Just how bad were the rulings I received?

[Phil]

What is BITS?

BIT =

 

Break

In

Tempo

[mycroft]

"A couple of seconds" - it's not the timing, but the deviation. In your case, it's a common issue - how do we know that you always pause 15 seconds T1? And do you, actually?(note: a lot of people who "always" pause, or "always" ask, in certain situations, don't. They don't remember it, but they don't - and when they don't, it usually means they have nothing to think about. I firmly believe *you*, but that's the situation the TD is put in. I've won cases on skip bid pauses that were irrelevant but mandatory by calling on opponents whose response to "does Mycroft always pause over skip bids, even [skip]7♠?" is "Yes, and it's REALLY ANNOYING.")

 

There's also the issue that you may always do it, but in a two board round, it may not be readable. Yes, that's the opponents' problem, but it is something that has to be worked out (in the EBU, it is explicitly written in the regulations, for instance, about a T1 pause by third hand).

 

Note: In the below, I am going to assume you played in the ACBL.

1. I opened 1NT. LHO overcalled 2D, alerted as showing hearts. Partner bid 2H, I bid 2S, partner bid 4S. LHO made a lead that was good for me. Dummy came down with four spades. DIRECTOR! from LHO. "These people are playing something alertable and nobody alerted. I might have made a different lead if I knew what they were playing."

 

Kaitlyn: We play a cuebid as Stayman. She was asking if I had four spades.[...]

You were correct (at least in the last 15 years or so), and I'm surprised you got that ruling. The Alert Procedure says, in its definitions:

"Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards." (my emphasis), and, re Cuebids:

"Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert."

I can't imagine Stayman being HUorU; I can't imagine natural 2♥ *not* being HUorU.

 

2. Partner and I were in a forcing auction and RHO who had overcalled 1S now bid 3S. I thought for a few seconds and made a forcing pass. LHO says to my partner "We all agree now that if you do anything, we can roll it back." I said "I don't agree with that - she is allowed to make her normal bid." "DIRECTOR!" I went over the situation and thought the director should have made clear that partner should take her normal action. Instead, the director just repeated what my LHO had said, so partner passed (thinking anything else would be rolled back to pass if we didn't get a bad score), and we got 2 MP on a 12 top instead of 11 when partner makes her normal double. I believe the director essentially encouraged my partner to pass a forcing pass! Dummy came down with a hand that clearly knew they were in deep trouble in 3S.

If you truly were in a 100% forcing auction, and you could prove it, then while she is explicitly *not allowed* to "make her normal bid" unless there is no Logical Alternative, pass is not an alternative, logical or not. The problem is that if you're in a 80% forcing auction, or in an auction that is 100% forcing in your agreements, but not in everybody's (and again, you can't prove it), an "I don't know what is best, but I have extras" pass-with-UI does in fact constrain your partner. Not "must pass", but "if you take an action suggested by the UI, and there is a Logical Alternative to that action that is less successful, we will adjust to the result from that action."

 

One of the most frustrating parts of being a TD is the "home rules" people have learned. Law 73C says:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner [...] he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

I don't see "must pass" there. I don't see "do what she would do normally" either. There are very good and valid reasons for both omissions.

 

3. We were playing in a IMP team game where I thought for a few seconds and doubled. Our agreement on that double was cooperative takeout. Partner had a singleton king of trump and would never leave a cooperative takeout double in with a singleton trump (might not have even left in a cooperative penalty double in, and I don't think anyone would have played the double as strictly penalty), and pulled and we made a game. The director was called. He took the board and said he would come back with a ruling.

As he should. And I assume he got your agreement before he left, and used that in his polling. And if everybody pulled, okay fine. If not everybody pulled [handwaving here, see the ACBL definition of LA], then pass is a Logical Alternative and (as pulling is even more suggested by a hesitant "cooperative takeout" double than just "cooperative takeout") we rule pass.

 

Now, at the time, the ACBL was a L12C1e jurisdiction, and the TD had to rule on the play as follows:

The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

I assume that playing the A and crashing partner's K was "at all probable"; so that's the required ruling, at least for your side. It is quite possible that -200 for your opponents, "it's not likely that the A will crash the K", was an option that could or should have been taken; without the hand, it's hard to determine that.

 

As for the appeal, I wouldn't put the "friends of the TD" too far ahead; I have a lot of friends in the local bridge community, but when I look for an appeal committee (luckily this is rare!) I'm looking for good players who will understand the Law (as opposed to the "home rules") when they're explained, and who can understand the systems and the agreements the players have. Obviously I don't want my ruling overturned, but if our judgement was wrong, or we missed something, I want the right result. I know that in my last appeal, sure I was on good terms with the entire committee (I've played with all of them, and would again!), but I was also on equally good terms with the appealing side (although one of the players I wouldn't play with, because our styles clash badly); and I actually somewhat dislike the pair I ruled in favour of.

 

However, that's not the point of this post. I am really curious whether any of these directors were correct in what they did.

As you can see, in my opinion, not knowing the hands, how long those "few seconds" were, or any other facts about system and auction that were gleaned from the table, a bit of yes, a bit of no. I certainly think that if the law and the pattern of the ruling was not explained to you (away from the table, after the round), that that was definitely not best.

