[bluejak]

ahydra, on Aug 24 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

@bluejak: While I respect your status, could you please provide an argument that shows how my suggestion makes life better for cheats? It's only a vague attempt anyway and will no doubt need much refining.

Quote

You want to allow bids suggested by UI

This isn't true. I'm only allowing bids suggested by AI and bridge logic. And the logic has to be good enough that a high proportion of other players of the same calibre would agree with it (I figured 60% would be a bit low actually, perhaps we should start with the 80% mjj29 mentioned).

If that had been what you were suggesting then there would be no problem whatever: the current Law is what you want. However, you do want to allow bids suggested by UI, just that they are suggested by other things. Of course!

The moment you increase the percentage considerably you will give an advantage to people who either use UI unintentionally or intentionally. Suppose 60% would make a bid, 40% would pass. It is clearly a close run thing, and in the general way of things you will back your judgement, and you might bid: you might pass.

Now suppose partner hesitates and the chance of pass being correct is considerably reduced. The cheats will always bid now, because they take advantage of UI. A lot of people will bid because they do not understand UI Laws. And the ethical players will lose out because they will pass.

ahydra, on Aug 24 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

Have the L&E people at some point in the past considered two-way scores for UI situations (that is, one score for NS and a different one for EW)? This would help against the "shield" thing I mentioned where the opps didn't have to try very hard to defend 3C correctly (not saying this is what happened) since they were confident it would be adjusted. Nor did they consider that 3H would make. So what about assigning -140 for us (disallow the 3C bid because of the UI, since the laws say you have to - score reset to 2H+1 NS) and -110 for them (you had options to do better in defending/by bidding over 3C but failed to take them)?

Laws are decided by the WBFLC not the EBU L&EC. The WBFLC have come up with Law 12C1B which is the amount they are prepared to go.

To be honest, I think you are on another planet. RHO hesitates then passes, LHO bids: for me not to do my best in defence is completely crazy. LHO may have his bid, often does, and I am trying for an unnecessary bad score by not defending well. Even if LHO's bid is dubious, rulings do not always go in my favour.

[mjj29]

ahydra, on Aug 24 2010, 07:10 AM, said:

The hand is fixed - so if 3C goes +110 or -800, it was always going to be that way. Since we're only looking at this one hand, if I make a judgement (based on AI and bridge reasoning alone, not the UI) it's a gamble worth taking then whether there's UI or not hasn't changed the eventual outcome. I'm not allowed to let it affect what I think the odds are, and that's why I'm suggesting a test of "needs solid bridge reasons".

You're right on the money that "I'm not allowed to let it affect what I think the odds are", but the point is, it will do so, whether you conciously think about it or not. And, more importantly, because the directors can't tell whether it did or not, they have to err on the side of caution

Quote

Have the L&E people at some point in the past considered two-way scores for UI situations (that is, one score for NS and a different one for EW)? This would help against the "shield" thing I mentioned where the opps didn't have to try very hard to defend 3C correctly (not saying this is what happened) since they were confident it would be adjusted. Nor did they consider that 3H would make. So what about assigning -140 for us (disallow the 3C bid because of the UI, since the laws say you have to - score reset to 2H+1 NS) and -110 for them (you had options to do better in defending/by bidding over 3C but failed to take them)?

The law books allow for the following in terms of assigning scores:
- a single score for both sides (what happenned here)
- where it is unclear what would happen without the irregularity, a weighted combination of scores (outside of the ACBL) - so if the director isn't confident that 2H would always make 9 tricks he can and should weight between the various options (this weighting is done after matchpointing).
- where the non-offending side has contributed to their bad score by failing to play bridge or taking a silly gamble, hoping for an adjusted score, they can be denied some or all of the redress (the difference between 3C= and 3C-1, for example). This would not affect the score given to the offenders.
- where the second point does apply (ie the ACBL) then one score for the offenders and one score for the non-offenders can be used.

