[Vampyr]

I agree with everything you say above, Nigel, except for the following:

nige1, on Sep 24 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

For example, the laws should include default rules on bidding boxes, screens, alerting, and so on. These rules would suffice for most legislatures and further level the playing-field.

There already exist default regulations, in the form of WBF General Conditions of Contest. It is better this way, because the regulations are more mutable and can adapt to new technology or be altered when a particular practice is recognised as better than the one already in the regulations.

Also, it is much better if the Laws are regarded as absolute, rather than containing "default" rules with optional compliance.

[axman]

[quote name='nige1' date='Sep 24 2009, 09:49 AM'] QUOTE=Introduction to the Laws,2007]They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director.[/QUOTE]The first aim seems to define "equity" as restorting the status quo". By and large, the laws achieve this aim. [/quote]
Presumably, status quo refers to putting the situation to that of pre irregularity. 2008TFLB is a long, long, long way from restoring the status quo.

[nige1]

LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE, on 2007,Introduction, said:

They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director.

nige1, on Sep 24 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

The first aim seems to define "equity" as restorting the status quo". By and large, the laws achieve this aim.

axman, on Sep 24 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

Presumably, status quo refers to putting the situation to that of pre irregularity.  2008 TFLB is a long, long, long way from restoring the status quo.

IMO, L.12.C.1.e has an element of deterrence. The 2007 Law-makers, however, prefer and recommend L.12.C.1.c. I believe it is an attempt to restore the status quo. I agree with Axman, however, that, as commonly applied, it usually falls short of that aim, leaving the victims feeling damaged and has little deterrent effect on the law-breaker.

LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE, on 2007, L.12.C.1, said:

c. In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.
d. If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.
e. In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of c:
i.  The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.   
ii. For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

[axman]

axman, on Sep 4 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 4 2009, 07:28 AM, said:

awm, on Sep 4 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

I believe that the following should be fundamental:

"If there is a violation of law or regulation, then the offending pair should never receive a better result than would have been likely if they had not violated the law or regulation."

I think this a very poor idea.

-snip-

Furthermore, I doubt whether you realise what an enormous change to the Law book you are proposing. Either you will bring in an amazing number of judgement decisions compared with the current - and this is for things like calls and leads out of turn, so we are talking club TDs - or you will change the Laws to make people play on under such restraints that quite frankly they will refuse to.

I think you should rethink the effects of this idea.

DWS’s astuteness has drawn attention to something that is of paramount importance. Of such importance that it is well worth clarifying; and, recording in one’s Little Black Book.

Namely, that the approach that is taken can have far reaching consequences. He phrased it, ‘…I doubt whether you realise what an enormous change to the Law book you are proposing.’

To elaborate, it should not be lost that every aspect, including what might be considered inconsequential, can have just as extensive effect, because when properly constructed the law is made of a single fabric with every provision potentially interconnected with/through every other provision. And it is here that the importance of constructing the law’s foundation wisely can be seen.

This leads to one further comment.

Either "If there is a violation of law or regulation, then the offending pair should never receive a better result than would have been likely if they had not violated the law or regulation." is correct doctrine, or, it is not. If it is indeed not, then the search for the correct foundation is for something else. And, if it is, then there should be no fear in undertaking the consequences.

I wanted to look more closely at AWM’s assertion-

It may or may not be obvious that when constructing law it is wise to be careful in selecting words, such that there is little opportunity to construe incorrect [particularly unwanted] or multiple meanings, and to avoid the need to rewrite passages in the future to adequately define words and phrases used. And in as much as such a view applies to laws, even more so it must apply to the doctrine upon which the law is based.

With this in mind I set out to parse the meaning of AWM (Adam W. Meyerson): "If there is a violation of law or regulation, then the offending pair should never receive a better result than would have been likely if they had not violated the law or regulation."

