[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2014-October-20, 14:29, said:

I am still however of the belief that keeping the "must make it sufficient or partner's barred" *and* "the IB, and the fact that partner was constrained in her choice of legal calls, is UI" is draconian, and overpunishing.

It baffles me how much sympathy many posters have for those who fail to follow the basic mechanics of the game.

The fact that a player can know and take advantage of the fact that partner tried to make an insufficient bid and may not "have" his 27B1 correction would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-21, 07:59, said:

It baffles me how much sympathy many posters have for those who fail to follow the basic mechanics of the game.

The fact that a player can know and take advantage of the fact that partner tried to make an insufficient bid and may not "have" his 27B1 correction would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Sad, it is. But it is also funny...funny peculiar. Maybe 27D can be lawyered out by those who want the OS to gain from their infraction; but, how do they dismiss L23? And, why the agenda of wanting the OS to be allowed to gain?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-21, 08:22, said:

Sad, it is. But it is also funny...funny peculiar. Maybe 27D can be lawyered out by those who want the OS to gain from their infraction; but, how do they dismiss L23? And, why the agenda of wanting the OS to be allowed to gain?

It is commonly believed that the Drafting Committee didn't seek guidance from anyone who has ever played in or directed a bridge game -- especially at club level. But they seem to have been lobbied heavily by a group that for some reason believe that infractions shouldn't cost (I can't wait for the next version of the Laws: when a player calls/plays out of turn, it is deemed to have been his turn all along.

Anyway, the current version has put perpetrators (particularly insufficient bidders and revokes) in the position of 'heads I win, tails I break even'. It's disgusting.

[mycroft]

I would disagree with that (I have a full disagreement with the "sympathy with" to write, but that requires more thought than I have available today. Short version of that: "if you want to make the IB UI to partner, and let the IBer correct with any legal call (except double), I'd be right there with you, except for all the games where you wouldn't trust a UI ruling. If you want to follow current Law 25, which may or may not bar IB's partner, also fine - but don't treat the 'may have had to make the lowest sufficient call under duress as it's the only call that doesn't bar partner' as UI (Do check to make sure that the IB doesn't "win", though, over the normal auction). Both seems, as I said, draconian").

Right now, they're in "if we're lucky, we break even. If we're unlucky, we get penalized. If they don't call the TD, or the TD doesn't know the Law, we might get an advantage." territory.

I dislike the "primarily to repair the game" mentality as much as all; especially the "but I lost a trick I could never lose when I revoked, why did I only get back what was always coming to me when they did?" bit (which got us in the NAOP qualifiers - 4 trick "equity restoration", but no penalty for keeping the card until it was good). I think there are, or should be, penalties for failing to follow the mechanics of the game - if for no other reason than the continual arguments around the Stop Card and Protect Yourself show that if it's wrong but there's no penalty, they're not going to do it.

But I really do not see where, in revoke or IB situations, they win. They might "get away with it" - and that might be "winning", especially when the next time it happens (to the NOS of the first time), all hell drops on their head.

[Vampyr]

How about... When an insufficient bid is made, bidder's partner is barred for the rest of the auction, but there is no further penalty except under L23. Could anyone possibly disagree with that?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-21, 21:35, said:

How about... When an insufficient bid is made, bidder's partner is barred for the rest of the auction, but there is no further penalty except under L23. Could anyone possibly disagree with that?

There, we depart. The existing Laws are adequate, IMO. The TD just has to use them. It is easy to apply Pran's method and/or L23 --- effectively making the IB UI to the offender's partner, and adjust if he uses the UI.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-21, 21:35, said:

How about... When an insufficient bid is made, bidder's partner is barred for the rest of the auction, but there is no further penalty except under L23. Could anyone possibly disagree with that?

Of course one could disagree with that. The primary reason for wanting laws that allow bridge to be played as normal in as many cases as possible, is that laws like this force players to make guesses that randomise results, sometimes to their detriment, sometimes to their benefit.

