[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-16, 11:34, said:

You are talking about using your laws for all regulations,

For all illegal calls and plays, yes.

Quote

so this would result in a lot more cases than just insufficient bids.

In that case presumably you no longer "don't think there is a high enough incidence to affect whether you get a 'good game of bridge' or not"? You can't have it both ways, unless you're arguing that the incidence of such irregularities falls into a magic zone where it makes the director's life a misery but none of the players are affected enough to notice.

[nigel_k]

I think gnasher's suggestion is an improvement. Though you would need a way to handle the case where the next player calls after the insufficient bid, e.g. 1♠-(1♣)-1♥. If there is no option to accept the insufficient bid then you cannot let the auction continue, but would need to clarify what information is and is not authorised info for each side after the auction is rolled back. Seems like it could get a little messy.

Actually I would go further than gnasher, possibly a lot further, and just have a blanket provision that allows the director to adjust the score whenever the outcome of applying other laws is clearly inequitable - for either side, offender or non-offender. This would fix revokes and other crazy outcomes all in one go.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-October-16, 12:29, said:

For all illegal calls and plays, yes.


In that case presumably you no longer "don't think there is a high enough incidence to affect whether you get a 'good game of bridge' or not"? You can't have it both ways, unless you're arguing that the incidence of such irregularities falls into a magic zone where it makes the director's life a misery but none of the players are affected enough to notice.

I didn't think that insufficient bids were frequent enough, but if you are talking instead about all illegal calls and plays then it suddenly becomes a lot more. Either way the players will begin to notice when the rulings by volunteer directors are effectively random.

[Vampyr]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-16, 12:56, said:

I think gnasher's suggestion is an improvement. Though you would need a way to handle the case where the next player calls after the insufficient bid, e.g. 1♠-(1♣)-1♥. If there is no option to accept the insufficient bid then you cannot let the auction continue, but would need to clarify what information is and is not authorised info for each side after the auction is rolled back. Seems like it could get a little messy.

gnasher suggested in this or another thread that the auction should be rolled back and that all illegal calls be AI to the )original) NOS and UI to the (original) OS. Obviously it needs to be at least this favourable to the NOS to be fair.

So the player who carelessly calls will be much better off than the player who has paid more careful attention to the auction. The player who pretends to carelessly call will be much better off too.

These days the revoke law is, in many cases, "Win you gain, lose (the opponents notice) you break even". I think that it is important that the laws be structured so that those who choose to cheat will find it very easy to gain. This, I fear, would be a consequence of making it illegal to play or call normally after an illegal action.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-16, 18:10, said:

I didn't think that insufficient bids were frequent enough, but if you are talking instead about all illegal calls and plays then it suddenly becomes a lot more.

It hasn't *become* a lot more. My proposal was always about all illegal bids and plays. You'll find my original suggestion in no 116. You quoted it in post no 123.

Quote

Either way the players will begin to notice when the rulings by volunteer directors are effectively random.

Given my suggested change, what proportion of illegal bids and plays do you think will require a judgement ruling by the director?

[WellSpyder]

gnasher, on 2012-October-17, 00:48, said:

Given my suggested change, what proportion of illegal bids and plays do you think will require a judgement ruling by the director?

Wouldn't it be most of them, since they all become UI cases?

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-October-17, 00:48, said:

It hasn't *become* a lot more. My proposal was always about all illegal bids and plays. You'll find my original suggestion in no 116. You quoted it in post no 123.

OK; I was still thinking about insufficient bids when I wrote what you quoted.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2012-October-17, 01:31, said:

Wouldn't it be most of them, since they all become UI cases?

Andy suggests that there could be an alternative set of mechanical rulings for use by volunteer/untrained etc directors. Although this will, of course, never happen, he feels that these directors can be taken out of the equation.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that attempting to restore equity after every irregular bid or play will result in consistent rulings even by experienced directors, of whom we will need probably three times the number currently employed.

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2012-October-17, 01:31, said:

Wouldn't it be most of them, since they all become UI cases?

No. Most of the time that UI is transmitted, the non-offenders don't think they were damaged, so no judgement ruling is required.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-17, 01:56, said:

Andy suggests that there could be an alternative set of mechanical rulings for use by volunteer/untrained etc directors. Although this will, of course, never happen, he feels that these directors can be taken out of the equation.

I'd prefer it if you let me answer for myself.

