[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2013-October-23, 17:50, said:

This seems an unwarranted assumption. As jallerton says:


According to forum rules:

"It is often unsuitable for players to be named in cases posted to these four forums, unless a poster is naming himself, or has the agreement of the person named. So posts should generally not name players, though giving the perceived level of a player is normal. If a poster considers a post should name a player or players for a particular reason he can seek advice from a moderator first, giving the reason."

...

But this case is different. As soon as a link was posted to a website where players can be easily identified then in my view the forum rules were breached. I have deleted the offending post, and also another post that quoted it in full [for no apparent reason].

Not 100% sure but it seems apparently you deleted my content which broke no rules. I named no player and the text i quoted named no player. If you really objected to the link then you could have deleted the link.

As for an apparent reason - wouldn't putting a post in context be reason enough.

Also wouldnt it be courteous to contact me if you really felt the need to delete my content?

[Cascade]

For the record it seems absurd to claim that a player who leads spade Queen from AQTx after partner has bid spades could possibly be fielding a psyche.

Perhaps the just have poor bidding judgement.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-24, 22:05, said:

The rule is "don't identify specific players involved in a case." So don't do that. Here's another rule: don't argue with the moderator. Any further such posts will be deleted. If I have to I'll delete the thread.

I didn't even know you were a moderator. Learn something new every day.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2013-October-25, 00:36, said:

Not 100% sure but it seems apparently you deleted my content which broke no rules. I named no player and the text i quoted named no player. If you really objected to the link then you could have deleted the link.

As for an apparent reason - wouldn't putting a post in context be reason enough.

Also wouldnt it be courteous to contact me if you really felt the need to delete my content?

I also had content deleted which named no player and the text named no player, so my content broke no rules. No doubt it is argued, just as with Ryan Giggs, that one is allowed to give just enough information to help someone who tries hard to find the players, but not enough to make it easy for them to do so. Even giving the opening lead, which is often done in these threads, can be enough to identify the players, and your last post which mentioned the lead (which I am not allowed to retweet) risks being deleted.

And I had no answer to my more serious claim that this thread should not have continued if the case was referred to the L&E. Trial by media is to be avoided. It seems now that arguing with a moderator is as well, although I can find no such prohibition in the rules; no doubt blackshoe will paste a link to it.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2013-October-25, 03:13, said:

Perhaps the just have poor bidding judgement.

There is no evidence yet that the pair was "just", but normally the just are thought to have good judgement. "A weak man is just by accident. A strong but non-violent man is unjust by accident." - Mahatma Gandhi

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-October-25, 06:31, said:

IAnd I had no answer to my more serious claim that this thread should not have continued if the case was referred to the L&E. Trial by media is to be avoided. It seems now that arguing with a moderator is as well, although I can find no such prohibition in the rules; no doubt blackshoe will paste a link to it.

It seemed to me that some people had assumed, from Robin's statement that he couldn't comment on the actual case (which was not, as far as I can tell, referenced in the OP) , that it had been referred to the L&E. I admit I went along with the assumption, but I don't know if that's actually the case or not.

There is no formal rule against arguing with moderators, at least not in this forum. It does seem to me to be common sense, though. Much like the idea that one shouldn't argue with the director at one's table - although that is a formal rule. Note that I'm not saying you can't express disagreement with a moderator's position, but perhaps a better way to do that is to start a new and general thread.

We try generally to err on the side of caution in moderating these forums. We don't want to stifle discussion of the bridge-legal or bridge-playing merits of cases, but we don't want to embarrass players, either, nor do we want to allow discussion of cases which are are still pending in some sense (appeals, L&E hearings, whatever) since that may prejudice the proceedings, particularly when posters and readers here are likely to be involved in some capacity. This is less a problem in the ACBL, given our geographic spread and size, but the EBU tournament community strikes me as relatively small, and with the advent of online posting of results it's just that much easier to identify who the players were in particular cases. I don't think a link to a hand record should be a problem, but we should not be discussing what Joe Blow did, or that a ruling was against (or for) him. From the perspective of this forum, whose purpose is to discuss the practical and legal aspects of table rulings and appeals, pinpointing whodunit is really not relevant. As has been said, of course, if someone wants to identify himself as the perpetrator, that's fine, but otherwise no mention of names or direct pointing out that someone can be identified should be made. IOW if someone goes to a linked hand record, and from that identifies that Joe Blow was the "guilty" party, there's not much we can do about that, but don't bring attention to it here.

