headers
Marvin French | 20 Jun 2012 18:20
Picon

Pointless TD calls for 2017

I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time. Playing 
with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this Sunday I did it 
twice, both times playing against experienced pairs.

The first was when I opened 1C in first seat with nothing but five clubs to 
the K8. Alice bid 2NT, forcing, and I passed, as did LHO with his 11 HCP. 
When dummy came down LHO yelled for the TD. "Can't it wait?" I asked, "We 
have another board to play." No, it couldn't wait and the TD was finally 
found. LHO reported the psych, saying, "I don't know how often he does 
this." The TD left, saying he would look at the matter later. We were -150 
but they had a game coming.

On the next round my RHO was late arriving and I chatted with LHO, telling 
him why the TD had come to our table. He seemed to agree with me that the TD 
call should not have been made. So I picked up  void  KQ10987  AJxx  Qxx 
and opened 1H, passed around to RHO, who bid 1S. Of course I bid 1NT, a safe 
psych after partner passed my opening bid. LHO thought a bit and passed with 
his Qx spades and 11 HCP, whereupon RHO bid 2S with a disdainful smirk. This 
time LHO thought quite a while, asked questions, looked at our CC (which 
doesn't cover this situation) and finally passed, 11 tricks taken. When I 
showed out on the first round of spades he (dummy!) immediately screamed for 
the TD, again wasting everyone's time. First time I had ever made this 
particular psych, if that's a factor.

Presumably because there was no evidence of fielding, the TD did nothing 
about the two psychs. I doubt that he gave a little private lecture to these 
jerks, as he should have. John Probst would have asked, "Why are you wasting 
my time?"

At an NABC I was plagued by TD calls when I stopped to think. One opponent
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alain Gottcheiner | 20 Jun 2012 18:33
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a écrit :
> I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time. Playing
> with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this Sunday I did it
> twice, both times playing against experienced pairs.
>
> The first was when I opened 1C in first seat with nothing but five clubs to
> the K8. Alice bid 2NT, forcing, and I passed, as did LHO with his 11 HCP.
> When dummy came down LHO yelled for the TD. "Can't it wait?" I asked, "We
> have another board to play." No, it couldn't wait and the TD was finally
> found. LHO reported the psych, saying, "I don't know how often he does
> this." The TD left, saying he would look at the matter later. We were -150
> but they had a game coming.
>
> On the next round my RHO was late arriving and I chatted with LHO, telling
> him why the TD had come to our table. He seemed to agree with me that the TD
> call should not have been made. So I picked up  void  KQ10987  AJxx  Qxx
> and opened 1H, passed around to RHO, who bid 1S. Of course I bid 1NT, a safe
> psych after partner passed my opening bid. LHO thought a bit and passed with
> his Qx spades and 11 HCP, whereupon RHO bid 2S with a disdainful smirk. This
> time LHO thought quite a while, asked questions, looked at our CC (which
> doesn't cover this situation) and finally passed, 11 tricks taken. When I
> showed out on the first round of spades he (dummy!) immediately screamed for
> the TD, again wasting everyone's time. First time I had ever made this
> particular psych, if that's a factor.
>
> Presumably because there was no evidence of fielding, the TD did nothing
> about the two psychs. I doubt that he gave a little private lecture to these
> jerks, as he should have. John Probst would have asked, "Why are you wasting
> my time?"
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sven Pran | 20 Jun 2012 19:19
Picon
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

> Alain Gottcheiner
> Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a écrit :
> > I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time.
> > Playing with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this
> > Sunday I did it twice, both times playing against experienced pairs.
> >
> > The first was when I opened 1C in first seat with nothing but five
> > clubs to the K8. Alice bid 2NT, forcing, and I passed, as did LHO with
his 11
> HCP.
> > When dummy came down LHO yelled for the TD. "Can't it wait?" I asked,
> > "We have another board to play." No, it couldn't wait and the TD was
> > finally found. LHO reported the psych, saying, "I don't know how often
> > he does this." The TD left, saying he would look at the matter later.
> > We were -150 but they had a game coming.
> >
> > On the next round my RHO was late arriving and I chatted with LHO,
> > telling him why the TD had come to our table. He seemed to agree with
> > me that the TD call should not have been made. So I picked up  void
> > KQ10987  AJxx  Qxx and opened 1H, passed around to RHO, who bid 1S. Of
> > course I bid 1NT, a safe psych after partner passed my opening bid.
> > LHO thought a bit and passed with his Qx spades and 11 HCP, whereupon
> > RHO bid 2S with a disdainful smirk. This time LHO thought quite a
> > while, asked questions, looked at our CC (which doesn't cover this
> > situation) and finally passed, 11 tricks taken. When I showed out on
> > the first round of spades he (dummy!) immediately screamed for the TD,
> > again wasting everyone's time. First time I had ever made this
particular
> psych, if that's a factor.
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marvin French | 20 Jun 2012 22:22
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017


