From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 1 00:19:34 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:19:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <000101d1eb5a$e9679a00$bc36ce00$@svenpran.net> References: <000101d1eb5a$e9679a00$bc36ce00$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:39:41 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:21:47 -0400, Jeff Easterson >> wrote: >> > >> > Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the >> > principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs?> >> >> Nice point. Two pairs, equally at fault, one being penalized and one not. >> > > [Sven Pran] > This is regretfully a common and very serious misunderstanding; it is > absolutely necessary that the Director never confuses penalty and > rectification. Fairness is a concept that transcends the laws. If the question is fairness, then technical definitions of rectification and penalty aren't really relevant. If we aren't worried about fairness, then there would be no problem. But A- is not going to protect anyone and I don't think would make the definition of rectification in the laws. From the internet Simple Definition of remedial : done to correct or improve something : done to make something better : done to cure or treat someone : involving students who need special help to improve in a particular subject > > Rectification shall be different for the two pairs here because the > circumstances with their irregularity are different. > > But if the Director in addition finds reason to penalize then he must impose > the same penalty to both pairs. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 1 07:14:26 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 07:14:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> Message-ID: <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> Of course A- is a sanction. The expected value of a board is 50%, so if you get 40%, that is a sanction. I agree wholeheartedly with those here ho argue that the two pairs are not treated equally, and saying that they get the same penalty is just covering up tactics. I would, in this case, either give 50% to the second pair and a penalty to both sides, or give a penalty only to one pair so as not to have to explain to the totally innocent third pair why their opponents get 50% hen clearly at fault. Herman. Martin Sinot wrote: > I don't agree. The pair now getting A- is not penalized, bur rectified. > After all, they can no longer obtain a score on the deal, so the TD must > give them one, and since it is their own fault, it will be A-. That is a > matter of rectification. The other pair already had a legal score, so > they keep it. In addition both pairs can be given a PP, which normally > will be equal for both pairs (unless of course the TD finds one pair > more at fault than the other, but that seems unlikely here). So yes, > both pairs are equally sanctioned (because the A- is not a sanction). > > regards > From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Aug 1 08:34:15 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 08:34:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: <000101d1eb5a$e9679a00$bc36ce00$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <445351ce-c2ac-6efb-d67f-b29d5d6db9bd@t-online.de> Am 01.08.2016 um 00:19 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:39:41 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >> >> [Sven Pran] >> This is regretfully a common and very serious misunderstanding; it is >> absolutely necessary that the Director never confuses penalty and >> rectification. > Fairness is a concept that transcends the laws. Wrong. Have a look at games like Diplomacy or Junta, to name only two. Try to play them with a general approach to "fairness". Good luck. Fairness is what the laws say it is, nothing else. > If the question is fairness, then technical definitions of rectification and penalty aren't really relevant. If we aren't worried about fairness, then there would be no problem. > > But A- is not going to protect anyone and I don't think would make the definition of rectification in the laws. From the internet > > Simple Definition of remedial > : done to correct or improve something : done to make something better > : done to cure or treat someone > : involving students who need special help to improve in a particular subject > From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Mon Aug 1 09:28:26 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 09:28:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 31.07.2016 um 17:09 schrieb Matthias Berghaus: > Am 31.07.2016 um 16:21 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >> A pairs tournament; movement Howell. Each pair has a guide card on >> which is clearly shown at which table they are to play each round and >> which boards are to be played. >> >> During the match at one table the wrong boards are taken and it is only >> discovered after (at least) one board has been played. There is no >> stationary pair at the table. >> >> Question 1: do you agree that both pairs are equally responsible for >> the mistake, for playing a wrong board? > Sure, no question about that. > >> Question 2: if you do agree then do you agree that both pairs should >> have the same, or equal sanctions (penalty, etc.)? > Yep. > >> One pair had already played the boards; the other had not and was >> scheduled to play the set later. >> The TD could give each pair an equivalent procedural penalty for playing >> the wrong boards but it should be the same for each pair. >> Question 3: do you agree? > Again, yes. > >> Regardless of such a possible penalty the pair that had already played >> the boards is not affected. Their result from the earlier play of the >> boards is valid. > Sure, but typically they miss out on complementing the boards they > _should_ have played.... If they manage to play the boards, fine. Yes, they did manage to play the correct boards. > >> The pair that later is scheduled to play the boards will not be able to >> play the board/boards it has already seen. It will be given a score of >> 40% on this/these board/boards. >> Question 4: do you agree? > See above, but yes. > >> Thus one pair will be "penalised" (at least have an unfavourable >> adjusted score9 and the other will not. Thus they will not be treated >> equally. > This I find doubtful, see above. If they find out very early this may be > so, but in my experience this is detected either very early (another > pair looking for those boards), or when the score is entered, sometimes > even later, so this pair is about to get AV- for the boards they did not > play, which usually evens out. The rest is sheer luck. > >> Question 5: do you agree? >> >> Question 6: if you do agree with this is it not a violation of the >> principle of equal sanctioning of both pairs? >> >> Ciao, JE >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > From sven at svenpran.net Mon Aug 1 09:48:14 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 09:48:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> An adjusted score is of course a sanction, but it shall never be used as a penalty. When you say that A- is a penalty (like 10% of a top) then what do you say that A+ is - a bonus? > Herman De Wael > Of course A- is a sanction. The expected value of a board is 50%, so if you get > 40%, that is a sanction. > I agree wholeheartedly with those here ho argue that the two pairs are not > treated equally, and saying that they get the same penalty is just covering up > tactics. > I would, in this case, either give 50% to the second pair and a penalty to both > sides, or give a penalty only to one pair so as not to have to explain to the totally > innocent third pair why their opponents get 50% hen clearly at fault. > Herman. > > Martin Sinot wrote: > > I don't agree. The pair now getting A- is not penalized, bur rectified. > > After all, they can no longer obtain a score on the deal, so the TD > > must give them one, and since it is their own fault, it will be A-. > > That is a matter of rectification. The other pair already had a legal > > score, so they keep it. In addition both pairs can be given a PP, > > which normally will be equal for both pairs (unless of course the TD > > finds one pair more at fault than the other, but that seems unlikely > > here). So yes, both pairs are equally sanctioned (because the A- is not a > sanction). > > > > regards > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 1 11:02:25 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:02:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> Yes, it is - a compensation for not being allowed to play this board. Seen like that, a score of A- is actually a penalty of 20%. Sven Pran wrote: > An adjusted score is of course a sanction, but it shall never be used as a > penalty. > > When you say that A- is a penalty (like 10% of a top) then what do you say > that A+ is - a bonus? > >> Herman De Wael >> Of course A- is a sanction. The expected value of a board is 50%, so if > you get >> 40%, that is a sanction. >> I agree wholeheartedly with those here ho argue that the two pairs are not >> treated equally, and saying that they get the same penalty is just > covering up >> tactics. >> I would, in this case, either give 50% to the second pair and a penalty to > both >> sides, or give a penalty only to one pair so as not to have to explain to > the totally >> innocent third pair why their opponents get 50% hen clearly at fault. >> Herman. >> >> Martin Sinot wrote: >>> I don't agree. The pair now getting A- is not penalized, bur rectified. >>> After all, they can no longer obtain a score on the deal, so the TD >>> must give them one, and since it is their own fault, it will be A-. >>> That is a matter of rectification. The other pair already had a legal >>> score, so they keep it. In addition both pairs can be given a PP, >>> which normally will be equal for both pairs (unless of course the TD >>> finds one pair more at fault than the other, but that seems unlikely >>> here). So yes, both pairs are equally sanctioned (because the A- is not > a >> sanction). >>> >>> regards >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12722 - Release Date: 08/01/16 > > From sven at svenpran.net Mon Aug 1 11:59:57 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:59:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> > Herman De Wael > Yes, it is - a compensation for not being allowed to play this board. > Seen like that, a score of A- is actually a penalty of 20%. [Sven Pran] Interesting "invention" by you. Now please tell us how you consider A- or A+ given to an inferior pair for which the expected score would be 40% and to a superior pair for which the expected score would be 60%. No penalty with A- to the inferior pair, no bonus with A+ to the superior pair, 20% penalty with A- to the superior pair and 20% bonus to the inferior pair? To me this just doesn't make sense at all. And how does that correspond with the same penalty for the same offence when both pairs are at fault? I think we should stick to the definition that adjusted scores (whether artificial or assigned) are rectifications, not penalties. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > An adjusted score is of course a sanction, but it shall never be used > > as a penalty. > > > > When you say that A- is a penalty (like 10% of a top) then what do > > you say that A+ is - a bonus? > > > >> Herman De Wael > >> Of course A- is a sanction. The expected value of a board is 50%, so > >> if > > you get > >> 40%, that is a sanction. > >> I agree wholeheartedly with those here ho argue that the two pairs > >> are not treated equally, and saying that they get the same penalty is > >> just > > covering up > >> tactics. > >> I would, in this case, either give 50% to the second pair and a > >> penalty to > > both > >> sides, or give a penalty only to one pair so as not to have to > >> explain to > > the totally > >> innocent third pair why their opponents get 50% hen clearly at fault. > >> Herman. > >> > >> Martin Sinot wrote: > >>> I don't agree. The pair now getting A- is not penalized, bur rectified. > >>> After all, they can no longer obtain a score on the deal, so the TD > >>> must give them one, and since it is their own fault, it will be A-. > >>> That is a matter of rectification. The other pair already had a > >>> legal score, so they keep it. In addition both pairs can be given a > >>> PP, which normally will be equal for both pairs (unless of course > >>> the TD finds one pair more at fault than the other, but that seems > >>> unlikely here). So yes, both pairs are equally sanctioned (because > >>> the A- is not > > a > >> sanction). > >>> > >>> regards > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12722 - Release Date: > > 08/01/16 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 1 16:49:49 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:49:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> Herman De Wael >> Yes, it is - a compensation for not being allowed to play this board. >> Seen like that, a score of A- is actually a penalty of 20%. > > [Sven Pran] > Interesting "invention" by you. > > Now please tell us how you consider A- or A+ given to an inferior pair for > which the expected score would be 40% and to a superior pair for which the > expected score would be 60%. > > No penalty with A- to the inferior pair, no bonus with A+ to the superior > pair, 20% penalty with A- to the superior pair and 20% bonus to the inferior > pair? > > To me this just doesn't make sense at all. > > And how does that correspond with the same penalty for the same offence when > both pairs are at fault? > > I think we should stick to the definition that adjusted scores (whether > artificial or assigned) are rectifications, not penalties. > And what has a definition got to do with a player complainig that he's been penalized more than his opponent who made exactly the same mistake? "that's not a penalty, that's a rectification" you'll say. "Well, I still have less points than him" will be his answer. Over to you. No you might feel that this is equitable, which is your right. BUt don't defend against those with a different view by using definitions. Pair B got less points than pair A. Call it a rectification rather than a penalty, they still have less points. Understand my point, Sven? Herman. >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> An adjusted score is of course a sanction, but it shall never be used >>> as a penalty. >>> >>> When you say that A- is a penalty (like 10% of a top) then what do >>> you say that A+ is - a bonus? >>> >>>> Herman De Wael >>>> Of course A- is a sanction. The expected value of a board is 50%, so >>>> if >>> you get >>>> 40%, that is a sanction. >>>> I agree wholeheartedly with those here ho argue that the two pairs >>>> are not treated equally, and saying that they get the same penalty is >>>> just >>> covering up >>>> tactics. >>>> I would, in this case, either give 50% to the second pair and a >>>> penalty to >>> both >>>> sides, or give a penalty only to one pair so as not to have to >>>> explain to >>> the totally >>>> innocent third pair why their opponents get 50% hen clearly at fault. >>>> Herman. >>>> >>>> Martin Sinot wrote: >>>>> I don't agree. The pair now getting A- is not penalized, bur > rectified. >>>>> After all, they can no longer obtain a score on the deal, so the TD >>>>> must give them one, and since it is their own fault, it will be A-. >>>>> That is a matter of rectification. The other pair already had a >>>>> legal score, so they keep it. In addition both pairs can be given a >>>>> PP, which normally will be equal for both pairs (unless of course >>>>> the TD finds one pair more at fault than the other, but that seems >>>>> unlikely here). So yes, both pairs are equally sanctioned (because >>>>> the A- is not >>> a >>>> sanction). >>>>> >>>>> regards >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12722 - Release Date: >>> 08/01/16 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12722 - Release Date: 08/01/16 > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 1 18:33:54 2016 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 12:33:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 03:48:14 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > An adjusted score is of course a sanction, Part of the definition of sanction: Law. a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for obedience. the penalty or reward. > but it shall never be used as a > penalty. In plain language, A- is a penalty, given to people who caused the problem. > > When you say that A- is a penalty (like 10% of a top) then what do you say > that A+ is - a bonus? A gift? Payout? If you make an error on a board and a table can't play it, do you really think that table deserves a higher score (split score, both A+) than every other table? It doesn't. But you reward them so they don't complain about you. Reality. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Aug 1 20:24:09 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 20:24:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> Am 01.08.2016 um 16:49 schrieb Herman De Wael: > Sven Pran wrote: >>> Herman De Wael >>> Yes, it is - a compensation for not being allowed to play this board. >>> Seen like that, a score of A- is actually a penalty of 20%. >> [Sven Pran] >> Interesting "invention" by you. >> >> Now please tell us how you consider A- or A+ given to an inferior pair for >> which the expected score would be 40% and to a superior pair for which the >> expected score would be 60%. >> >> No penalty with A- to the inferior pair, no bonus with A+ to the superior >> pair, 20% penalty with A- to the superior pair and 20% bonus to the inferior >> pair? >> >> To me this just doesn't make sense at all. >> >> And how does that correspond with the same penalty for the same offence when >> both pairs are at fault? >> >> I think we should stick to the definition that adjusted scores (whether >> artificial or assigned) are rectifications, not penalties. >> > And what has a definition got to do with a player complainig that he's > been penalized more than his opponent who made exactly the same mistake? > "that's not a penalty, that's a rectification" you'll say. > "Well, I still have less points than him" will be his answer. > Over to you. So he feels penalized. Tough. What do I care? Should I pay for a psychotherapy session? Ever seen a sports interview? There is this guy who nearly cost his opp the use of a leg or two and got sent off. Guess what? He feels penalized. That is the idea, sending someone off is meant to be a penalty. But he feels treated unjustly. He had a tough childhood, the opp is still in one piece (ok, barely maybe, but is it his fault?), the other team was much more brutal and so on and so forth. There are certain hand gestures I usually employ when I hear such bullshit, but it does not really work in an email. Millions of German cardrivers feel treated unjustly, positively ripped off, by radar guns and other speed traps. Ever seen a gunman threating them with a Colt 45 and forcing them to ignore speed limits? No? Well, neither have I. But they whine and moan no end. Again: what do I care? Depending on situation one gets A- or A+ vs. Meckwell or vs. Mister 25%onagoodday. I don`t know about you, but I would not feel penalized by a 40% round vs Meckwell, while A+ vs the worst players in the club may feel different.. So what? Shit happens. Get a life... > No you might feel that this is equitable, which is your right. BUt don't > defend against those with a different view by using definitions. Herman, everything needs definitions. And the people in the driver`s seat, the people who make the rules, have defined what a penalty is and what is not, and they do not care about hurt feelings either. In the Bridge universe there are rectifiactions, and there are penalties, and they are different animals, and what anybody thinks about that isn`t worth the sheet of paper we would cover with scribbles here if we didn`t use email. I asked Robert, and I ask you: ever played Diplomacy or Junta? Ever tried to complain to someone that your opp didn`t honour your agreements in Diplomacy? Now _that_ is something I would like to see.... You may be familiar (at least in theory) with Skat. For those who aren`t: it is a card game, less complex than Bridge. Very popular in Germany. Mow Skat players think bridgers are the most soft and pampered lot on Earth. If you revoke in Skat, you _lost_ . Period. No tricks transferred, no 64C, nothing. You lost. Hand over the money. I have not seen a Skat player complain about that. It is the way the game is played. And in Bridge, when you are unable to play certain boards you are going to receive a fixed artifical score. That is the the way the game is played. And I don`t give a d... if someone does not understand or accept that. I prefer the first case, because I can try to explain. The second case usually is hopeless. The want the victim role, and they are going to assume it no matter what. Fine. Good riddance. Just don`t hope for sympathy... > Pair B got less points than pair A. Call it a rectification rather than > a penalty, they still have less points. > Understand my point, Sven? I suspect he understands what you try to say, but disagrees violently, as do I, by the way. > > Herman. > From sven at svenpran.net Mon Aug 1 20:39:10 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 20:39:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <000901d1ec24$00cb3430$02619c90$@svenpran.net> > Robert Frick > On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 03:48:14 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > An adjusted score is of course a sanction, > > Part of the definition of sanction: > Law. > a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for > obedience. > the penalty or reward. [Sven Pran] I cannot find any definition of the word "sanction" in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. However, in my Webster I find among other meanings of this word: "The act of a recognized authority confirming or ratifying an action". None of the alternative definitions imply that a sanction is synonymous with or limited to a penalty. > > > but it shall never be used as a > > penalty. > > In plain language, A- is a penalty, given to people who caused the problem. > > > > > When you say that A- is a penalty (like 10% of a top) then what do > > you say that A+ is - a bonus? > > A gift? Payout? If you make an error on a board and a table can't play it, do you > really think that table deserves a higher score (split score, both A+) than every > other table? It doesn't. But you reward them so they don't complain about you. [Sven Pran] The Director should never award an AVE+ score just to avoid contestants complaining about you. An AVE+ score is awarded in recognition of the fact that a contestant because of an irregularity for which he is not in any way at fault, has been deprived the possibility of obtaining a high, maybe even a top score on that board. The lawmakers have found that 60% of a top (matchpoint) score will in most cases be a reasonable compensation to such contestants. (And AVE- scores are there primarily to balance out AVE+). > Reality. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Aug 1 20:42:14 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 20:42:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: Am 01.08.2016 um 18:33 schrieb Robert Frick: > On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 03:48:14 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >> An adjusted score is of course a sanction, > Part of the definition of sanction: > > Law. > a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for obedience. > the penalty or reward. > > > > > but it shall never be used as a >> penalty. > In plain language, A- is a penalty, given to people who caused the problem. No. It is an artifical adjusted score. The penalty may come on top of that..... > >> When you say that A- is a penalty (like 10% of a top) then what do you say >> that A+ is - a bonus? > A gift? Payout? 60% vs. a pair who habitually fail to score 30% on the session is a gift? 40% vs. Meckwell is a penalty? If you say so...... still, I have to disagree. > If you make an error on a board and a table can't play it, do you really think that table deserves a higher score (split score, both A+) than every other table? It doesn't. > But you reward them so they don't complain about you. No. You do. If there is a comparable case which is in worse shape scorewise (only looking at the artificial scores...), that can be evened out by PPs. Let them complain. And yes, I get paid. If they don`t return, I can live with that. What I can`t live with is having others stay off because they are sick and tired by wrongdoers being pampered and coddled, and that is the bigger number in the long run. Somebody makes a fuss or throws a tantrum? The door is over there, I trust you can find the way. Don`t go to the trouble of coming back. Robert, you have some knack of insulting people, practically effortlessly. I think _you_ have to reward them so they come back. Sven doesn`t, and neither do I. What I have to do, and will do right after hitting the "send" button is to put you on my ignore list. I love good email-clients. I am sick and tired of having you insult anyone who diagrees with you. But I have good news for you. I am not going to disagree with you in the future. I will not learn what your opinion is. I don`t care. Reality. No regards whatsoever > Reality. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Aug 2 05:56:30 2016 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 13:56:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Drawing Trump Message-ID: Yuge! 30 Years of Doonesbury on Trump is a retrospective collection of comic strips by Garry Trudeau featuring The Donald. In an interview with the New York Times the author described the Republican presidential candidate as "the gold standard for big, honking hubris". Recently my RHO declarer claimed, on the basis of cashing side-suit winners in dummy, then having trumps in hand. Unfortunately for declarer my pard still held an undrawn trump. Unfortunately for our side pard had to follow to dummy's winners, so the only way our side could get a bonus trump trick would be either if declarer chose to under-ruff, or if declarer chose to lead trumps from bottom-up instead of top-down. So the Director ruled under Law 70C3 that the defence could not score its trump with any "normal" play. The footnote defining "normal" states: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." My pedantic objection to this footnote is that it lacks a ceiling. Thus my suggested 2017 revision is: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior (but not ridiculous) for the class of player involved." Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160802/2c75ff19/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 2 08:45:17 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:45:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> Message-ID: <57A0417D.30103@skynet.be> See below. Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 01.08.2016 um 16:49 schrieb Herman De Wael: >> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> Herman De Wael >>>> Yes, it is - a compensation for not being allowed to play this board. >>>> Seen like that, a score of A- is actually a penalty of 20%. >>> [Sven Pran] >>> Interesting "invention" by you. >>> >>> Now please tell us how you consider A- or A+ given to an inferior pair for >>> which the expected score would be 40% and to a superior pair for which the >>> expected score would be 60%. >>> >>> No penalty with A- to the inferior pair, no bonus with A+ to the superior >>> pair, 20% penalty with A- to the superior pair and 20% bonus to the inferior >>> pair? >>> >>> To me this just doesn't make sense at all. >>> >>> And how does that correspond with the same penalty for the same offence when >>> both pairs are at fault? >>> >>> I think we should stick to the definition that adjusted scores (whether >>> artificial or assigned) are rectifications, not penalties. >>> >> And what has a definition got to do with a player complainig that he's >> been penalized more than his opponent who made exactly the same mistake? >> "that's not a penalty, that's a rectification" you'll say. >> "Well, I still have less points than him" will be his answer. >> Over to you. > > So he feels penalized. Tough. What do I care? Should I pay for a > psychotherapy session? Ever seen a sports interview? There is this guy > who nearly cost his opp the use of a leg or two and got sent off. Guess > what? He feels penalized. That is the idea, sending someone off is meant > to be a penalty. But he feels treated unjustly. He had a tough > childhood, the opp is still in one piece (ok, barely maybe, but is it > his fault?), the other team was much more brutal and so on and so forth. > There are certain hand gestures I usually employ when I hear such > bullshit, but it does not really work in an email. Millions of German > cardrivers feel treated unjustly, positively ripped off, by radar guns > and other speed traps. Ever seen a gunman threating them with a Colt 45 > and forcing them to ignore speed limits? No? Well, neither have I. But > they whine and moan no end. Again: what do I care? Depending on > situation one gets A- or A+ vs. Meckwell or vs. Mister 25%onagoodday. I > don`t know about you, but I would not feel penalized by a 40% round vs > Meckwell, while A+ vs the worst players in the club may feel different.. > So what? Shit happens. Get a life... > >> No you might feel that this is equitable, which is your right. BUt don't >> defend against those with a different view by using definitions. > > Herman, everything needs definitions. And the people in the driver`s > seat, the people who make the rules, have defined what a penalty is and > what is not, and they do not care about hurt feelings either. In the > Bridge universe there are rectifiactions, and there are penalties, and > they are different animals, and what anybody thinks about that isn`t > worth the sheet of paper we would cover with scribbles here if we didn`t > use email. I asked Robert, and I ask you: ever played Diplomacy or > Junta? Ever tried to complain to someone that your opp didn`t honour > your agreements in Diplomacy? Now _that_ is something I would like to > see.... You may be familiar (at least in theory) with Skat. For those > who aren`t: it is a card game, less complex than Bridge. Very popular in > Germany. Mow Skat players think bridgers are the most soft and pampered > lot on Earth. If you revoke in Skat, you _lost_ . Period. No tricks > transferred, no 64C, nothing. You lost. Hand over the money. I have not > seen a Skat player complain about that. It is the way the game is > played. And in Bridge, when you are unable to play certain boards you > are going to receive a fixed artifical score. That is the the way the > game is played. And I don`t give a d... if someone does not understand > or accept that. I prefer the first case, because I can try to explain. > The second case usually is hopeless. The want the victim role, and they > are going to assume it no matter what. Fine. Good riddance. Just don`t > hope for sympathy... > >> Pair B got less points than pair A. Call it a rectification rather than >> a penalty, they still have less points. >> Understand my point, Sven? > > I suspect he understands what you try to say, but disagrees violently, > as do I, by the way. > It's not the sentiment I have a problem with, it's the argument that Sven uses. What he's saying boils down to this: "Yes, I notice that to people are treated differently, but they should not worry, because according to the definitions, the second one did not recieve a penalty." Well, that's a faulty argument. Because I'm not discussing whether there's a penalty or not, but whether one pair has been treated unfairly. OTOH, you are saying, "That's the laws folks, deal with it." Which is also a valid point, but not against my argument, which is "the law is bad and should be changed." See what I'm getting at? When we're discussing whether a law is fair or not, and whether or not it should be changed, there's no use saying "the law's the law and that's that." Herman. >> >> Herman. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12722 - Release Date: 08/01/16 > > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Aug 2 09:09:07 2016 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:09:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Drawing Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bb01d1ec8c$c2e996c0$48bcc440$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hills Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2016 1:57 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Drawing Trump Yuge! 30 Years of Doonesbury on Trump is a retrospective collection of comic strips by Garry Trudeau featuring The Donald. In an interview with the New York Times the author described the Republican presidential candidate as "the gold standard for big, honking hubris". Recently my RHO declarer claimed, on the basis of cashing side-suit winners in dummy, then having trumps in hand. Unfortunately for declarer my pard still held an undrawn trump. Unfortunately for our side pard had to follow to dummy's winners, so the only way our side could get a bonus trump trick would be either if declarer chose to under-ruff, or if declarer chose to lead trumps from bottom-up instead of top-down. So the Director ruled under Law 70C3 that the defence could not score its trump with any "normal" play. The footnote defining "normal" states: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." My pedantic objection to this footnote is that it lacks a ceiling. Thus my suggested 2017 revision is: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior (but not ridiculous) for the class of player involved." Best wishes, Richard Hills I get this a lot and this is the way I always rule. I bend over backwards to give a trick to an outstanding trump if at all possible, but I do not allow ?ridiculous? plays, even for the bunnies (who didn?t know there was a trump out). So, no change to the rule book, but just include this canonical example. Cheers Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160802/0fb4209a/attachment-0001.html From sven at svenpran.net Tue Aug 2 10:08:11 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:08:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <57A0417D.30103@skynet.be> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> <57A0417D.30103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301d1ec95$05b49ce0$111dd6a0$@svenpran.net> > Herman De Wael [...] > It's not the sentiment I have a problem with, it's the argument that Sven uses. > What he's saying boils down to this: > > "Yes, I notice that to people are treated differently, but they should not worry, > because according to the definitions, the second one did not recieve a penalty." > > Well, that's a faulty argument. Because I'm not discussing whether there's a > penalty or not, but whether one pair has been treated unfairly. > > OTOH, you are saying, "That's the laws folks, deal with it." > Which is also a valid point, but not against my argument, which is "the law is bad > and should be changed." > > See what I'm getting at? > When we're discussing whether a law is fair or not, and whether or not it should > be changed, there's no use saying "the law's the law and that's that." > > Herman. [Sven Pran] Sometimes I do wonder if you understand what you claim you are reading? The fact is that pair A plays a board against pair B in a round when this board is not scheduled for them to be played. Pair A had already played that board in an earlier round while pair B is scheduled to play that board later. What I am saying is that pair A keeps the result they made on that board when they played it the first time while as pair B can no longer obtain any valid result on that board they must accept an artificial adjusted score. And as pair B is (jointly) responsible for the irregularity their AAS shall be AVE-. The reason while pair A and pair B are seemingly treated differently is that only pair B must take an artificial adjusted score. Would it be more fair if the law stated that the result already obtained by pair A should be cancelled so that they also would receive AVE-? Would it be more fair if pair A alone was penalized 10% of a top to "compensate" for the AVE- awarded to pair B while was not penalized because they already had been given that AVE- score? That would certainly be treating the pairs differently. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 2 10:50:47 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:50:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <001301d1ec95$05b49ce0$111dd6a0$@svenpran.net> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> <57A0417D.30103@skynet.be> <001301d1ec95$05b49ce0$111dd6a0$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <57A05EE7.1090905@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> Herman De Wael > [...] >> It's not the sentiment I have a problem with, it's the argument that Sven > uses. >> What he's saying boils down to this: >> >> "Yes, I notice that to people are treated differently, but they should not > worry, >> because according to the definitions, the second one did not recieve a > penalty." >> >> Well, that's a faulty argument. Because I'm not discussing whether there's > a >> penalty or not, but whether one pair has been treated unfairly. >> >> OTOH, you are saying, "That's the laws folks, deal with it." >> Which is also a valid point, but not against my argument, which is "the > law is bad >> and should be changed." >> >> See what I'm getting at? >> When we're discussing whether a law is fair or not, and whether or not it > should >> be changed, there's no use saying "the law's the law and that's that." >> >> Herman. > > [Sven Pran] > Sometimes I do wonder if you understand what you claim you are reading? > > The fact is that pair A plays a board against pair B in a round when this > board is not scheduled for them to be played. Pair A had already played that > board in an earlier round while pair B is scheduled to play that board > later. > > What I am saying is that pair A keeps the result they made on that board > when they played it the first time while as pair B can no longer obtain any > valid result on that board they must accept an artificial adjusted score. > And as pair B is (jointly) responsible for the irregularity their AAS shall > be AVE-. > > The reason while pair A and pair B are seemingly treated differently is that > only pair B must take an artificial adjusted score. > > Would it be more fair if the law stated that the result already obtained by > pair A should be cancelled so that they also would receive AVE-? > > Would it be more fair if pair A alone was penalized 10% of a top to > "compensate" for the AVE- awarded to pair B while was not penalized because > they already had been given that AVE- score? > That would certainly be treating the pairs differently. Treating the pairs differently is not the problem. After all, the sitautions are differently (as you keep reminding us), so they must be treated differently. The question is which of the two ways is the more equitable. And it seems to me that: if A gets the score it has received, that is an equitable score. if B gets its on average, that is an equitable score. If B gets AV0, that is also an equitable score. If A gets 10% PP, that can be regarded as an equitable penalty. If B gets 10% PP, that can be regarded as an equitable penalty. If B gets AV- in stead of AV0, that is an equitable penalty. But if B gets AV- AND a 10% PP, they have to "penalties" as opposed to A's one. And that is no longer equitable. And if you insist "them's the rules" then the rules are flawed. OK? Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12728 - Release Date: 08/02/16 > > From sven at svenpran.net Tue Aug 2 12:36:12 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:36:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <57A05EE7.1090905@skynet.be> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> <57A0417D.30103@skynet.be> <001301d1ec95$05b49ce0$111dd6a0$@svenpran.net> <57A05EE7.1090905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401d1eca9$b335a300$19a0e900$@svenpran.net> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> Herman De Wael > > [...] > >> It's not the sentiment I have a problem with, it's the argument that > >> Sven > > uses. > >> What he's saying boils down to this: > >> > >> "Yes, I notice that to people are treated differently, but they > >> should not > > worry, > >> because according to the definitions, the second one did not recieve > >> a > > penalty." > >> > >> Well, that's a faulty argument. Because I'm not discussing whether > >> there's > > a > >> penalty or not, but whether one pair has been treated unfairly. > >> > >> OTOH, you are saying, "That's the laws folks, deal with it." > >> Which is also a valid point, but not against my argument, which is > >> "the > > law is bad > >> and should be changed." > >> > >> See what I'm getting at? > >> When we're discussing whether a law is fair or not, and whether or > >> not it > > should > >> be changed, there's no use saying "the law's the law and that's that." > >> > >> Herman. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Sometimes I do wonder if you understand what you claim you are reading? > > > > The fact is that pair A plays a board against pair B in a round when > > this board is not scheduled for them to be played. Pair A had already > > played that board in an earlier round while pair B is scheduled to > > play that board later. > > > > What I am saying is that pair A keeps the result they made on that > > board when they played it the first time while as pair B can no longer > > obtain any valid result on that board they must accept an artificial adjusted > score. > > And as pair B is (jointly) responsible for the irregularity their AAS > > shall be AVE-. > > > > The reason while pair A and pair B are seemingly treated differently > > is that only pair B must take an artificial adjusted score. > > > > Would it be more fair if the law stated that the result already > > obtained by pair A should be cancelled so that they also would receive AVE-? > > > > Would it be more fair if pair A alone was penalized 10% of a top to > > "compensate" for the AVE- awarded to pair B while was not penalized > > because they already had been given that AVE- score? > > That would certainly be treating the pairs differently. > > Treating the pairs differently is not the problem. > After all, the sitautions are differently (as you keep reminding us), so they must > be treated differently. > The question is which of the two ways is the more equitable. > > And it seems to me that: > if A gets the score it has received, that is an equitable score. > if B gets its on average, that is an equitable score. > If B gets AV0, that is also an equitable score. > If A gets 10% PP, that can be regarded as an equitable penalty. > If B gets 10% PP, that can be regarded as an equitable penalty. > If B gets AV- in stead of AV0, that is an equitable penalty. > > But if B gets AV- AND a 10% PP, they have to "penalties" as opposed to A's one. > And that is no longer equitable. > > And if you insist "them's the rules" then the rules are flawed. > > OK? [Sven Pran] No, I have never suggested that B should get AV- and in addition 10% PP, in fact I don't see any convincing reason for imposing PP to either pair here. I am convinced that (in the long run) the prescribed rectification is both fair and the best solution: When the result on a board must be cancelled then a pair that for whatever reason already has a valid score on that board keeps this score and a pair that cannot get a valid score receives an artificial adjusted score: AVE- , AVE or AVE+ as prescribed in Law 12C2. And remember that when Law 12C2a says: "average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault." this doesn't prevent the Director from ruling that both pairs are directly at fault (or both pairs are in no way at fault). In the case we are discussing I shall almost always rule that both pairs are directly at fault. From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Aug 2 15:35:48 2016 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:35:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> Message-ID: <70f06d2f-8fd1-26d2-8f67-5724cd10898c@vwalther.de> Am 01.08.2016 um 20:24 schrieb Matthias Berghaus: > Am 01.08.2016 um 16:49 schrieb Herman De Wael: >> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> Herman De Wael >>>> Yes, it is - a compensation for not being allowed to play this board. >>>> Seen like that, a score of A- is actually a penalty of 20%. >>> [Sven Pran] >>> Interesting "invention" by you. >>> >>> Now please tell us how you consider A- or A+ given to an inferior pair for >>> which the expected score would be 40% and to a superior pair for which the >>> expected score would be 60%. >>> >>> No penalty with A- to the inferior pair, no bonus with A+ to the superior >>> pair, 20% penalty with A- to the superior pair and 20% bonus to the inferior >>> pair? >>> >>> To me this just doesn't make sense at all. >>> >>> And how does that correspond with the same penalty for the same offence when >>> both pairs are at fault? >>> >>> I think we should stick to the definition that adjusted scores (whether >>> artificial or assigned) are rectifications, not penalties. >>> >> And what has a definition got to do with a player complainig that he's >> been penalized more than his opponent who made exactly the same mistake? >> "that's not a penalty, that's a rectification" you'll say. >> "Well, I still have less points than him" will be his answer. >> Over to you. Answer: "Oh, you have received the same procedure penalty as he did. But unfortunately unlike him you can not earn any points on this board. Caused by your own fault you already know the cards, so you are not allowed do play the board. But since it would be to hard for you and your designated opponents to have no points on this board, we will give an artificial score to both of you. This artificial score will be slightly better than average for the innocent opps and slightly below average for you, who caused trouble. The good guys always get the bigger