Director's Headache

[MFA]

As far as an adjustment (in ACBL-land) MFA is not exactly correct about “no requirements of intent”.  That is technically true, but incomplete.  Law 72-B-1 (adjusted score) requires that “. . .an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side . .” as a prerequisite for granting a score adjustment.  While that burden of proof is substantially less than “intent to deceive”, it does require cognition. And that is the issue here with this novice player.

Yes, ok.

 

My primary point was that the laws say "could have known at the time of his irregularity", and not "did know at the time...".

 

This gives TD the right to say that he (this player!) could have known better, and thus adjust. Without accusing him of breaking the laws intentionally, as in: Ha! If I think now, she will never balance! Because he might just have been sloppy, out of bad habit, perhaps, of thinking about nothing at the wrong times. When he's too good to not recognize the problem.

I was missing this scenario on the list of some previous posters.

 

I agree that the score should not be adjusted when it's about a novice player, who doesn't know better. This should be clear.

 

(Thx for the law quotes. It's hard for me to be precise, since English is not my primary language and I don't know the wording of the laws in English. ;) )

[mycroft]

There was a 'long hesitation' in a situation with a hand that had 'no reason to think', quoting from the original, says Jon.

 

The Novice made what the Queen thinks is a long hesitation with a hand that the Queen would have no reason to think over, would be a more honest way of putting it.

 

I have trouble putting myself into the mind of a novice, because I realize that there are at least two answers to any bidding problem, and it depends on what options were had by the previous callers - I have a hard time saying "you have this and this, so you have to bid this" which is all that novices can understand (yet - frankly, that's what makes one not a novice in my view, if they can start to see the options). In University, they wouldn't let me anywhere near the novices (as a teacher) because I would utterly and permanently confuse them. But for the advanced players that wanted "well, you can go this way, or this way, or this way, but if you do it this way, here's what you give up, and if you..." - Goldmine.

 

Having said all of that, there are more like me. What the Queen thinks is a "no brainer" may be to her, to Jon, Justin, me, in fact, everyone who's played 1000 hands or more - but to Novice, there might be some thinking going on here. It's likely, in fact. For the same reason that I tank 6 tricks into a hand, working out the exact order of plays that will execute the squeeze I can and do do, but that for Justin, Korbel, and Kenny Gee, or anyone else who's played 100 000 hands, is a "no brainer". And I'm sure there are hands that drop those people deep into thought that for Passell, Meckstroth, and Garozzo are "no brainers".

 

In order for me to adjust here, I have to have either a feeling that Novice is at least capable of trying one on (there are novices, even LNs, who are good+ poker players), or that Novice at least realizes that this is one of those positions "in which variations may work to the benefit of their side." "Otherwise", our Queen gets to draw "inferences from such variation...at [her] own risk."

 

I'd have to be at the table to know, and one of the tools in the TD's box is the questions that elicit this information; but my guess is that neither of those conditions apply. No adjustment, and our Queen should learn some table feel herself as to how risky taking a Novice's tank is.

 

However, the state of blessed innocence can't last, and I appreciate the Queen calling the TD at least for that (as long as it wasn't "N. did something wrong, and I demand an adjustment!", of course), as I now have the opportunity to explain both the judgment required to turn this hand into a no-brainer next time, and why this position is so variation-sensitive. And, if N. really is Novice, explain that unlike in poker, you don't get to [long explanation, summed up by coffeehouse]. I don't have to do that at the table; I may, if I think it is right, but more likely I would catch up with N. later (or N. would catch up with me later and ask what the hell that was all about?).

 

Of course, if that Novice has 250 ACBL Masterpoints and is playing in A at a regional to get the Gold for LM, that's a slightly different story ("don't cross the streams, Venkman").

 

Michael.

[mycroft]

MFA: re: the Laws in English, you can find the ACBL publication of them online here.

[MFA]

MFA: re: the Laws in English, you can find the ACBL publication of them online here.

