[blackshoe]

dburn, on Aug 20 2010, 05:46 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.

I don't have to ask the WBFLC about that — they're legal because they are specifically authorized via the election in Law 18F. In the ACBL, in the "Elections" in the back of the law book, says

Quote

Law18F:The ACBL Board of Directors authorizes tournament organizers in ACBL sanctioned events to use bidding boxes. Any alternative method which is necessary to enable a person with a disability to compete is authorized subject to the approval of the director.

Specifics of how to use bidding boxes are provided by regulation.

[bluejak]

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".

I have no idea what side is "the other side" nor to what you refer.

Quote

2. The Brighton 2008 TD quiz was not some random thoughts of an untrained writer.

No, it was a quiz done, I believe, by John Probst.

Quote

a. John Probst, I've heard, is an excellent TD -- one of the best.

John is a good TD. He was neither one of the best, nor a poor TD. Unfortunately he is not currently directing owing to serious illness.

Quote

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)

Since the quiz was not official, the L&EC will have had no reason to review it unless someone brought it to their notice, and they may not anyway. The quiz has no more legal standing than this forum, to which similar comments apply.

Quote

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

I have no idea what "backup proof" you are requesting.

[bluejak]

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

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!

What cult?

If you are merely referring to dburn's patronising remarks because he did not like pran's comments and decided to use some sarcasm to attack them, I trust that you will reconsider what views others have made. Just because dburn has linked some people does not mean they are linked in this matter.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Aug 20 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

Quote

a. John Probst, I've heard, is an excellent TD -- one of the best.

John is a good TD. He was neither one of the best, nor a poor TD. Unfortunately he is not currently directing owing to serious illness.

Quote

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)

Since the quiz was not official, the L&EC will have had no reason to review it unless someone brought it to their notice, and they may not anyway. The quiz has no more legal standing than this forum, to which similar comments apply.

This quiz was in what appeared to outside world to be an official EBU publication. If one or more answers to the directing quiz was clearly incorrect, then "one of the best" of the TDs should have written to the bulletin editor to have the correct answer with a suitable explanation published in the next edition (the bulletin editor is always looking for material!).

[dburn]

bluejak, on Aug 20 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

Perhaps you would like to argue your case instead of pouring scorn on opposing views as your main arguing tactic.

Very well.

Some here consider that a player is not permitted during the auction or play to learn the score for a particular result by looking at a bidding card or asking the Director, because to do so is a violation of Law 40C3a since it would constitute an "aid to memory, calculation, or technique", and no such aids are permitted under that Law.

But the last clause is simply false, for Law 40C3a does not preclude such "aids to memory, calculation or technique" as asking for a review of the auction (or, where bidding boxes or written bidding are in use, consulting the record of the auction in order to "remember" what it was). Nor, as far as I am aware, is a player who does not know how many tricks his side has taken prohibited from counting the cards pointing lengthwise towards his partner in order to find out.

It may be argued that bidding boxes and reviews of the auction are legal because they are specifically permitted by other Laws, and that "therefore" Law 40C3a actually means "any aids not permitted in the rest of these Laws". But it cannot be argued that a player is permitted under some other Law to count his tricks during the play, yet no one would argue (or at least, so I hope) that a player is not permitted to count the tricks he has already taken in order to determine how many more tricks he needs to take.

Therefore, Law 40C3a demonstrably does not actually prohibit all aids to memory, calculation or technique, and any argument based solely on the fact that it does must fail. It should be noted here that Law 40B2b expressly prohibits a player from consulting his own system material; if Law 40C3a were all-embracing, then Law 40B2b would not be necessary.

It is not considered necessary for a player to have committed all the Laws to memory, but all the Laws are authorized information to players at all times, so that if a player wishes to know what the Law says in order to assist his memory, calculation, or technique, he is permitted to discover what the Law says, and neither Law 40C3a nor any other Law overrides that permission.

[RMB1]

dburn, on Aug 21 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

Therefore, Law 40C3a demonstrably does not actually prohibit all aids to memory, calculation or technique, and any argument based solely on the fact that it does must fail. It should be noted here that Law 40B2b expressly prohibits a player from consulting his own system material; if Law 40C3a were all-embracing, then Law 40B2b would not be necessary.

We know the laws are imperfect and sometimes appear contradictory and certainly contain redundancy. Therefore, it is wrong to argue that one law means X because if it meant Y some other law would be unnecessary.

dburn, on continued, said:

It is not considered necessary for a player to have committed all the Laws to memory, but all the Laws are authorized information to players at all times,  so that if a player wishes to know what the Law says in order to assist his memory, calculation, or technique, he is permitted to discover what the Law says, and neither Law 40C3a nor any other Law overrides that permission.