presents. We do not take 10% from your score, we give you 40% on a board you do not play!" > > So he feels penalized. Tough. What do I care? Should I pay for a > psychotherapy session? Ever seen a sports interview? There is this guy > who nearly cost his opp the use of a leg or two and got sent off. Guess > what? He feels penalized. That is the idea, sending someone off is meant > to be a penalty. But he feels treated unjustly. He had a tough > childhood, the opp is still in one piece (ok, barely maybe, but is it > his fault?), the other team was much more brutal and so on and so forth. > There are certain hand gestures I usually employ when I hear such > bullshit, but it does not really work in an email. Millions of German > cardrivers feel treated unjustly, positively ripped off, by radar guns > and other speed traps. Ever seen a gunman threating them with a Colt 45 > and forcing them to ignore speed limits? No? Well, neither have I. But > they whine and moan no end. Again: what do I care? Depending on > situation one gets A- or A+ vs. Meckwell or vs. Mister 25%onagoodday. I > don`t know about you, but I would not feel penalized by a 40% round vs > Meckwell, while A+ vs the worst players in the club may feel different.. > So what? Shit happens. Get a life... > >> No you might feel that this is equitable, which is your right. BUt don't >> defend against those with a different view by using definitions. > > Herman, everything needs definitions. And the people in the driver`s > seat, the people who make the rules, have defined what a penalty is and > what is not, and they do not care about hurt feelings either. In the > Bridge universe there are rectifiactions, and there are penalties, and > they are different animals, and what anybody thinks about that isn`t > worth the sheet of paper we would cover with scribbles here if we didn`t > use email. I asked Robert, and I ask you: ever played Diplomacy or > Junta? Ever tried to complain to someone that your opp didn`t honour > your agreements in Diplomacy? Now _that_ is something I would like to > see.... You may be familiar (at least in theory) with Skat. For those > who aren`t: it is a card game, less complex than Bridge. Very popular in > Germany. Mow Skat players think bridgers are the most soft and pampered > lot on Earth. If you revoke in Skat, you _lost_ . Period. No tricks > transferred, no 64C, nothing. You lost. Hand over the money. I have not > seen a Skat player complain about that. It is the way the game is > played. And in Bridge, when you are unable to play certain boards you > are going to receive a fixed artifical score. That is the the way the > game is played. And I don`t give a d... if someone does not understand > or accept that. I prefer the first case, because I can try to explain. > The second case usually is hopeless. The want the victim role, and they > are going to assume it no matter what. Fine. Good riddance. Just don`t > hope for sympathy... > >> Pair B got less points than pair A. Call it a rectification rather than >> a penalty, they still have less points. >> Understand my point, Sven? > > I suspect he understands what you try to say, but disagrees violently, > as do I, by the way. > >> >> Herman. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Aug 2 16:13:36 2016 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:13:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Drawing Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FFDC7BF-EA26-46D3-A2C1-FF6128D03BC6@verizon.net> On Aug 1, 2016, at 11:56 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > Yuge! 30 Years of Doonesbury on Trump is a retrospective collection of comic strips by Garry Trudeau featuring The Donald. In an interview with the New York Times the author described the Republican presidential candidate as "the gold standard for big, honking hubris". > > Recently my RHO declarer claimed, on the basis of cashing side-suit winners in dummy, then having trumps in hand. Unfortunately for declarer my pard still held an undrawn trump. Unfortunately for our side pard had to follow to dummy's winners, so the only way our side could get a bonus trump trick would be either if declarer chose to under-ruff, or if declarer chose to lead trumps from bottom-up instead of top-down. > > So the Director ruled under Law 70C3 that the defence could not score its trump with any "normal" play. The footnote defining "normal" states: > > "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." > > My pedantic objection to this footnote is that it lacks a ceiling. Thus my suggested 2017 revision is: > > "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior (but not ridiculous) for the class of player involved.? Until recently that footnote included the words ?but not irrational?, but, for some reason I fail to understand, it was deemed to be too confusing and removed. I?d vote to restore the old language that included it. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From sven at svenpran.net Tue Aug 2 17:27:59 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:27:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Drawing Trump In-Reply-To: <0FFDC7BF-EA26-46D3-A2C1-FF6128D03BC6@verizon.net> References: <0FFDC7BF-EA26-46D3-A2C1-FF6128D03BC6@verizon.net> Message-ID: <000001d1ecd2$765e64c0$631b2e40$@svenpran.net> Eric Landau [...] > > So the Director ruled under Law 70C3 that the defence could not score its > trump with any "normal" play. The footnote defining "normal" states: > > > > "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be > careless or inferior for the class of player involved." > > > > My pedantic objection to this footnote is that it lacks a ceiling. Thus my > suggested 2017 revision is: > > > > "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be > careless or inferior (but not ridiculous) for the class of player involved.? > > Until recently that footnote included the words ?but not irrational?, but, for > some reason I fail to understand, it was deemed to be too confusing and > removed. I?d vote to restore the old language that included it. [Sven Pran] If the purpose of removing that clause from the footnote was to remove any "ceiling" then we might assume that instead of altering the footnote the laws would have been simplified by completely deleting the footnote and changing the word "normal" to "legal" wherever it appears in the affected laws. As such change was not made to the laws I infer that the clause "but not irrational" (or words to similar effect) was considered superfluous so that "normal play" should still not include irrational or ridiculous plays (or whatever they would be called). From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 2 19:37:31 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:37:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <57A0417D.30103@skynet.be> References: <30fc3a15-2a80-23a8-e736-b88336cef9de@kpnmail.nl> <579EDAB2.8030005@skynet.be> <000f01d1ebc9$1164af20$342e0d60$@svenpran.net> <579F1021.8040104@skynet.be> <001001d1ebdb$787c9210$6975b630$@svenpran.net> <579F618D.3060305@skynet.be> <34e30ae0-193a-6ffd-c74e-ba5003428f89@t-online.de> <57A0417D.30103@skynet.be> Message-ID: Am 02.08.2016 um 08:45 schrieb Herman De Wael: > > It's not the sentiment I have a problem with, it's the argument that > Sven uses. > What he's saying boils down to this: > > "Yes, I notice that to people are treated differently, but they should > not worry, because according to the definitions, the second one did not > recieve a penalty." > > Well, that's a faulty argument. Because I'm not discussing whether > there's a penalty or not, but whether one pair has been treated unfairly. > > OTOH, you are saying, "That's the laws folks, deal with it." > Which is also a valid point, but not against my argument, which is "the > law is bad and should be changed." > > See what I'm getting at? > When we're discussing whether a law is fair or not, and whether or not > it should be changed, there's no use saying "the law's the law and > that's that." > > Herman. > So something happens. I get A-. Against Meckwell. Unfair? I get A+. Today was the first time I saw someone score exactly 0 %. Not on one board, not on one round, several rounds. OK, they got better (not so difficult...). So I get A+ against them. Fair? Unfair? How is anyone going to evaluate what percentage should be handed out? Solution 1: We spend a terrible amount of money to develop a program which says what score we should receive. The program will not be perfect. Mathematicians have shown that a perfect method cannot be attained..... Solution 2: We give what today is A+ or A-. If you can show me where fairness lives and how it has to fed we can talk again. There is no use discussing an abstract concept and hope to come to a solution which will be accepted by everyone. There is no such animal. So we can do complex things and have people argue, complain, moan and say they were treated unfairly, or we can take the route a club TD can handle and be done with it. Since no two people have the same idea about fairness we cannot let that influence us. That way madness lies, but not success. From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Wed Aug 3 06:53:35 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 00:53:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <612DF751-0977-4C80-BCA6-9B43ED4B4E46@wesleyan.edu> Three comments: 1. I think you misspelled the name of this type of movement on the dubious theory that it?s named after the guy who invented it. The proper spelling is ?Howl,? after the sound the NS players make when they realize most of them aren?t stationary. 2. The director can minimize the chance of boards going astray by telling the players to move boards down a table and carefully supervising at least the first couple changes. 3. The fairest way to handle the situation in question (moving pairs X and Y play a board that X already played against W and Y is scheduled to play later against Z) is to score the board as not played by Y and average-plus for Z and give X and Y a procedural penalty of 10% of a top or 3 IMPs (the difference between average and average-minus). If you?re looking for legal justification for a score of ?not played,? try 82B2. Tim From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Aug 3 09:36:09 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:36:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity - some questions In-Reply-To: <612DF751-0977-4C80-BCA6-9B43ED4B4E46@wesleyan.edu> References: <612DF751-0977-4C80-BCA6-9B43ED4B4E46@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <3affce25-e097-7204-791c-02993a1b9f30@t-online.de> One comment: Am 03.08.2016 um 06:53 schrieb Timothy N. Hill: > Three comments: > > 1. I think you misspelled the name of this type of movement on the dubious theory that it?s named after the guy who invented it. The proper spelling is ?Howl,? after the sound the NS players make when they realize most of them aren?t stationary. > > 2. The director can minimize the chance of boards going astray by telling the players to move boards down a table and carefully supervising at least the first couple changes. This is true, and the way to go with duplicated boards, but at a club with no duplicating machine you would shuffle and deal for several rounds, which holds up the game no end, even if you can protocol the distributions by Bridgemate, and not every club has them. > > 3. The fairest way to handle the situation in question (moving pairs X and Y play a board that X already played against W and Y is scheduled to play later against Z) is to score the board as not played by Y and average-plus for Z and give X