[pran]

peachy, on Aug 18 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

dburn, on Aug 18 2010, 04:16 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 18 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

You are entitled to ask the TD, and you should not have to ask him, what the ramifications are of an established revoke, and the TD should read out to you Law 64A. You not entitled to pull a law book out of your pocket and look it up yourself. Strange, perhaps, but true.

If I am allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of an established revoke, why am I not allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of going four down doubled non-vulnerable?

At the time, the Director (one of England's very best and an occasional poster to this forum) considered that he should not tell me the ramifications of the established revoke expressly because to do so would constitute an aid to my memory, calculation or technique. Since he didn't actually need to tell me anyway, the point was not pursued.

But it remains the case in my view that if a player wants to know what the Laws say about anything at all, he is entitled to know what they say, and any attempt to find out what they say cannot be considered a breach of Law 40C3a or of anything else. If as pran remarks "no player is expected to have the laws memorized", then if players are expected to abide by the Laws, they should have unrestricted access to them at all times. Anything else is so at variance with the principles of natural justice as to be completely absurd - it's not only strange, it's also false.

Dburn makes a valid argument. In the original posted case, the person should then have called director and asked the TD "how much is 3 down doubled". His partner of course is under UI restrictions, right? Whether he asked TD or illegally (IMO) or legally consulted the scoring table?

Perhaps this is something new laws ,whenever they come, could consider: Move the scoring tables to an Attachment or Addendum instead of having them incorporated in the laws themselves. It is an aid memoire.

Come on folks!

Law 9B2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

Can you not see the difference between calling the Director to an irregularity and calling him just to get some information without there being any irregularity?

I am extremely surprised that "one of Englands very best directors" called to a revoke failed to explain all matters in regard to rectification on that revoke, and I still maintain that this must have been a director's error. Just very fortunate that it apparently did not matter in the actual case.

[dburn]

pran, on Aug 18 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

Can you not see the difference between calling the Director to an irregularity and calling him just to get some information without there being any irregularity?

No, I can't. To me there is no difference, and to me this assertion:

pran said:

A player is definitely not allowed to look up the laws himself, this would be construed as an intentional violation of Law 40C3a (regardless of which law he actually inspected).

He may certainly call the Director for cause and ask whatever question he likes, but the Director should see through this question as an attempt to violate the same law.

is nonsense. A player may or may not be allowed to "look up the Laws himself"; as far as I am concerned he can do so if he is able, because he is entitled to know them even - nay, especially - if he is not expected to memorize them. But if a player calls the Director and asks what a Law - any Law at all - says, the Director should tell him and not hold that the player is in breach of anything whatsoever. To assert otherwise is to assert that the Laws of bridge are unauthorized information to the players, and not even a Director would assert that.

[blackshoe]

Bridge is a game of memory - to the extent that some would suggest that players who forget their system should be penalized. There is a specific law prohibiting "aids to memory" during the bidding and play.

If there has been an irregularity, the laws provide (among other things) that players shall be told the legal ramifications of the irregularity before the bidding or play continues. If there has been no irregularity, the laws make such no entitlement.

It is true that players, outside of the auction and play of a particular hand, are entitled to look up things in the law book, or ask the director about them. They're also entitled to look at their private score card, their system card, any system notes they may have, and the backs of the bidding cards.

I do not see why any of the above should lead anyone to conclude that players are entitled, absent an irregularity, to ask the TD questions which are designed to aid their memory in pursuit of the correct bidding or play, or to look in the law book, or at their system card, or system notes or private score, or anything else that may be an aid to memory.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Aug 18 2010, 08:19 PM, said:

Bridge is a game of memory - to the extent that some would suggest that players who forget their system should be penalized. There is a specific law prohibiting "aids to memory" during the bidding and play.

If there has been an irregularity, the laws provide (among other things) that players shall be told the legal ramifications of the irregularity before the bidding or play continues. If there has been no irregularity, the laws make such no entitlement.

It is true that players, outside of the auction and play of a particular hand, are entitled to look up things in the law book, or ask the director about them. They're also entitled to look at their private score card, their system card, any system notes they may have, and the backs of the bidding cards.

I do not see why any of the above should lead anyone to conclude that players are entitled, absent an irregularity, to ask the TD questions which are designed to aid their memory in pursuit of the correct bidding or play, or to look in the law book, or at their system card, or system notes or private score, or anything else that may be an aid to memory.

Of course the Laws do not entitle you to have the ramifications of an irregularity explained to you when there has not been an irregularity. After all, how could they?

But just so that I can be clear about what is actually being asserted, suppose that you as a Director are called to a table and asked whether it is legal to respond one diamond to an opening bid of one heart. Having particular regard to Law 81C2:

Quote

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

do you reply:

[a] No
[b] I am not allowed to tell you that, because it would be an aid to your memory - why don't you bid it and find out?

