[Cascade]

gnasher, on Aug 20 2010, 02:03 AM, said:

shyams, on Aug 19 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

The existing rules are weird -- VP tables are AI but IMP tables are UI??

Who said that?

So far as I can make out, one party is arguing that you can't consult either the IMP scale or the VP scale; ther other is arguing that since both form part of the rules you can consult either.

The laws include the IMP scale. They do not include the VP scales. However they allow for VP scales and they say they "should be available to contestents". This requirement is written without restriction so it appears logical that they must be available during play.

Law 78D said:

Conditions of Contest
If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example
conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted. The Tournament Organizer
should publish Conditions of Contest in advance of a tournament or contest.
These should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination
of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. The Conditions must not
conflict with law or regulation and shall incorporate any information
specified by the Regulating Authority. They should be available to
contestants.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Aug 20 2010, 06:33 AM, said:

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

I am not sure I place very much faith in the notion of "general" Laws and "specific" Laws, and which of them should "prevail" in a given case. To my way of thinking, every Law is as valid as every other Law, and if two Laws are in apparent conflict then one of them should be changed.

Perhaps so, but that is no help to players or TDs who must deal with the laws as they are, rather than as they (perhaps) should be.

Quote

Moreover, I do not believe that telling a player what the score is for down four doubled non-vulnerable actually is a violation of Law 40C3a. That Law says (in effect) that you can't look at your own system during the auction, nor can you write down what cards have appeared during the play, nor can you use a slide rule to calculate the chance of a 4-3 break, nor can you look up an end position in Clyde E Love's Bridge Squeezes Complete. But it doesn't say that you aren't allowed to be told at the table what Law 1 says, nor any other Law that you happen either to have forgotten or never to have known.

If it is legal to be given a specific answer to a question about what the score would be if… then it should also be legal (IOW, I think you'll agree, but since I'm never really sure whether you believe what you're writing or are just playing devil's advocate, I can't be sure you will agree) for the TD to hand the player the scoring table and say "look it up yourself". Which means it would be legal for the player to look at the scoring table, or the portions of it on the backs of bidding cards, or wherever it may be written down. However…

Law 40C3a said:

Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique.

The law does not limit itself as you suggest, David, it says any aids. While I would not be surprised to find that the WBFLC says the law doesn't mean what it says, they have not to my knowledge done so. Therefore, the law means what it says, and in particular any means what it says, and that means that law books, or TDs, or scoring tables, or the backs of bidding cards, cannot be used as aids to memory, calculation or technique.

Almost every Teams scoresheet I have seen have an IMP scale printed on them. Some of them have VP scales printed on them. The ones supplied at the club last night had the IMP scale printed down the right hand side of the front and the WBF VP scales printed on the back.

Since I used the back of a bidding slip (we use written bidding) which is blank to write down my scores I am now feeling quietly confident of winning the event after the TD assesses penalties to all of the other teams - a standard penalty of 3 IMPs per board for all of the players that used these illegal memory aids should do. Oh yes my teammates will probably be penalized but all other teams will be penalized at both tables.

On 12 boards that would mean that teams would get 72 IMPs in penalties meaning that a typical VP result will be 0-0.

Even if they decide on a more modest penalty of say 1 IMP per board where the illegal memory aids were used we should show a healthy profit.

[Phil]

I have to ask this one because I can't resist. Sorry if this detracts from the central issue of this thread.

My opponent's convention card is AI, right?

Say, I'm playing with "A" with person "B" on my right and "C" on my left. We are all friends, and B and C play nearly the identical cc as A and I do.

I open 1♠ and my partner bids 3♦. Can I look at B's cc to see if my opponents play Bergen Raises?

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Aug 19 2010, 01:20 PM, said:

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 07:22 AM, said:

shyams, on Aug 19 2010, 06:11 AM, said:

Without intending to side-track the ongoing discussion, can anyone confirm if the VP table in a Swiss tournament is authorised information during the play of a hand?

Yes. Sven can confirm that it is not, because it would be an aid to a player's calculation. I can confirm that it is, because Law 78D says that it is. I realise that this will not assist you very much, but I cannot help that.

Law 78 says no such thing.

My version of the Laws contains

Law 78D said:

If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest in advance of a tournament or contest. These should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and shall incorporate any information specified by the Regulating Authority. They should be available to contestants.

Now, this does not mean "the Director should hide them until he thinks the contestants need them", which is what some people seem to think should happen with the scoring table. It means "they should be available to contestants".

[pran]

This discussion has in my honest opinion long ago become ridiculous, and frankly i doubt the seriousity of some of the arguments posted.

