Multi-Landy over 1C opening forgotten

[blackshoe]

There are other contexts in which current equity law rewards it's infraction. For example suppose you use UI to choose the winning action over a losing logical alternative. Even if opponents notice your infraction, report it, and the director rules in their favour, a weighted ruling will usually leave you better off than if you had complied with the law.

It's worth pointing out here that a weighted ruling in a UI case is not allowed to include as any part of its weighting an outcome reached by way of a disallowed call.

Agree with Gordon. Aside from that, a ruling in such a case would not necessarily be weighted.

 

Cheating is another matter. Misunderstanding and rationalisation provide an adequate explanation for most such infractions. In my example, the law-breaker might believe that he is conscientiously following the official ACBL Directors' Handbook advice to take the action he would have taken without UI.

Neither Duplicate Decisions (DD) nor The Club Director's Handbook (CDH) says that. DD does say you should ignore the UI, which is also bad advice, but not the same as your suggestion. The CDH gives no advice at all to players in this area; it's all about how the director should handle the problem.

 

Furthermore, until directors routinely impose PPs, they are of marginal relevance to this discussion.

Well, if we don't talk about imposing PPs here, how will the culture be changed so that directors do routinely impose PPs where appropriate?

[barmar]

UI is a very tricky issue. I think it's disingenuous to say that the laws or director instructions encourage or reward use of UI. Rather, it's both difficult for players to know what the right thing to do is when they receive UI, and difficult for directors to judge how to rule on it. And when the TD isn't sure, he's not likely to be harsh in his ruling.

[nige1]

Neither Duplicate Decisions (DD) nor The Club Director's Handbook (CDH) says that. DD does say you should ignore the UI, which is also bad advice, but not the same as your suggestion. The CDH gives no advice at all to players in this area; it's all about how the director should handle the problem.

Great. That's a change for the better. Until recently, The handbook gave doubtful advice:

Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle.

Well, if we don't talk about imposing PPs here, how will the culture be changed so that directors do routinely impose PPs where appropriate

Good point. With some justification, however, players regard PPs as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Directors prefer to avoid hassle, so argument is unlikely to change their habits in regard to PPs.

The simplest solution would be to build deterrence into the basic laws.

[blackshoe]

Good point. With some justification, however, players regard PPs as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Directors prefer to avoid hassle, so argument is unlikely to change their habits in regard to PPs.

The simplest solution would be to build deterrence into the basic laws.

What possible justification could there be for that?

A director who fails in his duty because he's afraid of hassle has still failed in his duty. Train him better or fire him.

The deterrence is already there. That's what PPs are for.

[nige1]

What possible justification could there be for that?

A director who fails in his duty because he's afraid of hassle has still failed in his duty. Train him better or fire him.

The deterrence is already there. That's what PPs are for.

Deterrent rules are appropriate for directors but unjustifiable for players?

Some Bridge rules already incorporate a smidgeon of deterrence but more rules should incorporate more deterrence, so that the game is fairer and more fun for those who try to learn and to comply with them.

[blackshoe]

Deterrent rules are appropriate for directors but unjustifiable for players?

Some Bridge rules already incorporate a smidgeon of deterrence but more rules should incorporate more deterrence, so that the game is fairer and more fun for those who try to learn and to comply with them.

I do not understand your question.

 

How big a rule book do you want?

[nige1]

I do not understand your question. How big a rule book do you want?

Some proposed changes would save reams of paper. Rule-makers should drop some current rules. For instance

• Rules that give victims and law-breakers options after illegal calls and plays e.g. it would be better to cancel any illegal call and silence the caller's partner.
• Rules that punish the victim rather than the law-breaker e.g. Protect yourself, SEWOG..
• Rules that over-depend on mind-reading e.g. Expert questions.
• Rules that reduce deterrence e.g. Weighted rulings.

Rule-makers should simplify other rules. For instance

• Declarer claims a number of tricks by facing his hand and playing on to the end, unless defenders concede.
• Declarer plays a card from dummy by picking it up or by simply and unambiguously designating it.
• Unless claiming, a player should not lead to the next trick, until all the cards of the current trick are turned.
• UI protocol should be detailed. Perhaps Bridge should become a timed game.

 

 

Additions would increase the size of the law-book. Simple unambiguous rules might take up more space. Also, the law-book should contain essential regulations. For instance

• Bidding-card regulations (or written-bidding regulations). e.g. Before a stop-bid you place a 10-second timer (if available) on LHO's bidding cards. He must wait for the sand to run through before bidding.
• Picking up your bidding cards is not a legal pass. Bidding cards should remain face-up until the opening lead is faced.
• Disclosure. e.g. You announce partner's calls rather than alert them. To reduce disturbance to other tables, your can point to entries on a card containing common meanings. (This would eliminate detailed alert regulations). You should be allowed to switch off opponents' announcements.
• Where available, electronic gadgets (e.g. Bridge-mates) should record/time actions and prevent mechanical errors (e.g. insufficient bids, bids out of turn).

Well, that would be a start :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[blackshoe]

Some of your suggestions I agree with, some I disagree with. I like your "ten second timer" idea, for example. In bulk, those things are less than a buck apiece. Some of what you suggests already exists. For example, correct procedure for declarer in designating cards from dummy is already to simply and unambiguously designate it by specifying the rank and denomination of the card (Law 46A).

[barmar]

SEWOG is not a punishment to the NOS, it's just a way to avoid giving them a free pass. The wording of the SEWOG clause has also been rewritten significantly in the 2017 Laws. It now says:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:

(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the consequence of rectifying its infraction.

