Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disclaimer: I am not an ACBL member although I have been one in the past and maybe one sometime in the future.

The length of ban needs to tied to the level of proof required. The higher the standard of proof the more you can justify a harsh penalty or perhaps rather the lower the standard of proof the less you can justify a harsh penalty.

If the standard is balance of probabilities which it is in many civil matters in many jurisdictions then a harsh penalty is not justified as then a significant number of innocent parties could be treated harshly.

If the standard is beyond reasonable doubt then our criminal courts still prove that there is a chance that innocent people will be convicted and so extreme penalties should probably be avoided.

It maybe possible to quantify some other standard of proof.

Any regulation or rule that specifies expected or typical or recommended penalties in my opinion needs also to specify explicitly the standard of proof required.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect it is more likely that north has tolerance for diamonds and decent spades.

Maybe I am wrong but that is certainly how I think I would act at the table. If I had little tolerance for diamonds I would be trying to improve the contract and with tolerance for diamonds I would be happier passing 2.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I am not convinced we know the same thing. Although I am still not convinced what any UI suggests or might demonstrably suggest.

2. It seems very unlikely that AI and UI will ever be identical in this sort of situation.

3. When there is AI and UI then you need to consider what the UI suggests and what the logical alternatives are. I think the AI will influence the logical alternatives but not what is suggested by the UI. Therefore you may still be constrained by the UI even when the AI and UI are close to the same meaning.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think this is what the laws say. If there is UI then you have to carefully avoid using it to your advantage.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It adds something if there are hands where they would not consider on the previous round but bid 2 now.

Its not clear to me that there are no such hands.

I could easily imagine hands were I was happy playing 2 and would pass in tempo but now want to offer 2 on the way to 3 for example.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may not be possible. However if you cannot guarantee that then I think it is too harsh to impose penalties for requesting a ruling that is turned down.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It maybe not possible to determine the bias. My point is that I am less comfortable limiting the number of challenges to rulings in a subjective environment than in an objective one.
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I mean that if you challenge a line call in tennis they the automated system shows whether or not the board was out. I do not know how much error there is in the system but it is completely objective. So I am testing my eye judgement with a outcome that is determined by a rigid process and subject to measurement error I am proved right or wrong.

Under those circumstances I can see the purpose in challenges being limited.

If I appeal a director's decision then a different poll or group of tournament directors might decide differently based on a subjective process and judgement.

It seems to me a different level of wrongness to make me lose a right of appeal because my judgement differed from one particular director, group of directors or appeal committee.

I don't mean ‘decides on a whim’ but I do think that directors and committees are too often subject to unacceptable level of bias.
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with a challenge system or counting unsuccessful appeals compared with tennis is that the tennis judgement is relatively objective. Appeals committees and director's decisions are too often subjective.
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure what you mean by “as opposed to”.

Isn't it a problem whatever rules are broken?
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is interesting in a discussion in and around the times of cheating scandals that the issue of drug taking comes up.

Its pretty much irrelevant what the drug policy is. What is relevant is that there is a drug policy. If you don't like it then you need to find a way to lobby to get it changed. In the past there have been changes made to the drug policy so that people who have been banned in the past or stripped of medals for certain drugs would be legitimate competitors under revised rules. If you want to compete and there is a drug policy then you need to comply with the rules otherwise you may be labelled a “drug cheat”.

Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even in that case the norm is a hearing to determine bail.
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In addition the WBF has issued guidance to all Zonal Authorities and National Bridge Organisations for the sanctions to be imposed for those who cheat.”

Anyone know where we can find these guidelines?

One of the unsavoury features of the current cheating scandals in my opinion is that people are deciding after the fact what the sanctions should be. Sure this should happen for precise penalties but there should be clear guidelines in advance of any determination against any players. Otherwise the process could be seen to be unfair.
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If you cue bid, and partner signed off, and then you bid RKKB, why didn't you initially just bid Blackwood, and not Q 4D?”

There are lots of reasons.

1. Maybe you considered the hand better if partner took control.

2. Maybe if partner can make another cue then you are interested in grand.

3. Maybe if partner can make another cue then you are interested in 6NT as opposed to 6suit.

I am sure I could come up with some more.
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In practice, rarely are penalties applied in UI situations. However I agree with Dan that they can be even with no adjustment. Moreover the laws seem to require them to be applied more often than they are when UI is used.

In my view if penalties were applied more consistently then players would be less likely to use UI.
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Obviously their agreement after 2/1 are different from anything I've ever seen.”

Isn't this at the core of the problem with any bidding poll. Everyone goes in with their own biases. When I have a system and style with my partner based on 1000s of hours of practice it is all but impossible to make a poll that conveys all of the information that we have as a partnership. Therefore especially in complex auctions the poll results may be close to meaningless.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is a video recorder I do not see any reason why there should not be a high quality audio recorder.

I have certainly been in a position where what was said at the table bore no resemblance to what the other pair argued when the director arrived.

In the modern age where what precisely was said or done could be crucial there is no excuse for not providing that information to be recorded.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Chris well said. This should however be so obvious as not to need being said in a forum. It should already be part of the appropriate operating manual.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I wrote the slow pass pn my scorecard and awaited dummy with interest.”

I read this with interest and wonder how many other people do this. I think in principle it is a good idea to make detailed notes about these sorts of things. And it is great with video evidence now to back up these timing issues. Personally in auctions where I am not so much involved I like to count out the length of hesitations so that I can say with reasonable accuracy that it was 30-40 sec or whatever. Of course there are times when I am thinking about possible actions for some of that time and I don't accurately get the information.

I do have a quibble though. And its not clear whether it applies. But if you write the note on your scorecard during the play I wonder whether you are technically breaching the laws by using a memory aid. Just the act of writing something down could help your memory later in the play.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“He must have considered bidding 4♦ as an alternative at that time - if he hadn't done that, it should mean that he wasn't worried about cue-bid heart already one round before (he knew that with A♦ and a figure in ♥ partner will always bid 4♦). ”

But maybe he did not factor in that he might do so slowly thus creating problems.
Oct. 8, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top