Part of the problem here is that the thread started out, I think, as a hypothetical discussion, albeit one based on an actual case. Then someone pinpointed the likely actual case, someone else recused himself from discussion of it, and here we are. If folks want to continue discussing the original scenario, I have no problem with that, but I think we'd best leave the actual Autumn Congress case be now that the cat is out of the bag, at least until we find out whether there is action pending on it.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2013-October-25, 07:13, said:

There is no evidence yet that the pair was "just", but normally the just are thought to have good judgement. "A weak man is just by accident. A strong but non-violent man is unjust by accident." - Mahatma Gandhi

You do carry on a bit, when someone leaves one letter out of a post. The word was "they", not "the".

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-25, 07:55, said:

There is no formal rule against arguing with moderators, at least not in this forum. It does seem to me to be common sense, though.

Given the fact that BBF has a dedicated thread devoted to mod decisions, it doesn't seem to me to be common sense that you shouldn't argue with a mod.

Ok, arguing might be overdoing it, but discussing a mod's decision is perfectly normal on BBF. And I haven't seen any arguing with mods in this thread. Virtually all BBF mods are willing to listen to arguments and -from time to time- they reverse their decisions.

For reasons that I don't understand, the mods for the IBLF subforum do not use the moderation thread. If they did:
It would make the moderation more transparant
It would make the moderation more consistent
It would prevent discussions on moderation in the IBLF threads (since they will take place where they belong)

Rik

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-25, 07:55, said:

Much like the idea that one shouldn't argue with the director at one's table - although that is a formal rule.

Is it OK if I argue with you to the extent of asking which rule says that one shouldn't argue with the director?

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-25, 08:19, said:

You do carry on a bit, when someone leaves one letter out of a post. The word was "they", not "the".

A change if on litter can be very tricky!

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-25, 08:21, said:

Given the fact that BBF has a dedicated thread devoted to mod decisions, it doesn't seem to me to be common sense that you shouldn't argue with a mod.

Ok, arguing might be overdoing it, but discussing a mod's decision is perfectly normal on BBF. And I haven't seen any arguing with mods in this thread. Virtually all BBF mods are willing to listen to arguments and -from time to time- they reverse their decisions.

For reasons that I don't understand, the mods for the IBLF subforum do not use the moderation thread. If they did:
It would make the moderation more transparant
It would make the moderation more consistent
It would prevent discussions on moderation in the IBLF threads (since they will take place where they belong)

Rik

As I understand it, the purpose of the thread to which you refer is notification, not discussion.

As for David and I not using the thread, please understand a couple of things: The IBLF was originally founded on another site. When that site closed, BBO was kind enough to give us a new home. BBO did not, as far as I remember, impose any restrictions or rules on us - they just welcomed us here. We've (or at least I've) always viewed IBLF as a non-BBO forum which just happens to be hosted here. When we got here, the moderation thread to which you refer did not exist. When it was started, we weren't told about it, or asked or recommended to use it. So we didn't, and don't.

I will discuss with David (and probably Ben or some of the other BBF mods) whether we should change that.

[jallerton]

Cascade, on 2013-October-25, 03:13, said:

For the record it seems absurd to claim that a player who leads spade Queen from AQTx after partner has bid spades could possibly be fielding a psyche.

Perhaps the just have poor bidding judgement.

It might seem absurd to you, but in fact it isn't.

If I expected my partner to hold ♠xxx I would lead ♠Q as the K rates to be in dummy most of the time.
If I expected my partner to hold ♠Jxxxx I would not lead ♠Q. Instead I would lead ♠A, as there's no reason not to cater for the off-chance of singleton K in declarer's hand.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-24, 22:05, said:

Here's another rule: don't argue with the moderator. Any further such posts will be deleted.

I can endorse the truth of Blackshoe's statement, from personal experience

[Cascade]

jallerton, on 2013-October-25, 15:40, said:

It might seem absurd to you, but in fact it isn't.

If I expected my partner to hold ♠xxx I would lead ♠Q as the K rates to be in dummy most of the time.
If I expected my partner to hold ♠Jxxxx I would not lead ♠Q. Instead I would lead ♠A, as there's no reason not to cater for the off-chance of singleton K in declarer's hand.

Why would you expect partner to have ♠ xxx?

While some players might bid 2NT with a spade stopper there are many that wouldn't. Unless I knew for sure I would worried about king on my right and jack on my left.

