[Trinidad]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-10, 15:53, said:

Right, and the natural consequence is that Law 20F4 is not enforceable.

Of course it is enforceable. We just ask the player at what point he realized that he gave the wrong explanation.

sailoranch, on 2012-November-10, 15:53, said:

We have a scheme where a player would get +600 with the correction and -100 without the correction, and an opponent could knowingly flout 20F4 and have no way of being caught.

If a player knowingly breaks the rules in this way, we use the c-word. We do not adjust scores, we do not give PP's. We throw the player out of the bridge club.

And let's get real. You are talking about a player who was asked for an explanation. At that point he gave the explanation that he sincerely thought was correct (though in fact it was wrong). A little later, this same, sincere player figures out that he gave the wrong explanation. And what does he decide to do? He decides to cheat and not correct the information.

Now, if one wanted to cheat, what would be easier: simply give the wrong explanation from the start? or give -what you think is- the correct information and -once you realize it is incorrect- not correcting it?

Rik

[blackshoe]

The laws are as they are. If your point is that they should be something other than they are, you're in the wrong forum. If your point is that a few people will cheat and never get caught, I don't believe it. If your point is that "everybody" cheats or would cheat if they got the chance, I think you're entirely too paranoid. IME most people are honest, and most people at least try to play by the rules.

In this forum, we rule according to the laws as they currently are, and we do not assume that "everyone" — or anyone — is a cheat.

[sailoranch]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-10, 16:44, said:

Of course it is enforceable. We just ask the player at what point he realized that he gave the wrong explanation.

We have conflicting ideas about what unenforceable means.

Trinidad, on 2012-November-10, 16:44, said:

If a player knowingly breaks the rules in this way, we use the c-word. We do not adjust scores, we do not give PP's. We throw the player out of the bridge club.

No, you wouldn't, because there's no way to prove it. If the only way of proving this infraction is having the player admit to it, and we're going to toss the player if he does so, then is he going to admit it? Assuming your name isn't Jack Bauer.

Trinidad, on 2012-November-10, 16:44, said:

And let's get real. You are talking about a player who was asked for an explanation. At that point he gave the explanation that he sincerely thought was correct (though in fact it was wrong). A little later, this same, sincere player figures out that he gave the wrong explanation. And what does he decide to do? He decides to cheat and not correct the information.

I see what you did there. You used "sincere" in two different senses, the first being "in truth" and the second being "honest." It doesn't follow that someone who "sincerely" forgets his agreement is necessarily a sincere person who wouldn't try to recover at a later point.

Trinidad, on 2012-November-10, 16:44, said:

Now, if one wanted to cheat, what would be easier: simply give the wrong explanation from the start? or give -what you think is- the correct information and -once you realize it is incorrect- not correcting it?

First of all, these are not two choices for a player in the same situation. These are two different situations: the player ostensibly remembers his agreement in the first and doesn't remember in the second.

Also, purposefully giving the MI throughout would have little to gain in relation to giving the correct explanation throughout when the TD adjusts. Failing to correct MI already given has plenty to gain in relation to not correcting it.

blackshoe, on 2012-November-10, 18:06, said:

The laws are as they are. If your point is that they should be something other than they are, you're in the wrong forum. If your point is that a few people will cheat and never get caught, I don't believe it. If your point is that "everybody" cheats or would cheat if they got the chance, I think you're entirely too paranoid. IME most people are honest, and most people at least try to play by the rules.

In this forum, we rule according to the laws as they currently are, and we do not assume that "everyone" — or anyone — is a cheat.

First, one matter of law I'm still disputing is that a repeat of the MI in response to a question is not an infraction. I don't see how this is justified. If we're ruling that way just to avoid Silly Town, then the same argument would justify saying 40B4 or 21B3 or something allows us to adjust at the point the NOS used the MI.

Second, I am not accusing anyone in particular of cheating. I'm not making a ruling on the assumption that someone is cheating. I am saying that there is a scenario in which someone could cheat (knowingly breach 20F4) and easily get away with it. Is there a problem with accusing a hypothetical cheater of hypothetically cheating in a hypothetical scenario? I am asserting that there are players who would take advantage in this situation. I am also saying that the Laws, in general, provide rectification even if a player could have knowingly gained through an irregularity, and this would be an exception, because an irregularity either has not actually occurred or because there's no way of proving there was one.

That there is such a situation, combined with the other weird consequences, is evidence that we're interpreting the law incorrectly to begin with. (And yes, if that interpretation is indeed correct, then blah blah other forum.)

[barmar]

I frequently drive over the speed limit. I hardly ever get caught, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Does this mean that speed limits are unenforceable?

[sailoranch]

barmar, on 2012-November-11, 00:11, said:

I frequently drive over the speed limit. I hardly ever get caught, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Does this mean that speed limits are unenforceable?