Here, it seems, the director judged that 2H would always make 9 tricks and the defence wasn't so bad as to deny the other side any of the adjustment. If you disagree in that assessment, that's always something you can appeal (which the director should have told you).

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

ahydra, on Aug 23 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

I'm guessing the UI rules have been around a while? But that and the fact that it may benefit cheaters shouldn't stop us trying to improve them. If after drafting something we look at it and find it exploitable by cheaters, we go back to the drawing board.

My attempt at the angle to come at it from would be to look at whether the bid made is a "logical possibility" rather than "whether there are LAs". So you take all the AI available to the player at the time, plus what kind of level of player he and his partner are, and ask the player why he acted the way he did. You then ask a few people whether they agree that the reasons given are sound bridge arguments taking into account the information at hand, and if the general consensus is that they're fine then you allow the bid. If say 50-60%+ disagree then you adjust. (And of course if UI is given as a reason at any point, you adjust. )

What you are suggesting is rules to make life better for cheats. If there are two possibilities, currently you are allowed the one not suggested by th UI. But you want to allow bids suggested by UI if they are reasonable, allowing cheats to take advantage of UI. Sure, better Laws are better, but you are suggesting making the Laws worse so as to encourage people to take advantage of UI.

ahydra, on Aug 23 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

The UI laws are a particularly nasty example when it comes to "make a mistake and opps get better results" as this outcome is pretty much guaranteed in these close cases. For example, it's a more gross error, IMO, to make an insufficient bid - but even with partner barred the rest of the auction, one can blast a game or slam as the final contract, get lucky and make it, and there's nothing the opponents can do.

Not at all. Ethical players do all right, less than ethical players get ruled against. Sounds a good approach to me. Sure, people who are ethical but misjudge lose out - so what? We all lose out when we misjudge hands!

This whole area absolutely stinks.

Appeals committees never believe you play what you do in the style you do.

I can more or less guarantee that with one of my partners if he had the glimmer of a raise he'd have done it in tempo, so he was thinking about doubling, whether this indicates 3♣ is another question. The other partner I play with more often is probably thinking 90% raise 10% double. I know this, but an appeals committee will deem it self serving if I say so.

The ferocity of penalising people has simply led to nobody admitting hesitations, including a pair of internationals who hesitated for 30 seconds (I had a clock on it) then claimed to have been perfectly in tempo.

The dedicated cheat will of course turn up at an appeals committee with a system file supporting whatever it needs to support, and they'll never see the 3 other copies of that page of the system file he has back in his room.

I had a case where partner had a 100% automatic bid, and one that he'd make a good king weaker thn the hand he actually held, and all we were told was "no, you don't actually play that system, he was trying a 2 way shot of some sort". This was a good/bad type bid where if good it promised another bid, and we play the threshold for good lower than most people.

[NickRW]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 24 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

This whole area absolutely stinks.

I have to say I completely agree. I understand the UI laws, I understand why they exist. But they are a thoroughly miserable experience and while I see the logic of why they are "fair", they do not feel like it. I can't think how to rewrite them - but I wish they did not have the effect that they do.

Nick

[StevenG]

NickRW, on Aug 24 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

I have to say I completely agree.  I understand the UI laws, I understand why they exist.  But they are a thoroughly miserable experience and while I see the logic of why they are "fair", they do not feel like it.  I can't think how to rewrite them - but I wish they did not have the effect that they do.

Change

Quote

the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information

to "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested over another by the extraneous information" for a start.

[NickRW]

StevenG, on Aug 24 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

Change

Quote

the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information

to "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested over another by the extraneous information" for a start.

Sounds good to me. No doubt we shall now be treated to a long list of things about how such an idea is the most awful thing in the whole of christendom.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 24 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

The ferocity of penalising people has simply led to nobody admitting hesitations, including a pair of internationals who hesitated for 30 seconds (I had a clock on it) then claimed to have been perfectly in tempo.

