[axman]

To construct appropriate rules a necessary foundation needs to be laid and understood, namely the expression of fundamental principles.

I suggest that the framework of bridge rest upon the principle of natural justice. That is, the game’s remedies reflect the actions of the players- to the degree that it is practical.

The point being that once concurrence is acknowledged that natural justice is an appropriate foundation then it becomes worthwhile to examine the finer distinctions and expressions of the rules.. It is important to recognize that for the principle to produce its worth it must be applied correctly and to do so it must be understood together with the physics to which it is to be applied.

For instance, the principle leads to the adjunct of, “what the players do, counts”. An example of this adjunct is seen in the ‘touch-move’ rule in chess.

Another adjunct of natural justice is the presence of consistency/ absence of hypocrisy.



Without such an underlying foundation, there will be inadequate basis with which to compare and know that the end result is that which is sought.

I suggest that fundamental principles be offered and examined, and the reasoning be established why they are valid or invalid.

[blackshoe]

This contains the implicit premise that everyone assigns the same meaning to the phrase "natural justice". I'm not so sure that's the case. You need to define your terms.

[bluejak]

Actually, I think natural justice is wrong anyway. Why should a mindsport use natural justice?

[hrothgar]

axman, on Sep 2 2009, 01:01 AM, said:

To construct appropriate rules a necessary foundation needs to be laid and understood, namely the expression of fundamental principles.

I suggest that the framework of bridge rest [sic] upon the principle of natural justice.

I suggest that the framework of bridge rests upon four elephants, who, in turn stand upon a giant turtle.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Sep 3 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Actually, I think natural justice is wrong anyway. Why should a mindsport use natural justice?

In Britain, the adminstration of a sport, whether a mindsport or other sport, may find itself bound by principles of natural justice, if someone takes you to court over a decision you make. If you take powers to act in a quasi-judicial way, and thus have powers, for example, to remove someone's livelihood by banning him from a sport, the court may insist that you operate in line with principles of natural justice. So you had a set out disciplinary procedure and complaints mechanism, based your decision on evidence rather than prejudice, gave the complainant a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and acted consistently and without undue discrimination.

But the rules of the games themselves don't have to be fair. I made a 99.9% safety play, and went off, but the other guy took a poor line and made it. Where's the justice in that? The ball was in the back of the net, we all saw it on the telly, but the ref didn't see it and ruled it a goal kick. Even less justice in that, but that's the rules, and you can't take them to court over it.

Axman is of course talking about the rectification of irregularities. Obviously we want laws that protect the position of the NOS, and don't reward cheats, or let people get away with subverting the procedures of the game. What we have is not perfect, and there are bound to be compromises in any case. But at that broad level I think that is pretty much what we have, and I don't find it offensive to natural justice.

Perhaps Axman can point to some particular laws he doesn't like and say in more detail why he considers them offensive to "natural justice".

[axman]

iviehoff, on Sep 3 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 3 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Actually, I think natural justice is wrong anyway.  Why should a mindsport use natural justice?

In Britain, the adminstration of a sport, whether a mindsport or other sport, may find itself bound by principles of natural justice, if someone takes you to court over a decision you make. If you take powers to act in a quasi-judicial way, and thus have powers, for example, to remove someone's livelihood by banning him from a sport, the court may insist that you operate in line with principles of natural justice. So you had a set out disciplinary procedure and complaints mechanism, based your decision on evidence rather than prejudice, gave the complainant a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and acted consistently and without undue discrimination.

But the rules of the games themselves don't have to be fair. I made a 99.9% safety play, and went off, but the other guy took a poor line and made it. Where's the justice in that? The ball was in the back of the net, we all saw it on the telly, but the ref didn't see it and ruled it a goal kick. Even less justice in that, but that's the rules, and you can't take them to court over it.

Axman is of course talking about the rectification of irregularities.

In the process of creation it is important there be some standard, some model against which to judge the creation, if for no other reason than to decide if more time at the drawing board is needed.

