[jillybean]

Snipped from the Bridge Discussion Forum

 mikeh, on 2024-September-13, 13:30, said:

If it matters whether 5D was bid quickly or slowly or in normal tempo, I suggest a remedial course in ethics. Sure, it’s impossible not to be aware of the tempo, but an insta bid is just as harmful as a slow bid in terms of conveying information. Whatever you may think the insta bid implies, you must now run through logical alternatives and consciously reject any that you think have become more logical if you use the insta bid as an influence


Of course, the OP knows all this, plus (given that we didn’t even know whether 2S would have been forcing…and I do play it constructive but nf with one partner) I’m not at all sure what the fast bid implies. If I had to guess, and I do, I’d think it suggests passing, which means that I can’t pass. I bid a hopefully in-tempo but probably agonized 5S.

This is an interesting comment, given the discussion taking place on the "other side".
16B seems to be a contentious issue, with some, including top players, suggesting that after UI, you just make your normal bid as you cannot take a poll of Logical Alternatives while playing a hand. Law16B is for the TD's , not the players. If the opponents call the TD, if a poll is taken and if it goes against you, you accept gracefully.

I can almost understand how top players think this way as I expect they are very careful with tempo and would be very aware of how Breaks In Tempo, in time sensitive situations, can affect players' actions.
They are not as subject as we are, to the frequent "crap" at the "bottom of the ocean".

[mycroft]

I tell everyone - and I think I stole it from Blackshoe - that "Law 16B is for directors, Law 73C is for players".

• Working out all the alternatives and whether any specific one is Logical is not something you can do at the table consistently.
  
• Back in the EBU "70% action" days, people would argue whether the call that clearly they wanted to make was 65% or 75%, when also clearly the non-winning call was reasonable. Those that are trying to work out 16B1b at the table are doing the same thing. Those who argue it after the ruling or on appeal, okay, fine, you have time to do the calculations (as the directors do).
  
• All of that working out to "see if you can get away with it" takes time, more time than "is there another call that makes sense?" Which can cause other issues.
  
• The results I get from peers of players - even peers of me, when I am a peer of the player - frequently shock me. I can't imagine hoping to "get it right" at the table, with the bias. If I can't...

Just "carefully avoid using the information". It will get you the odd bad board that you might have not had to take if you were less scrupulous. In our world, that won't be the worst mislead your partner did for you today; and does your result really matter that much? If it does, do you really want to (be known to) win that way?

At Bracket 1/Spingold/National Championship levels, where yeah, it does matter that much, and many people are ready to "win that way", I think the order is reversed, but still appropriate. I can't imagine being one of those pro pairs looking for their next top level client (who will have to be comfortable being known as "willing to hire those guys") and top level third pair (who will be consulted by said client, I'm sure, or who will make their own opinions known, either directly to the client, or by finding another team next year to avoid being labelled as "willing to play with these guys"). I have some issues with "bridge as it is played pro" - okay, "some" might be an understatement - but they are right that it does keep the game alive; it does keep the game growing (in skill at least); and they do - very informally, I'm sure - police their own.

So, my opinion? Forget about Law 16. Follow Law 73, and let the directors use 16 to work out what to assign when it is violated.

As a side note, it's nice that it's now clear (73C2) that we absolutely can PP a player for a 73 violation, even if it turns out that we don't adjust the score though Law 16 (whether it be "no LA in truth" or "all roads lead to the same contract"). I have never seen that (in MPs - definitely jilly's "slap on the wrist"/my "we're watching ye, bucko", but no actual fine) in practise, but I have always thought it was possible (you can be perfectly ethical and still have the score adjusted; you can be improper while still have it cause no damage to the opponents/have no alternative.) And yes, even at "our" level, "being known for it" has similar consequences as at the pro level, much as others don't believe it.

[blackshoe]

73C says you "must carefully avoid…" 16B says you "may not choose…" Both of these are very strong exhortations. I understand that Procedural Penalties are anathema to many, players and directors alike, but I believe they should not be, and that in cases of violations of "must" or "may not" laws, the director should be looking for a good reason (not just "we don't do that") not to give a penalty, and when he doesn't find such a reason, he should give the penalty.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2024-September-14, 12:01, said:

I tell everyone - and I think I stole it from Blackshoe - that "Law 16B is for directors, Law 73C is for players".


So, my opinion? Forget about Law 16. Follow Law 73, and let the directors use 16 to work out what to assign when it is violated.

