[bluejak]

NickRW, on 2012-November-02, 04:35, said:

Something else worries me about this thread. There seems to be the suggestion that the players concerned probably couldn't stop after a second slam attempt and were not as capable as some other present at this tournament ("not the sharpest pencil") - and that we are likely therefore to find that pass was an LA because of it. The implication being that if we thought they were better players or a more seasoned pair or whatever - and therefore could stop after a 2nd attempt we would have let them off bidding after the pause. That seems to me that we are condoning a non-level playing field if that is the case.

When you make a ruling based on the likelihood of players doing particular things it is never a level playing field. Sometimes it is to your advantage in a rulings case to be considered a better player, sometimes it is to your advantage to being a worse player.

lamford, on 2012-November-02, 09:49, said:

I think it is extremely rare for someone to change their opinion based on the views of others. I can only remember one time when I changed my view during the thread, and that was as a result of doing a simulation which showed that my original view was wrong.

I have changed my views many times over the years after reading posts in this and other forums.

[NickRW]

bluejak, on 2012-November-02, 14:09, said:

When you make a ruling based on the likelihood of players doing particular things it is never a level playing field. Sometimes it is to your advantage in a rulings case to be considered a better player, sometimes it is to your advantage to being a worse player.

Well, you are, of course, right. That doesn't make it any less distasteful.

[bluejak]

Why distasteful? Judgement rulings are based on the evidence of the situation. Why is some evidence distasteful, some not?

[NickRW]

bluejak, on 2012-November-05, 09:09, said:

Why distasteful? Judgement rulings are based on the evidence of the situation. Why is some evidence distasteful, some not?

I do not like the idea of a non level playing field. A rule whihch allows 'better' players to be treated leniently and 'worse' players not is just simply disgusting. It allows one rule for one set of players and another rule for others - which is no game at all.

[bluejak]

No-one is suggesting treating better players - or worse players - more leniently. What we are doing is basing judgement rulings on the evidence, and you cannot conclude what a player would do in a particular position without allowing for his style, his system, his agreements, and his abilities.

Of course, if it comes to penalisation, then worse players are always treated more leniently, but few argue with that. But this thread is about judgement rulings, not penalisation.

[NickRW]

bluejak, on 2012-November-05, 09:27, said:

No-one is suggesting treating better players - or worse players - more leniently. What we are doing is basing judgement rulings on the evidence, and you cannot conclude what a player would do in a particular position without allowing for his style, his system, his agreements, and his abilities.

Of course, if it comes to penalisation, then worse players are always treated more leniently, but few argue with that. But this thread is about judgement rulings, not penalisation.

Well you may be perfectly right about the laws of course. It does not alter how I feel about it. We don't have a "he is good enough that he would have scored anyway, so we can ignore the offside rule" in football. The judegement of the officials concerns whether a rule has been violated or not in that and a whole heap of other games and sports.

[barmar]

The question isn't whether a rule has been violated. The player's ability comes up when assigning adjusted scores, or dealing with laws that refer to "normal play". We have to determine what would likely have happened without the irregularity, and the abilities of the players in question must be taken into consideration. Meckstroth isn't likely to make the same kinds of mistakes I would, and when he discovers a bad lie of a key suit I'd expect him to try for the squeeze, while I would probably just give up and take my down 1.

[NickRW]

barmar, on 2012-November-05, 10:34, said:

The question isn't whether a rule has been violated. The player's ability comes up when assigning adjusted scores, or dealing with laws that refer to "normal play". We have to determine what would likely have happened without the irregularity, and the abilities of the players in question must be taken into consideration. Meckstroth isn't likely to make the same kinds of mistakes I would, and when he discovers a bad lie of a key suit I'd expect him to try for the squeeze, while I would probably just give up and take my down 1.

That is not the situation in this thread. It is one thing is potentially an LA or not based on what the players might or might not have been able to do subsequently. As such it is exactly analagous to waiving the offside rule in view of what the ref thinks might have happened.

I don't want anything to do with it. I can't see why some of you condone this. It is a flagrant violation of the principle of fair play apparently enshrined in the rules.

Nick

[nigel_k]

I tend to agree with Nick. It would be better if logical alternatives were assessed based on the average strength of the field, with reference to the methods, but not the skill level, of the actual players involved.