 

By the way, if it seems like I was on the bad end of a lot of rulings, it is probably because we, like most pairs (I think) would be able to get rulings just as bad in our favor, but don't try for them. We didn't call the director unless there was a revoke or the like; doing so seemed too obnoxious, litigious, and almost cheating, trying to get something you didn't deserve.

You can search my history, you'll see that this is one of the most frustrating things I deal with. Not being "obnoxious, litigious" means that OBM ("Old Black Magic") works, and people use it, partly because they don't know any better, and partly because they can. If you look at my history for "WeaSeL vs (weak) NT", you'll see what I mean.

 

Trust me, it's only a "few seconds", but people regularly get 6 or 7 ranges out of 1NT-P, 1NT-X, or 1NT-bid. After the third time - today - that I've been able to state how strong my LHO was to within 2 points after 1NT-think-p, or the second time a "penalty" double of 1NT got pulled with a 6 count only for it to be magically right because doubler has the "really bad equal" of the "equal or better", or the fourth time that they've "guessed" after my preempt or my preemptive game raise to double when it's right, pull when it's right, and not double when *that's* right; it's hard to "enjoy my day out", too.

 

And if players don't get called on it, they get to 2500 MPs not knowing that it's not legal, and still do it. You can also see in my history how frustrated I am at the amount of this in my local area; but also what happens when you slam on the ethics too hard, and in the wrong way (there's an A game, a novice game, and nothing in between. Graduate from the novice game into stop playing).

 

Most of the pairs probably feel that way, leaving those few who don't to get a pretty large unfair advantage. Another factor in deciding to give up the game.

Yep, that's probably true, and that's bad too - because "most of the pairs" are being stolen blind by their opponents - and by that I *don't* mean the "few who don't".

[Kaitlyn S]

If you truly were in a 100% forcing auction, and you could prove it, then while she is explicitly *not allowed* to "make her normal bid" unless there is no Logical Alternative, pass is not an alternative, logical or not. The problem is that if you're in a 80% forcing auction, or in an auction that is 100% forcing in your agreements, but not in everybody's (and again, you can't prove it), an "I don't know what is best, but I have extras" pass-with-UI does in fact constrain your partner. Not "must pass", but "if you take an action suggested by the UI, and there is a Logical Alternative to that action that is less successful, we will adjust to the result from that action."

A forcing pass doesn't say "I have extras", it says "I can decide among the action-taking alternatives." I don't believe I had extras and I don't think I suggested any one action over another. But the thing that really irks me is whatever action my partner took, the opponents could have said that action was implied if it was successful, and keep their good score if it wasn't. You understand why "despicable" is too kind of a term for them IMO. Because despite their clear attempts to steal, they were good ol' boys from the home town and we were the alleged thieves from out of town. And it just wouldn't be right to allow a couple of girls to get anything except a near bottom against a couple of the home town favorites.

 

One of the most frustrating parts of being a TD is the "home rules" people have learned. Law 73C says:

I don't see "must pass" there. I don't see "do what she would do normally" either. There are very good and valid reasons for both omissions.

Yeah, one of the reasons it's so hard to know what the rules are is they aren't spelled out. So it's based on precedent and the precedent seems to be if you aren't quick witted to rattle off all your bids in a couple of seconds, you're going to get a bad score either by guessing badly, or by guessing well and having it stolen from you.

 

I know you and I disagree vehemently on this subject. I don't think that we will ever agree. For you seem to agree with the "if it hesitates, shoot it" mantra, as your whole writeup seems to ooze that non expert bridge players are the cheats who are trying to steal by sending illegal signals by the amount of time they are thinking, while I am all for restoring real equity, and assuming that most people are good people while the only thieves I see are the lawyers who demand to get a good board no matter what happens at the table.

 

As he should. And I assume he got your agreement before he left, and used that in his polling. And if everybody pulled, okay fine. If not everybody pulled [handwaving here, see the ACBL definition of LA], then pass is a Logical Alternative and (as pulling is even more suggested by a hesitant "cooperative takeout" double than just "cooperative takeout") we rule pass.

He polled nobody, and came up with the decision himself. You are going to pass a takeout double with a singleton king, and your partner is going to crash that king.

 

Now, at the time, the ACBL was a L12C1e jurisdiction, and the TD had to rule on the play as follows:

I assume that playing the A and crashing partner's K was "at all probable"; so that's the required ruling, at least for your side. It is quite possible that -200 for your opponents, "it's not likely that the A will crash the K", was an option that could or should have been taken; without the hand, it's hard to determine that.

Or he could determine that it's normal to take out a takeout double. I really don't know what his problem was - maybe his girlfriend refused to have sex with him and he was taking it out on us. If you think that ruling was as it should be, then someday when you rule, people will think the only possible reason is that you were being spiteful because of something your significant other did.

