[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2023-June-25, 11:42, said:

Well, it's your game, not mine, therefore your ruling; but I bet it looks an awful lot like this:

I believe that this is, if not direct misinformation, definitely not full disclosure; and I'd poll to see whether peers of west would double with that hand. As I said, I have my doubts, but I'd accept anything other than "pass, no other options" and "what about double?" "Well, that's a possibility, but do I really want a spade lead?" They are the NOS, and she wanted to do it before seeing how anything worked.

And herein, I believe lies the problem.
West's action after being given MI or a failure to disclose an agreement should not be in question. West should not be restricted to the mainstream approach after his opponents have committed an infraction.

A poll is totally appropriate when a player is in possession of UI but I think we have lost sight of the infraction when we apply Director beliefs/logic or the results of a poll to the NOS.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-June-25, 20:02, said:

A poll is totally appropriate when a player is in possession of UI but I think we have lost sight of the infraction when we apply Director beliefs/logic or the results of a poll to the NOS.

The problem is that it's really hard for players to be unbiased once they know more about the hand. When West gets the additional information and calls the director, they already know that South has a weak hand with a long suit, and can easily convince themselves (subconsciously even) that they always would have doubled to show spades. The director takes that into account, but has to consider whether they actually would have done that. Hence further investigation, often including a poll.

Remember, the laws say that "the Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred." If the director thinks West may have only doubled half the time, they are perfectly entitled to give a weighted score based on this assessment.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-June-25, 20:02, said:

And herein, I believe lies the problem.
West's action after being given MI or a failure to disclose an agreement should not be in question. West should not be restricted to the mainstream approach after his opponents have committed an infraction.

A poll is totally appropriate when a player is in possession of UI but I think we have lost sight of the infraction when we apply Director beliefs/logic or the results of a poll to the NOS.

When you've been directing a bit longer I think you will come to recognise that many of the damage claims made by the NOS are imaginative at best. This is somewhat inevitable: in part there is a tendency to convince oneself that we would have taken the most beneficial line of action, in part there is also a perception (correct in many cases) that the TD demands that we come up with a good argument if we have any hope of score adjustment.
So I think it's legitimate and appropriate to poll when in doubt. It's also appropriate to apply penalties for sloppy or slimy disclosure at club level and I do so (in the kind of situations well identified by mycroft, but with a little less attention to retention of the bad guys).

[mycroft]

Which is why I said the poll is going to be "is this reasonable, or is this ludicrous?" and rule damage if it wasn't ludicrous. *Especially* because N-S did so much to stop West from being able to call the TD when it would have been possible to change the call, or to say they would double before finding out that South was weak.

If I don't have anyone to poll, at least in the club, I would use my knowledge of the two pairs to determine how much West is likely to try one on, and how much N/S are lazy/"careful"/minimal in their disclosure, and decide if there was damage from there - because my feeling is that the double would be unlikely, but I've seen much more dangerous actions over my weak NT from even flight B players, so it is entirely reasonable. But I am trying to sidestep the pretty automatic "you're just saying that because it worked this time" or "surely your judgement is (better/worse/more nuanced/more experienced), *she* wouldn't have found it at the table" or "that could be 800 into no game on the common hand, why are you giving them 100% of a double that they probably wouldn't have made?" by asking people who aren't me if they recoil from it, or think about it, or even do it.

And yes, the weighted score is an option - and I'd *definitely* want to poll West's peers if I was thinking that, to get a baseline for the weighting. Most club directors don't remember how to do a weighted score in ACBLscor (even if they ever knew); and my inclination is to ignore any weighting to get the point across to N/S. But again, I don't know the players; I don't know if this is totally innocent and they just don't know how to explain this, or if they have a habit of "good enough" disclosure.

[jillybean]

I'm late with a response to this sorry, I have been travelling.

North South committed an infraction, actually they committed several infractions but the first infraction of not providing a full explanation of 2♠ gave them an advantage as West would have doubled given the correct information.

