Should we consider the class of player involved?

[gnasher]

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.

The introduction to the Laws says that they "are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged." Whilst that doesn't use the word "equity", it does imply that mainitaining and restroring equity is the primary objective.

[c_corgi]

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.

 

On the contrary, the "class of players in question" means players who would be likely to get into the same situation as the player whose decision is being investingated, and use the same thought processes when they get there. It does not mean players who average the same score in the weekly duplicate. I think this is what Aguahombre is getting at. The class of players in question may well be pretty much unique to the player at the table, which is why polls should only be used as a guide as Bluejack keeps telling us.

 

Perhaps the situation the inexpereienced player encountered at the table was exactly analogous to a situation he was discussing over dinner the day before with his friend who is an expert. The expert explained why a particular decision was correct and the thought processes involved. None of the points the expert made had previously been considered by the inexperienced player, but afterwards he was comfortable with the logic and keen to implement his new knowledge at the table. What is a logical alternative for this player has been changed by the conversation over dinner: if the situation had come up last week, he would have had an LA to the winning action (in fact the winning action would not even be an LA) but now the winning action is automatic with no LA. His overall abilities as a player are still much the same, but it is his thought processes in the situation encountered at the table that are taken into account.

[bluejak]

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.

One thing I always dislike about arguments on this and related subjects are posts and arguments that suggest the approach benefits better players: it doesn't. You get a sequence where a better player would do something a poorer player would not: sometimes that means we allow him to but not the poorer player: sometimes we do not allow it: it works both ways in different circumstances.

 

Example: 1NT (dbl) 2♦ (p)

2♥ (p) 3♦ (p)

P

 

Do we allow the final pass, assuming opener has UI to suggest it? If opener is an expert, of course not, unless he can clearly demonstrate this is a signoff sequence. But if it is a player so poor that they cannot conceive of a sequence that shows two suits - which is true of novices - then we allow it, because 3♥ is not an LA. So, assuming pass is the winning action, we rule against a better player and not a weaker player.

 

Whether or not we allow the class of player to be considered, it cannot be because otherwise it benefits the better player: that is just not true.

 

:ph34r:

 

The thing I really dislike about the whole idea presented by some people here is the basic unfairness on some people. They talk about a level playing field, but none of them have shown in any way that I can see how it is a level playing field where you are disallowed to make a call where there is no logical alternative in your or your peers' view: their idea of a level playing field is that if someone of a different ability and experience would take a particular action, then you are stuck with it.

 

Consider a simple case: you open 1♠, partner bids 4♦, you have what appears to you to be a routine 4♠ bid. Unfortunately you have some UI from partner. The TDs rule that you have two logical alternatives, 4♠, which partner will pass, and 4♥ "Last Train", which will encourage partner to go to the 5-level, and go off in 5♠.

 

You tell the TDs that you have never heard of Last Train in your 15 months of playing the game. Nonsense, say the TDs, it does not matter, we rule as though you were as experienced as the average of the field, and "everyone" plays Last Train.

 

Now, some people seem to think this approach is reasonable because you get a "level playing field": it just seems completely unfair to me. Apart from anything else, you expect people to follow the Laws, and you want a Law that they have to follow by playing to a standard to which they cannot play: barmy. :)

 

:ph34r:

 

I don't see the point in football or rugby analogies: ok, I would see the point if they were analogies, but they are not in any way. Of course the rules are not comparable. If there is a position in another sport where communication between two team-mates is controlled, and rectification is done by judging what might have happened, fair enough: none of the suggested analogies come close.

[barmar]

You tell the TDs that you have never heard of Last Train in your 15 months of playing the game. Nonsense, say the TDs, it does not matter, we rule as though you were as experienced as the average of the field, and "everyone" plays Last Train.

 

Now, some people seem to think this approach is reasonable because you get a "level playing field": it just seems completely unfair to me. Apart from anything else, you expect people to follow the Laws, and you want a Law that they have to follow by playing to a standard to which they cannot play: barmy. :)

Maybe it relates to my earlier comment: if you decide to play in the Reisinger, Spingold, etc., you'll be held to a higher standard. If you can't play at that level, go play in a bracketed KO or stratified pair game.

