[nige1]

TFLB Definitions said:

Penalties are of two kinds:

• disciplinary: those applied for the maintenance of courtesy and good order (see Law 91).
• procedural: penalties (additional to any rectification) awarded in the Director's discretion in cases of procedural irregularities (see Law 90).

TFLB L90 said:

PROCEDURAL PENALTIES A. Director's Authority. The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table.
B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these):

• arrival of a contestant after the specified starting time.
• unduly slow play by a contestant.
• discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table.
• unauthorized comparison of scores with another contestant.
• touching or handling of cards belonging to another player.
• placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board.
• errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant.
• failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director.

TFLB L90 said:

LAW 91 - PENALIZE OR SUSPEND
A. Director's Powers. In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The Director's decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3).
B. Right to Disqualify. The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer.

PPs are mentioned in several other laws. e.g. 11B, 13C, 15C. A recent discussion:

nige1, on 2014-July-11, 03:21, said:

Directors impose PPs and DPs rarely and inconsistently. Some directors never impose any. You can understand their reluctance, when Peter Allen explains how circumstances, of which the director might be unaware, might make a PP or DP inappropriate. Much better if the rules were changed to include an element of deterrence in the basic rules, themselves, without stigma of deliberate law-breaking.

blackshoe, on 2014-July-11, 08:44, said:

That stigma has been invented by players. It does not exist in the law.

gnasher, on 2014-July-11, 13:37, said:

Consider these two cases:
(1) E hesitates accidentally, and declarer goes wrong
(2) E hesitates intentionally and for the purpose of deception, and declarer goes wrong
Would you give NS the same score in both cases, or would you give NS more in case 2?
If you give NS more in case 2, your ruling is in breach of 12B1

nige1, on 2014-July-11, 17:57, said:

Might the director rule the same way as Pran, in both cases, without trying to read the mind of the hesitater, citing the popular and generally applicable L23.

gnasher, on 2014-July-12, 12:28, said:

It's irrelevant whether you're adjusting under Law 23 or or Law 73F. In neither case do you have to read anybody's mind, and in both cases Law 12 tells you what adjustment to make. You determine what equity is, and then you adjust the score to reflect that. If you think declarer would have made 100% of the time, your suggested ruling is correct; otherwise it's not.
The hesitater's intention is relevant only for two purposes:
- Applying a procedural or disciplinary penalty for an intentional breach of the rules, independent of the adjustment to restore equity.
- Making an illegal Pran-style ruling, where the adjusted score is a function of the offender's intent.

PPs and DPs are sometimes necessary but should more deterrence be built into the basic laws themselves?

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-July-15, 14:30, said:

PPs are mentioned in several other laws. e.g. 11B, 13C, 15C. A recent discussion: PPs and DPs are sometimes necessary but should more deterrence be built into the basic laws themselves?

How would you do that?

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-July-15, 14:30, said:

PPs and DPs are sometimes necessary but should more deterrence be built into the basic laws themselves?

blackshoe, on 2014-July-15, 15:21, said:

How would you do that?

Rule-makers might start with the rules that reward infraction, such as rules on use of UI.

e.g. In the light of UI from partner, you judge that the suggested action will result in a top, your other choice of action in a bottom. Do you accept your likely bottom? Or do you use the UI, arguing that:

• Authorities (e.g. ACBL directors handbook) advise you to take the same action that you would without UI.
• Opponents are unlikely to notice.
• Opponents will be reluctant to call the director if they fear that he may judge them guilty of a subsequent SEWOG.
• Opponents won't call the director (and certainly won't appeal) unless they're in contention.
• The director may rule in your favour.
• In many jurisdictions, if the director rules against you, he will award a weighted score that is unlikely to be a bottom.
• Only if the director imposes a meaningful PP (after all these other unlikely events) are you likely to be worse off than if you had resisted temptation.

First tentative suggestions:

• 12C1e ii for both sides i.e. impose the worst result at all probable on the putative law-breaker and the complement on his victim.
• With no attempt to judge intention, impose an additional automatic prescribed penalty on the law-breaker.
• Scrap weird and unnecessary rules (e.g. "protect yourself" and "SEWOG").
• Allow an official to take up an appeal, when the victims can't be bothered.

[blackshoe]

I don't know about you, Nigel (or anybody else, for that matter) but when the laws tells me to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI, and I know that the UI suggests I do something I think will get me a top, I don't do that something.

I gather you have a feeling there are some players (a lot?) who would take advantage of the UI. If you want to change the laws, you're going to have to provide more than just a feeling though - you need to provide data showing just how often that happens. That would be … difficult, I think.

