[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-27, 13:11, said:

You are ignoring the implications of the convention North believes South was using.

Intentionally. LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership. Not the methods North believes they were. Nor the methods North believes South thinks they are.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2013-March-28, 09:14, said:

Intentionally. LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership. Not the methods North believes they were. Nor the methods North believes South thinks they are.

This is an example of a law that does not say what it means. A person who has got the methods wrong must continue to get the methods wrong, and his LAs must be based on what he thought the auction, to date, meant.

[aguahombre]

Sorry, Vamp. The site won't let me double plus.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-28, 09:14, said:

This is an example of a law that does not say what it means. A person who has got the methods wrong must continue to get the methods wrong, and his LAs must be based on what he thought the auction, to date, meant.

The Law seems unambiguous to me. I agree that it is wrong, but unless the WBFLC sees fit to change it, we should follow it as it clearly states. To give an analogy, I think the practice of taking the ball to the corner flag in football and standing on it is timewasting, and should result in a yellow card. However, the laws of football only provide for timewasting when the ball is not in play, and the referees correctly apply the Law and allow the practice. All directors should do the same with the lamentable 16B.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-28, 09:19, said:

Sorry, Vamp. The site won't let me double plus.

The empty vessel makes the loudest sound - William Shakespeare

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2013-March-28, 09:36, said:

The empty vessel makes the loudest sound - William Shakespeare

If this works I posted this before the message I reply to.

Lamford's computer time is wrong (or whatever server is responsible for timestamping his posts)
which has the effect that for three minutes or so the posts appear to be in the future and software continues to mark them unread, even when read.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2013-March-28, 09:34, said:

If this works I posted this before the message I reply to.

Lamford's computer time is wrong (or whatever server is responsible for timestamping his posts)
which has the effect that for three minutes or so the posts appear to be in the future and software continues to mark them unread, even when read.

OK, my watch and computer both make it 16.51.45 as I type this. Let us see. Looking at the time stamp here it seems 6 minutes out. I shall try at home later and see if it makes a difference. Interesting! http://time.is/ confirmed my time (within 4 seconds).

On reflection, it is obvious that the fault is with BBO, as the true time was indeed 16.51.45, but 11.58 was displayed (presumably Eastern Time).

While on this subject, someone in a state with an Eastern coastline in the US was on the phone to a friend in a state with a Western coastline of the US. He asked his friend the time and was surprised to find it was exactly the same as his. How so?

[lamford]

duplicate sorry

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2013-March-28, 09:34, said:

Lamford's computer time is wrong (or whatever server is responsible for timestamping his posts)
which has the effect that for three minutes or so the posts appear to be in the future and software continues to mark them unread, even when read.

Lamford is clearly ahead of his time.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar as well. And the site knows it is impossible for me to read something before it is posted, so it remains "unread".

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2013-March-28, 09:29, said:

The Law seems unambiguous to me. I agree that it is wrong, but unless the WBFLC sees fit to change it, we should follow it as it clearly states. To give an analogy, I think the practice of taking the ball to the corner flag in football and standing on it is timewasting, and should result in a yellow card. However, the laws of football only provide for timewasting when the ball is not in play, and the referees correctly apply the Law and allow the practice. All directors should do the same with the lamentable 16B.

I am sure you like the quote dburn uses as his signature:

Quote

When Senators have had their sport
And sealed the Law by vote,
It little matters what they thought -
We hang for what they wrote.

However, the more important consideration is that we have, by ignoring this Law, played a sensible game of bridge these past six years (at least when insufficient bids are not involved!)

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-28, 09:19, said:

Sorry, Vamp. The site won't let me double plus.

Ah, but it if were up to you, would you prefer that or getting our downvotes back?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-28, 11:44, said:

Ah, but it if were up to you, would you prefer that or getting our downvotes back?

Neither, really.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-28, 11:39, said:

However, the more important consideration is that we have, by ignoring this Law, played a sensible game of bridge these past six years (at least when insufficient bids are not involved!)

Well, we apply Law 16B exactly when both halves of a partnership are playing the same system; when they are not, directors (and the White Book) rule that you must continue to alert according to your system, but bid according to what you thought the system was. The game is actually more sensible if you continue to bid according to the actual system, and you are stuck with your misbid. There seems a desire among TDs worldwide to punish the player who forgets the system twice. Once for his misbid, which will generally cause chaos anyway, and again because he must not become aware that he has misbid. Despite Law 16B specifically telling him that he must choose LAs using his actual methods. And if he does remember the methods he must be "failing to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI", even though he is following 16B to the letter.

As more and more wrong decisions are being taken by directors in UI cases, it is time for TDs to follow the Laws exactly as they stand, or there is no point having them at all. If the WBFLC wanted you to bid according to some other methods, they would say so. They saw fit to issue an interim change regarding a mechanical error which you learn about from UI, so applying 16B exactly is not illogical.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2013-March-28, 12:03, said:

The game is actually more sensible if you continue to bid according to the actual system, and you are stuck with your misbid.

You really think that it is better for a player to be woken up to his actual system by partner's alert or explanation?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-28, 12:10, said:

You really think that it is better for a player to be woken up to his actual system by partner's alert or explanation?

And he thinks we are empty vessels making a lot of noise, as well.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-28, 12:10, said:

You really think that it is better for a player to be woken up to his actual system by partner's alert or explanation?

No, I think it is better that LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership perceived by the player with UI. What you are arguing is "changing Laws and Regulations". I agree that 16B should be changed to reflect the way TDs misrule at present. And I think it is better that somebody timewasting in football by standing on the ball at the corner flag is punished. The difference between football and bridge is that referees in football generally follow the exact wording of the Law. In bridge, certainly in the case of 16B, they ignore that wording if it does not accord with their view of fairness.

Your argument that the present wording is unworkable is not correct. It just leads to a different ruling in many UI cases. Currently the player following 16B exactly is often punished. That cannot be right.

[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-March-29, 07:49, said:

... It just leads to a different ruling in many UI cases. Currently the player following 16B exactly is often punished. That cannot be right.

Doesn't it [Lamford approach] get tangled up with L73 and lead to an error message?

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-March-29, 08:07, said:

Doesn't it [Lamford approach] get tangled up with L73 and lead to an error message?

I argue that following 16B exactly cannot be a breach of L73, or we could have a situation that if the only LA is a breach of L73, and all the other possible bids are demonstrably suggested, the person cannot make a call.

The only sensible way to interpret a general Law is "except as specifically indicated in another Law". RMB1 thinks that Law 73 was accidentally left in when they rewrote 16B. I don't think it can ever override another Law. Let us say that Pass uses some UI, but Pass is forced by 31B, I hope you are not suggesting that Law 73 overrides it and the person should ignore 31B and bid something!

[richlp]

lamford, on 2013-March-28, 10:58, said:

OK, my watch and computer both make it 16.51.45 as I type this. Let us see. Looking at the time stamp here it seems 6 minutes out. I shall try at home later and see if it makes a difference. Interesting! http://time.is/ confirmed my time (within 4 seconds).

On reflection, it is obvious that the fault is with BBO, as the true time was indeed 16.51.45, but 11.58 was displayed (presumably Eastern Time).

While on this subject, someone in a state with an Eastern coastline in the US was on the phone to a friend in a state with a Western coastline of the US. He asked his friend the time and was surprised to find it was exactly the same as his. How so?

Florida.