From: "Sven Pran"
> Alain Gottcheiner
> Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a écrit :
> > I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time.
> > Playing with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this
> > Sunday I did it twice, both times playing against experienced pairs.
> >
>
> In some cases, ascertaining a fact needs to be made immediately.  The good
> example is tempo matters. Perhaps it should be written in the laws that
> one
> has to check whether opponents agree about the existence of tempo, and
> call only if they don't. The rest can wait.

Get the law changed if you want that. L16B2 says one *may* call attention to 
UI, and if that is done it is the *opponents* who should the TD immediately 
if they disagree. I choose not to get into a fuss with opponents at the time 
of UI, which is my right. That leaves no authority for a TD call at the 
time. It usually turns out that the UI was harmless and a TD call would be 
wasting everyone's time.
>
> Waiting a long time with a weak hand over a weak rebid (or e.g. over a
> preempt) will usually be a big infraction (to L73 : "could have known"),
> whence the TD call should be automatic.

I guess you mean L73F, which talks of an innocent player drawing "a false 
inference from  remark, manner, tempo, or the like of an opponent who has no 
demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and...could have known at the 
time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sven Pran | 20 Jun 2012 22:52
Picon
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

> Marvin French
[...]
> Not calling does not make you forfeit rights. Where is that written?
[Sven Pran] 
Not calling attention to an (alleged) irregularity when you notice it will
generally create doubt whether was any irregularity at all.
Not calling the Director when attention is called to an irregularity may
result in the right to rectification being forfeited.
See Laws 9, 10 and 11. 
> 
> [Sven Pran]
> The most important rule about calling TD is that he, and not the players,
shall
> decide if and in case when his attention is needed.
> So if a player (genuinely) suspects an irregularity it is not, and cannot
in any
> way be incorrect to call TD immediately.
> 
> Where is that written? All I can find is that a TD call in these cases is
> appropriate only when an irregularity has occurred, not when it is
suspected.
[Sven Pran] 
Law 10A
> 
> [Sven Pran]
> Players acting in such a way that opponents feel the need for TD
assistance
> should refrain from complaints about "wasting (TD) time" etc. whether or
not
> their actions are questionable.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
richard.hills | 21 Jun 2012 01:32
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Sven Pran:

>Law 10A.
>.....
>If your opponents feel uncomfortable with
>some of your actions they have every
>reason to call the Director.
>Such calls do not in any way (automatically)
>imply that your action is illegal, only that
>your opponents are uncomfortable.

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, Sven Pran suffers the Achilles
heel of being too superb a Director for too
long, thus Sven's long-standing belief (due
to Sven's training under previous editions of
the Lawbook) that it is almost always legal to
summon the Director.

In my opinion, Sven Pran is giving the 2007
Law 10A too broad a scope. The 2007 Law
10A, in my opinion, is merely about only the
Director (not the players) being empowered
to "determine rectifications". And the 2007
Definitions state:

"Rectification — the remedial provisions to be
applied when an irregularity has come to the
Director’s attention."

The 2007 Definitions do NOT state:

"Uncomfortable — when uncomfortable a
side must coffee-house the other (non-
offending) side by frequently summoning
the Director."

Sven Pran:

>If you [Marvin French] are so concerned
>about wasting time, and apparently (from
>your own posts) experience that a lot I
>suggest that you consider your own
>actions, maybe there is a reason for
>changing your attitudes and methods?

The 2007 Definitions do NOT state:

"Attitudes and Methods — when un-
comfortable (q.v.) a side which legally
employs 21st century Standard
American and legally never psyches
must coffee-house, by frequently
summoning the Director, the other (non-
offending) side which legally employs
20th century B.J. Becker-ish methods
and legally occasionally psyches. This
coffee-housing must continue until the
B.J. Becker-ish side has sea-changed
into a boringly familiar 21st century
Standard American side."