The laws do not say that you are entitled to authorised information, only that if you gain knowledge of the authorised information you may use it. You are not entitled to see opponents cards but if you do (accidently) that information is authorised and you can use it. You can use knowledge of your system but specifically denied being reminded of it. I am sure that the laws, scoring table and VP scales are authorised. I am not sure you are entitled to be reminded of them except where the law specifically allows: for example, in the options and consequences following an irregularity.

[dburn]

RMB1 said:

Therefore, it is wrong to argue that one law means X because if it meant Y some other law would be unnecessary.

Oh, I do not mean to rely very much on that argument, if at all. I cite it merely as evidence that Law 40C3a does not actually mean what some people think it means.

RMB1 said:

The laws do not say that you are entitled to authorised information, only that if you gain knowledge of the authorised information you may use it. You are not entitled to see opponents cards but if you do (accidently) that information is authorised and you can use it.

I have never quite understood why this argument is adduced to support the claim that players are not, in the general case, entitled to any information that the Laws regard as authorized, or the claim that certain information is authorized only at specific times.

But we may as well dispose of it here: the entitlement to use information gained by unintentionally seeing an opponent's card after the auction begins is parenthetically granted by Law 74C5 and is the only instance where the Law says, in effect, "you're not really supposed to have this information, and you certainly can't deliberately try to obtain it, but if you come by it thanks to an opponent's carelessness, you can use it." If it were generally the case that information accidentally revealed to you by an opponent was authorized, then you would be entitled to bid a slam on board 13 if on leaving the other table of the match, an opponent remarked loudly enough for you to overhear "sorry, I should have bid a slam on board 13".

Information from your own methods is of course authorized to you during the auction, but if you forget your methods you may of course not consult them during the auction - you are supposed to remember them before the auction begins. But information from the Laws is not information that you are supposed to remember before the auction begins, yet such information is authorized to you during the auction. How, then, are you to acquire the information that is clearly your legal right? Why, you are entitled to ask the Director what the Law says, without let or hindrance.

[blackshoe]

dburn, on Aug 21 2010, 06:22 AM, said:

…but all the Laws are authorized information to players at all times…

Which law says so?

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

dburn, on Aug 21 2010, 06:22 AM, said:

…but all the Laws are authorized information to players at all times…

Which law says so?

Law 16A3 says that:

Quote

No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

and the Definitions, which are part of the Laws, include:

Quote

Extraneous – not part of the lawful procedures of the game.

Hence, any information at all that is "part of the lawful procedures of the game", including of course the Laws themselves as well as regulations made under those Laws (such as the method by which IMPs are converted to Victory Points), is authorized.

It would be somewhat remarkable if there were any Law that, in and of itself, was not authorized information to the players - those players would have cause to feel aggrieved if, given that

Law 72A said:

Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws.

there existed a Law such that players were not authorized to know what it said.

[blackshoe]

Interesting argument. I don't buy it, but I don't have time to argue it either.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 09:37 PM, said:

Interesting argument. I don't buy it, but I don't have time to argue it either.

This discussion is again derailing completely, and it is surprising that dburn is still unable to distinguish "apples" (AI) from "oranges" (looking it up).

Law 40C3a has nothing to do with whether or not information is authorized. It concerns the use of aids to memory, calculation or technique and simply states that such use is illegal.

This means that in addition to information you can derive from legal calls and play on a board, any information you posess in your mind before you take your cards from a board is authorized for you, but that it is illegal for you (during auction and play) to look up such information (in order to refresh your memory) regardless of where and how you can find that information.

The fact that for instance the contents of the law book and the score tables on the rear side of bid cards or on score sheets for teams events is authorized information is completely irrelevant, Law 40C3a makes it entirely clear that looking up such information (anywhere it can be found) is illegal during auction and play.

[mjj29]

dburn, on Aug 21 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

Quote

Extraneous – not part of the lawful procedures of the game.

Hence, any information at all that is "part of the legal procedures of the game", including of course the Laws themselves as well as regulations made under those Laws (such as the method by which IMPs are converted to Victory Points), is authorized.

Well, I don't want to weigh in on either side particularly (I feel those claiming the laws currently restrict looking at the score tables probably have a point - those claiming that players _should_ be able to ask about laws also have a point. Those two points of view are not neccessarily incompatible), but I did like your inadvertant "lawful/legal" slip there (-:

I would have thought the "lawful procedures" are "those which are allowed by law" - ergo the bidding and play itself (although I don't think anyone is claiming you should be allowed an aide memoir to remember all the spots which have gone), where as the "legal procedures" are the things which define that - ergo the laws themselves.

The actual quote from the lawbook in that reading wouldn't be supporting dburn's view - but maybe I'm reading too much into subtle linguistical inferences.