 

As for the appeal, I wouldn't put the "friends of the TD" too far ahead; I have a lot of friends in the local bridge community, but when I look for an appeal committee (luckily this is rare!) I'm looking for good players who will understand the Law (as opposed to the "home rules") when they're explained, and who can understand the systems and the agreements the players have. Obviously I don't want my ruling overturned, but if our judgement was wrong, or we missed something, I want the right result. I know that in my last appeal, sure I was on good terms with the entire committee (I've played with all of them, and would again!), but I was also on equally good terms with the appealing side (although one of the players I wouldn't play with, because our styles clash badly); and I actually somewhat dislike the pair I ruled in favour of.

I have seen what you think the "right ruling" is, and the fact that people might uphold them is what is scary to me. The really scary thing to me is that much of the expert community probably agrees with you, which goes back to the fact that the rules don't make sense to me, and tournament bridge is ancient history for me as long as that is true.

 

On the other hand, if you are RIGHT, and everybody in the game is trying to steal from me with all their unethical illegal signals and getting away with it, what chance does an ethical person like myself have? So in that case, I wouldn't want to play tournament bridge either. So in either case, it's not the game for me. If you are really right, you should continue your efforts to make the game more fair, however, I think you're going to lose a lot of people along the way. Because some of us want to do the right thing, and even though nobody is accusing me of cheating (me - the person who willingly gave up first place because she knew the director screwed up), the score adjustments are not only pretend that I was cheating but give me the penalty for having done so.

 

 

As you can see, in my opinion, not knowing the hands, how long those "few seconds" were, or any other facts about system and auction that were gleaned from the table, a bit of yes, a bit of no. I certainly think that if the law and the pattern of the ruling was not explained to you (away from the table, after the round), that that was definitely not best.

Directors are very busy people, and they rule based on precedent, and I happen to think the precedent is awful. I don't think the directors did anything wrong.

 

You can search my history, you'll see that this is one of the most frustrating things I deal with. Not being "obnoxious, litigious" means that OBM ("Old Black Magic") works, and people use it, partly because they don't know any better, and partly because they can. If you look at my history for "WeaSeL vs (weak) NT", you'll see what I mean.

I don't think I have to read WeaSeL to know approximately what it is. You and I have frustrations on the opposite end of the spectrum. Your frustrations aren't strong enough yet to make you give up tournament bridge. That's good, I'm sure it gives you much enjoyment despite the frustration. Maybe I just am unhappy because I'm being lumped in with the WeaSeLs? In any event, my partner was even more adamant that I was, that the game is no fun anymore with all the contentious behavior. But I can be sure that if I go back that I'll get a lot more of the same, for the lawyers know my stance only too well and are only too happy to take advantage of it by getting the director to the table "for anything" if for no other reason than to make me angry and screw up the rest of the match.

 

Trust me, it's only a "few seconds", but people regularly get 6 or 7 ranges out of 1NT-P, 1NT-X, or 1NT-bid. After the third time - today - that I've been able to state how strong my LHO was to within 2 points after 1NT-think-p, or the second time a "penalty" double of 1NT got pulled with a 6 count only for it to be magically right because doubler has the "really bad equal" of the "equal or better", or the fourth time that they've "guessed" after my preempt or my preemptive game raise to double when it's right, pull when it's right, and not double when *that's* right; it's hard to "enjoy my day out", too.

We're doing that cheating thing really bad in our area then. Five years after being out of tournament bridge, after teaching a class at a bridge club, one of the club players corrals us to bid a hand. My partner and I were each given a hand and we couldn't see each other. I was told that RHO opened a strong1NT. I doubled with my 21 count. The next time I hear, the person who gave my partner the hand yell "They defended 1NT doubled!" The person that gave me the hand said "Congratulations, we had 26 tables yesterday and everybody pulled 1NT doubled - but somehow your partner got a top score by passing with her balanced 1 count!" So let's see, how many of those 26 players holding my 21-count illegally got the message to their partner that "HEY! I really got those suckers this time!" by their tempo? Exactly none. So either you live in an area that is just crawling with scoundrels or you are blowing the problem out of proportion. I guess there's a third possibility - that we live in a really honest area with no UI issues and the only people that would get accused of doing such a thing are us! Yeah, that must be it.

 

And if players don't get called on it, they get to 2500 MPs not knowing that it's not legal, and still do it. You can also see in my history how frustrated I am at the amount of this in my local area; but also what happens when you slam on the ethics too hard, and in the wrong way (there's an A game, a novice game, and nothing in between. Graduate from the novice game into stop playing).

My point exactly. People are going to stop playing when you accuse them of cheating, even if you're right, if you can't show them you are right - but in most cases I'm not sure you are right.

 

I know it's sad that there are some people that think it's fine to lead singletons with their left hand. And they'll bid a club with short clubs and one club with real clubs and "I'll start with one club" with a 19-count. I agree that these are egregious and I hope that someone can explain to people that this is wrong. But I know that there are some social players that you will never be able to convince that this is wrong, and they delight in taking advantage of the fact that their OPPONENT led a singleton with her left hand! But if people have a hard time getting that, how do you expect them to get the more subtle nuances of UI? And you can't tell me there aren't some clueless players in Flight A. I agree, it's a problem. But honestly, the people won't ever get it, and you can tell them that they aren't welcome in Flight A. Or you can call the director constantly on them and they will get the same message. Either way, they're going to tell their friends that tournament bridge sucks. I understand UI and I am not telling anybody that tournament bridge sucks, only that it sucks for me.

