The process behind UI rulings and tuning judgment

[jeffford76]

I had to make a ruling this weekend in a fairly normally happening in club bridge. Someone asked fairly pointed questions about the opponent's auction while their partner was selecting a lead, the questions suggested a particular lead, and that is the suit the partner led. So the only difficult decision is whether any other less successful lead is a logical alternative.

 

My initial instinct on the hand was that of course another suit was a logical alternative, but that I would still do a poll to be sure. Surprisingly the first three people asked all led the same thing as at the table, and ranged from "obvious to lead that" to "I would think about the other suit, but I would never lead it".

 

My question is, how do you decide that you've asked enough peers that you can fairly decide that something is not a logical alternative since the threshold is so low, especially in the case where people are clearly considering, but rejecting the alternative?

 

I know three people isn't statistically significant, and at the time I asked three more before eventually ruling that there wasn't a logical alternative to the selected lead, but I'm still not sure that it wouldn't have come out the other way if I'd happened to be able to reach a different set of people on the phone.

[aguahombre]

I had to make a ruling this weekend in a fairly normally happening in club bridge. Someone asked fairly pointed questions about the opponent's auction while their partner was selecting a lead,

When you got finished ruling about LA's, I hope you also dealt with this infraction.

 

Maybe it is normal in club bridge until addressed to all your players, but it is not a trivial matter and must be strongly discouraged.

[billw55]

Hard to say how many peers are required. I would only recommend that you decide how many you are going to ask, before you ask anybody. This helps prevent you from adding more pollees to seek a different response.

 

Obviously, the questioner on this hand needs a refresher on lead procedures. Leader selects a card, tables it face down, and only then does partner ask questions.

[jeffford76]

When you got finished ruling about LA's, I hope you also dealt with this infraction.

 

Yes, I did this too of course. I didn't need any help with that part. :)

[barmar]

I don't think polls need to be very large -- 4-6 players is probably enough. The main purpose of the poll is to avoid too much bias towards your own opinion, particularly in cases where the player in question is at a different experience level than yourself and you find it difficult to imagine the decision from their perspective.

[bluejak]

When you take a poll it is important to do more than count heads. You are going to have to make a twofold decision, namely is a call or play one that would be seriously considered by a significant proportion of players, and second would some of them select it.

 

Now once you have asked a few people, listened to the answers, not just Yes or No, but what they think generally and so on, you will probably come to a conclusion as to whether a significant proportion of players might give that choice serious consideration. The EBU suggests that a significant proportion means at least two out of ten. If you think not, then the call is not an LA: if you think so you can consider the second question: if you are not sure you should ask more people.

 

The second question is whether some of these would actually choose the call. Some means more than one. Now if you have only asked four people and two do not consider it, more than one of the remaining two is ridiculous. But to repeat, this is not just a matter of counting heads: you judge based on the comments, and, again, if you cannot decide, you need to ask more people.

 

If you polled three people and then decided you were confident of the answer, then you polled enough people.

[jules101]

Similar, but different (in local club)

 

 

We have one 80+ year old delightful LOL who (whenever holding suit RHO opens) ALWAYS asks if RHO's suit is natural....

 

eg

 

1♦ "is that natural?" "Yes" [Pass] etc.

 

 

Amazingly whenever she asks this question her husband ALWAYS leads this suit. And it generally gets them a god board!

 

[i suppose by inference if she doesn't ask then can have a shot at another suit.]

 

 

Any tips for managing this?

[nigel_k]

I essentially agree with what barmar and bluejak said and would go even further.

 

You aren't trying to achieve a sample that gives a statistically significant answer about what actions a significant proportion of players would consider or select. It isn't practical to poll enough people for that. You answer these questions using your experience and judgment, augmented by the experience and judgment of the people you poll.

[Cascade]

Similar, but different (in local club)

 

 

We have one 80+ year old delightful LOL who (whenever holding suit RHO opens) ALWAYS asks if RHO's suit is natural....

 

eg

 

1♦ "is that natural?" "Yes" [Pass] etc.

 

 

Amazingly whenever she asks this question her husband ALWAYS leads this suit. And it generally gets them a god board!

 

[i suppose by inference if she doesn't ask then can have a shot at another suit.]

 

 

Any tips for managing this?

 

penalties

[barmar]

And it generally gets them a god board!

