ChCh's clever chat

[lamford]

more important he apparently argued that his bridge reason was to deceive opponents by illegally varying his tempo.

Do you need to go to Specsavers? His only comment was:

ChCh replied, "Sorry, I was torn between two lines and they seemed identical."

 

Most of your replies seem to be based on some non-existent facts. Perhaps you should consider not posting on this thread any more.

[axman]

Declarer is entitled to think about the hand until he has formed a plan.

 

I believe that a player is entitled to consider/think to form a plan. Not speaking to consequences for the manner by which he does so. Also, i believe that he is entitled to not be interrupted except for matters such as safety/health. As to the until business- that could be foggy notions.

[pran]

Declarer is entitled to think about the hand until he has formed a plan.

I believe that a player is entitled to consider/think to form a plan. Not speaking to consequences for the manner by which he does so. Also, i believe that he is entitled to not be interrupted except for matters such as safety/health. As to the until business- that could be foggy notions.

 

Your use of the phrase 'I believe' here is commendable because

. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and

unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may

work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner

in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variations are

authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.

2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a question, remark or

gesture; by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a

singleton); by the manner in which a call or play is made; or by any purposeful deviation

from correct procedure (see also Law 73E2).

(Observe the word 'unintentionally' in this law. It is there for a reason.)

[johnu]

What a person says is a fact, namely a fact of what he said (and the fact that he did say it).

 

whether what he said is true or false is a different question and (if necessary) up to the Director to judge.

 

False facts are aka alternative facts.

[lamford]

False facts are aka alternative facts.

I thought they were called "Fake News".

[barmar]

There is a widespread belief amongst some Bridge players - who obviously know nothing about "theory of mind" - that it is possible to tell what a person is thinking from the duration of their pauses.

You find these stories in a book by a Bridge Humorist because they are stories. They have no basis in reality.

If you are the sort of person that feels that you can draw inferences from the amount of time a person takes before playing a card, then you are mistaken.

And this is why there's a Law that says that you draw inferences at your own risk. But there's also a Law that says you're not allowed to try to deceive by varying tempo.

 

It does seem like these two Laws are at odds with each other. But not really. The first Law assumes that there was a bridge reason for the hesitation; if you guess the wrong reason, that's your own problem.

 

The second Law applies when there's no bridge reason -- you're not allowed to pretend that there is.

 

The classic violation of the second Law is hesitating with a singleton. The opponent is allowed to assume you have a choice of cards to play, but guessing why it took you so long to choose is at their own risk.

[mycroft]

I've avoided getting into this, for many reasons, but I think you can argue that "I was considering which of two lines were better" when both lines are zero percent absent misdefence becomes "which line prompts a misdefence better after giving the impression there's a legitimate line" which is a clear L73E1 violation (possibly the opponents are protected by E2). "so long as the deception is not emphasized by unwonted [] hesitancy".

 

I don't believe the Chimp. He knew there were no legitimate lines, so he went looking for one that might work? For five minutes? and then suddenly found this one? Luckily I don't have to believe him; five minutes to find a *psychological* play is unwonted, and definitely the psychological effect is emphasized.

 

This is another situation where the people who can try to slip one by by fast-playing gain an advantage at the table over this Chimp - people don't notice the lightning call/play the way they do the tank, so even if it is equally imProper, it works more often.

[lamford]

I don't believe the Chimp. He knew there were no legitimate lines, so he went looking for one that might work? For five minutes? and then suddenly found this one? Luckily I don't have to believe him; five minutes to find a *psychological* play is unwonted, and definitely the psychological effect is emphasized.

I think without the remark there would be nothing you could do as a TD and his inevitable appeal would succeed; certainly if I was on the AC. He was in a 0% contract and looked for a slim chance. His thought was therefore for a bridge reason. However, the remark was an infraction, although he was replying to the TD, and it is not clear that the opponent should be taking advantage of that anyway, except at their own risk. If he had responded to the TD "sorry - that pesky windows update started and I had to force it to stop which always takes a few minutes", that would not have been a "demonstrable bridge reason" and you would presumably adjust. One problem is that the Laws are unsuitable for dealing with BITs online.

[blackshoe]

certainly if I was on the AC.

