[jallerton]

Law 16B and the footnote to Laws 70&71 refers to the "class of player" involved.

Is this generally interpreted as referring solely to the standard of the player, so that the classes could be e.g. beginner, intermediate, expert; or is it interpreted as having a wider meaning, for example could there be a class of, e.g. Bulgarian beginners, aggressive intermediate players, sleepy expert players?

[Trinidad]

I don't think "class of player" is meant as a discrete category.

Say that we can assign a number to the strength of a player. Those with a strength between 0 and 2 can be categorized as beginners, 2-4 as intermediates, 4-6 as advanced, 6-8 as expert, and 8-10 as world class. If we now are dealing with a player of strength 4.1, he would be categorized as advanced.

A possible interpretation of "What would be normal for this class of player?" could be: "What would be normal for an advanced player?". IMO, this is wrong. The correct interpretation would be "What would be normal for a player with a strength of 4.1?"

In addition, overall strength is not the only criterion. Let's take two players who consistently score above average in their club game. Out of the 100 members, they rank in 25th spot, so they know how to play bridge.

One player is a 70 year old who learned the game from his parents. He has been playing for 60 years. His theory is outdated, but his table feel is great. The other player is a junior. He knows all the latest conventions and can apply them quite well, but doesn't understand the psychology of the game yet.

For the older player it would be 100% certain to finesse because aunt Millie hesitated while the junior wouldn't have a clue. On the other hand, we can expect the junior to bid that slam using his pqr turbo kickback convention where the senior is happy in game.

So, summarizing, IMO "class of player" involves all the characteristics of the player involved, not only his overall strength and when it deals with his strength "class" does not mean an arbitrary categorization, but the actual strength of the player.

Rik

[helene_t]

IMO, when we talk about whether a particular action would be an LA for a particular player, it is really about that particular player, not some class for which the player in question may be a more or less typical member.

Nevertheless, we talk about classes because the TD doesn't know the particular player but will have to poll similar players, or use his experience with similar players.

Skill level is typically assessed on the basis of performance, but this isn't relevant in itself: whether it would be an LA for me not to lead dummys suit when partner doubles 3NT should, ideally, only depend on my understanding about this particular situation. I might be a novice who scores about 25% on the club night but incidentally my teacher just told me about that particular convention so I would always lead dummy's suit even if I have no clue why. Or I might be a card shark who gets 70% on most club nights but have zip knowledge of bidding theory and would probably think that partner's double just means than declarer is a weak player who has never managed to take 9 tricks so we double on general principles.

[gordontd]

I seem to remember a case where an appeals committee considered that being juniors put a pair into a class of player who were more likely to take aggressive actions.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2014-July-09, 03:00, said:

I seem to remember a case where an appeals committee considered that being juniors put a pair into a class of player who were more likely to take aggressive actions.

Isn't that an accurate description of the experience most of us have, particularly when the juniors have advanced beyond being plain beginners?

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2014-July-09, 03:00, said:

I seem to remember a case where an appeals committee considered that being juniors put a pair into a class of player who were more likely to take aggressive actions.

Perhaps, but you could also consider that to fall under "using the methods of the partnership" -- junior methods tend to be very aggressive.

Addressing the general question, I think "class of player" needs to be assessed somewhat widely. If you try to define it too narrowly, you run into two problems:

1. How accurately can the TD determine the player's class?

2. If you try to poll players within a narrow class, you'll have trouble finding candidates.

It's similar to the "jury of your peers" criteria for jury trials. If the defendant is a black, 35-year-old man, you wouldn't expect the jury to be full of black, 35-year-old men.

[jallerton]

 gordontd, on 2014-July-09, 03:00, said:

I seem to remember a case where an appeals committee considered that being juniors put a pair into a class of player who were more likely to take aggressive actions.

...and do you agree with the use of this principle, Gordon?

[gordontd]

 jallerton, on 2014-July-09, 13:10, said:

...and do you agree with the use of this principle, Gordon?

I agree with the principle that class of player does not simply refer to ability, but it can be hard to judge these things. I've seen juniors who are quite conservative and elderly players who are quite wild, though of course they are not the norm.

[weejonnie]

In the EBU casebooks there is a case where a young expert aggressive player did a certain action and a poll was taken disallowing the action. On appeal the action was allowed. See http://www.ebu.co.uk...ppeals-2011.pdf case 11.012 for the comments.

[RMB1]

 weejonnie, on 2014-July-15, 14:14, said:

In the EBU casebooks there is a case where a young expert aggressive player did a certain action and a poll was taken disallowing the action. On appeal the action was allowed. See http://www.ebu.co.uk...ppeals-2011.pdf case 11.012 for the comments.

I presume this was the case gordontd was referring to earlier.

[jallerton]

Thanks, all.

An expert player (who is not a TD) was insisting that his "class of player" was simply "expert". I thought that the meaning of the term was wider than that, but I couldn't find anything written down to justify my interpretation.

[nige1]

 jallerton, on 2014-July-09, 01:16, said:

Law 16B and the footnote to Laws 70&71 refers to the "class of player" involved. Is this generally interpreted as referring solely to the standard of the player, so that the classes could be e.g. beginner, intermediate, expert; or is it interpreted as having a wider meaning, for example could there be a class of, e.g. Bulgarian beginners, aggressive intermediate players, sleepy expert players?

IMO, "class of player" refers to the average standard of player participating in the competition. This interpretation seems consistent with the laws.

Other interpretations cause problems, especially in respect of justice being seen to be done. The putative offender might be a friend, enemy, stranger, or foreigner to the director.

If the director's decision is appealed, when the director judges a particular player to be an idiot, that assessment might conflict with the player's self-image and he might feel it demeaning and patronising.

Or consider a disputed claim. Even if the claimer would normally be judged world-class, should he still be so treated, when he has manifestly lost the place.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2014-July-25, 13:34, said:

IMO, "class of player" refers to the average standard of player participating in the competition. This interpretation seems consistent with the laws.

So Meckstroth would be is held to a higher standard when he's playing in the Spingold versus a regional pair game?

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2014-July-27, 09:36, said:

So Meckstroth would be is held to a higher standard when he's playing in the Spingold versus a regional pair game?

IMO Yes.