[Trinidad]

I think Nigel has the feeling that there are a lot of players who cannot handle the UI rules and just "bid what they would have bid without the UI", as well as a lot of TDs (like me) who don't believe in punishing people when they try to do the right thing to the best of their (very) limited ability.

As a result, in these cases, at best, only equity is restored, given that the TD might err, the NOS might not call the TD, etc. This means that - on average - the OS will be advantaged by their infraction.

I think the solution is not in changing the laws or punishing the players who try their best. The solution is in punishing those $@*$$|~@s that tell people that they should make the same bid they would have made without the UI.

How hard is it for teachers and officials to tell players that as soon as UI comes into play they should:

• get out of "compete mode"
  
• consider the board lost
  
• know that doing the ethical thing takes priority over trying to salvage their score
  
• be mentally prepared to let the auction continue to 7NTX -n if needed, regardless of what partner or the team mates may say
  
• do what is ethically required: A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do

This means that at every decision on that board, they should look objectively at the LAs, judge what the UI makes more attractive and what the UI makes less attractive, and choose the LA that is made least attractive.

As long as influential people, even officials, keep spreading the idea that "doing what you would always have done" is the way to deal with UI, I find it impossible to give a PP to a player who had three decisions to make, chose the least attractive LA on two of them, and on the third misjudged and happened to take an LA that was made more attractive. Why? Because he is doing a much better job than the "doing what I would always do" folks that seem to make up the ethical standard in practice.

Rik

[Cascade]

I don't understand why giving a procedural penalty is such a big deal in bridge. Having played sports in which penalties are common place. 188 yellow cards were issued in the FIFA world cup and some much larger number of free-kicks and penalties. Somehow when it comes to bridge a penalty is an affront to the person.

Penalties are an important way of ensuring that players play by the rules. Yes I know that the laws of bridge are primarily designed to redress damage. However penalties are allowed and according to the laws should be expected in some situations. Situations that are not uncommon. The reality is that those penalties are rarely issued. The consequence is that some players make little effort in some situations to play by the rules.

[Trinidad]

In a sense that is broader than bridge, you only penalize people when they know that what they did was wrong.

Pretty much every yellow card at the world cup was given to a player who knew that he had broken the rules, and most of these went to players who knew that they were (or might be) going to break the rules before they committed the foul. This kind of behavior is virtually unheard of in bridge: Players who knowingly and willingly commit infractions to improve their score. In soccer, it is morally accepted to do this and there are phrases like "applying the emergency brake" and "professional foul" to describe this.

If you go around and tell bridge players to "do what they would have done without the UI" and then they obey you (where "you" stands for "the bridge organizers") then you cannot go and penalize them for doing as they were told.

I have no problem whatsoever penalizing an experienced player who uses unambiguous UI and takes a successful action that would barely have the status of LA without the UI. The typical situation is a slam try auction where partner signs off in game... after a tank and the perpetrator goes on to slam. (I like to call this the Pump Trolley to Clarksville since you can use it after the last train is no longer available.)

In short, penalties only work as a deterrent when the receiver of the penalty understands that he has done something wrong, what he has done wrong, why it was wrong and how he should have done it right. If not, penalties will be perceived as "random taxes on the innocent" and (perceived) randomness does not serve as a deterrent.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2014-July-16, 03:30, said:

I don't understand why giving a procedural penalty is such a big deal in bridge. Having played sports in which penalties are common place. 188 yellow cards were issued in the FIFA world cup and some much larger number of free-kicks and penalties. Somehow when it comes to bridge a penalty is an affront to the person.

Penalties are an important way of ensuring that players play by the rules. Yes I know that the laws of bridge are primarily designed to redress damage. However penalties are allowed and according to the laws should be expected in some situations. Situations that are not uncommon. The reality is that those penalties are rarely issued. The consequence is that some players make little effort in some situations to play by the rules.

This^^.

Trinidad, on 2014-July-16, 04:33, said:

In short, penalties only work as a deterrent when the receiver of the penalty understands that he has done something wrong, what he has done wrong, why it was wrong and how he should have done it right. If not, penalties will be perceived as "random taxes on the innocent" and (perceived) randomness does not serve as a deterrent.

Rik

And this^^.

[mycroft]

And why do they know that what they're doing may be wrong? Because we've taught them.

I got a yellow card in indoor soccer (effectively, for boarding), and to this day I don't know why. I guess I don't know the rules well enough. But I did learn not to do that again.

