[mycroft]

In response directly to Kaitlyn's last:

How bad were the rulings? I've stated that in at least one case, if not two, the rulings seem wrong in fact. In the other two, they are judgement rulings and I expect that they were wrong in that the reasoning wasn't made clear, and likely the best practice procedure to follow wasn't followed. Were they bad rulings? Without the hands, the full auction, the relevant agreements (stated and written), the length of the hesitation (and the length of the hesitation in the opponents' minds - my 5 seconds is their 30 is probably about 12), I literally can not tell. Without the skill of the players, and a pool of peers to poll, I would be forced to use my judgement, which, while obviously bad (if I *could* play, I *would*, right?) is okay, but not obviously helpful.

But I don't see the world in "thieves, cheaters and lawyers", and definitely not "if it hesitates, shoot it" or "call the TD to get through the law what you can't get at the table". Again, my history should be proof of that. Anybody who is deliberately trying one on, including intimidation-via-TD and Lamford-SB-level bridge lawyering, is not good for the game and needs an invitation to the world. But the number of those is miniscule.

While I am reasonably certain that any player who does not understand the concept of authorized and unauthorized information, and doesn't know of the requirement for their opponents (as well as themselves) to follow Law 73C, is being stolen blind (whereas the rest of us are being stolen from with our eyes open), I do *not* believe that the opponents (or them, when they do it!) are doing anything deliberate at all.

In fact, the best part of OBM is that if you *don't* know you're playing it, it works better!

I have also never known anyone who got a board adjusted due to use of UI who didn't think they got jobbed - myself included, except when I "call on myself". I have also, however, never known anyone who got "the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest the call made, score stands" - or even "no damage, score stands" to not think they got jobbed. And for every hand that the TD is called over, there are multiples where it's just going to be too hard to show that the UI had got passed, even though it's screamingly obvious at the table and so the TD isn't called. I also say (caveats for faulty memory, of course) that about half of the UI rulings I make are "score stands".

I also know that humans are excellent unconscious pattern-matchers, and bridge players even more so. They will *always* be able to convince themselves that the call they want to make is "obvious" and they would always do it even without the UI. They will *always* be able to convince themselves of "how could they possibly guess to take that action without their partner's tank" even if it is 60/40, or even "they've forgotten how the game is played in Bracket 6" or "it's obvious after one has seen this situation 80 more times than you have".

Because of that, the law is written so that players have to go overboard, "carefully avoid using" UI - after cancelling out the player's unconscious bias we should get close. Plus we *want* to encourage "play as much as possible in a smooth unvarying manner that minimizes passing UI". It's why the definition of Logical Alternative is written the way it is (except for the "of which some would take that action" part - that's to combat "if it hesitates, shoot it").

I may post a "bridge problems" set - not sure if I'm really comfortable doing so. If I do, I expect the same amount of expert controversy you do with your problem sets ("none"); it's just that you, and the experts, will get zero/5 of the questions right. I promise that I was told on every single hand that it was obvious to make the "right" call, and in all but one of the cases, they were sure that the TD was jobbing them.

[Kaitlyn S]

mycroft, on 2016-October-04, 13:51, said:

But I don't see the world in "thieves, cheaters and lawyers", and definitely not "if it hesitates, shoot it" or "call the TD to get through the law what you can't get at the table".

First, let me say that I believe that you are an ethical player yourself, and are only taking advantage of a "take the set or roll it back" more to teach the players about proper ethics than to get a good score yourself. I would guess you would go as far as to roll the contract back to 3H at trick 1 (whether 4H makes or not) if allowed in the Laws.

I also don't see the world as "thieves, cheaters, and lawyers." I've played thousands of hands at tournaments, and probably only had 20 or so rulings go against me. Most of the people are just trying to play bridge and are willing to take the result they get at the table.

The funniest request for score adjustment went in my favor (I would have quit on the spot if it hadn't.) I opened a weak notrump and partner bid 3C preemptive. I alerted as preemptive. It got doubled and +670 later, the director was called. The complainant stated "She told me 3C was preemptive! When they preempt, they're supposed to go down!" The director could hardly contain his laughter, but said with the straightest face he could, "You weren't injured, I'm not adjusting the score. You may appeal if you wish." Fortunately, people with 28% games don't usually appeal and this was no exception.