[pran]

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

But just so that I can be clear about what is actually being asserted, suppose that you as a Director are called to a table and asked whether it is legal to respond one diamond to an opening bid of one heart. Having particular regard to Law 81C2:

Quote

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

do you reply:

[a] No
[b] I am not allowed to tell you that, because it would be an aid to your memory - why don't you bid it and find out?

This discussion could be more meaningful with a meaningful example. I certainly hope that no bridgeplayer having passed their first hour of lessons should ever be in doubt about a 1♦ bid following a 1♥ bid being illegal.

A more relevant question is what the director should answer to for instance the following question asked during the auction: "What are the scores for 4♠ doubled not vulnerable down 4 versus 4♥ vulnerable just made?"

I do hope you will agree that this question is improper and should not be answered?

[dburn]

pran, on Aug 19 2010, 05:21 AM, said:

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

But just so that I can be clear about what is actually being asserted, suppose that you as a Director are called to a table and asked whether it is legal to respond one diamond to an opening bid of one heart. Having particular regard to Law 81C2:

Quote

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

do you reply:

[a] No
[b] I am not allowed to tell you that, because it would be an aid to your memory - why don't you bid it and find out?

This discussion could be more meaningful with a meaningful example. I certainly hope that no bridgeplayer having passed their first hour of lessons should ever be in doubt about a 1♦ bid following a 1♥ bid being illegal.

A more relevant question is what the director should answer to for instance the following question asked during the auction: "What are the scores for 4♠ doubled not vulnerable down 4 versus 4♥ vulnerable just made?"

I do hope you will agree that this question is improper and should not be answered?

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.

Either a player is allowed to consult the Director (or some other source) as to what the Laws are during play, or he is not. It is not - it cannot be - the case that players are allowed to ask for information about some Laws but not others. Nor can it be the case, depsite what Cult members say, that a player is only allowed to find out what the Laws are when he (or someone at his table) has just broken them.

If I am allowed to ask "does an ace beat a king?" then I am allowed to ask whether down four not vulnerable scores more or less than a vulnerable four hearts. Since I believe it to be the Director's duty to advise players of their rights and responsibilities under the Laws, I believe that if a Director is called and asked whether an ace beats a king, he is bound to reply "Yes" and not "I can't tell you that because it would be a memory aid". I also believe (therefore) that if a Director is called and asked what the score would be for a particular result, he should answer correctly.

Of course, no player ever actually would call the Director and ask whether an ace beats a king. But that does not matter; if as the Cult continually asserts it is true of some Law X that "no player is expected to memorize Law X", then it is true of all Laws X, including those relating to the rank of the cards and the scoring table.

Otherwise, it really would be necessary to compile guidance for players detailing what Laws they are expected to remember and what Laws they are not expected to remember. Bluejak's burblings above miss this perfectly serious and valid point in the interests of dismissing as silly any perfectly sound and valid argument to the effect that he is wrong.

[shyams]

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?

[dburn]

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.

[bluejak]

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

But just so that I can be clear about what is actually being asserted, suppose that you as a Director are called to a table and asked whether it is legal to respond one diamond to an opening bid of one heart. Having particular regard to Law 81C2:

Quote

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

do you reply:

[a] No
[b] I am not allowed to tell you that, because it would be an aid to your memory - why don't you bid it and find out?

Do you think that the fact that the duties "normally" [interesting word that] include advising players of their rights automatically means that you will advise players of their rights at any time, notably when this is in conflict with another Law?

The problem with extrapolating general Laws, as a lot of people are fond of doing, is that it does not make sense. Better is to assume that general Laws follow generally, rather than in every specific case.

[shyams]

dburn, on Aug 18 2010, 10:16 PM, said:

But it remains the case in my view that if a player wants to know what the Laws say about anything at all, he is entitled to know what they say, and any attempt to find out what they say cannot be considered a breach of Law 40C3a or of anything else. If as pran remarks "no player is expected to have the laws memorized", then if players are expected to abide by the Laws, they should have unrestricted access to them at all times. Anything else is so at variance with the principles of natural justice as to be completely absurd - it's not only strange, it's also false.

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

Either a player is allowed to consult the Director (or some other source) as to what the Laws are during play, or he is not. It is not - it cannot be - the case that players are allowed to ask for information about some Laws but not others. Nor can it be the case, depsite what Cult members say, that a player is only allowed to find out what the Laws are when he (or someone at his table) has just broken them.

I agree 100% with the above points made by dburn.

I think the Laws of bridge should be authorised information at all times. And I'd hope the IMP table and scoring tables remain part of the Laws -- and are treated as authorised and available. This insistence by many TDs that sections of the law are aids to memory is really weird.

