[StevenG]

 Cascade, on 2012-November-11, 03:03, said:

It doesnt seem unjust if the player worked it out based on additional information from partner that was unauthorized

How can you tell? (for either the novice or the expert)

[PetteriLem]

It doesnt really matter as what we are trying to achieve is a correct ruling for a group of pairs not for a single pair. It is known that optimum ruling may require it to be wrong in each and every individual case, but be the best for all as an average and from this point of view a single case is meaningless. When we are trying to determine what a group of bad players would have done, we give a ruling for that group only, but we just dont say so. This is where the idea of misjustice stems from.

[lalldonn]

 StevenG, on 2012-November-11, 03:24, said:

How can you tell? (for either the novice or the expert)

You can't. That's why you only allow them to do it if for that player there was no logical alternative to doing so. Allowing it any less is unfair to the offending pair who are being barred from something you judge they would always have done, and allowing it any more is unfair to the non-offending pair who may be getting cheated.

[StevenG]

 lalldonn, on 2012-November-11, 09:28, said:

You can't. That's why you only allow them to do it if for that player there was no logical alternative to doing so. Allowing it any less is unfair to the offending pair who are being barred from something you judge they would always have done, and allowing it any more is unfair to the non-offending pair who may be getting cheated.

The problem with your example is that the offending pair who may be getting barred is the expert pair, and the non-offending pair who may be getting cheated is the expert pair. I agree that a bad ruling woud be unfair to them, but you seem to be totally unconcerned about fairness for the novice pair. And when the novice pair are not novices, but good club players, or near-expert, then what?

[nigel_k]

 lalldonn, on 2012-November-10, 15:57, said:

You have two players, a novice and an expert. They both have the same auction where their respective partners have bid 6NT but also transmitted UI that suggests raising to 7NT. Based on some sort of bridge logic, it can be demonstrated that raising to 7NT is the correct action. The expert would always have applied this logic. The novice would never have applied this logic. If you are forced to give both players the same ruling, one of these two situations will occur.
- The expert receives the score for 6NT, even though he would always have bid 7NT.
- The novice receives the score for 7NT, even though he would never have bid 7NT.
It escapes me how either of those outcomes could be considered "fair", especially if we consider the main purpose of the laws to be restoring equity.

I don't disagree with the reasoning here. But I just attach a higher value to the principle that two players facing the same situation should have the same options legally available to them. To me this is much more important than restoring equity.

Also, I don't believe the laws mention equity at all except when providing rectification after an infraction. What we are discussing will determine whether an infraction occurs at all. So to use 'restoring equity' as an argument here is an extension the laws, not an application of them.

[aguahombre]

 nigel_k, on 2012-November-11, 13:14, said:

I don't disagree with the reasoning here. But I just attach a higher value to the principle that two players facing the same situation should have the same options legally available to them. To me this is much more important than restoring equity.

Two players facing the same situation should and do have the same options legally available to them in LallDonn's scenario. They both have the same obligations, as well ---to base their decisions on AI and logic. If one player has (thru experience/expertise/inference) the ability to make the right decision, but the other player only has UI available to make the same decision, perhaps we should at least allow the players to explain their rationale before applying the same adjustment to each of them.

Furthermore, when deciding whether to "buy" a player's rationale, I would give little or no weight to the opinions of players (any level) polled which do not address the factors brought up by the player in question.

Actually this means we are not really considering the "class" of player involved ---rather the class of his/her thought processes and articulation. Quite different from how we evaluate arguments on BBF

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-November-11, 14:05

[nigel_k]

 aguahombre, on 2012-November-11, 13:37, said:

Two players facing the same situation should and do have the same options legally available to them in LallDonn's scenario. They both have the same obligations, as well ---to base their decisions on AI and logic.

No, they don't.

The laws define what is a logical alternative and the thought process actually used by the player *is not* a relevant factor. The strength of the player's justification of their choice, or whether we buy it or not, is just not a factor. We only consider what other players would do.

In Josh's example the expert may legally raise to 7NT and the novice may not. Even if the novice has a perfectly valid reason for thinking that pass is illogical, he still is legally required to pass.

[aguahombre]

 nigel_k, on 2012-November-11, 18:04, said:

No, they don't.

The laws define what is a logical alternative and the thought process actually used by the player a relevant factor. The strength of the player's justification of their choice, or whether we buy it or not, is just not a factor. We only consider what other players would do.

In Josh's example the expert may legally raise to 7NT and the novice may not. Even if the novice has a perfectly valid reason for thinking that pass is illogical, he still is legally required to pass.

Nonsense. In case you want more: I do not accept that a player of lower "status" is incapable of (occasionally) making expert decisions which would have the same weight in a UI situation as the expert might have.

[nigel_k]

 aguahombre, on 2012-November-11, 18:13, said:

Nonsense. In case you want more: I do not accept that a player of lower "status" is incapable of (occasionally) making expert decisions which would have the same weight in a UI situation as the expert might have.

