrectly worded Laws and bid accordingly".

[pran]

Try Law 72B1 for a starter

Law 72B1 makes no mention of insufficient bids being an infraction. Is the Norwegian translation different to the English version?

No

Infraction A players breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.

And I get more convinced every day now that further participation in this forum is just a waste of time and effort.

[lamford]

 

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

 

And this isn't "implausible"?

An astute observation. But it was not an opening post.

[Vampyr]

And yes, I don't think the "North London" (would that be Newcastle, or slightly less north London?) club exists. However, for a game or two, it would be as fun to play at as the Griffins, the CryptoClub, or Punkydoodle's Corners - though it is equally unlikely I would wish to be a regular at any.

 

The club exists. I'm sure that a lot of people have guessed which club it is.

[lamford]

Definitions said:

Infraction A player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.

So we are going round in circles and now looking for the Law or Lawful regulation which makes a deliberate insufficient bid an infraction. And we will again do so, as we did in the previous thread on this subject, by inference from other Laws or headings which allow us to conclude that Law 18 forgot to require bids to be sufficient. We cannot apply a procedural penalty against someone who, to quote George Carman successfully defending Ian and Kevin Maxwell, did not "trawl through the regulations like a legal gymnast".

[lamford]

The club exists. I'm sure that a lot of people have guessed which club it is.

Indeed, many hands have been based on occurrences from the club.

[lamford]

And I get more convinced every day now that further participation in this forum is just a waste of time and effort.

I would be sad if you chose to leave, as I enjoy our exchanges.

[ArtK78]

No

 

And I get more convinced every day now that further participation in this forum is just a waste of time and effort.

 

+1

[bixby]

Lamford's suggestion that insufficient bids are not infractions is threatening to hijack the thread, so I have posted an answer to it in a separate thread.

 

Returning to the original topic, I would just add that traffic on this board has decreased noticeably over the last couple of years. If we start banning topics there might be nothing left to read.

[blackshoe]

And I get more convinced every day now that further participation in this forum is just a waste of time and effort.

This is precisely the reaction I was trying to prevent. :(

[blackshoe]

"Mark them in the title" got the most votes, so we'll go with that for now. Also, two people have volunteered to become moderators. I'll have to talk to inquiry about getting that done, I think, as I don't think I can just do it.

 

This thread has served its purpose, so I'm closing it.

 

BTW, I've added some words to the first post in the "forum rules" topic, so please check that out.