Year End Congress 2

[nige1]

The question of law-makers "intentions" is somewhat academic: Bluejak is right that directors can't be sure of the intentions of law-makers. (Nor, IMO, can they be sure of the intentions of law-breakers). It is overwhelmingly likely, however, that law-makers have benign general intentions. Unfortunately, good intentions don't necessarily entail good outcomes. Anyway, some of the specific intentions of law-makers seem to be questionable. As a matter of policy they prefer so-called "Equity" to simple deterrence. The practical effect of "Equity" legislation is to guarantee a long-term profit for some infractions. SEWOG and "protect yourself" legislation make that bad situation worse.

[campboy]

*grins* Noted. Also, I suppose, if you can convince the director that in a particular situation you always ask or randomly ask. But I am thinking of the particular case of an unalerted bid (and where you cannot so convince the director).

I suspect the distinction is between explanations that are implausible taken in isolation and those which are merely implausible because of what you hold. In the latter case asking for confirmation is always going to give meaningful information about your hand; in the former it needn't.

[bluejak]

1. It seemed that Trinidad was arguing that one can almost never ask without giving UI which may restrict partner (in the words of the regulation, "putting their side's interests at risk). That seems to me to be a plausible viewpoint. Clearly, you disagree -- could you provide an example of a situation where one can ask without passing UI?

I disagree with Trinidad that the purpose of the regulators was to cause law-breakers to gain. Trinidad did not argue the effect of the regulation, nor do I.

[alphatango]

Fair enough. Apologies if I misrepresented your position.

[Trinidad]

When one is declarer.

Good point and very sharp. :) :)

However, I suppose that the regulators would have written "when he is declaring", rather than "when he is not putting his side's interests at risk" if they really meant "when he is declaring".

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I disagree with Trinidad that the purpose of the regulators was to cause law-breakers to gain. Trinidad did not argue the effect of the regulation, nor do I.

That is absurd. I have argued the effect of the regulation all along. Weren't we discussing an actual case where the effect of the regulation had a clear impact? In my very first post on this subject used the phrase " 'Self protecting' leads to...", just to argue the effect of the regulation.

This example is like so many others. "Self protecting" leads to a mess because TDs do not protect the "self protectors" when they should. Let's get rid of the whole "self protecting" right now and let the missinformers just pay for their irregularities, in accordance with the Laws. Because, as it is now, "self protecting" is in fact "missinformer protecting" and "selfinflicting".

The whole disussion was about the effect of he regulation on an actual case. I am not interested in the regulators' motives for writing the regulation, for the simple fact that I am 100% sure that their intentions were good. (I presume that the purpose was to prevent experienced players from exploiting small inaccuracies in aunt Millie's explanations where they should know better. That would be a noble intent.)

 

The effect of the way the regulation is written, however, is that experienced players need to protect themselves, even when they play against pairs of similar strength or against Meckwell for that matter. And there can't be any doubt that this requirement has the effect that it puts innocent players in a pickle while letting misinformers off the hook.

 

Rik

[Finch]

You (Trinidad) are making a number of assumptions (or guesses, to be fair, as you've asked about them) which I believe to be invalid.

 

You've given a couple of sample rulings which I don't believe would happen at the table, within the EBU at least. After an auction starting 1H (2C) 3S not alerted, any TD would rule that 4th seat is entitled to assume 3S is natural and would rule in their favour if it turned out to be, by agreement, a splinter.

 

I am not aware of any rulings within the EBU (where I keep track of them) that have come to the attention of the L&E, where the TD has failed to give an MI adjustment because someone should have 'protected themself' and anyone thought it even marginal. In fact, I can only think of one example of such a ruling. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact auction, but it involved a double by the partner of a pre-emptor that was obviously penalties, but was (incorrectly) not alerted. The next hand was an experienced player who knew that double is played as penalties by 99.9% of players here, had a good idea from looking at his hand that it was penalties, and should have asked.