This is total rubbish. Lots of players admit hesitations. In my experience far more do than do not. And why should not they? Most people in the groups in which I play do not want to gain unfairly.

NickRW, on Aug 24 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

Sounds good to me.  No doubt we shall now be treated to a long list of things about how such an idea is the most awful thing in the whole of christendom.

Oh? Why?

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Aug 24 2010, 11:09 PM, said:

NickRW, on Aug 24 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

Sounds good to me.  No doubt we shall now be treated to a long list of things about how such an idea is the most awful thing in the whole of christendom.

Oh? Why?

Because that is the sort of reaction I usually get.

Nick

[bluejak]

The reaction you get depends on what you say. If you say something that there are several objections to, you get a list of objections. In this case, you are suggesting a small change in wording. If you read some of my other posts you will see that while I approve in general of the UI approach, some change in wording may be desirable.

[NickRW]

Well, fair enough. I suppose the current thing with the laws in general is that the TD should tend to err on the side of the non offending side in situations of doubt - but the UI laws seem to go one step further in effectively assuming guilt. It doesn't say that in so many words - and perhaps that isn't the intention - but it seems to be upshot anyhow - certainly that is how inexperienced players often react. We need some way of reigning that in ever so slightly.

Nick

[ahydra]

NickRW, on Aug 25 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

Well, fair enough. I suppose the current thing with the laws in general is that the TD should tend to err on the side of the non offending side in situations of doubt - but the UI laws seem to go one step further in effectively assuming guilt. It doesn't say that in so many words - and perhaps that isn't the intention - but it seems to be upshot anyhow - certainly that is how inexperienced players often react. We need some way of reigning that in ever so slightly.

Nick

Yes, this is the main problem I was getting at in the OP (admittedly slightly over-dramaticised due to my being misinformed/misguided about the laws from past experiences). When you've got UI and AI pointing the same way, but other possibilities too, you're not allowed to pick the one that UI suggests even if you've got very good reasons for doing so.

The change suggested above is a good start but I guess will make little practical difference?

@mjj29: I was informed by Jeff that "the play in 3C doesn't matter as supposedly we're playing in 2H [since the 3C bid was disallowed]". If I was a TD I imagine I wouldn't class the defence to 3C as a SEWoG or whatever, but should the directors have at least looked at the table result? Or was it that in this case the difference is so negligible - suppose the opps had (badly) misdefended 4S with no contract on their way, I imagine it'd be an entirely different kettle of fish?

ahydra

[mjj29]

ahydra, on Aug 26 2010, 04:15 AM, said:

@mjj29: I was informed by Jeff that "the play in 3C doesn't matter as supposedly we're playing in 2H [since the 3C bid was disallowed]". If I was a TD I imagine I wouldn't class the defence to 3C as a SEWoG or whatever, but should the directors have at least looked at the table result? Or was it that in this case the difference is so negligible - suppose the opps had (badly) misdefended 4S with no contract on their way, I imagine it'd be an entirely different kettle of fish?

The table result might matter in three situations:
- if it's better for the NOS than the adjustment (after weighting), table result stands
- if the NOS have commited a SEWoG action, then they may keep all or part of the table result
- if the contract could have been reached via another auction that does not involve the call which is being disallowed.

In this case none of those seem to be true, but there are cases where it might be.

[Free]

ahydra, on Aug 23 2010, 05:15 AM, said:

What I'm proposing is that the law be changed to not look at logical alternatives but whether the action chosen is a logical possibility based on the AI factors available to the player at the time.

~snip~

But surely the law should be written in an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of way, and take into account the factors above. So (broadly speaking) if the bidder can justify his bid after the hesitation, it should be allowed; and if it's a gamble that pays off, the result should stand.

I disagree that the law should be written in an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of way. There's no point in taking every decision to a judge to decide if the player was allowed to do what he did. It's pretty much impossible to prove anything at the bridge table.

At the moment you could say it's written in a "reasonable doubt" kind of way, which is imo pretty perfect.