My earlier question should have read "Given my suggested change, in a jurisdiction where mecahnical adjustments are not in force, what proportion of illegal bids and plays do you think will require a judgement ruling by the director?"

That is, of the times when a director says "Replace your illegal action with a legal action; the withdrawn action is UI to your partner; non-offenders call me back at the end if you think you were damaged", in what proportion will he be called back to give a ruling relating to the UI?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-October-17, 04:07

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-October-17, 03:46, said:

I'd prefer it if you let me answer for myself.

My earlier question should have read "Given my suggested change, in a jurisdiction where mecahnical adjustments are not in force, what proportion of illegal bids and plays do you think will require a judgement ruling by the director?"

That is, of the times when a director says "Replace your illegal action with a legal action; the withdrawn action is UI to your partner; non-offenders call me back at the end if you think you were damaged", in what proportion will he be called back to give a ruling relating to the UI?

In some cases it will not be a matter of UI. For every ten tables playing about 25 boards, there are, in my experience, about two infractions that infringe the basic mechanics of the games -- calls and leads out of turn, insufficient bids, revokes... and the vast majority of these are revokes. For established revokes there will be loads of possible outcomes, and the likely percentages of each may be very difficult to calculate.

Other infractions would be less difficult; but where UI is involved, experienced players who can work out subtle ways that the UI could have helped their opponents will benefit. There will be lost of effects that players aren't fully conscious of -- the knowledge that a partner has not got an opening bid subconsciously steers us away from a borderline preempt, with a choice of leads we may find reasons that underleading our king is best that do not have to do with the fact that partner has played the Ace illegally; this sort of thing is likely to result in a minefield.

UI situations are not a good thing. They are the subject of most appeals and most of the rulings/appeals that leave people upset. I have seen and heard of many UI rulings and appeals that are so ridiculous I can hardly believe it. There are some situations where there is no choice but to rule on the basis of UI, but I think that these situations should be minimised, not increased.

[mycroft]

The next most common "book ruling error" after revokes is openings out of turn, (more leads than calls, but a fair number of those, too). Again, converting that to "UI/AI, do the right thing" would be an issue I would not want to deal with.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-October-18, 10:37, said:

The next most common "book ruling error" after revokes is openings out of turn, (more leads than calls, but a fair number of those, too). Again, converting that to "UI/AI, do the right thing" would be an issue I would not want to deal with.

Another point worth mentioning about these "book rulings" is that players are generally satisfied with them. When the offender's side is damaged by their action, they are philosophical about it -- "I made a mistake, there was a penalty and it was applied, I'd do well to be more careful next time". These rulings are perceived to be very consistent and fair, and that is important. Yes, sometimes the NOS will get a better result than they "deserved", but this happens with all mistakes made by the other side.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-17, 17:31, said:

In some cases it will not be a matter of UI. For every ten tables playing about 25 boards, there are, in my experience, about two infractions that infringe the basic mechanics of the games -- calls and leads out of turn, insufficient bids, revokes... and the vast majority of these are revokes.

I'l admit that it's years since I played or directed at the sort of club you're talking about, but these figures seem remarkably high. In nearly a year of directing the weekly duplicate at the 77 Club in North London, I didn't encounter a single established revoke (I know, because I remember discussing it with someone). OK, that was more than 20 years ago, but I doubt if the revoking patterns amongst social bridge players have changed very much since then.

Quote

For established revokes there will be loads of possible outcomes, and the likely percentages of each may be very difficult to calculate.

I think that overstates the problem. In many cases a revoke makes no difference to the play, and a director can use results from other tables to find out what the normal results are. (I know this practice might be frowned upon in general, but we're talking specifically about directors who lack the ability, confidence or time to make their own judgement rulings, and a result concocted from looking at a traveller is likely to be much closer to equity than a result produced under the present rules.)

Maybe we need some data? Next time you're directing, why not keep track of the mechanical infractions you have to rule on, and then post the hands here?

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-October-19, 02:06, said:

I'l admit that it's years since I played or directed at the sort of club you're talking about, but these figures seem remarkably high. In nearly a year of directing the weekly duplicate at the 77 Club in North London, I didn't encounter a single established revoke (I know, because I remember discussing it with someone). OK, that was more than 20 years ago, but I doubt if the revoking patterns amongst social bridge players have changed very much since then.

