[Cascade]

mycroft, on 2013-July-09, 13:35, said:

Maybe you'll start caring when you start getting *worse* scores than your Law-abiding competitors."

The current state if one doesn't follow the UI laws in the vast majority of cases where the offending side benefits:

1. If someone notices then the score might be adjusted 'to restore equity'. That is, if there is an adjustment, I will get an estimate of the long run average score that I would have got had I followed the laws.

2. If no one notices (or for some other reason the score is not adjusted), then I will get a better score than what I got had I followed the laws.

The net affect of this is that those that unlawfully take advantage of UI get an improved score over those that follow the UI laws.

Clearly this is wrong.

Hence, in my opinion, the Law 73 mandate needs to be taken seriously and the normal action by a director should be to penalise the player who does not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. This penalty to be additional to any score adjustment.

This is the only way that the UI 'cheats' will not benefit from their repeated infractions.

[mycroft]

I think that there are many perennial UI abusers who shouldn't get hit with penalties; they should get hit with score adjustments and education. I don't put them in the category of *intentional* abusers. UI and the laws around it aren't the easiest thing in the world to understand; there are people (at least one :-) who have spent years hanging around directors and still couldn't work out until the third explanation: a) that the producer of the UI has no restrictions, even if he guesses "right" as to partner's misbid; b) that action X is the one that can't be taken, because it's the one based on what partner said (even if it's the weaker, or pass, action).

I think that a lot of, and the most effective, work could be done outside the legal, in the game, structure; through education. Of course, how we're going to convince people to take a class in UI is an exercise for the reader. But by far the majority of UI abuse is done by people who don't really know what's going on when the TD comes back and explains that there's a score adjustment - never mind the "I did what I always would have" and "just bid normally" (oh, and the "he hesitated; [she has|I have] to pass" canards, which are at least as prevalent in the populace than the words in Law 73C). It's only the ones who do what they do knowing its wrong that I want to penalize; the rest a zero and a reason why you're not getting the chance to get a couple of matchpoints should suffice.

And I do take a bit of an issue with your 1) almost always, if the TD has to invoke Law 12C1 (e at least, c is "weighted this way" but less so), the offender is getting the worst of possible "equities"; likely worse than what *would* have happened if he'd just done the right thing in the first place (and in the L12C1e regulated world at least, should never be *better*). That doesn't invalidate your argument at all, however, especially given the frequency of 2) over 1).

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-July-09, 10:18, said:

I think the general term the Laws use for the former is "rectification".

I think that it is unfortunate that the Drafting Committee chose this word. It sounds pretty off-colour.

[aguahombre]

I am sure there are players we all would like to rectify.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-09, 18:45, said:

I am sure there are players we all would like to rectify.

Maybe even some TDs?

[iviehoff]

Cascade, on 2013-July-09, 15:36, said:

The current state if one doesn't follow the UI laws in the vast majority of cases where the offending side benefits:
1. If someone notices then the score might be adjusted 'to restore equity'. That is, if there is an adjustment, I will get an estimate of the long run average score that I would have got had I followed the laws.
2. If no one notices (or for some other reason the score is not adjusted), then I will get a better score than what I got had I followed the laws.
The net affect of this is that those that unlawfully take advantage of UI get an improved score over those that follow the UI laws.

Your assertion (1) is not correct. The "equity" adjustment is calculated by resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders, and one of the doubtful points is how well you will play. So actual "equity" adjustments work are on the assumption that the offending side doesn't play very well. This is quite explicit in ACBL where there is no weighted adjustment, and one chooses an outcome that is disadvantageous among the range of likely outcomes. But even where weighted adjustments are used, one errs on the side of making sure that it is not generous to the offenders in making ones percentages.

[StevenG]

iviehoff, on 2013-July-10, 03:01, said:

But even where weighted adjustments are used, one errs on the side of making sure that it is not generous to the offenders in making ones percentages.

But surely not by nearly enough to compensate also for the times when the TD is not called.

[iviehoff]

StevenG, on 2013-July-10, 04:34, said:

But surely not by nearly enough to compensate also for the times when the TD is not called.

In the highest levels of bridge they had to bring in screens because the UI from being able see one's (regular) partner's mannerisms was highly profitable and not objectively identifiable by the opposition/TD to be able rectify against it much of the time. At the level of bridge where there aren't screens, most people "learn a lesson" from suffering an adjustment, which generally feels adverse, and try to comply with the rules, even if a sociopath could calculate that continuing to break the rule would be profitable in the long run. If a few sociopaths decide that they'd like to play the odds and like that, well if it is a fairly serious club they'll start incurring PPs and complaints. If it isn't, well it isn't a very serious club, and they are presumably consenting adults.

[Trinidad]

StevenG, on 2013-July-10, 04:34, said:

But surely not by nearly enough to compensate also for the times when the TD is not called.

Maybe not. But why blame the TDs / the Laws / the system for the fact that players don't call the TD?

Or do you want the TDs to compensate for all_these_other_infractions_that_these_players_must_have_committed_when_opponents_failed_to_call_the_TD (ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD)?

And how large would you like this ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD tax to be? It should clearly depend on jurisdiction: At the club, where players are hesitant to call the TD the ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD tax should be gigantic (may be several boards) whereas in the Bermuda Bowl (where players will call the TD) the ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD should be very close to zero.

I think it is a good idea to handle the infraction that was brought to the attention of the TD: With a rectification (e.g. in the form of an AS) and with a penalty when it will serve a purpose and leave ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD out of the equation.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-10, 07:58, said:

Or do you want the TDs to compensate for all_these_other_infractions_that_these_players_must_have_committed_when_opponents_failed_to_call_the_TD (ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD)?

Be careful not to offend the inhabitants of the Welsh town which this is quite likely to be the name of!

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2013-July-10, 07:56, said:

In the highest levels of bridge they had to bring in screens because the UI from being able see one's (regular) partner's mannerisms was highly profitable and not objectively identifiable by the opposition/TD to be able rectify against it much of the time.

In my innocence, I thought that screens were introduced because receiving UI was disadvantageous to the recipient, regardless of whether it was identifiable by anyone else.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2013-July-10, 09:32, said:

In my innocence, I thought that screens were introduced because receiving UI was disadvantageous to the recipient, regardless of whether it was identifiable by anyone else.

In my lack-of-innocence (cynicism) I thought screens were introduced to stop cheating: deliberate communication between partners (e.g. finger signals). The original screens (1976?) were extended to the floor after "foot tapping" cheating allegations.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-10, 07:58, said:

Maybe not. But why blame the TDs / the Laws / the system for the fact that players don't call the TD?

I don't think that's the only issue. I think the point was that even when the TD is called, it's rare that the rectification will be a "penalty", it will usually just restore equity to what is likely without the offense. So there's not enough downside to act as a deterrent.

It's as if the only penalty in the real world for robbing a bank were that you had to give the money back, not risk jail time.

[blackshoe]

In a rational society, if you robbed a bank, you'd not only have to give the money back, you'd have to pay for any costs to anyone else associated with your actions.

[aguahombre]

So, the prisons would only be for people whose crimes are not reimbursable or who can't repay. In this rational society, and in the alleged rational Bridge world, penalties should never occur if equity can be attained. If you get caught you break even; if you don't get caught you gain, and someone loses.

[Trinidad]

This bank robbery comparison is well ... err ... not very good.

Most cases of use of UI are not crimes, they are mistakes. And these mistakes cause damage. The person who made the mistake is liable for this damage.

If I play ball with my kids and a ball flies accidentally through my neighbor's window, I will have to restore equity by paying for the window. If I pick up a brick and throw it through my neighbor's window, I will have to pay for the window and face some punishment.

The reasoning that is suggested here is that a person who accidentally breaks a window, will have to pay for the window and either:
- be punished because the laws say so
- pay a penalty to the community because he probably has broken windows before but wasn't caught

Now, the drawback in this comparison is that the person who breaks the window doesnot gain any advantage of it. In bridge, the offending side often does gain advantage because the opponent's damage leads to advantage for the offending side. So, let's give another example:

I have a contractor working on my house for remodeling. Suppose he works 12 hours and, because of some miscommunication somewhere in the company, they bill me for 12 days instead. Now, I am damaged and the offending side is getting an advantage. I discover the error and I can chose what to do:

- I can call the contractor, resolve the misunderstanding and get a new, correct bill and pay the new bill.
- I can file a police report for fraud, get a correct bill and see that the contractor gets penalized.

