[dake50]

The revoke law deducts 1(2) tricks from revoker -- say N-S.
Now the non-offending E-W just gained 1/2 MP from other E-W.
Their tie becomes a win when the extra trick cannot be gotten by play.
This is inherently unfair to punish E-Ws that weren't there.
A fair penalty gets back to the pair involved in the infraction.
N-S get the adjusted score on this hand they played.
E-W get the counter score on this traveler if you will.
The penalty is assessed in the tally for N-S.
A 1 or more MP penalty against N-S.
Other penalties should be assessed this way also.
ONLY THE PAIR INVOLVED GETS PENALIZED. Recognize that rubber
penalties were meant for head-to-head. MP is not head-to-head.
It is Us: E-W 12 vs. those other E-W.
Another pet suggestion is a ding -- both ways if your table is late when a timed round is called. Two dings loses a MP. Progressive for more dings.

[barmar]

Matchpoints is inherently unfair in this regard. Every time a pair causes a "fix", all the other pairs in their direction get a penalty through no fault of their own.

If you bid a good slam in a strong field, and it goes down because of the lie of the cards, you get an average result because most other pairs also bid the slam. If you bid the same slam in a weak field, you get a poor score because many pairs will stop in game (and some not even there). Is it fair that you get a bad score because the other pairs don't know how to bid an odds-on slam?

[pran]

 barmar, on 2010-November-20, 02:29, said:

Matchpoints is inherently unfair in this regard. Every time a pair causes a "fix", all the other pairs in their direction get a penalty through no fault of their own.

If you bid a good slam in a strong field, and it goes down because of the lie of the cards, you get an average result because most other pairs also bid the slam. If you bid the same slam in a weak field, you get a poor score because many pairs will stop in game (and some not even there). Is it fair that you get a bad score because the other pairs don't know how to bid an odds-on slam?

This is MP characteristics.
It is not without reason that many players (including myself) consider teams of four to be the real bridge game.

[JoAnneM]

A normal ftf length game of 24-28 boards dilutes the skewed boards caused by revokes and wild scores. It is the 12-16 board online pair games that are so ridiculous, yet people don't want to commit the time to longer sets.

Did I read somewhere that some online directors throw out outlandishly high or low scores because they are deemed unfair? That I do not agree with.

[pran]

 JoAnneM, on 2010-November-21, 09:54, said:

Did I read somewhere that some online directors throw out outlandishly high or low scores because they are deemed unfair? That I do not agree with.

Can that at all be legal?

[blackshoe]

No.

There is an attitude of "screw the laws, it's online bridge" amongst some (many?) players and directors. I ran into it when I first started posting in the bridge base forums, before IBLF moved here. People would ask "what's the law?", I would tell them, and then I'd get told the above, or something like it. I've seen less of it lately; not sure why.

[Siegmund]

Quote

This is inherently unfair to punish E-Ws that weren't there.

Punish them?

N-S at this table played badly (blew an easy trick by revoking.) N-S at the other tables played better (knew how to follow suit.)
If your opponents play better, your score is worse, and vice versa. Nothing unfair about that.

Common to both teams and matchpoints is that you and your partner control only 25% of your own destiny. Your table opponents control another 25%; your teammates / the field sitting the opposite direction to you control 25%; and your teammates' table opponents / the field sitting the same direction as you control the last 25%. Teams has almost twice as much randomness in it as comparison against a large field does -- it's like being stuck playing a 2 1/2 table pairs game your whole life! -- but has the dubious advantage that you can tell exactly who to point a finger at when you don't like a result.

[mgoetze]

 Siegmund, on 2010-November-21, 19:36, said:

Common to both teams and matchpoints is that you and your partner control only 25% of your own destiny. Your table opponents control another 25%; your teammates / the field sitting the opposite direction to you control 25%; and your teammates' table opponents / the field sitting the same direction as you control the last 25%. Teams has almost twice as much randomness in it as comparison against a large field does -- it's like being stuck playing a 2 1/2 table pairs game your whole life! -- but has the dubious advantage that you can tell exactly who to point a finger at when you don't like a result.

That was a rather negative way to put it, I would say in team games you have more control over who controls another 25% of your result.

I'm not quite sure I agree with the 25% thing though. I daresay a strong pair playing in a weak MP game has more control than that. They can play a system which is very similar to the systems in the rest of the field to reduce variance. They can predict what will be going on at other tables and take risks or safe plays accordingly. They can dominate their opponents by playing aggressively.

