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

I agree that polling should be individual. I learned from William
Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" that multiple opinions are most useful
when they are formed independently.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Richard Hills <[email protected]>
wrote:

> 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]> 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]
>> +447578626916
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>

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