I have personally not seen many exceptions to the "if it hesitates, shoot it" ruling, which is particularly bad for me since I'm not either a professional or a quick thinker and I'm going to make a lot of bad bids if I don't think about them. (Yeah, I know some of you have seen my posts in other forums and are saying "Thinking doesn't help." ) So while partner isn't attempting to take advantage of UI (partner is very aware of UI ramifications also), she realizes that if she leaves a slow double in, and gets 800, it will be rolled back because thinking suggested passing (or maybe they'll say I hesitated to make her pass), while if she pulls and gets a good result, they'll roll it back and in some cases assume we misdefend! Mind you, even rolling it back and giving us the average result garnered by the other pairs that defended would be a bad ruling for us, for we tended to be pretty astute on defense and frequently had 60% games when we got to defend all night. But we don't get to defend well when the director rolls or decent result from declaring back; we get to defend like the rest of the field, which is pretty awful generally.

But I know you have good intentions, I suspect you are quite ethical, and I believe that you think, as many experts do, that people taking advantage of UI is the scourge of the game. And, while you might be right, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that always giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-hesitating side plus letting them keep a good table result if they get it is a fair solution. My own personal experiences are the reason for that.

[Kaitlyn S]

There is a forum here named:

Changing Laws & Regulations
Explain changes made and suggest future changes
Hosted by David Stevenson & Ed Reppert

------------------------------------------------------------

The description says "suggest future changes". If I post suggestions in this forum, am I actually talking to someone that has decision making powers?

[gordontd]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-04, 19:50, said:

There is a forum here named:

Changing Laws & Regulations
Explain changes made and suggest future changes
Hosted by David Stevenson & Ed Reppert

------------------------------------------------------------

The description says "suggest future changes". If I post suggestions in this forum, am I actually talking to someone that has decision making powers?

Probably not and you are probably too late to make suggestions for law changes which are scheduled to be published next year. That forum was created after the most recent laws revision in 2007 to discuss the new laws and then was later expanded so that people could discuss proposed changes. But it was never directly linked to the body that makes the laws revisions (though some may have seen what was written there). In general if you want to propose changes you are better to contact those responsible directly.

[blackshoe]

Gordon is correct. TPTB may be reading that forum - or this one - or they may not. Probably not. IAC, it's probably too late for changes this go-round.

[mycroft]

Kaitlyn, thank you for that. I try to be not only a Properly Ethical player, but also one who ensures that my opponents have all the opportunities when our side is potentially offending as I would.

When it's screamingly obvious (the comment I tend to use in the bar is "the people at the next table know ..."), I call. In an important game (a NABC or NABC+ event), I call. If it's player X, I call because they have explicitly told me it's wrong to *not* use UI. If it's a specific world-class pair, I don't have to call because they already have. If it's a Flight A pair from That Other City, I call because they themselves are sticklers for UI; but of course because of that I never have to call.

If I get an adjustment in my favour, I accept it gracefully. If I don't, I (almost always) accept that gracefully. I have yet to appeal a ruling, and expect I never will.

Spoiler

Closest I've got, my entire team went to the DIC to appeal an absolutely ludicrous ruling. Having explained what we were told, the DIC said "You're right, that is ludicrous. That's not what we ruled, though, we ruled [other reasoning for "score stands"]." The team agreed that although that was a bad ruling, and that we had been jobbed, that it was reasonable; so we weren't going to appeal. That was, IIRC, in 2001.

Because of my (well known in Western Canada, pretty much unknown anywhere else but BBF) status in the bridge world, I tend *not* to call the borderline ones, especially for education - it's almost impossible for me not to look like extreme bridge lawyering. As I said before, that means I take the "grumble about it later" option a lot.

For an example of blatant, what's your call?

Maybe you wouldn't overcall;
but they did at the table.

---

The correct answer?

Spoiler

West bid 3♥. And it was right. I challenge you to find anybody who will do that, especially when they had 2♦ available as a transfer to hearts.

So, what *else* happened?

Spoiler

So, at the table, 2♥ was actually Alerted and explained as "transfer to spades".
Yes, the player with this hand said "but that's what I'd always do, with the correct explanation". Yes, I'm quite certain that that was what he believed at the time.

UI (especially hesitation) rulings are hard, and there are many ways to go wrong making them (doing it alone and using your own bridge judgement only are two good ways to go wrong). There are a lot of less-than-top-quality TDs out there, and if they're going to get something wrong, this will be it. Even if they get it right, the Law means that the ruling can easily look ludicrous to whichever side it goes against. For all of my colleagues, as a TD, I apologize - and I retake my vow to do my best to not get the next one wrong.

[Kaitlyn S]

mycroft, on 2016-October-05, 10:35, said:

Maybe you wouldn't overcall;
but they did at the table.

---

The situation: This hand overcalled 2H, partner bid 2S after alerting 2H as a transfer to spades, overcaller bid 3H, passed.

This may surprise you, but I feel much different about this situation than I do about the hesitation situation.