 

You ask for examples of when you can ask about potential MI without putting your partner under UI constraints and without waking the opponents up. The most common situation is when it appears that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call. The most blatant example is an unannounced and unalerted 2C response to 1NT. Another one which has come up at the table is when an explanation as given makes no sense (the explainer has had a slip of the tongue). But you are perfectly entitled to assume that an unalerted 2-red suit response to 1NT is natural; or that a 2minor overcall of 1NT is natural, or that a double-jump response at the 3-level is natural.

[Trinidad]

Thank you (Frances) for this information. It is very helpful.

 

Maybe I should provide some background why I immediately believed Nige1 that East was supposed to protect himself in this situation.

 

For starters, the East player actually did ask. Presumably he did that because he assumed that he was supposed to protect himself. You say that he didn't need to, but it is pretty clear that East wasn't aware of that. Apparently, it is also not that unlikely that you meet opponents who will play 3♠ on this auction as a splinter. After all, at least the North player seems to think that it is a good idea.

 

Now for the background:

I play in The Netherlands and we have a very similar regulation. Here the requirement to protect yourself really means something. If someone forgets to alert a cuebid in the suit where an opponent made a weak jump overcall, then it is fairly obvious that the alert was forgotten. I don't have a real problem that you are expected to ask, rather than let things get out of hand and force some kind of AS on the board, but it is the start of a slippery slope. In The Netherlands we already went a lot further down that slope:

 

You are supposed to ask when (1NT)-Pass-(2♦) is not alerted. After all, Jacoby transfers are alertable but extremely popular and they have only been alertable since 2009. You are also supposed to ask about (1NT)-Dbl-(2♦). In this case, the Jacoby transfer has always been alertable. But the experienced player knows that so many players play it and don't alert, so he is supposed to protect himself. The same goes for (to name a few):

- a bid in the fourth suit (which some play as entirely conventional and others as semi-natural),

- a jump overcall of 3♣ (which many play as Ghestem, showing both majors, unless they have forgotten ;) ),

- pretty much every double, since conventional doubles have only been alertable for the past year,

- every redouble. Despite the fact that conventional redoubles have always been alertable, everybody thought that they were not since conventional doubles were not alertable. And a redouble is also a double... kind of... isn't it?

- a 2♦ opening. After all, "everybody" plays Multi.

 

In other words, if a bid has an alertable meaning which is common, you have to protect yourself. As you may have noticed, a lot of these situations are not about an opponent forgetting to alert. Most of them occur because players can't be bothered studying 1 A4 of alert rules. They don't know which of their bids are alertable, they never will and they don't care because the self protecting regulation takes care of things.

 

I hope you understand my rant against "self protecting" rules. I would like to see a clear stop to "self protecting" requirements. I don't want to be on the slippery slope, even if that means that every now and then there will be an artificially awarded score since someone didn't alert a cuebid where everyone with half a brain would know that it required an alert.

 

I am usually not a black or white guy but for me the question is "Who do you give the problem: the non alerter or his opponent?".

 

Rik

[alphatango]

I am not aware of any rulings within the EBU (where I keep track of them) that have come to the attention of the L&E, where the TD has failed to give an MI adjustment because someone should have 'protected themself' and anyone thought it even marginal. In fact, I can only think of one example of such a ruling. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact auction, but it involved a double by the partner of a pre-emptor that was obviously penalties, but was (incorrectly) not alerted. The next hand was an experienced player who knew that double is played as penalties by 99.9% of players here, had a good idea from looking at his hand that it was penalties, and should have asked.

 

I took some time to search through the EBU Appeals Books from 2005-2008. My only criterion was to look for the word "protect", and ignored results where the word did not refer to this principle of "protecting oneself".

 

I came up with the following: 2005 (2), 2006 (6, 12), 2007 (19, 24), 2008 (2, 22, 27). Of these, only 2007 #19 came anywhere near the situation I was thinking about (needing to ask about an unalerted call). In that situation, a player holding 92-void-KT987-AKJT93 heard the auction:

 

P  1D 1S 2H (NFB)
P  3C P  3D
X  P  P  P

 

and claimed damage from a failure to alert the X as penalties (would run to 4C). The player did not ask at his turn to call, did ask at the end of the auction, and heard (quoting from the writeup): "'Good question, we are not a regular partnership, I would double for penalties in that situation but I know my partner plays more takeout doubles than I do' (paraphrase)."

 

I note that the director ruled against the player based on a failure to ask ("details of ruling"), although he did note the regulation relating to "general bridge inferences" under his comments. It was not clear to me why he commented in the same section that the player had an opportunity to ask "without putting his side's interest at risk". (The player claimed in the appeal that he could not ask during the auction without potentially alerting up the opponents to a possible misunderstanding about the double.)

 

The AC upheld the ruling solely on the basis of a failure to "protect himself". I don't see why both rulings were based on a failure to ask rather than "general bridge inference", as the latter seems to be a far more solid argument to me. The commentators all seemed to focus on this as well. Frances, you were apparently on the AC -- would you be able to provide any insight?

 

The most common situation is when it appears that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call. The most blatant example is an unannounced and unalerted 2C response to 1NT.

 

I agree with these examples (and the rest that I have not quoted). But ISTM that it can only "appear that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call" if that call would be alertable regardless of the meaning. But if there are any such situations, the alert would be somewhat useless. :P (However, one can safely ask about a missing announcement where is always either an announcement or an alert, as in your example.)

[mjj29]

I agree with these examples (and the rest that I have not quoted). But ISTM that it can only "appear that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call" if that call would be alertable regardless of the meaning. But if there are any such situations, the alert would be somewhat useless. :P (However, one can safely ask about a missing announcement where is always either an announcement or an alert, as in your example.)

Actually, a 2C response to 1NT is neither alertable nor annoucable if it is natural and to play. It's just that such a vanishingly small set of people play it like that in tournaments that it's much more likely the alert/announcement was forgotten and you should protect yourself rather than assuming they actually play it as a weak takeout in clubs.

[pran]

Actually, a 2C response to 1NT is neither alertable nor annoucable if it is natural and to play. It's just that such a vanishingly small set of people play it like that in tournaments that it's much more likely the alert/announcement was forgotten and you should protect yourself rather than assuming they actually play it as a weak takeout in clubs.

It strikes me that in this situation a proper question could be something like: "Should this call have been alerted?"

 

I would rule such a question not as asking for an explanation of opponents' call (which can create UI), but (Law 9A3) an attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity.

[bluejak]

That is absurd. I have argued the effect of the regulation all along. Weren't we discussing an actual case where the effect of the regulation had a clear impact? In my very first post on this subject used the phrase " 'Self protecting' leads to...", just to argue the effect of the regulation.

 

The whole disussion was about the effect of he regulation on an actual case. I am not interested in the regulators' motives for writing the regulation, for the simple fact that I am 100% sure that their intentions were good. (I presume that the purpose was to prevent experienced players from exploiting small inaccuracies in aunt Millie's explanations where they should know better. That would be a noble intent.)

Ok, fine. But I still do not see how

 

You get in a self protecting position because and only because regulators put you there in an effort to protect the guilty.

"in an effort to protect the guilty" can be read in any other way than that is the regulators' intent.

[WellSpyder]

I for one really don't care whether the way Trinidad expressed his concerns appears somewhat unfortunately to impugn the motives of lawmakers or not. What matters is that he has raised entirely reasonable concerns about the way that a presumption of "self-protection" can put a non-offending player in an extremely difficult position entirely as a result of an opponent's fault rather than his own. Frances and alphatango have taken this concern seriously and tried to be helpful by making very informative postings on the subject, and I think we owe them our gratitude for that. Bluejak just seems to me to have avoided addressing the substantive issue, unlike his often so-informative posts.

[bluejak]

I think I am permitted when a post has an unfortunate element to address that unfortunate element. There is no rule that I have to address every element of every post. In fact I think that by being too general in replies you often lose the point of replies which is why I often make a reply to one part of a post only, or alternatively separate the parts. I thought this was a very serious accusation, important enough to consider that part of his reply only.