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

1. In Brighton Swiss pairs, I have the right to look at the VP table and compute that a 50:50 action on the last board of a match has a positive pay-off (e.g. VP payoff is 2:1 due to non linear scale, making a 50:50 action worth it).
2. In the Spring Fours, I do not have the right to look at the IMP scale, which is also non-linear (e.g. to decide whether a redoubled overtrick is worth the risk in a knock-out match)

[dburn]

bluejak, on Aug 19 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

Do you think that the fact that the duties "normally" [interesting word that] include advising players of their rights automatically means that you will advise players of their rights at any time, notably when this is in conflict with another Law?

The problem with extrapolating general Laws, as a lot of people are fond of doing, is that it does not make sense.  Better is to assume that general Laws follow generally, rather than in every specific case.

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.

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.

[gnasher]

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.

[campboy]

Shyams: i do not think the word "authorised" means what you think it means. Information is authorised if you are permitted to use it should you be in possession of it, so for example information gained from accidentally seeing an opponent's card is authorised; that does not necessarily mean that you are permitted to try to discover it if you are not aware of it. The laws are certainly authorised information, since law 16 says so; whether you are permitted to consult them at the table is another matter entirely.

In terms of scoring, of course, the lawbook contains just the bare bones. It would certainly be improper for a TD to actually tell a player during a hand what the score for taking a certain number of tricks in a certain contract might be, whether or not it might be proper for him to show the player law 77.

[shyams]

gnasher, on Aug 19 2010, 03:03 PM, 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.

While pran et al have not yet stated so, I think they will agree that the VP scale is available during play. And based on a 2-yr old Brighton bulletin, I think they may want to agree that even the IMP table is available during play.
Page 3, Question 1A and 1B of this bulletin:-
http://www.ebu.co.uk/results/2008August-De...etins/Bull5.pdf

Answers to TD quiz on Page 6 of this bulletin:-
http://www.ebu.co.uk/results/2008August-De...etins/Bull8.pdf

As per this bulletin, the answers are crystal clear: Both the Laws (all of them) and the VP scale are available to players during play!

This post has been edited by shyams: 2010-August-19, 08:42

[shyams]

campboy, on Aug 19 2010, 03:07 PM, said:

Shyams: i do not think the word "authorised" means what you think it means.

I realise this now. I suppose that's why I wrote "authorised and available".

Instead of bothering with "authorised", a simple "available during play" would have been more appropriate.

[WellSpyder]

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.

I think this primarily reflects a different philosophical approach to the laws.

It seems to me that your approach is that the laws should be a coherent and consistent framework that provide an unambiguous answer to all potential questions that might arise, and without putting players into an impossible situation. I agree in theory. Indeed, I think this is entirely logical and intellectually an unassailable position.

It seems to me, however, that the Cult of the TD reflects the view that:

"Yes, in principle of course we ought to have a fully coherent, consistent and unambiguous set of rules. However, in practice that is extremely difficult (maybe even impossible) to achieve. So what really matters is a set of laws and interpretations that allows us to handle satisfactorily the situations that might actually arise at the table without TDs or players feeling they are being unfairly or arbitrarily treated."

If that is all that can be achieved, I don't feel as a player that that is so bad.

[pran]

dburn, on Aug 19 2010, 12:22 PM, 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.

There is no VP table in my law book.

(Law 78B contains a table for converting score differences to IMP).

And since my previous comment was not fully accepted:

My answer to the question if 1♦ was legal over 1♥ I would answer: "You will learn it if you try it".

And my answer to questions on scoring tables is: "You may consult them when you need to calculate results after play is completed, not for instance during the auction for the purpose of calculating the risk with a sacrifice bid".

Summary: The Director has no business assisting any player in deciding what to call or play, but he has a duty to make sure that a player who is faced with an irregularity by opponents knows and understands all relevant rules in order to make the best out of the situation.

[pran]

shyams, on Aug 19 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 19 2010, 03:03 PM, 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.

While pran et al have not yet stated so, I think they will agree that the VP scale is available during play. And based on a 2-yr old Brighton bulletin, I think they may want to agree that even the IMP table is available during play.
Page 3, Question 1A and 1B of this bulletin:-
http://www.ebu.co.uk/results/2008August-De...etins/Bull5.pdf

Answers to TD quiz on Page 6 of this bulletin:-
http://www.ebu.co.uk/results/2008August-De...etins/Bull8.pdf

As per this bulletin, the answers are crystal clear: Both the Laws (all of them) and the VP scale are available to players during play!

And as per WBFLC: Do they agree?

[blackshoe]

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.

[blackshoe]

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.