A former and never-to-be-again partner
of mine had coffee-house gains of many
matchpoints and imps by summoning
the Director at the slightest pretext. In my
opinion such excessive frequency is an
infraction of the 2007 Law 74B5:

"As a matter of courtesy a player should
refrain from:
summoning and addressing the Director
in a manner discourteous to him or to
other contestants."

That is, in my opinion "vexatious litigant"
equals "discourteous summoning".

Best wishes

Richard Hills


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marvin French | 21 Jun 2012 19:28
Picon

My Dinner with Andre

Richard,

I once read an article making fun of stuff written for an arty publication. 
The arty writer wrote many things in long sentences that seemed on the 
surface to be highly significant, but when looked at closely communicated 
nothing of worth.

This film was like that, the two characters, mostly Andre, going on and on 
with talk that seemed heavy with meaning on the outside, but empty on the 
inside. I can see where people get impressed with such language, feeling it 
must be valuable even though they can't understand it (which they won't 
admit).

It was boring, boring, boring, and I fell asleep two-thirds of the way 
through. Alice watched it all, so I asked her to fill me in. Was there 
anything worthwhile that I missed? Alice has a Master of Arts Degree - 
Education, and a long career of teaching speech communication and the 
English language. She said I didn't miss anything.

Maybe there was significance that we didn't appreciate. As to that, I 
believe that if you have something valuable to communicate do so in a way 
that is easily understood. It ain't hard.

2017 Law-makers, please take note.

As ever,

Marv

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
richard.hills | 26 Jun 2012 02:38
Picon

Re: My Dinner with Andre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard Hills:

While the movie My Dinner with Andre is boring,
the 1987 movie The Princess Bride is very
entertaining. In TPB a very different Andre, Andre
the giant, played the role of Fezzik. TPB dialogue:

Fezzik: Why are you wearing a mask? Were you
burned by acid or something like that?
Man in Black: Oh, no, it's just they're terribly
comfortable, I think everyone will be wearing
them in the future.

Marvin French:

[snip]
>As to that, I believe that if you have something
>valuable to communicate do so in a way that is
>easily understood. It ain't hard.
>
>2017 Law-makers, please take note.

Richard Hills:

Yes and No.

Yes, any set of rules of any game should be
communicated in a format which makes those
rules very easy to be understood by players,
administrators and umpires.

No, writing short and clear rules is much
harder than writing long and obscure rules.

Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862):

Not that the story need be long, but it will take
a long while to make it short.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marvin French | 26 Jun 2012 19:39
Picon

Re: My Dinner with Andre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Richard Hills:
>
> While the movie My Dinner with Andre is boring,
> the 1987 movie The Princess Bride is very
> entertaining.

Thanks, into my queue.
>
> [snip]
>>As to that, I believe that if you have something
>>valuable to communicate do so in a way that is
>>easily understood. It ain't hard.
>>
I don't know why I said that. I have learned from writing articles for 
Telicom, the journal of The International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, 
and writing for bridge magazines, that compressing and using plain language 
is very difficult. When I did these on a typewriter, I would do maybe 20 
iterations before I was satisfied. It's a lot easier with a word processor, 
but still hard. Writing for Jeff Rubens is especially difficult because his 
compression requirements are severe. Unfortunately, he is not a clear writer 
himself.

Looking at the early Laws, I see "initial" position instead of "starting" 
position, " "select" instead of "choose," "perform" a shuffle instead of 
"do" a shuffle, and "retains possession" instead of "holds." The use of 
Anglo-Saxon words makes for better readability and quicker understanding. 
There is also a subtle emotional response to the simple words we learned 
when young.

Last night I watched Contraband, unsuitable for Alice, but had to go to bed 
(early medical appointment) before it was finished. Hard to do that, because 
it was very exciting. I'll go finish it right now.

