[blackshoe]

 helene_t, on 2017-January-31, 08:21, said:

As a declarer, yes, but as a defender who ha contested a claim you may still chose to call the TD because there is a risk that the rejection of the claim alerted declarer to some problem with his plan that he otherwise might have noticed too late.

Of course, the new law doesn't prevent you from calling the TD in such a case but it creates a bit of a bad atmosphere since the TD call sorta insinuates that declarer might otherwise take advantage of the rejection of the claim.

I think we should, as players, avoid thinking this way. "Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep".

[mycroft]

I make about one bum claim a year - maybe two.

If I had to play them out, I expect I would screw up the play on four, maybe five - and I'd be worried about being one trick ahead and blowing the communication on every single claim. I claim so I don't do something stupid.

So, guess what, I am not in fact going to accede to "please play it out". The TD, ruling "doubtful points against" me, will be much better than what I would do with the cards in my hand after my brain has moved on to the next one.

I read this as "people are going to ask, and last time we said 'you can't do this, but if you do anyway, here's what happens'; that didn't stop the 'play it out' people. So now, if everyone is good with it, you can just play it out. We don't like it, but it's going to happen anyway, so let's make it legal."

I absolutely agree that it's in no-one's best interest to play it out. But it will happen. So, let's regulate it.

[mycroft]

I also think the "move from forced passes to 'make a comparable call, and things are good' " is going to be the biggest change, and the one that is going to be most jarring to the players (by that, I mean, people will still be 'enforcing' the old law in 2022, just like they were trying to do with the 'won a trick after with a card...' law in 2012). I think it's also going to make the TD's job harder, but is probably good for the game (except for the people who think it's another "heads I win, tails I break even, why should I care about following the Law?" move. Which I don't disagree with, but I don't think many people do anyway).

[helene_t]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 10:13, said:

I absolutely agree that it's in no-one's best interest to play it out. But it will happen. So, let's regulate it.

Maybe the proviso to play it out should apply only when we have playing directors or with directors that can only be contacted by phone. With non-playing, present directors, there is not much reason not to call the TD. But in a lower league match, a club evening or a pub crawl, it is a PITA to have to wait for the TD to arrive, it is a PITA for the TD also, and besides, those events often have directors who are not very good at dealing with complicated things like this so you might as well play it out.

[WellSpyder]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 10:13, said:

I claim so I don't do something stupid.

I find this pretty stunning, TBH. I claim to avoid wasting time, so that we can spend the allotted time thinking about interesting bridge issues rather than going through the motions. I have never suspected anybody of claiming to improve their success rate in making tricks.

[barmar]

Most of the time when people want to play on, it's LOLs who simply don't understand the claim statement (have you ever claimed on a cross-ruff, and had an opponent ask "but what about the club"?). Perhaps the law should clarify the reasons why you would play on rather than calling the TD. The general purpose of claiming is to speed up the game, and waiting for the TD to come, review the whole situation, and confirm the claim is likely to be slower than playing out these simple claims. Often when you get a couple of tricks further, the opponents will realize the veracity of the claim and concede.

A variant of this method has been good enough for rubber bridge forever.

[weejonnie]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 10:17, said:

I also think the "move from forced passes to 'make a comparable call, and things are good' " is going to be the biggest change, and the one that is going to be most jarring to the players (by that, I mean, people will still be 'enforcing' the old law in 2022, just like they were trying to do with the 'won a trick after with a card...' law in 2012). I think it's also going to make the TD's job harder, but is probably good for the game (except for the people who think it's another "heads I win, tails I break even, why should I care about following the Law?" move. Which I don't disagree with, but I don't think many people do anyway).

It will be up to the poor TD, as usual, to explain the situation. At least he can advise the NOS (amongst other things) that they have the right to an adjusted score either if the offender's partner has used the UI (following a COOT) OR the OS has reached a contract they wouldn't have done absent the Comparable Call

One good thing -

"3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call."

presumably now officially allows Stayman 2♣ to be replaced by a Puppet Stayman 3♣ after an IB. I note that the laws do not say that you have to be asking after the same thing.

No doubt somewhere near a North London bridge club someone is reading the new laws with eager anticipation

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 10:13, said:

I make about one bum claim a year - maybe two.

If I had to play them out, I expect I would screw up the play on four, maybe five - and I'd be worried about being one trick ahead and blowing the communication on every single claim. I claim so I don't do something stupid.