You have a lot of faith in your ability to ensure the other members of the committee would vote the way you want them to vote. Not to say they wouldn't, just that I think your certainty that your presence on the committee would ensure it is misplaced.

[mycroft]

Balance of probabilities. This is not "innocent until proven guilty", nor is it "we can't work out what he was thinking if he doesn't tell us", nor is it "defender can just say nothing and require the prosecutor to prove their case."

 

Without the comment, we get "he really took minutes to 'find a line' that wasn't 0%? or did he 'take minutes' to create the impression that there might be a non-zero% line?" And the AC will decide which is more likely, based on what the Chimp answers when asked what he was thinking about.

 

Again, it's "unwonted hesitancy", not "demonstrable bridge reason" (or "hesitancy") in E1. Whether or not the opponents were E2 damaged by it and therefore "deserve" an adjusted score, the infraction can be rectified (or penalized, or both).

[blackshoe]

There is no "prosecutor" in a bridge ruling, or in a committee ruling. It's not an adversarial process.

[mycroft]

in committee, it is at least partially adversarial. Two sides, with the director providing the facts-as-determined, ruling and reason as a "neutral" party.

 

But Lamford is saying "if he hadn't convicted himself, there's be no way to prove it"; and I'm saying "don't have to, just have to believe that something shady is going on more than 'seriously I really did take that long to find even a makes on misbid line'." And members of ACs, whether they're Director Panels as in the ACBL or high level players in other places, have very good BS detectors from training and experience.

[lamford]

And members of ACs, whether they're Director Panels as in the ACBL or high level players in other places, have very good BS detectors from training and experience.

But nowhere near as skilled as Charlie the Chimp who would say, "Hey, I answered a question from the TD truthfully. I was in a 0% contract and took five minutes finding my only chance. I made the contract. What do you want from my life?"

 

And my opinion as OP narrator is irrelevant and inadmissible.

[mycroft]

obviously. Nowhere near as skilled as someone who says "you have to believe me. I promise, I'm telling the truth."

 

"Hey, I answered a question from the C&E committee truthfully. We may play in the same house, right next to each other, but we never say anything until after the hand or look at partner's screen."

[nige1]

It doesn't matter what the player says.

Scaring. That was the typical culture in (for instance) Nazi Germany, I hoped never to experience it again.

IMO it does matter what the players say. But Pilowsky is still right. Bridge-law seems unnecessarily dependent on interpretation of players' intentions and director's subjective judgement. Too often, rulings balance on a director's whim. Bridge-rules urgently need drastic simplification, clarification, and unification. The rules should be less concerned with nebulous "Equity" and more focussed on deterrence (especially in the circumstances of the current cheating pandemic). Law-makers should try to frame a game that players can understand and enjoy. Rather than provide intriguing "Secretary bird" puzzles for directors.

[pran]

IMO it does matter what the players say. But Pilowsky is still right. Bridge-law seems unnecessarily dependent on interpretation of players' intentions and director's subjective judgement. Too often, rulings balance on a director's whim. Bridge-rules urgently need drastic simplification, clarification, and unification. The rules should be less concerned with nebulous "Equity" and more focussed on deterrence (especially in the circumstances of the current cheating pandemic). Law-makers should try to frame a game that players can understand and enjoy. Rather than provide intriguing "Secretary bird" puzzles for directors.

It sure matters what the players say, and the laws require the Director to take into consideration also what the players said when making his judgement (whether itr is subjective or objective).

 

About simplification of the laws? Around 100 years ago the laws on Bridge were extremely simple and easy to apply: In the case of an irreguarity the offended side could simply request a redeal, i.e. that the board was cancelled (understood that the ante on that board was forfeited for the offending side).

 

Obviously a simplification, but for better or for worse?

[mycroft]

I was perhaps a bit brusque with my last.

 

Self-serving testimony will be treated as all self-serving testimony; as evidence, with a known bias in favour of the speaker. That will be combined with the rest of the evidence available, and compared to the text of the Law (73E1, potentially 74B7-as-example), and a ruling based on the proponderance of the evidence will be provided.