Ty, link stored.

[Rossoneri]

Alright, I'll give this one last crack since some people still don't get it and there've been some pretty blatant mischaracterizations of what I said or implied.

 

First of all, nobody's saying that it's unethical to think.

 

But if you make a 'long pause' for 'absolutely no reason' (to borrow from the language of the original post, which many of you seem to be missing) and you're in a position to know that you could be misleading one of your opponents, and damage results, an adjustment is in order.

 

If you are a highly intelligent person (Dr. Gene, if we hope he's still playing 25 years later, was probably no dummy back then) you already know about ethics. You've probably played at least some poker in your life and know about bluffing and deception at cards. It sounds like Dr. Gene never tried to argue that he was thinking. He just said 'I took a long time before passing. What's the problem?' Just because someone's a 'novice' at bridge doesn't mean they were born yesterday. I picked up the ethical stuff in about 5 minutes (long before I could follow suit consistently.)

 

If it's a club game, fine, the best way to restore equity and keep everyone happy is probably to let the result stand for Dr. Gene, because it's a first offense, and to either give Dynamite an average plus or the score she would have been likely to receive if she had balanced, if that is reasonably determinable. I see it as a similar case to a 'fouled board' from dynamite's perspective.

 

Novices get cut LOTS of slack. For every 1 truly inappropriate director call (for instance, if dynamite had a hand that noone would consider balancing with but still called the director) there's probably 20 instances where people just let things slide (Pick that card back up, no problem. or Sure, we'll turn over the last trick again. or It's too late to ask for a review, but here you go anyway. or Sure, I don't mind sitting here quietly while you fumble with the pass card and then grab a bid and then look at your hand some more.)

 

Bottom line: They need to be taught about ethics. Preferably in class or in the novice game. But if not there, then at the table, in the open game, since that's the only remaining option if they are ever to learn anything about bridge ethics at all.

 

For those of you who missed it, there was an interesting discussion about this issue in the Water Cooler:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=22080

 

Edit: Two-way shots are brought up in that thread. You might be surprised who's on which side when it comes to two-way shots.

 

I concur totally with mycroft's post below. Once again he has said it better than I could. (I chose to infer/assume that a non-ancient doctor knows a thing or two about ethics and has probably played poker a few times in his life. He chooses to investigate. His choice is the superior approach.)

Sorry, I don't agree with you.

 

Like what Justin and some others have said, things that seem second nature to us may not be for them. Hence decisions which are very easy for us may seem difficult for them.

 

Your 'absolutely no reason' may not be a novice's 'absolutely no reason'.

 

Your argument about intelligence and ethics is flawed. Do you know about Dr Gene's background? What if he came from a chess background? In chess you are allowed to think and reconsider your options over and over again if you so wish. Let's say he chose to apply it to this situation. Does this make him unethical?

 

In a club game, it would be wrong to give Dynamite a good result simply based on this. Would the other pair be happy? If you were a novice and your opponent received a good result solely based on your 'long hesitation' which you saw no wrong in, would you be encouraged to return to play bridge?

 

The only thing which I am in full agreement with you is that there is a need to teach beginners about ethics, make it part of the first rules that they learn. I am amazed that with the amount of emphasis on tempo and time in the game that none is this is really ever taught formally to beginners from the start.

[badderzboy]

Quite simply as a director .

 

You (a) ask do you agree there was a hesitation

(:) if so may I ask what you were thinking about (assuming hand was over).

 

If (:) is I wasn't sure what to do whether I should pass or bid 3 for some reason and they can explain why then No adjustment as there was NO intent to decieve the opps they just got bunny bashed.

 

If any other answer then they had NO bridge reason for the hesitation and I would politely explain that the hesitation suggested you had extra values and so prevented the opponents from bidding which they would do if you pass so I have to protect everyone in the field (Not just the opps) and adjust.

