Talk:Alcatraz coup

Introduction

Erm, Xlmvp, the Woolsey's article in question really exists, I've read it myself (TBW doesn't offer the full text for archive though), and I believe that's the actual origin of the name. I don't see why you reverted the introduction remark to a more speculative version. Duja 14:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And, btw, even if inadvertent (hardly), the result would be promptly reverted by the TD to the failed finesse under L47F and L16C2.Duja 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was composing the following as you were editing, and I got an edit conflictXlmvp 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC):

When that happens, the fastest cure is to 1) hit "Back" in the browser, 2) copy your addition to the clipboard and 3) cancel the edit and start again. Duja 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• (1) I don't think we can label the Alcatraz coup as "unethical" willy-nilly; it's important to distinguish the deliberate and unethical instance from the accidental and foolish instance.Xlmvp 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  I must say that you'd have a hard time convincing the Tournament Director that it was accidental :-) Duja 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have no trouble whatsoever. No TD would ever credit me with the intelligence to bring it off deliberately. :) Xlmvp 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• (2) I can't prove that Kit's 1973 article wasn't the origin of the term, but I doubt it. (I don't have a copy of the Encyclopedia that predates 1973.) The final sentence of his article reads, "Second, I would write to the Bridge Encyclopedia clarifying the origin of the 'Alcatraz Coup.'" And the subsequent comment from TBW begins, "In our opinion only the first hand, the true 'Alcatraz Coup,' illustrates a defect in the Laws ..." Both imply that the term is not new with Kit's article. Maybe someone has a reference, such as a prior edition of the Encyclopedia, that will straighten this out. (BTW, one of the funniest articles ever in TBW appears just a couple of months later, in the March 1973 edition, by Robert Gray and titled "Those Coups".) + == Introduction ==

  I can't prove it either, but his article remains (AFAICT) the principal reference we have; besides, even if the play itself is earlier than that (likely), it still looks more likely that Woolsey's article was the source of the name, rather than the other way round (i.e. that the name was an inspiration to place the article in Alcatraz). Thus, I'm far more inclined to attribute it to Woolsey than not. Per Occam's razor, if we can't prove otherwise, the best bet is to credit the earliest author known. Your reasoning ("should be locked up in a maximum security facility") looks like a folk etymology, pardon my expression. Duja 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As to folk etymology, it does look that way, doesn't it? Could well be. Xlmvp 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Apologies for not reading your post more carefully; I see now what you're pointing out. I still think Woolsey should be listed as a reference, but with a kind of disclaimer as to the origin. Duja 15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When I post this I'll see if you've done so yet and if not I'll take a shot at it. (The same sort of thing occurred to me but not in real sentences. See above re: TDs and me.) Xlmvp 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed Kit. If he replies, he'll surely clear this up. Xlmvp 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kit did not respond, and it's been over a month. To hell with him. (g) I'm fine with your edit. Xlmvp 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• (3) I'm not sure that we should equate an Alcatraz Coup or a Superglue Coup -- if intentional, plays that are unethical -- with Morton's Fork or a Devil's Coup. The "Vienna Coup," as Clyde Love points out, doesn't really deserve the term "coup" since it's nothing more than an unblock. Need we elevate plays that are neither spectacular nor especially skillful to the level of those that are, by putting them in the same article (that is, in Bridge Coups, even differentiated by a separate heading)? Xlmvp 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  The article coup (bridge) is kind of odd; "well, here's the list of bridge thingos named 'coup'"; but I don't have a better idea. We definitely cannot equate them, so they're separated by headings. I'm open to suggestions... Duja 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can come up with something. Xlmvp 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Change in the rules?

The text from TBW quoted above indicates that the discovery of the Coup had revealed a hole in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Since Law 16C2 apparently now covers it, does it mean that Alcatraz has brought to an ammendment in the Laws? Any reference to it (and/or Laws changelog)? Duja 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I now have evidence as to (roughly) when the coup was named. I searched the archives of the New York Times for "Alcatraz Coup" and found an article by Albert H. Morehead dated June 25, 1961. Two extracts from the article:

"The classic hand for the Alcatraz Coup, which was not then so called, was the following one adduced in 1947 by Oswald Jacoby of Dallas, who was trying to persuade the laws committees to change the revoke law ... The laws committees have considered the Alcatraz Coup too unusual a case to be dealt with specifically, but it is no less typical of rare irregularities that committees must consider when a new code of laws is being prepared."