and Y a procedural penalty of 10% of a top or 3 IMPs (the difference between average and average-minus). If you?re looking for legal justification for a score of ?not played,? try 82B2. > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Wed Aug 3 14:16:26 2016 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:16:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions Message-ID: Thanks for the input; much more than I had expected. An attempt to summarise: There seems to be universal agreement that there is at least a formal distinction between penalty and rectification. But that doesn't really address the central question of the original posting. I attempted to avoid the word "penalty" by using "sanctions" as much as possible. Although all seem to agree that both pairs were equally at fault (and leaving the question of a p.p. aside since it would be the same for both) the situation of the pairs differs. One had already played the bds. (and thus had a legitimate result) - the other hadn't and was scheduled to play the bds. later. Thus there was nothing to rectify for one of the pairs but the other pair would have to be assessed an artificial score on such bds. The general agreement seems to be that it should be A- (40%). The present laws seem to be clear about this and, although it seems, in a certain sense, unfair to handle the pairs differently there would seem to be no alternative. This was the action of the colleague in Berlin as well. Theoretically, at least, it would be satisfying to have the pairs (both) treated in the same way but I see no way to do this and, in fact, can think of no way this could be done in an altered version of the laws. Again, thanks for our postings, Jeff Easterson From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Wed Aug 3 15:40:20 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:40:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> On Aug 3, 2016, at 08:16, Jeff Easterson wrote: > ... One had already played the > boards. (and thus had a legitimate result) - the other hadn't and was > scheduled to play the bds. later. Thus there was nothing to rectify for > one of the pairs but the other pair would have to be assessed an > artificial score on such bds. The general agreement seems to be that it > should be A- (40%). ... I don't agree. Cancel the play of the board by the latter pair (82B2), giving them a score of "not played." (Also give both pairs who played the wrong board the same procedural penalty--1/10 of a top or 3 IMPs seems right.) Tim From sven at svenpran.net Wed Aug 3 15:53:05 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:53:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1ed8e$5eb0d080$1c127180$@svenpran.net> Jeff Easterson > Thanks for the input; much more than I had expected. [Sven Pran] What must be remembered is that the laws seldom (if ever) address just one specific circumstance but must cater for most (all?) possible relevant situations. When two pairs play a board not scheduled for them in a particular round the possible circumstances include: Neither, one or both pair(s) is/are fully, partially or not at all at fault. (6 different possibilities) Neither, one or both pair(s) has/have already played that board earlier during the event according to schedule or contrary to schedule. (6 different possibilities) Neither, one or both pair(s) is/are not scheduled to play that board at all during the event (for instance because of a scheduled sit-out). (3 different possibilities) The two pairs manage or do not manage to play the board that was scheduled for them. (2 different possibilities) As these possibilities do not appear to me as being mutually exclusive this means that we have a total of 216 different possibilities to be catered for. I think we must accept that adapting specialized rectifications for each of these possibilities can only result in too complicated and useless laws. My experience is that the existing laws are quite satisfactory here. From sven at svenpran.net Wed Aug 3 16:05:51 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:05:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> > Timothy N. Hill > I don't agree. Cancel the play of the board by the latter pair (82B2), giving them a > score of "not played." (Also give both pairs who played the wrong board the > same procedural penalty--1/10 of a top or 3 IMPs seems right.) [Sven Pran] I don't know what rules you have for scoring "not played", but the laws require awarding an artificial adjusted score unless the board is (correctly) played at a later time or is not scheduled to be played at all. Your suggestion has one major flaw: An adjusted score has impact on all other scores in the field, a procedural penalty has not. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 3 16:13:43 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:13:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55f30b66-7316-6593-83b2-9cdf747d094a@nhcc.net> On 2016-08-03 8:16 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > The general agreement seems to be that it should be A- (40%). Please register one dissent to that. This looks like a perfect case of "partly at fault" because both pairs contributed to the problem. I don't understand the reasoning for avg- at all. For the pp, if more than one board was involved, I'd tend to give a larger pp to anyone who had played the boards before. They should have noticed the problem at latest when they tried to write a result for the first board in their private score. This is a minor detail, though. From tciacio at unit547.org Wed Aug 3 16:22:16 2016 From: tciacio at unit547.org (Tom Ciacio) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:22:16 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <72ADF15EC212462CA1ECF5B5C17E8C3C@tomlaptop> More precisely, the unplayable board affects the rest of the field. Once the board is rendered unplayable, the rest of the field is scored without that entry and the scores are factored up (Neuberg formula in ACBL-land). After that, it does not matter what the artificial adjusted score was, the process remains the same for the rest of the field. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 7:05 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity, some questions ... Your suggestion has one major flaw: An adjusted score has impact on all other scores in the field, a procedural penalty has not. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 3 16:29:11 2016 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:29:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <999835A2-D19C-4758-8768-2BF5858B2D5B@btopenworld.com> Would it not be possible to give a PP only to one side, for the unusual offence of playing the bird twice? > On 3 Aug 2016, at 13:16, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > Thanks for the input; much more than I had expected. > > An attempt to summarise: > > There seems to be universal agreement that there is at least a formal > distinction between penalty and rectification. But that doesn't really > address the central question of the original posting. I attempted to > avoid the word "penalty" by using "sanctions" as much as possible. > Although all seem to agree that both pairs were equally at fault (and > leaving the question of a p.p. aside since it would be the same for > both) the situation of the pairs differs. One had already played the > bds. (and thus had a legitimate result) - the other hadn't and was > scheduled to play the bds. later. Thus there was nothing to rectify for > one of the pairs but the other pair would have to be assessed an > artificial score on such bds. The general agreement seems to be that it > should be A- (40%). The present laws seem to be clear about this and, > although it seems, in a certain sense, unfair to handle the pairs > differently there would seem to be no alternative. This was the action > of the colleague in Berlin as well. Theoretically, at least, it would > be satisfying to have the pairs (both) treated in the same way but I see > no way to do this and, in fact, can think of no way this could be done > in an altered version of the laws. > > Again, thanks for our postings, Jeff Easterson > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sven at svenpran.net Wed Aug 3 16:52:09 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:52:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <999835A2-D19C-4758-8768-2BF5858B2D5B@btopenworld.com> References: <999835A2-D19C-4758-8768-2BF5858B2D5B@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <000201d1ed96$9f166f60$dd434e20$@svenpran.net> > Stefanie Rohan > Would it not be possible to give a PP only to one side, for the unusual offence of > playing the bird twice? [Sven Pran] Possible, true - but hardly justified nor fair. Procedure penalties are mostly justified against players who deliberately or repeatedly violate Laws 74 or 90B. It is not that unusual to play a board more than once, particularly not if you have a different hand the second time. (What really was unusual was once I had to score a traveler showing that the same pair had played the same board four times with four different results! That of course called for a laugh and not for PP in addition to all the AVE- scores.) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Aug 3 19:47:15 2016 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 19:47:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <000001d1ed8e$5eb0d080$1c127180$@svenpran.net> References: <000001d1ed8e$5eb0d080$1c127180$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <1796261443.4376243.1470246435596.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Sven Pran" > ?: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Envoy?: Mercredi 3 Ao?t 2016 15:53:05 > Objet: Re: [BLML] Equity, some questions > Jeff Easterson > > Thanks for the input; much more than I had expected. > [Sven Pran] > What must be remembered is that the laws seldom (if ever) address just one > specific circumstance but must cater for most (all?) possible relevant > situations. > When two pairs play a board not scheduled for them in a particular round the > possible circumstances include: > Neither, one or both pair(s) is/are fully, partially or not at all at fault. > (6 different possibilities) > Neither, one or both pair(s) has/have already played that board earlier > during the event according to schedule or contrary to schedule. (6 different > possibilities) > Neither, one or both pair(s) is/are not scheduled to play that board at all > during the event (for instance because of a scheduled sit-out). (3 different > possibilities) > The two pairs manage or do not manage to play the board that was scheduled > for them. (2 different possibilities) > As these possibilities do not appear to me as being mutually exclusive this > means that we have a total of 216 different possibilities to be catered for. i would be surprised if it happened that a movement requested that a pair who had already played that board earlier according to schedule were not scheduled to play it at all during the event. jpr > I think we must accept that adapting specialized rectifications for each of > these possibilities can only result in too complicated and useless laws. My > experience is that the existing laws are quite satisfactory here. -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/BP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160803/f1e034c5/attachment.html From sven at svenpran.net Wed Aug 3 20:55:36 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 20:55:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <1796261443.4376243.1470246435596.