[gnasher]

nigel_k, on 2012-November-05, 12:33, said:

I tend to agree with Nick. It would be better if logical alternatives were assessed based on the average strength of the field, with reference to the methods, but not the skill level, of the actual players involved.

So if I held the North hand in a weak field I'd be obliged to pass 3NT, but if I held it in a strong field I could make the obvious (to me) 4♥ bid? I suppose that would serve me right for playing in a weak field.

Anyway, in a rare moment of clarity the Laws use the words "among the class of players in question", so what you want would require a change in the Laws.

[nigel_k]

gnasher, on 2012-November-08, 02:25, said:

So if I held the North hand in a weak field I'd be obliged to pass 3NT, but if I held it in a strong field I could make the obvious (to me) 4♥ bid? I suppose that would serve me right for playing in a weak field.

Anyway, in a rare moment of clarity the Laws use the words "among the class of players in question", so what you want would require a change in the Laws.

You are correct that the strength of the field would affect what you could legally do, but the advantage would be that everyone in the field would be held to the same standard, which I think is a pretty big improvement. I don't disagree that it would require a change in the laws. But the phrase "among the class of players in question" seems like a fairly typical example of the laws not quite being explicitly clear about what is actually meant.

[StevenG]

gnasher, on 2012-November-08, 02:25, said:

So if I held the North hand in a weak field I'd be obliged to pass 3NT, but if I held it in a strong field I could make the obvious (to me) 4♥ bid? I suppose that would serve me right for playing in a weak field.

So does that mean that you should be allowed to bid 4♥, but that lesser players shouldn't?

[NickRW]

gnasher, on 2012-November-08, 02:25, said:

...so what you want would require a change in the Laws.

Yes, I am saying that. This aspect of the laws stink.

Furthermore I find them objectionable to have to enforce, not to mention difficult to understand and contentious in thier outcome based as they are solely on opinion. I couldn't think of a worse heap of c..p to write in a rule book and then expect mostly amateur players and TDs to have to abide by.

Nick

[gnasher]

StevenG, on 2012-November-08, 03:17, said:

So does that mean that you should be allowed to bid 4♥, but that lesser players shouldn't?

If polling or other evidence showed that all players of my ability would bid 4♥, but many players in a different category of ability would not, why wouldn't the LAs be different?

This cuts both ways: sometimes we rule that a good player is more constrained than a lesser player.

[NickRW]

gnasher, on 2012-November-08, 03:57, said:

If polling or other evidence showed that all players of my ability would bid 4♥, but many players in a different category of ability would not, why wouldn't the LAs be different?

This cuts both ways: sometimes we rule that a good player is more constrained than a lesser player.

It is not a question of "cutting both ways". It shouldn't be cut at all.

If you don't think this is a difficult and contentious area of the laws, why are there so many threads concerning LAs in this forum? And these threads are being debated by top quality TDs and very experienced players. How do you think the average club TD copes? Adding a dimension where the class of player matters makes a truly difficult area even worse. Worse, IMO, to the point of utter impracticality quite apart from the aspect of potential interpretation of not being a level playing field

Nick

[Trinidad]

Nick,

This is not as unjust as you make it to be. The objective of the Laws is to find out whether the player in question used UI to come to his decision. That means that you will have to think from the perspective of the player. You take his system, his style, and -yes- his ability.

Though it is rare, it does happen that an action can be the only LA for a lesser player and is not an LA for a top player. A lesser player bids his four card suits up the line, because that is what he is taught to do. A more experienced player holding about 6 HCPs and 4-4 in the majors will respond 1♠ to a takeout double of 1♦, skipping his hearts. That gives him the opportunity to show both suits when the auction gets back to him. Responding 1♥ -and voluntarily cutting himself out of the competitive auction- would not be an LA for such a player.

So, if both players would have UI that partner has something in hearts, we allow the lesser player to bid 1♥ but the more experienced player is forced to bid 1♠. If, OTOH, both players would have UI that partner has something in spades, we allow the experienced player to bid 1♠ but the lesser player is forced to bid 1♥.