So, guess what, I am not in fact going to accede to "please play it out". The TD, ruling "doubtful points against" me, will be much better than what I would do with the cards in my hand after my brain has moved on to the next one.

I read this as "people are going to ask, and last time we said 'you can't do this, but if you do anyway, here's what happens'; that didn't stop the 'play it out' people. So now, if everyone is good with it, you can just play it out. We don't like it, but it's going to happen anyway, so let's make it legal."

I absolutely agree that it's in no-one's best interest to play it out. But it will happen. So, let's regulate it.

I don't think giving in to the "I'm too ignorant/stupid/stubborn to just call the director and let him adjudicate the claim, so I want to play it out" folks is not, IMO, the right way to deal with those folks. Under the current laws, if someone asks me to play it out, I say no and call the director. Under the new laws, if someone asks me to play it out, I will say no and call the director. So this change, at least if I'm the claimer, is effectively no change at all.

[Vampyr]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-January-31, 08:17, said:

I haven't really formed a view on whether I think this change is good or bad, but why wouldn't you feel like playing on after making a claim, if the opponents asked you to? Assuming you have made a valid claim, isn't playing on just a way of helping your opponents to understand the claim you have made?

I don't normally claim unless I have all winners or ruffable cards. And I never make conditional claim is based on a card dropping, a finesse working, a squeeze operating etc. This sometimes leads to stronger players putting their cards back into the board, but anyway I never make potentially confusing statements. So, I will count out the winners from the two exposed hands, but I will not play trick by trick.

 mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 10:13, said:

I read this as "people are going to ask, and last time we said 'you can't do this, but if you do anyway, here's what happens'; that didn't stop the 'play it out' people. So now, if everyone is good with it, you can just play it out. We don't like it, but it's going to happen anyway, so let's make it legal."

I absolutely agree that it's in no-one's best interest to play it out. But it will happen. So, let's regulate it.

Yeah. I really hate this kind of tail-wagging-the-dog regulation. But in any case, isn't a request to play on a rejection of the claim?

 mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 10:17, said:

I also think the "move from forced passes to 'make a comparable call, and things are good' " is going to be the biggest change, and the one that is going to be most jarring to the players (by that, I mean, people will still be 'enforcing' the old law in 2022, just like they were trying to do with the 'won a trick after with a card...' law in 2012).

The latter is sorely missed.

Quote

I think it's also going to make the TD's job harder, but is probably good for the game

I don't think that anything that makes the TD's job harder is good for the game.

There was a letter in the most recent English Bridge magazine. A volunteer playing director was called about a call out of turn. Now, I certainly don't agree with directors making book without the book, but it happens. With this director sis was silence the player who made the COOT. Do we really want to make this guy's job harder?

Quote

(except for the people who think it's another "heads I win, tails I break even, why should I care about following the Law?" move. Which I don't disagree with, but I don't think many people do anyway).

LOL I couldn't follow all the negatives, but I have thought of a new Christmas party rule. No one is allowed to make a bid that is not an infraction. A side benefit is that this will help players get accustomed to the 2027 laws!

[mycroft]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-January-31, 10:19, said:

I find this pretty stunning, TBH. I claim to avoid wasting time, so that we can spend the allotted time thinking about interesting bridge issues rather than going through the motions. I have never suspected anybody of claiming to improve their success rate in making tricks.

Well, clearly you never forget an ace is out, or play a trick ahead of yourself. I "never" do that, either, but only for bridge values of never. Why would I trade a 100% line for a 99.5% line? Why would you?

I do dumb things that cost tricks all the time, and ones that are "mindless" for mycroft levels of mindless monthly at least. The chance of me doing it while "going through the motions" is, if anything, higher than normal, because I'm just going through the motions - which means that I will have to spend at least as much concentration on "not being mindless" as I would with a real problem. Isn't it good bridge to not do that? Isn't that, in fact, following Law 72A in it's clearest form?

If you think it's embarrassing for me to admit that I claim to avoid mucking up "going through the motions", or that I expect that I *would* muck up going through the motions, fine, be embarrassed for me. It's legal, profoundly ethical, it works for me, and is just as embarrassing as "don't put a long suit on the left in 3NT, please". Bridge is a game of mistakes, and doing what is legally and ethically allowed to minimize the opportunity to make mistakes is clearly good bridge.