 

However, trying to apply that same "average experience" model in those fields could result in the unfairness that you point out. In a stratified game, you have the entire experience level of players, and no one is "playing up" by entering such an event. But if you have 3 strats, the average is somewhere in the middle strat, and the players in the lower strat will be expected to play at that level. But the whole point of stratification is that they can "win" by just playing better than the players in their own strat. Making LA judgements based on the entire field seems counter to the intent of the event.

 

I don't see the point in football or rugby analogies: ok, I would see the point if they were analogies, but they are not in any way. Of course the rules are not comparable. If there is a position in another sport where communication between two team-mates is controlled, and rectification is done by judging what might have happened, fair enough: none of the suggested analogies come close.

I also dislike these analogies. First, I don't know the sports very well, so I don't even understand the point being made. But also for the reason you give: there are relatively few rulings in physical sports that depend on why one does something. But bridge is a mind game, and a communication game, so intent and meaning come up often.

[nigel_k]

One thing I always dislike about arguments on this and related subjects are posts and arguments that suggest the approach benefits better players: it doesn't. You get a sequence where a better player would do something a poorer player would not: sometimes that means we allow him to but not the poorer player: sometimes we do not allow it: it works both ways in different circumstances.

Over all possible hands, unsuccessful actions are more likely to be considered or chosen by a bad player than by a good player. This follows directly from the definition of the words 'good' and 'bad'. So having different logical alternatives depending on the strength of the player is going to benefit stronger players in a clear majority of cases.

[aguahombre]

Maybe it relates to my earlier comment: if you decide to play in the Reisinger, Spingold, etc., you'll be held to a higher standard. If you can't play at that level, go play in a bracketed KO or stratified pair game.

More elitist nonsense. You should be held to the Laws of the game, and to your ability to articulate why you believe your call is allowable, and to whether the TD/AC buy your reasoning without applying their own personal evaluation of your overall skill level ---but certainly applying their evaluation of whether you applied the logic which you say you applied.

[barmar]

More elitist nonsense. You should be held to the Laws of the game, and to your ability to articulate why you believe your call is allowable, and to whether the TD/AC buy your reasoning without applying their own personal evaluation of your overall skill level ---but certainly applying their evaluation of whether you applied the logic which you say you applied.

We're talking about determining LAs, or which LA is suggested by UI, right? These don't just come from the player's own arguments, they come from what other players would consider and choose as well. So the question in this thread is which other players matter in this process -- players of the same class as the one whose action is in question, or the field of the event.

 

Or am I totally missing the point?

[c_corgi]

We're talking about determining LAs, or which LA is suggested by UI, right? These don't just come from the player's own arguments, they come from what other players would consider and choose as well. So the question in this thread is which other players matter in this process -- players of the same class as the one whose action is in question, or the field of the event.

 

Or am I totally missing the point?

 

They come from trying to determine the player's own thought processes. Considering what other players would consider or do is just a way of modelling those processes in case of doubt or to be thorough.

[barmar]

They come from trying to determine the player's own thought processes. Considering what other players would consider or do is just a way of modelling those processes in case of doubt or to be thorough.

There are some laws that require determining the thought processes of the players. When Law 23 says "could have known", there's some of this. Law 73D2 says you can't "attempt to mislead", which requires the misleading to be intentional. 74B4 is qualified with the reason for prolonging play.

 

However, the definition of Logical Alternatives refers to what players of the same class and playing the same methods would consider and do. And when Law 70 refers to "normal play" when dealing with a contested claim, it includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player. So I assume it's these latter laws that this thread is suggesting changes to. They make no mention of the player's own thought processes, and I believe the reason is that they should be more objective.

[aguahombre]

They make no mention of the player's own thought processes, and I believe the reason is that they should be more objective.

We have different ideas of objectivity. To me, ruling primarily because of a player's perceived prowess is subjective.

