[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-27, 11:29, said:

As for your second sentence, reference please?

He already did that. ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees. Exact phrase, "significant weight".

[ggwhiz]

gnasher, on 2012-October-27, 02:00, said:

That sounds quite improper to me. Directors and committees should treat evidence on its merits. If a competent player who is generally known to be honest said that he bid 3♠ for tactical reasons, planning to bid 4♠ on the next round, why wouldn't we believe him?

So I'm at an NABC, nobody knows me and I go to committee and I'm up against the pair that averages 6 full page articles in the Bulletin every year. All the guidlines and laws try to do is level the playing field cause even the best are not perfect.

This thread needs a theme song.

My link

[aguahombre]

You would be just fine, Whiz. The amount of ink a pair gets might (or might not) be on a level with their repute. But, if it is, the hypothetical pair in that situation would be thinking as Josh does --or, at least would not relish the ink they would get in the Casebook write-up.

If they opposed you in committee, it would be on some other basis than defending the indefensible.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-27, 12:35, said:

You would be just fine, Whiz.

Not if a few posters on this thread were on the committee. As for the indefensible hypothetically there can be some real close judgement calls that even the best get wrong once in a while.

I know I would be fine but only because of the Handbook guidlines and the laws.

[nigel_k]

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-26, 14:55, said:

I can't imagine anything worse for the game. You are obviously not qualified to sit on a committee involving lalldonn or any other "known" (to you) player.

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-27, 12:20, said:

So I'm at an NABC, nobody knows me and I go to committee and I'm up against the pair that averages 6 full page articles in the Bulletin every year. All the guidlines and laws try to do is level the playing field cause even the best are not perfect.

The laws specifically provide that what is a logical alternative depends on the class of player involved. If you managed to reach the level of a top expert and won world and national championships without anybody in the event knowing who you are, then I agree this provision in the laws could be a problem for you.

[blackshoe]

<puts head in hands>

Discuss whatever you like. Apparently I'm just confusing things, so I'll go away now.

[ggwhiz]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-27, 14:12, said:

The laws specifically provide that what is a logical alternative depends on the class of player involved. If you managed to aspire to or reach the level of a top expert and be in contention to win having not yet won a world or national championships without anybody in the event knowing who you are stay tuned, then I agree this provision in the laws could be a problem for you.

[gnasher]

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-27, 12:20, said:

So I'm at an NABC, nobody knows me and I go to committee and I'm up against the pair that averages 6 full page articles in the Bulletin every year. All the guidlines and laws try to do is level the playing field cause even the best are not perfect.

There's no reason to believe you're lying, so the assumption should be that you're telling the truth. I just don't understand the ACBL's position, which appears to assume that everyone is dishonest.

By the way, I've certainly had the experience of being an unknown player at an NABC, making self-serving testimony, and being believed. Maybe I was just lucky to come across a director who believes in using his judgement. Or maybe it helps to have a funny accent.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-26, 23:33, said:

having committed error, must I adhere to it forevermore?

Isn't that what I did when I let my choice on the 2nd round affect my later action?

[barmar]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-26, 14:22, said:

When you look at the hand, isn't your first impression that the player is clearly walking the dog? Self-serving statements can be true and it's not as if you just have the rely on the player's word. There is the actual hand plus your knowledge of the level of judgment of the player involved.

My feeling is that when UI is involved, it's harder to give the player the benefit of the doubt like this. If the action is consistent with both walking the dog and taking advantage of the UI, we may have to the latter requires us to adjust (assuming the walk is successful).

[Trinidad]

Barry, You knew that you weren't walking the dog. So, you should not come to the TD with statement that you were.

We too know it, because you told us so. And we have no reason to doubt you since you showed great ethics and didn't bid 4♠. You would rather lose the board. So, we can take anything you say about your thought process as a fact (an incredible luxury for a TD).

That is why I don't understand that people are discussing a walking the dog reason for bidding 4♠ when we know for a fact that you weren't doing that.

In a way this is very easy: We know that you considered 3♠ to be a misbid immediately after you made it because you told us just that. That means that pass wasn't an LA for you (3♠ wasn't even an LA anymore). The only practical problem is that if you bid 4♠, you will find it very hard to convince a TD that you did it because you considered 3♠ a misbid, no matter how true it is. It is much wiser to lose the board.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Rik: You seem to be quarreling with the terminology, for no particular purpose.