 

It would be great if someone could sit down with some of these people and get them to understand UI and it's ramifications, and why they are being given bad scores. However, I think it's a lot harder to explain to them when the scores that they are being given are way out of touch with reality - they clearly are more punitive scores than they are equity scores. And I don't care how clueless a pair is, they will see just like I do, that if a pair calls the director on you for a hesitation or failure to alert or the like, they are getting a great score and you are getting a terrible one. Period. I think people would have more of a chance of wanting to understand ethics if this wasn't the case.

[sfi]

That doesn't look like a threat to me; that looks like a helpful explanation of procedures so player can make a proper cost/benefit analysis of choosing to appeal.

 

What is the legal basis for modifying someone's score for the purposes of seeding after they have filed an appeal, rather than using the table score? To me it looks like punishing someone for exercising their rights under law.

[helene_t]

A forcing pass doesn't say "I have extras", it says "I can decide among the action-taking alternatives."

Yes but apparently the TD wasn't convinced that it was a forcing pass situation for you. I am not taking his side, but unless the TD was completely confused then that must have been his reasoning.

 

I think it is generally difficult to argue, at club level, that pass was not an alternative because partner's pass was forcing. For most club players (and some club TDs), "forcing pass" is a word in a foreign language.

[sfi]

First, you mention you haven't played a novice game so I am assuming you assume I'm a novice. ll four of these happened in unlimited games (some were Flight A - the top flight.)

 

No - you were just talking about new players being driven away from the game. I don't really know what the environment is like to someone just joining the game. Hence my comment.

 

While I really think you thought you were doing the right thing, you are taking advantage of the rest of the field who would not call the director. For if it happened at any other table, your side would get -420, but you got -170. Maybe you deserve -170, but are you really entitled to be the only pair in your direction that can achieve -170 with these cards against this pair?

 

Mostly I don't want someone to take advantage of unauthorised information in getting a good score against me. If the game had gone down I would not have had any issues taking the +50 because I think they used the UI inappropriately (maybe subconsciously, but that's still an issue).

 

A major side benefit is now this player and a number of other people better understand the issues surrounding this situation and the other players at the club (many of whom will call the director after a hesitation anyway) are less likely to lose 6 IMPs because this pair wouldn't bid game next time around.

 

However, can you see that you are getting free matchpoints when being compared to someone else in the same situation that doesn't call the director because he doesn't want to be contentious?

 

Sure, but at the heart bridge is a competition with rules that are designed to protect the non-offending side in the event of an irregularity. I'm not likely to accept a situation where the opponents did something dodgy and benefitted from it. At some point the director and the players have to deal with the situation at hand. If the laws were simply ignored the game would likely die due to people leaving anyway - certainly around here where we have enough choice for good directors and enough players who know the difference.

 

But here's the real rub. Let's say everyone knows the rules and will call the director. I personally don't think you are entitled to take -170 or +50; what I think you are entitled to is to roll the contract back to 3H before play begins.

 

You make a sensible argument, but it's rarely that simple to try and decide what one would have done on the spur of the moment. Your approach would lead to a lot more director calls, more bad blood between players who don't properly understand the details of what is going on, and the players would be put into a situation where they have to make a snap decision about something they weren't expecting. And what are you going to do if the partners on the non-offending side don't agree?

 

Yes, there is a certain amount of punitive effect even if it isn't intended. But the side did something wrong, and it is only one hand. I can live with that (and I've been on both sides of the decisions many times).

 

I haven't seen that. The people that call the director usually end up getting a good score. I had some really good friends and almost lost our friendship because of this issue. They won a lot because they had no problem calling the director on every third hand it seemed and always got to either set the opponents or have their games rolled back.

 

Given the frequency of calls, you need better directors. It really is that simple. It's not unusual for our team to go through a day at a major tournament without a single director call. It's not all that rare for my partner and I to go through the entire 4 days with only two calls - both because we made a mistake and want to protect the opponents' rights.

 

Every 3 hands is ridiculous. Averaging twice a session is pretty ridiculous.

 

Because I'm for restoring equity. I'm not for giving the non-hesitating side the best of both worlds. There's a difference and if the ACBL and its directors would realize that there is a difference, I might actually show up to a tournament again.

 

It's not the ACBL's approach causing these rulings - their directors have to follow the laws just like everyone else does. If you are interested enough to raise your concerns, the WBF is currently updating the laws and I'm sure the committee listens to feedback.

[Vampyr]

If you are interested enough to raise your concerns, the WBF is currently updating the laws and I'm sure the committee listens to feedback.

 

:lol:

[sfi]

And I don't care how clueless a pair is, they will see just like I do, that if a pair calls the director on you for a hesitation or failure to alert or the like, they are getting a great score and you are getting a terrible one. Period. I think people would have more of a chance of wanting to understand ethics if this wasn't the case.

 

I think this is the crux of what I disagree with. This is simply not my experience.