[c_corgi]

I think it is the "class of players in question" phrase that is confusing here. If you can completely understand all the thought processes of the player at the table, then:

a) the "class of players in question" is probably reduced to just that one player;

b) you have a very good basis for determining what (and how frequently) that player would consider and do in the absence of UI.

 

I think the goal should be to approximate the proportion of the time that, absent UI, the player at the table would consider and select a particular action. The "class of players in question" should be sufficiently restricted that L16B1b takes on this meaning.

 

In reality, you cannot completely understand his thought processes. You may be able to find out sufficient information that it is clear whether there were or weren't LA's. You may be able to find out sufficient information that you can identify a group of players with similar traits in the type of situation in question to poll. Either of these outcomes will trivially result in a sensible ruling.

 

I suspect that what often happens in practice is that "class of players in question" is interpreted too loosely (or maybe too literally) as "players of a similar level of experience and/or results", a poll of whom may well contribute nothing towards a sensible ruling, but is simply percieved as the process to follow. I hope nobody would conduct a poll of such "peers" and as a result impose an LA on the player in a situation where he was able to provide a flawless logical argument showing why, for him, there was no LA.

[blackshoe]

"More objective" is not the same as "completely objective".

[JLOGIC]

Good players are not benefitting from the laws, they are benefitting from being good players. Is it unfair that when you play against a good player, they are less likely to do something very bad than a bad player?

 

Is fair in your world to make a good player do something that none of his peers would do, and that would not be a logical alternative to him by any evidence? Of course not, that is not fair, that is simply punishing him for having his partner hesitate. He does not all of the sudden become a worse bridge player when his partner hesitates.

 

So, is this unfair to the bad player, who must be forced to make this bid that the good player wouldn't make because a poll of HIS peers indicated that it was a logical alternative? The laws are not the problem here, the fact that less skilled players might make worse actions in a bridge competition is part of the game. The less skilled player is punished for being less skilled, it is not any more unfair than when he takes a worse line than a good player and loses imps because of it.

 

At the end of the day, after the BIT or UI, we are trying to guess what might have happened at the table, and of those outcomes give the most favorable one to the non offending side. In this way, the offenders will never gain from their infraction, they are taking the worst result that might have happened. This does not mean that we throw in things that would never happen and give them an even worse result. And of course, in determining what might have happened, we must take into account the skill level of the players involved, how could we not? If we run a poll to determine LAs, we must poll people close in skill level to the offenders. The fact that some things are LAs to one class of players and not to the others is not an unfairness built into the laws, it is just a representation that more skilled players will often have a set of LAs that leads to better scores than less skilled players. Well, duh!

 

If the goal is to punish offenders and be punitive, fine, then lets say so and force them to make bids that they would not have made, or give them PPs, lol. But since that is not the goal then we must take skill level into account. Period.

[Phil]

One thing I always dislike about arguments on this and related subjects are posts and arguments that suggest the approach benefits better players: it doesn't. You get a sequence where a better player would do something a poorer player would not: sometimes that means we allow him to but not the poorer player: sometimes we do not allow it: it works both ways in different circumstances.

 

Abso-freakin-lutely.

 

When you go poll players for an infraction in the A section, you don't ask the cadddies and novices what they would do.

 

A players are better than B players, but this isn't what's really relevant. What is relevant is that good players make different decisions than weaker players. This can cut several ways and it doesn't necessarily benefit the better player.

 

Take a slow double of 5♥ removed by an A player to 5♠ that worked. Since a slow double at the five level is much less likely to be taken out by a good player's peers (not because they are ethical, but because, well its the 5 level), then a B player might get a favorable adjustment (based on a B's peers) and an A player wouldn't.

[blackshoe]

The less skilled player is punished for being less skilled, it is not any more unfair than when he takes a worse line than a good player and loses imps because of it.

"Punished" is the wrong word. If my regular partner and I are playing against Justin and one of his peers, we will lose. This is almost guaranteed. Our loss is not a "punishment", it's a consequence of our being stupid enough to go head to head against a pair we do not have the skill to beat.