Law 40C3 concerns itself with aids to memory, calculation or technique, it does not bother if the information concerned is AI or UI.

My system agreements is obviously AI to me and my partner. Does that imply that we are allowed to look up our system notes during auction or play? Certainly not. Law 40C3 clearly forbids that.

Every piece of information in the Law book is also AI to all players at the table. Does this imply that they are entitled to consult the law book for information that they may need in their auction or play? Again certainly not. Law 40C3 forbids any aids to memory, calculation or technique.

Score lists for team matches has been mentioned, they frequently contain complete tables for the calculation of IMP and VP. Are the players allowed to consult these tables during auction or play? Again certainly not (unless the condition of contest explicitly makes this legal). These tables are for use after, not during play (or auction).

I could continue with several more examples like this, but frankly I don't care.

Players who insists that they know the laws better than WBFLC will sooner or later be in for an unpleasant surprice.

[jallerton]

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

To my way of thinking, every Law is as valid as every other Law, and if two Laws are in apparent conflict then one of them should be changed.

or, as in the case of Law 27B1[b], if a single Law is in apparent conflict with itself then it should be changed!

[blackshoe]

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

My version of the Laws contains

Law 78D said:

If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest in advance of a tournament or contest. These should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and shall incorporate any information specified by the Regulating Authority. They should be available to contestants.

Now, this does not mean "the Director should hide them until he thinks the contestants need them", which is what some people seem to think should happen with the scoring table. It means "they should be available to contestants".

My lawbook reads the same. But it doesn't say "available at all times and for all purposes". It is appropriate, and legal IMO, for a player to consult even such things as are considered "aids to his memory, calculation, or technique" when he is not actually involved in playing a hand. It is neither appropriate nor IMO legal for a player to consult such things during the bidding and play of a hand. I have seen no counterargument that even begins to convince me I might be wrong, so I will continue to act on the assumption that I am right until and unless I'm told by the WBFLC or the ACBLLC that I'm wrong. And that includes telling anyone who argues otherwise that he is wrong. And now I have nothing further to say on this subject.

[shyams]

Please indulge me in my observation:
1. The guiding principle for some from the 'other side' is ... "I am right, therefore I am right".
2. The Brighton 2008 TD quiz was not some random thoughts of an untrained writer.
a. John Probst, I've heard, is an excellent TD -- one of the best.
b. The quiz was included in the bulletins of the biggest EBU annual event. Most of EBUs senior TDs + L&EC members etc would have be present. I'd expect that if the L&EC disagreed with the author's "view", they would clarify in the White book (there is nothing)
c. Unlike pran's terse dismissal of my post,

pran, on Aug 19 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

And as per WBFLC: Do they agree?

I spent an hour browsing thru WBFLC minutes posted on their website and also read their laws commentary. Nowhere does it say that the Laws of bridge itself are not allowed during the play of a hand because they are "aids to his memory, calculation or technique"

That's why I request some backup proof -- unless you want to use point #1 as proof.

[campboy]

I am unconvinced that either side is more guilty of "I am right because I am right" than the other. Personally I think both sides are wrong.

If a player asks a TD for information on laws 77 or 78, there does not appear to be any law which unambiguously requires the TD to give that information, though there is a law which might be so interpreted with a following wind. Likewise, there does not appear to be any law which unambiguously forbids the TD from giving that information, though again there is one which might be so interpreted with a following wind. If we are to avoid an overzealous reading one law at the expense of another, then, the only remaining view is that it is acceptable for the TD to answer or not, as he judges appropriate.

[pran]

shyams, on Aug 20 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

Please indulge me in my observation:
1. The guiding principle for some from the 'other side' is ... "I am right, therefore I am right".
2. The Brighton 2008 TD quiz was not some random thoughts of an untrained writer.
a. John Probst, I've heard, is an excellent TD -- one of the best.
b. The quiz was included in the bulletins of the biggest EBU annual event. Most of EBUs senior TDs + L&EC members etc would have be present. I'd expect that if the L&EC disagreed with the author's "view", they would clarify in the White book (there is nothing)
c. Unlike pran's terse dismissal of my post,

pran, on Aug 19 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

And as per WBFLC: Do they agree?

I spent an hour browsing thru WBFLC minutes posted on their website and also read their laws commentary. Nowhere does it say that the Laws of bridge itself are not allowed during the play of a hand because they are "aids to his memory, calculation or technique"

That's why I request some backup proof -- unless you want to use point #1 as proof.

