[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-10, 12:20, said:

As an example of how far this goes, I reiterate that where I live, if the auction goes 1♥-p-3♦ unAlerted(*) - p; p <snip>

There is a world of difference between the announcement of the range of 1NT and the failure to alert a weak jump shift. The auction there makes it clear that 3♦ should have been alerted, and I would call the TD at the end of the auction, as all NF meanings of 3D are alertable (certainly in the EBU and I presume in the US).

The difference is that there is no obligation whatsoever on anyone to read the chat to find out if the announcement of 1NT was correct, and one should, nay must, be able to rely on the announcement as accurate, certainly if it is not corrected. If it were not announced at all, that would be a different matter. In fact, you can disable the chat, and just rely on the announcements and explanations sent privately. Peregrine the Pedantic Penguin arrived at SB's table, and said, "We play 12-14 no-trump, sometimes upgrading good 11 counts, multi and Lucas twos (always 5-5 vulnerable), reverse carding but normal Smith (high likes by both sides). Enjoy the round."

SB replied "I joined BBO to play bridge not to get a pen-friend. Can we get on with the game, please?"

[mycroft]

You are absolutely correct (though I find that difficult to understand as a player or as the TD. I know that some small phones/tablets are hard to deal with the chat window, but it's kind of important). And if it were anyone else, that might be a point.

But it isn't, it's the SB, who records chat for evidence. And calls the TD when they *don't* post their basic system, and when they post their basic system to the table rather than to the opponents after the cards come up.

*He* doesn't get that out. *He* wasn't damaged. Others might have been.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-12, 10:20, said:

You are absolutely correct (though I find that difficult to understand as a player or as the TD. I know that some small phones/tablets are hard to deal with the chat window, but it's kind of important). And if it were anyone else, that might be a point.

But it isn't, it's the SB, who records chat for evidence. And calls the TD when they *don't* post their basic system, and when they post their basic system to the table rather than to the opponents after the cards come up.

*He* doesn't get that out. *He* wasn't damaged. Others might have been.

SB has an app that presses Control+PrintScreen and sends a jpg to his dropbox account every few seconds. He often does not read the chat. But even if he did, it would be irrelevant. He is absolutely entitled to rely on the announcement of the NT range without needing to scroll up to check if it is correct. In any case the finding as to whether there was MI is for OO, the TD, not for mycroft who is an irrelevant bystander.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2020-October-12, 16:10, said:

In any case the finding as to whether there was MI is for OO, the TD, not for mycroft who is an irrelevant bystander.

If we "bystanders" here are irrelevant, why are you bothering to post?

[mycroft]

lamford, on 2020-October-02, 08:37, said:

How do you rule?

For the life of me I can't figure out where that quote came from. But that's okay, I'll continue to kibitz.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2020-October-13, 12:55, said:

If we "bystanders" here are irrelevant, why are you bothering to post?

I did not say or intimate that you were irrelevant for deciding how to rule, and the same goes to mycroft whose opinion on that is welcomed and noted. My response was to the wrong assertion by mycroft that there was no MI. I wrote: "the finding [of fact] as to whether there was MI is for OO". Under 85A1 it is his role: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." He decided that the wrong announcement of "15-17" was MI because the NS methods were a weak NT. That should not be challenged.

So far most of the posts have been regarding SB's behaviour. For the avoidance of doubt he is an imaginary member who combines the worst elements of members at the North London (and I suspect other) bridge clubs. Most of my posts are constructed, although around half based on actual events, embellished.

I did ask "How do you rule?" Most have not answered the question.

[lamford]

pran, on 2020-October-03, 13:40, said:

But as I have developed a very limited interest in the events at this North London club I have not bothered to consider the situation any further.

Why do you respond (dare I say ad nauseam) in that case? You might find a post on 5-card Stayman in the Novice and Beginner Forum more to your taste.