As in, "God, I can't imagine how you found that lead!" ? ;)

[mycroft]

Similar, but different (in local club)

 

We have one 80+ year old delightful LOL who (whenever holding suit RHO opens) ALWAYS asks if RHO's suit is natural....

 

eg

 

1♦ "is that natural?" "Yes" [Pass] etc.

 

Amazingly whenever she asks this question her husband ALWAYS leads this suit. And it generally gets them a god board!

[i suppose by inference if she doesn't ask then can have a shot at another suit.]

 

Any tips for managing this?

First, has the TD explained to them that this is inappropriate communication, and that adjustments can and should be made? I've seen in the past where "everybody" knows about this, but nobody calls the TD. They may grumble, and try to "educate", but the TD never knows, because "it's just a club game, so I won't call" (I'll just grumble about it for days).

 

If the TD knows about it, but doesn't rule, or doesn't explain to them (if told about it afterward, "don't care about the ruling, just want it explained"), or the education isn't taking, and the TD doesn't want to lose them (he's sure he's not losing you. Of course, in these days of BBO, that kind of judgement call "well, they won't leave because they're addicted" doesn't work any more; they do leave, usually to a better game online. That doesn't mean it doesn't still happen), then you have a different problem.

 

If the TD knows about it, and has been finding alternative, less successful lead LAs, and explaining why the ruling is the way it is, and they still do it, keep calling. At least at your table they aren't getting away with it. And, of course, you have the option with your 4=2=3=AKxx opener of opening 1♣, and if question occurs and partner bids NT, bidding game freely, knowing you aren't getting a heart lead. Okay, it's rare...

 

If you *are* the TD, you need to do the explanation from step 1, as often as necessary, and start making those judgement rulings based on "is there an alternative Logical Alternative lead to opener's suit that will score less well?" repeatedly and reliably; if it turns out that there is no or no less successful LA to opener's suit, ruling that the score stands, but making clear that if the other side had been damaged, they would have got the lesser score, and, if she *really needs to know* what the length of the opener is, the proper ways and times to do that. Make it clear that you're watching and are going to make sure that they don't get any advantage from this any more (and taking away husband's judgement to find a good lead in favour of the TD finding the worst of the sensible leads). If you need to assign a procedural penalty, do so, but if the repeated rollback rulings don't do anything, the PP might not either.

[jeffford76]

You aren't trying to achieve a sample that gives a statistically significant answer about what actions a significant proportion of players would consider or select. It isn't practical to poll enough people for that. You answer these questions using your experience and judgment, augmented by the experience and judgment of the people you poll.

 

This makes sense, but it sounds as if you would consider ruling "X is a logical alternative" based on the polling + your experience even though no one in the poll actually selected it. If I understand you correctly, how would you present this ruling to the player? (Assuming here that the player knows the law and knows that you polled.)

[nigel_k]

This makes sense, but it sounds as if you would consider ruling "X is a logical alternative" based on the polling + your experience even though no one in the poll actually selected it. If I understand you correctly, how would you present this ruling to the player? (Assuming here that the player knows the law and knows that you polled.)

The words 'some might select it' should not be taken too literally. I have trouble even getting my head around the possibility that a significant proportion of players would consider an action without it being the case that some of them might select it. When I consider something, I might do it. That is precisely why I am considering it.

 

To answer your actual question, you would ask people how close they are to actually doing it. But in general, the action will nearly always be a logical alternative once there is a significant proportion considering it.

 

In general, it's easier if you avoid thinking of making a ruling as an exact process that, when followed, will necessarily produce the correct result. It's your judgment, which may be wrong. If a player thinks it is wrong, maybe the appeals committee will agree with them. And that's fine.

[bluejak]

Similar, but different (in local club)

 

 

We have one 80+ year old delightful LOL who (whenever holding suit RHO opens) ALWAYS asks if RHO's suit is natural....

 

eg

 

1♦ "is that natural?" "Yes" [Pass] etc.

 

 

Amazingly whenever she asks this question her husband ALWAYS leads this suit. And it generally gets them a god board!

 

[i suppose by inference if she doesn't ask then can have a shot at another suit.]

 

 

Any tips for managing this?

Keep ruling against them, explaining carefully.

[barmar]

To answer your actual question, you would ask people how close they are to actually doing it. But in general, the action will nearly always be a logical alternative once there is a significant proportion considering it.

The definition of LA has two requirements: X = "given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players" and Y = "some might select it". You seem to be saying that X almost always implies Y, so only X needs to be determined.

 

But why would they have put Y in the law if it's not really needed?

[aguahombre]

The definition of LA has two requirements: X = "given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players" and Y = "some might select it". You seem to be saying that X almost always implies Y, so only X needs to be determined.

 

But why would they have put Y in the law if it's not really needed?

I, too, await the answer to that. Maybe Nigel and others have migrated away from the original definition and it is becoming an accepted practice, or maybe a subsequent minute of some LC has changed things and has gone unnoticed by you and me.

[gordontd]

I have trouble even getting my head around the possibility that a significant proportion of players would consider an action without it being the case that some of them might select it.

I find it quite possible to consider a call, but then decide that I am definitely not going to select it. I would find it strange if you then said that I might select it when I know that I would not.

 

I had also wondered if the use of "might" rather than "would" is a consequence of the matter being hypothetical, but that's probably for linguists (of whom I am not one) to comment on.

[bluejak]

I don't understand the suggestion that part of the LA definition does not apply. Why ever not?

[mycroft]

The ACBL is pretty much responsible for that definition of LA (it being theirs for years before codification in the FLB). "...of which some number might take it" was put in because committees were still straying too far towards "if it hesitates, shoot it" - "of course, I'd never actually *take* that call, and neither would any of my colleagues here, because this one is so obviously right when considered for a few seconds. But I'd need those few seconds to seriously consider it - so *you* have to take it, with the UI."

 

"Of which some number" was greeted with "well, zero is 'some number'" by people who really did not want to get the joke. Yes, I'm serious, both by NABC Appeals members and by casebook commentators. That got stamped out fairly quickly (except in one notable person's case), but with the still fuzzy terminology, the fight has to be made in each jurisdiction as it comes to pass.

[barmar]

Doesn't EBU have an interpretation that's something like "at least 60% would consider, and at least 25% would choose"?

[gordontd]

Doesn't EBU have an interpretation that's something like "at least 60% would consider, and at least 25% would choose"?

White Book 16.6.1:

Is an action a logical alternative (an LA)?

When deciding whether an action constitutes an LA under the 2007 Laws, the TD

should decide two things.

1. He should decide whether a significant proportion of the player's peers,

playing the same system as the player, would seriously consider the action.

What is a “significant proportion”? The Laws do not specify a figure, but the TD should

assume that it means at least one player in five.

If fewer than about one player in five of a player’s peers would consider the action then

it is not an LA.

2. If a significant proportion would consider the action, then the TD should next

decide whether some would actually choose it.

Again the Laws do not specify a figure for “some”, and the TD should assume that it

means more than just an isolated exception.

If no one or almost no one would choose the action having considered it, the action is

not an LA.

Serious consideration is more than a passing thought.

[gnasher]

I find it quite possible to consider a call, but then decide that I am definitely not going to select it. I would find it strange if you then said that I might select it when I know that I would not.

Yes, I think the idea is to exclude an action that is incorrect or inferior, but which we wouldn't realise was wrong until we had considered it.

[RunemPard]

I would contact the TD after...regarding the LOL. Any time we must play them after, I will have two cards ready, opened, facing them, and give a brief system overview before play. If she asks, the director is on their way.

 

The thing I never understood is...when there are convention cards available, asking for an explanation of an opening bid is simply pointless and lazy. If the card says that 1C is 2+ suit, no 5cM unless 65 or greater, then asking is pointless.

[Sjoerds]

...Someone asked fairly pointed questions about the opponent's auction while their partner was selecting a lead, the questions suggested a particular lead, and that is the suit the partner led.

 

I would like to stipulate one possible violation. 41B "the leader’s partner ...may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call" but only after a face-down opening lead.

[jillybean]

Similar, but different (in local club)

 

We have one 80+ year old delightful LOL who (whenever holding suit RHO opens) ALWAYS asks if RHO's suit is natural....

 

penalties

 

Keep ruling against them, explaining carefully.

 

Nice idea but it won't happen. The laws are generally NOT enforced at the Club level. The club managers/directors want the players to come and have a nice time and not be scared away by the laws and the secretary birds.

 

It is funny when I compare this to my daughter's basketball game. She has just started playing and there are a lot of rules. When she or a teammate break a rule, the whistle is blown and they are penalized. They are learning the rules and they all come back and play next week.