I reiterate that it is wrong to scrutinize the action of the non offenders.

Players often don't alert, give adequate explanations or announce a 'failure to alert' as required by the Laws.
Players often don't call the Director when an infraction has occurred.
When the Director is called, the typical response is "you must do better (alert/explain) that bid next time".
(penalties or threats of penalties typically don't happen until you play in the Blue Ribbon Pairs. Hence the local pair here being so shook up with the Directors response in the BRP)
If the NOS contend that they would have chosen a different action with the correct information, they are treated as the OS and unless a Director believes the action is logical, or a poll proves it is, the result stands.

The result of this is that a failure to alert is risk free. The opponents likely won't call the Director and if they do, the Director may not believe the NOS stated action in which case a "poll" may be undertaken. The OS have a good chance of a favourable ruling and no consequence for their initial infraction.

I realize that there may be some players whom, after an infraction, use the rules unfairly to their advantage. However I believe the NOS must be given the benefit of any doubt after an infraction by their opponents. Any pair regularly claiming an unbelievable action over an infraction will have these recorded and treated appropriately.

Of course if players learnt that failing to follow the Laws would result in penalties rather than "stern warnings" instances of MI would be rare and the NOS could have their bid when they were entitled to have it.

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2023-June-28, 21:35, said:

The result of this is that a failure to alert is risk free.

I don't see how any of this has shown it is risk free?

In the vast majority of times that you're damaged, you were about to make a completely normal bid and the MI put you off; you get retribution.

In this case, based on other replies above, if anyone else in a poll even remotely considers your double, you get retribution.

The only time they get away with it is if you were about to make a bid that nobody else would consider, and you can't prove it's part of your system. If that's shown to be the case, the upside is that you learn that it probably wasn't a wise choice

[sanst]

smerriman, on 2023-June-28, 22:23, said:

I don't see how any of this has shown it is risk free?

In the vast majority of times that you're damaged, you were about to make a completely normal bid and the MI put you off; you get retribution.

In this case, based on other replies above, if anyone else in a poll even remotely considers your double, you get retribution.

The only time they get away with it is if you were about to make a bid that nobody else would consider, and you can't prove it's part of your system. If that's shown to be the case, the upside is that you learn that it probably wasn't a wise choice

Maybe you missed the point that jillybean made: at the so called social club game it’s not done to call a director for a failure to alert or to explain properly. And if you call the director, (s)he might give a warning, but penalties are ‘not done’, too, since “we are a social club, everyone playing for fun”. So yes, these infractions are risk free. The worst that can happen to the OS that the TD decides for G+/G- and ask them to alert this in the future.
I know that most club directors over here are non paid volunteers, playing themselves and not fully trained nor experienced. And the members know even far less.

[smerriman]

sanst, on 2023-June-29, 01:49, said:

Maybe you missed the point that jillybean made: at the so called social club game it’s not done to call a director for a failure to alert or to explain properly. And if you call the director, (s)he might give a warning, but penalties are ‘not done’, too, since “we are a social club, everyone playing for fun”. So yes, these infractions are risk free. The worst that can happen to the OS that the TD decides for G+/G- and ask them to alert this in the future.
I know that most club directors over here are non paid volunteers, playing themselves and not fully trained nor experienced. And the members know even far less.

If her director never penalises anyone, then obviously everyone is free to do what they like.

I understand that, but to me it seems she is making a very different point, with the emphasis being that if you *do* call the director, they should basically always adjust the result even if (and not saying it is) West's claim is so illogical that no other bridge player would make it.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-June-28, 21:35, said:

I reiterate that it is wrong to scrutinize the action of the non offenders.


However I believe the NOS must be given the benefit of any doubt after an infraction by their opponents.

Such notions are misguided, and in that light ought to be thought through.

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2023-June-28, 22:23, said:

I don't see how any of this has shown it is risk free?

In the vast majority of times that you're damaged, you were about to make a completely normal bid and the MI put you off; you get retribution.

