[ahydra]

I was just reading the "Agreed hesitations" thread in the Appeals forum, and had a few thoughts about this summary of the UI laws by mycroft:

Quote

A reminder, however, that *all* the items have to match to adjust the score:
1.There has to be UI (admitted hesitation, check)

2.There has to be information demonstrably suggested by that UI (which is Gordon's comment - here, is it "3D doesn't really show my strength" or "I've got lots of diamonds, but is partner going to take me for more with the free bid", or something else?)

3.There has to be an action taken that would be suggested by the UI, and

4.There has to be an action,
*not* suggested by the UI,
that would be considered "logical" by the Law's definition and the local ZO's regulations,
that would be less successful.

What's the definition of "less successful" - the result on the most likely play, or the result with perfect play? What about further bidding actions by the opposing side (eg North pulls a slow 3S to 4S while East would have a clear 4H bid over 3S but nothing over 4S)? Even more exciting is possible bidding actions by the opposing side - eg replace "clear 4H bid" by "80% 4H bid"...

What is there to stop opponents crashing honour tricks etc (or maybe something a bit more subtle!) to ensure the result with the hesitation is more successful than the one without? Sure, it'll be considered a SEWoG action, but that ruling only affects the non-hesitating side. There's bound to be a (hypothetical) tournament situation where the non-hesitating side could abuse this (I'll hand over to the talented bridge-hand constructor and writer lamford at this point) - eg two teams per country, one country has a team winning narrowly and a team low-down the order, and the latter team do this "trick" against the team in 2nd place to maintain their country's lead.

Perhaps with computers available for simulations, we should do a simulation, and rule an action a LA if it wins on a certain % of hands? Using "peers" is somewhat flawed - there are often few around, and none that play exactly the same style as the offender - but is a good approximation in absence of anything else. Also, things like table feel, SoTM influence a player's decision but often don't get considered when analysing whether an action is an LA.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2011-July-05, 13:57, said:

What is there to stop opponents crashing honour tricks etc (or maybe something a bit more subtle!) to ensure the result with the hesitation is more successful than the one without?

Ethics. Most bridge players try to be ethical. Those who do not may get away with it for a while, but eventually they'll be caught. At that point what they've done won't be judged as SEWoG, it will be seen for what it is — cheating.

UI rulings are, inevitably, judgment rulings. Whose judgment? The TD's. He will, in making his judgment on the various aspects of a particular case, consult with other TDs, possibly with good players, and he may take a poll of the involved player's peers. In the end, though, it's the TD's judgment that counts. Or the AC's.

I don't think simulations are the way to go. That would require TDs to have appropriate software, and to be very familiar with how to use it. I don't think most TDs are in that boat. Okay, the ACBL or other RA could provide the software, at least to its employees (tournament TDs), and could provide training, but what about the club TDs? Aside from that, it won't tell you what you want to know, unless the software is smart enough to handle "the players concerned are beginners" or "the players concerned are world-class", and all the levels in between. AFAIK, no sim software currently available is that sophisticated.

What is "less successful" in any given case is again a matter of TD judgment. Certainly there can be a wide range of possible outcomes absent the use of UI, but that's why we get paid the big bucks.

When a revoke occurs, the ruling is almost always mechanical. When a breach of Law 16 occurs, the ruling is never mechanical. That's the nature of the beast, and I don't think trying to find ways to make such rulings more mechanical is going to be very fruitful.

[mjj29]

ahydra, on 2011-July-05, 13:57, said:

What's the definition of "less successful" - the result on the most likely play, or the result with perfect play? What about further bidding actions by the opposing side (eg North pulls a slow 3S to 4S while East would have a clear 4H bid over 3S but nothing over 4S)? Even more exciting is possible bidding actions by the opposing side - eg replace "clear 4H bid" by "80% 4H bid"...

In most jurisdictions you can weight your ruling. So if you think that 80% of the time they will reach contract A which will make 50% of the time and reach contract B making the other 20%, then you work out 40% of A= + 40% of A-1 + 20% of B=. If this amalgam result is better than the table result, you adjust to it. Otherwise you don't.

Quote

What is there to stop opponents crashing honour tricks etc (or maybe something a bit more subtle!) to ensure the result with the hesitation is more successful than the one without? Sure, it'll be considered a SEWoG action, but that ruling only affects the non-hesitating side. There's bound to be a (hypothetical) tournament situation where the non-hesitating side could abuse this (I'll hand over to the talented bridge-hand constructor and writer lamford at this point) - eg two teams per country, one country has a team winning narrowly and a team low-down the order, and the latter team do this "trick" against the team in 2nd place to maintain their country's lead.

Well, if my adjustment would be to +500, I could tank a +800 on the board down to +300 and get it adjusted back to +500, but I'd rather just take the +800... If you're saying that it's in my interest to get a worse score, then adjustments don't come into it, I can always play for a bad score. If it's not advancing _my_ position though, it's illegal.