Bridge is a game that relies upon propriety and the game is untenable without a fair field of play that is level. For the sake of the need to call the standard something I chose the words NJ, which turns out to have its own set of issues:

I did some investigation and have found that NJ has been adopted by legal doctrine to convey a specific set of meanings, while not contrary to the use I would have envisioned, usage would be too restrictive compared to what I had envisioned.

What I envisioned [within the realm of practicality] the scope of NJ to encompass includes

The creation of a level field of play that is fair

Recognizes the nature of of man:
eg. does not impose duties that have no realistic expectation of being successfully fulfilled
eg. does not impose the role of judge and self-executioner upon the infractor

Punishment fits the crime, measured to balance the damage
Reward commensurate with the task

*** addition Sept 7 ***

to the extent practical, treat all contestants the same
adjunct – different subclasses may [or may not] provide just cause to necessitate different treatment by rule of law
adjunct- different subclasses may [or may not] provide just cause to afford different treatment by rule of law

though premature for discussion purposes, here are examples of classes
classes: player, bidder, defender, declarer, dummy, claimer, offender, OS, non-offender, NOS

***
*** addition Sept 24 ***

The underlying principle of bridge law is to provide solutions to player's problems while minimizing the creation of problems.

***


Notably, the effect of unfair rules is that they are flaunted, and the flaunting is excused by the participants and the authority. In the end they are applied via bias the deciding factor being the bias of the adjudicator. And what must not be lost sight of is that the subject is bridge, which is something that some of us believe to be worthwhile- not some non descript game which would likely be nothing more than a passing fad.

I suggest strongly that the choice of foundation leads hopefully to wise choices in creation, and avoids unwise choices.

It has been suggested that ‘Axman is of course talking about the rectification of irregularities.’ I point out that the right thing is not accomplished when the remedy is fair but the rule is unfair. Nor is the right thing accomplished when the adjudicator is unfair, even when the rule and the remedy is fair. And it makes no difference how fair the adjudicator is when the rules and the remedies are not. It may not be possible to control the adjudicator, it is possible to control the rules and the remedies, and I urge strongly to start out with the best frame of mind

[matmat]

shubi^2!

[awm]

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."

Of course, I accept that many violations of law or regulations are inadvertent (people forget their methods, or don't know what the alert policies are, or accidently fail to follow suit, etc). And I'm also well aware that the laws require severe penalties for anyone found intentionally violating them. However, there are significant issues with proving intent, and it also seems fishy if a pair that has frequent "accidents" seems to profit from them more often than not. Combined with the issue that infractions sometimes go unnoticed and/or unreported (sometimes creating a substantial advantage for the offending side), it seems critical to me that this fundamental rule be observed.

Let me give an example where violating a law or regulation might help the offending side.

Failure to alert a common conventional call. Most of the time the opponents will ask or look at the card and there will be no problem. But occasionally an opponent might forget to ask about the non-alerted call and just assume it's natural. This will often lead to the opponent obtaining a poor result. Assuming that the directors will consistently rule "no adjustment" since the method is commonly conventional and players are expected to protect themselves, violating the law in this way is purely advantageous to the offending side (assuming no intent can be shown).

I think there are a number of other examples (i.e. insufficient bids) where there is some clause allowing the director to rectify if there appears to be damage to the non-offending side, but the conditions for such rectification are not totally clear (for example law 23) and in practice these sorts of irregularities can probably help the offending side substantially.

[peachy]

awm, on Sep 3 2009, 08:19 PM, 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."

Of course, I accept that many violations of law or regulations are inadvertent (people forget their methods, or don't know what the alert policies are, or accidently fail to follow suit, etc). And I'm also well aware that the laws require severe penalties for anyone found intentionally violating them. However, there are significant issues with proving intent, and it also seems fishy if a pair that has frequent "accidents" seems to profit from them more often than not. Combined with the issue that infractions sometimes go unnoticed and/or unreported (sometimes creating a substantial advantage for the offending side), it seems critical to me that this fundamental rule be observed.

Let me give an example where violating a law or regulation might help the offending side.

