[shevek]

Here's a common one.
The players concerned are among the better ones at our club but that is not saying much.

There is an auction involving a break in tempo.
Say South gives UI and North acts.
EW call you when North acts and you direct the auction to proceed, saying
"Call me back if you think you may have been damaged"

So they bid and play out the hand in North's contract of 4S for 2 off.
You look at the hand record and see that EW could have made 4H and - in your opinion - North does not have a clear bid of 4S.
At the end of the play, you walk casually past the table but they have simply entered the score and gone onto the next board.
Do you do anything?

One view is that players who know enough to call the director over a BIT should be able to work out who could make what. And if they can't, they can ask you to work it out.

Is that right, or should the director be more proactive?

[weejonnie]

Isn't there a law that says that the director must correct any irregularity no matter how he finds it out?

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-March-08, 04:56, said:

Isn't there a law that says that the director must correct any irregularity no matter how he finds it out?

Apparently the Director was not called (again) because no players found themselves damaged, and the result was agreeed upon.

So there is no irregularity for the Director to handle beyond what he has already done.

[ggwhiz]

If the Director knows the players as in an A pair against a C pair they should probably say I WILL be back rather than call me back.

Otherwise, don't go back.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2017-March-08, 07:39, said:

Apparently the Director was not called (again) because no players found themselves damaged, and the result was agreeed upon.

So there is no irregularity for the Director to handle beyond what he has already done.

The director found out that a pair had been damaged through an infraction of law 16B when he looked at the hands - that IMHO is sufficient reason. Just because you don't think you have been damaged does not mean that the damage does not exist.

[mycroft]

"Call me back if you believe you have been damaged" does not absolve the TD from responsibility to investigate.

For one thing, players have no clue. We have several threads running currently about players not understanding UI, or judgment rulings in general.

For another, there's always (barring screens) a UI case whenever there's MI (and frequently vice versa), and the players tend to be blind to that, concerned only about "they told me something and it's wrong!"

If you have hand records, you don't even have to rely on the players to show you the hands after. You walk away and look at the hand; if it triggers *your* senses, you investigate.

Of course, it might not trigger your senses, because you don't understand the issue; that's where the players calling you back because they *do* understand the issue (some weirdie in their system that is triggered by the MI that you've never played; the world is different in Flight A; the world is different in Flight D, ...) comes in.

The canard that "if you could actually *play* you wouldn't be directing" is just that - but the roots of it are in this issue. I don't understand (without explanations) the mind-workings of a Bobby Levin - that's why I lost by 160 IMPs over 64 boards to him. Having said that, I *also* don't understand (without reminders) the mind-workings of Ms. Life Novice over there, who averages 43% in the protected game she plays in. That's okay, neither of them are required to understand the definition of Logical Alternative, or the fact that while you weren't damaged by their explanation, their partner clearly used the information that *their partner* didn't understand their call to guide the auction in a safe way. But you, the TD, are, and it's not fair for you to not apply that understanding, when apprised of the situation.

Also, there's room for education. Say you investigate, but looking at the hands you realize that 4♠ was clearly suggested by the UI, and pass of 4♥ is logical. But they play as well as they bid, and their +620 is a -100, and 4♥ was going down even with these defenders. The players aren't going to call you back - they know they just got a gift - but if it just drops on the floor, how are the offenders going to know what they did, or why the obnoxious A players yelled for the director to rattle them (obviously, that's not what happened...) If you as the TD don't investigate, you don't get to go back to them and explain that the ruling is "score stands, but if you had made it, we would have to disallow the 4♠ call and adjust back to 4♥-1. Here's why..."

For the sake of the game, this is important - remember, all these people who don't understand why the TD was called here, especially when there "wasn't a problem", also don't notice when *their* opponents pull the same stunts (and get better scores as a result). So they don't call the TD and get their protection. So *their* opponents can't see the issue, and get taken advantage of in turn...

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-March-08, 08:54, said:

The director found out that a pair had been damaged through an infraction of law 16B when he looked at the hands - that IMHO is sufficient reason. Just because you don't think you have been damaged does not mean that the damage does not exist.