 

People hesitate and fail to alert all the time, and in most cases there is clearly no damage and the director is never even called. When the director does get involved, much of the time there is no issue and the table score stands. Only when there is likely to have been damage is the score adjusted.

[sfi]

:lol:

 

I know at least one committee member who does. Not saying any of the things I have complained about will make it into the new laws, but I do think they consider the issues seriously.

[helene_t]

The slow double issue seems very similar to this one: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/66655-slow-responsive-double/

 

Then, nobody here saw a good reason to change the table result while several asked for more info. But in real life the result was adjusted. That was ruling made at an EBU tournament and upheld after the TD consulted the other TDs.

[barmar]

I can kind of see Kaitlyn's point. There's practically no disincentive for the opponents to call the TD regarding a hesitation. If the TD decides not to adjust, they're no worse off, but many TDs are of the "if it hesitates, shoot it" variety. And if the hesitation didn't actually cause damage, because the opponents ended up overbidding, the result is maintained.

[barmar]

Unless you're a mind-reader, you don't know opponents' intent. A major flaw in existing rules is that they over-rely on mind-reading,

A number of the laws are based on what the player "could have known" -- they refer to hypothetical players rather than trying to get into the head of the specific player.

 

I think we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Mind reading is hard, and easily manipulated -- people don't even realize what's actually influencing them. But so is imagining what a player could have known and how it would influence them.

 

Even figuring out what a hesitation specifically suggests can be difficult -- are they borderline for their action (and if so, at which border), are they just unsure about their agreements, or something else?

 

I think adjudicating UI is probably the most difficult task that a TD is given. And it's not easy to train, since it's hard to provide objective standards (if it were feasible, they could have been codified into the Laws). So it's just a matter of experience, but every director has different experience depending on the kind of bridge players they deal with at their clubs.

[mycroft]

I can kind of see Kaitlyn's point. There's practically no disincentive for the opponents to call the TD regarding a hesitation. If the TD decides not to adjust, they're no worse off, but many TDs are of the "if it hesitates, shoot it" variety. And if the hesitation didn't actually cause damage, because the opponents ended up overbidding, the result is maintained.

To add to this, there is the "call the TD to impose a call of the opponents' choosing" intimidation factor, which if you don't know the Law, and the TD doesn't carefully explain it, will lead to "self-adjustment" of making a call that's bad for you when it turns out that the other call *wouldn't* be ruled back. Plus the people who are actively doing it to intimidate. Absolutely, I can see Kaitlyn's point.

 

But this also goes back to education, and our woeful lack thereof at the IN level, and the horrible way it's 'educated' with certain "you hesitated, so we get a good score. DIE-REC-TOR!" pairs.

 

Learn to call in a steady, even tempo (and that means no fast-calling with "obvious" hands as well); realize that there will be times when you have to pass UI through the time it will take you to make a decision on a particularly hard position (or through all the other ways you are forced to pass UI by the way the game is played); learn a bit how to mitigate the problem your partner will be in after; and when in the presence of UI, do one's best to follow Law 73C: "[one] must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information" - this will minimize the horrible TD calls. It will also hurt your game relative to the players who don't, and who are clearly using calls, plays and tempo to bid (likely unintentionally! - but still contrary to Law). At which point, you either deal with it and grumble all the way home, or you start calling the TD on the obvious ones, and become one of the "obnoxious, litigious" pairs yourself - or you could go back to playing the same, illegal, game as the rest of the room, of course.

 

Oddly enough, my conscience won't let me take that third option; and as for "some reason" I am encouraged to let a lot of the judgement stuff slide at my table, there's a lot of the first option in my life. Also (to the consternation of my regular partners), my conscience will not let those "few seconds hesitations" that are *absolutely clear to me* from partnership experience go unnoticed, so (in addition to following L73C as scrupulously as I can), when I do take a call that was suggested by the UI, I let the opponents know that I am in presence of said UI. Oddly enough, the TD is rarely called for my use of UI; when it does happen, I'm usually ruled against (correctly!)

[mycroft]

Side note: yes, I *have* made a point of saying "you knew that these were clear novices, and that the hesitation in this auction simply meant they've never seen this auction before. You could have handled it without implying that they were trying to steal from you or 'how dare you'" to several A players when that happened (and, frankly, apologized to the TD when I called and *didn't* realize I was playing a pair of life novices). Because that does, in fact, push people out of the game, where a gentle TD call at the end, with a "Not sure if there is an issue here, but [issue] happened, and...", letting me educate (and yes, in fact, if there's an adjustment to be made, rectifying the situation - with even more education) - is much less likely to.

[Kaitlyn S]

If you are interested enough to raise your concerns, the WBF is currently updating the laws and I'm sure the committee listens to feedback.

I would be quite happy to share my ideas with the WBF about "equity" as opposed to "a free shot for the non-offenders" but I'm not sure if I have followed recent rulings enough that they would be interested in hearing from me. Other than reading Bridge World editorials, I've been disconnected from the subject for at least ten years.