 

Recently I played against two relative beginners where one partner who after two long pauses and passes by his partner keep bidding over us. We called the director (even though I was directing we called someone else) and explained the situation. It is as much as in their interests as ours to understand the laws irrespective of their novice status.

 

Ignorance of the law is no defence after breaking it.

 

There was no adjustment as we already got a reasonable board. If we wanted to double shoot we'd bid game and go down then get an adjustment that way which is FAR worse than what happened.

 

I've only been playing about 5 years so I DO remember being a novice/beginner and agree they should be some latitude BUT being a beginner does not make u exempt from the laws and letting people off per se is damaging to the field, when is someone not a beginner?.

 

I also read about the doubleshot comment earlier, bear in mind the OPPONENTS gave me the doubleshot by an infraction of the law not by my actions! so stop attacking the person calling the director!!!

 

Steve

[geller]

(Thx for the law quotes. It's hard for me to be precise, since English is not my primary language and I don't know the wording of the laws in English. :) )

You can find the English text of the 2007 laws of bridge here.

-Bob

[zasanya]

Your argument about intelligence and ethics is flawed. Do you know about Dr Gene's background? What if he came from a chess background? In chess you are allowed to think and reconsider your options over and over again if you so wish. Let's say he chose to apply it to this situation. Does this make him unethical?

 

In a club game, it would be wrong to give Dynamite a good result simply based on this. Would the other pair be happy? If you were a novice and your opponent received a good result solely based on your 'long hesitation' which you saw no wrong in, would you be encouraged to return to play bridge?

 

The only thing which I am in full agreement with you is that there is a need to teach beginners about ethics, make it part of the first rules that they learn. I am amazed that with the amount of emphasis on tempo and time in the game that none is this is really ever taught formally to beginners from the start.

The comparison with chess is unfair.In all chess tournaments there are clocks and if a player thinks for long he loses time. If he excedes time limit he loses even if he can checkmate his opponent on the next move.If he unnecessarily thinks for long he is the one to suffer.Opponent will in fact encourage him to do so.After all the former world championship contender Victor Korchnoi once lost a game as he thought for more than 1hour befor making his 1st move. :D

Bridge is the only game in my opinion where Referees that is TDs consider the level of players before giving rulings.In all other games the authorities try to frame rules in such a fashion that there is no room for subjective decision.Not so in Bridge.That is why perhaps in no other game is there an appeals committe.The umpires decision is final.

Whether you consider that a good thing or bad depends on your nature. :)

[Rossoneri]

Your argument about intelligence and ethics is flawed. Do you know about Dr Gene's background? What if he came from a chess background? In chess you are allowed to think and reconsider your options over and over again if you so wish. Let's say he chose to apply it to this situation. Does this make him unethical?

 

In a club game, it would be wrong to give Dynamite a good result simply based on this. Would the other pair be happy? If you were a novice and your opponent received a good result solely based on your 'long hesitation' which you saw no wrong in, would you be encouraged to return to play bridge?

 

The only thing which I am in full agreement with you is that there is a need to teach beginners about ethics, make it part of the first rules that they learn. I am amazed that with the amount of emphasis on tempo and time in the game that none is this is really ever taught formally to beginners from the start.

The comparison with chess is unfair.In all chess tournaments there are clocks and if a player thinks for long he loses time. If he excedes time limit he loses even if he can checkmate his opponent on the next move.If he unnecessarily thinks for long he is the one to suffer.Opponent will in fact encourage him to do so.After all the former world championship contender Victor Korchnoi once lost a game as he thought for more than 1hour befor making his 1st move. :D

Bridge is the only game in my opinion where Referees that is TDs consider the level of players before giving rulings.In all other games the authorities try to frame rules in such a fashion that there is no room for subjective decision.Not so in Bridge.That is why perhaps in no other game is there an appeals committe.The umpires decision is final.

Whether you consider that a good thing or bad depends on your nature. :)

Maybe I didn't word that clearly. Chess was an example. What I was trying to state was that the point that bridge ethics does not necessarily come with intelligence, as novice players might not be acquainted with the nuances of the game.

[PetteriLem]

I will add a twist. Let's assume that Witty Novice replies that he was thinking his action over a possible balance by Little Dynamite. Maybe Little Dynamite should pay more attention to her cards than the opponent's skill level.

 

I give an example from chess. When you look at your games that you played when you were a novice, they are just random. It is simply impossible to comprehend what you had thought when you played a certain move. There seems to be no plan that lasts long enough to come true. The moves are not connected to each other. Yes, novices can see things clearly, but they do not necessarily see the whole picture.

 

Taking clues from an opponent's body language or a tempo break and then claiming something improper... thin ice comes to my mind. If Dynamite thinks the opponents are experienced, they would not be thinking whether to invite or not. If the opponents are truly novices, then I cant see ice here. Who knows what they are thinking! By miracle they found a good spot and now Little Dynamite hits them on the head with the law book.

[jdeegan]

B) Players who act according to their interpretation of the opponents' presumed UI do so at their own risk - no further discussion needed

[zasanya]

B) Players who act according to their interpretation of the opponents' presumed UI do so at their own risk - no further discussion needed

Do you mean I am allowed to think before following suit with a singleton?Or I can pull the pass card, keep it back , change it?etc etc.

Where exactly does one draw a line?

[badderzboy]

If an opponent takes an action that they know will mislead an opponent when they have NO bridge reason for doing so has commited an irregularity.

 

In this situation then the non-offender is NOT at fault for taking into the account the alledged UI to offenders partner.

 

So acting on presumed UI is not always at your own risk....

 

Steve

[kenberg]

Once I was a novice. I was playing with another novice. He hesitated during an auction. Later I asked him what on Earth he was thinking about. He said that he was trying to mislead the opponents about his holding. I told him he wasn't allowed to do this. He didn't do it again.

 

We are not told exactly how novicey this novice is. Assuming that this is a club game suitable for novices, I think the director, after explaining to dynamite that he could determine the proper ruling without having her explain it to him, might have asked the novice what he was thinking about. It's a fair question. The novice needs to learn what is expected and why people sometimes summon a director. After this is done I think it depends on what sort of a club game the director wants to run. I don't suppose the rules allow for this, but clearly expectations vary with the level of the game. Maybe the novice needs to understand that he should seek a game more suitable for his level. maybe dyna needs to be told that coming in and beating up on beginners, now that she has advanced to 100 masterpoints, is not a class act.

 

I am really glad we have directors. I have never wanted to be one. Thanks greatly and sincerely to those of you who take on this task.

 

Ken

[jtfanclub]

If it's a club game, fine, the best way to restore equity and keep everyone happy is probably to let the result stand for Dr. Gene, because it's a first offense, and to either give Dynamite an average plus or the score she would have been likely to receive if she had balanced, if that is reasonably determinable. I see it as a similar case to a 'fouled board' from dynamite's perspective.

Sigh.

 

Thank God we have actual, written, Laws. Laws designed to stop directors from giving out +/+ scores just to keep everybody happy.

 

Directors who follow your advice will quickly find that advanced players will constantly call the director on novices on minor or made-up things simply to get an average plus or an adjusted score just to 'keep everybody happy'.

 

No UI was passed to partner, because partner didn't get another call in the auction. So those rules don't apply.

 

Either the novice deliberately deceived their opponent, in which case those Laws should apply, or they did not, in which case the 'at your own risk' Laws apply.

 

But find me any law, anywhere, which says that if _I_ perform an offense, that _I_ am not punished, but my opponents are rewarded. There are certainly cases where only the offender is punished, and the opponents are left with their bad result. But your 'remedy' is really cheating the rest of the field, in order to 'keep everybody happy'. It certainly does not restore equity.