In soccer, the rules are applied, from day 1, whether they're "unfair" or not. By the time we get to city "funpetitive" leagues, they know what the rules are - either because they've been penalized for them enough, or there's been a class or 10, or whatever.

We don't educate in bridge - at least, we don't educate ethics in bridge - at least we don't do it consistently and frequently enough that the old husbands' tales are wiped out We don't penalize with anything other than an unrecorded warning (unlike the yellow card, which is a very publicly recorded warning) unless we know that the player knew better. Of course, there's a definite incentive to not know better, now, never mind the lack of opportunities and requirements to learn.

The Laws of Golf (to use another common sport played by bridge players) require you to assign your own penalties, and the penalty for not doing so and getting reported on it is disqualification. Oddly enough, in anything but "friendly" rounds, people do so. And that means they learn the laws. And read them. And have "law of the day" discussions on televised golf. And have "beginning of season reviews of the changed laws and case law" reports and sessions.

If the bridge community cared enough, they'd do it. Instead, we have what we have, to various detriments, depending on the local bridge culture.

[blackshoe]

The other day I saw a very good local player, and one whose bridge ethics I had no reason previously to question, deliberately conceal a card that stuck to the card he was playing to the trick. When he quitted the trick, he smoothly put the concealed card back in his hand, thus avoid a minor penalty card. I was dummy, so I could say nothing during the play. I didn't say much after the play, either, just complemented him on his play of that spot, so that he knew that I knew what he did. Henceforth I shall watch him more carefully. He knows the ethics of the game, he knows that he committed an ethical breach. It didn't make any difference in the play, that I could see, so why did he do it? I don't know. Call it a momentary lapse. The point is that even good normally ethical players can have such lapses. Education will help, and it's important for that reason, but it won't solve every problem.

BTW, I didn't call the director because I knew that would cause a ruckus. He would have denied any wrong-doing, and no one else saw it. And this club director has already established that she will rule so as to annoy me rather than her long time friends and customers.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 00:35, said:

I don't know about you, Nigel (or anybody else, for that matter) but when the laws tells me to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI, and I know that the UI suggests I do something I think will get me a top, I don't do that something. I gather you have a feeling there are some players (a lot?) who would take advantage of the UI. If you want to change the laws, you're going to have to provide more than just a feeling though - you need to provide data showing just how often that happens. That would be … difficult, I think.

Unfortunately (but understandably) rule-makers make little effort to gather relevant statistics. It's harder for an individual. FWIW, my relevant experience is:

At congresses, when UI is discussed, players say they take the action that they would take without UI, and let the director sort it out, if opponents complain.

In the past, the rules allowed you to stop opponents alerting. When we did so, it was worth a couple of enormous scores per session, when opponents auctions spiralled out of control, often to the slam level.

There are many bridge-rules that seem inadequately deterrent. e.g. Some punish the truthful player (when, for instance, the director is trying to establish whether a mistake is a slip of the hand or of the mind).

Players complain that bridge-rules are too sophisticated to understand. They're guilty of "careless" infractions. They lack clear insight into their motives. They find it hard recall their thought processes. In short, they're accustomed to rationalising dodgy decisions. None would regard themselves as cheats. For professional players, who may lose their livelihood by letting down a sponsor, pressures are greater.

Many people exceed speed-limits, falsify tax-returns, and break marriage vows. I agree with Victor Mollo that they're unlikely to undergo character-reform at the bridge-table.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 17:05, said:

The other day I saw a very good local player, and one whose bridge ethics I had no reason previously to question, deliberately conceal a card that stuck to the card he was playing to the trick. When he quitted the trick, he smoothly put the concealed card back in his hand, thus avoid a minor penalty card. I was dummy, so I could say nothing during the play. I didn't say much after the play, either, just complemented him on his play of that spot, so that he knew that I knew what he did. Henceforth I shall watch him more carefully. He knows the ethics of the game, he knows that he committed an ethical breach. It didn't make any difference in the play, that I could see, so why did he do it? I don't know. Call it a momentary lapse. The point is that even good normally ethical players can have such lapses. Education will help, and it's important for that reason, but it won't solve every problem.

BTW, I didn't call the director because I knew that would cause a ruckus. He would have denied any wrong-doing, and no one else saw it. And this club director has already established that she will rule so as to annoy me rather than her long time friends and customers.

He doesn't have any obligation to draw attention to his own irregularity. Maybe I am missing something in what you say but this is completely different than a player that does not carefully avoid taking advantage of UI.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2014-July-16, 21:08, said:

In the past, the rules allowed you to stop opponents alerting. When we did so, it was worth a couple of enormous scores per session, when opponents auctions spiralled out of control, often to the slam level.

