[BLML] WBF minutes Oct 5 Item 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr
Fri Nov 26 09:24:22 CET 2010
richard.hills at immi.gov.au a écrit :
> Robert Morley (1908-1992), English actor:
> "The French are a logical people, which is one reason why
> the English dislike them so intensely. The other is that
> they own France, a country we have always judged to be too
> good for them."
> Hans van Staveren, a logical person (but not French):
>>> This is an interesting observation, however it has little
>>> practical value to the Cheat.
> Richard Hills, an English monoglot (but not English):
> Infrequent, yes. Impractical, no. "The Probst cheat" is
> merely going for an illegal version of the standard strategy
> of trying for a swing when behind on the last board.
> Hans van Staveren:
>>> To gain from this he has to have a more than 50% chance of
>>> his opponents revoking, else the loss is his, since if
>>> they do not revoke the 6S-1 score stands. It seems to me
>>> unlikely that a pair that revokes more than half the
>>> boards can be in contention for first place.
> Richard Hills:
> A misreading of the problem. No matter what happens on the
> last board "the Probst cheat" is assured of at least second
> place. If "the Probst cheat" legally stops in game, they
> will be a distant second (+450 without a revoke) or a close
> second (+480 with a revoke). The only hope for "the Probst
> cheat" to get first place is to illegally bid slam, luckily
> get a revoke, and get a WBF LC split score of +450 to them
> and -980 to the other side.
i fail to see logic in the premise: we have a player who has a wire
telling him to illegaly call a slam and in the same time he knows the
slam is hopeless. how can it be that UI is so contradictory? with
illogical premise, it's not a surprise that application of laws may be
problematic. impossible problems leading to stupid solutions is quite
> In short, it is a chance to nothing for "the Probst cheat"
> to intentionally infract the Laws by bidding a hopeless
> slam hoping for a revoke or other serious error.
> Marvin French, a logical person (but not French):
>> The issue is the cost of self-inflicted damage by the NOS
>> in this and similar cases.
>> Is it
>> (1) the 30 points that the revoke cost, or
>> (2) 980 + 50 = 1030 points for letting the slam make
>> because of a revoke when it was easily down one.
>> If (1), the NOS adjusted score is -450 plus -30 = -480.
>> If (2), no redress because the self-inflicted damage
>> exceeds the normal amount of compensation.
>> So BLML, which is it, (1) or (2)?
> Richard Hills:
> There are actually three options.
> X) +450 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the "WBF LC
> minutes 5th October item 5" rectifying option.
> Y) -50 for the OS, -480 for the NOS, which is "the Probst
> cheat" rectifying option a la the WBF Code of Practice.
> Note that no matter how Law 12C1(b) is interpreted, the
> application of Law 12C1(b) necessarily requires the OS and
> the NOS to be awarded split scores.
> Z) +980 for the OS, -980 for the NOS, which is the ACBL
> "can't be bothered to read the new Lawbook" error.
> Best wishes
> Richard Hills
> Work Experience coordinator
> Recruitment Section, Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569
> Phone: 6223 8453
> DIAC Social Club movie tickets
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
More information about the Blml