[pran]

VixTD, on 2013-July-09, 07:00, said:

Chambers English dictionary has, among other definitions for junior:

[noun] a bridge-player on declarer's right

This is not a use I've come across. There is no similar entry under senior.

In my Encyclopedia of Bridge 1935 (Edited by Ely Culbertson) I find:

JUNIOR ADVERSARY, the player to the right of the Declarer, as distinguished from the Senior Adversary

and

SENIOR ADVERSARY, the player to the leftt of the Declarer. Formerly in Whist, the player to the left of the Dealer, called the age, or eldest hand.

[paulg]

The Supplementary Conditions of Contest for the European Youth Team Championships, that start today, state the same Reviewer system will be used instead of Appeal Committees.

Interestingly at the Captains' meeting yesterday, it was announced that Appeal Committees had been reinstated for this championship. I wonder if this is a result of the EBL's analysis of Ostend, a surfeit of EBL people to do the job or a lack of TD resources. Or something else of course.

I shall send my spies.

[Fluffy]

I've seen some comparisons between bridge and other sports, they fail in something basic, I am not sure about rugby, but in most popular (team) sports it's taken for granted that it is ok for a player to break the rules if he is willing to accept the penalty, it is quite common in soccer, and also in basketball, not sure about rugby but I'd bet it is as well.

In bridge it shall not be such a position ever, and indeed it is enforced in the rules.

[pran]

Fluffy, on 2013-July-25, 07:18, said:

I've seen some comparisons between bridge and other sports, they fail in something basic, I am not sure about rugby, but in most popular (team) sports it's taken for granted that it is ok for a player to break the rules if he is willing to accept the penalty, it is quite common in soccer, and also in basketball, not sure about rugby but I'd bet it is as well.

In bridge it shall not be such a position ever, and indeed it is enforced in the rules.

Not only is it OK in many sports, my my impression is that (for instance) in Soccer you are supposed to deliberately kicking the ball off the field or sacrifice into a free kick for opponents in order to disturb their attack.

And a rule violation resulting in a penalty kick, a yellow card or even a red card is excpected as the last action to avoid a scoring by opposing team.

[RMB1]

pran, on 2013-July-25, 08:53, said:

Not only is it OK in many sports, my my impression is that (for instance) in Soccer you are supposed to deliberately kicking the ball off the field or sacrifice into a free kick for opponents in order to disturb their attack.

Is it a rule that you are not allowed to kick the ball over the side lines?

I think there is a big difference between a tactic of kicking the ball (so that ends up not on the field of play)
and the tactic of kicking an opponent (so that the opponent has to leave the field of play).

[mycroft]

Definitely Basketball. It's not only OK, if you don't intentionally foul several times at the end of a closeish game, trading points for time, you'll be out of a coaching job really fast. They keep players around with minimal fouls just so they can put them in to soak these up without fouling out their better scorers.

Gridiron football - frequently it's "if you're not pushin' you're not playin'", especially with wide receivers and their covers.

I'm sure in association football as well, if you're defending a break, and you can foul outside the box, and it'll give your team some time to get back, it'll get done. Not "kill the player", but "make sure the ref sees you 'going for the ball and missing'" and blows the whistle. "Advantage" rules tend to mitigate this, of course.

[gnasher]

I don't think it's any more OK to intentionally break the rules of football (soccer) than to intentionally break the rules of bridge. The rules of football include a section headed "fouls and misconduct" which refers to "offences" and to "disciplinary sanctions" for "persistent infringement of the Laws". The fact that breaking the rules is regarded as OK by some people is a cultural matter, not a legal one.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2013-July-25, 11:26, said:

I don't think it's any more OK to intentionally break the rules of football than to intentionally break the rules of bridge. The rules of football include a section headed "fouls and misconduct" which refers to "offences" and to "disciplinary sanctions" for "persistent infringement of the Laws". The fact that breaking the rules is regarded as OK by some people is a cultural matter, not a legal one.

Bridge-players belong to the same species as players of other games. Bridge-players are aware that Law-makes are concerned with restitution rather than deterrence and are keen to devolve responsibility to local regulators and directors. Otherwise few players concern themselves with divining rule-makers' intentions. They are guided by the way directors implement the rules. For example, current practice seems to reward players who use UI or claim that slips of the mind are slips of the hand ...

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-July-25, 12:03, said:

Bridge-players belong to the same species as players of other games. Some Bridge-players are aware that Law-makes are concerned with restitution rather than deterrence and are keen to devolve responsibility to local regulators and directors. Otherwise few players concern themselves with divining rule-makers' intentions. They are guided by the way directors implement the rules. For example, current practice seems to reward players who use UI or claim slips of the mind are slips of the hand ...

You and I must inhabit different universes, or at least know very different sets of players and directors. I know very few bridge players who think it's OK to intentionally break the rules, and I don't think current directorial practice is at all as you describe it.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2013-July-25, 13:04, said:

You and I must inhabit different universes, or at least know very different sets of players and directors. I know very few bridge players who think it's OK to intentionally break the rules, and I don't think current directorial practice is at all as you describe it.

I know a lot in clubs that bend the rules to breaking point, or do dodgy things they've been doing for years knowing full well the directors won't enforce the rules.

The main difference between soccer and bridge is with the professional foul, which bridge has a way of nullifying by restoring equity. The defender fouling an attacker who's beating him fully prepared to take the booking and free kick rather than letting him through on goal is the equivalent of revoking, paying the 2 trick penalty but gaining 3 with the revoke, and the TD can fix that.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-July-25, 13:04, said:

You and I must inhabit different universes, or at least know very different sets of players and directors. I know very few bridge players who think it's OK to intentionally break the rules, and I don't think current directorial practice is at all as you describe it.

I was first authorized as TD in 1980 and have had my share of events at all levels from Club to National.

To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2013-July-25, 13:04, said:

You and I must inhabit different universes, or at least know very different sets of players and directors. I know very few bridge players who think it's OK to intentionally break the rules, and I don't think current directorial practice is at all as you describe it.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-25, 13:34, said:

I know a lot in clubs that bend the rules to breaking point, or do dodgy things they've been doing for years knowing full well the directors won't enforce the rules. The main difference between soccer and bridge is with the professional foul, which bridge has a way of nullifying by restoring equity. The defender fouling an attacker who's beating him fully prepared to take the booking and free kick rather than letting him through on goal is the equivalent of revoking, paying the 2 trick penalty but gaining 3 with the revoke, and the TD can fix that.

pran, on 2013-July-25, 13:39, said:

I was first authorized as TD in 1980 and have had my share of events at all levels from Club to National. To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules.

In all my universes, players regularly gain by breaking the rules. I can only guess at intentions but I'm unaware of deliberate cheating. For example:

Many write that when in receipt of UI, they make the bid they would have made, anyway, fully prepared to accept any adverse ruling that eventuates.

[barmar]

pran, on 2013-July-25, 13:39, said:

To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules.

Me, either. No one thinks it's OK to revoke, bid/play out of turn, or make an insufficient bid intentionally.

UI is a different matter, not because they think it's OK to break the rules, but because they either don't realize that there are rules against using it, don't understand their obligations, don't realize they're in a situation where it's relevant, or don't really know what to do when it comes up. Statements like "Your hesitation prohibited me from bidding slam" are evidence of this. There are similar issues with MI. UI and MI are simply not as black-and-white as the mechanical rules regarding basic bidding and play procedures.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-July-25, 13:39, said:

I was first authorized as TD in 1980 and have had my share of events at all levels from Club to National.

To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules.

How would you evaluate this occurrence:

You have instructed everyone "do not start any new boards", it being close to the end of the round. A player pulls her cards out of a board, saying "let's play it, he won't notice"? What of the other players at the table, assuming they go along with it?

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-July-25, 15:07, said:

Me, either. No one thinks it's OK to revoke, bid/play out of turn, or make an insufficient bid intentionally.

UI is a different matter, not because they think it's OK to break the rules, but because they either don't realize that there are rules against using it, don't understand their obligations, don't realize they're in a situation where it's relevant, or don't really know what to do when it comes up. Statements like "Your hesitation prohibited me from bidding slam" are evidence of this. There are similar issues with MI. UI and MI are simply not as black-and-white as the mechanical rules regarding basic bidding and play procedures.

Players should realize that they receive UI all the time, simply because they receive information all the time, and most of this information is extraneous and therefore UI.

Most of this information has nothing to do with bridge and is therefore of no interest at all, but it is still there (UI)!

It is not illegal to (accidentally) create UI, (and there is no way a player can avoid receiving UI).

What is illegal is using UI!

[barmar]

pran, on 2013-July-25, 15:15, said:

What is illegal is using UI!

That's why I was very careful to write "don't realize that there are rules against using it". Did I err by not putting it in bold italics?

[barmar]

I'll bet if you gave bridge players a test where you give them an auction where they receive UI, and ask them what they're allowed and/or required to do, at least 75% would fail. This is ignorance of the law, not flouting it.

[barmar]

Conversely, if you gave them a test with questions like, "Your RHO is dealer and opens 1♠, is there ever a situation where you may bid 1♥?", every competent bridge player would pass with flying colors.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-July-25, 15:47, said:

Conversely, if you gave them a test with questions like, "Your RHO is dealer and opens 1♠, is there ever a situation where you may bid 1♥?", every competent bridge player would pass with flying colors.

Would they? The correct answer is "yes", btw.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-25, 15:51, said:

Would they? The correct answer is "yes", btw.

OK, you got me. When?