 

"This is what I say happened, and you can't prove otherwise", however, definitely meets "we don't have to. We just have to determine where the total of the evidence lies." After all, it's not a life-changing (or -ending) experience. It's a ruling in a game.

[sanst]

IMO it does matter what the players say. But Pilowsky is still right. Bridge-law seems unnecessarily dependent on interpretation of players' intentions and director's subjective judgement. Too often, rulings balance on a director's whim. Bridge-rules urgently need drastic simplification, clarification, and unification. The rules should be less concerned with nebulous "Equity" and more focussed on deterrence (especially in the circumstances of the current cheating pandemic). Law-makers should try to frame a game that players can understand and enjoy. Rather than provide intriguing "Secretary bird" puzzles for directors.

Here we go again. Why don’t you come up with a proposal? The WBFLC will ask for these in a couple of years. But don’t claim that the players will be enthusiastic about it. The revoke laws were simplified some decades ago and even further in 2007, but more often than not players feel disadvantaged by them. “Why give them a trick for free that they couldn’t have made anyway?” or some remark about being not compensated enough. How would you simplify contested claims? By forbidding claims? If someone claims that there was UI, rule that there was UI?

There seldom are “Secretary bird” rulings, the North London Club being an exemption. And is there really so much cheating going on? Or is it that these cases get a lot of exposure? Anyway, to stop cheating you have to change to full digital bridge with camera surveillance. I don’t think that there will be many players left. I would certainly look for entertainment elsewhere.

[axman]

... How would you simplify contested claims? ...

 

I observe that bridge is filled with wonderful complexities. Claims are considerably more complex necessitating very complex remedies when they aren't perfect... and even when they are.

[pescetom]

Here we go again. Why don’t you come up with a proposal? The WBFLC will ask for these in a couple of years. But don’t claim that the players will be enthusiastic about it. The revoke laws were simplified some decades ago and even further in 2007, but more often than not players feel disadvantaged by them. “Why give them a trick for free that they couldn’t have made anyway?” or some remark about being not compensated enough. How would you simplify contested claims? By forbidding claims? If someone claims that there was UI, rule that there was UI?

There seldom are “Secretary bird” rulings, the North London Club being an exemption. And is there really so much cheating going on? Or is it that these cases get a lot of exposure? Anyway, to stop cheating you have to change to full digital bridge with camera surveillance. I don’t think that there will be many players left. I would certainly look for entertainment elsewhere.

Nige1 has repeatedly posted here sensible suggestions for handling claims.

In my experience, revokes are not contentious and also very rare, probably because they are one of the few infractions which cost anything to the offender under current laws.

The move to digital bridge is underway and irreversible, like it or not. This eliminates a lot of rule problems (both inherent and self-afflicted) but creates new ones which WBF is not addressing (others will, of course).

[sanst]

The move to digital bridge is underway and irreversible, like it or not.

And it will finish bridge as a social game. Brige, as many sports, can only exist because there are many playing it as a pastime and an opportunity to meet friends. Digital bridge doesn’t offer that opportunity and is far less popular than the physical game. The Dutch bridge union has done what it could to lure the members of the clubs to digital bridge, including free membership of the union’s online bridge club Stepbridge. But the majority of the members didn’t join that club and all are hoping that physical bridge will be possible again in September. Digital bridge might be the future at the top, although I know that the Dutch internationals see it more as a possibility to stay in shape and ‘meet’ their colleagues from other countries, and that they hope to play physical bridge ASAP, which most if not all prefer.

[pilowsky]

What I'm hoping for is a combination where computers replace cards at face to face Clubs.

That way, everyone gets to sit comfortably wherever they want, and the Director can be anywhere.

Pre-pandemic, I had an offer from a local restaurant to host such a game using Stepbridge as the platform.

This is not a new concept - younger people have been doing it for decades - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_party

When you say "the majority", I am surprised.

In Australia, computer Bridge is easily the biggest game in town in terms of both the numbers of tables playing and the people involved.

BBO, Stepbridge, BriJ, Funbridge and many others.

I suspect when you say the "majority", you are talking about the small number of people that prefer face to face.

The majority of people that play online prefer online - and there are more of us.

[sfi]

The move to digital bridge is underway and irreversible, like it or not.