[StevenG]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-21, 21:35, said:

How about... When an insufficient bid is made, bidder's partner is barred for the rest of the auction, but there is no further penalty except under L23. Could anyone possibly disagree with that?

Have you any idea how many insufficient bids are made in weak clubs full of old people? That would make the game totally unplayable (except that the director is never called, anyway).

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-October-22, 01:23, said:

allow bridge to be played as normal in as many cases as possible

After an insufficient bid, that ship has sailed, IMO.

StevenG, on 2014-October-22, 01:33, said:

Have you any idea how many insufficient bids are made in weak clubs full of old people? That would make the game totally unplayable (except that the director is never called, anyway).

Aren't these mainly mechanical errors, though? (And as you mention, if the opponents' response is "pick it up, dear" then there is no difference.)

[blackshoe]

The last six or seven posts in this thread seem to belong in "changing laws and regulations". I suppose I'm gonna have to split this thing again.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-22, 15:16, said:

The last six or seven posts in this thread seem to belong in "changing laws and regulations". I suppose I'm gonna have to split this thing again.

Have to? Threads drift. For people who already read it once, it's annoying to see a new thread with a bunch of posts they already read. There were no complaints in the previous thread about the drift.

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2014-October-22, 15:51, said:

Have to? Threads drift. For people who already read it once, it's annoying to see a new thread with a bunch of posts they already read. There were no complaints in the previous thread about the drift.

Very true. And I resent being named as the originator of this thread.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-22, 16:05, said:

Very true. And I resent being named as the originator of this thread.

Come on, Steph. You are the cause of this thread. And I agree it should have been split...and agree with what you said that caused it.

Be proud, not resentful

[blackshoe]

Can't win, can't break even, can't get out of the game.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-22, 16:13, said:

Come on, Steph. You are the cause of this thread. And I agree it should have been split...and agree with what you said that caused it.

Be proud, not resentful

It's not that I don't want to be associated with the topic, but it happened once before and that was a topic I really didn't want to be associated with. So I would really prefer, in general, not to have my name on threads I didn't start. But I appreciate your support.

[blackshoe]

It should be pretty clear that post #1 in this thread is not a "starter" post, since it quotes another post that isn't in this thread. But if you like, I'll edit your post, and put in a disclaimer over my name that I split your post and the following ones off from another thread.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-21, 21:35, said:

How about... When an insufficient bid is made, bidder's partner is barred for the rest of the auction, but there is no further penalty except under L23. Could anyone possibly disagree with that?

Instead, how about this:
- After an insufficient bid, the director generates a score using a random number generator.
- The offenders are awarded the lower of this score and its reciprocal
- The non-offenders are awarded the higher of this score and its reciprocal


That has a similar effect to your solution, but
(a) It ensures that that offenders don't benefit from random good luck, eg by guessing to play in a game that happens to make
(b) It's a lot quicker than actually playing out the board, which is helpful because some time will probably have been lost by the director call.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2014-October-23, 06:05, said:

Instead, how about this:
- After an insufficient bid, the director generates a score using a random number generator.
- The offenders are awarded the lower of this score and its reciprocal
- The non-offenders are awarded the higher of this score and its reciprocal

Simpler would be the age-old recipe of cancel the board and award AVE+ to non-offenders, AVE- to the offenders.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2014-October-23, 06:18, said:

Simpler would be the age-old recipe of cancel the board and award AVE+ to non-offenders, AVE- to the offenders.

But that doesn't have the element of randomness which the lawmakers (and Vampyr) seem to consider necessary.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2014-October-23, 06:35, said:

But that doesn't have the element of randomness which the lawmakers (and Vampyr) seem to consider necessary.

The board has been spoilt so a "normal" result is impossible. The current solution is very poor as it often rewards the offenders.

I do not think that Robin's suggestion was serious but it might in fact be best.