Whatever made Barry bid 3S, and it is not clear whether by "misbid" he simply means it was a bad idea to bid 3S with the intent to bid 4 later ---nevertheless he had the baggy and the poop scooper in hand, ready to go out the door.

Then the dog (pard) messed on the floor; so, instead of continuing and leaving it for his wife to clean up, he abandoned his plan and took care of the business. He has a clear conscience, but neither he nor the dog got to have a stroll.

A wise choice between logical alternatives, if he valued his homelife and/or his life.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-28, 09:57, said:

Barry, You knew that you weren't walking the dog. So, you should not come to the TD with statement that you were.

We too know it, because you told us so. And we have no reason to doubt you since you showed great ethics and didn't bid 4♠. You would rather lose the board. So, we can take anything you say about your thought process as a fact (an incredible luxury for a TD).

That is why I don't understand that people are discussing a walking the dog reason for bidding 4♠ when we know for a fact that you weren't doing that.

We're no longer discussing the original case, or I'm not, anyway. We're discussing how one should rule if the player did claim to have been "walking the dog", how much weight should be placed on such a claim, and the merits of the ACBL guidelines for deaing with such claims.

By the way, I think it's misleading to describe this as "showing great ethics". Barmar knew the rules and did his best to obey them. That's just normal. If you say that obeying the rules is especially praiseworthy, you imply that something else constitutes normal behaviour.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-October-28, 15:36, said:

That's just normal.

The reason my ethics are being praised is because it's not as normal as it should be. As we've discussed in some other threads, many, if not most, players are not well educated in their ethical obligations.

I'll wager that at least 75% of bridge players in my situation would not give partner's hesitation much consideration if they were "always going to" do something. And there are also many unethical players who actually let the hesitation influence them (some of them not realizing they're doing it, some ignorant of the rules, and some just not caring).

In this case, I probably could have gotten away with it. First, opponents are not likely to call the TD in a club game for something like this; and second, even if they do I could probably convince him that passing was not an LA (he's not likely to do a poll in this environment). But I didn't want to "get away with it", so I bent over backward to avoid even the appearance of using UI.

Figuring out LAs in the heat of the moment is hard. A guideline I've given in the past is that if you have to think about what to do, all the things that go through your head are LAs. So there mere fact that I was worried about whether partner's hesitation constrained me implied that I was constrained -- it's not an "automatic 4♠" bid.

[Sjoerds]

barmar, on 2012-October-24, 12:19, said:

Partner had a decent 9 count (including a wasted ♣ Qxx).

If I had to poll this hand after 4♣ pass pass ...
I would like to know your agreements for 2♠. If it is a decent 6-9 and support 3+ I guess almost everyone I know would bid 4♠. So I think that even pass is not a LA.
But the opps wont argue this result I guess

[bluejak]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-26, 01:23, said:

But if the player says they were walking the dog then the director/committee may choose to believe them, ...

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-26, 12:54, said:

I'm sure an exception is possible but I would file that under self serving statements 99.999% of the time and lean towards 100%.

Of course it is a self-serving statement. When taking evidence for a ruling or appeal, over half the statements made are self-serving. It goes to the weight not admissibility of the evidence.

But the suggestion you should not say it if it is true is ludicrous. It is evidence: it is true: why not say it? Of course, it is a red herring since it was not suggested in this thread, but if the OP's reason had been that there is no reason to say otherwise.

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-26, 12:54, said:

Trotting out this type of argument in a club game can undermine your own credibility in future situations (especially given your honest take on your 3♠ bid) that mean much more so I'm certain that you did the right thing.

Your opps might be sitting on that next committee.

Fortunately not everyone is so incredibly stupid and unreasonable. Most players do not assume opponents are liars and cheats. The sort of nasty petty-minded person who thinks this way should never be on an AC.

[mycroft]

There are ACs who will say, however, "system notes or it didn't happen". Especially if it's a pair known to have detailed written system notes.

Not that we don't believe the person, but for this pair, it *would be* written down.

Obviously, a chain of logic from the notes would lend credence to the agreement being as it is, even if the specific words aren't there.

[ggwhiz]

bluejak, on 2012-October-30, 07:31, said:

Fortunately not everyone is so incredibly stupid and unreasonable.

Huh? Switch to decaf, pronto.

As to those people that should never serve on an AC, I suggest anyone who is close minded, pre-judgmental and/or doesn't understand the guidelines for fairness and the importance of the appearance of such.

That would be you.

[bluejak]

Pot. Kettle. Black.