For in the hesitation situation, one partner needs to think about a call, and the other partner chooses a logical call - nobody has done anything wrong but it's possible that no matter what logical call is chosen, it might be rolled back if successful if the opponents can come up with a scenario where that call was suggested by the thought. Now, it appears that I am too late to say anything to affect the current laws, but since this is what they are already essentially doing (at least in my cases), they could just say you have to make all your bids fast.

So in order to be able to do this, my partner and I, non-professionals are going to practice fifty thousand competitive auctions generated by a computer, and then we'll be ready for tournaments again. We can do ten or so a night, so we'll see you in about 14 years.. (Hopefully everyone knows that I'm not serious here.)

The situation you are presenting is different. Someone has clearly done something wrong here. One of three things happened.

(a) Using screens, the player would have realized that he transferred and tried to correct it to 3H, and partner would have realized from past experience that he screwed up rather than really having spades and hearts,

(b) Using screens, the player would either raise spades or pass.

© The player wanted to show both suits, so he transferred to spades and bid hearts. Note: if advancer had more spades and passed 3H, throw this one out. Also if the pair has a bid to show both majors, throw this bid out.

Soooooo.....

If this is the only way for the pair to show both majors, and this is what the person says in appeal and his convention card bears this out, and the advancer doesn't have a normal correct to 3S, I think it's okay (although unusually aggressive.)

If not, I am going to assume (b) over (a) and adjust to the expected result if advancer had bid 2S without alerting. For while I think it's difficult to educate a clueless player about UI ramifications, it should not be hard at all to show someone that it is just wrong to take advantage of the information from your partner's alert.

Note the big difference here: in the hesitation situation, the "offending" side probably did nothing wrong. In the situation described here, the offending side clearly did something wrong, at the very least they forgot their convention, and more likely, they cheated. I have no problem "shooting" this action despite the fact that there is a nonzero chance of scenario (a). If I thought the chance of (a) was 95%, I might feel differently. But there's also a situation (d) that I forgot to mention.

(d) The 2H overcall is natural, and the alerter was just plain wrong, and it was advancer who was woken up when the overcaller bid 3H. Now it gets dicey. If they play a call that shows both majors, it's possible that he should be allowed to wake up, because clearly he can't have spades and hearts. However, I wouldn't buy this argument in appeal because in theory, overcaller might have invented this sequence to show a decent hand with 6S, 4H. If advancer wouldn't pass if he knew overcaller had 6S, 4H, and inviting game strength, then mercilessly adjust the score and the innocent side gets a good score just as if the offenders revoked, because what they did is just as bad.

Yes, I am all for adjustment when I think it's warranted, and my other posts may have indicated otherwise, giving a feeling that "you're just going to chase clueless people away when you adjust scores." While I have had great difficulty trying to explain hesitation UI situations to novices, I'd like to think that I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever having a novice understand why it is unethical to correct a contract because you're partner's alert told you that you were likely in an awful spot.

[mycroft]

Yes, MI (misinformation) from partner is more blatant than UI from "a short pause" or "an extra question" or "a turbopass". Especially when it's this obvious.

I guarantee, however, that the system said: 2♦ shows hearts, 2♥ is both majors, 2♠ is spades. Previously in the match they had bid 2♦ showing hearts, and it was properly Alerted and explained and correctly bid.

I still challenge you to find someone who, holding a clear minimum and no special shape, and who asked their partner to pick a major, would pull to the other major. I will note that it got passed by his partner. I didn't comment on this (either here or to the TD), although how anyone clues in to pass this without UI or experience is impressive; but that wasn't blatant, so I didn't comment. Convenient, though.

If you're trying to justify the 3♥ call, good luck. Go ahead, try it - see if you can find somebody who will bid 3♥ with the correct explanation. As you said, they would raise spades (not likely) or pass. So why didn't he? Because his partner told him that she may not have as much support as she "promised".

[Kaitlyn S]

mycroft, on 2016-October-05, 17:22, said:

Yes, MI (misinformation) from partner is more blatant than UI from "a short If you're trying to justify the 3♥ call, good luck. Go ahead, try it - see if you can find somebody who will bid 3♥ with the correct explanation. As you said, they would raise spades (not likely) or pass. So why didn't he? Because his partner told him that she may not have as much support as she "promised".

So apparently overcaller showed the majors and advancer thought it was a transfer and bid spades? 3H is clearly cheating, although probably the perpetrator didn't know that and needed to be seriously educated. Many times the directors don't have time to do that, wouldn't it be nice if one of the locals volunteered to do that? After all, it's probably less work than manning the partnership desk. Of course, it would have to be someone fairly good at making clueless people understand as well as someone who understood the concepts well themselves. And yes, in this case, if there could have been damage, I would assume there was - because unlike the hesitation UI's, there is clearly a wrongdoer here.