If the only evidence that the police could collect is that you admit going over the speed limit, then yes.

If there were a radar gun that we could point at a player to determine at what point he remembered his agreement, then 20F4 would be enforceable.

[Trinidad]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-11, 00:29, said:

If the only evidence that the police could collect is that you admit going over the speed limit, then yes.

If there were a radar gun that we could point at a player to determine at what point he remembered his agreement, then 20F4 would be enforceable.

At our bridge club, we have the TDP 5000^{TM 1}. It has all the latest features, is very user friendly and highly reliable.

Rik

¹Tournament Director's Polygraph

[barmar]

So you're basically saying that "the honor system" isn't a useful system.

Many of the theories on the evolution of the primate brain suggest that the ability to detect lying and cheating was one of the driving forces, and humans are the masters of this. And emotions like guilt and shame are important for social creatures like us. It's not perfect, and you wouldn't rely on it solely in a court of law if you can avoid it. But it's good enough for a card game, IMHO.

[sailoranch]

barmar, on 2012-November-11, 13:44, said:

So you're basically saying that "the honor system" isn't a useful system.

Many of the theories on the evolution of the primate brain suggest that the ability to detect lying and cheating was one of the driving forces, and humans are the masters of this. And emotions like guilt and shame are important for social creatures like us. It's not perfect, and you wouldn't rely on it solely in a court of law if you can avoid it. But it's good enough for a card game, IMHO.

No, the honor system is not a useful system in this situation.

We do not have an honor system in bridge. We have bidding boxes and screens and cell phone bans. There are laws that allow the TD to adjust even when an infraction could have been on purpose, so we don't have to ask the offender to confess. We see people trying to blatantly use UI or give patently false statements to the TD all the time, and these are things that can be caught. So I don't agree with the suggestion that trusting solely on people's honesty is an adequate way to protect non-offenders, especially when that's the only way they'll be caught.

And that is not all I'm saying. This business about honesty and the human condition distracts from the fact that this issue with 20F4 or repeating the MI when asked is rendered moot if we're adjusting to the call or play based on MI rather than the MI itself. Failure to comply would then have little to gain.

[blackshoe]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-12, 02:36, said:

We see people trying to blatantly use UI or give patently false statements to the TD all the time, and these are things that can be caught.

No, "we" don't. Maybe you do. As I said, I think you're too paranoid.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-12, 11:31, said:

No, "we" don't. Maybe you do. As I said, I think you're too paranoid.

I agree. But maybe you and I are too naive.

The whole problem is that there's no way to know things like this for sure, so the arguments work both ways. And even if cheating is NOT actually rampant, laws that require getting inside the player's head make it hard to catch it, so they worry that it could increase.

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-12, 11:31, said:

No, "we" don't. Maybe you do. As I said, I think you're too paranoid.

Just confirm what the Laws as they are say I should do if I expect that I'm misinformed. Say we're just before the play of 3NT in Zel's situation.

Should I ask opps to repeat the MI to protect myself, expecting a later adjustment to 3NT=? Or do I need to base my play on whether I believe I've been misinformed or not?

[blackshoe]

You are certainly entitled to act on the assumption that your opponents have misinformed you. If you're wrong, though, there will be no rectification. If you were misinformed, you don't need to get them to repeat the MI.

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-12, 16:44, said:

If you were misinformed, you don't need to get them to repeat the MI.

Is this because we're adjusting to 3NT= regardless? Or because the obligation to give a correct answer to a question no longer applies once you've given the MI?

If it's the latter case, what is the legal basis for saying so?

[blackshoe]

Regardless of what?

One is obligated to give correct answers about one's partnership understandings. See Laws 20 and 40. Of course, if for whatever reason you don't know the correct answer, you can hardly give it, can you?

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-12, 19:48, said:

Regardless of what?

One is obligated to give correct answers about one's partnership understandings. See Laws 20 and 40. Of course, if for whatever reason you don't know the correct answer, you can hardly give it, can you?

Sigh.

Law 20F requires a player to provide explanations about methods when asked, and 40B4 allows for an adjustment when they're incorrect and there's damage.

Obviously, giving MI the first time, even if you don't know the correct answer, is an infraction. But failing to adjust for repeating MI the second time implies that those laws now operate differently. And calling it an infraction but adjusting for the initial MI instead conflicts with how we're told to adjust in Law 12.

Earlier in the thread, you said that a repeat of the MI is in fact an infraction, but one that doesn't merit a different adjustment because the laws are unclear as to what to do when there are multiple adjustments. You seem to have accepted that when there are multiple infractions with the same OS, then the NOS gets the adjustment most favorable to them. In this case, if you're still treating the repeat MI as an infraction, it should entitle NOS to the best adjustment.