Another perspective:

For a society to expect to succeed it is important its law is just. A corollary is that it must not be anti-justice. For example: A law that to be satisfied which requires a person to successfully calculate a difficult task (for every occasion) when that task is beyond the skill, such law is anti-just. Then consider that the task must be completed within a fraction of a second to succeed.

L16B is such law. To expect to satisfy 16B it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of UI and then use that calculation to select one's action, all within the duration of one's normal tempo. It takes me weeks, even decades to figure out what UI means. Doing what 16B instructs is beyond my ability. (Yet my ability is better than most.)

The only answer is that such demands ought not be written lest they be read and create expectations. In manner of speaking, for a law to be justice whatever the solution, it is different from this.

In other forums Kit Woolsey has spoken of L16B. His policy is he copes by doing what he was going to do sans UI availability- in his lifetime being challenged as many as a handful of occasions. I find his assertion of success very credible even though I believe there is more to his policy than its on the face simplicity.

I do not concur with the assertion that L16B is for adjudicators rather than players. It is addressed to players so it has that weight. A weight that is unbearable… and anti-justice.

[mycroft]

Punishment will not help as much as education. You can not beat people into understanding (without some way to stop them from just walking away).

Punishment will cause people to leave the game (I saw it, in Another City). Not punishment will cause people to leave the game as well, true (well, paid games - they'll go back into the kitchen or BBO to play with "honest people". Same thing from the POV of sanctioned events) but not as many.

Where's the education? Why? Why are all the frustrated people jumping on "they should be punished for it, even if they tried"? Or "but the pros say 'just ignore it', I did that, why am I being penalized?" Rather than, say, telling the BW folks that "yeah, that ain't the law, and it can't be done. Stop advocating things that aren't Lawful"? Oh yeah, because the C pairs (and club A pairs) that "need to be punished into ethics" can't ruin their reputation or humiliate them in the online world, can they?

Why are they not running ethics classes? Oh because 'everybody knows' how to play bridge, nobody will show up, and there's no interest? Why is that? So they're frustrated that the right solution won't work, and pull out the stick. Sure, I get that. But it won't work either.

Note - I do see the attempts (say, in the Claim Thread from Hell (*)). I'm not saying it's everywhere. I am saying that "know the rules or we punish you. No, we won't tell you the rules, look them up. Oh, the pros are proud of Knowing How Bridge Is Played, so they don't have to Know The Law? Why would you look up to them rather than some meddling zebra who 'if you could play, you would'?" is not a situation that screams "success" to me. It screams "20 table loose club game becomes 6 table very ethical game".

(*)spoilered because it's even more Offtopic than normal.

Spoiler

I disagree with MR on that for practical reasons. I want to encourage claims to speed up play, and "well, 2% is a 4-0 break, I didn't think about it. But I have three ways to pick that up when I see it. No, of course I know there are 4 out." works 98% of the time, and is in fact sensible the other 2%. There's even a line in the laws that talks about when a claim statement breaks down because of something not seen. Yes, I can see the argument that "if they don't mention it, they may have miscounted rather than forgot about 4-0." But that leads to "okay, never claiming again against you, never accepting a claim against you. You have made it clear that I can't count - how do I know that the ♣Q isn't still out, even though it's in my hand?" especially if the director rules against them. And if you bring up "unnecessarily prolonging play", then the same line applies. "It's not unnecessary. Neither the opponents nor the director think I can count to 13, so how can I 'surely know' all the tricks are mine?" And that slows down play and increases frustration. Therefore, whether or not the NOS has a case, I want the enforcement of the Law to include "claimer didn't think about the 4-0" rather than "claimer didn't think there were 4 out." Next time MR claims "pulling trump", it would be just desserts to say "he didn't say how many trump were out, so if he thought it was only three, he might pull 2 rounds, see them split '2-1', and give me a ruff." Where does it stop?

I do think that if any of the outside suits getting back to hand gets ruffed, they lose the trick. I will go that far down the path. I think that's reasonable.

[jillybean]

axman, on 2024-September-15, 09:36, said:

Another perspective:

For a society to expect to succeed it is important its law is just. A corollary is that it must not be anti-justice. For example: A law that to be satisfied which requires a person to successfully calculate a difficult task (for every occasion) when that task is beyond the skill, such law is anti-just. Then consider that the task must be completed within a fraction of a second to succeed.

L16B is such law. To expect to satisfy 16B it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of UI and then use that calculation to select one's action, all within the duration of one's normal tempo. It takes me weeks, even decades to figure out what UI means. Doing what 16B instructs is beyond my ability. (Yet my ability is better than most.)

The only answer is that such demands ought not be written lest they be read and create expectations. In manner of speaking, for a law to be justice whatever the solution, it is different from this.

In other forums Kit Woolsey has spoken of L16B. His policy is he copes by doing what he was going to do sans UI availability- in his lifetime being challenged as many as a handful of occasions. I find his assertion of success very credible even though I believe there is more to his policy than its on the face simplicity.

I do not concur with the assertion that L16B is for adjudicators rather than players. It is addressed to players so it has that weight. A weight that is unbearable… and anti-justice.

Axman,

"To expect to satisfy 16B it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of UI and then use that calculation to select one's action, all within the duration of one's normal tempo."

I disagree that a player in receipt of UI is expected to bid in tempo. There has been an infraction, partner has made Ui available. We are instructed to "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information". (73C). I think a BIT here is normal and expected, as the player in receipt of the UI considers his options.

"It takes me weeks, even decades to figure out what UI means. Doing what 16B instructs is beyond my ability."
Yes, we can't possibly determine what the UI means at the table. We are instructed "not to choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by the UI." I can't run a poll in my head but I can run through other calls that I may consider in the auction. After a slow pass by partner, my LA is often PASS.
If there is any suggestion in my mind that another call is a possibility, I cannot choose the call suggested by the UI.

Ignoring the UI is a far stretch from "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information"

I know which side of the Laws I want to play on.


73C
Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information [see Law 16B1(a)].

[mycroft]

axman, on 2024-September-15, 09:36, said:

Another perspective:

For a society to expect to succeed it is important its law is just. A corollary is that it must not be anti-justice. For example: A law that to be satisfied which requires a person to successfully calculate a difficult task (for every occasion) when that task is beyond the skill, such law is anti-just. Then consider that the task must be completed within a fraction of a second to succeed.

L16B is such law. To expect to satisfy 16B it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of UI and then use that calculation to select one's action, all within the duration of one's normal tempo. It takes me weeks, even decades to figure out what UI means. Doing what 16B instructs is beyond my ability. (Yet my ability is better than most.)

To expect to satisfy 16B it is sufficient to satisfy 73C - "carefully avoid using the information from the UI."

Will you succeed 100% of the time? Of course not. We all fail, we all have our blind spots. But if you carefully avoided using the UI and this time there was a LA less successful than the one you took, that was demonstrably suggested by the UI, then you were unable, on this hand, to see it. Which means that however long you took trying to solve Law 16B, you would have failed.

Therefore, it is not necessary to worry about 16B as a player. Just follow 73C, and eat your failures in good conscience. And let the directors use 16B to assign the correct score when you do fail.

"It takes me weeks" - then it didn't "demonstrably suggest" anything, did it? Yeah, it happens a lot - which is why most UI doesn't matter, because the causes of it either don't suggest anything or are ambiguous or match the AI from the auction. The ones that do matter are clearly obvious - a slow penalty double is removable; asking how many hearts 1♥ promises shows more hearts than that; a slow signoff after keycard says "I'm only off one, but we might have two losers anyway"; a fast rebid of the suit one has shown but heard that partner didn't get is a wakeup call;... The ones that "take you weeks" aren't a problem.(*)

Quote

In other forums Kit Woolsey has spoken of L16B. His policy is he copes by doing what he was going to do sans UI availability- in his lifetime being challenged as many as a handful of occasions. I find his assertion of success very credible even though I believe there is more to his policy than its on the face simplicity.

I believe he is actually capable of "except on a handful of occasions" ignoring the UI. He is a top-class expert, with tens of thousands of these situations under his belt. Of course, he is very clearly Playing Bridge The Right Way instead of Following The Law, which as I said seems to be a point of pride at the absolute top level. But his skill is such that it is The Right Way (according to the Law) almost always.

The problem is that he explains it as if it's so obvious that everybody can do it, and so the people that look up to him "just ignore the UI" too. And they aren't as good, and they aren't as capable of seeing their bias as Kit is, and so they "use the UI" more often than he does. And the ones that see "just ignore the UI" and read "you would always have 'done the right thing' even without the UI, so go ahead" as a sop to their "is this truly ethical?" concerns (those that have them, I guess). And the As who hear the players they look up to saying "just ignore the UI" and do what their mentors do - and they're not as good as even the wannabe pros, and they definitely aren't as capable of seeing their bias as Kit is. And...

Quote

I do not concur with the assertion that L16B is for adjudicators rather than players. It is addressed to players so it has that weight. A weight that is unbearable… and anti-justice.

From someone who claims that anything that isn't a call or play in tempo (including a mispull or a "move to the box" out of turn) is communication, and therefore UI, I find that - interesting. No wonder "it takes you weeks" to work out what LAs the UI demonstrably suggests - because so much of it is "nothing. Nothing at all. I pulled 2♠ and 2♥ came with it." If it has to mean something, then yeah, it could take weeks to work out what that something is.

Obviously 16B is a Law that players need to follow. But if you follow 73C, you won't violate 16B, unless you have a braino, in which case you would have failed in your 16B consideration as well. It really is that simple. And frankly, if you do, you treat it the same way you treat any bridge mistake that lowered your score - "I had a plan, it was wrong, I won't make that mistake next time, next hand." Because if you follow 73C, you are on the correct side of ethics and it's just bad bridge, just like any other "play for the 60% line you saw when there was a 90% line you didn't."

Now this next is my bias - and I absolutely admit that I go too far. But every time I see "I need to work out all the LAs and whether the UI demonstrably (or reasonably, back in the day, or...) suggests doing what I know to be the right call on this hand (using all the information)", I read "I don't want to 'carefully avoid' using the UI. I want to 'carefully avoid' being penalized for using the UI." I choose to (silently) judge people who want that.

Either you can point to the UI, point to what it shows, and demonstrably suggest one or a class of action(s) over another, pretty much immediately, or you can't and it doesn't (to you). Congratulations, you have 16Bed. Now carefully avoid using the UI and make your call.

(*)I still remember taking 20 minutes to explain to a B player "score stands. But know that if you were more experienced, we would rule against you for use of UI. We just believe that to you, it didn't say what it would to an A player." She was upset that she was being treated differently than "someone who could play", even though it was to her benefit - a laudable opinion. But after the lightbulb moment where she did see what the UI said, and why, had she understood that at the table, it suggested the call she took, I said "so that's why we ruled as we did. If it takes 20 minutes for you to see it, it didn't suggest anything *to you* at the table". But I also said "but now you do understand, and you will see it next time, and we will hold you to the A standard."

[mycroft]

People have heard this story before, but it's still very appropriate here.

There was one game where my partner gave the wrong explanation of my call, then made a call after for what for him was a long hesitation. I really did think about it and couldn't see anything other than "the obvious call" (which I knew was the one the UI suggested). At the end of the hand, one of the opponents said, basically, "WTH that call?" and when I said I couldn't see any other one, he pointed out how the misexplanation and tank meant X, and X clearly suggested the call I took, and without it, it could mean Y, and that would mean do something else.

And he was right, and the lightbulb went on. And yeah, I was embarrassed as a director to have not seen it.

But my response was to call the director, explain everything, including what I did and when I got woken up - and probably helped guide the correct ruling. Then accepted the ruling and thanked the opponents.

The point being, I tried to avoid using the UI, but failed (spectacularly, for me). When shown, I admitted it and took the bad score. Embarrassment of making a bad bridge decision, 100%; but not a stain on my stature as an ethical player.

Really, it is that simple.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2024-September-14, 12:01, said:

I tell everyone - and I think I stole it from Blackshoe - that "Law 16B is for directors, Law 73C is for players".

I don't want to start an argument (that's the next office over), but I think it comes from me.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2024-September-15, 19:21, said:

I disagree that a player in receipt of UI is expected to bid in tempo.

Players are expected to bid in tempo in general. Being in receipt of UI doesn't remove or increase the expectation.

Breaking tempo is not in itself an infraction. But now you're putting a burden on partner to avoid taking advantage of the UI you may have transmitted. And if your BIT is due to having received UI, this all gets incredibly convoluted.

[jillybean]

That's what I wanted to say

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2024-September-16, 10:14, said:

I don't want to start an argument (that's the next office over), but I think it comes from me.

I probably stole it from you.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2024-September-16, 10:14, said:

I don't want to start an argument (that's the next office over), but I think it comes from me.

Ya know, when ya mention it...Very likely. Sorry.

(and no, that's not abuse. You'd have to work a lot harder for abuse.</MP>)