 

I had considered discussing this topic on BridgeWinners where there would be more likely to have an impact (as in a 0.002% chance is better than 0.001% :lol: ) I have never been on Bridgewinners and have been reluctant to because I'm afraid that I ever started posting there, I wouldn't have time for anything else.

[mycroft]

In response directly to Kaitlyn's last:

 

How bad were the rulings? I've stated that in at least one case, if not two, the rulings seem wrong in fact. In the other two, they are judgement rulings and I expect that they were wrong in that the reasoning wasn't made clear, and likely the best practice procedure to follow wasn't followed. Were they bad rulings? Without the hands, the full auction, the relevant agreements (stated and written), the length of the hesitation (and the length of the hesitation in the opponents' minds - my 5 seconds is their 30 is probably about 12), I literally can not tell. Without the skill of the players, and a pool of peers to poll, I would be forced to use my judgement, which, while obviously bad (if I *could* play, I *would*, right?) is okay, but not obviously helpful.

 

But I don't see the world in "thieves, cheaters and lawyers", and definitely not "if it hesitates, shoot it" or "call the TD to get through the law what you can't get at the table". Again, my history should be proof of that. Anybody who is deliberately trying one on, including intimidation-via-TD and Lamford-SB-level bridge lawyering, is not good for the game and needs an invitation to the world. But the number of those is miniscule.

 

While I am reasonably certain that any player who does not understand the concept of authorized and unauthorized information, and doesn't know of the requirement for their opponents (as well as themselves) to follow Law 73C, is being stolen blind (whereas the rest of us are being stolen from with our eyes open), I do *not* believe that the opponents (or them, when they do it!) are doing anything deliberate at all.

 

In fact, the best part of OBM is that if you *don't* know you're playing it, it works better!

 

I have also never known anyone who got a board adjusted due to use of UI who didn't think they got jobbed - myself included, except when I "call on myself". I have also, however, never known anyone who got "the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest the call made, score stands" - or even "no damage, score stands" to not think they got jobbed. And for every hand that the TD is called over, there are multiples where it's just going to be too hard to show that the UI had got passed, even though it's screamingly obvious at the table and so the TD isn't called. I also say (caveats for faulty memory, of course) that about half of the UI rulings I make are "score stands".

 

I also know that humans are excellent unconscious pattern-matchers, and bridge players even more so. They will *always* be able to convince themselves that the call they want to make is "obvious" and they would always do it even without the UI. They will *always* be able to convince themselves of "how could they possibly guess to take that action without their partner's tank" even if it is 60/40, or even "they've forgotten how the game is played in Bracket 6" or "it's obvious after one has seen this situation 80 more times than you have".

 

Because of that, the law is written so that players have to go overboard, "carefully avoid using" UI - after cancelling out the player's unconscious bias we should get close. Plus we *want* to encourage "play as much as possible in a smooth unvarying manner that minimizes passing UI". It's why the definition of Logical Alternative is written the way it is (except for the "of which some would take that action" part - that's to combat "if it hesitates, shoot it").

 

I may post a "bridge problems" set - not sure if I'm really comfortable doing so. If I do, I expect the same amount of expert controversy you do with your problem sets ("none"); it's just that you, and the experts, will get zero/5 of the questions right. I promise that I was told on every single hand that it was obvious to make the "right" call, and in all but one of the cases, they were sure that the TD was jobbing them.

[Kaitlyn S]

But I don't see the world in "thieves, cheaters and lawyers", and definitely not "if it hesitates, shoot it" or "call the TD to get through the law what you can't get at the table".

First, let me say that I believe that you are an ethical player yourself, and are only taking advantage of a "take the set or roll it back" more to teach the players about proper ethics than to get a good score yourself. I would guess you would go as far as to roll the contract back to 3H at trick 1 (whether 4H makes or not) if allowed in the Laws.

 

I also don't see the world as "thieves, cheaters, and lawyers." I've played thousands of hands at tournaments, and probably only had 20 or so rulings go against me. Most of the people are just trying to play bridge and are willing to take the result they get at the table.

 

The funniest request for score adjustment went in my favor (I would have quit on the spot if it hadn't.) I opened a weak notrump and partner bid 3C preemptive. I alerted as preemptive. It got doubled and +670 later, the director was called. The complainant stated "She told me 3C was preemptive! When they preempt, they're supposed to go down!" The director could hardly contain his laughter, but said with the straightest face he could, "You weren't injured, I'm not adjusting the score. You may appeal if you wish." Fortunately, people with 28% games don't usually appeal and this was no exception.

 

I have personally not seen many exceptions to the "if it hesitates, shoot it" ruling, which is particularly bad for me since I'm not either a professional or a quick thinker and I'm going to make a lot of bad bids if I don't think about them. (Yeah, I know some of you have seen my posts in other forums and are saying "Thinking doesn't help." :lol: ) So while partner isn't attempting to take advantage of UI (partner is very aware of UI ramifications also), she realizes that if she leaves a slow double in, and gets 800, it will be rolled back because thinking suggested passing (or maybe they'll say I hesitated to make her pass), while if she pulls and gets a good result, they'll roll it back and in some cases assume we misdefend! Mind you, even rolling it back and giving us the average result garnered by the other pairs that defended would be a bad ruling for us, for we tended to be pretty astute on defense and frequently had 60% games when we got to defend all night. But we don't get to defend well when the director rolls or decent result from declaring back; we get to defend like the rest of the field, which is pretty awful generally.

 

But I know you have good intentions, I suspect you are quite ethical, and I believe that you think, as many experts do, that people taking advantage of UI is the scourge of the game. And, while you might be right, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that always giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-hesitating side plus letting them keep a good table result if they get it is a fair solution. My own personal experiences are the reason for that.

[Kaitlyn S]

 

There is a forum here named:

 

Changing Laws & Regulations

Explain changes made and suggest future changes

Hosted by David Stevenson & Ed Reppert

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

The description says "suggest future changes". If I post suggestions in this forum, am I actually talking to someone that has decision making powers?

 

 

 

[gordontd]

There is a forum here named:

 

Changing Laws & Regulations

Explain changes made and suggest future changes

Hosted by David Stevenson & Ed Reppert

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

The description says "suggest future changes". If I post suggestions in this forum, am I actually talking to someone that has decision making powers?

Probably not and you are probably too late to make suggestions for law changes which are scheduled to be published next year. That forum was created after the most recent laws revision in 2007 to discuss the new laws and then was later expanded so that people could discuss proposed changes. But it was never directly linked to the body that makes the laws revisions (though some may have seen what was written there). In general if you want to propose changes you are better to contact those responsible directly.

[blackshoe]

Gordon is correct. TPTB may be reading that forum - or this one - or they may not. Probably not. IAC, it's probably too late for changes this go-round.

[mycroft]

Kaitlyn, thank you for that. I try to be not only a Properly Ethical player, but also one who ensures that my opponents have all the opportunities when our side is potentially offending as I would.

 

When it's screamingly obvious (the comment I tend to use in the bar is "the people at the next table know ..."), I call. In an important game (a NABC or NABC+ event), I call. If it's player X, I call because they have explicitly told me it's wrong to *not* use UI. If it's a specific world-class pair, I don't have to call because they already have. If it's a Flight A pair from That Other City, I call because they themselves are sticklers for UI; but of course because of that I never have to call.

 

If I get an adjustment in my favour, I accept it gracefully. If I don't, I (almost always) accept that gracefully. I have yet to appeal a ruling, and expect I never will.

 

Closest I've got, my entire team went to the DIC to appeal an absolutely ludicrous ruling. Having explained what we were told, the DIC said "You're right, that is ludicrous. That's not what we ruled, though, we ruled [other reasoning for "score stands"]." The team agreed that although that was a bad ruling, and that we had been jobbed, that it was reasonable; so we weren't going to appeal. That was, IIRC, in 2001.

 

 

Because of my (well known in Western Canada, pretty much unknown anywhere else but BBF) status in the bridge world, I tend *not* to call the borderline ones, especially for education - it's almost impossible for me not to look like extreme bridge lawyering. As I said before, that means I take the "grumble about it later" option a lot.

 

For an example of blatant, what's your call?

[hv=pc=n&w=sj965hkq963da8cq8&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)2h(majors)p2sp?]133|200|Maybe you wouldn't overcall;

but they did at the table.[/hv]

 

The correct answer?

West bid 3♥. And it was right. I challenge you to find anybody who will do that, especially when they had 2♦ available as a transfer to hearts.

 

 

So, what *else* happened?

So, at the table, 2♥ was actually Alerted and explained as "transfer to spades".

Yes, the player with this hand said "but that's what I'd always do, with the correct explanation". Yes, I'm quite certain that that was what he believed at the time.

 

 

UI (especially hesitation) rulings are hard, and there are many ways to go wrong making them (doing it alone and using your own bridge judgement only are two good ways to go wrong). There are a lot of less-than-top-quality TDs out there, and if they're going to get something wrong, this will be it. Even if they get it right, the Law means that the ruling can easily look ludicrous to whichever side it goes against. For all of my colleagues, as a TD, I apologize - and I retake my vow to do my best to not get the next one wrong.

[Kaitlyn S]

[hv=pc=n&w=sj965hkq963da8cq8&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)2h(majors)p2sp?]133|200|Maybe you wouldn't overcall;

but they did at the table.[/hv]

 

The situation: This hand overcalled 2H, partner bid 2S after alerting 2H as a transfer to spades, overcaller bid 3H, passed.

 

This may surprise you, but I feel much different about this situation than I do about the hesitation situation.

 

For in the hesitation situation, one partner needs to think about a call, and the other partner chooses a logical call - nobody has done anything wrong but it's possible that no matter what logical call is chosen, it might be rolled back if successful if the opponents can come up with a scenario where that call was suggested by the thought. Now, it appears that I am too late to say anything to affect the current laws, but since this is what they are already essentially doing (at least in my cases), they could just say you have to make all your bids fast.

 

So in order to be able to do this, my partner and I, non-professionals are going to practice fifty thousand competitive auctions generated by a computer, and then we'll be ready for tournaments again. We can do ten or so a night, so we'll see you in about 14 years.. (Hopefully everyone knows that I'm not serious here.)