This is not a case of "it cuts both ways". There is no cut: We consider the LAs from the perspective of the player. It's just that these perspectives may be entirely different.

Rik

[StevenG]

Rik,

Your example comes down to methods of the partnership, not the ability of the players. Are you saying that intermediates are assumed never to play expert methods?

[Zelandakh]

Rik, your example reminds me of the Stayman thread and I think it is a good example with one small amendment. For the lesser player holding Jxxx/Jxxx/xx/xxx, both 1♥ and 1♠ are likely to be LAs. Therefore they need to select 1♠ since knowing partner holds hearts suggests bidding 1♥. For the more advanced player, only 1♠ is a LA so they select it regardless.

Now let us consider the situation when partner is known to hold spades. Now the lesser player has to bid hearts since both majors are still LAs and 1♠ is suggested, whereas the more advanced player still bids 1♠ as it is still the only LA.

This essentially highlights the problem that Nick is trying to bring up. While it is perhaps theoretically equal as to whether being more advanced is beneficial or not, in practise it is (warning: made up statistic alert!) >90% of the time beneficial to be the more advanced player. The bids are better defined and have more science behind them, so there are fewer LAs and those that there are are often less likely to end up in a silly result. More than that, the more advanced player is more capable of coming up with convincing arguments when they are on the boundaries of using the UI while the lesser players just get ruled against.

It is not that I am arguing for a change in the Laws here and I am not sure if a good, beneficial change could be found. But to suggest that the current Laws are not beneficial to the better pair is disingenuous imho. You can argue that that is equity, since on average the better pair will get a better score, but that is not how it works it pretty much every other sport or game around.

Or to put it to an extreme case, say that my team plays against Andy, Frances and co and due to some lucky breaks is level after 15 of 16 boards. On the final board a player at another table shouts something across the room audible to everyone. We call the TD who tells us to try and complete the hand without using the EI. On both tables the auction and play are identical. At both tables there is a judgement call between the EI and available AI. The TD Looks at the matter and decides that their team was good enough to draw the appropriate inferences from the AI but our team not and therefore adjusts against us. Is that fair?

To take an analogy in football, it would be that if Lewandowski (Dortmund) is through on goal when a spectator runs onto the field and tackles him that the referee could award a goal on the grounds that that was the most likely outcome. Whereas if the same happened with Asamoah (Fürth) he would rule that it was saved or missed. It is generally speaking a fundamental of sport that this sort of thing cannot happen, that all competitors/teams are treated as equal. It would be nice if bridge could at least aspire to this ideal, even if it is not actually possible in practise.

[c_corgi]

I don't think the analogies with football are valid: football and most other sports make little effort to restore equity in the event of foul play or similar, which is precisely why a player will deliberately incur a red card to save a likely goal. Bridge should avoid going down this route.

In many situations an expert player will have an advantage over a novice. If both are in the same situation, with UI which prompts the novice to take the winning action but was irrelevant to the expert, there is a problem. If we say "there must be a level playing field, the novice is permitted to take the expert action here", the novice has been allowed to cheat in order to close the gap in ability. If we draw the line anywhere else, such as the expert is constrained to take a novice action, the effect is the same even if the process appears less distasteful. Therefore the laws are correct in that the ability (and indeed style) of the player must be taken into account.

[bluejak]

nigel_k, on 2012-November-05, 12:33, said:

I tend to agree with Nick. It would be better if logical alternatives were assessed based on the average strength of the field, with reference to the methods, but not the skill level, of the actual players involved.

So that means that if a player would bid 4♥ always and without exception, as would his peers, you would still make it illegal for him to do so because his skill level is different from the average of the field? How can you possibly justify such an approach?

NickRW, on 2012-November-08, 04:02, said:

If you don't think this is a difficult and contentious area of the laws, why are there so many threads concerning LAs in this forum? And these threads are being debated by top quality TDs and very experienced players. How do you think the average club TD copes? Adding a dimension where the class of player matters makes a truly difficult area even worse.

First, I don't believe it makes it more difficult at all. Club TDs know their players: that is not the problem with UI rulings.

Second, if you write the Laws to make them less fair, I do not see how you can claim this to be an improvement, despite a justification [which I do not believe anyway] that they are easier to enforce.