[suprgrover]

WellSpyder, on 2011-March-28, 08:37, said:

I think it depends on what you do if the match is a tie. dburn assumes you toss the dice again, with a further 9/16 chance of the octahedron winning and a 1/8 chance of another tie....

Yes, that's exactly it. Carry on.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-March-28, 10:31, said:

I always wanted one of those for Backgammon. It always seemed silly to me that you do not have a side 1 on the doubling cube. Having played a few 64 games and one at 128 I feel eight faces for the doubling "cube" numbered 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 far more sensible.

Where I learnt backgammon (at the feet of John Conway), we had a second hexahedral cube for the next six powers of 2.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-March-28, 10:31, said:

The problem with "likely" is simple: it means different things in different contexts, and even different things to different people. Perhaps the only real solution is to get an interpretation from a relevant authority.

I agree with this, at least for the 2007 Laws. For the next version of the Laws, it would be highly desirable if all needlessly ambiguous terms such as this could be properly defined.

Quote

Perhaps we should look at logic and fairness, not always the best approach in interpreting the Law book. What would we expect this Law to mean?

Suppose we have this position where a player would have won a trick a certain percentage of the time. What does this Law feel like? Should we give him the trick if he would have won it 15% of the time? 25%? 35%? 45%? 55%? 65%? 75%? 85%?

My feeling is that 55% accords with th feel of this Law. What do you think?

My feeling is that the TD should rule by considering whatever he thinks the Law actually says; without any further definition or guidance, the TD has to make this interpretation himself.

[nigel_k]

bluejak, on 2011-March-28, 10:31, said:

The problem with "likely" is simple: it means different things in different contexts, and even different things to different people.

Absolutely correct.

This is a language problem not a maths problem, so words can mean different things depending on context. Here there is not enough context to clearly indicate which meaning is correct. But we have to try to use a combination of what context we have and what makes sense generally, rather than just relying on the dictionary definition of a word in isolation.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-March-28, 10:31, said:

Law 12C1E includes the following wording "The score assigned in place of the actual score for a nonoffending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." This means that, in the ACBL, it is important to know what "likely" means Furthermore, this was part of Law 12C2 used worldwide under earlier Law books. How does the ACBL interpret 'likely', and did the rest of the world interpret 'likely' for this Law?

I have been told that there is an interpretation in the ACBL that likely is 1 in 3, while at all probable [Law 12C1E2 for the offenders] is 1 in 6. Many years of discussion on newsgroups and forums, talking to my American friends including top TDs, and sitting on and commenting on ACBL ACs have convinced me it may be an official interpretation but it is certainly not followed. The actual usage is probably closer to 1 in 5 for likely and 1 in 10 for at all probable. The EBU came up with an approach that tended to mirror this.

So, how about 1 in 5 for likely? I suppose it means "a reasonable likelihood". But as others have pointed out, if a player said "I am likely to win this match" he probably means he has at least a 6 in 10 chance of winning. Maybe it is the difference in wording, "that was likely" is a lower likelihood, so perhaps Law 12C is a red herring.

Perhaps we should look at logic and fairness, not always the best approach in interpreting the Law book. What would we expect this Law to mean?


Suppose we have this position where a player would have won a trick a certain percentage of the time. What does this Law feel like? Should we give him the trick if he would have won it 15% of the time? 25%? 35%? 45%? 55%? 65%? 75%? 85%?

My feeling is that 55% accords with th feel of this Law. What do you think?

I am not surprised that TDs in the ACBL don't follow the ACBL's guidelines. Actually, I'm kinda surprised there are guidelines, since I'd never heard of any, until now.

To me, "at all probable" means the probability is greater than zero. "Likely" is harder; I don't really have a problem with 1 in 5, or with 55%, depending how you interpret the words. Not much help, I suppose.

[AlexJonson]

Perhaps as well as having a 'Change the Laws' forum, we could have an 'Interpret the Laws forum'.