In this case, based on other replies above, if anyone else in a poll even remotely considers your double, you get retribution.

The only time they get away with it is if you were about to make a bid that nobody else would consider, and you can't prove it's part of your system. If that's shown to be the case, the upside is that you learn that it probably wasn't a wise choice

If your opponents call the Director you will either get a warning or the board will be adjusted to reflect the outcome had you given the correct information.
That appears to be risk free.

[jillybean]

axman, on 2023-June-29, 04:40, said:

Such notions are misguided, and in that light ought to be thought through.

We have a situation where players are free to ignore the Laws with impunity.

I realize my "poll" of players revealing the only time a Director seriously considered a penalty was in the Blue Ribbon Pairs is not credible but it does reflect the situation at Club and Tournament play, at least where I play.

After MI the NOS are often under more scrutiny than the OS, I think we've got it wrong.

[mycroft]

"check and see if it's clear wishful thinking" (or "it looks like about 1/3 would double, so let's give them half of +170, half of -100") vs "clear warning, possible penalty if this is a known Hard Case, whether because they're too lazy or they're trying to gain from limited disclosure". I don't think that's "more scrutiny".

I don't know about your club, but in mine, there are NOSes who are really good with the bafflegab about how they would "always find the right call/play with the correct information" - and if you believe them all the time, they're going to snow the game just as much as the "Just Bridge"rs or the other "careful informers" (small secret: they're frequently the same people!) There are also those (100%, give or take) who can convince themselves that they would have got it right after they see that it is right. I bet you don't believe me. That's fine.

And I'll be happy to send all the people who tell me "but they'd never find that at the table" (especially the "but *they'd* never find that at the table" people) after a ruling to you, who can tell them that misinforming the opponents is free, and their case must just have been an outlier.

On that note, unless it's absolutely egregious, we don't attach a penalty in MPs to this kind of thing if we're also adjusting the score. Partly because of the "well, if you'd have done the right thing at the table, you would have found out if they would have"; partly because when we do adjust the score, we adjust it "with doubt going to the NOS", so they don't actually get the same result they would have got at the table, because this pair easily *would have got* the defence or the auction wrong; partly because, whether or not it's "correct", adjusting from +110 and a top to -170 and a near-bottom "feels like" a penalty to many, and it does in fact help fix the problem in future. Blackshoe will say that that's Wrong, and I agree with him in theory; but in practise it works better.

Note also that my "check and see if this pair are Known to the Directors" applies *throughout*; strangely enough their "small miss" in explanation, "everybody does that sometimes", gets ruled as misinformation more often than the average pair who do "small miss sometimes". And our belief when they tell us that "that's Just Bridge" or "we didn't think it needed to be mentioned, it was that obvious" or ... is lower than average pair. The "but we were damaged by their incomplete information" level of belief also might be a bit higher.

And the end result of "Known to the Directors" is C&E, not MP penalties. Rarer, but the punishment is *much* harsher.

Yes, there is a problem with incomplete information. Yes, it happens with "standard system" just as much as the unusual outliers. Yes, it causes problems more often with the unusual systems, which is why they complain that they are held to a higher standard (which we are). Yes, in particular in the ACBL, it's hard to get Alerting right, because of "basic theory" decisions made by the Committee limit the number of Alerts to "meaningful ones" over simplicity. All of this means that Mistakes Will Be Made, and sometimes Mistakes Will Not Be Punished. Which I'm sure you will be grateful for, the (fewer) times *your side* makes the mistake.

But no, it's not a free ride.

TL;DR: Again, this is a "breaking the rules should be punished" vs "the goal is to get the players to follow the rules, using whatever tools work best" philosophy question. Which the Lawmakers have planted their flag on, in no-doubt territory. And at least at the clubs, "you got the score you deserved. Don't worry about what the opponents get, let us do that" loses fewer pairs to online/other clubs than "2 minutes for cross-checking".

