[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

ruling in Madison

Posted By: Gregg Cattanach
Date: Thursday, 10 September 2009, at 8:13 p.m.

In Response To: ruling in Madison (Matt Cohn-Geier)

GC: If 'legal plays' are instituted and my opponent makes an illegal play, and I don't correct it (because I didn't see it), then he realizes he made an illegal play, now he wants to get out his knife. Or alternately, kibitzers see me fail to correct his illegal play, they think I am a cheater.

MCG: I don't see why. I have seen people I believe to be totally honest make illegal plays which greatly increased their equity. I don't believe they are scoundrels just because they made a mistake.

So if the presumption is always innocence (under a 'legal plays' rule) when I fail to correct an illegal play, why should I bother correcting it at all?

GC: Part 2, it is completely uninforceable. There is no way to exact a penalty for failing to correct my opponent's illegal play.

MCG: The current rule does not give sufficient recourse to the truly injured, while punishing players who are honest. Honest players who make a mistake have to live with the opponent deciding whether or not to accept their illegal play. Those taking shots are never really punished since they at least break even with just making legal plays, and sometimes gain a large edge.

Non-responsive. Your point out possible issues with the current setup, but don't make any case for a 'legal plays' rule. Your argument suggests we should add a penalty when someone makes an illegal play, not force their opponent to let them off the hook every time.

GC: Part 3, you create an ethical dilemma for a player EVERY time the opponent makes an illegal play. Should I pretend to not notice and play on (increasing my $$ equity) or assist my opponent with his sloppy play?

MCG: I am with Chuck here. Intentionally breaking the rules to gain equity is not an ethical dilemma. Let's take UBK's situation. I am playing Stick in the finals and decide to hedge all the money (Stick gives me odds, because he knows how much I rock) and that Stick wins & gets the ABT title (if we need to play a match for the sake of courtesy, I just throw it). Is that an ethical dilemma? It sure seems unethical to me.

I'm talking about codifying a rule that FORCES a player into weighing his desire to win with his need to follow the rules EVERY time his opponent makes a bad illegal play. It isn't related to an artificial hedge arrangment between two players.

GC: Part 4, (and I have yet to hear anyone with a counter-argument for this), what possible rationale is there for putting ME in charge of helping my opponent when he makes an illegal play? I certainly don't have to when he makes a bad one.

MCG: What if the expectation were that, rather than have the onus on you to watch both your plays and your opponent's, all plays were to be legal? That is, players who are constantly trying to take shots to increase their equity by making illegal plays are just not welcome.

Non-responsive. What does it means that 'all plays were to be legal'? There has to be a mechanism when an illegal play is made, regardless of why it was made or who made it. The current system works because devining the intent of the illegal player isn't necessary. The aggrieved player gets the option to let it stand or have it played legally.

I'm still waiting for someone to justify why I, as my opponent's opponent, should be forced to help him play better by putting me in charge of correcting his sloppy play.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.