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> References: <000001d1ed8e$5eb0d080$1c127180$@svenpran.net> <1796261443.4376243.1470246435596.JavaMail.root@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000901d1edb8$a17b41f0$e471c5d0$@svenpran.net> ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre I would be surprised if it happened that a movement requested that a pair who had already played that board earlier according to schedule were not scheduled to play it at all during the event. So would indeed also I, but that is not the point; the point is that laws must be written to cater for every possibility. There is a distinct possibility that a pair in an early round (incorrectly) plays a particular board which is not scheduled to be played by that pair at all, for instance because of a scheduled sitout sometime during the event. It is also possible that the same pair (again incorrectly) plays that same board during another round. It would be extremely impractical to have a specific law just for that possibility (and for every other of the 216 possibilities). Fortunately the laws are written in such a way that we don't need to worry about all these extreme possibilities, they are all taken care of in a satisfactory way by the existing laws. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 3 22:35:44 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 22:35:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <57A255A0.2050004@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> Timothy N. Hill >> I don't agree. Cancel the play of the board by the latter pair (82B2), > giving them a >> score of "not played." (Also give both pairs who played the wrong board > the >> same procedural penalty--1/10 of a top or 3 IMPs seems right.) > > [Sven Pran] > I don't know what rules you have for scoring "not played", but the laws > require awarding an artificial adjusted score unless the board is > (correctly) played at a later time or is not scheduled to be played at all. > > Your suggestion has one major flaw: > An adjusted score has impact on all other scores in the field, a procedural > penalty has not. NO, there is no such difference. An (artificail) adjusted score does not affect any other score, since those will be Neubergized regardless of whether the adjustment is via an average or as a non-played. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12738 - Release Date: 08/03/16 > > From sven at svenpran.net Wed Aug 3 22:46:58 2016 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 22:46:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <57A255A0.2050004@skynet.be> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> <57A255A0.2050004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01d1edc8$305f7760$911e6620$@svenpran.net> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> Timothy N. Hill > >> I don't agree. Cancel the play of the board by the latter pair > >> (82B2), > > giving them a > >> score of "not played." (Also give both pairs who played the wrong > >> board > > the > >> same procedural penalty--1/10 of a top or 3 IMPs seems right.) > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I don't know what rules you have for scoring "not played", but the > > laws require awarding an artificial adjusted score unless the board is > > (correctly) played at a later time or is not scheduled to be played at all. > > > > Your suggestion has one major flaw: > > An adjusted score has impact on all other scores in the field, a > > procedural penalty has not. > > NO, there is no such difference. > An (artificail) adjusted score does not affect any other score, since those will be > Neubergized regardless of whether the adjustment is via an average or as a non- > played. [Sven Pran] There is indeed. A penalty will not change any score, only the total for only the penalized contestant. Neuberg will change every score on the affected board. The (incorrect) effect is apparent if the Director uses a penalty to compensate for an (in his opinion) unfair rectification. From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Thu Aug 4 05:40:24 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:40:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> <8BF7BD7A-C71F-46E7-9F0C-071E7C6C8A77@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: On 2016 Jul 24, at 07:25, Richard Hills wrote: > Timothy N. Hill suggested, in part: > >> .....If there is a logical alternative, then a player must not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information from his partner..... > > > Richard Hills: > > My further suggestion is to make Tim's proposed sentence more generally applicable, by deleting "from his partner?. ? That doesn?t work. ?Extraneous Information from Other Sources? (16C) does not and should not tie a player?s hands in the same way that ?Extraneous Information from Partner? (16B) does. Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160804/d5796721/attachment.html From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Thu Aug 4 06:29:41 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 00:29:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <09AC7D28-A5AE-43DA-B85B-22C8FADB667F@wesleyan.edu> On 2016 Aug 3, at 10:05, Sven Pran wrote: > ... I don't know what rules you have for scoring "not played", but the laws require awarding an artificial adjusted score unless the board is (correctly) played at a later time or is not scheduled to be played at all. ... Sven, Law 82B explicitly allows the Director to ?cancel the play of a board? (i.e., score it as ?not played?) rather than award an adjusted score. To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: 1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws. 2. require, postpone or cancel the play of a board. 3. exercise any other power given to him in these Laws. So I still think, as I originally wrote, > The fairest way to handle the situation in question (moving pairs X and Y play a board that X already played against W and Y is scheduled to play later against Z) is to score the board as not played by Y (see 82B2) > and average-plus for Z (see 15B and 12C2) > and give X and Y a procedural penalty (see 90B7) > of 10% of a top or 3 IMPs (the difference between average and average-minus). Tim From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Thu Aug 4 06:41:07 2016 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 00:41:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Drawing Trump In-Reply-To: <0FFDC7BF-EA26-46D3-A2C1-FF6128D03BC6@verizon.net> References: <0FFDC7BF-EA26-46D3-A2C1-FF6128D03BC6@verizon.net> Message-ID: On 2016 Aug 2, at 10:13, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 1, 2016, at 11:56 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > >> ... My pedantic objection to this footnote is that it lacks a ceiling. Thus my suggested 2017 revision is: >> >> "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior (but not ridiculous) for the class of player involved.? > > Until recently that footnote included the words ?but not irrational?, but, for some reason I fail to understand, it was deemed to be too confusing and removed. I?d vote to restore the old language that included it. Hear, hear! Note that the phrase ?unless ... irrational? is still in 70E1. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 4 09:50:36 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:50:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <000b01d1edc8$305f7760$911e6620$@svenpran.net> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> <57A255A0.2050004@skynet.be> <000b01d1edc8$305f7760$911e6620$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <57A2F3CC.6000008@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> Timothy N. Hill >>>> I don't agree. Cancel the play of the board by the latter pair >>>> (82B2), >>> giving them a >>>> score of "not played." (Also give both pairs who played the wrong >>>> board >>> the >>>> same procedural penalty--1/10 of a top or 3 IMPs seems right.) >>> >>> [Sven Pran] >>> I don't know what rules you have for scoring "not played", but the >>> laws require awarding an artificial adjusted score unless the board is >>> (correctly) played at a later time or is not scheduled to be played at > all. >>> >>> Your suggestion has one major flaw: >>> An adjusted score has impact on all other scores in the field, a >>> procedural penalty has not. >> >> NO, there is no such difference. >> An (artificail) adjusted score does not affect any other score, since > those will be >> Neubergized regardless of whether the adjustment is via an average or as a > non- >> played. > > [Sven Pran] > There is indeed. > A penalty will not change any score, only the total for only the penalized > contestant. > Neuberg will change every score on the affected board. > Yes indeed, but since the board will not be played whatever we do, the scores for all other contestants will remain the same whether we award Av- or no score. > The (incorrect) effect is apparent if the Director uses a penalty to > compensate for an (in his opinion) unfair rectification. Whatever that may mean. Herman From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 4 09:54:37 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:54:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <09AC7D28-A5AE-43DA-B85B-22C8FADB667F@wesleyan.edu> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> <09AC7D28-A5AE-43DA-B85B-22C8FADB667F@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <57A2F4BD.3040209@skynet.be> Timothy N. Hill wrote: > On 2016 Aug 3, at 10:05, Sven Pran wrote: > >> ... I don't know what rules you have for scoring "not played", but the laws require awarding an artificial adjusted score unless the board is (correctly) played at a later time or is not scheduled to be played at all. ... > > Sven, Law 82B explicitly allows the Director to ?cancel the play of a board? (i.e., score it as ?not played?) rather than award an adjusted score. > > To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: > 1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws. > 2. require, postpone or cancel the play of a board. > 3. exercise any other power given to him in these Laws. > > So I still think, as I originally wrote, >> The fairest way to handle the situation in question (moving pairs X and Y play a board that X already played against W and Y is scheduled to play later against Z) is to score the board as not played by Y > (see 82B2) >> and average-plus for Z > (see 15B and 12C2) >> and give X and Y a procedural penalty > (see 90B7) >> of 10% of a top or 3 IMPs (the difference between average and average-minus). > > > Tim This begs a more complete question: When should we award Av+, Av-, or no score at all. Given todays computer systems, there is no reason whatsoever to do one or the other. Within one session, the result is that "no score" does not affect the pair's average, while Av+ and Av- influence it positively or negatively, but by different amounts for different pairs. A top pair scoring Av- will suffer more than an average one. Perhaps we should define Av+ as average plus 10%? Herman. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Aug 4 10:06:24 2016 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:06:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <57A2F4BD.3040209@skynet.be> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> <09AC7D28-A5AE-43DA-B85B-22C8FADB667F@wesleyan.edu> <57A2F4BD.3040209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9121ee78-1484-0d85-1827-3f595250c154@t-online.de> Am 04.08.