 

If others want to address other parts of his post, why not? That does not mean that I should.

[Finch]

I came up with the following: 2005 (2), 2006 (6, 12), 2007 (19, 24), 2008 (2, 22, 27). Of these, only 2007 #19 came anywhere near the situation I was thinking about (needing to ask about an unalerted call). In that situation, a player holding 92-void-KT987-AKJT93 heard the auction:

 

P  1D 1S 2H (NFB)
P  3C P  3D
X  P  P  P

 

and claimed damage from a failure to alert the X as penalties (would run to 4C). The player did not ask at his turn to call, did ask at the end of the auction, and heard (quoting from the writeup): "'Good question, we are not a regular partnership, I would double for penalties in that situation but I know my partner plays more takeout doubles than I do' (paraphrase)."

 

I note that the director ruled against the player based on a failure to ask ("details of ruling"), although he did note the regulation relating to "general bridge inferences" under his comments. It was not clear to me why he commented in the same section that the player had an opportunity to ask "without putting his side's interest at risk". (The player claimed in the appeal that he could not ask during the auction without potentially alerting up the opponents to a possible misunderstanding about the double.)

 

The AC upheld the ruling solely on the basis of a failure to "protect himself". I don't see why both rulings were based on a failure to ask rather than "general bridge inference", as the latter seems to be a far more solid argument to me. The commentators all seemed to focus on this as well. Frances, you were apparently on the AC -- would you be able to provide any insight?

 

This was a few years ago now, but I do remember the case.

The AC had the same view as the commentators in the booklet: that the janitor's cat knew the double was for penalties, nobody could conceivably play it as anything else. From the discussion at the appeal, the AC believed that North knew it was meant for penalties and was hoping for either a screw up (one opponent thinking it penalties, the other t/o) or for a double shot via a ruling - see how 3Dx plays, and if it's a disaster say later you'd have bid 4C.

 

The reason the AC's comments on the form don't talk about this but specifically mentioned 'protecting yourself' North's was that the argument presented most strongly at the appeal was that he couldn't afford to ask. This was nonsense, because (i) why should asking suddenly alert the opponents to anything? Either they know what the double means, or they don't - North could be asking because he's thinking of bidding more, or redoubling - it doesn't give anything away about his hand and (ii) it's not giving partner any particularly useful UI either.

 

Quite often what the AC chairman writes on the form is most directly connected with what was actually said at the appeal, which of course you don't usually get to see in the write-up.

[AlexJonson]

I like these threads.

 

West has psyched his 2C bid? South as a result misinterprets his partner's 3S?

 

EW can double 5H, but the other side can't pass.

 

Personally I don't play kickback. 'Wrong forum' for the kickback sub-thread?

[jallerton]

Quite often what the AC chairman writes on the form is most directly connected with what was actually said at the appeal, which of course you don't usually get to see in the write-up.

 

In an ideal world, the key arguments of each side would be recorded in the "N/S comments" and "E/W comments" sections of the appeals form. However, in recent times, TDs have seemed reluctant to hand the appeals form to the players to let them record their comments in adevance of the appeal being heard, whilst AC chairmen rarely have the time and inclination to record the verbal arguments given during the appeal.

[jallerton]

As BBOers, we can comment only on the basis of given facts:

AI from the auction may well cause West to suspect that opponents have misbid or misexplained.

Partner's ill-fated question converts suspicion to certainty.

It also indicates the nature of opponents' mistake.

It makes it likely that LHO intended a splinter (rather than a fit-jump or strong jump-shift, say).

This UI demonstrably suggests a non-spade lead over a spade lead.

What should an ethical West lead?

 

West already has "certainty" about the opponents' misunderstanding, without considering any inferences from East's question.

 

When considering classifying a non-offender's action as "wild", "gambling" and/or a "serious error", the TD should always ask the player to explain his reasoning. In the extemely unlikely event that West comes up with Nigel's incredible line of reasoning, I would withdraw my suggestion that West's lead was "wild" and/or "gambling".