Failure to alert a common conventional call. Most of the time the opponents will ask or look at the card and there will be no problem. But occasionally an opponent might forget to ask about the non-alerted call and just assume it's natural. This will often lead to the opponent obtaining a poor result. Assuming that the directors will consistently rule "no adjustment" since the method is commonly conventional and players are expected to protect themselves, violating the law in this way is purely advantageous to the offending side (assuming no intent can be shown).

I think there are a number of other examples (i.e. insufficient bids) where there is some clause allowing the director to rectify if there appears to be damage to the non-offending side, but the conditions for such rectification are not totally clear (for example law 23) and in practice these sorts of irregularities can probably help the offending side substantially.

Adam brings an important aspect to the discussion: intent. In my opinion, it is best if intent is left out of the process in establishing facts, and rulings are based on facts that can be supported by evidence. If player's intent matters anywhere in establishing facts of a case when ruling, it is most likely going to reward those who can give a self-serving non-truth with a straight face. Let the actions and facts be the only evidence considered for fair application of the laws.

I understand this is not always possible and the TD must make a judgments, to determine what he will consider the most likely scenario or how much or little evidence is enough for him to form an opinion. But definitely, lacking other evidence, the OS statement should never be used as the only evidence, even if it possible that it is true, such as "I didn't notice the hesitation" or "He always bids slowly" or "This is the only logical action for me" or "We play that his pass is forcing" or "I was always going to make this bid" etc.

[iviehoff]

We still haven't heard any evidence that the laws we have are, to any great degree, offensive to these worthy principles.

[axman]

awm, on Sep 3 2009, 08:19 PM, 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."

It is important to examine the reasons this view is appropriate or not appropriate. To construct law upon this basis but without the reasoning can lead to questions as to the appropriateness of the law without the ability to have confidence that the right thing was done. I’ll express my opinion when the reasoning of others has taken shape.

As for the other items, without a framework for reasoning it is premature debate particulars, so are best left for later.

[bluejak]

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. The current Law book has tried to move towards continuing to play bridge: you want a move the away, a drastic move the other way. Sorry, I think it a vast step backwards.

Suppose I bid out of turn. the opponents get certain options, and the likelihood is that I will get a poorer score than if I did not infract. But it is not guaranteed, and occasionally, because of the rub of the green, or because the opponents make a poor or unfortunate choice in their options, I will do better. Now you want to take that score away?

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.

[axman]

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. The current Law book has tried to move towards continuing to play bridge: you want a move the away, a drastic move the other way. Sorry, I think it a vast step backwards.

Suppose I bid out of turn. the opponents get certain options, and the likelihood is that I will get a poorer score than if I did not infract. But it is not guaranteed, and occasionally, because of the rub of the green, or because the opponents make a poor or unfortunate choice in their options, I will do better. Now you want to take that score away?

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.

[awm]

Suppose you have a pair that is not very ethical and is willing to violate the laws intentionally if doing so would be to their advantage. Further, suppose that because discerning intent is very difficult, it's not practical to actually prove that this pair's violations are intentional.

Is there a possibility for such a pair to profit by what they're doing? It seems that there are in fact many such opportunities. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that with regard to the rules on disclosure of methods such pairs actually exist and do profit from it!

Is this a problem with the laws? Or are we okay with the idea that people who basically cheat consistently win (in part because of their unethical actions) whereas ethical pairs are at a substantial competitive disadvantage?

Perhaps the laws do need to be changed. I don't think an argument that "this would require substantial changes to the laws" is sufficient to refute the point.

I'd also say that too much effort is put towards "continuing to play bridge." Often once a table result is obtained, the directors become reluctant to change it even though the result is very dubious due to an infraction. To give an example from an ACBL tournament, one side was playing 2♦ multi without the required defenses. The other side had agreed to play "defense two" but obviously now had no effective agreement. The directors said "play on, call us back if you need us." The non-offending side (somewhat predictably) had a mixup and played 3NT when any reasonable defense would've allowed them to play 2NT. The play was such that eight tricks in notrump were cold but nine tricks required a particular layout. In playing for nine tricks declarer ended up taking only seven when the layout was not favorable. The directors were called back, and since they had that holy grail of a table result they ruled 2NT down one. Declarer protested but the directors said "it will not matter when you see your teammates result." The teammates were defending 2NT making. The declarer protested again, went through the hand card by card with the director to show how 2NT was cold, and the director promised to change the ruling. She didn't change it; a fact which was discovered by the players involved only the next day, after the "appeals period" had passed. Wouldn't things have been better if the directors had paused the play to allow the non-offending side to discuss a defense, or obtained a copy of defense two from some other players, or even just thrown this board out? Instead they bent over backward to obtain "table result" and then used it to make the wrong ruling.

[barmar]

David is correct. Adam's simple rule, while it sounds fair at first glance, is what leads to the infamous "double shot" problem that we frequently face. Once a player commits an infraction, the opponents then have almost free reign to take wild risks; if it doesn't work out, they get the director to cancel the bad result because of the infraction.

As Axman said, the punishment should fit the crime.

The Laws currently presume, for the most part, that the players are honorable and intend to act ethically. That's why the emphasis is on restoring equity rather than punishing. Intentional cheating is treated as a special case. Do you really think this goes on so much that we need to change the approach?

Yes, it can be difficult to distinguish intentional from inadvertent infractions. That's life. We deal with this complexity all the time outside of bridge, in day to day interpersonal interactions, as well as more formal settings like courts of law (if you injure or kill someone, the crime and punishment are different depending on whether it was intentional).

[axman]

barmar, on Sep 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

The Laws currently presume, for the most part, that the players are honorable and intend to act ethically.

I'll suggest that such assertion is dubious. To wit:

Consider 2007L23
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.

L23 invoked the specification ‘whenever…. an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side…’ which in a way says that of those that fulfill the specification, the ethically challenged are grouped together with non ethically challenged [such as they who were merely careless] to be treated the same.

Then to treat them all the same presumes them to be equivalent. I contend that L23 is not about giving sportsman of the hour awards- which therefore leaves the affected as candidates for the dungeon:

The distinction becomes important once it is realized that the premise of remedies for irregularities first presume the contestant is playing fair to his best ability so and the remedy therefore is totally sufficient. But, then, when the occasion occurs that the remedy is inadequate the explanation becomes that the contestant was not trying to play fair.

We could go to every nation in the world, have them pass a law that applying L23 carries no connotation of shady conduct; and have every court affirm such a law; yet it does not stop the true message of ‘there was something bad about your conduct’ from being received. The problem actually being that such a message ought to be sent solely to they whose conduct was indeed bad.

[barmar]

I admit that Law 23 doesn't fit my description. That's what I meant by "for the most part" -- there are some exceptions.

I think that Law 23 is simply a concession to the difficulty in trying to figure out whether such an irregularity was intentional or not. If there's a possibility that the player could have been trying to pull a fast one, the benefit of the doubt is given to the opponents.

[Vampyr]

awm, on Sep 4 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

To give an example from an ACBL tournament, one side was playing 2♦ multi without the required defenses. The other side had agreed to play "defense two" but obviously now had no effective agreement.

On the ACBL site is says that players playing a Mid-Chart convention (is Multi really that?) are required to: "have a copy of an approved defense from this database available for your opponents should they wish to use it." It seems that your team should have got +3 IMPs on the board. At least now you know in future to just ask for your 3 IMPs when it happens again!

Quote

Declarer protested ...and the director promised to change the ruling. She didn't change it; a fact which was discovered by the players involved only the next day, after the "appeals period" had passed.

Possibly asking the director to change a ruling, once made, is the wrong procedure, and the ruling should have been appealed. In any case, though, since the director had promised to change the ruling and then had not, it would seem sensible to write to the chief tournament director and the Laws and Ethics committee with a view toward disciplinary action.