Obviously I claim to protect my time, because we want to get to more interesting stuff, because the hand is over, all the normal reasons. I just know that even if the hand is over, I will, with non-zero probability, make a mistake if I play it out. So, claiming also protects my earned value. I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I am reminded of the conversations about the ethics of conceding to a finicky combo deck going off in M:tG (like Eggs or High Tide). You are *allowed to* not concede, even though you know it will work if the opponent doesn't make a mistake, but if you believe the chance is high that they *will* make a mistake, and if they do, they lose instead, should you concede?

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2017-January-31, 11:32, said:

LOL I couldn't follow all the negatives, but I have thought of a new Christmas party rule. No one is allowed to make a bid that is not an infraction. A side benefit is that this will help players get accustomed to the 2027 laws!

I'm surprised you couldn't follow that line, because I was, I thought, pretty obviously thinking of you and your "law 16 does not apply" arguments to L27B1 that now will also apply to a lot more calls. I guess I'm just that confusing.

I like that rule...as long as you keep it at "bid". If it's "call", then, per rule, you can't have a third pass after a non-pass call, at least not without a call after that. But I do not want to be the TD having to adjudicate "he doubled his partner's 8♠ call, what happens now?"

[WellSpyder]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 11:56, said:

Well, clearly you never forget an ace is out, or play a trick ahead of yourself. I "never" do that, either, but only for bridge values of never. Why would I trade a 100% line for a 99.5% line? Why would you?

I think we just see the likely occurrence of these mistakes differently. I certainly don't maintain that I don't make such mistakes. Why, the very last time I played I forgot that the opposing trumps weren't breaking 3-2 when I was playing in a 7-card fit. This doesn't encourage me to claim, though. Equally, it doesn't discourage me from claiming, even though on this occasion my claim cost me an extra trick when a defender was able to ruff with his extra trump after I had set up his winner in a side suit. I happen to think I am more likely to lose tricks by claiming than by not claiming, You apparently think the opposite applies for you. But I suspect I still claim as often as you do, since it simply makes bridge a more enjoyable game.

[mycroft]

yeah, I guess so. I just know that I make those kinds of mistakes monthly, at least; and I make one, possibly two, bum claims a year. Therefore I'm reasonably certain I would make more mistakes "playing it out" when asked than the TD would adjudicate to my disfavour.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2017-January-31, 11:32, said:

Yeah. I really hate this kind of tail-wagging-the-dog regulation. But in any case, isn't a request to play on a rejection of the claim?

That was my earlier point -- it's not necessarily a rejection, more like "I won't want to try to understand it." These are the same players who rarely claim even when the players at other tables can tell that the hand is over.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 12:02, said:

I'm surprised you couldn't follow that line, because I was, I thought, pretty obviously thinking of you and your "law 16 does not apply" arguments to L27B1 that now will also apply to a lot more calls. I guess I'm just that confusing.

Yes, I have made myself very clear on this point, and did know you were agreeing with that! But the last sentence was unclear to me.

[mycroft]

Then I am that confusing. I must continue to work on it.

What I meant was that I don't think you're wrong (although I'm not on your side - I don't actively agree with you, because apart from one hand, it has been clearly a net positive as a TD *) - the situation is potentially advantageous to the OS, and can be exploited against un-Laws-savvy opponents and bad directors, and absolutely, there seems to be "no incentive to not do it". However, the spirit of the game is still strong enough that "nobody" thinks to play this on purpose, and anybody who does gets known for it relatively quickly (like anybody else who plays loose with the regulations), and treated as such both by the community and the directors.

It's a legitimate concern. However, I think the masses, especially in this time of renewed interest in being provably ethical (or at least provably not "shady", at least) keep a better lid on this than punitive rulings for what are, to within rounding error, 100% accidental mistakes. I'm sure, if that changes, so will either the laws or NBO regulations.

* And that one had nothing to do with "making the call on purpose", but on "I was limited in what I could tell the OS would be allowed, and so the picked a reasonable call that, unfortunately, I couldn't allow continuation on." Should we expect people to think of things like "Fast Arrival applies in this situation, so I have to make the non-FA call to be legal here?" With only the prompting that the TD is allowed to give in these circumstances? I followed the Laws, but I did agree that the OS (after 4♠ enforced +2) were a bit jobbed by the corner I was put in.

[Vampyr]

I am not worried that people will make IBs on purpose. This does not mean they should not be penalised.