What did the Director really know about the auction after he (hopefully) instructed North to avoid using possible UI from the BIT by South?
What did the Director really know about the play?

How could he feel sure that there was an infraction that indeed had damaged East/West?

[barmar]

shevek, on 2017-March-08, 00:38, said:

You look at the hand record and see that EW could have made 4H and - in your opinion - North does not have a clear bid of 4S.

Just because they could have made 4♥ doesn't mean they would have made it. But if you think it's likely they would have, I think should rule that they were damaged. They don't have to call you back, you can do this on your own. I don't think there's anything in the Laws that requires the players to determine whether they were damaged, that's the TD's job, but TDs tend to take the easy way out on this.

And if you're not totally sure whether or not they would have made 4♥, you can award weighted scores. E.g. if it's on a 50/50 guess, give them half of 4♥ making and half of 4♥ going down, assuming this is still better than their score for setting 4♠.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-March-08, 12:20, said:

Just because they could have made 4♥ doesn't mean they would have made it. But if you think it's likely they would have, I think should rule that they were damaged. They don't have to call you back, you can do this on your own. I don't think there's anything in the Laws that requires the players to determine whether they were damaged, that's the TD's job, but TDs tend to take the easy way out on this.

And if you're not totally sure whether or not they would have made 4♥, you can award weighted scores. E.g. if it's on a 50/50 guess, give them half of 4♥ making and half of 4♥ going down, assuming this is still better than their score for setting 4♠.

There is nothing in the Laws that requires (or even suggests) the Director to perform a follow up investigation on the outcome of every (trivial) ruling he has made during an event, particularly not when he has adviced the players to call him again if they feel a need for it and no such call was made.

In this particular case (as it is presented) we don't even know if the 4♠ contract was reached because of the BIT or in spite of the BIT. South is for instance not barred by his own BIT from eventually bidding 4♠ over a 4♥ bid by East or West.

[jeffford76]

shevek, on 2017-March-08, 00:38, said:

Here's a common one.
The players concerned are among the better ones at our club but that is not saying much.

There is an auction involving a break in tempo.
Say South gives UI and North acts.
EW call you when North acts and you direct the auction to proceed, saying
"Call me back if you think you may have been damaged"

This is one of my pet peeves. Why do directors say "call me back" in UI cases? They've already called you. It's your job now to make a ruling, not to hope that it goes away without you having to bother. (To be clear, generic "you", not trying to castigate shevek.)

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2017-March-08, 17:38, said:

This is one of my pet peeves. Why do directors say "call me back" in UI cases? They've already called you. It's your job now to make a ruling, not to hope that it goes away without you having to bother. (To be clear, generic "you", not trying to castigate shevek.)

What would you suggest the director do?

[nige1]

As far as policing goes, Bridge is an unusual game. Law-makers encourage an unfortunate culture among directors of avoiding the enforcement of rules:

• Kibitzers aren't allowed to report infractions to the director.
• When called, some directors won't redress damage unless the victims explicitly point it out (as here).
• In their spare time, directors won't patrol the playing area, looking for irregularities. Even when there is an altercation at a table, some directors will try not to intervene. Directors have a bizarre excuse for this kind of behaviour They explain that they can't monitor all tables simultaneously. If they observed infractions, when actively looking for them, it would be unfair to penalise particular law-breakers, when law-breakers at all other tables were escaping sanction. The 3-wise monkeys would fit in as Bridge TDs but might be less welcome as policemen or referees of other games.

IMO, the laws should be changed to encourage directors to be more pro-active. If the laws were actively enforced, then players would become more careful about learning them and complying with them. Law-breaking would be less profitable. Victims would be better protected.

[mycroft]

jeffford76, on 2017-March-08, 17:38, said:

This is one of my pet peeves. Why do directors say "call me back" in UI cases? They've already called you. It's your job now to make a ruling, not to hope that it goes away without you having to bother. (To be clear, generic "you", not trying to castigate shevek.)