Also if I knew my partner had psyched 1♠ I probably know something else about his hand and would be trying to hit his suit or lead my suit for which he might have support.

Certainly the small poll I have conducted suggests that if you knew partner had psyched then the least likely lead from that hand is a spade.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2013-October-25, 20:13, said:

Why would you expect partner to have ♠ xxx?

While some players might bid 2NT with a spade stopper there are many that wouldn't. Unless I knew for sure I would worried about king on my right and jack on my left.

Also if I knew my partner had psyched 1♠ I probably know something else about his hand and would be trying to hit his suit or lead my suit for which he might have support.

Certainly the small poll I have conducted suggests that if you knew partner had psyched then the least likely lead from that hand is a spade.

The person who doubled 1H is much more likely to have the king of spades than the person who bid 2NT who should have a solid heart stop and three or fewer spades (with four, most people double in case 1S is psychic). The queen of spades lead is normal, catering for a likely layout of Kxx on his left and Jx on his right, with partner having xxxx spades. If you think partner has psyched you should still lead the queen of spades, as this works when he has only xx in spades and the layout is K432 or K632 etc opposite J8x or J9x. I don't think your pollees were given the right auction.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-October-26, 05:32, said:

The person who doubled 1H is much more likely to have the king of spades than the person who bid 2NT who should have a solid heart stop and three or fewer spades (with four, most people double in case 1S is psychic). The queen of spades lead is normal, catering for a likely layout of Kxx on his left and Jx on his right, with partner having xxxx spades.

The aces caters for that layout just as well, and also allows you to change your mind when you see Jxx in dummy.

[Cascade]

lamford, on 2013-October-26, 05:32, said:

The person who doubled 1H is much more likely to have the king of spades than the person who bid 2NT who should have a solid heart stop and three or fewer spades (with four, most people double in case 1S is psychic). The queen of spades lead is normal, catering for a likely layout of Kxx on his left and Jx on his right, with partner having xxxx spades. If you think partner has psyched you should still lead the queen of spades, as this works when he has only xx in spades and the layout is K432 or K632 etc opposite J8x or J9x. I don't think your pollees were given the right auction.

Its kind of irrelevant what everyone else will do. What is relevant is what this pair does. There hasn't been reported any information suggesting this was inquired about.

The technical merits of any particular spade is a fascinating discussion however I am pretty convinced that the most likely and almost certain reason any spade was chosen whatever its merits was because partner bid the suit and not to cater for some obscure layout. If partner hadn't bid the suit then if a spade was led then it seems the ace would be the most likely card led.

Even considering which particular spade was led it seems to me that the ♠A giving you perhaps a chance to switch to a different tack is more likely to be based on a suspicion of a psyche than any other spade.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2013-October-25, 03:13, said:

For the record it seems absurd to claim that a player who leads spade Queen from AQTx after partner has bid spades could possibly be fielding a psyche.

This was the claim that was disputed, as you were suggesting that the lead of the queen was evidence that the psyche was not fielded. It is no evidence at all, as it is the pass over 2NT that is the alleged fielding. If a non-spade had been led that would indeed be further evidence of a possible CPU, but leading any spade does not mean the psyche is not fielded.

And, for the record, leading the queen is playing for the most likely layout (not obscure) if partner has indeed psyched.

[Cascade]

lamford, on 2013-October-27, 04:35, said:

This was the claim that was disputed, as you were suggesting that the lead of the queen was evidence that the psyche was not fielded. It is no evidence at all, as it is the pass over 2NT that is the alleged fielding. If a non-spade had been led that would indeed be further evidence of a possible CPU, but leading any spade does not mean the psyche is not fielded.

And, for the record, leading the queen is playing for the most likely layout (not obscure) if partner has indeed psyched.

Really there are three other suits? If partner psyched spades he might just have one of those.

How can it be that not leading a spade is further evidence of fielding and leading a spade is not further evidence of not fielding. Is there nothing the player can do that would give supporting evidence of not fielding?

If the person led a spade believing their partner had spades why would you deduce that a few moments earlier they didn't bid spades or double because they didn't think their partner had spades?

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2013-October-27, 06:22, said:

Is there nothing the player can do that would give supporting evidence of not fielding?

Yes, he or she can double 2NT or bid 3S. That does not mean failure to do so is necessarily fielding (the TD still has to deem that there is a CPU), which is why the EBU form asks whether there has been a similar psyche in the past.