[lamford]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-05, 19:34, said:

So apparently overcaller showed the majors and advancer thought it was a transfer and bid spades? 3H is clearly cheating, although probably the perpetrator didn't know that and needed to be seriously educated. Many times the directors don't have time to do that, wouldn't it be nice if one of the locals volunteered to do that? After all, it's probably less work than manning the partnership desk. Of course, it would have to be someone fairly good at making clueless people understand as well as someone who understood the concepts well themselves. And yes, in this case, if there could have been damage, I would assume there was - because unlike the hesitation UI's, there is clearly a wrongdoer here.

I agree. ANY call over partner's 2S is using the UI, so egregiously that I would have given twice the normal PP for the 3H bid (assuming he is experienced; if not then I just adjust and explain). If the partner has only one more spade than heart, then he gets away with his pass. If he has two more, he gets a PP as well (again assuming he is experienced, and I use "he" in the same way as the Laws to include "she").

[lamford]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-September-30, 16:43, said:

2. Partner and I were in a forcing auction and RHO who had overcalled 1S now bid 3S.

You need to give the auction. If it had been something like 1H-(1S)-2S*-(P)-3C/D -(3S) - P, then my partner and I play that last pass as forcing because we have both shown invitational values; but I bet the man on the Clapham Omnibus does not (a quaint UK expression; apologies to US and other readers). However we would be able to prove that with system notes which we bring to every game. If the auction was game forcing, then pass would obviously be forcing with or without system notes. If
a) the TD thought that not everyone played it as forcing
b) you were not able to prove that it was forcing in your methods
then pass becomes an LA. There would be UI anyway, but we just poll 5-10 people playing the same methods. Without giving full details, it is impossible for anyone to judge how bad the rulings you received were.

One of the worst rulings ever was when an AC accepted the word of Fisher-Schwartz that a Pass was forcing, and adjusted, quite wrongly in my view.

[barmar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-05, 19:34, said:

So apparently overcaller showed the majors and advancer thought it was a transfer and bid spades? 3H is clearly cheating, although probably the perpetrator didn't know that and needed to be seriously educated.

Cheating has to be a deliberate violation of the rules. If they don't know it's wrong, then it's just ignorance.

That doesn't get them off the hook for rectification and education, but it avoids being banned from the game.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-October-06, 07:29, said:

One of the worst rulings ever was when an AC accepted the word of Fisher-Schwartz that a Pass was forcing, and adjusted, quite wrongly in my view.

It was one of the best rulings in the sense of what it provoked

[Kaitlyn S]

barmar, on 2016-October-06, 08:39, said:

Cheating has to be a deliberate violation of the rules. If they don't know it's wrong, then it's just ignorance.

That doesn't get them off the hook for rectification and education, but it avoids being banned from the game.

You are right. Perhaps I should have said "they are doing something highly unethical, perhaps obliviously."

In my defense though, if someone messes around with someone that isn't his significant other, even if he thinks it's right it's still cheating

[barmar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-06, 09:48, said:

You are right. Perhaps I should have said "they are doing something highly unethical, perhaps obliviously."

In my defense though, if someone messes around with someone that isn't his significant other, even if he thinks it's right it's still cheating

The problem with that analogy is that we simply don't believe that anyone would seriously consider it "right" -- everyone knows the normal rules of relationships, so they can't claim ignorance of the law. At best they could claim mitigating circumstances (last night's "Law & Order: SVU" was about a mother who had sex with a man who claimed to be the Admissions Officer for the college she was trying to get her son into -- she was so obsessed with getting him into the school that she went against her normal morals).

On the contrary, most players (and many directors) are not very well educated about their responsibilities when in receipt of UI. And even when you know the letter of the law, figuring out how it applies in a particular situation can be tricky.

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2016-October-01, 13:43, said:

I think all of these rulings are somewhere in the range from "very bad" to "probably bad, depending on circumstances".

But I also think that we have to accept that bad rulings are a part of the random variance in scores akin to rub of the green and bad splits, something we just have to live with. As long most boards do not require arbitrage, most rulings are correct and most director errors not due to directors favouring their pets or discriminating against specific segments of the players.

Directing bridge tournaments is complex, compared to other sports. We don't usually have video footage or direct TD testemoni, and things like de facto partnership agreements are difficult to verify.

What you say is certainly true, but the parts that bother me are when the OP follows up with the DIC or another experienced director and gets the same bad input.