I played in a very weak field with a strong partner yesterday. We were playing a 2♥ opening as at least 4-4 in majors, 5-10 points. In 28 boards, this got us one good result which would have been bad if the opps hadn't handed us an extra trick on a silver platter, and two absolute tops - 2♥-2 and 2♥x-1 when the rest of the room was in 3NT the other way, making. Now you could say that our opponents were determining 25% of those results by passing their 15 HCP balanced hands and the people sitting in our direction were determing 25% of the result by playing more mundane preempts. Or you could say we were controlling the result by playing an anti-field method which is very hard to handle for weak players...

[barmar]

Sure, you have lots of control when the cards give you the opportunity. And good players usually know how to make the opponents pay when they screw up. What's hard, though, is avoiding fixes. Good players know how to take inferences from opponents' bids and plays, but this generally assumes that they have what they're showing. With novice opponents, many of those assumptions go out the window. Haven't you ever misdefended because partner couldn't possibly hold a certain card, because declarer needed it to for his bid? Against expert opponents you might be misled because they psyched, but this is rare, and you congratulate them for deceiving you. Novices do it routinely just because they don't know any better. They don't deserve a good board, but they'll get it by accident, and as a result you get a bad one also by accident.

[mgoetze]

Admittedly I was a bit surprised recently when, having lead away from Kxxxx, partner played the Jack and declarer won the Ace, only to later produce the Queen... however it didn't cost.

[mjj29]

 barmar, on 2010-November-22, 20:35, said:

Sure, you have lots of control when the cards give you the opportunity. And good players usually know how to make the opponents pay when they screw up. What's hard, though, is avoiding fixes. Good players know how to take inferences from opponents' bids and plays, but this generally assumes that they have what they're showing. With novice opponents, many of those assumptions go out the window. Haven't you ever misdefended because partner couldn't possibly hold a certain card, because declarer needed it to for his bid? Against expert opponents you might be misled because they psyched, but this is rare, and you congratulate them for deceiving you. Novices do it routinely just because they don't know any better. They don't deserve a good board, but they'll get it by accident, and as a result you get a bad one also by accident.

Sometimes poor players will fail to bid an ice cold game and you'll get a good board. Sometimes they will fail to bid a game that only goes off because all the finesses are off, trumps are 4-1 and there's an opening side suit ruff in the short hand and you'll get a bad board. Sometimes they will mis-bid and go for 1100. Sometimes they will misbid and you'll concede an overtrick because you mis-counted the hand. This is called 'rub of the green'. Be content with getting good boards from them most of the time and drown your sorrows in the bar afterwards when you get occasionally get bad boards through no fault of your own.

[nigel_k]

It's true that matchpoints has the feature that a when a pair makes a mistake, this penalizes all the other pairs sitting in the opposite direction. Revokes are just one example.

However the revoke law is very rigid and does seem out of step with the other laws that focus on restoring equity. Very often the penalty for a revoke will be much greater than what us needed to restore equity. IMO this is the real problem so shouldn't be fixed with a split result.

[mgoetze]

 nigel_k, on 2010-November-23, 13:41, said:

However the revoke law is very rigid and does seem out of step with the other laws that focus on restoring equity.

No kidding. A mailing list I read actually just yesterday had the following question: "West is declarer, North leads the ♠K. East puts his cards on the table. South thinks partner is declarer and starts putting cards on the table, exposing 4 spades before proceedings are stopped and TD is called. What happens?" Well, it was quickly agreed that the 4 spades become major penalty cards, cueing discussion of all the great tactical options declarer now has and whether if declarer falsecards in spades it is UI to North for the prospect of additional penalties if North takes advantage of the UI etc. etc.

Obviously, noone was even thinking about "equity".

I may be a bit bitter on this subject as I am a victim of a contract not going down when the defense needed only one more trick (before the revoke) and held the ace of trumps...

[WellSpyder]

 mgoetze, on 2010-November-23, 14:30, said:

I may be a bit bitter on this subject as I am a victim of a contract not going down when the defense needed only one more trick (before the revoke) and held the ace of trumps...

You think that is unfair? I remember defending a contract that was already down by the time the revoke took place that made - because the defender revoked on the same trick that his partner had already won.

[nige1]

IMO: Penalties for infractions aren't "unfair". If opponents err, you stand to gain. It is fair that you gain when opponents misbid or misplay or commit an infraction.

• At pairs, your rivals sitting the same way at other tables, lose a little.
• At teams, your opponents in the other room, lose a lot.

Although they may have played faultlessly, they all lose and you gain, when your opponents err. That is the nature of duplicate-bridge and the whole point of the game.

The problem is that bridge-rules don't punish infractions harshly enough.

