[pran]

mjj29, on Aug 23 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

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.

Absolutely,

but even so - did you and shyams observe

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

from the minute I quoted?

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Aug 20 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

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!).

I do not understand this. There are plenty of things published in EBU publications. If they are not published by the L&EC, or by Max Bavin specifically in his role of CTD of the EBU, or by the Tournament Committee, or by the Board, or by the General manger in that role, and so on, then they are not official views.

Jeremy has published a column in English Bridge for many years, including many years before he was on the L&EC. Are you seriously suggesting it is either official, or that an official body checks it for accuracy?

[bluejak]

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

Since players are not supposed to remember them, the only way in which they can access this "existing" information is by looking it up.

Why are players not supposed to rememebr laws?

[dburn]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2010, 09:08 AM, said:

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

Since players are not supposed to remember them, the only way in which they can access this "existing" information is by looking it up.

Why are players not supposed to rememebr laws?

It appears that they are, or at any rate that it would be a good thing for them if they did. But it was not actually I who suggested that players are not supposed to memorize the Laws.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2010, 03:04 PM, said:

jallerton, on Aug 20 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

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!).

I do not understand this. There are plenty of things published in EBU publications. If they are not published by the L&EC, or by Max Bavin specifically in his role of CTD of the EBU, or by the Tournament Committee, or by the Board, or by the General manger in that role, and so on, then they are not official views.

Jeremy has published a column in English Bridge for many years, including many years before he was on the L&EC. Are you seriously suggesting it is either official, or that an official body checks it for accuracy?

Your analogy is a good one, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Many of the queries in Jeremy's column relate to the application of Laws and EBU regulations. The answers are in the official EBU magazine and that fact by itself is enough for most readers to assume that his answers will be correct. Those readers who are also aware of Jeremy's esteemed position will have even more reason to know that he is an expert on the subject. In answer to your last sentence, I have reason to believe that his column is checked by the Chairman of the Laws & Ethics Committee!

[Yes, Jeremy's column has been going for quite a while, but I believe that Jeremy has been on the L&EC for many years also. Maybe Jeremy can confirm which started first.]

[bluejak]

Are you suggestign I am lying?

[pran]

jallerton, on Aug 24 2010, 11:23 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 23 2010, 03:04 PM, said:

jallerton, on Aug 20 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

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!).

I do not understand this. There are plenty of things published in EBU publications. If they are not published by the L&EC, or by Max Bavin specifically in his role of CTD of the EBU, or by the Tournament Committee, or by the Board, or by the General manger in that role, and so on, then they are not official views.

Jeremy has published a column in English Bridge for many years, including many years before he was on the L&EC. Are you seriously suggesting it is either official, or that an official body checks it for accuracy?

Your analogy is a good one, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Many of the queries in Jeremy's column relate to the application of Laws and EBU regulations. The answers are in the official EBU magazine and that fact by itself is enough for most readers to assume that his answers will be correct. Those readers who are also aware of Jeremy's esteemed position will have even more reason to know that he is an expert on the subject. In answer to your last sentence, I have reason to believe that his column is checked by the Chairman of the Laws & Ethics Committee!

[Yes, Jeremy's column has been going for quite a while, but I believe that Jeremy has been on the L&EC for many years also. Maybe Jeremy can confirm which started first.]

I shall add to this that in my experience editors, and in particular editors of "official" publications are generally very careful about adding disclaimers to items published in their publication that an item does not necessarily express the "official" view of the editor in cases where the editor has not had the item validated .

Without such disclaimer the readers should naturally be allowed to expect that the published item expresses the "official" view on the matter.
(Unless of course the item is clearly that of a personal opinion)

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Aug 25 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

Are you suggestign I am lying?

No, he's suggesting that you're mistaken.

[bluejak]

Hmmm. It is a pretty inane mistake to make as a long term member of the L&EC and a reader of English Bridge since its inception. I think I would have to be at a higher level of stupidity than very stupid to make such a mistake.

Anyway, Jeremy's column was going a long time before he was on the L&EC.

I think the idea that editors need disclaimers for everything is just plain wrong. The articles in English Bridge and the Brighton Bulletin are just articles. I think it pretty incredible that anyone would think that the L&EC [or any other EBU Committee] would check every article for accuracy. We are not paid, and where you think we have the time or inclination for such a long and completely useless task I have no idea. Articles in magazines are generally considered the view of the writer.

In fact, articles are colour coded in English Bridge, so I suppose 'red' articles, ie 'EBU News', might be considered official. Jeremy's articles are 'medium blue', ie 'Features'.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with Jeremy's articles, just that they are not official, and were certainly not official before he was on the L&EC. In the same way, John Probst's article in the Brighton bulletin was his view, and the L&EC would have no reason to check it or comment on it.

[shyams]

bluejak, on Aug 25 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

I think it pretty incredible that anyone would think that the L&EC [or any other EBU Committee] would check every article for accuracy.

If I read jallerton's post correctly, he said checked by Chairman of L&EC -- not checked by the whole of the L&EC

bluejak, on Aug 25 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

We are not paid, and where you think we have the time or inclination for such a long and completely useless task I have no idea. Articles in magazines are generally considered the view of the writer.

(highlight mine)
I'm shocked. While I do not expect a formal process to be set up to vet, edit and audit articles published by Jeremy in the EBU magazine, I'd expect the average EBU member will read such articles and take it as accurate and valid.

And in the rare event (if ever) that Jeremy makes a mistake in his article, the L&EC or members of the EBU TD fraternity would promptly seek to rectify/clarify in the next issue. This would especially apply to knowledgeable TDs (who are readers of English Bridge since its inception).

[PeterE]

Why do you believe this to be done ? - although it might be use- and helpful.

In Germany we have a 1st level TD who is wrighting in our Bridge Magazine a page (rather monthly), called "The Little Tournament Director", where gets questions from some helpseeking persons and answers them.

Unfortunately not everything he's writing is correct. But with his good reputation most of the readers will believe him.
Nevertheless there never is any correction of any of his errors

[nige1]

Johnny Nash, on 1972, said:

I can see clearly now, the rain has gone.

DBurn appears to be right in law, natural justice, and common sense.

It must be legal for you to discover relevant law (including scoring tables) -- provided partner avoids using incidental unauthorised information. Thus, legal information is authorised. Your reason for asking is not. An extreme example: you should be interested for your own information -- not to deter partner from some disastrous call

IMO, the ban on aids to memory, calculation, and technique should refer to calls and plays not laws. It should prevent access to memo-pads, calculators, and relevant books. It shouldn't prohibit you from breathing, rubbing your neck, staring at the ceiling, or attempting to comply with the law.

I suppose, local regulations (like the EBU orange book) may supervene.

Until I read DBurn's elucidation, I was bogged down in the same legal misconception as Bluejak, Blackshoe, Pran, and Co. Obviously nobody is lying. Ideally, when we're able to recognise old beliefs as mistaken, we should celebrate an affirmation of our intelligence rather than resist an embarrassing admission of error.

Thank you DBurn!

[Echognome]

As a suggestion, perhaps the laws would be better suited to have a section that the players are required to know (such as the suits, ranks, order of play, scoring, etc.) and the rest they are not required to know. I would venture a natural divide being normal play versus the treatment of irregularities.

[nige1]

Quote

DBurn appears to be right in law, natural justice, and common sense.

When I wrote that sentence I had a dim foreboding that some arcane contradictory WBF minute would be exhumed from its crypt.

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

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)

Oh dear. Sven's minute shows that I'm wrong again -- as far as the law is concerned anyway

This is the way that the WBFLC chooses to disseminate legal information to players. It is consistent with the policy that players at the table remain in ignorance of laws relevant to their current predicament..

[bluejak]

shyams, on Aug 25 2010, 01:11 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 25 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

I think it pretty incredible that anyone would think that the L&EC [or any other EBU Committee] would check every article for accuracy.

If I read jallerton's post correctly, he said checked by Chairman of L&EC -- not checked by the whole of the L&EC

Yeah. It was perhaps a slightly light method of pointing out that Jeremy checks his own articles. I am sure he does, and if he gets something wrong will he really find it? An absolute requirement of checking something for accuracy is that someone else does it.

shyams, on Aug 25 2010, 01:11 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 25 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

We are not paid, and where you think we have the time or inclination for such a long and completely useless task I have no idea. Articles in magazines are generally considered the view of the writer.

(highlight mine)
I'm shocked. While I do not expect a formal process to be set up to vet, edit and audit articles published by Jeremy in the EBU magazine, I'd expect the average EBU member will read such articles and take it as accurate and valid.

And in the rare event (if ever) that Jeremy makes a mistake in his article, the L&EC or members of the EBU TD fraternity would promptly seek to rectify/clarify in the next issue. This would especially apply to knowledgeable TDs (who are readers of English Bridge since its inception).

Of course it is not a question of every member checking everything: that really is beyond any credibility. But there is no reason why there should be any checking at all of unofficial articles in various publications by the L&EC.

With respect, and with no mention of who, I have read many articles in EBU publications which have included errors in tournament direction. It is not my job to correct them, I would not be thanked for the criticism. The suggestion I should be continually criticising I find beyond belief.

[pran]

nige1, on Aug 25 2010, 11:05 PM, said:

Oh dear. Sven's minute shows that I'm wrong again -- as far as the law is concerned anyway

This is the way that the WBFLC chooses to disseminate legal information to players. It is consistent with the policy that players at the table remain in ignorance of laws relevant to their current predicament..

Information is authorized to you provided you remember it, but you are not allowed to use anything that can be characterized as an aid to your memory for such information.

Bridge is a brain-sport where your abibilty to remember is one of the more important factors.

[shyams]

LOL, some of the posturing in this thread is really hilarious. My take on this is that the guardians of the Bridge Laws are trying very hard to guard the secrets of Bridge Laws from the players.

[bluejak]

Strange. There are many strange views in this thread - as all long threads - but where this one comes from is quite beyond me.

[aguahombre]

dburn, on Aug 18 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

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.

David S: I blame this David. He brought in a case with TD deliberately withholding information during a ruling, where the TD decided a complete explanation would be an aid.

I think a lot of the subsequent posters kept this situation in mind. I surely did while reading the rest.

[bluejak]

Oh, well, I am afraid I thought that paragraph so absurd I could not be bothered to reply to it. I presumed everyone would ignore it.

Of course a TD tells the player the effects of a revoke.

However, I do suggest that where one person quotes an idea of his own that it is not fair to lump other people who have not agreed to it in with him, like this rubbish "cult" idea in a different thread.