[jallerton]

I cannot come up with an example where I would not put my side's interests at risk. By definition, I will always give UI (unless we play with screens) and will always risk waking up opponents, unless I am in a position to pass out the hand to my advantage.

 

In other words, if you follow the regulation strictly, it clearly never applies. Nevertheless, it was written. That must mean that whoever wrote it thought that there must be situations where it applies, doesn't it? In other words, the regulators think that the non offending side should also protect himself when there is "a small risk" (let's call it "acceptable") that one puts their side's interests at risk.

Rik

 

I can't tell you the thought process behind this regulation, but it seems to me that it is a good way to warn players that they are not entitled to double shots when (it is deemed that) they knew the explanation received was obviously wrong. The appeal case quoted by Alphatango and Frances is a good example.

 

Another would be a situation where a player knows from inconsistent alerting that the opponents have clearly had a misunderstanding and the player has to decide whether or not to double the final contract in the pass out seat. Even though he knows that at least one of the calls has been mis-alerted, he passes without asking and defends the final contract undoubled. If the contract makes, he says nothing more. If instead, after the hand is played out, he discovers that double would have worked better, he asks the TD for an adjustment, citing the misinformation he already knew about.

[nige1]

When considering classifying a non-offender's action as "wild", "gambling" and/or a "serious error", the TD should always ask the player to explain his reasoning. In the extemely unlikely event that West comes up with Nigel's incredible line of reasoning, I would withdraw my suggestion that West's lead was "wild" and/or "gambling".

IMO...

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, then, the director should consider discounting it as self-serving , at best.
• Suppose, however, (just for the sake of argument) that the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable. If the director appreciates that is the case, he shouldn't penalise a West who can't articulate it.
• I agree the that the director should ask the players their views, just in case he has overlooked something, but if his investigation discovers an offence or mitigation, unmentioned by any player, IMO, he should still take it into account.

[phil_20686]

Just been reading this thread, and I actually thought the original ruling was a bit wierd. IMO, north does not have a logical alternative to 5!H. Assuming that south 4!s is cue bid showing the ace, then to make slam good you need a hand containing something like A!s AKQ!h and A!c or, A!s AKQ!h k!d and q!c. With either of these hands, (and from my thinking all the hands where north can envisage slam), south has a clear drive in his own hand. North should immeadeately sign off. I'm pretty sure that if you polled high level players assuming 3!s splinter was the actual agreement, they would think it ludicrous to encourage any more, and most would already think that the splinter was a distortion. Moreover, you would certainly bid 4!s with less than the example hands I have given, if south has A!s AKQ!h opposite a splinter he is already envisaging 5!H a!s 2!s ruffs and the splinter having AKA in the minors opposite to make up for his poor trumps.

[mycroft]

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, then, the director should consider discounting it as self-serving , at best.
• Suppose, however, (just for the sake of argument) that the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable. If the director appreciates that is the case, he shouldn't penalise a West who can't articulate it.
• I agree the that the director should ask the players their views, just in case he has overlooked something, but if his investigation discovers an offence or mitigation, unmentioned by any player, IMO, he should still take it into account.

Can I please put in yet another plea that "self-serving" be used with its denotative meaning, and not the way it seems to be used at least in the ACBL casebooks?

 

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, the director should consider it self-serving and incredible, and ignore it.
  
• If the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable, the director should consider it self-serving and irrefultable, and not ignore it - but if it looks like it's only logical and irrefutable post facto, or that nobody could work that all out at the table, it's not "logical and irrefutable", see below.
• If the line of reasoning is somewhere in between (as it almost always is), the director should consider it self-serving and to whatever extent reasonable, and treat it with more suspicion than if the opponents had made that same line of reasoning - but definitely not ignore it.

Self-serving testimony should be discounted for what it is - statements made by a player to that player's benefit, which should always be taken with more suspicion than non-self-serving testimony. But level of suspicion is somewhat orthogonal to the logic of the statement.