[mycroft]

Specifically to this case: if I took this hand to 4 or 5 peers of West, and they passed with the correct information like a shot, and when I asked whether they thought about anything else they started looking for my second head, and when I asked about double they all hmm'ed a bit and then said "do I really want a spade lead against 2NT or 3NT the times it is invitational?"; when I have that conversation with West as to why we're not allowing the post-knowing-it's-weak double, I have serious evidence that is not my belief that a lot of his confidence is wishful thinking. And I can show him why the double is dangerous (but not so much after the rest of the auction) and even he might not have made it at the time.

I bet I don't find that though. I bet I do find evidence that it's reasonable. I bet I do give at least a 50-50 ruling.

But, as I said before, *I don't get to make that decision using my bridge skill patterned by my experience as a director*. West Is Not Me. I have no idea what that poll will get me; I have been surprised before; I have been absolutely *shocked* before; I have had what should have been basic bridge shown to me that I totally overlooked before. I think my feelings are right (or close enough for government work) 70-80% of the time - that's not good enough.

But I'm still not going to take *anybody* at their word that they obviously would do something at the time, now that they now know that that is the right decision *on this hand*. Because "Bridge Lawyer" and "Getting from the Director what they couldn't get at the table", while definitely not valid as often as people complain, does happen deliberately; and less deliberately, bridge players are pattern matching machines, and they absolutely can convince themselves they would 100% have done it - once they know it's right.

Always listen to the NOS; always consider their side of the story; tend to believe them; if it really doesn't make sense to you, check with others - it's quite likely you're not seeing something obvious to people in general; but "they did something wrong, we get a Good Score" - no.

(And yes, I did. Which I think is all I can say in public.)

[jillybean]

Another late response here.

Yes, it all makes sense. I am sure there are players who would "always find the right bid/play given the correct information" and use the Laws to try to gain an unfair advantage. As you mentioned, these are often the players lacking in their own disclosure. Who is running the game?

You may run/rule very differently from the games I play in but in my experience it is a free ride. As I said above, the only instance I found of a likely penalty was the second time a pair did not alert during the Blue Ribbon Pairs, and then it was only a warning.

How is the "the goal is to get the players to follow the rules, using whatever tools work best" working? This goes back to the perception that if the Laws are enforced, players won't be back and a number of other issues regarding the Laws.

Quite frankly I am ready to put my Full Disclosure in the same bin my Convention Card went in a few years ago. (No one has asked for my CC)
I'm not quite ready but I doubt that it will take many more instances of MI receiving only "you should alert that bid/explain fully" to convince me that it's risk free and only fair that I do the same.

[mycroft]

Okay, fine.

If you've never heard someone say "but I would have always..." or "but they would never..." when getting an adjusted score from misinformation (or bad claims, or insufficient bids, or...) you will soon hear it as a director. It probably has been said about you - obviously not with you in the conversation, because we give the rulings separately. I'm sure it's been said about me as a player. My response is what I've said here more than once: "Do it right at the table, we get to find out what they would do. Do it wrong at the table, you get the Director's play skill."

However, if all you consider "not a free ride" is an actual MP penalty, again, fine. You're right, we don't penalize MI as much as we could. As much as we should, even, maybe. But it's not the intent of the Laws.

It's not even the intent of a penalty. The goal of the penalty is to *stop it from happening again*. Which is why it is so frequently not a MP penalty, but teaching and warnings. The goal of *the adjusted score* is to remediate the damage (and the benefit of "doubt to the NOS" is that it is can be a "penalty").

I keep hearing about people who do this deliberately, with intent. I even know of some - and at least twice they got both an adjusted score and a MP or VP penalty from me. There aren't very many.

If you want to protect yourself from poor disclosure, do so. The directors will love you (I'm not being completely sarcastic, here. Yes, there are issues with "squeaky wheels", especially in "friendly" club games. But there also are directors who are just as frustrated as you are about certain people's disclosure, but unless someone *else* brings it up, there's not much they can do). But there will not be "2 minutes for cross-checking". There will not be a penalty for every missed Alert, or any explanation that isn't complete to this set of opponents.

[blackshoe]

Two points:

1. A score adjustment is not a penalty, whatever certain players think.
2. A penalty is a separate issue and has to do, as Mycroft says, with attempting to get people to stop doing whatever it is they're doing that they shouldn't.

Okay, three things:

3. While it is acceptable to issue a procedural penalty in the form of a warning, many directors overdo this, with the effect that eventually the player getting all these warnings realizes that's all he's going to get. At that point, further warnings are pointless because the player will just ignore them. Give one warning, sometimes two depending on the offense, and then take away matchpoints or imps. Either that, or don't even bother with warnings.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-03, 01:40, said:

Give one warning,

In my opinion there is merit that the warning ought to be a reduction in score, perhaps de minimis, but a reduction that makes him know the desirability of satisfying rules. If nothing else, the TD won't feel the need to let things slide for ten years to be sure he gave this player a previous warning.

[mycroft]

Yeah, maybe we should. And maybe we don't worry about "well, what about the ones we don't notice/aren't called about". But of course, from experience with CCs in online tournaments, start doing this and we will be called on every little one - even the ones where the missing disclosure is only in their heads. Because if they're going to give me a penalty for this missed piece of the explanation that is IOTTMCO, by Ghu I'm going to insist that everybody else is held to the same standard...

Yes, after a while, warnings stop working. And, as I said, some of those repeated "mistakes" get MP penalties. But 90+% of them DO WORK. Even if they have to get 6 warnings for 6 different things - because heaven knows we can't expect accountants, doctors, math professors, etc., to extrapolate from known examples - but it works. Except for 15-17 NT ranges, of course

And yes, de minimis penalties will work just as well for the 90% - except that what some de minimis of the penalized will learn, is to not play bridge (at that club) instead.

So yes, we should ramp into penalties more often. And one of the issues with the spread of online play, and tournament play, is that people get warnings from 12 different people about the same thing, not realizing that the other 11 have happened. There's definitely an argument that warnings of this sort should be recorded, formalizing the "talk to the Directors" grapevine - M:tG does (although even they have Cautions, which don't. If you want to know how that game is played, the term to search on is "Bertoncini"). But they're also a huge business with the room to have a couple of people dedicated to reviewing the multiple warnings collected (flagged by code that automatically collects them, also written by dedicated people) to see if it's time for multiple warnings to become a "see you in August".

The one thing that calling a bit more like a hard**** does, especially against pairs who "have collected enough warnings to know", is raise awareness with this particular director. And maybe a discussion after, like maybe even the next game, with the director if it seems she doesn't see that it is endemic. And now that you are a director, you get to have the Talk with these players when you get called to their table - again, away from the table, at an appropriate time - "you're known for poor disclosure, and you skate on it. Just know that you won't skate any more in my games." And then stick to it. Worst thing that happens is they have more pull than you do with the club management, and you're politely asked to calm down or stop directing :-).

[mycroft]

But also know that if you're going to require either:

• perfect navigation of the ACBL Alert Procedure, or
  
• the kind of "full disclosure" the people in my other thread complain about not getting (but only about stuff they don't expect)

know that is an ideal impossible to reach for anyone, never mind the players at the club. If you penalize for every little slip, it'll happen A Lot. Especially if you nail that "they called me on an Obvious Claim once, so I'm not accepting any claim that isn't letter-perfect" player, who now has another hobby horse to ride.

I helped write (okay, proofread and rewrite) the -ing thing, and have got it blackletter wrong three times since March *as a player*. Now, granted, they were all "whaddayamean this double isn't Alertable?" because the change they've made means that insane meanings for doubles are no longer Alertable (as I said, blackletter) and nobody believes it until they actually reread the document. Even if you reread the document two weeks ago because of the last "whaddayamean this double isn't Alertable".