Re: Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law16Bb1(a))

 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn mobiel

> Op 19 jul. 2016 om 11:43 heeft Gordon Rainsford <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure.
>  
> Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU’s is here) and it’s part of a TD’s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel’s suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement.
>  
> Gordon Rainsford
>  
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>  
> From: Adam Wildavsky
> Sent: 18 July 2016 00:36
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Polling procedure (was: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law16Bb1(a))
>  
> 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. 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