I'm not sure it is. Our club's experience during the pandemic was interesting. Like all clubs, we started off by moving games online in March last year. These were quite well attended at the start, but settled in at about 50% of previous face-to-face table numbers. By December, a small number of face-to-face sessions restarted but we kept hosting BBO games, and started using RealBridge as well. The BBO sessions (which did not conflict with the live games) very quickly died. RealBridge went for a month or two longer, but there was little interest in those either. All this was despite the logistics of the face-to-face sessions being very clunky and not a good experience. Now that we are back to something close to "normal", table numbers are about 120% what they were before.

 

In short, we have lost very few players to digital bridge. In fact we have gained a bunch of players (about 100 more) from another club in town which closed last year, and they came to us rather than to online bridge. Anecdotal discussions suggest people see online bridge as a poor substitute, and this is backed up by people's patterns of play.

 

If you want an example from higher level play, simply go look at the numbers for the monthly Reynolds events. Current numbers about half what they were last year.

 

So where is the move to digital bridge underway?

[nige1]

And it will finish bridge as a social game. Brige, as many sports, can only exist because there are many playing it as a pastime and an opportunity to meet friends. Digital bridge doesn't offer that opportunity and is far less popular than the physical game. The Dutch bridge union has done what it could to lure the members of the clubs to digital bridge, including free membership of the union's online bridge club Stepbridge. But the majority of the members didn't join that club and all are hoping that physical bridge will be possible again in September. Digital bridge might be the future at the top, although I know that the Dutch internationals see it more as a possibility to stay in shape and 'meet' their colleagues from other countries, and that they hope to play physical bridge ASAP, which most if not all prefer.

I like f2f bridge but find the on-line game more convenient. On-line Bridge-rules make Bridge more enjoyable. Examples abound. We have eliminated many opportunities for mechanical error. On-line claim-law is simpler, encourages claims and speeds up the game. There are fewer opportunities for use of UI and other popular cheating methods (and these could easily be further reduced). Cheating is easier to detect and demonstrate. Bridge rules urgently need still more simplification, clarification, and defragmentation, to cope with the cheating pandemic exposed by the on-line environment. Unfortunately, the WBF, NBOs, and some professionals remain in obstinate denial.

[pescetom]

I'm not sure it is. Our club's experience during the pandemic was interesting. Like all clubs, we started off by moving games online in March last year. These were quite well attended at the start, but settled in at about 50% of previous face-to-face table numbers. By December, a small number of face-to-face sessions restarted but we kept hosting BBO games, and started using RealBridge as well. The BBO sessions (which did not conflict with the live games) very quickly died. RealBridge went for a month or two longer, but there was little interest in those either. All this was despite the logistics of the face-to-face sessions being very clunky and not a good experience. Now that we are back to something close to "normal", table numbers are about 120% what they were before.

 

In short, we have lost very few players to digital bridge. In fact we have gained a bunch of players (about 100 more) from another club in town which closed last year, and they came to us rather than to online bridge. Anecdotal discussions suggest people see online bridge as a poor substitute, and this is backed up by people's patterns of play.

 

If you want an example from higher level play, simply go look at the numbers for the monthly Reynolds events. Current numbers about half what they were last year.

 

So where is the move to digital bridge underway?

 

Above all at international level, see WBF plans for high level competition in the next year.

The players may or not love it, for various reasons, but they are almost all going to play digitally.

 

But also at national/club level in North America and UK, from what I read on bridgewinners and the EBU site.

 

Getting down to more direct experience, here in Italy the number of players online has doubled, the number of players in face to face federal events is one quarter of pre-covid.

The national federation has lost one third of members in a year and is still obstinately dedicated to restoring face to face, even announcing the intention to close down simultaneous tournaments online in September, before the national laws make them practical indoors in typical locations.

Even in the South of Italy where playing outdoors is practical, only a fraction of players have returned to play f2f: simultaneous tournaments that up to two years ago attracted 14 tables are currently alternating between playing with 4-5 tables or cancelling due to lack of interest.

Fear of infection is only a small part of this, the players are mainly old but also dual vaccinated.

I asked one spritely 80yo lady why she had not participated and she told me candidly that she found better bridge online and was enjoying the Olympics.