Vampyr, on 2017-March-08, 19:43, said:

What would you suggest the director do?

mycroft, on 2017-March-08, 10:44, said:

If you have hand records, you don't even have to rely on the players to show you the hands after. You walk away and look at the hand; if it triggers *your* senses, you investigate.

Of course, it might not trigger your senses, because you don't understand the issue; that's where the players calling you back because they *do* understand the issue (some weirdie in their system that is triggered by the MI that you've never played; the world is different in Flight A; the world is different in Flight D, ...) comes in.

I reiterate - frequently the players *don't even know how* they've been damaged. They call on the MI - and the MI didn't damage them at all. But the person who made the misdescribed call clearly made a call after that catered to partner's "forget", but the players don't see it, never mind know that it's an issue. "They don't think they're damaged, I'll just go back to my reading?"

I find it intriguing that both of Vampyr's ideas are explicitly at the expense of the newer players. They're required to be able to explain their system perfectly, and if they make a mistake, the opponents are entitled to believe them straight up even though they know what's happening. However, if the experienced opponents make such a mistake (much more subtle, of course, or mixing up two conventions the C players have never heard of), and catered to their partner's forget ('I'm sorry, of course you just "bid what you always would", what I mean is "failed to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI" ') to land on their feet; then they get away with it because the newer players are too inexperienced or Law-aware to know they'd been hoodwinked.

Now, I would be content in a world where knowledge of the Laws was, in fact, considered a bridge skill, and if you didn't know you're being taken, you get the same bad score you would get if you didn't know how to break up the squeeze. But that's not the way the Laws are written.

And that's why

Quote

"Call me back if you believe you have been damaged" does not absolve the TD from responsibility to investigate.

[mycroft]

I will freely admit that I share the frustration of JeffFord and others; in the "2♥ 'transfer to spades'" case I described earlier, when I did call the TD back at the end, he expected me to explain how I was damaged. Since my explanation was "he said 'pick a major', she did, and he corrected with a nothing 4=5 hand. Of course, his partner telling him that she thought he just had spades wouldn't have *anything* to do with that, would it?" - I mean, such a clear case of use of UI that it would be example 2 on my list if I was doing new TD training, and *I* have to explain it to someone working a (weak side event at the) Nationals?

My problem is, that with a majority of the B game in my area (and I don't think we're unusual) believing that the proper response to p-1♠; 2♣-2♠ is a raise - possibly to game - if Drury wasn't Alerted, *because partner forgot, and you have to wake them up* (seriously, I've had at least 4 conversations where the whole table thought this!), TDs that rely on "if you think you have been damaged" are clearly derelict.

But we do have to have them call the TD back, even with hand records and full descriptions; because even if they are good enough (or bad enough) to understand the inferences available at the table, they can't know the vagaries of system that would mean that *this pair* was damaged, even if no others would be.

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2017-March-08, 17:38, said:

This is one of my pet peeves. Why do directors say "call me back" in UI cases? They've already called you. It's your job now to make a ruling, not to hope that it goes away without you having to bother. (To be clear, generic "you", not trying to castigate shevek.)

There's no way to know if there's damage until a result is produced, so you can compare it to the result that would be expected without the infraction.

16B3 says:

Quote

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends*.

So the players are supposd to make the initial assessment of whether they think an opponent took advantage of the UI.

There's no such language in the Laws on MI, though. When a player thinks their partner gave an incorrect explanation, they're supposed to call the TD (the appropriate time depends on whether they're the declaring or defending side) and the TD is required to make a ruling about damage. But this will always start with asking the NOS whether they would have done anything differently with correct information; if they know they'll say no, there's not much point in calling the TD back.

[blackshoe]

FWIW, my practice is to say "call me back after the play is over". Period. None of this "if you think you've been damaged" nonsense.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-11, 15:08, said:

FWIW, my practice is to say "call me back after the play is over". Period. None of this "if you think you've been damaged" nonsense.

I've tried this - they still don't call me back

[blackshoe]

"Nobody moves until I deal with table seven, who failed to follow my instructions."

I know, I know. Way too un-PC.