Your partner didn't pass immediately. Yes, he could be thinking about some fishing trip or whatever. But what are the chances? Most of the time he's just thinking about the hand. So there's reasonable doubt that he has some values, which creates possible UI. This doubt is later verified by the fact that he holds 4♠s, ♣ support, and 5HCP. If partner had a 3-4-3-3 with 0HCP there wouldn't be a problem since the reasonable doubt (and UI) is considered invalid.
Now it's your turn. There's possible UI in play. If you had ♣AKQxxxx and out, nobody would mind you bidding 3♣ because your action can't possibly be influenced by partner's hesitation. However, if you have a crappy 6 card suit you might have taken advantage of the UI. Nobody says you did, nobody can prove this, you also can't prove you didn't,... but the possibility exists.

Also, look at it from another perspective. What if we'd follow your advice and only punish people if they're proven guilty. There would be tons of cheating accusations, false and correct ones. But since nothing can be proven, nobody would be punished and nobody would like to play against nobody since we think they cheat. Would you really like that?

Imo you use lots of arguments that are irrelevant.

1. A hesitation doesn't necessarily imply anything at all.
True, but most of the time it does. Partner seems to have something to think about, so he either has values or some shape. If you look at the hands later on, and there's no reason to hesitate, then there also isn't any UI and your bid would be accepted. But if he has a reason to hesitate, it's considered UI.

2. An LA for one person isn't necessarily an LA for another.
True, and that's taken into account. Btw, you claim that poll sizes are too small. The more people you include in your poll, the more chance you get that pass is considered a LA. Strictly speaking, you only need 1 poll member to say "pass is a LA" to change the score.

3. Lots of factors, all AI, are overlooked.
This is not true. If you can make a good case with valid arguments to prove you didn't use/need UI to come to your decision, then there won't be an issue. Table feel however isn't something you can prove, so you can hardly expect anyone to believe in your supernatural powers. It's your job to eliminate the "reasonable doubt", not everyone's job to prove you used UI. Again, if you had ♣AKQxxxx there wouldn't be any problem.

4. Opponents get a "shield" against bad results.
If there's reasonable doubt that UI has been used, then there are basically 2 situations:
- the offenders get a good result: the auction would change back and the UI will not be used this time. Opps will likely get a better result.
- the offenders get a poor result: this is considered their penalty for taking advantage of UI. Hope they learn next time. If they haven't used UI, then they've made a poor gamble, so why would anyone need to change that?

5. Bridge is a mind sport - thinking is a part of the game.
True. But thinking implies we have a reason to think. It would be great if we were all able to bend space and time so we can think all we want and nobody would notice any change in tempo. Perhaps this is the future for bridge?

6. Gambling is a part of bridge too - and you should always be allowed to play bridge.
Bridge can be seen as a gambling game from time to time, but you don't gamble on every hand. Just accept that if partner creates possible UI, your gambles won't be successful for sure. So save your gambling for another deal.

[ahydra]

@Free: You need to rewrite your post slightly as if there's reasonable doubt I used the UI then it should be ruled as if I hadn't I know what you mean though.

Don't forget that if opps didn't bid game partner must have something - this is Brighton we're talking about, not a club game. Our opps might not have been experts but they weren't going to miss even the fairly dodgy games.

I don't understand the bit about "if we only punish people if they're proven guilty, there'll be tons of cheating accusations". That'd be pretty BM for a start, and the directors can always hand out PPs/DPs to those who make repeated flimsy accusations if things really did get that bad.

I gave 4 arguments which formed the basis of my decision to bid 3♣ at the table and would have been happy to tell the director about these if he had asked. He didn't ask, so is the only way I can try to eliminate the "reasonable doubt" to appeal? I'm not happy to risk a sum of money to have a bunch of people not believe what I'm saying (see Cyberyeti's post).