By the way... "Defense Two" is what is normally played in England (well in London anyway; I am sure someone will say that Dixon or something else is more popular in their neck of the woods) and it is pretty simple -- double is a weak NT or a good hand, bids are natural, double of a pass-or-correct bid or of a suit shown is takeout. It might be a lot easier to commit this to memory than to have to look it up on a defense every time. And then you can also make improvements if you wish, such as playing double of a pass-or-correct bid as "penalty or takeout".

[bluejak]

Unfortunately, it is far more complicated to give an adjustment for an illegal method in other jurisdictions. You do not just cancel the board and give Ave+/Ave- in the ACBL: you have the sometimes nearly impossible task of deciding what might have happened without the use of the illegal method.

About 90% of players I know play the Dixon double which is what you are saying is standard in London.

Asking a TD to change a ruling is acceptable and covered in the Laws [82C]. When Paul Hackett came to me in the President's Cup about three years ago and asked me to change my ruling, I re-consulted and re-considered, using the argument he had put forward. Admittedly, on that occasion I did not change my view, but I might have. What is not acceptable, of course, is for a TD not to keep the players informed: that is just bad practice.

[nige1]

awm, on Sep 3 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

"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 agree with awm. I think the laws should be more deterrent. John Probst suggests the Probst Cheat criterion for when to rule against a possible infraction. Something like: the director should consider ruling against a player, even if he believes that player to be honest, if a cheat would act in the same way to achieve an illegal advantage.

Introduction to the Laws, on 2007, 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.

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

The laws certainly achieve the second aim above: Directors get a relatively easy time with a minimum of hassle because law-breakers are usually delighted to finish no worse off than they would have done without committing an infraction.

Introduction to the Laws, on 2007, said:

Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen.

IMO, this is another retrograde trend because it leads to more inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings. Many regard such inconsistency as unfair.

List of aims for law-makers:

• Conservation. Preserve the essential nature of the game that we all enjoy.
  
• Redress. The redress for an any infraction should be enough
  • To encourage the victim to report the infraction. For example some current rules discourage the reporting of infractions and could be dropped. IMO, they add no value. Instead they just just add insult to injury. eg rules that remove redress for the victim when the direcor judges that the victim tried a "double-shot" or "failed to protect himself".
    
  • To ensure that the law-breaker has a negative expectation. ie in the long term, infractions are not profitable. Not all infractions are detected, reported, or ruled against. So, currently, the law-breaker is guaranteed a long-term profit.
  
  
• Simplicity the laws should be simple enough for the average player (and director) to understand. Currently, few directors understand the subtler points of the law. Many simplifications have been suggested (to a mixed reception).
  
• Clarity Many directors disagree about interpretation. For example, how you may vary agreements depending on your choices over an opponent's infraction. Hence it is not surprising that the they arrive at different rulings on identical facts. The laws should define more terms in their glossary. They should avoid elegant variation in their phraseology. They should incude paradigm cases, that illustrate borderline decisions.
  
• A minimum of subjectivity eg where possible, the law shouldn't expect directors to read minds, or judge "intent". This would increase consistency and perceived fairness.
  
  
• Universality The laws should be the same everywhere to facilitate fair competition. For example the ACBL should be discouraged from introducing variations.
  
  
• Completeness As far as possible, rules and regulations should be incorporated into the laws. Changes and corrections should be included in-place, rather than in obscure minutes. 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. For some rules, the law-makers could still allow a bolshy local legislature to introduce an idiosyncratic variation.

Anticipating quibbles

• I don't think I've ever met a cheat at the Bridge table. Bridge-players are a cross-section of the populace. Like most people, bridge-players would be rightly shocked and hurt if accused of law-breaking. Nevertheless (I'm told) some members of the public do exceed speed limits, falsify expenses, and break marriage vows. Bridge-players are just as prone to carelessness, rationalisation, and ignorance. Especially the last, given the current state of the rules. It is hard to blame people for breaking rules that they don't understand.
  
• Procedural and disciplinary penalties are not a practical answer to most minor infractions. They are rarely enforced and fiercely resented because they usually entail subjective judgement and are separate from ordinary law.

Bluejak is right that all these proposals would radically alter the law. IMO, they would improve it. Law-improvement is what this discussion should be about.