I have a difficult time parsing the meaning of ‘than would have been likely’; as in just what is ‘would have been likely’? Is it a single target, or one of several targets, or several targets? What is the basis for judging what makes something likely? There is no specification provided.

This lack of definition does not seem to be a satisfactory foundation, well, for anything worthwhile.

One word that is quite clear is ‘never’. I believe that it is worthwhile to consider the ramifications of such a condition. For instance, in order to be certain that offenders never receive a better result, it necessarily follows that there must be certainty that there is no plausible result that is worse. In almost all circumstances, such a result is almost always a very, very horrible outcome. Thus, by committing an infraction offender must receive such [horrible] outcome without regard as to the other actions of both sides.

The consequence being that once an infraction occurs it is pointless to continue because the result becomes a function of what would have been likely if they hadn’t infracted. Period.

For me, such a principle is so counter intuitive that I am at a loss as how to assert that it is an unsatisfactory principle. If someone can give a lucid discussion that demonstrates otherwise I think it would be worth reading.


As for discovering what principle upon which remedies should be based it would help to look at numerous hypothetical situations:

Consider the outcomes that reflect justice in the situation where it is illegal to have secret bidding agreements, Pr#X has a secret agreement, have employed it, and the opponents

1. with a result of -110, -would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement
1a. would have done A which would result in a score of -470, or +680
1b. would have done B which would result in a score +230 or +1430
1c. would have done C which would result in a score of +680 or +1430
1d. would have done D which would result in a score of +1430
1e. would have done E which would result in a score of -300
1f. would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement but claim 1d.
1g. occasionally will take any of 1a-1e, and on this occasion would have [stars in alignment]



2. with a result of -110, - would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement
2a. would have done A which would result in a score of -110
2b. would have done B which would result in a score of -200
2c. would have done C which would result in a score of -500
2d. would have done D which would result in a score of -1100
2e. would have done E which would result in a score of -100
2f. would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement but claim 1e.
2g. occasionally will take any of 1a-1e, and on this occasion would have [stars in alignment]


3. with a result of +100, - would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement
3a. would have done A which would result in a score of -100 or +300
3b. would have done B which would result in a score of -100 or -200
3c. would have done C which would result in a score of -500
3d. would have done D which would result in a score of -1100
3e. would have done E which would result in a score of -100
3f. would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement but claim 1a.
3g. occasionally will take any of 1a-1e, and on this occasion would have [stars in alignment]

[awm]

The point I was arguing for is the following ideal.

Suppose four players play a hand. Unfortunately, there is a violation of some law or regulation during the bidding or play. At the end of the hand, there is some table result A.

Now suppose that we could go back in time and have the same four players play the same hand, except this time no violation of law or regulation occurs. At the end of the hand, this time the table result would be B.

If result A is better for the offending side than result B, then I believe the table result A should not be allowed to stand. The offending side should receive (at best) result B.

Of course, we cannot go back in time and have people play the same hand without the irregularity. However, I believe a good basis for law is for the director or committee to consider which results B would have been likely if this thought experiment could be performed. If result A is better for the offending side than likely results B then we should adjust.

In the current laws there are cases where the offending side can obtain a result A which is extremely good for them and better than any likely result B, yet the table result stands. Some examples:

(1) Failure to alert. The opponents reach a poor contract that they never would have reached with the alert. Thus result A is better for the offenders than result B. But in many cases the director judges that the non-offending side "should have suspected and asked about the bid despite failure to alert" or that "reaching the contract in question was bad bridge even with the assumption that alerted bid was natural" and the table result is allowed to stand. Of course, if we can coherently argue that the non-offending side would be very likely to reach the same inferior contract even with an alert then the result should stand -- but these are cases where some fallacy of the non-offending side (didn't ask about unalerted bid, made a call that was considered poor even with the information they had, etc) is allowed to intervene. Nonetheless, the offending side has created a situation through the irregularity which allowed them to obtain a good score that they would arguably never have achieved had they not failed to alert. I think this is wrong.