[dburn]

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 09:37 PM, said:

Interesting argument. I don't buy it, but I don't have time to argue it either.

This discussion is again derailing completely, and it is surprising that dburn is still unable to distinguish "apples" (AI) from "oranges" (looking it up).

Law 40C3a has nothing to do with whether or not information is authorized. It concerns the use of aids to memory, calculation or technique and simply states that such use is illegal.

This means that in addition to information you can derive from legal calls and play on a board, any information you posess in your mind before you take your cards from a board is authorized for you, but that it is illegal for you (during auction and play) to look up such information (in order to refresh your memory) regardless of where and how you can find that information.

The fact that for instance the contents of the law book and the score tables on the rear side of bid cards or on score sheets for teams events is authorized information is completely irrelevant, Law 40C3a makes it entirely clear that looking up such information (anywhere it can be found) is illegal during calls and play.

It's all right, Sven. I can tell apples from oranges, and I know that there are certain kinds of information that players are not permitted to look up during the auction or play if they cannot remember them prior to the auction or play.

If it were the case that players are supposed to remember the Laws prior to the auction or play, they would of course not be permitted to "look up" the Laws during the auction or play. But you and I are both agreed (or so it seems to me) that players are not supposed to remember the Laws prior to the auction or play. If, then, a player wishes during the auction or play to know what the Law says, and if he is not supposed to have remembered the Law beforehand, how is he to acquire knowledge of what the Law says?

To me, it is intolerable to expect players to play a game in strict accordance with the Laws if [a] they are not supposed to know those Laws beforehand and [b] they are not permitted to find out about them except by breaking them (or by being present when someone else breaks them). That is why I contend that if at any time a player wishes to know any Law (or regulation), he has an absolute right to know it at that time without having to remember it in advance and without being refused access to it by the Director or anyone else.

As I have already remarked (because it is true), Law 40C3a does not in fact prohibit players from using any aid to memory, calculation or technique - certain such aids are explicitly permitted by the Laws, certain such aids are permitted (or even required) by regulation, and certain such aids (such as the right to count one's tricks) are "permitted" by simple common sense. It is my contention that even if knowledge of a Law may assist a player's memory, calculation or technique, that knowledge may not be denied a player who is assumed to possess it anyway even though he is not supposed to have acquired it in advance.

[pran]

dburn, on Aug 21 2010, 11:07 PM, said:

As I have already remarked (because it is true), Law 40C3a does not in fact prohibit players from using any aid to memory, calculation or technique - certain such aids are explicitly permitted by the Laws, certain such aids are permitted (or even required) by regulation, and certain such aids (such as the right to count one's tricks) are "permitted" by simple common sense. It is my contention that even if knowledge of a Law may assist a player's memory, calculation or technique, that knowledge may not be denied a player who is assumed to possess it anyway even though he is not supposed to have acquired it in advance.

You present an assertion as a fact without giving any evidence other than that certain specific "aids" are explicitly allowed in the laws. And your assertion directly contradicts the very wording of Law 40C3a.

So let me (again) just remind you that information from the existing legal calls and play are not something you use any "aids to memory" to look up, the information is already there as existing (during the auction) calls and existing (during the play) quitted tricks. (But if you for instance try to refresh your memory on which cards was played to a certain (quitted) trick by inspecting them you are violating both Law 40C3a and Law 66C.)

You appear completely unaware of the principle that many of the general laws in the law book are overridden by more specific laws applicable to certain specific situations. Thus for instance law 40C3a is a general law that applies except when explicitly overridden, and such exception cannot be extended to situations not covered by the specific law. This principle must be remembered for instance when reading Laws 20B, 20C (on the auction) and 66B (on the play).

Can you point to any law in the book that explicitly gives a player the right to be told any contents of the law book unless the director is already handling an irregularity involving that player, or it is otherwise necessary in order to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game? (See Law 81C)

[dburn]

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 05:14 AM, said:

So let me (again) just remind you that information from the existing legal calls and play are not something you use any "aids to memory" to look up, the information is already there as existing (during the auction) calls and existing (during the play) quitted tricks.

And let me just remind you that the Laws also exist - before, during and after the bidding and the play. Since players are not supposed to remember them, the only way in which they can access this "existing" information is by looking it up.

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 05:14 AM, said:

You appear completely unaware of the principle that many of the general laws in the law book are overridden by more specific laws applicable to certain specific situations.

I am aware that some people believe in the existence of such a principle. I also believe them to be wrong; the principle is nowhere stated in the Laws. Of course, in order to resolve many of the problems created by self-contradiction and redundancy in the Laws, it may be helpful to resort to such a principle in certain cases, but in other cases it may not.