So, it was named sometime between 1947 and 1961, but by whom and under what circumstances is not clear. The 1961 Times article is the only one between 1850 and 1980 that includes the tag in question.

Second: As to the question of 16C2: it does not appear in the 1975 revision but does in the 1987 revision. I'll see if I can track down something in TBW. I recall that Kaplan and Reese had a sharp exchange in TBW about a revision, and it might have been the 1987 version, and Reese was complaining about revokes, as I recall. Xlmvp 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Great research. I'll add it to the article.

On the same wavelength, you'll probably find the following entertaining, if not quite encyclopedic (Adam Beneschan, rec.games.bridge):

...the TD should (1) rule against you and (2) shoot you.... trying to change the card played to a heart after the TD gets there would then be a change of play that is disallowed by L45C4(a). Shooting you is allowed by Law 94:

"When a player tries to apply a tricky interpretation of the Laws in order to accomplish something that everyone knows he shouldn't be able to, the Director is permitted to shoot, defenestrate, whack on the head with a pipe wrench, or take other appropriate action against that player."

(OK, so most Law books don't have Law 94, but it's clearly there in my copy of the Law book; the fact that it's written in pencil and in my own handwriting doesn't seem relevant.)

:-) Duja 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I tracked down the exchange between Reese and Kaplan, and while it's of interest it does not appear to pertain to the Alcatraz coup. In December 1972, TBW had printed the substance of five major changes to the duplicate laws, and solicited comments from its readers. At around the same time, the WBF asked Reese for a critique. Reese accommodated, and TBW printed the critique in its March 1973 issue. Reese objected to every one of the five proposed, "major" revisions, which were: (1)Dummy's right to request a review of the bidding after the auction be removed, and declarer's RHO be allowed to request a review only after the opening lead and dummy's gone down; (2)After an opening bid out of turn when it was RHO's turn to call, the bidding reverts as usual and no penalty if RHO passes; (3)A player may examine the current trick only if he has left his card face up; (4)If declarer leads from the wrong hand, defenders retain the right to accept or forbid, but if declarer is forced to lead from the correct hand he may lead any suit he wishes. (5)The penalty for a revoke should be reduced from 2 tricks to 1, but if the revoke trick is won by the offending side an additional trick is awarded, taking the penalty back to two tricks. Reese concluded his critique with this: "The Bridge World says that these are the most important changes under consideration and that there are 'hundreds of minor changes.' Oh, dear."

Kaplan responded to each of Reese's objections, agreeing in part with number 5 only. Kaplan ended his reply with: "Far be it from us to imply that Reese's fertile mind would have produced objections to any changes proposed, regardless of what they were. Still, there were five proposals, five objections. And there are hundreds of other minor changes proposed, which Terence Reese hasn't seen yet. Oh, dear."

Back to the specific issue of the Alcatraz coup and the Laws: TBW's comment after Woolsey's article, which I already quoted from briefly, goes on: "In our opinion only the first hand, the true "Alcatraz Coup," illustrates a defect in the Laws: declarer should not be allowed to profit from information received when a defender withdraws a played card without penalty after declarer's error. Indeed, this principle is written into the new Laws currently in preparation." TBW's comment goes on to reference Law 12a as a remedy for the other hands in the article ("... the director should assign an adjusted score when ... the Laws provide no penalty.")

Well, the 1975 Laws, in preparation when that comment was written, do not have the same 16C2 that the current laws do. The 1975 Laws of Contract Bridge have no 16C2. The 1975 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge have a 16C2, but it concerns what the director should do when his attention is drawn to the possibility that illegal information has been conveyed.

So, per TBW's March 1973 comment, the possibility exists that a principle dealing directly with the Alcatraz coup was written into the 1975 laws, but it's either hidden from my sight or subtle enough to have escaped me. Certainly it's there in 1987 in the form of 16C2 (http://www.math.aau.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws87/). But I haven't found anything that ties either Jacoby's 1947 complaint or Woolsey's 1973 article directly to 16C2. Xlmvp 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on what's been said here, it seems like the rules changed and that change mitigates the Alcatraz coup, but the changes are not necessarily directly designed to deal with the Alcatraz coup. I'm going to change the wording to reflect that, since it seems that a number of people tried to prove this statement "Subsequently, the Laws were amended in 1975 to provide a remedy for the use of the Coup" but could not. Jztinfinity (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)