Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 58 59 60 61
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless 1 shows clubs, I do not understand why 1NT would promise a stopper.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would rather punish the offenders than the non-offenders.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the use of “must” in Law 73C.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Is the double of 3 Bergen really clubs or is it takeout of spades. Many play the latter. The director needs to determine this before making a ruling. If north new the agreement and misbid then there is no damage from the failure to alert but the damage comes from the double.

2. In addition to what Michael says I wonder why south bid only 3. With five hearts and nine points and a singleton spade I would bid 4 here if forced by partner's takeout double. I too think something more was going on at the table.

3. What is east's pass of the double? If it shows extra values it might also need an alert.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy the problem with expectation is that someone else's subjective estimation of weights is not the player's actual probabilities of the various outcomes.

Every time the subjective estimation of the weights is wrong and less favourable than reality for the non-offenders you punish them for being non-offenders. That is not fair.

The solution is to not give misinformation.

Telling someone they will get a score or a weight that they know they would never get is unfair. This happens frequently in adjusted score situations.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the award should be independent of the other table.

However, I also think that an adjusted score that causes a loss for the non-offenders in the same contract that was played at the other table is wrong barring some exceptional circumstances.

That is I prefer “for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred”. As was the case under older versions of the laws rather than at times forcing the non-offenders to have a losing score when they had a reasonable and likely chance of tieing or better the other table.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not expect a WC LHO to be coffeehousing.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. It is not the director's job to educate about ethics.

2. The director's job is to apply the laws Law81B2.

3. The proper application of the laws here is a penalty against the 3 bidder unless there is some system peculiarity that makes 3 the system bid here. Absent that 3 is obvious after you have established a force and bidding something else is a violation of Law73C1 and a penalty is reasonable under Law73C2.

4. In practice directors almost never impose these penalties. In my view that has led to a playing environment that is often toxic and rife with very many players, including experienced players who should know better, taking advantage of their partner's unauthorised information much too often.

5. No one is technically responsible for education. By default I guess it falls back on clubs which is not an unreasonable place to educate players. However when there is an environment where blatant infractions are not punished there is little incentive for players to submit the minimal education that is available.

6. When I played squash it was a condition of playing interclub competitions at least for my club that players attended rules seminars. This made players more aware of the rules of the game although that was probably not the main motivation - the main motivation was that players were expected to referee other games when they were not playing. Nevertheless forcing players to be educated about the rules before playing competitively has the obvious benefit of playings knowing how to play lawfully.

7. Similarly, when I played competitive rugby it was common at the beginning of each new season for our team to have some sessions with a top referee to explain the laws and especially so when there were significant law changes which seemed to happen quite often.

8. There does not seem to be any push from bridge administrators to make sure that players are well informed about the laws of the game. It is left to a players own motivation to find out what the laws are and choose to play lawfully or not.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not just the HH this is real life. There are very few decisions that at the moment you take them are precisely 50-50.

Maybe my language was poor but I intended to acknowledge that. A situation that is 50-50 looking at two hands often becomes swayed one way or the other by the time a player has to guess.

I am unsure that it is relevant why other declarers took the finesse one way or the other. What is relevant is what will happen at this table. There are many subtle factors that might change the odds: a lead of one suit rather than another; a lead of one card rather than another (e.g. 3/5 or 4th lead); a discard; the precise order the cards are played in; any information declarer discovers from how the hand is played; any bidding or lack of bidding. Any of this and more can be different at any two tables.

In the hands of a decent declarer a two way finesse must be better than 50% but how much better no one knows. In part because we throw away so much information and so can't just look up the success.

I understand the law. I know what the correct ruling is under the current law. I said in the OP that the current law requires a weighted score - with all of the problems that brings into the result.

My question is is that fair? In other words is it fair that in some situations the law requires a decision that results in a swing out against the non-offenders when they have been awarded the same contract as was played at the other table.

I don't think it is fair. "Yes you were damaged by the MI, we are awarding you 60% of the IMPs from 1430 and 40% of the IMPs from 680 which means 60% of 0 and 40% of -13 = -5.2 IMPs doesn't sit well with me when the pair had no chance after the MI to tie the board.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is the second option above.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I accept that Richard. But at this table there is no chance for the defender's to open the suit so they are protected from a misdefence by their own infraction.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, I am not claiming the finesse is 50-50 I am suggesting it is two way and in some sense it starts off (a priori) no worse than 50%.

In that situation different declarers might be able to bring some discovery technique to the table to appreciably increase the odds at the moment the finesse needs to be taken.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not saying that we should consider the other table result in making the ruling.

I am saying when the play at the other table was successful and the so-called equity result is to only give this table part of that successful play then we end in a situation that seems to me (and Nigel at least) unfair.

Once there was misinformation we had no way to tie this board. Sure we also have no way to lose the board big.

I am not advocating for considering the other table. I think the only fair option is to always give the maximum score (subject to some reasonableness criteria).
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, not sure if by “you” you mean me. If so you have this wrong. I am advocating for a no win situation for the offenders.

For example if there is a two way finesse and it is not clear which way to take it I am happy to give the non-offenders 100% of the right way rather than leaving them feeling aggrieved because they misguessed.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's assume your scenario except that we are confident that the slam would be bid 100% of the time.

Now there is a two way finesse to make. What weights do you propose is fair to the non-offenders?
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are assigning 50% 6 and 50% 4 when 6 is making, or some other percentage, then you better be assigning the same percentages when the 6 contract is failing.

To clarify, say here the Kx was offside then if you think 6 is 50:50 then the calculation should be 50% of the score for 6 and 50% of the score for 4. If that is better than the score for 5 then we adjust, if it is worse then we do not adjust. 50% of a failing slam is likely to be worse than 100% of 5 making so it is unlikely that we would adjust if the K is wrong.

On the other hand, if 4 is scored at the other table -2 IMPs (or -1 IMP) seems wrong when this table gets to 5.

Nevertheless, it has got to be a mistake to look at the double dummy or even single dummy result and factor that into determining our percentage weights.

The director needs primarily to listen to arguments, from both sides, for how the auction and play would develop with correct information and ideally make a judgement as to what the possible contracts are and their weightings. That should be independent of the opponents' cards except as determined by information that they pass in the auction and play.

This hand illustrates all that is wrong with weighted adjustments. Life was much simpler and in my view much fairer to the non-offending side when the law required the most favourable result that was at all likely.

I don't want players getting no adjustment when they can reasonably say we would have got to 4 and saved those two IMPs when 6 is failing and neither do I want the same pair to be able to claim they likely would have bid 6 when it is making. If it is reasonably plausible then give them the most favourable score.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is important information.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes there is more room over 2.

We do give up on 2NT natural here and play 2NT as both minors.

Depending on precisely what is meant by constructive 2 a cue-bid showing a strong hand is not needed or not as important. However currently, I would use 2 as a strong cue without four spades.

1 X 2

X four spades
2 five spades not forcing
2NT both minors
3m constructive not forcing
3 force without four spades

1 x 2

X four spades
2 force without four spades
2 five spades not forcing
2NT both minors
etc
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree that the director should not give a weighted ruling unless the scoring program that can accept that ruling.

The scoring program does not determine what rules and laws should or should not be applied. Our software does not handle that is no reason to make a poor ruling.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play double after 1 X 2 to show exactly four spades and 2 to show five or more. This allows more accurate competition when they bid 3 including accuracy in bidding game if doubler has a big hand.

I would play the same way when 2 is an artificial constructive raise.
Jan. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 58 59 60 61
.

Bottom Home Top