As ever,

Marv 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Larry | 26 Jun 2012 20:56
Picon

Re: My Dinner with Andre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

>> Richard Hills:
>>
>> While the movie My Dinner with Andre is 
>> boring,
>> the 1987 movie The Princess Bride is very
>> entertaining.
>
> Thanks, into my queue.
>>
>> [snip]
>>>As to that, I believe that if you have 
>>>something
>>>valuable to communicate do so in a way that 
>>>is
>>>easily understood. It ain't hard.
>>>
> I don't know why I said that. I have learned 
> from writing articles for
> Telicom, the journal of The International 
> Society for Philosophical Enquiry,
> and writing for bridge magazines, that 
> compressing and using plain language
> is very difficult. When I did these on a 
> typewriter, I would do maybe 20
> iterations before I was satisfied. It's a lot 
> easier with a word processor,
> but still hard. Writing for Jeff Rubens is 
> especially difficult because his
> compression requirements are severe. 
> Unfortunately, he is not a clear writer
> himself.
>
> Looking at the early Laws, I see "initial" 
> position instead of "starting"
> position, " "select" instead of "choose," 
> "perform" a shuffle instead of
> "do" a shuffle, and "retains possession" 
> instead of "holds." The use of
> Anglo-Saxon words makes for better readability 
> and quicker understanding.
> There is also a subtle emotional response to 
> the simple words we learned
> when young.

I used '..for the nonce,' quite recently.
This brought forth a string of brickbats from 
the PC mob.

L 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
richard.hills | 27 Jun 2012 01:13
Picon

Re: My Dinner with Andre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Marvin French, 27th June 2012:

>>I have learned from writing articles for Telicom,
>>the journal of The International Society for
>>Philosophical Enquiry, and writing for bridge
>>magazines, that compressing and using plain
>>language is very difficult. When I did these on
>>a typewriter, I would do maybe 20 iterations
>>before I was satisfied. It's a lot easier with a
>>word processor, but still hard.
[snip]

Nigel Guthrie, 5th February 2007:

[snip]
>If you dip into the current [1997] rules you
>sometimes feel that they are *deliberately*
>ambiguous. The impression is that law-
>makers disagreed and neither side would
>budge. So the protagonists agreed on a woolly
>compromise that could be interpreted to accord
>with their conflicting positions. This would be a
>disservice to directors and completely unfair to
>players. I reckon that players would prefer that
>law-makers tossed a coin rather than descend
>to such a dishonourable fudge. Please let there
>be no hint of this kind of compromise in the
>new edition of the laws.

Grattan Endicott, 7th February 2007:
 
+=+ It is certainly the aim now that any
compromise should not be "woolly". At times
Edgar foresaw the danger that a law which the
committee was intent on installing would not go
down well on his home patch. In consequence
he sometimes looked for wording that would
allow of latitude in application. ~ Grattan ~ +=+


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
richard.hills | 27 Jun 2012 08:34
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

>A former and never-to-be-again partner
>of mine had coffee-house gains of many
>matchpoints and imps by summoning
>the Director at the slightest pretext.

In a recent Sunday Swiss teams event at
Wollongong, the standard Aussie so-
called "bloodbath" was used. That is, all
the teams were seeded, with the first
round draw being the top seeds versus
the bottom seeds.

Hence my top-seeded team played out-
classed opponents in the first match. On
one board I foolishly claimed a 3NT
contract at trick four (as I held nine
certain tricks). My RHO, bemused at
what was to her an unprecedentedly early
claim, asked me to continue playing.

This placed me in a dilemma. In my
opinion Law 74A2 requires experts to be
especially courteous to novices, so that
Law suggests that I should have agreed to
RHO's request. But Law 68D specifically
states that after any claim play ceases.

And the WBF LC has ruled that a specific
Law (here Law 68D) over-rides a more
general Law (here Law 74A2).

In a different game with a different
approach to rule-breaking I could simply
ignore the rules and keep RHO happy.
Of course in Duplicate Bridge I could not
adopt such a so-called "common sense"
solution. The successive Drafting
Committees of the Duplicate Bridge
Laws have had the wisdom and the
UNcommon sensibility to incorporate
into the Lawbook the vitally necessary
Law 72B1:

"A player must not infringe a law
intentionally, even if there is a
prescribed rectification he is willing to
accept."

Thus in that match I then "had coffee-
house gains of many imps by
summoning the Director at the slightest
pretext" due to RHO's request to play
on after my claim.

What's the problem?

Perhaps instead I should have
adopted the solution of intentionally
infracting Law 72B1, as suggested by
John (MadDog) Probst in April 2005:

[snip]
English premier league, screens, the
whole show: TD leaning on screen (I
usually lean on a wall, but was
enjoyably engaged in scratching my
back on the top corner of the screen).
Overheard at the table, all players
knew I was there.