First ask yourself the question:

Is asking the Director at this time an attempt to obtain (during the auction and play periods) some aid to my memory, calculation or technique?

If you admit that this is the case then your question to the Director will be a violation of Law 40C3a regardless of the substance in this question, whether the information you seek is authorized as such or not.

Edit:
I have revisited the John Probst quiz and must say that I am sorry for him: He asked one question and answered another:

He asked if it was legal for a player to inspect variouos information sources and answered "yes, the information is authorized".

The information concerned is certainly authorized, but that doesn't make it legal for a player to inspect the source of the information during auction and play periods. Such inspection is of course legal when scoring the results, i.e. after the play has ended, but that is a different question.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Aug 19 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

I have seen no counterargument that even begins to convince me I might be wrong, so I will continue to act on the assumption that I am right until and unless I'm told by the WBFLC or the ACBLLC that I'm wrong.

You might like to ask the WBFLC whether or not bidding boxes are legal. After all, they are an aid to a player's memory of how the auction has proceeded.

[pran]

dburn, on Aug 20 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 19 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

I have seen no counterargument that even begins to convince me I might be wrong, so I will continue to act on the assumption that I am right until and unless I'm told by the WBFLC or the ACBLLC that I'm wrong.

You might like to ask the WBFLC whether or not bidding boxes are legal. After all, they are an aid to a player's memory of how the auction has proceeded.

This question has already been asked and answered some 30 years ago. Law 20 was considered sufficient justification.

[campboy]

dburn, on Aug 20 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

You might like to ask the WBFLC whether or not bidding boxes are legal. After all, they are an aid to a player's memory of how the auction has proceeded.

Since Law 40C3a contains the magic words "unless permitted by the Regulating Authority", if the RA sanctions the use of bidding boxes, or for that matter electronic pocket calculators, at the table, they are indeed legal.

[Cascade]

campboy, on Aug 20 2010, 09:59 PM, said:

dburn, on Aug 20 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

You might like to ask the WBFLC whether or not bidding boxes are legal. After all, they are an aid to a player's memory of how the auction has proceeded.

Since Law 40C3a contains the magic words "unless permitted by the Regulating Authority", if the RA sanctions the use of bidding boxes, or for that matter electronic pocket calculators, at the table, they are indeed legal.

Conveniently the bidding cards have the scores printed on the back of them. I guess if they are authorized then one is entitled to look at them.

[shyams]

pran, on Aug 20 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

First ask yourself the question:

Is asking the Director at this time an attempt to obtain (during the auction and play periods) some aid to my memory, calculation or technique?

If you admit that this is the case then your question to the Director will be a violation of Law 40C3a regardless of the substance in this question, whether the information you seek is authorized as such or not.

Edit:
I have revisited the John Probst quiz and must say that I am sorry for him: He asked one question and answered another:

He asked if it was legal for a player to inspect variouos information sources and answered "yes, the information is authorized".

The information concerned is certainly authorized, but that doesn't make it legal for a player to inspect the source of the information during auction and play periods. Such inspection is of course legal when scoring the results, i.e. after the play has ended, but that is a different question.

Please don't explain/expand your original points to refute my points.

Instead, show me something. Anything! Minutes of WBFLC (or EBU L&EC, or ACBL LC or any other NBOs documentation), Training course material, Laws Commentary, Stuff from your own website about Law 40, and show me where someone minuted / stated / presented in training that the Laws themselves are an aid to memory.

I insist because I showed you something, which was not created by me but by a very good TD. It appears that since his opinion go against the belief of the Cult, you have sought to dismiss his opinion in a patronising manner. Please don't bother. Instead, show me something!

[campboy]

Cascade, on Aug 20 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

campboy, on Aug 20 2010, 09:59 PM, said:

dburn, on Aug 20 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

You might like to ask the WBFLC whether or not bidding boxes are legal. After all, they are an aid to a player's memory of how the auction has proceeded.

Since Law 40C3a contains the magic words "unless permitted by the Regulating Authority", if the RA sanctions the use of bidding boxes, or for that matter electronic pocket calculators, at the table, they are indeed legal.

Conveniently the bidding cards have the scores printed on the back of them. I guess if they are authorized then one is entitled to look at them.

Well, they are authorised to be used in the manner described in the bidding-box regulations. As it happens, the section of the Orange Book which deals with bidding boxes says

Quote

Under Law 40C3 (a) a player is not allowed aids to memory, calculation or technique: for example, looking at the scores on the back of bidding cards during the hand is considered an aide-memoire and therefore illegal.