(ii) The non-offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is self-inflicted.

So the offender is still punished, but if the gambler loses their bet they don't get their wager back.

 

And the new claim law requires the claimer to face his hand, and allows all four players to agree to play out the hand instead of calling the TD.

[Pig Trader]

So, anyway, back to the OP! :rolleyes:

 

I expect I may well need to poll players giving them the North cards.

 

I did. Of six polled, only one failed to discount raising diamonds fairly quickly and actually chose 4♦. One chose 3♠, but then South would raise to 4♠ anyway. The others all thought 4♠ was clear. That made raising diamonds not a LA (under EBU White Book advice - which is the best advice that I have), and that is rather backed up by views expressed on this thread. I have had no suggestions from the players or anyone else how EW might have called differently without the MI, so I have concluded no adjustment. Thanks for your views.

[nige1]

Some of your suggestions I agree with, some I disagree with. I like your "ten second timer" idea, for example. In bulk, those things are less than a buck apiece. Some of what you suggests already exists. For example, correct procedure for declarer in designating cards from dummy is already to simply and unambiguously designate it by specifying the rank and denomination of the card (Law 46A).

Thank you, BlackShoe :) The problem with the law on designating cards is that it does not just mandate specifying rank and suit. The rule-makers judge that is too simple and clear. Hence the law goes on to muddy the waters and seems to condone its own infraction. Examples are

• "Run the suit" Which implies playing simultaneously to several tricks. And it seems to allow declarer to change his mind when something unexpected happens.
• "Win the trick" which seems designed to help declarer who can't remember what has already been played.

Sophistication and complexity are paramount.

 

 

[blackshoe]

I think rather that the law-makers recognized long ago that trying to get people to follow 46A is a losing battle, so they wrote 46B to tell the director how to rule if he gets involved. Then players learned how the laws tells the director to rule, so they just get on with the hand instead of calling him every time. I'm not so sure that was the best way to handle it, but it is what it is.

[nige1]

So, anyway, back to the OP! :rolleyes:

I did. Of six polled, only one failed to discount raising diamonds fairly quickly and actually chose 4♦. One chose 3♠, but then South would raise to 4♠ anyway. The others all thought 4♠ was clear. That made raising diamonds not a LA (under EBU White Book advice - which is the best advice that I have), and that is rather backed up by views expressed on this thread. I have had no suggestions from the players or anyone else how EW might have called differently without the MI, so I have concluded no adjustment. Thanks for your views.

IMO..

• Burn the white book for heresy. A pollee chose 4♦ and several others considered ♦ raises! Yet the white-book doesn't class a ♦ raise as an LA :( Beggars belief :(
• 3♠ is a different kettle of fish from 4♠. Even in an undiscussed auction, North might claim 4♠ to be a fit-jump -- and a director might believe him! 3♠, however, smacks of simple use of UI. (Without further UI, South might treat 3♠ as a cue or a stop but, probably, the director can ignore such ramifications)

Unfortunately, in accord with current real-life practice, most agree with Pig Trader's ruling :(

[barmar]

"Win the trick" which seems designed to help declarer who can't remember what has already been played.

While that's literally what the law allows, it's not how players actually use this designation. They say this when it's obvious which card will win -- I've never encountered it being used when dummy has to exercise any significant judgement or remember which cards have been played.

 

That's essentially how 46B is mostly used -- players have been using these incomplete designations for generations because they're practically never misunderstood. The only common error related to this is when a player absent-mindedly says just the suit when they meant to call for a high card in the suit; when this happens, they'll often immediately clarify, e.g. "Heart... I mean high heart". Then the "unless declarer's intent is incontrovertible" qualifier may save him from disaster.

 

Other 46B problems are rare outside SB hypotheticals.

[gordontd]

Burn the white book for heresy. A pollee chose 4♦ and several others considered ♦ raises! Yet the white-book doesn't class a ♦ raise as an LA :( Beggars belief :(

Where did you get that from? The post to which you were replying said:

 

Of six polled, only one failed to discount raising diamonds fairly quickly and actually chose 4♦. One chose 3♠, but then South would raise to 4♠ anyway. The others all thought 4♠ was clear. That made raising diamonds not a LA (under EBU White Book advice - which is the best advice that I have), and that is rather backed up by views expressed on this thread.

 

No mention of "several others considered ♦ raises!" Have I missed something or did you just make that up to justify your EBU bashing?

[barmar]

Where did you get that from? The post to which you were replying said:

 

No mention of "several others considered ♦ raises!" Have I missed something or did you just make that up to justify your EBU bashing?

I found the wording of that post confusing, because of the double negative ("only one failed to discount"), I suspect Nigel misunderstood it.

[nige1]

I found the wording of that post confusing, because of the double negative ("only one failed to discount"), I suspect Nigel misunderstood it.

Of the six pollees:

• Four chose 4♠.
• One chose 3♠.
• Another chose 4♦ --- not deemed to be an LA.

I presume that to discount a ♦ raise, you first consider it. If you chose to bid 4♦, then you consider it

The dictionary definition, however, backs Gordon :(

discount to decide that something or someone is not worth considering or giving attention

[Pig Trader]

Law 16B1b uses the words "serious consideration". With the one exception, my pollees considered and rejected raising diamonds in such a way that I did not seriously consider that they had seriously considered raising diamonds, which is why I worded my previous post after serious consideration as I did. :rolleyes:

[mycroft]

...And they say *I'm* overly pedantic and too subtle...