"Was it down one or two?"
"No idea, how about -75?"
"TD won't like it. Toss you for it"
<tosses coin>
"Down two, ok"
"Yes"

Sven Pran, April 2005:

And the "KNEW" you were there!!!!!
Indeed. 8-)

John (MadDog) Probst, April 2005:

ok, we all know each other very well,
and the teams are great personal
friends anyway. They know that I
would have intervened if I had thought
it appropriate, but as far as I can see a
bridge result was obtained and I was
not called to the table. As I recall after
the result was written down one of
them winked at me, I said "I didn't
hear a TD call" and there was a nod
from round the table.

As Herman says, once they had
called on the next hand the matter
was over, why should I interfere in
their game when I'm not asked to?


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alain Gottcheiner | 21 Jun 2012 09:07
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

Le 20/06/2012 22:22, Marvin French a écrit :
> From: "Sven Pran"
>> Alain Gottcheiner
>> Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a écrit :
>>> I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time.
>>> Playing with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this
>>> Sunday I did it twice, both times playing against experienced pairs.
>>>
>> In some cases, ascertaining a fact needs to be made immediately.  The good
>> example is tempo matters. Perhaps it should be written in the laws that
>> one
>> has to check whether opponents agree about the existence of tempo, and
>> call only if they don't. The rest can wait.
> Get the law changed if you want that. L16B2 says one *may* call attention to
> UI, and if that is done it is the *opponents* who should the TD immediately
> if they disagree.
AG : sorry, but this is purely theoretical. The ones who gainsay that 
there was an infraction will not see any reason to call, possibly even 
have interest in not calling, so you will have to do it yourself.

> I choose not to get into a fuss with opponents at the time
> of UI, which is my right. That leaves no authority for a TD call at the
> time. It usually turns out that the UI was harmless and a TD call would be
> wasting everyone's time.
>> Waiting a long time with a weak hand over a weak rebid (or e.g. over a
>> preempt) will usually be a big infraction (to L73 : "could have known"),
>> whence the TD call should be automatic.
> I guess you mean L73F, which talks of an innocent player drawing "a false
> inference from  remark, manner, tempo, or the like of an opponent who has no
> demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and...could have known at the
> time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director
> shall award an adjusted score.
>
> A bit off-subject, I believe, but there is still no requirement to call the
> TD at the time (e.g., of hesitating with a singleton). The UI situation is
> covered by L16B2, please read it.
>
> As to psychs, L73E says they are appropriate if not protected by concealed
> partnership understanding or experience. If one feels that a psych has been
> fielded or allowed for, the TD can be called later, not at the time of the
> psych, which is "appropriate" until proved otherwise.
>
>> Now the next problem : how can one ask players to know exactly when to
>> call or not to call ? (same problem as with intricate alert laws) Since
>> not calling
>> will often make you forfeit rights, I can understand the alert epidemics.
> Not calling does not make you forfeit rights. Where is that written?
>
> [Sven Pran]
> The most important rule about calling TD is that he, and not the players,
> shall decide if and in case when his attention is needed.
> So if a player (genuinely) suspects an irregularity it is not, and cannot in
> any way be incorrect to call TD immediately.
>
> Where is that written? All I can find is that a TD call in these cases is
> appropriate only when an irregularity has occurred, not when it is
> suspected.
>
> [Sven Pran]
> Players acting in such a way that opponents feel the need for TD assistance
> should refrain from complaints about "wasting (TD) time" etc. whether or not
> their actions are questionable.
>
> My opponents have no need for TD assistance when there is no evidence of an
> irregularity, and TDs should tell players to stop calling them when that
> evidence is lacking. It's a waste of everyone's time. Also it is an insult
> to me, implying that I may be committing an irregularity when I am not.
>
> All I ask is that the Laws be followed in these matters. What is not
> authorized should not be allowed. Wasting time in a timed contest is
> something to be discouraged, not accommodated.
>
> Marv
> Marvin L French
> www.marvinfrenchj.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gordon Rainsford | 20 Jun 2012 20:08

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017


On 20/06/2012 17:20, Marvin French wrote:
> Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be called
> in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? Evidence
> necessary, not just a suspicion.

Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's 
assistance is a bad thing.

Gordon Rainsford

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marvin French | 20 Jun 2012 21:45
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017


From: "Gordon Rainsford"
>
> On 20/06/2012 17:20, Marvin French wrote:
>> Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be 
>> called
>> in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? 
>> Evidence
>> necessary, not just a suspicion.
>
> Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's
> assistance is a bad thing.
>
In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time 
someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs will 
like that.