Sorry, I somehow left out 'is not' from what I posted (now fixed). Hopefully the context makes it clear. Here is the relevant section of the laws: 16B1(b)

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

There just isn't a way to read this so that the thought process of the actual player is taken into account. We look at what the class of similar players would do or consider doing, and nothing more.

We might use the given player's statement as evidence in deciding what similar players would do. But the assumption of Josh's example was that the pass was a logical alternative for the class of player in question.

[aguahombre]

 nigel_k, on 2012-November-11, 19:50, said:

We might use the given player's statement as evidence in deciding what similar players would do. But the assumption of Josh's example was that the pass was a logical alternative for the class of player in question.

Sorry, still too elitist for me. I would use the given player's statement as evidence in deciding whether that player was using Bridge logic or UI. What is a "similar player"? One incapable of thought?

[gnasher]

 nigel_k, on 2012-November-11, 13:14, said:

Also, I don't believe the laws mention equity at all except when providing rectification after an infraction. What we are discussing will determine whether an infraction occurs at all. So to use 'restoring equity' as an argument here is an extension the laws, not an application of them.

The introduction to the Laws says that they "are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged." Whilst that doesn't use the word "equity", it does imply that mainitaining and restroring equity is the primary objective.

[c_corgi]

 nigel_k, on 2012-November-11, 19:50, said:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

There just isn't a way to read this so that the thought process of the actual player is taken into account. We look at what the class of similar players would do or consider doing, and nothing more.

On the contrary, the "class of players in question" means players who would be likely to get into the same situation as the player whose decision is being investingated, and use the same thought processes when they get there. It does not mean players who average the same score in the weekly duplicate. I think this is what Aguahombre is getting at. The class of players in question may well be pretty much unique to the player at the table, which is why polls should only be used as a guide as Bluejack keeps telling us.

Perhaps the situation the inexpereienced player encountered at the table was exactly analogous to a situation he was discussing over dinner the day before with his friend who is an expert. The expert explained why a particular decision was correct and the thought processes involved. None of the points the expert made had previously been considered by the inexperienced player, but afterwards he was comfortable with the logic and keen to implement his new knowledge at the table. What is a logical alternative for this player has been changed by the conversation over dinner: if the situation had come up last week, he would have had an LA to the winning action (in fact the winning action would not even be an LA) but now the winning action is automatic with no LA. His overall abilities as a player are still much the same, but it is his thought processes in the situation encountered at the table that are taken into account.

[bluejak]

 nigel_k, on 2012-November-10, 00:46, said:

This is just semantics. The stage of the process where the class of player is taken into account does not change the practical effect of doing so, which is that there are options legally available to a strong player that are not legally available to a weak player.

I am not aware of any other game where the rules provide for something like this. It seems plainly unfair.

One thing I always dislike about arguments on this and related subjects are posts and arguments that suggest the approach benefits better players: it doesn't. You get a sequence where a better player would do something a poorer player would not: sometimes that means we allow him to but not the poorer player: sometimes we do not allow it: it works both ways in different circumstances.

Example: 1NT (dbl) 2♦ (p)
2♥ (p) 3♦ (p)
P

Do we allow the final pass, assuming opener has UI to suggest it? If opener is an expert, of course not, unless he can clearly demonstrate this is a signoff sequence. But if it is a player so poor that they cannot conceive of a sequence that shows two suits - which is true of novices - then we allow it, because 3♥ is not an LA. So, assuming pass is the winning action, we rule against a better player and not a weaker player.

Whether or not we allow the class of player to be considered, it cannot be because otherwise it benefits the better player: that is just not true.



The thing I really dislike about the whole idea presented by some people here is the basic unfairness on some people. They talk about a level playing field, but none of them have shown in any way that I can see how it is a level playing field where you are disallowed to make a call where there is no logical alternative in your or your peers' view: their idea of a level playing field is that if someone of a different ability and experience would take a particular action, then you are stuck with it.

Consider a simple case: you open 1♠, partner bids 4♦, you have what appears to you to be a routine 4♠ bid. Unfortunately you have some UI from partner. The TDs rule that you have two logical alternatives, 4♠, which partner will pass, and 4♥ "Last Train", which will encourage partner to go to the 5-level, and go off in 5♠.

You tell the TDs that you have never heard of Last Train in your 15 months of playing the game. Nonsense, say the TDs, it does not matter, we rule as though you were as experienced as the average of the field, and "everyone" plays Last Train.

Now, some people seem to think this approach is reasonable because you get a "level playing field": it just seems completely unfair to me. Apart from anything else, you expect people to follow the Laws, and you want a Law that they have to follow by playing to a standard to which they cannot play: barmy.