[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2020-October-06, 10:03, said:

First, a penalty for causing damage to the game by crashing the table.
Second, there certainly was misinformation...

mycroft, on 2020-October-06, 18:50, said:

Sorry, you had prima facie misinformation...

mycroft, on 2020-October-09, 21:22, said:

Someone misspeaks, you know they misspoke because have evidence of it...

mycroft, on 2020-October-10, 12:20, said:

I would have called the TD (when I was made aware that there was misinformation)

lamford, on 2020-October-14, 07:08, said:

My response was to the wrong assertion by mycroft that there was no MI. I wrote: "the finding [of fact] as to whether there was MI is for OO".

Interesting. Now who's listening? What I said from the first was "there was no *damage from the MI* in this case" (and later, "given this 'non-offender' and his known habits").

In general, I expect players not necessarily to play "bridge at their level", as the ACBL puts it, but to suddenly not forget decades of experience or what was said to them literally 15 seconds before. It's amazing how many players are brilliant, and have great table presence, and can play their opponents - especially the ones they know well - like a violin, but as soon as they are told something, all of that goes out the window in favour of "how was I supposed to know they don't play something nobody in the world plays" (or "that he's never played in 20 years, except the one time I convinced him and I remember how that went", or "oh either he passed a forcing bid, or he failed to Alert. Clearly, it's the former" or anything of that ilk.) And they all tell the director, with pure innocence, when what they knew was correct (but wasn't done correctly) turned out to be the case: "They told me [] and of course I believed them. Why wouldn't I?"

And this isn't a new opinion, I'll leave with another quote from 2017 (my 2020 emphasis):

Quote

Okay. Go ahead and ask as many people as you want what (1♥)-2NT means in their partnership. Call me back when you find one that plays it as spades and a minor (no points if they play a weird Ghestem variant where it shows spades and a *specific* minor); collect if they don't know that that agreement is Alertable. Note that I have run into one pair who played it that way. In 25ish years of playing.

Any expert who decided "oh, these C players must play this backwards from EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ACBL" rather than "South is confused; she's got the meanings for Michaels and Unusual 2NT backwards." - I want to know how much he's paying the pro that won the other 3400 Masterpoints for him, because clearly *he* can't figure out which one of the 99% vs 1% lines to take on all the other hands either.

Similarly, if I believed the expert when he told me that, as opposed to "I know they're having a bidding misunderstanding, let's not disabuse them of it, and collect our good score. Oops, it was us that got trapped by it. Director, <smarm>please</smarm>!" - I too would be up for most gullible of the year award.

It's not that you have to challenge every clearly-given explanation to protect yourself. If it's reasonable that the explanation is correct, these people are just weird, fine. It's the ones that are mindbogglingly obviously WRONG, or that almost certainly are brainos, that you have to protect yourself against. At least enough to check the card.

But, of course, asking to check the card might wake up South to the fact that he got the explanation wrong, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

[blackshoe]

I wonder. While on the facts presented I agree that the OS has mis-informed their opponents, and that it is OO's opinion that counts at the table regarding that point, would you consider the opinion of an appeals committee on the point irrelevant? If not, then is not posting ruling problems here akin to asking us to act as a sort of appeals committee (not that we could overturn Oscar's ruling, of course)?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2020-October-14, 12:38, said:

I wonder. While on the facts presented I agree that the OS has mis-informed their opponents, and that it is OO's opinion that counts at the table regarding that point, would you consider the opinion of an appeals committee on the point irrelevant? If not, then is not posting ruling problems here akin to asking us to act as a sort of appeals committee (not that we could overturn Oscar's ruling, of course)?

An AC is certainly able to consider whether the MI damaged SB. Current best practice is to poll Easts of similar ability to SB. But I don't think the AC should disagree with the TD on the finding of fact. If RR had said that he was sure that he had announced 12-14, but the TD found from the video on BBO that he had announced 15-17, I think that one has to accept OO's finding of fact. It then becomes a call or play based on misinformation. I did a SIM with 12-14 and found that, with the diamonds sown up, a second spade was a narrow winner, but the jack of clubs chased it hard on the rails. SB was NOT trying it on here. There are members who insist on playing strong NT with RR and it is reasonable of him to assume the announcement is correct.

So, yes, the opinion of the AC, and the opinion of this forum, on whether there is damage is absolutely fine. But I think we have to leave the finding of fact to the TD, OO. And I did not reply to mycroft's post as I fell asleep before ....