What assistance??? They can't do anything until the deal is over and there 
is evidence of an irregularity.

L16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe....he should call the 
Director when play ends.

The footnote says that calling earlier is not an infraction, but 
"substantial reason to believe" must exist, which can only come at sight of 
dummy or from the play of the cards. Suspicion alone is not a substantial 
reason.

Marv
Marvin L French
www.marvinfrenchj.com 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sven Pran | 20 Jun 2012 22:55
Picon
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

> Marvin French
> From: "Gordon Rainsford"
> > Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's
> > assistance is a bad thing.
> >
> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time
> someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs will
> like that.

[Sven Pran] 
Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marvin French | 21 Jun 2012 23:12
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017


From: "Sven Pran"

>> Marvin French
>> From: "Gordon Rainsford"

>> > Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's
>> > assistance is a bad thing.
>> >
>> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time
>> someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs 
>> will
>> like that.
>
> [Sven Pran]
> Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI.
>
I know that. But my examples were of players who call "for the TDs 
assistance" whenever we think a long time, even though it is not an 
irregularity. Gordon implies that is okay.

Marv
Marvin L French
www.marvinfrenchj.com 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sven Pran | 22 Jun 2012 00:33
Picon
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017


> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] På vegne av
> Marvin French
> Sendt: 21. juni 2012 23:12
> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: Re: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017
> 
> 
> From: "Sven Pran"
> 
> >> Marvin French
> >> From: "Gordon Rainsford"
> 
> >> > Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's
> >> > assistance is a bad thing.
> >> >
> >> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every
> >> time someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think
> >> the TDs will like that.
> >
> > [Sven Pran]
> > Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI.
> >
> I know that. But my examples were of players who call "for the TDs
> assistance" whenever we think a long time, even though it is not an
> irregularity. Gordon implies that is okay.

[Sven Pran] 
It is OK.

The Director will inform them so if he feels there was no need for calling
the Director.

The only situation a player might be "penalized" for calling the Director is
when he violates Law 74B5.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gordon Rainsford | 24 Jun 2012 11:42

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

Certainly it's better for the TD to be called at the time to establish 
whether or not there was a tempo break, rather than dealing with an 
argument at the end of the hand when the two issues (existence of UI, 
and use of UI) are more easily confused. It's all laid out in 16B2.

Gordon Rainsford

On 21/06/2012 22:12, Marvin French wrote:
> From: "Sven Pran"
>
>>> Marvin French
>>> From: "Gordon Rainsford"
>>>> Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's
>>>> assistance is a bad thing.
>>>>
>>> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time
>>> someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs
>>> will
>>> like that.
>> [Sven Pran]
>> Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI.
>>
> I know that. But my examples were of players who call "for the TDs
> assistance" whenever we think a long time, even though it is not an
> irregularity. Gordon implies that is okay.
>
> Marv
> Marvin L French
> www.marvinfrenchj.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jeff Easterson | 24 Jun 2012 16:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

I must admit to being rather puzzled by Marv's position.If I haven't 
misinterpreted his postings (very possible) he seems to be living in a 
bridge world in which there is no uncertainty. He always knows if there 
has been an irregularity or if there hasn't been one.  Never any doubt. 
Sounds utopian and conflicts with my experience at the table, as player 
or TD.  Ciao,  JE

Am 24.06.2012 11:42, schrieb Gordon Rainsford:
> Certainly it's better for the TD to be called at the time to establish
> whether or not there was a tempo break, rather than dealing with an
> argument at the end of the hand when the two issues (existence of UI,
> and use of UI) are more easily confused. It's all laid out in 16B2.
>
> Gordon Rainsford
>
> On 21/06/2012 22:12, Marvin French wrote:
>> From: "Sven Pran"
>>
>>>> Marvin French
>>>> From: "Gordon Rainsford"
>>>>> Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's
>>>>> assistance is a bad thing.
>>>>>
>>>> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time
>>>> someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs
>>>> will
>>>> like that.
>>> [Sven Pran]
>>> Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI.
>>>
>> I know that. But my examples were of players who call "for the TDs
>> assistance" whenever we think a long time, even though it is not an
>> irregularity. Gordon implies that is okay.
>>
>> Marv
>> Marvin L French
>> www.marvinfrenchj.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
richard.hills | 27 Jun 2012 06:28
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Jeff Easterson:

>I must admit to being rather puzzled by Marv's
>position. If I haven't misinterpreted his postings
>(very possible) he seems to be living in a bridge
>world in which there is no uncertainty.
[snip]

Richard Hills:

I must admit to being rather puzzled by the
attitude of many ACBL players. If I haven't
misinterpreted the ACBL culture (very possible)
many ACBL players seem to be living in a bridge
world in which a break-in-tempo is _necessarily_
an infraction.

