Fwd: Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a))

I disagree with the ACBL Polling Technique's implicit endorsement of
polling several people at the same time. A clarifying question by one
person polled could well bias the decision-making process of other persons
polled.

The (now gravely ill) Chief Director of Australia on one occasion polled
only one player, because that player's reasoning was definitive. On another
occasion the CTD polled zero players, because the use-of-UI was egregious.

The egregious infraction was this: Both sides had been competing in the red
suits. Over one side's 4H the other side bid 5D. The player in question
passed RHO's 5D, showing some willingness to defend. The player's partner
doubled 5D for penalty, confirming the decision to defend. Unfortunately
the penalty double was hesitant, demonstrably suggesting removing. Hence
the player removed to 5H.

The complete deal was sufficiently freaky that both 5D and 5H were cold. So
the CTD had a clear cut decision to adjust the score to 5Dx +750.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Adam Wildavsky* <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, July 18, 2016
Subject: Re: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for
Law 16Bb1(a))
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>


Thanks for the good wishes!

As for the proposed polling procedure, I like it but I think it will
encounter difficulties in practice. The TD will not want to return to each
player he has polled for a second or third pass. He may not even be able to
find them.

I also like the ACBL’s Polling Technique
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pj4KenmNwUT6SETNbgQJBckQTVoT44a5FDkHg8Iri4g/edit?usp=sharing>.
Unfortunately, it’s not always followed.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie <[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:

> I applaud Adam’s attempt to clarify laws.
>
>
>
> The passive tense,  sophisticated wording (e.g. “demonstrably”),  the
> subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.” should”,
> “must”, “may”, “may not”), and indeterminate  fudging e.g. “could” combine
> to  undermine clarification attempts.
>
>
>
> UI rulings on *simple basic cases with agreed facts * split discussion
> groups down the middle, however,  so it’s obvious that drastic
> clarification is needed.
>
>
>
> I think rule-makers should *radically simplify* the rules of Bridge.
> .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical  terms,
> that players can understand.
>
>
>
> Below is my suggestion to explain  the UI decision process (FWIW – so far
> it has attracted ridicule)
>
>
> 1. The director asks pollees which options they consider.
> 2. The director collates suggested calls into a list.
> 3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list.
> 4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference.
> 5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it‘s AI.
> He asks them to re-order the list in that light
> 6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's
> chosen call ascends in the average rankings.
> 7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the
> basis of a thought-experiment.
>
>
>
> An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must
> wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds).
>
>
>
> Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it’s urgently needed.
>
>
>
> Regards, Nigel
> [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> +447578626916
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml