More UI and LA

[bluejak]

If there are two irregularities, one being the misexplanation and the other being the failure to correct it, where does Law 12 say that we have to adjust for the earlier one rather than the later one?

It doesn't. Of course you can look at both irregularities.

 

The failure to correct it is not an irregularity. It only is an irregularity once the partner of the explainer doesnot correct the explanation at the appropriate time.

 

Giving misinformation is something that occurs "instantaneously". That is the infraction. It is not an ongoing, "continuous" infraction for the time that he MI hangs over the table. Maintaining the misinformation is only an infraction if you become aware that you gave misinformation and then don't correct it.

You are required to correct by Law. Thus the failure to correct is both an irregularity and an infraction, and an adjustment may be given.

 

Because there are two infractions. The laws don't handle this situation well, but even if you start with the second infraction, you still have to deal with the first.

That is true. But, if there is no damage, you do not adjust. So, where the later infraction leads to a greater adjustment for the non-offending side, the earlier infraction now provides no damage. In effect, when there are two possible adjustments for two infractions, we take the one that benefits the non-offenders more.

 

How many players do you know who would intentionally delay correcting a misexplanation in order to gain an advantage?

None, really. But infractions get adjustments whether intentional or not.

[Trinidad]

David, do you realize at all that what you are writing now means that your post #3 was completely wrong?

 

Now, you say that not correcting the MI is an infraction. Since the MI was not corrected at the point where West bid 3♦, there was an infraction at that point in time. Then, following your reasoning in your last posts, you will have to adjust the score based on that infraction.

 

This means: You take that infraction away and give an AS. To assign this AS, the TD will make the decisions on West's behalf, using the knowledge that West has, including the information that he had from the previous infractions: the initial wrong explanation and the not correcting the MI up to then. This means you have to rule based on this knowledge for West:

 

1) 2♠ shows clubs

2) South has originally explained it as natural. NS have a misunderstanding. This information comes from a previous, separate infraction.

 

In your earlier post #3, you wrote that you don't use the 2nd piece of information (and I agree with that) since you are correcting the infraction reasoning from the point where the MI was given. But if not correcting MI is considered and infraction, you will have to adjust for the infraction that South didnot correct the MI right before South bid 3♦.

 

If you would do that, then it is strange to assign a weighted AS. No West would ever bid, knowing that their vulnerable opponents at IMPs have a misunderstanding, since bidding will give them a chance to right their wrong.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

I have re-read #3 which seems correct to me.

 

I think your deductions from what I say just do not follow.

 

When you adjust you do not do so on the basis of the player getting the correct info and the effect at the table of the wrong info. That is still correct, and unaffected by my later post which seems unconnected to me.

[Trinidad]

Maybe you should read what the discussion is about, particular posts 24, 27, and clarified in 29 and 31.

 

You just argued that not correcting the MI is an infraction (albeit unintentional, because the player doesn't realize that he has given MI) and that it gets adjusted whether it is intentional or not:

But infractions get adjustments whether intentional or not.

 

I know that you mean that #3 is correct, but that is not what you argue later when you say that not correcting the MI just prior to the 3♦ bid is a separate infraction (which -I am sure- you don't mean to say).

 

Rik

[barmar]

There are two issues involved:

 

1. Adjusting the board because the NOS's play or defense was incorrect as a result of the MI. This should always be done, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

 

2. A PP to the OS for failing to correct the MI. I don't believe that a player can be expected to correct MI if they don't know it has been given. 20F4 specifically says "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete"; if he doesn't realize it, he's obviously not required to call the TD (what would prompt him to?), so what infraction has occurred? 20F5 doesn't have this qualifier, it just says "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation" and then explains his obligations; but I believe the law is just making the assumption that only one of the members of the partnership is confused about their agreements, or they meant to say "A player who believes his partner has given a mistaken explanation" (in fact, 20F5b says that when he eventually calls the TD, he should inform them that "in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous".

[blackshoe]

Exactly, South failed to correct the MI before/after the 3♦ call pursuant to 20F4. Why can't we use Law 23 to adjust?

I want to address this point. Law 20F4 says "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

The emphasis is mine. That conditional clause means that if the player has not realized that his own explanation was in error, his failure to correct that explanation is in no way an irregularity or infraction of law. Furthermore, the primary criterion for application of Law 23 is that the putative offender could have known that his alleged offense could damage the opponents. I suspect most players who have given it any thought "could know" that not correctly explaining your agreements could damage opponents, but that's not what Law 23 is about. In this case, a player who believes he has given a correct explanation, even if he's wrong, cannot know that he might damage the opponents thereby. So Law 23 cannot apply.

[blackshoe]

You are required to correct by Law. Thus the failure to correct is both an irregularity and an infraction, and an adjustment may be given.

We're talking here about a player who gave a mistaken explanation correcting that information. If he does not realize his explanation was incorrect, he has not committed an infraction by not correcting it. See my previous post.

 

That is true. But, if there is no damage, you do not adjust. So, where the later infraction leads to a greater adjustment for the non-offending side, the earlier infraction now provides no damage. In effect, when there are two possible adjustments for two infractions, we take the one that benefits the non-offenders more.

We do? Okay, if you say so. B-)

[c_corgi]

We're talking here about a player who gave a mistaken explanation correcting that information. If he does not realize his explanation was incorrect, he has not committed an infraction by not correcting it. See my previous post.

 

What about a player who has become unsure about whether his (or partners for that matter) explanation is wrong? It seems reasonable to wait for the end of the hand and find out rather than giving opponents information to which they are not entitled. But if it turns out the explanation was wrong, the opponents were entitled to the correct information. Were they also entitled to the correction and hence knowledge of the misunderstanding? I would think so, but then how would you distinguish this situation from the one you describe, where he says nothing because he hasnt realsied there is a possibility of being wrong?

[blackshoe]

You would distinguish it by his statement that he "became unsure".

 

That said, I'm not sure that "I am unsure" is the same thing as "I now realize my previous explanation was wrong", so I'm not sure that failing to correct when one is unsure is an infraction of law. It does seem to be an application of "active ethics" to correct, specifying your lack of certainty.

 

As for the partner of an explainer, the law is specific as to when he is supposed to correct the explanation, so failure to do so before that time is again not an infraction of law. The pertinent law (20F5) starts "a player whose partner has given an incorrect explanation…" so again the law assumes you are sure. In this case I would suggest that "active ethics" is more certain to be the right thing to do.

[sailoranch]

I want to address this point. Law 20F4 says "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

The emphasis is mine. That conditional clause means that if the player has not realized that his own explanation was in error, his failure to correct that explanation is in no way an irregularity or infraction of law. Furthermore, the primary criterion for application of Law 23 is that the putative offender could have known that his alleged offense could damage the opponents. I suspect most players who have given it any thought "could know" that not correctly explaining your agreements could damage opponents, but that's not what Law 23 is about. In this case, a player who believes he has given a correct explanation, even if he's wrong, cannot know that he might damage the opponents thereby. So Law 23 cannot apply.

Right, and the natural consequence is that Law 20F4 is not enforceable. We have a scheme where a player would get +600 with the correction and -100 without the correction, and an opponent could knowingly flout 20F4 and have no way of being caught. Yes, there are players who would try to gain advantage in this situation, and part of the reason there aren't more is because Law 23 and similar provisions entitle a NOS to an adjustment in most situations where a player could purposely infringe.

 

My broader point is that a player can fail to give a correct explanation and earn a much better score thereby, whether he does so purposefully or not. It has been argued that it's not even an infraction for a player to provide MI in response to a question if he has already given that MI previously in the deal. And even if it were an infraction, the NOS is only getting the favorable adjustment by suspecting he's been given MI and knowing that he can gain by asking a question to which he's already supposed to know the answer.

[Trinidad]

Right, and the natural consequence is that Law 20F4 is not enforceable.

Of course it is enforceable. We just ask the player at what point he realized that he gave the wrong explanation.

 

We have a scheme where a player would get +600 with the correction and -100 without the correction, and an opponent could knowingly flout 20F4 and have no way of being caught.

If a player knowingly breaks the rules in this way, we use the c-word. We do not adjust scores, we do not give PP's. We throw the player out of the bridge club.

 

And let's get real. You are talking about a player who was asked for an explanation. At that point he gave the explanation that he sincerely thought was correct (though in fact it was wrong). A little later, this same, sincere player figures out that he gave the wrong explanation. And what does he decide to do? He decides to cheat and not correct the information.

 

Now, if one wanted to cheat, what would be easier: simply give the wrong explanation from the start? or give -what you think is- the correct information and -once you realize it is incorrect- not correcting it?

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

The laws are as they are. If your point is that they should be something other than they are, you're in the wrong forum. If your point is that a few people will cheat and never get caught, I don't believe it. If your point is that "everybody" cheats or would cheat if they got the chance, I think you're entirely too paranoid. IME most people are honest, and most people at least try to play by the rules.

 

In this forum, we rule according to the laws as they currently are, and we do not assume that "everyone" — or anyone — is a cheat.

[sailoranch]

Of course it is enforceable. We just ask the player at what point he realized that he gave the wrong explanation.

We have conflicting ideas about what unenforceable means.

 

If a player knowingly breaks the rules in this way, we use the c-word. We do not adjust scores, we do not give PP's. We throw the player out of the bridge club.

No, you wouldn't, because there's no way to prove it. If the only way of proving this infraction is having the player admit to it, and we're going to toss the player if he does so, then is he going to admit it? Assuming your name isn't Jack Bauer.

 

And let's get real. You are talking about a player who was asked for an explanation. At that point he gave the explanation that he sincerely thought was correct (though in fact it was wrong). A little later, this same, sincere player figures out that he gave the wrong explanation. And what does he decide to do? He decides to cheat and not correct the information.

I see what you did there. You used "sincere" in two different senses, the first being "in truth" and the second being "honest." It doesn't follow that someone who "sincerely" forgets his agreement is necessarily a sincere person who wouldn't try to recover at a later point.

 

Now, if one wanted to cheat, what would be easier: simply give the wrong explanation from the start? or give -what you think is- the correct information and -once you realize it is incorrect- not correcting it?

First of all, these are not two choices for a player in the same situation. These are two different situations: the player ostensibly remembers his agreement in the first and doesn't remember in the second.

 

Also, purposefully giving the MI throughout would have little to gain in relation to giving the correct explanation throughout when the TD adjusts. Failing to correct MI already given has plenty to gain in relation to not correcting it.

 

The laws are as they are. If your point is that they should be something other than they are, you're in the wrong forum. If your point is that a few people will cheat and never get caught, I don't believe it. If your point is that "everybody" cheats or would cheat if they got the chance, I think you're entirely too paranoid. IME most people are honest, and most people at least try to play by the rules.

 

In this forum, we rule according to the laws as they currently are, and we do not assume that "everyone" — or anyone — is a cheat.

First, one matter of law I'm still disputing is that a repeat of the MI in response to a question is not an infraction. I don't see how this is justified. If we're ruling that way just to avoid Silly Town, then the same argument would justify saying 40B4 or 21B3 or something allows us to adjust at the point the NOS used the MI.

 

Second, I am not accusing anyone in particular of cheating. I'm not making a ruling on the assumption that someone is cheating. I am saying that there is a scenario in which someone could cheat (knowingly breach 20F4) and easily get away with it. Is there a problem with accusing a hypothetical cheater of hypothetically cheating in a hypothetical scenario? I am asserting that there are players who would take advantage in this situation. I am also saying that the Laws, in general, provide rectification even if a player could have knowingly gained through an irregularity, and this would be an exception, because an irregularity either has not actually occurred or because there's no way of proving there was one.

 

That there is such a situation, combined with the other weird consequences, is evidence that we're interpreting the law incorrectly to begin with. (And yes, if that interpretation is indeed correct, then blah blah other forum.)

[barmar]

I frequently drive over the speed limit. I hardly ever get caught, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Does this mean that speed limits are unenforceable?

[sailoranch]

I frequently drive over the speed limit. I hardly ever get caught, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Does this mean that speed limits are unenforceable?

If the only evidence that the police could collect is that you admit going over the speed limit, then yes.

 

If there were a radar gun that we could point at a player to determine at what point he remembered his agreement, then 20F4 would be enforceable.

[Trinidad]

If the only evidence that the police could collect is that you admit going over the speed limit, then yes.

 

If there were a radar gun that we could point at a player to determine at what point he remembered his agreement, then 20F4 would be enforceable.

At our bridge club, we have the TDP 5000^{TM 1}. It has all the latest features, is very user friendly and highly reliable.

 

Rik

 

¹Tournament Director's Polygraph

[barmar]

So you're basically saying that "the honor system" isn't a useful system.

 

Many of the theories on the evolution of the primate brain suggest that the ability to detect lying and cheating was one of the driving forces, and humans are the masters of this. And emotions like guilt and shame are important for social creatures like us. It's not perfect, and you wouldn't rely on it solely in a court of law if you can avoid it. But it's good enough for a card game, IMHO.

[sailoranch]

So you're basically saying that "the honor system" isn't a useful system.

 

Many of the theories on the evolution of the primate brain suggest that the ability to detect lying and cheating was one of the driving forces, and humans are the masters of this. And emotions like guilt and shame are important for social creatures like us. It's not perfect, and you wouldn't rely on it solely in a court of law if you can avoid it. But it's good enough for a card game, IMHO.

No, the honor system is not a useful system in this situation.

 

We do not have an honor system in bridge. We have bidding boxes and screens and cell phone bans. There are laws that allow the TD to adjust even when an infraction could have been on purpose, so we don't have to ask the offender to confess. We see people trying to blatantly use UI or give patently false statements to the TD all the time, and these are things that can be caught. So I don't agree with the suggestion that trusting solely on people's honesty is an adequate way to protect non-offenders, especially when that's the only way they'll be caught.

 

And that is not all I'm saying. This business about honesty and the human condition distracts from the fact that this issue with 20F4 or repeating the MI when asked is rendered moot if we're adjusting to the call or play based on MI rather than the MI itself. Failure to comply would then have little to gain.

[blackshoe]

We see people trying to blatantly use UI or give patently false statements to the TD all the time, and these are things that can be caught.

No, "we" don't. Maybe you do. As I said, I think you're too paranoid.

[barmar]

No, "we" don't. Maybe you do. As I said, I think you're too paranoid.

I agree. But maybe you and I are too naive.

 

The whole problem is that there's no way to know things like this for sure, so the arguments work both ways. And even if cheating is NOT actually rampant, laws that require getting inside the player's head make it hard to catch it, so they worry that it could increase.

[sailoranch]

No, "we" don't. Maybe you do. As I said, I think you're too paranoid.

Just confirm what the Laws as they are say I should do if I expect that I'm misinformed. Say we're just before the play of 3NT in Zel's situation.

 

Should I ask opps to repeat the MI to protect myself, expecting a later adjustment to 3NT=? Or do I need to base my play on whether I believe I've been misinformed or not?

[blackshoe]

You are certainly entitled to act on the assumption that your opponents have misinformed you. If you're wrong, though, there will be no rectification. If you were misinformed, you don't need to get them to repeat the MI.

[sailoranch]

If you were misinformed, you don't need to get them to repeat the MI.

Is this because we're adjusting to 3NT= regardless? Or because the obligation to give a correct answer to a question no longer applies once you've given the MI?

 

If it's the latter case, what is the legal basis for saying so?

[blackshoe]

Regardless of what?

 

One is obligated to give correct answers about one's partnership understandings. See Laws 20 and 40. Of course, if for whatever reason you don't know the correct answer, you can hardly give it, can you?

[sailoranch]

Regardless of what?

 

One is obligated to give correct answers about one's partnership understandings. See Laws 20 and 40. Of course, if for whatever reason you don't know the correct answer, you can hardly give it, can you?

Sigh.

 

Law 20F requires a player to provide explanations about methods when asked, and 40B4 allows for an adjustment when they're incorrect and there's damage.

 

Obviously, giving MI the first time, even if you don't know the correct answer, is an infraction. But failing to adjust for repeating MI the second time implies that those laws now operate differently. And calling it an infraction but adjusting for the initial MI instead conflicts with how we're told to adjust in Law 12.

 

Earlier in the thread, you said that a repeat of the MI is in fact an infraction, but one that doesn't merit a different adjustment because the laws are unclear as to what to do when there are multiple adjustments. You seem to have accepted that when there are multiple infractions with the same OS, then the NOS gets the adjustment most favorable to them. In this case, if you're still treating the repeat MI as an infraction, it should entitle NOS to the best adjustment.

 

You said that if I were misinformed, I don't need to get them to repeat the MI. This implies that you would adjust the same way whether or not I ask them to do this. But I am still unclear on how you would adjust and your reasoning behind it. My questions, in reference to Zel's hypothetical earlier in the thread:

 

Are you adjusting to 3NT= whether or not South asks opps to repeat the MI?

 

Are you adjusting to 4H-1 whether or not South asks opps to repeat the MI? If so, what is the basis in the laws for saying the repeat MI is either not an infraction or not subject to adjustment?

 

Are you adjusting to 3NT= when the opps repeat the MI but 4H-1 when South does not ask?