And you do gamble on every hand - eg when you open 1NT (12-14) you're trusting partner to not have a balanced 0-7 count, and when you open 3x you're hoping partner has the two or three missing tricks, and when you lead Q from QJ you're hoping partner has the K or 10, etc. (Of course, this never happens and dummy always has K10 and declarer the ace ) Most gambles are pretty safe, eg if you bid game with a combined 27count it's almost certainly going to make. But it's still a gamble. [Even apparently cold grands are still a gamble partner bid correctly ]

---

To whoever it was who mentioned people hiding various copies of system files in order to pick the one that supports their argument: aren't players required to register their system files before start of play at major events these days? If not, that may be worth consideration.

TBH I'm getting tired of defending my not-very-well-written-to-start-with post and putting similar arguments across several times over. Perhaps this thread should be closed and another spawned from it dedicated purely to discussing possible ways to improve the UI laws. Anyone who can come up with a new, better method for handling UI will probably be famous for years to come in the laws and ethics world, so let's get to it!

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

To whoever it was who mentioned people hiding various copies of system files in order to pick the one that supports their argument: aren't players required to register their system files before start of play at major events these days? If not, that may be worth consideration.

This may happen in really top flight events precisely to prevent this, but never in anything I've played in.

I was suggesting it as what you would do if you wished to cheat, rather than as a serious suggestion, and as a reason the current laws get the innocent and don't get the really guilty.

[blackshoe]

It is true the "really guilty", what few there are, don't necessarily get caught the first few times they try something, but eventually, they always will. Why? Because they get greedy, or complacent, or arrogant, or all three. They push the envelope, and sooner or later, their shenanigans get noticed. Then the hammer falls.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on Aug 27 2010, 12:04 PM, said:

It is true the "really guilty", what few there are, don't necessarily get caught the first few times they try something, but eventually, they always will. Why? Because they get greedy, or complacent, or arrogant, or all three. They push the envelope, and sooner or later, their shenanigans get noticed. Then the hammer falls.

Maybe it just doesn't get publicised, but I only know of one player in the UK that got done for flat out cheating in the last few years.

He had a hand that he introduced into swiss teams congresses where you deal your own boards, which required a really deep safety play to make 4♠ IIRC.

[peachy]

ahydra, on Aug 24 2010, 07:10 AM, said:

Yes, UI isn't part of the game. Hence why we should ask the player for his reasoning behind the bid, and look at that together with AI. If any UI is given as a reason for his action then we adjust (and probably issue PPs). If the reasoning isn't sound, we know he's hiding the fact he used UI also and we adjust.

ahydra was answering jdonn and wrote the above.

If I understand correctly what ahydra is saying, someone who answers TD's question "What was your reason for bidding 3C?" in something like "I bid that because partner nearly put his hand in the bidding box, then thought a long time, and then passed, so I knew he was thinking of bidding" gets both an adjustment and a PP issued. In contrast to someone who gives poor reasoning for the bid who only gets an adjustment; the reason for the giving of poor reasoning being that he knows using UI is illegal and therefore did not want to admit that he used UI.

Gimme a break...

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the honest player who does not know the laws should get a PP while the dishonest player who has learned enough about laws to know that his own interests are best served if he denies having used UI, should _not_ be given a PP.

I am satisfied with the way UI laws are written in general and that the law treats everyone equally. Or at least that is the intent, of that I am absolutely certain. Nobody needs to be accused of hiding behind anything. Ignorance of the UI laws is not an excuse from adjustment but it certainly is not a reason for PP either.

[RMB1]

It was several hands, all requiring tricksy play (some taken from Ottik&Kelsey), and it was in several events. The offender has recently completed his 10 year ban and is playing national level bridge.

There have been two players convicted of altering travellers and given suspensions.

[bluejak]

There have been a few other cases in England over the years [the one referred to was in Wales]. Someone cheated in a friendly match between two clubs: so impressed with everyone when he bid and made a grand on 23 points with a hand he had brought that he went into the toilet at half-time and constructed a 22 point grand for the second half!