• Few players understand the law. When they notice an infraction, they may not recognise it as such.
• Players don't report suspected infractions. After a session, you hear players complain about opponents' alleged infractions. "What was the ruling?" you ask. They admit "We couldn't be bothered with the hassle of calling a director. We were playing badly and out of contention".
• A player may not report an infraction because he subsequently did something that he fears the director will judge to be a serious error and deprive him of redress: so calling the director would add insult to injury.
• Even top directors aren't omniscient so they don't rule against all infractions.

Hence "Equity" laws (that are intended to restore the status quo) reward law-breakers. For example, a declarer who revokes against inexperienced opponents to make his contract, will show a long term profit.

In theory, the law's disciplinary/procedural penalties might combat this, but in practice, they don't seem to work.

Hence, for most infractions, including revokes, there should be more stringent penalties built into the ordinary rules:

• They would increase the incentive for victims to report infractions.
• They would reduce the incentive to law-breakers.
• At a sufficient level, they might even deter infractions.

[dake50]

Barmar,
A rule that "fixes" our E-W pair that was not at the table of the revoke.
Not cardplay but rule infraction ruins the hand-to-hand comparison.
Thus the matchpoints do not reflect how many out pair beat/tied.
The infraction should punish N-S in the overall.
No play may be the adjusted this hand to be fair to other N-S/E-W.

[mgoetze]

 nige1, on 2010-November-24, 10:57, said:

IMO: Penalties for infractions aren't "unfair". When opponents err, you stand to gain. It is fair that you gain if opponents misbid or misplay or commit an infraction.

• At pairs, your rivals sitting the same way at other tables, lose.
• At teams, your opponents in the other room lose. .

Although they may have played faultlessly, they all lose and you gain, when your opponents err. That is the nature of duplicate-bridge and the whole point of the game.

The point of the game is to get less points than another pair just because their opponents revoked and yours didn't? Sheesh Nigel... if you can't win without your opponents making silly mistakes then take it like a man, don't try to tell us bridge should be like playing in the lottery.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2010-November-24, 10:57, said:

The problem is that bridge-rules don't punish infractions harshly enough.

This is a feature, not a bug.

As I pointed out on the Bridge Laws forums, the legal structure is intended to restore equity.
"Punishing the wicked" is not a design goal of the existing system.

Quote

Hence "Equity" laws (that are intended to restore the status quo) reward law-breakers.
For example, a declarer who revokes against inexperienced opponents to make his contract, will show a long term profit.

You are mixing apples and oranges...

The revoke rules are intended to deal with mechanical errors.
The case that you are describing is covered by the regulations regarding "cheating".

If you feel that a player is deliberately revoking please feel free to

Call the director
Explain that your opponent is a cheat
And then prove it

[nige1]

 mgoetze, on 2010-November-24, 11:59, said:

The point of the game is to get less points than another pair just because their opponents revoked and yours didn't? Sheesh Nigel... if you can't win without your opponents making silly mistakes then take it like a man, don't try to tell us bridge should be like playing in the lottery.

IMO Bridge is a game of mistakes. Usually....

• We don't win unless opponents make lots of silly mistakes.
• When we average less than two silly mistakes of our own per board, we win.

[nige1]

 nige1, on 2010-November-24, 10:57, said:

[snip]The problem is that bridge-rules don't punish infractions harshly enough.
[snip]Hence "Equity" laws (that are intended to restore the status quo) reward law-breakers. For example, a declarer who revokes against inexperienced opponents to make his contract, will show a long term profit.[snip]

 hrothgar, on 2010-November-24, 12:13, said:

This is a feature, not a bug. As I pointed out on the Bridge Laws forums, the legal structure is intended to restore equity.
"Punishing the wicked" is not a design goal of the existing system. You are mixing apples and oranges. The revoke rules are intended to deal with mechanical errors. The case that you are describing is covered by the regulations regarding "cheating". If you feel that a player is deliberately revoking please feel free to
Call the director
Explain that your opponent is a cheat
And then prove it

Sorry, I don't know any cheats. I feel that most opponents who habitually break bridge-laws do so through

• Ignorance or misunderstanding of the law.
• Carelessness ("Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive officiously to keep alive")
• Rationalisation (Disclosure-failure and UI-use are probably the most common infractions. In the latter case, many players think they are making the bid they would make without the hesitation -- following the advice in the ACBL club directors handbook).

I hope Brothgar would be wrong to brand such people as cheats. Anyway, "Equity" law won't encourage them to change their habits. Brothgar may believe that is not among its aims.