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Herman De Wael: > This begs a more complete question: > > When should we award Av+, Av-, or no score at all. > Given todays computer systems, there is no reason whatsoever to do one > or the other. > Within one session, the result is that "no score" does not affect the > pair's average, while Av+ and Av- influence it positively or negatively, > but by different amounts for different pairs. A top pair scoring Av- > will suffer more than an average one. > > Perhaps we should define Av+ as average plus 10%? If we did that, what would happen in the admittedly unrealistic case of someone scoring 95%? And, since A- would have to be average - 10%, why should someone with a high score still get a score much better than an average or bad pair, for the same offence? One offender receives 60%, the other 30? I don`t care whether they lose the same amount relative to their average. You can`t sell that to anybody, ever. What, he gets a better score when he acted as stupid as I did?? I do not think your idea is bad, but "unpopular" would be a very diplomatic description.... > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 4 11:54:23 2016 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:54:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <9121ee78-1484-0d85-1827-3f595250c154@t-online.de> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> <09AC7D28-A5AE-43DA-B85B-22C8FADB667F@wesleyan.edu> <57A2F4BD.3040209@skynet.be> <9121ee78-1484-0d85-1827-3f595250c154@t-online.de> Message-ID: <57A310CF.2000905@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 04.08.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Herman De Wael: >> This begs a more complete question: >> >> When should we award Av+, Av-, or no score at all. >> Given todays computer systems, there is no reason whatsoever to do one >> or the other. >> Within one session, the result is that "no score" does not affect the >> pair's average, while Av+ and Av- influence it positively or negatively, >> but by different amounts for different pairs. A top pair scoring Av- >> will suffer more than an average one. >> >> Perhaps we should define Av+ as average plus 10%? > > If we did that, what would happen in the admittedly unrealistic case of > someone scoring 95%? And, since A- would have to be average - 10%, why > should someone with a high score still get a score much better than an > average or bad pair, for the same offence? One offender receives 60%, > the other 30? I don`t care whether they lose the same amount relative to > their average. You can`t sell that to anybody, ever. What, he gets a > better score when he acted as stupid as I did?? I do not think your idea > is bad, but "unpopular" would be a very diplomatic description.... > Except that, of course, no one ould realize this. When I say that "no score" is equal to his own average, it is just to compare it to the alternative of a 40% score, or a 60% one. When we actually award "no score" at the table, no one will compare that to anything. They have simply played one board less. Herman. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Aug 10 19:18:15 2016 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 13:18:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Equity, some questions In-Reply-To: <57A2F4BD.3040209@skynet.be> References: <8A80CED5-30BB-41BC-AB53-124DF4B176B4@wesleyan.edu> <000101d1ed90$269ecd30$73dc6790$@svenpran.net> <09AC7D28-A5AE-43DA-B85B-22C8FADB667F@wesleyan.edu> <57A2F4BD.3040209@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 2016-08-04 3:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Perhaps we should define Av+ as average plus 10%? More generally, you can think of artificial scores as an "expectation" and a "bonus." The expectation is some guess at what each contestant would have scored if the board had been played. If you know nothing else, it is average matchpoints or zero IMPs. If the contestants have played other boards, you could make a better guess. For example, if a pair who otherwise scores 65% plays against a 50% pair, the best guess is, I think, something like 65-35. I may have that wrong, but presumably someone could work out the proper formula. In fact I think I've even seen it somewhere, perhaps from Henry Bethe. The bonus (negative for a contestant at fault) is to allow for the chance the contestant would have done unusually well on the unplayed board. If there are multiple boards with artificial scores, the bonus should be the value for one board times *the square root* of the number of boards on which the contestant receives artificial scores. That's because the bonus should be related to swings across all boards added together, not each board individually. Right now, the Laws don't separate these concepts. They make a modest allowance for expectation in that avg+ can be no less than a contestant's score on other boards, but if that comes into play, the bonus goes away. This "rough and ready" approach is OK for a board or even two, but it gets worse the more unplayable boards there are. From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Aug 15 17:39:14 2016 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:39:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Sorry for starting this old thread again: I think another difficult part is "suggested over another" Suppose you make a poll: In absence of UI 32% of the players vote for choosing A, 33% for B and 34% for C. Given the UI 0% vote A, 45% B, 55% C. None of the LAs has been suggested over another by the UI so choosing B or C is OK?. What about: ...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that demonstrably became more attractive by the UI. Greetings, Volker Am 12.07.2016 um 18:44 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > Current: > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > Proposed: > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably > have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless > there is no logical alternative. > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther > wrote: > > Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > > > > wrote: > > > >> Current wording: > >> > >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that > >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a > >> reply > >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > >> unmistakable > >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, > movement, or > >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical > alternatives one > >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > >> extraneous > >> information. > >> > >> > >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed > >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the > >> current > >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or > >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that > >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it > incorporated > >> into the 2017 laws. > > > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not > select the > > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or > less > > suggested) by the extraneous information. > > > > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". > Recently I had the following case: > Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. > (West had preempted with 3H). > South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. > North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. > > We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from > this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. > > Greetings, Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Volker Walther From adam at tameware.com Tue Aug 16 05:40:13 2016 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 23:40:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Volker, I don't understand the problem in your example ? can you elaborate? I like the idea of clarifying this further, but I'm not sure your wording does that. The problem I see is that the UI could make an action more strongly attractive than it would have been otherwise, but the action could still be a standout. Suppose an action rates to win 5 IMPs with no UI and the UI makes it likely to win 10 IMPs. It's more attractive, but that's not enough to persuade us to adjust the score. It must have been made relatively more attractive compared to some other logical action. That persuades me that we must keep the "unless there is no logical alternative" as a safe harbor. I remain to be convinced whether "suggested over another" is potentially confusing or even harmful. TDs and ACs do not seem to have had much trouble with that part of the current version. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Volker Walther wrote: > Sorry for starting this old thread again: > > I think another difficult part is "suggested over another" > > Suppose you make a poll: > In absence of UI 32% of the players vote for choosing A, 33% for B and > 34% for C. > Given the UI 0% vote A, 45% B, 55% C. > > None of the LAs has been suggested over another by the UI so choosing B > or C is OK?. > > What about: > ...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > demonstrably became more attractive by the UI. > > Greetings, Volker > > > > > > > Am 12.07.2016 um 18:44 schrieb Adam Wildavsky: > > Here's what the WBF LC is now considering: > > > > Current: > > > > ?, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > > information. > > > > Proposed: > > > > ?, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably > > have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless > > there is no logical alternative. > > > > Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest? > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther > > wrote: > > > > Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > > > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Current wording: > > >> > > >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > > information that > > >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a > question, a > > >> reply > > >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > > >> unmistakable > > >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, > > movement, or > > >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical > > alternatives one > > >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > > >> extraneous > > >> information. > > >> > > >> > > >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a > proposed > > >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain > the > > >> current > > >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a > pointer, or > > >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something > that > > >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it > > incorporated > > >> into the 2017 laws. > > > > > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > > > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not > > select the > > > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or > > less > > > suggested) by the extraneous information. > > > > > > > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". > > Recently I had the following case: > > Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. > > (West had preempted with 3H). > > South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. > > North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. > > > > We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from > > this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. > > > > Greetings, Volker Walther > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > -- > Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160816/985579e7/attachment.html