That's pretty remarkable. I direct once every couple of months at a 10-table club, and I'm sure I've encountered a couple of established revokes in the past year. However, I think vast majority of revokes get corrected before they're established.

But Vampyr didn't specify "established" when she said that this was the majority of infractions. She may be right that revokes are the most common, but I'm not sure if it's so much that it's the "vast majority"; insufficient bids may come close.

[jeffford76]

gnasher, on 2012-October-19, 02:06, said:

I'l admit that it's years since I played or directed at the sort of club you're talking about, but these figures seem remarkably high. In nearly a year of directing the weekly duplicate at the 77 Club in North London, I didn't encounter a single established revoke (I know, because I remember discussing it with someone). OK, that was more than 20 years ago, but I doubt if the revoking patterns amongst social bridge players have changed very much since then.

The games I direct have about 15 tables. I would say that on average each session has a revoke (either established or leading to a penalty card) and about every other session has a lead out of turn and an insufficient or out-of-turn bid. I end up ruling on UI or MI about once every 4 sessions. (There are more calls than this to establish UI or MI was present, but most of these don't turn into rulings.)

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-October-19, 09:38, said:

But Vampyr didn't specify "established" when she said that this was the majority of infractions. She may be right that revokes are the most common, but I'm not sure if it's so much that it's the "vast majority"; insufficient bids may come close.

True, most revokes are not established, but there are lots of them. I think that calls and plays out of turn are next in frequency, and that insufficient bids are the rarest book irregularity. Except perhaps for five cards played to a trick, which I have seen only once at the table, last week.

This past weekend I experienced a revoke and a pass out of turn. Both rulings were dealt with in "mechanical" fashion, and in neither case was the OS damaged. (In the former I asked for the suit to be led, and in the latter my partner chose to accept the pass). I do not like the idea of estabishing "equity" (the same as the table result in both cases) and also punishing the offenders. The "mechanical" ruling is the punishment. When it changes nothing no one minds, and when the offenders are damaged no one minds. Why fix what is not broken?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-21, 19:12, said:

This past weekend I experienced a revoke and a pass out of turn. Both rulings were dealt with in "mechanical" fashion, and in neither case was the OS damaged. (In the former I asked for the suit to be led, and in the latter my partner chose to accept the pass). I do not like the idea of estabishing "equity" (the same as the table result in both cases) and also punishing the offenders. The "mechanical" ruling is the punishment.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that you actually prefer a punishment whose consequences vary randomly to a punishment whose consequences are consistent. Do you really mean that?

Quote

When it changes nothing no one minds, and when the offenders are damaged no one minds.

I think it would be better not to assume that everyone thinks the same way as you do. I mind, and so do others that I have talked to about this.

Quote

Why fix what is not broken?

I can't see any point in your asking a rhetorical question whose premise is one that you know isn't accepted by everyone. Equally, and equally pointlessly, I could ask "Why leave it broken when we know how to fix it?"

[mycroft]

Any change in rules that replaces book penalties with UI and MI rulings (and frankly, the only reason the unestablished revoke doesn't cause more problems is that the chance of the UI mattering is so small that the directors routinely ignoring it isn't a problem) is definitely not "how to fix it", at least for non-NBO TDs.

I was actually surprised how few times I've had to do a "this used to be two tricks, now it's one, gotta evaluate equity" evaluation; but it's more than zero, and I have to check to make sure that this isn't one of the times every time; and that takes time, and I know I've missed at least one in haste (I clued in when I was walking away, and came back - not as bad as letting the wrong ruling stick, but certainly bad).

And, apart from "I lost a trick when I revoked, why don't they?" discussions, nobody complains about book rulings. Oh boy do they complain about "obvious" calls and plays reversed in the presence of UI, or "yeah, it was wrong, but *everybody* should have known it was wrong by..." MI judgements.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2012-October-22, 11:23, said:

I was actually surprised how few times I've had to do a "this used to be two tricks, now it's one, gotta evaluate equity" evaluation; but it's more than zero, and I have to check to make sure that this isn't one of the times every time; and that takes time, and I know I've missed at least one in haste (I clued in when I was walking away, and came back - not as bad as letting the wrong ruling stick, but certainly bad).

I haven't found that evaluation very frequently needed, either. When "C" needs to be invoked, usually the NOS is quite eager to point out that the revoke cost them more than the one or two trick adjustment. But, I do keep it in mind ---especially when the NOS is too weak to notice.