Why not just let it go, as the lawmakers want?

Well, an insufficient bid causes problems for the opponents.

1. They get options, the implications of which they may not understand.

1a.They are not even told whether there is a penalty-free replacement. This is unjust and ridiculous, but there you are.

2. A huge amount of UI is created, especially if he replacement call is a pass. If all is not already revealed, the lead penalties will create the UI.

3. Damage may be difficult to assess by less experienced players and/or directors, especially if the damage is from abuse of the llarge amounts of UI available. In addition, players may be reluctant to claim damage due to abuse of UI, because they will think it is like accusing their opponents of cheating

4. A comparable call may be trickier than a call that is a subset of the original call, because there may be negative inferences and the like. Allowing a call and then sorting out the UI afterwards will be a challenge. Especially if the opponents and/or director are unaware of just what UI has been made available. Which I believe will be a lot of the time.

5. Finally, more experienced players will have a significant advantage. They will be able to think fast and offer a meaning of the IB that will allow them a penalty-tree replacement.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure the lawmakers want people to "just let it go". They haven't said that, AFAIK, and if they did want that why didn't they change the law to "if you make an IB, you must replace it with any legal call" and leave it at that?

I don't understand your reference to "huge amounts of UI". Either there is UI or there isn't. Besides, how do you quantify it?

If there is a penalty-free replacement, and the players are not being told that, the problem is not the law, it's the director, who is supposed to give the player with the choice all pertinent information about the choice before the player makes it.

Quote

players may be reluctant to claim damage due to abuse of UI, because they will think it is like accusing their opponents of cheating

Then they need to be educated.

[mycroft]

Well, we are instructed not to make decisions for the players, nor to pass information about what we learned about the thought patterns of the IBer, so we can only say whether we believe there is or is not a suitable replacement, not what it would be. As I said, I had to nail somebody who I believe truly was trying, but didn't think it through enough (and probably was still under Unauthorized Panic a bit, having never run into this before) because in RL, he replaced the IB with a fast arrival call when what he had was a slam try and didn't think through the FA nature of it.

If better players are at an advantage because they can spin the facts better, rather than tell the truth (perhaps in an advantageous way, sure), then it's up to the TD to handle that. If the TDs aren't good enough, educate them. If it's a random club game with the person least objecting to directing being the volunteer, then if the experienced player cares that much , there's a different problem than just less effective club TDs.

I believe that the steadying stream of "make it right, get a bridge result" as opposed to penalties is an issue, because I simply believe that you should pay a price for doing something wrong. It's not that it's an incentive to not do it or anything, just, like most other games or sports, "this is what you don't do. If you do it anyway, here's what happens." I don't even mind situations where the opponents have an incentive to induce an infraction - while I clearly prefer the offside rule in hockey to soccer, the fact that it is what it is means that the offside trap is a legitimate (if dangerous) play, and I have no problem with that.

But despite that, I don't think that the law changes have caused anything like the doom that Vampyr is describing. Especially given that one of the best (and most ethical - this was clearly a lack of knowledge issue) players in the province said, to a "lead whatever" after OLOOT, "well, guess it's best to take the penalty card off the table"; we're not really increasing the UI available to use too much are we?

As far as the C word is concerned, the "So, this happened, it was unusual, is there an issue?" pattern works very well to avoid looking like an accusation, especially if it's honest (I must admit that when I use that construction, it is frequently "sincerity is the key, son. When you can learn to fake that, you've got it made". But it's still polite, and it's still implying that the TD is the one to make that determination, not the opponent-who-frequently-TDs) Let's just teach that to the players.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2017-February-02, 10:26, said:

I believe that the steadying stream of "make it right, get a bridge result" as opposed to penalties is an issue, because I simply believe that you should pay a price for doing something wrong. It's not that it's an incentive to not do it or anything, just, like most other games or sports, "this is what you don't do. If you do it anyway, here's what happens." I don't even mind situations where the opponents have an incentive to induce an infraction - while I clearly prefer the offside rule in hockey to soccer, the fact that it is what it is means that the offside trap is a legitimate (if dangerous) play, and I have no problem with that.

I agree with this. The example I was thinking about was that gymnasts don't step off the mat on purpose, but they still get penalised.

An idea I have had is to augment the Laws with PPs for infractions. This would achieve a "bridge result", but the OS would still suffer consequences.