Hence the "routine" Director summoning by
Marv's opponent as soon as Marv committed
the "infraction" of thinking.

A few years ago the ACBL Laws Commission
abandoned this peculiar idea. But this reversal
by the ACBL LC has apparently not yet been
disseminated in "Ruling the Game", the semi-
official ACBL column taken as Gospel truth.

WBF Chief Director Max Bavin:

"Bridge is a thinking game."


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nigel Guthrie | 20 Jun 2012 22:33

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

[Marvin French]
Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be called 
in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? Evidence 
necessary, not just a suspicion.

[Nige1]
I think Marv's suggested amendment is wrong. Some players resent and feel 
threatened by director-calls: on a recent occasion, when I started to called 
the director, my opponent protested that he wasn't cheating. I tried to 
placate him by trying to explain that calling the director had no such 
implication.  He was inconsolable and threatened to walk out of the 
tournament if I persisted in calling the director. We must all try to allay 
such paranoia.

The Law-book concept of Equity is flawed but it makes crystal-clear that the 
director's function is to sort out problems, rather than to punish 
law-breakers.

The cases that Marvin cites are examples where confused players should be 
encouraged to call the director. A good director will allay id-crepitation 
and explain that psyches are integral to the game of bridge, enhancing its 
fun and excitement. 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marvin French | 21 Jun 2012 23:49
Picon

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017


> [Marvin French]
> Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be 
> called
> in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? Evidence
> necessary, not just a suspicion.
>
> [Nige1]
> I think Marv's suggested amendment is wrong. Some players resent and feel
> threatened by director-calls: on a recent occasion, when I started to 
> called
> the director, my opponent protested that he wasn't cheating. I tried to
> placate him by trying to explain that calling the director had no such
> implication.

I wish you had described the situation, which probably did have that 
implication. When my partner creates UI and I take some action that could 
possibly be affected by it, that is not yet an irregularity. Please read 
L16B2 carefully and you will find that its excellent guidance does not 
provide for a TD call by the other side in case of UI unless the RA option 
has been adopted (as it was formerly by the ACBL, but not this time). 
Rather, it permits (but does not requre) the other side to comment on the 
UI. The pompous "I reserve the right to summon the Director later" is better 
expressed as "Can we agree there was a break in tempo?" If the UI side 
disagrees, it is *they* who should call the TD. An ACBLLC member commented 
that failure to make this call is an irregularity, hence the TD should be 
called by the other side. That applies only when attention is called to the 
irregularity (L9B) which I would never do.

> He was inconsolable and threatened to walk out of the
> tournament if I persisted in calling the director. We must all try to 
> allay
> such paranoia.

One way is to not to call the TD when evidence of an irregularity is 
lacking. It accomplishes nothing and is a waste of time, because the matter 
can be handled after the round or session if such evidence becomes known. 
Often the irregularity will cause no damage or damages the UI side itself. 
The TD can be told of this later if the matter is to be pursued anyway.
>
> The Law-book concept of Equity is flawed but it makes crystal-clear that 
> the
> director's function is to sort out problems, rather than to punish
> law-breakers.

His function is to handle irregularities. Calling the TD in the absence of 
an irregularity should be discouraged by player education. If players have 
problems with that, they can talk to the TD between rounds and not take up 
valuable playing time with a needless TD call. I am talking about psychs, 
UI, and MI, not mechanical stuff that might need a TD to sort out.
>
> The cases that Marvin cites are examples where confused players should be
> encouraged to call the director. A good director will allay id-crepitation
> and explain that psyches are integral to the game of bridge, enhancing its
> fun and excitement.

These were not confused players, with whom I have great patience. The psych 
complaints came from experienced players who frequently win in sectionals, 
regionals, and even do well at NABC. One came out first in a 0-5000 NABC 
event. The TD calls made at my table in an NABC because of long thought (UI, 
of course) were made at the time of the thought, not even when an action was 
taken by partner. The players were not inexperienced, they were obnoxious 
boobs.