[jallerton]

Just been reading this thread, and I actually thought the original ruling was a bit wierd. IMO, north does not have a logical alternative to 5!H. Assuming that south 4!s is cue bid showing the ace, then to make slam good you need a hand containing something like A!s AKQ!h and A!c or, A!s AKQ!h k!d and q!c. With either of these hands, (and from my thinking all the hands where north can envisage slam), south has a clear drive in his own hand. North should immeadeately sign off. I'm pretty sure that if you polled high level players assuming 3!s splinter was the actual agreement, they would think it ludicrous to encourage any more, and most would already think that the splinter was a distortion. Moreover, you would certainly bid 4!s with less than the example hands I have given, if south has A!s AKQ!h opposite a splinter he is already envisaging 5!H a!s 2!s ruffs and the splinter having AKA in the minors opposite to make up for his poor trumps.

 

It might depend a little on the N/S agreement (if any) on the strength for this splinter and the N/S cue bidding style. South's decision to go past 4♥ without being able to cue bid a minor suggests that ♥AKQ is a distinct possibility and ♥Q is not necessary if South has 6 hearts. Although he would be wrong on this occasion, North might reasonably infer that ♣A is very likely to be onside and there is a fair chance that a diamond finesse, if required, will work too.

 

Now without the UI, North would be fully entitled to take the pessimistic view and reason as you do. Without the UI, North might also take the optimstic view and reason as I do.

 

But once North has UI, he is obliged to work out what logical alternatives are demonstrably suggested and to bid accordingly. The 5♥ bid is therefore illegal, in my opinion.

[campboy]

Just been reading this thread, and I actually thought the original ruling was a bit wierd. IMO, north does not have a logical alternative to 5!H. Assuming that south 4!s is cue bid showing the ace, then to make slam good you need a hand containing something like A!s AKQ!h and A!c or, A!s AKQ!h k!d and q!c. With either of these hands, (and from my thinking all the hands where north can envisage slam), south has a clear drive in his own hand. North should immeadeately sign off. I'm pretty sure that if you polled high level players assuming 3!s splinter was the actual agreement, they would think it ludicrous to encourage any more, and most would already think that the splinter was a distortion. Moreover, you would certainly bid 4!s with less than the example hands I have given, if south has A!s AKQ!h opposite a splinter he is already envisaging 5!H a!s 2!s ruffs and the splinter having AKA in the minors opposite to make up for his poor trumps.

When considering LAs, we are supposed to be thinking about peers of the player involved. We weren't told the level of the player, so "high level" players are not necessarily the right ones to ask. The opinion of a player who wouldn't have splintered in the first place isn't relevant; since this player did consider it good enough to splinter he will continue to bid as though that were the case.

 

I don't claim to be high level, but I would not consider 5♥ here (unless playing Italian cues when it is obvious). Partner has made the first above-game cue-bid, so if I cue in response I do not expect to be showing any extra values; in fact I would expect 5♥ to deny the ace of diamonds. Isn't this a fairly standard interpretation?

[bluejak]

Can I please put in yet another plea that "self-serving" be used with its denotative meaning, and not the way it seems to be used at least in the ACBL casebooks?

 

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, the director should consider it self-serving and incredible, and ignore it.
  
• If the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable, the director should consider it self-serving and irrefultable, and not ignore it - but if it looks like it's only logical and irrefutable post facto, or that nobody could work that all out at the table, it's not "logical and irrefutable", see below.
• If the line of reasoning is somewhere in between (as it almost always is), the director should consider it self-serving and to whatever extent reasonable, and treat it with more suspicion than if the opponents had made that same line of reasoning - but definitely not ignore it.

Self-serving testimony should be discounted for what it is - statements made by a player to that player's benefit, which should always be taken with more suspicion than non-self-serving testimony. But level of suspicion is somewhat orthogonal to the logic of the statement.

Works for me. That is what I mean by self-serving testimony: self-serving is a matter of fact, and we discount it somewhat but not completely.