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 05:14 AM, said:

Can you point to any law in the book that explicitly gives a player the right to be told any contents of the law book unless the director is already handling an irregularity involving that player, or it is otherwise necessary in order to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game? (See Law 81C)

Yes, of course. The Director has a duty to advise the players of their rights under the Laws (see Law 81C). Nowhere is is stated that this duty is to be exercised only when the Director chooses; a player has a right to know the score for the fourth non-vulnerable doubled undertrick, and if he can't remember what it is, the Director is bound to tell him.

[pran]

dburn, on Aug 22 2010, 12:22 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 05:14 AM, said:

You appear completely unaware of the principle that many of the general laws in the law book are overridden by more specific laws applicable to certain specific situations.

I am aware that some people believe in the existence of such a principle. I also believe them to be wrong; the principle is nowhere stated in the Laws. Of course, in order to resolve many of the problems created by self-contradiction and redundancy in the Laws, it may be helpful to resort to such a principle in certain cases, but in other cases it may not.

In case you don't know: This is a principle published by WBFLC
(And as far as i know a generally accepted principle in all legal theory)

[Pict]

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

dburn, on Aug 22 2010, 12:22 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 05:14 AM, said:

You appear completely unaware of the principle that many of the general laws in the law book are overridden by more specific laws applicable to certain specific situations.

I am aware that some people believe in the existence of such a principle. I also believe them to be wrong; the principle is nowhere stated in the Laws. Of course, in order to resolve many of the problems created by self-contradiction and redundancy in the Laws, it may be helpful to resort to such a principle in certain cases, but in other cases it may not.

In case you don't know: This is a principle published by WBFLC
(And as far as i know a generally accepted principle in all legal theory)

I must admit to the occasional moment of doubt that pran actually exists.

Meanwhile I think a normal person would post the WBFLC material referred to.

Could you do that 'pran'.

[pran]

Pict, on Aug 22 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

dburn, on Aug 22 2010, 12:22 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 05:14 AM, said:

You appear completely unaware of the principle that many of the general laws in the law book are overridden by more specific laws applicable to certain specific situations.

I am aware that some people believe in the existence of such a principle. I also believe them to be wrong; the principle is nowhere stated in the Laws. Of course, in order to resolve many of the problems created by self-contradiction and redundancy in the Laws, it may be helpful to resort to such a principle in certain cases, but in other cases it may not.

In case you don't know: This is a principle published by WBFLC
(And as far as i know a generally accepted principle in all legal theory)

I must admit to the occasional moment of doubt that pran actually exists.

Meanwhile I think a normal person would post the WBFLC material referred to.

Could you do that 'pran'.

If you look up for instance the minutes from Sao Paulo September 8th 2009 you will find the following under item 2: Law 24 is a specific law and, where it applies (the card may be visible to partner) it overrides the generality of Law 16.

While looking around I also found the following in the minutes from Beijing October 10th 2008 which should be interesting for this thread (the enhancements are mine):

LAW 16 and others – concerning information rights

16A1(d) allows the player use of his memory of information in the laws and regulations. It does not authorize him to look during the auction and play at the printed regulations, the law book, or anyone’s scorecard or the backs of bidding cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system card and notes see Law 20G2.

Neither does 78D authorize players to consult during the auction and play printed copies of the information given them under this law.

20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An “alternative” call is not the same call with another meaning – for example, if the reply to an opponent is that “5D shows diamonds preference”, any reply to a further question “what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?” is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.)

81C2 requires the Director to advise players of their rights and responsibilities under the laws. He confines such information to rights and responsibilities that are relevant to the situation he is dealing with.

I can only regret that I was not fully aware of this minute before, it could have saved us a tremendous amount of pointless discussion.
(To me this minute only expresses matters that I as director have always known)

[shyams]

So far we have been told that the IMP scale (part of Laws) and VP scale (Conditons of contest -- Law 78D etc) are not available for reference during play etc.

I showed a EBU Brighton quiz -- not good enough.

OK, click here for a photo from the competition (midweek 2008, Brighton) which I believe was used to select the England team for some premier competition (Bermuda Bowl?). The tourney was played with screens and the VP scale is stuck on the side of the screen (you may need to zoom in)!

So, is the VP scale available to players during the play of hands?

[mjj29]

shyams, on Aug 22 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

OK, click here for a photo from the competition (midweek 2008, Brighton) which I believe was used to select the England team for some premier competition (Bermuda Bowl?). The tourney was played with screens and the VP scale is stuck on the side of the screen (you may need to zoom in)!

So, is the VP scale available to players during the play of hands?

L40C3(a) begins "Unless permitted by the regulating authority ..." - one therefore assumes that for the event you were referring to, the RA (who was the tournament organiser) did so permit. It does not neccessarily follow that the VP scale (or anything else) should be available in other events with the same or different RA.