[BLML] Agreed draw? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Wed Nov 14 03:53:06 CET 2012


Jeff Easterson, November 2012:

>>Finally someone (in this case Peter) noticed §72A.
>>It was about time. I assume Richard will also quote
>>this law. Ciao, JE

WBF Laws Committee, October 2010:

14. With reference to Law 72A the subject of so-
termed ‘dumping’ was discussed. It was agreed this is
a matter belonging to regulations. It was noted that
there exist widely diverging opinions on the subject;
the WBF asserts that players must play to win “at all
times and in all circumstances”, reports suggest that
the ACBL calls upon players to play to win every board,
the English Bridge Union finds no objection to players
who try to lose a match with the object of having the
best chance of winning the event, and others have
advocated that the object should always be to win a
session or a match (which it is believed is the
substance of the WBF stance.) It was observed that a
side that believes it has the upper hand in a match must
surely be within its rights if its aim is to avoid swings.

Eric Landau, May 2004:

[snip]
>IMO, playing to lose "the part" in order to increase
>one's chances of winning "the whole" (whatever
>those are) should not be considered illegal dumping.
>Indeed, cannot be, when the conditions are such
>that you must "play to lose" one or the other.

Richard Hills, May 2004:

Yes and No.

This Eric Landau/Edgar Kaplan/EBU view has some
validity when discussing a winner-take-all event, such
as the Bermuda Bowl. But this view runs into
difficulties when considering the possible outcomes
of a typical matchpoint pairs Mitchell movement
session (without an arrow-switch), which has *two*
winning pairs, both North-South and East-West.

For example ->

1. An astute professional was commencing a
matchpoint pairs session with a beginner client.

2. The beginner client admitted that they were
petrified with nervousness, fearing that they would
make too many mistakes. The beginner client was
also petrified about their petrification, since the
beginner client knew that they made more mistakes
than usual when petrified.

3. On the very first board, the astute pro perpetrated a
non-logical alternative of a ridiculous vulnerable
overcall.

4. The astute pro moaned, "Oh no, what have I done?"

5. Prompted by the astute pro's moaning, the
opponents doubled.

6. The astute pro accidentally dropped a trick in the
play, turning a sure -800 bottom into a more
spectacular -1100 bottom.

7. After the board, the astute pro apologised to the
petrified beginner client, "Sorry pard. After that sure
bottom, we have no chance of winning the session
now."

8.  With the pressure off, the beginner client was
relaxed for the remainder of the session, played to the
best of their ability, and so committed only routine
idiocies. As a result, the astute pro was able to carry
their beginner client to a North-South victory.

9.  Meanwhile, the astute pro's first round opponents
gained an unexpected East-West victory by one
matchpoint, due to their first board top.

Richard Hills, November 2012:

As a Director of a WBF walk-in pairs session, would
you rule the astute pro's actions Lawful or unLawful,
given "the substance of the WBF stance" on the
application of Law 72A is that it is not infracted when
the astute pro strives to "win a session"???

Best wishes,

R.J.B. Hills

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121114/8285a124/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list