(2) Insufficient bid, corrected to sufficiency. The knowledge of the attempted insufficient bid may let the offending side reach a good contract that would be hard to reach otherwise. However, the insufficient bid is considered authorized so this is just "rub of the green." There is a law to amend the score if the contract reached would be impossible without the insufficient bid, but this is a much higher standard than the contract just being unlikely. For example, east opens 2♠ and south bids 1NT (10-12). This is corrected to 2NT (natural so north is not barred). Now north bids 3♥ to play, all pass, with 11 hcp and makes exactly. Is there a problem? Not a UI problem, because the fact that the 2NT overcall is only 10-12 is authorized. Now, if it would be impossible for 3♥ ever to be reached as a contract then we are to adjust (27D). But there are many cases where it is unclear whether south would double on borderline shape, whether north would stop in 3♥ or bid four, whether north would balance after a south pass, and whether south would find a pass of said balance, etc. Generally when these things are non-obvious, they tend to be resolved in favor of "table result stands." I would argue that if an inferior result is likely for the offending side, that is enough to adjust.

Note that playing the hand out is still reasonable in some cases, because part of the experiment involves figuring out what is likely for the four players involved.

[mycroft]

So, as others have said, Adam, you're arguing for making the double-shot explicitly legal - i.e. a rescinding of 12C1b. I don't have a problem with that per se, but it's a major change from what currently exists.

Once I know that an irregularity took place, my "best likely result" is banked, and I can go for the Hail Mary Top. After all, if the 5% slam comes home, great; if it goes down, my opponents are getting a "better score than they would have got without the irregularity" and I get my average. If I'm going over the top, how about the "just-in-case sacrifice" of the (cold) game they bid after/using the irregularity? It might have been reasonable before, but when -500 becomes -500 and -800 becomes -620, it's more than reasonable.

The double-shot is a respected part of many sports - it's not wrong in any way. But it is a *big* change from the game as she is currently played, and the ACBL (with its very stringent opinions of "serious error", "wild or gambling", and others) doesn't think it's a great idea. That may not be what you intend, but if so, you'll have to be very careful to explain the situation, as people will push it, and the judgement of the TD will be exercised more.

Specifically with the "expected to protect yourself" on missing alerts, okay, put complete onus on the alerters. 1NT-p-2D. I get to bid as if it's natural, knowing that I will get a "best likely" result if it's a transfer. Of course, I still get to ask if it's a transfer if I have diamonds... Or, 1D ("Could be short." on ask, "11-15, 2+ diamonds, may have longer clubs")-1H; 1NT. 1NT is 14-*an average 16*. Oops. Now do I get my 2C call back if it goes for 800? Do I get it back if opener has a 15 count?

What happens if there are two infractions, one by each side, on the same hand? What if one of them isn't an "infraction", per se, just passing UI? Do we still put UI transmitter's partner under the traditional restrictions? What if that gives a worse result than would have happened without the infraction?

Misbid/misinformation/psychic decisions are going to be much much uglier in this world. Misbid rulings let me keep my lucky score (just because I, personally, hate fixing the opponents (even though I take them, just as I quietly eat their fixes of me) doesn't mean that everyone does); misinformation means that I get "worst likely score"; deviation vs psychic, excessive psychic tendencies vs "should have gone to bed instead of playing tonight",...

It is a laudable goal - but as David says, probably a much bigger change to the game than it looks like at first glance, and will likely open more loopholes than it closes.

[axman]

mycroft, on Sep 25 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

So, as others have said, Adam, you're arguing for making the double-shot explicitly legal - i.e. a rescinding of 12C1b. I don't have a problem with that per se, but it's a major change from what currently exists.