Look, matchpoint pairs is a timed event. We have only 15 minutes to play two 
boards, and wasting five or more minutes on the first board with a pointless 
TD call robs me of playing time that I badly need. I should not have to put 
up with that. All I ask is that the Laws be followed.

Marv
Marvin L French
www.marvinfrenchj.com

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nigel Guthrie | 22 Jun 2012 02:25

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

[Marvin French]
I wish you had described the situation, which probably did have that
implication. When my partner creates UI and I take some action that could
possibly be affected by it, that is not yet an irregularity. Please read
L16B2 carefully and you will find that its excellent guidance does not
provide for a TD call by the other side in case of UI unless the RA option
has been adopted (as it was formerly by the ACBL, but not this time).
Rather, it permits (but does not requre) the other side to comment on the
UI. The pompous "I reserve the right to summon the Director later" is better
expressed as "Can we agree there was a break in tempo?" If the UI side
disagrees, it is *they* who should call the TD. An ACBLLC member commented
that failure to make this call is an irregularity, hence the TD should be
called by the other side. That applies only when attention is called to the
irregularity (L9B) which I would never do.

[Nigel]
The situation was a District Pairs Final. You are defending. The lead is in 
dummy. Dummy's club suit is headed by the ace. Declarer says"club". Dummy 
plays the ace. You want to call the director in case there has been an 
irregularity. Dummy protests. You don't' call the director. After the event, 
dummy apologises. IMO, you were at fault for *not* calling the director.

[Marvin French]
One way is to not to call the TD when evidence of an irregularity is
lacking. It accomplishes nothing and is a waste of time, because the matter
can be handled after the round or session if such evidence becomes known.
Often the irregularity will cause no damage or damages the UI side itself.
The TD can be told of this later if the matter is to be pursued anyway.
His function is to handle irregularities.  Calling the TD in the absence of
an irregularity should be discouraged by player education. If players have
problems with that, they can talk to the TD between rounds and not take up
valuable playing time with a needless TD call.

{Nige1]
I'm afraid players don't call the director enough. Most infractions go 
unnoticed or unreported or unrectified. One reason is that few players know 
the law. I feel that players should be encouraged to  call the director 
whenever they suspect that an irregularity *may* have occurred.

[Marvin French]
I am talking about psychs, UI, and MI, not mechanical stuff that might need 
a TD to sort out.
These were not confused players, with whom I have great patience. The psych
complaints came from experienced players who frequently win in sectionals,
regionals, and even do well at NABC. One came out first in a 0-5000 NABC
event. The TD calls made at my table in an NABC because of long thought (UI,
of course) were made at the time of the thought, not even when an action was
taken by partner. The players were not inexperienced, they were obnoxious
boobs. Look, matchpoint pairs is a timed event. We have only 15 minutes to 
play two
boards, and wasting five or more minutes on the first board with a pointless
TD call robs me of playing time that I badly need. I should not have to put
up with that. All I ask is that the Laws be followed.

[Nigel]
IMO, a player should often call the director in Marv's examples, when he 
suspects an irregularity.
- Psych:  An opponent psychs and you are concerned about a possible 
concealed partnership understanding (especially if the psych seems to have 
been "fielded" or there is a pattern of similar "psychs" in similar 
contexts).  It is up to the director, not the player, to judge relevant 
evidence as to whether an infraction has occurred..
- UI: You draw attention to opponent's BIT but he denies it. UI is an 
irregularity but no infraction has yet occurred. Nevertheless, IMO, now is 
the time to call a director to establish the facts.
- MI: If you suspect MI, a timely director-call may mitigate possible 
damage.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gordon Rainsford | 24 Jun 2012 11:54

Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017

I read this after my reply just now. Perhaps you're just arguing over 
who calls the director, rather than whether the director should be 
called. In which case, argue all you like.

Gordon Rainsford

On 21/06/2012 22:49, Marvin French wrote:
>
>   Please read
> L16B2 carefully and you will find that its excellent guidance does not
> provide for a TD call by the other side in case of UI unless the RA option
> has been adopted (as it was formerly by the ACBL, but not this time).
> Rather, it permits (but does not requre) the other side to comment on the
> UI. The pompous "I reserve the right to summon the Director later" is better
> expressed as "Can we agree there was a break in tempo?" If the UI side
> disagrees, it is *they* who should call the TD.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane