[Zelandakh]

Wayne's story suggests that it is very important as a bridge player to be able to reconstruct hands after the play and create double dummy bidding solutions on the fly. You are apparently much less likely to be ruled against in this case.

OK, I think there is some broad agreement here now that it would be nice if there was some consistency of rulings irrespective of the level of then players involved providing this does not allow players to achieve contracts that they could not possibly find without UI, nor prevent players from reaching contracts that they would certainly have reached without UI. However, we still have no mechanism for achieving this. Can anyone think of a way of formulating a Law or Laws to achieve this? it is a fine aim and one I would like to support - but as yet I have not seen anything "fairer" than the current Laws proposed. Perhaps the simpler solution might in the end turn out to be finding more and better ways of avoiding UI situations in the first place. Of course, that still would not help with things like claims...

[mycroft]

I remember, in the session from hell, I gave two rulings (more than two, but these two caused the "from hell"). One was my first overturn on appeal, and even the head of the panel said that it's because none of us involved in the ruling can think like someone so bad they would bid like that. The other was a clear use of UI by the pros, and a clear rollback. They tried about three arguments, which were frankly BS, and would have been clearly no dice on appeal - basically "we're pros, we would get it right after the mistake even without the UI". At the end of the session, however, they pointed out something that should have been glaringly obvious to me - that although the bid taken at the table was clear use of UI and led to 6♦+1, if they *didn't* use the UI, they would have been forced into 6NT, which makes. Even though it took them two hours to find that argument, it was clearly and legally correct, and I should have found it originally. Ruling reversed, Director error.

So, no, TDs don't accept experts' arguments willy nilly. And you only have to listen to the number of times TDs get told "Did you ask a *player*? You know, someone who can play at A level?" (yes, it looks like a question. It isn't) or the number of times TDs get stopped in the lobby by the local bull session who believes that "well, any of us Experts would have got it right, so why did you rule it the other way?" and won't listen to the answer, to know that.

And it truly does work the other way, too - I explain to players regularly (especially because I frequently run the novice game at the tournaments) that were they more experienced, they would know what that UI meant, and they would be barred the action they took, and therefore, this is what they have to be careful about; and my first appeal (which was upheld) was based on a 12-card dummy. Against any reasonable player, the defence taken would have been insane, even without the missing card that made it an option; against this pair, however, it was reasonable on the face where it wouldn't have been with the 13th card; as he wasn't going to do the next layer of thinking that would show that it was unreasonable anyway, because he never does.

[Cascade]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-19, 03:34, said:

Wayne's story suggests that it is very important as a bridge player to be able to reconstruct hands after the play and create double dummy bidding solutions on the fly. You are apparently much less likely to be ruled against in this case.

Maybe I was conned by such a reconstruction but maybe not.

What I didn't say was that one opponent of the short club opening had a decent six card club suit. One opponent convinced me that she would be able to bid clubs which would have led to a better result whilst the other told me they wouldn't do anything different. I am pretty well constrained after this, unless I do not believe the player who said she would bid clubs, as I cannot really justify making up actions for a player who said she would not take a different action and may not have been able to take a sensible alternative action based on her agreements.

At any rate, this is not necessarily an on the fly thing though as I don't believe that potentially damaged players need to make their full case at the time they call the director. I know that I have said at times to a director I am just reporting the facts now I do not know whether or not we have been damaged and I will not know until I examine the hand records later or sometimes I don't know if we have been damaged. I don't feel under an obligation to analyse the hand in detail on the fly.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2012-December-19, 11:31, said:

I remember, in the session from hell, I gave two rulings (more than two, but these two caused the "from hell"). One was my first overturn on appeal, and even the head of the panel said that it's because none of us involved in the ruling can think like someone so bad they would bid like that. The other was a clear use of UI by the pros, and a clear rollback. They tried about three arguments, which were frankly BS, and would have been clearly no dice on appeal - basically "we're pros, we would get it right after the mistake even without the UI". At the end of the session, however, they pointed out something that should have been glaringly obvious to me - that although the bid taken at the table was clear use of UI and led to 6♦+1, if they *didn't* use the UI, they would have been forced into 6NT, which makes. Even though it took them two hours to find that argument, it was clearly and legally correct, and I should have found it originally. Ruling reversed, Director error.

So, no, TDs don't accept experts' arguments willy nilly. And you only have to listen to the number of times TDs get told "Did you ask a *player*? You know, someone who can play at A level?" (yes, it looks like a question. It isn't) or the number of times TDs get stopped in the lobby by the local bull session who believes that "well, any of us Experts would have got it right, so why did you rule it the other way?" and won't listen to the answer, to know that.

And it truly does work the other way, too - I explain to players regularly (especially because I frequently run the novice game at the tournaments) that were they more experienced, they would know what that UI meant, and they would be barred the action they took, and therefore, this is what they have to be careful about; and my first appeal (which was upheld) was based on a 12-card dummy. Against any reasonable player, the defence taken would have been insane, even without the missing card that made it an option; against this pair, however, it was reasonable on the face where it wouldn't have been with the 13th card; as he wasn't going to do the next layer of thinking that would show that it was unreasonable anyway, because he never does.

There was a "clear use of UI by the pros". Then "They tried about three arguments, which were frankly BS". After all that the teflon pros seem to have escaped without penalty

[paua]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-10, 23:33, said:

Two things: if there's no LA to 7NT, then bidding 7NT is not an infraction, so there would be no score adjustment. Secondly, I have been told that "logical alternative" is to be read as "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". If all experts would always bid 7NT, then there is no plausible alternative for that class of player. If the player is a member of a class with lesser skill, then pass may well be a plausible alternative for that class of player. Yes the rulings will be different. I don't think that's a bad thing.

But how do you draw the line ?
Based on masterpoints ? Pfui.

[blackshoe]

Not hardly.

There is no objective line. It's a matter for TD judgement.

[bluejak]

mycroft, on 2012-December-19, 11:31, said:

I remember, in the session from hell, I gave two rulings (more than two, but these two caused the "from hell"). One was my first overturn on appeal, and even the head of the panel said that it's because none of us involved in the ruling can think like someone so bad they would bid like that. The other was a clear use of UI by the pros, and a clear rollback. They tried about three arguments, which were frankly BS, and would have been clearly no dice on appeal - basically "we're pros, we would get it right after the mistake even without the UI". At the end of the session, however, they pointed out something that should have been glaringly obvious to me - that although the bid taken at the table was clear use of UI and led to 6♦+1, if they *didn't* use the UI, they would have been forced into 6NT, which makes. Even though it took them two hours to find that argument, it was clearly and legally correct, and I should have found it originally. Ruling reversed, Director error.

I don't think it is automatically Director Error. One of the reasons for talking to players is so they can point things out: if they don't see something it is never automatic in my view that it will happen, especially if they are good players. This is, of course, another of the many situations where it is better to be a poor player when receiving a ruling.

[mycroft]

In this case it was. I said "this call is a LA, and it scores X." without realizing that from the other side of the table, that call could not be passable. And, since it wasn't a situation where they could get anywhere that didn't make, they couldn't be held to fight over it into an non-making contract either.

I would agree that in other cases that might be an issue. I think they *were* trying to snowball the TD, in an "well, obviously if you could play, you would be" mode; but once they came off their high horse, and actually thought about it, they gave a completely correct - and not double-dummy correct, or "after two hours of thinking it's obvious" correct - argument as to why my ruling was wrong. If they had pulled that first instead of just getting angry that anyone would think they wouldn't land on their feet, it would have worked better. Maybe I should have given a PP for the behaviour; I thought that making it clear to the other TDs at the event, in the pros' hearing (but nobody else's) what had happened was penalty enough (to both of us).

Unfortunately, if I gave out a PP to anybody who I believed was trying to snow me, the event would never finish. When I actually let any of them succeed (and it does happen sometimes), I'd better learn from it.