My argument for the first would be that it is an honest mistake that needs to be fixed. My arguments for the second could be: Mistakes should not go unpunished and "I am probably not the only one with whom he has tried this". The point is that -as long as I am convinced that this was an honest mistake- I will do the first.

Now, there are certainly some frauds among the bridge players. But they are a tiny minority. Most players who go wrong in a UI case do that without evil or fraudulent intentions: They don't commit crimes, they just make mistakes.

So:
1) fix the mistake
2) try to decrease the probability that they will make this mistake again
3) move on

The AS takes care of 1). In many cases, a conversation with the players is more effective at 2) than a penalty (even if accompanied by a conversation with the players).

And yes, there is a small category of players who should be penalized right away. This category of players is easy to identify because they will also make "mistakes" that they do have control over (e.g. in full disclosure). Good TDs can spot these people pretty fast (i.e. they may get away with a few times, but not more). But, as I said, this is a small minority.

Rik

[Cascade]

iviehoff, on 2013-July-10, 03:01, said:

Your assertion (1) is not correct. The "equity" adjustment is calculated by resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders, and one of the doubtful points is how well you will play. So actual "equity" adjustments work are on the assumption that the offending side doesn't play very well. This is quite explicit in ACBL where there is no weighted adjustment, and one chooses an outcome that is disadvantageous among the range of likely outcomes. But even where weighted adjustments are used, one errs on the side of making sure that it is not generous to the offenders in making ones percentages.

Maybe in theory. In practice my experience is that often enough the offenders do not get the worst of it.

I prefer the US approach of giving the most favorable result that was at all likely.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2013-July-10, 09:57, said:

In my lack-of-innocence (cynicism) I thought screens were introduced to stop cheating: deliberate communication between partners (e.g. finger signals). The original screens (1976?) were extended to the floor after "foot tapping" cheating allegations.

I expect you're right about the original reason, but if you ask a top player today what he likes about playing with screens, I bet the first thing he will say is "less UI", not "less cheating".

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-10, 16:23, said:

This bank robbery comparison is well ... err ... not very good.

Most cases of use of UI are not crimes, they are mistakes. And these mistakes cause damage. The person who made the mistake is liable for this damage.

If I play ball with my kids and a ball flies accidentally through my neighbor's window, I will have to restore equity by paying for the window. If I pick up a brick and throw it through my neighbor's window, I will have to pay for the window and face some punishment.

In the real world, it's usually easy to tell the difference between accidents and intentional behavior, and make the punishment fit the crime. Although we also give harsher punishments for accidents due to "negligence", the idea being that we want to use punishment as an incentive for people to be more careful in dangerous situations.

But in the bridge world, it can be difficult to distinguish. There's no equivalent to the "brick" in your scenario -- the window is always broken by a ball. You have to figure out whether it happened because someone just has bad aim or they intentionally threw it at the window. Since it can be difficult to tell, the rules sometimes require us to assume the worst -- in order to disincentivize throwing the ball at the window, we punish kids who accidentally break the window.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2013-July-11, 19:33, said:

in order to disincentivize throwing the ball at the window, we punish kids who accidentally break the window.

We do?!?

I don't know about you, but my kids will not get punished for mistakes they make in good faith. They will get to learn that they made a mistake, get some kind of analysis of how and why what went wrong, will have to figure out what damage they caused and they will (if needed with the help of me, my wife, their teachers, my insurance or my bank account) work to a solution to repair the damage. But they will not get punished. And my kids (10 and 12 years) do know the difference between fixing damage and punishment.

From the other viewpoint, I honestly can't recall that I have ever been punished for honest mistakes I made. I have suffered some of the consequences of those mistakes, but I haven't been punished.

I have been punished for bad things I did.
I have been punished for bad things that I didn't do but my parents thought I had done (parents aren't perfect).
I have never been punished for things that I did in good faith and with good intentions, but that ended up going wrong because of something that was not under my control (yet).

I suppose I am very lucky.

Rik