[iviehoff]

gnasher, on 2013-July-11, 00:55, said:

I expect you're right about the original reason, but if you ask a top player today what he likes about playing with screens, I bet the first thing he will say is "less UI", not "less cheating".

But it amounts to the same thing. Your partner's mannerisms are UI and reading them is cheating, and it is very difficult to avoid reading your partner's mannerisms if you have played with him for a long time. It's a long way short of deliberately cheating by way of finger signals, but it's still cheating, even though euphemisms like "table presence" were used to describe it, even laud it - after all reading the opponents is fair game: but your partner is the source of much useful information and experience makes him much easier to read. Maybe when he says "less UI" he may mean many "fewer rulings related to hesitations and explanation inconsistencies". But most UI is in mannerisms which are not objectively identifiable enough to call the TD over, and maybe not even noticed. The Azzuri were suddenly a lot less unbeatable when screens came in.

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-11, 22:01, said:

I suppose I am very lucky.

You certainly are. I still get #3 regularly as an adult. As for your children, if they break somebody else's window and the police get involved then they could easily get punished. If they break a window at school they will almost certainly be punished. By analogy with bridge, it is not your partner or NPC that decides what the punishment should be.

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2013-July-12, 01:35, said:

But it amounts to the same thing. Your partner's mannerisms are UI and reading them is cheating, and it is very difficult to avoid reading your partner's mannerisms if you have played with him for a long time. It's a long way short of deliberately cheating by way of finger signals, but it's still cheating, even though euphemisms like "table presence" were used to describe it, even laud it - after all reading the opponents is fair game: but your partner is the source of much useful information and experience makes him much easier to read. Maybe when he says "less UI" he may mean many "fewer rulings related to hesitations and explanation inconsistencies". But most UI is in mannerisms which are not objectively identifiable enough to call the TD over, and maybe not even noticed. The Azzuri were suddenly a lot less unbeatable when screens came in.

When I said "less UI" I meant "less UI". That is, fewer occasions when one is legally obliged to not choose from amongst logical alternatives an action that was suggested by the UI. I think that most top players would regard that as the most important benefit of screens.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-July-12, 01:35, said:

But it amounts to the same thing. Your partner's mannerisms are UI and reading them is cheating, and it is very difficult to avoid reading your partner's mannerisms if you have played with him for a long time. It's a long way short of deliberately cheating by way of finger signals, but it's still cheating, even though euphemisms like "table presence" were used to describe it, even laud it - after all reading the opponents is fair game: but your partner is the source of much useful information and experience makes him much easier to read. Maybe when he says "less UI" he may mean many "fewer rulings related to hesitations and explanation inconsistencies". But most UI is in mannerisms which are not objectively identifiable enough to call the TD over, and maybe not even noticed. The Azzuri were suddenly a lot less unbeatable when screens came in.

Reading partner's mannerisms is not cheating. Using knowledge gained from partner's mannerisms, knowing that it is illegal, is cheating. Most people who use UI aren't aware they received it, or aren't aware they are using it, or both. They're a PITA, but they're not cheats.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-12, 10:21, said:

Reading partner's mannerisms is not cheating. Using knowledge gained from partner's mannerisms, knowing that it is illegal, is cheating. Most people who use UI aren't aware they received it, or aren't aware they are using it, or both. They're a PITA, but they're not cheats.

Agree with Blackshoe.

The ACBL club directors handbook said:

Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle.

Lots of players follow that advice. Most echo Internationals on Bridgewinners, who explain that, if opponents complain, they are happy to accept an adverse ruling. Like other "Equity" laws that emphasise rectification, the laws on using UI seem to broadcast the wrong message: They penalize law-abiders and reward law-breakers. The problem would be reduced if procedural and disciplinary were the norm. Unfortunately, they entail an unnecessary extra layer of subjective judgement and are rarely and capriciously enforced. Better would be to introduce deterrence into basic law. If law-makers baulk at that, they could consider fudges like classifying more information as authorised (e.g. alerts and partner's answers to questions).

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-11, 22:01, said:

We do?!?

I don't know about you, but my kids will not get punished for mistakes they make in good faith.

Sorry, I meant "in bridge we punish the analogous kids", for the reasons I explained earlier in the post.

Quote

From the other viewpoint, I honestly can't recall that I have ever been punished for honest mistakes I made. I have suffered some of the consequences of those mistakes, but I haven't been punished.

If you forget to latch the gate surrounding a swimming pool, and a child wanders in and drowns in the pool, you could be punished severely for your negligence.

That's an extreme case, I know. Most mistakes don't have such dire consequences, so we don't need to punish them aggressively.

[blackshoe]

I find it interesting that the DA with original jurisdiction over the Zimmerman case felt there wasn't enough to warrant an arrest, much less a trial. Apparently he felt so strongly about it that they brought in an outside prosecutor to try the case. That person has made some very questionable (to my mind) decisions in the course of the trial - like the references to Zimmerman having taken a course about Florida's self-defense law, as if that should matter in a trial like this. It's as if, having agreed to prosecute, he's desperate to get a conviction, rather than objectively sticking to the rule of law. It'll be interesting to see what the jury says.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-12, 13:15, said:

I find it interesting that the DA with original jurisdiction over the Zimmerman case felt there wasn't enough to warrant an arrest, much less a trial. Apparently he felt so strongly about it that they brought in an outside prosecutor to try the case. That person has made some very questionable (to my mind) decisions in the course of the trial - like the references to Zimmerman having taken a course about Florida's self-defense law, as if that should matter in a trial like this. It's as if, having agreed to prosecute, he's desperate to get a conviction, rather than objectively sticking to the rule of law. It'll be interesting to see what the jury says.

Just looked up a news story on this case. It appears that Mr Zimmerman's life was not in danger; apparently he left his car to chase the victim down?

Certainly looks like murder, but Florida's gun laws should also spend life in prison. If the murderer hadn't been carrying (despite having a record of violence) a gun, he would be facing conviction of, at most, aggravated assault, and much more importantly, a teenager would still be alive.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-12, 14:56, said:

Just looked up a news story on this case. It appears that Mr Zimmerman's life was not in danger; apparently he left his car to chase the victim down?

Certainly looks like murder, but Florida's gun laws should also spend life in prison. If the murderer hadn't been carrying (despite having a record of violence) a gun, he would be facing conviction of, at most, aggravated assault, and much more importantly, a teenager would still be alive.

There's a lot of misinformation on the net about this. The legal question is whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life when he shot Martin. Since Z was on the ground, with Martin on top of him and pounding his head into the pavement, that certainly seems likely. How they got in that position is another question. We'll see what the jury has to say.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-12, 17:10, said:

How they got in that position is another question.

I'm not sure it is "another question" if by this you mean that it is not relevant. When you chase a man, catch him and attack him, and then shoot him when you are losing the fight, "self-defense" seems pretty far-fetched.

[blackshoe]

This is not the place to discuss the Zimmerman trial, and I should not have brought it up here. My apologies to all. Stephanie, I'll reply via PM, in case you want to continue.