 

The situation you are presenting is different. Someone has clearly done something wrong here. One of three things happened.

 

(a) Using screens, the player would have realized that he transferred and tried to correct it to 3H, and partner would have realized from past experience that he screwed up rather than really having spades and hearts,

 

(b) Using screens, the player would either raise spades or pass.

 

© The player wanted to show both suits, so he transferred to spades and bid hearts. Note: if advancer had more spades and passed 3H, throw this one out. Also if the pair has a bid to show both majors, throw this bid out.

 

Soooooo.....

 

If this is the only way for the pair to show both majors, and this is what the person says in appeal and his convention card bears this out, and the advancer doesn't have a normal correct to 3S, I think it's okay (although unusually aggressive.)

 

If not, I am going to assume (b) over (a) and adjust to the expected result if advancer had bid 2S without alerting. For while I think it's difficult to educate a clueless player about UI ramifications, it should not be hard at all to show someone that it is just wrong to take advantage of the information from your partner's alert.

 

Note the big difference here: in the hesitation situation, the "offending" side probably did nothing wrong. In the situation described here, the offending side clearly did something wrong, at the very least they forgot their convention, and more likely, they cheated. I have no problem "shooting" this action despite the fact that there is a nonzero chance of scenario (a). If I thought the chance of (a) was 95%, I might feel differently. But there's also a situation (d) that I forgot to mention.

 

(d) The 2H overcall is natural, and the alerter was just plain wrong, and it was advancer who was woken up when the overcaller bid 3H. Now it gets dicey. If they play a call that shows both majors, it's possible that he should be allowed to wake up, because clearly he can't have spades and hearts. However, I wouldn't buy this argument in appeal because in theory, overcaller might have invented this sequence to show a decent hand with 6S, 4H. If advancer wouldn't pass if he knew overcaller had 6S, 4H, and inviting game strength, then mercilessly adjust the score and the innocent side gets a good score just as if the offenders revoked, because what they did is just as bad.

 

Yes, I am all for adjustment when I think it's warranted, and my other posts may have indicated otherwise, giving a feeling that "you're just going to chase clueless people away when you adjust scores." While I have had great difficulty trying to explain hesitation UI situations to novices, I'd like to think that I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever having a novice understand why it is unethical to correct a contract because you're partner's alert told you that you were likely in an awful spot.

[mycroft]

Yes, MI (misinformation) from partner is more blatant than UI from "a short pause" or "an extra question" or "a turbopass". Especially when it's this obvious.

 

I guarantee, however, that the system said: 2♦ shows hearts, 2♥ is both majors, 2♠ is spades. Previously in the match they had bid 2♦ showing hearts, and it was properly Alerted and explained and correctly bid.

 

I still challenge you to find someone who, holding a clear minimum and no special shape, and who asked their partner to pick a major, would pull to the other major. I will note that it got passed by his partner. I didn't comment on this (either here or to the TD), although how anyone clues in to pass this without UI or experience is impressive; but that wasn't blatant, so I didn't comment. Convenient, though.

 

If you're trying to justify the 3♥ call, good luck. Go ahead, try it - see if you can find somebody who will bid 3♥ with the correct explanation. As you said, they would raise spades (not likely) or pass. So why didn't he? Because his partner told him that she may not have as much support as she "promised".

[Kaitlyn S]

Yes, MI (misinformation) from partner is more blatant than UI from "a short If you're trying to justify the 3♥ call, good luck. Go ahead, try it - see if you can find somebody who will bid 3♥ with the correct explanation. As you said, they would raise spades (not likely) or pass. So why didn't he? Because his partner told him that she may not have as much support as she "promised".

So apparently overcaller showed the majors and advancer thought it was a transfer and bid spades? 3H is clearly cheating, although probably the perpetrator didn't know that and needed to be seriously educated. Many times the directors don't have time to do that, wouldn't it be nice if one of the locals volunteered to do that? After all, it's probably less work than manning the partnership desk. Of course, it would have to be someone fairly good at making clueless people understand as well as someone who understood the concepts well themselves. And yes, in this case, if there could have been damage, I would assume there was - because unlike the hesitation UI's, there is clearly a wrongdoer here.

[lamford]

So apparently overcaller showed the majors and advancer thought it was a transfer and bid spades? 3H is clearly cheating, although probably the perpetrator didn't know that and needed to be seriously educated. Many times the directors don't have time to do that, wouldn't it be nice if one of the locals volunteered to do that? After all, it's probably less work than manning the partnership desk. Of course, it would have to be someone fairly good at making clueless people understand as well as someone who understood the concepts well themselves. And yes, in this case, if there could have been damage, I would assume there was - because unlike the hesitation UI's, there is clearly a wrongdoer here.

I agree. ANY call over partner's 2S is using the UI, so egregiously that I would have given twice the normal PP for the 3H bid (assuming he is experienced; if not then I just adjust and explain). If the partner has only one more spade than heart, then he gets away with his pass. If he has two more, he gets a PP as well (again assuming he is experienced, and I use "he" in the same way as the Laws to include "she").