This sort of wild claim does your argument no service Nigel. If true, I wonder why we don't see such a large number of similar disasters online and when playing with screens, in both of which situations players don't know whether their partners have alerted. Certainly misunderstandings can happen, but I really take issue with "a couple of enormous scores per session".

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2014-July-16, 21:16, said:

He doesn't have any obligation to draw attention to his own irregularity. Maybe I am missing something in what you say but this is completely different than a player that does not carefully avoid taking advantage of UI.

Last time I checked, it's illegal, and hence unethical, to conceal an infraction. And yeah, it's a different infraction. But I didn't tell that story to highlight the infraction, I told it to highlight the behavior.

[blackshoe]

<Sigh> Nigel, I've watched you ride this hobby-horse for several years now. Clearly nothing will deter you from it. As for me, I'm done.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-17, 01:27, said:

Last time I checked, it's illegal, and hence unethical, to conceal an infraction. And yeah, it's a different infraction. But I didn't tell that story to highlight the infraction, I told it to highlight the behavior.

I still don't see what he did wrong. It sounds to me like he thought he managed to prevent the infraction of playing 2 cards at once. He may not have realized that his attempt failed until your passive-aggressive comment during the post mortem.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2014-July-17, 09:53, said:

I still don't see what he did wrong. It sounds to me like he thought he managed to prevent the infraction of playing 2 cards at once. ...

+1

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2014-July-17, 00:21, said:

This sort of wild claim does your argument no service Nigel. If true, I wonder why we don't see such a large number of similar disasters online and when playing with screens, in both of which situations players don't know whether their partners have alerted. Certainly misunderstandings can happen, but I really take issue with "a couple of enormous scores per session".

My memory isn't perfect; I make mistakes; but I resent Gordontd's implication that I deliberately make wild and and untrue claims.

Not everybody at the club welcomed "alerts" and friends relate similar experiences to mine.

BBO players consult player-profiles and on-line system-cards but the game is still rife with systemic confusion. Some on-line players obviate disaster by explaining what a problematic call means via table-chat -- visible to partner -- even in JEC matches.

Screens tend to be for higher-level competition, so you might expect fewer misunderstandings. Nevertheless, with screens, after a misunderstanding, auctions occasionally spiral out of control, in a way that rarely happens at club-level, with helpful alerts and explanations.

Gordontd and I disagree about how much players use UI from alerts and explanations. But I hope that most bridge-players, including Gordontd, accept there's a problem. IMO, It's hard to eliminate this UI but there are rule-simplifications that would reduce it.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-17, 01:28, said:

<Sigh> Nigel, I've watched you ride this hobby-horse for several years now. Clearly nothing will deter you from it. As for me, I'm done.

Fair enough, Blackshoe. Either you perceive an interesting problem or you don't.

I fear that more Bridge-players will realize that some Bridge-rules condone and reward infraction. They'll (mis-?)interpret the rule-makers' intentions and conform to that subtext:

• TFLB introduction explains that most rules are based on "equity": infraction results in restoration of the status quo, rather than in punishment or deterrence.
• Most rule-breaking is brought to light, only by opponents noticing it, drawing attention to it, and reporting it. Players have no incentive to do so, unless they they're in contention and they appreciate how the infraction might have damaged them.
• Active policing of rule-breaking is taboo. Rarely, in spite of their best efforts, directors can't avoid witnessing infractions; but then they just restore equity, avoiding even minimal legal redress, afforded by other laws).

[Oof Arted]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 17:05, said:

The other day I saw a very good local player, and one whose bridge ethics I had no reason previously to question, deliberately conceal a card that stuck to the card he was playing to the trick. When he quitted the trick, he smoothly put the concealed card back in his hand, thus avoid a minor penalty card. I was dummy, so I could say nothing during the play. I didn't say much after the play, either, just complemented him on his play of that spot, so that he knew that I knew what he did. Henceforth I shall watch him more carefully. He knows the ethics of the game, he knows that he committed an ethical breach. It didn't make any difference in the play, that I could see, so why did he do it? I don't know. Call it a momentary lapse. The point is that even good normally ethical players can have such lapses. Education will help, and it's important for that reason, but it won't solve every problem.

BTW, I didn't call the director because I knew that would cause a ruckus. He would have denied any wrong-doing, and no one else saw it. And this club director has already established that she will rule so as to annoy me rather than her long time friends and customers.

Am I reading this correctly???

A TD of some standing deliberatley NOT bring a Deliberate act of this nature to the attention of the TD of the day.

This shows how the game SHOULD be played How ???