[BLML] quick check

Matthias Berghaus Ziffbridge at t-online.de
Wed Mar 2 20:17:08 CET 2016


Am 02.03.2016 um 18:07 schrieb r pewick:
> Trick  — the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined,
> composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in
> rotation, beginning with the lead.
>
> To put a better point on it:
>
> When a trick is flawed it is still a trick.

Says who? As Gordon remarked, flawed and defective are synonyms. Good 
enough for me. OTOH, a former president of the US wanted a definition of 
"is"....

>
> And as there is no definition of defective trick, therefore there is no
> trick that is a defective trick.
>
> regards
> roger pewick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Berghaus
> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 7:00 AM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check
>
> During the Prague TD course I noticed that there is no definition of
> "defective". So I gave the matter some additional thought. There is a
> definition of "trick", and abovementioned thought led me to believe that
> any trick not conforming to said definition is defective. Seems good
> enough for me, I could not come up with any situation where a group of
> played cards conforming with the definition of trick could be deemed
> defective. If you find one, please tell me - or rather: the list.
>
> Am 29.02.2016 um 21:18 schrieb r pewick:
>> Some years ago I noticed that David Burn claimed that he knew what a
>> defective trick was.  I happened to know that he did not, namely because
>> nobody knows what a defective trick is- myself included.  And, because it
>> was my nature I claimed he did not.  Discourse ensued during which he
>> proved
>> he did not know; and as things go it is very unlikely that we will
>> discourse
>> in the future.  The point of the anecdote is that nowhere in the law does
>> it
>> describe or otherwise define exactly what a defective trick is [notably,
>> the
>> law merely speaks to when a defective trick exists].  And, without a
>> concrete definition, no one can recognize a defective trick and tell what
>> basis he knows it is a defective trick.
>>
>> In my view, creating a scheme of crime .....and punishment without
>> describing the crime so that perpetrators can recognize it, and the
>> offended
>> might recognize it, and that the police will recognize it- is a horrid
>> state
>> of affairs.
>>
>> This goes for not only defective tricks, but for a host of ill conceived
>> situations- such as this so-called business of restoring equity.  In fact,
>> the closest that the law comes to defining equity is found in L70B-E; and
>> if
>> ever there comes a time that they are applied as written [which by the way
>> they won't, so why put it in the book] there won't be many happy campers.
>> Let me tell you, in the bridge world there are a billion versions of what
>> equity is and it will take 2 billion pages of law book to write them down;
>> and it will take a long, long time to figure out which one to use.
>>
>> It's been pointed out that this restoring equity business is a principle.
>> Yes, it is good to have principles, but it is wise to make sure the
>> principles are good.
>>
>> I see all around me where people notice others breaking the rules and
>> because of this or that technicality they get reduced or no punishment-
>> and
>> then someone comes along that does not break rule X but instead breaks
>> rule
>> Y which is similar to X.  And he ruminates therefore rule Y ought to have
>> similar technicalities as X.
>>
>> Well, maybe the technicalities for X were dubious if not totally unfair to
>> begin with.  Take the L25A regulations that are so popular where 'pause
>> for
>> thought', rather than beginning within say, a quarter of  second from the
>> start of lifting the bidding cards, has been extended to until whenever
>> the
>> player SAYS it begins.  That is a license to take more than one action for
>> one turn.   Talk about equity; in my opinion it would be a horrible thing
>> if
>> I expressed what I thought about it- and I'll leave it there.
>>
>> regards
>> roger pewick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: agot
>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:07 AM
>> To: blml at rtflb.org
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] quick check
>>
>> Le 27.02.2016 18:30, r pewick a écrit :
>>
>>> My view is that the Prague plan encourages foolish behavior <snip>
>> Right, but many times has it been said on blml that the biggest chunk of
>> the laws are there mainly to restore equity in the case of accidental
>> errors, not to handle purposely illegal behaviour.
>>
>> Can't this principle be at work here ? It is usually possible to sense
>> that the pulling was unintended.
>>
>> Also, it would seem strange to some, including Yours Truly, that if you
>> unintendedly revoke you can correct your play in time while if you
>> unintendedly play a non-revoke card you can't.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>     Alain
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml



More information about the Blml mailing list