Once I know that an irregularity took place, my "best likely result" is banked, and I can go for the Hail Mary Top. After all, if the 5% slam comes home, great; if it goes down, my opponents are getting a "better score than they would have got without the irregularity" and I get my average. If I'm going over the top, how about the "just-in-case sacrifice" of the (cold) game they bid after/using the irregularity? It might have been reasonable before, but when -500 becomes -500 and -800 becomes -620, it's more than reasonable.

The double-shot is a respected part of many sports - it's not wrong in any way. But it is a *big* change from the game as she is currently played, and the ACBL (with its very stringent opinions of "serious error", "wild or gambling", and others) doesn't think it's a great idea. That may not be what you intend, but if so, you'll have to be very careful to explain the situation, as people will push it, and the judgement of the TD will be exercised more.

Specifically with the "expected to protect yourself" on missing alerts, okay, put complete onus on the alerters. 1NT-p-2D. I get to bid as if it's natural, knowing that I will get a "best likely" result if it's a transfer. Of course, I still get to ask if it's a transfer if I have diamonds... Or, 1D ("Could be short." on ask, "11-15, 2+ diamonds, may have longer clubs")-1H; 1NT. 1NT is 14-*an average 16*. Oops. Now do I get my 2C call back if it goes for 800? Do I get it back if opener has a 15 count?

What happens if there are two infractions, one by each side, on the same hand? What if one of them isn't an "infraction", per se, just passing UI? Do we still put UI transmitter's partner under the traditional restrictions? What if that gives a worse result than would have happened without the infraction?

Misbid/misinformation/psychic decisions are going to be much much uglier in this world. Misbid rulings let me keep my lucky score (just because I, personally, hate fixing the opponents (even though I take them, just as I quietly eat their fixes of me) doesn't mean that everyone does); misinformation means that I get "worst likely score"; deviation vs psychic, excessive psychic tendencies vs "should have gone to bed instead of playing tonight",...

It is a laudable goal - but as David says, probably a much bigger change to the game than it looks like at first glance, and will likely open more loopholes than it closes.

it is difficult to get the context not knowing what the antecedents are. But I would term "I don't have a problem with that per se, ... " are dangerous words when referring to the construction of law. But talking about them can be useful when discussing fundamentals.

Where I am heading starts with "Misbid/misinformation/psychic decisions are going to be much much uglier in this world. "

perhaps the most overlooked [while being the most important] consideration when constructing law reduces down to the above statement. Namely, that law needs to be constructed based upon the premise that the game will be played in strict accordance with the law; and especially, with the expectation that every irregularity is remedied, and, in strict accordance with law.

Which comes down to the question, for instance- if decisions are going to be ugly, is that a satisfactory norm? Apparently, Adam feels "I don't have a problem with that per se, ... " that state of affairs is satisfactory.

So, if such apprach is the correct approach, yet is ugly, does the question not then become, 'Is there some underlying principle that is wrong? Else, why is the outcome ugly?'

WHat I'm suggesting is [a] that ugly is an unsatisfactory standard for an outcome. [b] when fundamental principles are tested, if they are correct [they may not yield beauty, but] they will not yield ugly. and [c] if tested and they yield beauty then it is as close to certainty as possible that they are correct.

in other words, fundamental principle #1:

Law needs to be constructed based upon the premise that the game will be played in strict accordance with the law; and especially, with the expectation that every irregularity is remedied, and, in strict accordance with law.

[mycroft]

Axman, my "I have no problems with it, per se" was referring to Adam's:

awm, on Sep 4 2009 02:19 AM, said:

I believe that the following should be fundamental:

"If there is a violation of law or regulation, then the offending pair should never receive a better result than would have been likely if they had not violated the law or regulation."

And then pointing out that first, that gives me carte blanche to doubleshot (which, as I said, I don't have a problem with, we could go the Gridiron Football way; but it's not bridge as she is currently played), and then, that "hand doesn't meet explanation" director calls are already the ugliest common rulings, and they're going to get worse if the "NOS'" reward is even bigger than it is currently if the TD rules "infraction".