 

OTOH, if by some miracle we should happen to beat them, well, maybe that's a punishment - for them. :P

[Zelandakh]

Let's forget the fairness thing for a moment. Can anyone come up with a formulation which can be applied evenly within a competition without a subjective reference to the quality of the players involved, whether that be the quality of the pair in question or of the field in general? This is the crux of the matter, is it not? Even if you do not think the current Law is "fair", is there anything better available? It is basically impossible to decide on the comparative fairness of a change in the Laws without knowing what the current ones are being compared to!

[gnasher]

Let's forget the fairness thing for a moment. Can anyone come up with a formulation which can be applied evenly within a competition without a subjective reference to the quality of the players involved, whether that be the quality of the pair in question or of the field in general?

That's quite easy. Simply replace "the class of players in question" with "everyone who has ever played duplicate bridge".

Edited November 15, 2012 by gnasher

[PeterAlan]

Consider a simple case: you open 1♠, partner bids 4♦, you have what appears to you to be a routine 4♠ bid. Unfortunately you have some UI from partner. The TDs rule that you have two logical alternatives, 4♠, which partner will pass, and 4♥ "Last Train", which will encourage partner to go to the 5-level, and go off in 5♠.

 

You tell the TDs that you have never heard of Last Train in your 15 months of playing the game. Nonsense, say the TDs, it does not matter, we rule as though you were as experienced as the average of the field, and "everyone" plays Last Train.

Without disagreeing with your general position, this example is flawed since the TD's approach you posit would not meet the separate criterion of "and using the methods of the partnership" - if the pair in question had never heard of "Last Train" it would not be amongst their methods. You seem to be making the additional assumption that uniform methods would be applied as well.

[bluejak]

Without disagreeing with your general position, this example is flawed since the TD's approach you posit would not meet the separate criterion of "and using the methods of the partnership" - if the pair in question had never heard of "Last Train" it would not be amongst their methods. You seem to be making the additional assumption that uniform methods would be applied as well.

The TD decided that "Last Train" was General Bridge Knowledge, not a partnership agreement, and thus played by the average player in the field.

[PeterAlan]

The TD decided that "Last Train" was General Bridge Knowledge, not a partnership agreement, and thus played by the average player in the field.

I don't see that he would have to deem that the partnership plays it when they don't, whatever the deemed state of their knowledge. Your view appears to be that for ruling purposes all pairs would be deemed to be playing the same "average" system, which is going a long way further than the original suggestion as I understand it, and in an unnecessary direction.

[axman]

Let's forget the fairness thing for a moment. Can anyone come up with a formulation which can be applied evenly within a competition without a subjective reference to the quality of the players involved, whether that be the quality of the pair in question or of the field in general? This is the crux of the matter, is it not? Even if you do not think the current Law is "fair", is there anything better available? It is basically impossible to decide on the comparative fairness of a change in the Laws without knowing what the current ones are being compared to!

 

The insurmountable problem lies in the fact that people are immovably wed to core beliefs that are false beliefs. For instance, of the bridge world as distinguished from TBW (the publication which I am about to cite), in October 1999 Jeff Rubens [or possibly Chris Compton] wrote that it is a universal belief of bridge players that no one should ever gain from his own side's infraction.

 

Actually, at the time the statement was not true (I did not hold that belief) as it was not universal; and in fact I believe that the notion is down right evil. Granted, it is likely that I am alone. My beliefs are founded upon reason: the consequence of the above is that innocent players must be treated as cheats in order to achieve such aim- and to my mind, that is unfair in the most egregious way.

 

Metrics do exist that consistently enough approximate fairness. But they can’t be enumerated in a few paragraphs, cut and pasted into WBF2008, and solve the supposed ills you want to solve. That is because the entirety of the principles in WBF2008 must first be shifted and you are unwilling to allow such a shift because doing so would conflict with your core beliefs.

 

In other words, the difficulty in law is finding Solomon to write it over the protests of interest groups.

[Vampyr]

The insurmountable problem lies in the fact that people are immovably wed to core beliefs that are false beliefs. For instance, of the bridge world as distinguished from TBW (the publication which I am about to cite), in October 1999 Jeff Rubens [or possibly Chris Compton] wrote that it is a universal belief of bridge players that no one should ever gain from his own side's infraction.

 

Actually, at the time the statement was not true (I did not hold that belief) as it was not universal; and in fact I believe that the notion is down right evil. Granted, it is likely that I am alone. My beliefs are founded upon reason: the consequence of the above is that innocent players must be treated as cheats in order to achieve such aim- and to my mind, that is unfair in the most egregious way.

 

I think that you probably are alone, but perhaps you misunderstand. It is inconceivable that Rubens (or Compton) was suggesting that players should never get a favourable score after committing an infraction; what was being said was that a player should not receive a score that was more favourable than it would have been had he not committed the infraction.

 

I would be astonished to find a player who did not agree with the above.

[Zelandakh]

There are times when you can legally get a good score because of an infraction. For example, you have a balanced 23 count and, not seeing RHO open a weak 2♦, proceed to overcall 2♣. After the Director explains everything you correct to 3NT. Everyone else is in slam since partner has a very good hand, as indeed you would have been had the IB not occurred. The slam is excellent looking at your cards but does not make due to the distribution of the opps' hands. Do you (or Rubens or Compton) believe it is correct to adjust the score here? There are many other cases (bidding a grand is suggested by UI but fails on a first round ruff, etc) where playing strictly by the rules can give you a better score than you would have achieved should no infraction/UI have happened. I do not have a problem with this providing that the possibilities to gain are a level playing field for everyone and none is misusing the Laws to gain (IB/pause and bid to silence partner, etc).

[Vampyr]

Do you (or Rubens or Compton) believe it is correct to adjust the score here?

 

I don't. I wasn't thinking about cases like this, where you do get a better score than you would have absent the infraction. Maybe it feels different in a way because the causal link is broken; you were in a worse position after the infraction but got lucky -- so your good result was in being lucky rather than directly because of the infraction.

[NickRW]

Though this thread was prompted by my comments in another thread, I felt it best to refrain from posting here for a while since it was making my blood boil. I thought I'd better take time to cool off.

 

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.

 

In this situation, the expert presumably has bid what he/she considers to be a justified 7NT despite the potential UI. Opps call the TD and, again presumably, the TD buys the expert's explanation of why the bid was justified. Result stands. The expert is not penalised for their expert judgement.

 

The novice on the other hand has also bid 7NT (if they didn't there wouldn't have been a comparable situation, never mind a TD call). The opps object and the TD asks but does not receive a satisfactory explanation. Because of the possible UI the TD rules the result is 6NT+1. The TD has not taken into account the class of either player per se, but ruled on the basis of the evidence available concerning actual actions taken and their stated reasons for taking those actions. The novice is penalised, not for being a novice, but because they have actually taken an action they could not justify under circumstances where the law calls for circumspection.

 

With due respect to all the knowledgeable people posting here, this sort of thing is not what I am objecting to. Nor is it the situation that I perceived in the original thread. In that thead we saw (some) experienced well respected players and TDs considering whether moving past 3NT was justified or not based on whether or not the players concerned could or could not stop in 4NT based on methods that most were not sure that players concerned did or did not have, on theoretical auctions that didn't happen and compared to supposedly better pairs - when in fact the pair concerned have had success at comparable events anyway. That did not seem right to me, so I said so.

 

I found it particularly objectionable because with one partner, I have played a not dissimilar method to that in the original thread. Had we been at the tournament in question I am quite sure we would have been regarded as one of the less experienced pairs. I am also sure that I would not have brought a folder full of system notes that would have proved beyond reasonable doubt that moving beyond 3NT would have been a normal action for us or that we could have stopped in 4NT. Consequently we would have been ruled against by (some of) the learned posters here based purely on their perception of our level of experience. This can't possibly be fair.

 

Nick

 

P.S. And I also object to having to rule in such a manner if I am myself a TD, so it is not just a personal objection.