Should we consider the class of player involved?

[barmar]

So that means that if a player would bid 4♥ always and without exception, as would his peers, you would still make it illegal for him to do so because his skill level is different from the average of the field? How can you possibly justify such an approach?

Maybe the thinking is this: If you decide to enter the Reisinger or Bermuda Bowl, you should expect to be judged by the standards of that event. You don't get different treatment because you're a novice who has decided to play up.

[nigel_k]

If we must make a football analogy, here is one.

 

Suppose a player is illegally brought down in the penalty area. Which is fairer: his team takes a penalty, or the referee tosses two fair coins and awards a goal 75% of the time? The second rule is your "level playing field": the same adjustment is given no matter who is involved. The first rule has the apparent drawback that a good goalkeeper is more likely to save the penalty, but then he would also have been more likely to save the hypothetical attempt on goal which would have occurred without the foul.

I would suggest the analogy with football is more like this:

 

If a strong attacking player opposing a weak goalkeeper is brought down, the team gets a penalty because he would likely have scored. If a weak attacking player opposing a strong goalkeeper is brought down, the team just gets a free kick outside the box because he probably would not have scored. That's what the laws of bridge effectively do now by taking into account the class of player involved. I am suggesting the same penalty (or free kick) in both cases, disregarding the ability of the actual players involved.

[Cascade]

I would suggest the analogy with football is more like this:

 

If a strong attacking player opposing a weak goalkeeper is brought down, the team gets a penalty because he would likely have scored. If a weak attacking player opposing a strong goalkeeper is brought down, the team just gets a free kick outside the box because he probably would not have scored. That's what the laws of bridge effectively do now by taking into account the class of player involved. I am suggesting the same penalty (or free kick) in both cases, disregarding the ability of the actual players involved.

 

The analogy breaks down because not only are we considering the penalty but the infraction itself.

 

If one player would always bid 4♥ as in blujak's example and so would all of that player's peers there is currently no infraction.

 

Whilst if another player would not have bid 4♥ but is prompted to do it based on UI from partner then there is an infraction.

 

Its not the case that in the football analogy that it is ok to bring down a weaker (or stronger) player but not vice versa.

[nigel_k]

The analogy breaks down because not only are we considering the penalty but the infraction itself.

This is just semantics. The stage of the process where the class of player is taken into account does not change the practical effect of doing so, which is that there are options legally available to a strong player that are not legally available to a weak player.

 

I am not aware of any other game where the rules provide for something like this. It seems plainly unfair.

[gnasher]

This is just semantics. The stage of the process where the class of player is taken into account does not change the practical effect of doing so, which is that there are options legally available to a strong player that are not legally available to a weak player.

 

I am not aware of any other game where the rules provide for something like this. It seems plainly unfair.

 

What about rugby, where a penalty try is awarded if an offence "prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored"? That appears to depend on the referee's judgement of the ability of the two sides.

[Cascade]

When there is an advantage rule there are options available to some players that are not available to other players.

 

A strong player maybe able to choose to gain an advantage and thereby give up on the penalty whereas a weaker player may not be able to gain the advantage and thereby settle for the penalty.

[nigel_k]

I don't agree with the advantage rule example. That allows the better side to gain more benefit from the penalty, rather like having Ronaldo taking your free kick. But it doesn't mean that some actions are allowed for one side but not the other.

 

The penalty try rule is closer, but usually these are awarded when a try would be scored without the violation, unless the attacking team screwed up pretty badly. So I think it would be very rare that the ability of the side involved would determine whether they get a penalty try, or just a normal penalty.

[lalldonn]

You have two players, a novice and an expert. They both have the same auction where their respective partners have bid 6NT but also transmitted UI that suggests raising to 7NT. Based on some sort of bridge logic, it can be demonstrated that raising to 7NT is the correct action. The expert would always have applied this logic. The novice would never have applied this logic. If you are forced to give both players the same ruling, one of these two situations will occur.

- The expert receives the score for 6NT, even though he would always have bid 7NT.

- The novice receives the score for 7NT, even though he would never have bid 7NT.

It escapes me how either of those outcomes could be considered "fair", especially if we consider the main purpose of the laws to be restoring equity.

[blackshoe]

"Fair" is whatever the laws say it is.

 

As I read the laws, in your example case, if either player bids 7NT, they will be found to have violated Law 73C or Law 16B2, or both, and the score will be adjusted. If neither player bids 7NT, the score will not be adjusted. The fact that absent the UI the expert is more likely to bid 7NT is not relevant.

[Cascade]

"Fair" is whatever the laws say it is.

 

As I read the laws, in your example case, if either player bids 7NT, they will be found to have violated Law 73C or Law 16B2, or both, and the score will be adjusted. If neither player bids 7NT, the score will not be adjusted. The fact that absent the UI the expert is more likely to bid 7NT is not relevant.

 

Why?

 

For the expert there may be no logical alternative to raising in which case it cannot be a violation of L16B2 and I cannot see how you are gaining an advantage by doing the only logical thing available so how can it be a violation of L73C?

[lalldonn]

Why?

 

For the expert there may be no logical alternative to raising in which case it cannot be a violation of L16B2 and I cannot see how you are gaining an advantage by doing the only logical thing available so how can it be a violation of L73C?

What you said. My attempt was to create a situation where for the expert there is no LA to 7NT. I am agreeing with the current laws. The suggestion seems to be we shouldn't be allowed to make different rulings for the two players, which I do not agree with at all.

[nige1]

This aspect of the laws stink. Furthermore I find them objectionable to have to enforce, not to mention difficult to understand and contentious in thier outcome based as they are solely on opinion. I couldn't think of a worse heap of c..p to write in a rule book and then expect mostly amateur players and TDs to have to abide by.

Nick is a master of understatement. The "quality of player" should refer not to the individual putative offender but to the average player in the competition.

• Judgement of individual ability is error-prone, controversial, and inapplicable to strangers and foreigners.
• Even when the poor player benefits, It is at the cost of being insulted and patronized.
• It prevents a level playing field.
• It adds unnecessary complexity and subjectivity with no compensating gain.
• The simpler law would allow justice to be done and seen to be done.

[blackshoe]

Two things: if there's no LA to 7NT, then bidding 7NT is not an infraction, so there would be no score adjustment. Secondly, I have been told that "logical alternative" is to be read as "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". If all experts would always bid 7NT, then there is no plausible alternative for that class of player. If the player is a member of a class with lesser skill, then pass may well be a plausible alternative for that class of player. Yes the rulings will be different. I don't think that's a bad thing.

[StevenG]

Two things: if there's no LA to 7NT, then bidding 7NT is not an infraction, so there would be no score adjustment. Secondly, I have been told that "logical alternative" is to be read as "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". If all experts would always bid 7NT, then there is no plausible alternative for that class of player. If the player is a member of a class with lesser skill, then pass may well be a plausible alternative for that class of player. Yes the rulings will be different. I don't think that's a bad thing.

So if the weaker player works out that 7NT is the only sensible bid, he will be ruled against, even though all the LAs are demonstratively illogical. Is that not unjust?

 

Maybe it is more sensible to reflect that these situations come about when your partner gives you UI, realise that you often get a bad score under such circumstances, and stop whingeing that it shouldn't apply to you, because you're too good to be penalised. Just don't give the UI in the first place.

[Cascade]

So if the weaker player works out that 7NT is the only sensible bid, he will be ruled against, even though all the LAs are demonstratively illogical. Is that not unjust?

 

Maybe it is more sensible to reflect that these situations come about when your partner gives you UI, realise that you often get a bad score under such circumstances, and stop whingeing that it shouldn't apply to you, because you're too good to be penalised. Just don't give the UI in the first place.

 

It doesnt seem unjust if the player worked it out based on additional information from partner that was unauthorized

[StevenG]

It doesnt seem unjust if the player worked it out based on additional information from partner that was unauthorized

How can you tell? (for either the novice or the expert)

[PetteriLem]

It doesnt really matter as what we are trying to achieve is a correct ruling for a group of pairs not for a single pair. It is known that optimum ruling may require it to be wrong in each and every individual case, but be the best for all as an average and from this point of view a single case is meaningless. When we are trying to determine what a group of bad players would have done, we give a ruling for that group only, but we just dont say so. This is where the idea of misjustice stems from.

[lalldonn]

How can you tell? (for either the novice or the expert)

You can't. That's why you only allow them to do it if for that player there was no logical alternative to doing so. Allowing it any less is unfair to the offending pair who are being barred from something you judge they would always have done, and allowing it any more is unfair to the non-offending pair who may be getting cheated.

[StevenG]

You can't. That's why you only allow them to do it if for that player there was no logical alternative to doing so. Allowing it any less is unfair to the offending pair who are being barred from something you judge they would always have done, and allowing it any more is unfair to the non-offending pair who may be getting cheated.

The problem with your example is that the offending pair who may be getting barred is the expert pair, and the non-offending pair who may be getting cheated is the expert pair. I agree that a bad ruling woud be unfair to them, but you seem to be totally unconcerned about fairness for the novice pair. And when the novice pair are not novices, but good club players, or near-expert, then what?

[nigel_k]

You have two players, a novice and an expert. They both have the same auction where their respective partners have bid 6NT but also transmitted UI that suggests raising to 7NT. Based on some sort of bridge logic, it can be demonstrated that raising to 7NT is the correct action. The expert would always have applied this logic. The novice would never have applied this logic. If you are forced to give both players the same ruling, one of these two situations will occur.

- The expert receives the score for 6NT, even though he would always have bid 7NT.

- The novice receives the score for 7NT, even though he would never have bid 7NT.

It escapes me how either of those outcomes could be considered "fair", especially if we consider the main purpose of the laws to be restoring equity.

I don't disagree with the reasoning here. But I just attach a higher value to the principle that two players facing the same situation should have the same options legally available to them. To me this is much more important than restoring equity.

 

Also, I don't believe the laws mention equity at all except when providing rectification after an infraction. What we are discussing will determine whether an infraction occurs at all. So to use 'restoring equity' as an argument here is an extension the laws, not an application of them.

[aguahombre]

I don't disagree with the reasoning here. But I just attach a higher value to the principle that two players facing the same situation should have the same options legally available to them. To me this is much more important than restoring equity.

Two players facing the same situation should and do have the same options legally available to them in LallDonn's scenario. They both have the same obligations, as well ---to base their decisions on AI and logic. If one player has (thru experience/expertise/inference) the ability to make the right decision, but the other player only has UI available to make the same decision, perhaps we should at least allow the players to explain their rationale before applying the same adjustment to each of them.

 

Furthermore, when deciding whether to "buy" a player's rationale, I would give little or no weight to the opinions of players (any level) polled which do not address the factors brought up by the player in question.

 

Actually this means we are not really considering the "class" of player involved ---rather the class of his/her thought processes and articulation. Quite different from how we evaluate arguments on BBF :rolleyes:

Edited November 11, 2012 by aguahombre

[nigel_k]

Two players facing the same situation should and do have the same options legally available to them in LallDonn's scenario. They both have the same obligations, as well ---to base their decisions on AI and logic.

No, they don't.

 

The laws define what is a logical alternative and the thought process actually used by the player *is not* a relevant factor. The strength of the player's justification of their choice, or whether we buy it or not, is just not a factor. We only consider what other players would do.

 

In Josh's example the expert may legally raise to 7NT and the novice may not. Even if the novice has a perfectly valid reason for thinking that pass is illogical, he still is legally required to pass.

[aguahombre]

No, they don't.

 

The laws define what is a logical alternative and the thought process actually used by the player a relevant factor. The strength of the player's justification of their choice, or whether we buy it or not, is just not a factor. We only consider what other players would do.

 

In Josh's example the expert may legally raise to 7NT and the novice may not. Even if the novice has a perfectly valid reason for thinking that pass is illogical, he still is legally required to pass.

Nonsense. In case you want more: I do not accept that a player of lower "status" is incapable of (occasionally) making expert decisions which would have the same weight in a UI situation as the expert might have.

[nigel_k]

Nonsense. In case you want more: I do not accept that a player of lower "status" is incapable of (occasionally) making expert decisions which would have the same weight in a UI situation as the expert might have.

Sorry, I somehow left out 'is not' from what I posted (now fixed). Hopefully the context makes it clear. Here is the relevant section of the laws: 16B1(b)

 

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

There just isn't a way to read this so that the thought process of the actual player is taken into account. We look at what the class of similar players would do or consider doing, and nothing more.

 

We might use the given player's statement as evidence in deciding what similar players would do. But the assumption of Josh's example was that the pass was a logical alternative for the class of player in question.

[aguahombre]

We might use the given player's statement as evidence in deciding what similar players would do. But the assumption of Josh's example was that the pass was a logical alternative for the class of player in question.

Sorry, still too elitist for me. I would use the given player's statement as evidence in deciding whether that player was using Bridge logic or UI. What is a "similar player"? One incapable of thought?