[mycroft]

This argument begs the question, by not including the facts that show that the SB knew there to be misinformation.
Stating that "OO says there was MI, therefore we rule MI" palms a pretty important card. Two or three, to be precise. I'm sure OO said a bunch more things in terms of facts and rules and regulations. If he didn't, I assume that someone on the AC would ask, or at least the Chimp would mention the missing facts in his time to speak, and then the AC would ask.

I knew lamford was the SB's amanuensis. I didn't realize he was his barrister.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-15, 12:57, said:

This argument begs the question, by not including the facts that show that the SB knew there to be misinformation.
Stating that "OO says there was MI, therefore we rule MI" palms a pretty important card. Two or three, to be precise. I'm sure OO said a bunch more things in terms of facts and rules and regulations. If he didn't, I assume that someone on the AC would ask, or at least the Chimp would mention the missing facts in his time to speak, and then the AC would ask.

I knew lamford was the SB's amanuensis. I didn't realize he was his barrister.

The chat to the table is inadmissible as evidence as there is no proof that SB read it. It should in any case have been sent privately, and not used, illegally, as a (failed) attempt to remind RR of the methods. SB reads all private communications. The announcement "15-17" is enough on its own to rule MI. Res ipsa loquitur as they say. If there had been a typed correction to the table, you would have a valid point. And I am SB's nirmita. Not his amanuensis or his barrister.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2020-October-15, 14:44, said:

And I am SB's nirmita.

So you don't actually exist. That explains a lot.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-14, 09:38, said:

If it's reasonable that the explanation is correct, these people are just weird, fine. It's the ones that are mindbogglingly obviously WRONG, or that almost certainly are brainos, that you have to protect yourself against. At least enough to check the card.

This was the argument ChCh made to the TD, but it was brushed aside as SB had pointed out that in the dim and distant past, the previous week in fact, RR had played a strong NT when he was host, with a (virtual) visitor who normally played in ACBL events. RR had scored 48%, well above his average, so SB was quite entitled to assume that he was now a convert to that method, at least vulnerable, when that was the announcement.

[mycroft]

it is evidence, and absolutely admissible. Of course there is no proof that SB read it; his statement that he did not do so is also evidence, and admissible. However, frankly, if SB was on the other side of the appeal, he would be referring to his own statement with another term - one starting with 's'. And that is also true, but also not a condition of inadmissibility.

SB's manner, behaviour, and past cases are also evidence.

"The TD should indicate any inferences used to determine facts that may have been relevant to their ruling." says the White Book.

The appeals committee are absolutely entitled to judge the credibility of "people who have records of everything except, by sheer luck, what harms their case", and apply a decision of whether SB was aware.

Proof is not required, the AC will decide based on the facts and the inferences presented by the TD and the players, and the arguments and rebuttals of the players, based on the balance of probabilities. And, if they believe that SB was in fact misinformed, then they will determine whether his peers in playing cards, rather than people, is such that he was damaged; and adjust accordingly.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-15, 21:42, said:

it is evidence, and absolutely admissible. Of course there is no proof that SB read it; his statement that he did not do so is also evidence, and admissible. However, frankly, if SB was on the other side of the appeal, he would be referring to his own statement with another term - one starting with 's'. And that is also true, but also not a condition of inadmissibility.

SB's manner, behaviour, and past cases are also evidence.

"The TD should indicate any inferences used to determine facts that may have been relevant to their ruling." says the White Book.

The appeals committee are absolutely entitled to judge the credibility of "people who have records of everything except, by sheer luck, what harms their case", and apply a decision of whether SB was aware.

Proof is not required, the AC will decide based on the facts and the inferences presented by the TD and the players, and the arguments and rebuttals of the players, based on the balance of probabilities. And, if they believe that SB was in fact misinformed, then they will determine whether his peers in playing cards, rather than people, is such that he was damaged; and adjust accordingly.

Quite frankly I have lost interest in what you have to say on the matter and will not reply again.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2020-October-09, 08:32, said:

How does players using 5-card Stayman find 5-3 and 4-4 fits while avoiding 4-3 fits?

Here is one method but there are several others around.