You said that if I were misinformed, I don't need to get them to repeat the MI. This implies that you would adjust the same way whether or not I ask them to do this. But I am still unclear on how you would adjust and your reasoning behind it. My questions, in reference to Zel's hypothetical earlier in the thread:

Are you adjusting to 3NT= whether or not South asks opps to repeat the MI?

Are you adjusting to 4H-1 whether or not South asks opps to repeat the MI? If so, what is the basis in the laws for saying the repeat MI is either not an infraction or not subject to adjustment?

Are you adjusting to 3NT= when the opps repeat the MI but 4H-1 when South does not ask?

[blackshoe]

It depends on whether there is a possibility the NOS would end in 3NT with the correct explanation. In the ACBL, the NOS get the best score that was "likely" had the infraction not occurred, so if 3NT was "likely" they get that. And the OS get the worst score (for them) that is "at all probable" — this is a less stringent criterion — so they would get the score for 3NT making, and in some cases the NOS would not get that score. If 3NT was not likely, the NOS get the score for 4♥-1.

That's how to rule when the MI was only provided once. Earlier, you suggested asking again during the clarification period for the specific purpose of inducing a second infraction. I'm not going to try to find something in the laws to justify my reaction to that, but my reaction is that it's unethical. Nonetheless, if it happens, the TD must consider how (or if) it affects any score adjustment. David Stevenson suggested that "In effect, when there are two possible adjustments for two infractions, we take the one that benefits the non-offenders more." Fair enough, says I. We ignore the first infraction in this case, and give both sides the score for 3NT making. But I don't like it. David, is this really how you would rule?

Summary of this case: jurisdiction ACBL. Auction starts 1NT-(2♣), the latter is alerted and explained (responder asked before bidding) as "clubs and hearts". The actual agreement is that 2♣ is natural. As a result, the NOS do not find their 4-4 heart fit, and end in 3NT. This goes down 2 because declarer plays LHO for hearts he does not have. 4♥ would have gone down 1.

Question 1: to what do you adjust the scores?

During the clarification period, presumed declarer asks again for an explanation of 2♣ and again is told "hearts and clubs". So again he misplays it.

Question 2: does this change the score adjustment? Specifically, do you adjust to 4♥-1 in the first case, and 3NT making in the second?

Question 3: is my reaction to the reason for asking the question a second time justified?

Questions are directed to David. Not saying others can't respond, but I'm looking specifically for his opinion.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-November-13, 09:23
Reason for edit: added the actual agreement about 2C

[bluejak]

As is often the case with judgement rulings I have looked at the logic of the Laws in posts, but am less interested in the actual ruling and the judgement. So I would have to re-read the whole thread to say how I would rule.

Let me look at the second case you give here. One side was misinformed about the meaning of a call. They were misinformed twice but that seems quite irrelevant to me. The MI affected both the bidding and the play, and under Law 12C1E we just adjust to what would have happened without the MI. Since declarer would apparently have made 3NT without the MI I just adjust to 3NT= for both sides.

So what was I talking about earlier? Well, having merely answered a post, which is what I do rather than re-read the whole thread each time, I may have missed the point of the post, but I was concerned with a case where [for example] declarer misinforms the opposition during the bidding. At the end of the auction dummy was required to correct this and does not.

Without the MI, the opposition might have found a good save, or even beaten the contract. If I judge that they would have beaten the contract with sufficient likelihood for the standards in Law 12C1E then I adjust to that - possibly for only one side if only one standard is met. If I don't think one or both standards is met, then I adjust for the failure to sacrifice.

Some people will argue that under the original MI if we adjust we should adjust to the sacrifice and then the question of beating the final contract is moot. Not in my view. We have two infractions, the Laws do not tell us what to do with multiple infractions. If we read Law 12C and consider each infraction we do not adjust if there is no damage. If we adjust for the second infraction and then consider the first infraction then to adjust for that would give the non-offenders a worse score, thus there is no damage from the first infraction.

But asking again the same question of the same person and getting the same answer does not seem to me to be a multiple infraction: MI was given.

[blackshoe]

I should have said, in #76, that the actual agreement was that 2♣ was natural. I'll go fix that.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-13, 08:45, said:

Earlier, you suggested asking again during the clarification period for the specific purpose of inducing a second infraction. I'm not going to try to find something in the laws to justify my reaction to that, but my reaction is that it's unethical.

Question 3: is my reaction to the reason for asking the question a second time justified?

It occurs to me that I really did not answer this. I think it might be considered sharp practice, but I doubt it is legally unethical. Anyway, how would you know?

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-November-13, 17:08, said:

It occurs to me that I really did not answer this. I think it might be considered sharp practice, but I doubt it is legally unethical. Anyway, how would you know?

I wouldn't, unless he admitted it.