[pran]

shyams, on Aug 20 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 20 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

First ask yourself the question:

Is asking the Director at this time an attempt to obtain (during the auction and play periods) some aid to my memory, calculation or technique?

If you admit that this is the case then your question to the Director will be a violation of Law 40C3a regardless of the substance in this question, whether the information you seek is authorized as such or not.

Edit:
I have revisited the John Probst quiz and must say that I am sorry for him: He asked one question and answered another:

He asked if it was legal for a player to inspect variouos information sources and answered "yes, the information is authorized".

The information concerned is certainly authorized, but that doesn't make it legal for a player to inspect the source of the information during auction and play periods. Such inspection is of course legal when scoring the results, i.e. after the play has ended, but that is a different question.

Please don't explain/expand your original points to refute my points.

Instead, show me something. Anything! Minutes of WBFLC (or EBU L&EC, or ACBL LC or any other NBOs documentation), Training course material, Laws Commentary, Stuff from your own website about Law 40, and show me where someone minuted / stated / presented in training that the Laws themselves are an aid to memory.

I insist because I showed you something, which was not created by me but by a very good TD. It appears that since his opinion go against the belief of the Cult, you have sought to dismiss his opinion in a patronising manner. Please don't bother. Instead, show me something!

Don't you understand plain language?

WBFLC, EBU, ACBL and most if not all NBOs do, so they have not seen any reason to elaborate on this question with further comments.

Anything (not only the laws) you look up in order to refresh your memory on what it contains is aiding to your memory. (And if your reason for looking it up is not to refresh your memory you had better give a very convincing different reason.)

In my work as Director I am fortunate enough to know most of the laws I need by heart. I still look them up in order to make sure I shall not accidentally happen to forget something. That action is using the law book as (in my situation as director handling an irregularity legal) aid to my memory on the laws.

A player looking at the rear side of a bid card during the auction or play is making illegal use of that bid card as an aid to his memory on the relevant scores.

[gnasher]

shyams, on Aug 20 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

Instead, show me something. Anything! Minutes of WBFLC (or EBU L&EC, or ACBL LC or any other NBOs documentation), Training course material, Laws Commentary, Stuff from your own website about Law 40, and show me where someone minuted / stated / presented in training that the Laws themselves are an aid to memory.

I insist because I showed you something, which was not created by me but by a very good TD. It appears that since his opinion go against the belief of the Cult, you have sought to dismiss his opinion in a patronising manner. Please don't bother. Instead, show me something!

Even as appeals to authority go, this one is particularly unconvincing.

John Probst is an EBU "Congress A" director who has, so far as I know, never directed in any Zonal or World event. David Stevenson is an EBU "National" director who has directed in a European championship and served on the appeals committee at two World Championships. (My apologies if this record is incomplete - I got it from the EBL site.) And I haven't even mentioned Sven Pran's standing and experience.

So, to refute your argument: David Stevenson has stated in this thread that parts of the Laws and Regulations may constitue an aid to memory or calculation, and that their use for this purpose is illegal. David Stevenson is, by any reasonable measure, a more senior, experienced and professionally respected TD than John Probst. That's not in any way a slight against John - I am sure he would agree with that assesment.

This is not to say that I agree with David, or with the suggestion that being a "very good TD" makes one better qualified to interpret the wording of the Laws.

[bluejak]

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

My version of the Laws contains

Law 78D said:

If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest in advance of a tournament or contest. These should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and shall incorporate any information specified by the Regulating Authority. They should be available to contestants.

Now, this does not mean "the Director should hide them until he thinks the contestants need them", which is what some people seem to think should happen with the scoring table. It means "they should be available to contestants".

You have a strange idea of what "available to contestants" means. If coffee is provided for you free between each round it is "available to contestants": that does not mean that you are allowed to go during the auction to go and get it.

The fact that a VP scale is made available does not mean that aids to memory are allowed in defiance of the Laws.

[bluejak]

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 12:11 PM, said:

I am getting rather fed up with the tactic constantly employed by bluejak, pran and other High Priests of the Cult of the Director, who when they encounter an example that runs counter to what they believe, dismiss it as a "meaningless" or "silly" example.

Maybe so. But some of us are getting fed up with the cult of the dburn, which is to be rude when someone posts something he disagrees with. Furthermore, I have no idea to what you are actually referring anyway. Perhaps you would like to argue your case instead of pouring scorn on opposing views as your main arguing tactic.

When you put your mind to it, your arguments are very cogent and worth listening to. It is sad that too often you feel some level of abuse is a better arguing tactic than logical argument.