I don't see the point in football or rugby analogies: ok, I would see the point if they were analogies, but they are not in any way. Of course the rules are not comparable. If there is a position in another sport where communication between two team-mates is controlled, and rectification is done by judging what might have happened, fair enough: none of the suggested analogies come close.

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-November-12, 08:07, said:

You tell the TDs that you have never heard of Last Train in your 15 months of playing the game. Nonsense, say the TDs, it does not matter, we rule as though you were as experienced as the average of the field, and "everyone" plays Last Train.

Now, some people seem to think this approach is reasonable because you get a "level playing field": it just seems completely unfair to me. Apart from anything else, you expect people to follow the Laws, and you want a Law that they have to follow by playing to a standard to which they cannot play: barmy.

Maybe it relates to my earlier comment: if you decide to play in the Reisinger, Spingold, etc., you'll be held to a higher standard. If you can't play at that level, go play in a bracketed KO or stratified pair game.

However, trying to apply that same "average experience" model in those fields could result in the unfairness that you point out. In a stratified game, you have the entire experience level of players, and no one is "playing up" by entering such an event. But if you have 3 strats, the average is somewhere in the middle strat, and the players in the lower strat will be expected to play at that level. But the whole point of stratification is that they can "win" by just playing better than the players in their own strat. Making LA judgements based on the entire field seems counter to the intent of the event.

Quote

I don't see the point in football or rugby analogies: ok, I would see the point if they were analogies, but they are not in any way. Of course the rules are not comparable. If there is a position in another sport where communication between two team-mates is controlled, and rectification is done by judging what might have happened, fair enough: none of the suggested analogies come close.

I also dislike these analogies. First, I don't know the sports very well, so I don't even understand the point being made. But also for the reason you give: there are relatively few rulings in physical sports that depend on why one does something. But bridge is a mind game, and a communication game, so intent and meaning come up often.

[nigel_k]

 bluejak, on 2012-November-12, 08:07, said:

One thing I always dislike about arguments on this and related subjects are posts and arguments that suggest the approach benefits better players: it doesn't. You get a sequence where a better player would do something a poorer player would not: sometimes that means we allow him to but not the poorer player: sometimes we do not allow it: it works both ways in different circumstances.

Over all possible hands, unsuccessful actions are more likely to be considered or chosen by a bad player than by a good player. This follows directly from the definition of the words 'good' and 'bad'. So having different logical alternatives depending on the strength of the player is going to benefit stronger players in a clear majority of cases.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-November-12, 11:25, said:

Maybe it relates to my earlier comment: if you decide to play in the Reisinger, Spingold, etc., you'll be held to a higher standard. If you can't play at that level, go play in a bracketed KO or stratified pair game.

More elitist nonsense. You should be held to the Laws of the game, and to your ability to articulate why you believe your call is allowable, and to whether the TD/AC buy your reasoning without applying their own personal evaluation of your overall skill level ---but certainly applying their evaluation of whether you applied the logic which you say you applied.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2012-November-12, 12:14, said:

More elitist nonsense. You should be held to the Laws of the game, and to your ability to articulate why you believe your call is allowable, and to whether the TD/AC buy your reasoning without applying their own personal evaluation of your overall skill level ---but certainly applying their evaluation of whether you applied the logic which you say you applied.

We're talking about determining LAs, or which LA is suggested by UI, right? These don't just come from the player's own arguments, they come from what other players would consider and choose as well. So the question in this thread is which other players matter in this process -- players of the same class as the one whose action is in question, or the field of the event.

Or am I totally missing the point?

[c_corgi]

 barmar, on 2012-November-13, 10:38, said:

We're talking about determining LAs, or which LA is suggested by UI, right? These don't just come from the player's own arguments, they come from what other players would consider and choose as well. So the question in this thread is which other players matter in this process -- players of the same class as the one whose action is in question, or the field of the event.

Or am I totally missing the point?

They come from trying to determine the player's own thought processes. Considering what other players would consider or do is just a way of modelling those processes in case of doubt or to be thorough.

[barmar]

 c_corgi, on 2012-November-13, 10:50, said:

They come from trying to determine the player's own thought processes. Considering what other players would consider or do is just a way of modelling those processes in case of doubt or to be thorough.

There are some laws that require determining the thought processes of the players. When Law 23 says "could have known", there's some of this. Law 73D2 says you can't "attempt to mislead", which requires the misleading to be intentional. 74B4 is qualified with the reason for prolonging play.

However, the definition of Logical Alternatives refers to what players of the same class and playing the same methods would consider and do. And when Law 70 refers to "normal play" when dealing with a contested claim, it includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player. So I assume it's these latter laws that this thread is suggesting changes to. They make no mention of the player's own thought processes, and I believe the reason is that they should be more objective.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-November-14, 11:06, said:

They make no mention of the player's own thought processes, and I believe the reason is that they should be more objective.

We have different ideas of objectivity. To me, ruling primarily because of a player's perceived prowess is subjective.