[mycroft]

Absolutely. Fixed. Thanks.

[nige1]

 mycroft, on 2013-December-09, 19:03, said:

It's true, most TDs at the lower-than-tournament level will not understand SEWoG. I don't think that's a big problem; I don't expect they'll run into the players for whom the law was written.

IMO: complex, over-subjective rules add little to game. They seem unnecessary.

If such rules were scrapped it wouldn't change the basic enjoyable nature of Bridge (except for some secretary-birds and directors). What's the point of having sophisticated rules when, as mycroft says, so few players and directors understand them.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that SEWOG rules were scrapped. Suppose Mycroft's evil pro decides to take advantage. He judges that his opponent has broken the law and takes some wild and gambling action. The pro really is a gambler, because if his wild gamble fails, there's no guarantee that his opponent broke the law or that the director will rule that way. Finally, however, take an extreme case where the pro is certain that the ruling will go in his favour. It's still hard to see any real harm or unfairness. The pro is acting within the (new simple) law.

If rules were simpler and clearer, there would be more incentive for players and directors to learn and abide by them.

[VixTD]

 nige1, on 2013-December-09, 11:02, said:

IMO: Few club directors have time for additional training on this kind of thing.

I train EBU club directors, and we don't expect them to be able to deal with SEWOG cases, nor even to be able to deal with routine rulings involving assigned adjusted scores on their own. They are expected to be able to recognise situations where misinformation or unauthorized information could have caused damage, gather the facts and consult a more experienced TD or referee, so this shouldn't be a problem.

 nige1, on 2013-December-10, 19:29, said:

Suppose Mycroft's evil pro decides to take advantage. He judges that his opponent has broken the law and takes some wild and gambling action. The pro really is a gambler, because if his wild gamble fails, there's no guarantee that his opponent has broken the law or that the director will rule that way. Finally, however, take an extreme case where the pro is certain that the ruling will go in his favour. It's still hard to see any real harm or unfairness.

If the pro is certain he'll get a favourable ruling which will net him, say, 10 IMPs, do you think it's fair that he should be allowed to try a wild action that will net him 16 IMPs if it works, with the fall-back that he'll still keep the 10 IMP adjustment if it fails?

[nige1]

 VixTD, on 2013-December-11, 07:50, said:

I train EBU club directors, and we don't expect them to be able to deal with SEWOG cases, nor even to be able to deal with routine rulings involving assigned adjusted scores on their own. They are expected to be able to recognise situations where misinformation or unauthorized information could have caused damage, gather the facts and consult a more experienced TD or referee, so this shouldn't be a problem.

Good advice, VixTD, but in my experience, club TDs don't consult with more experienced TDs.

 VixTD, on 2013-December-11, 07:50, said:

If the pro is certain he'll get a favourable ruling which will net him, say, 10 IMPs, do you think it's fair that he should be allowed to try a wild action that will net him 16 IMPs if it works, with the fall-back that he'll still keep the 10 IMP adjustment if it fails?

It's fair under new simpler rules that don't forbid it. In a game, fairness is judged according to the rules of the game. For players, the main criterion of fairness is consistent rulings that deter rule-breaking.

Anyway, unless the ruling goes in the pro's favour, the pro will be stuck with a worse result when his gamble fails. The pro is likely to be aware that certainty is as rare in Bridge as in lIfe. For example, I've been sure a director ruling was right but my team captain appealed, with a favourable result. Again, in appeals booklets, you read of cases where the committee confirms the director's ruling but expert commentators judge both got it wrong.

[mycroft]

The laws are written to allow enforcement of what the Lawmakers (and from them, "bridge players" in general) consider fair, given its history as a "gentleman's game". I do realize the multiple ironies in that statement.

IF the law was rewritten to allow double-shots (which is what Nigel is saying, effectively), it would bring it in line with many other sports, the one that comes immediately to mind being gridiron football (but the no-ball liberties in the Ashes also apply). And if that were the case, then fine. I don't think the game would be more fun - because certainly the lower level players, who would never consider pulling a WoG action (or SE for that matter - for them, anyway) with the current rule, will certainly start running "free plays" once one of those Nasty Flight A players did it, and the Law was explained to them by the TD.

But, as Nigel says, it would be easier to rule - for the two times a year I have to consider this, vs the 5 times I get ruled on the 20 times. And of course, I'd be called on the "is this a doubleshottable infraction or not" and when I rule it isn't, I'm sure that the "expert" who already thinks I can't play and don't think will accept it calmly (say, for instance, it's a UI case, where for him the UI would clearly suggest X, but it's ruled (after he shoots the moon and fails) that for this pair, the UI says only "I've never seen this auction before." Or does Nigel want to simplify "for the class of player involved", too?)

[VixTD]

 nige1, on 2013-December-11, 10:03, said:

It's fair under new simpler rules that don't forbid it. In a game, fairness is judged according to the rules of the game.

This is a teleological argument. Instead of asking yourself whether a new law is fair before introducing it, you introduce it and define fairness in terms of the new law. You are allowed to have opinions on laws, you know, based on your inherent sense of fairness and justice.

 nige1, on 2013-December-11, 10:03, said:

Anyway, unless the ruling goes in the pro's favour, the pro will be stuck with a worse result when his gamble fails.

And the offending side will get an undeserved better result. You may attribute this to the pro's gamble rather than their original offence, but what the SEWOG adjustment tries to do is to ensure that offenders don't gain by committing irregularities, and that the non-offenders don't get a risk-free shot at an even better score just because they got innocently mixed up in an exchange of unauthorized or misinformation between their opponents.

It can be a pain to do the calculations, but it meets my criteria for a fair rule.

[nige1]

 mycroft, on 2013-December-11, 10:38, said:

Or does Nigel want to simplify "for the class of player involved", too?)

IMO: "class of player" should be judged according to the typical standard of players in the competition. This would make it easier to find players to poll, lead to more consistent results, and be regarded as fairer by players.

OK, Gnasher and others disagree and they do advance persuasive arguments

Anyway, many simplifying suggestions have been made by myself and others, some worth consideration by Bridge rule-makers. Rule-makers should make more effort to simplify rules so that more players and directors can understand them. For example, their current commitment to equitably restoring the status quo requires sophisticated rules. Providing players with options after opponents' infractions generates further complexity. And so on ad nauseam.

Simpler rules are slightly easier to write clearly, are less likely to harbour loop-holes and anomalies, and should result in more consistent and deterrent rulings.

IMO, this would result in a more enjoyable game.

[nige1]

 nige1, on 2013-December-11, 10:03, said:

It's fair under new simpler rules that don't forbid it. In a game, fairness is judged according to the rules of the game. For players, the main criterion of fairness is consistent rulings that deter rule-breaking.

 VixTD, on 2013-December-11, 11:13, said:

This is a teleological argument. Instead of asking yourself whether a new law is fair before introducing it, you introduce it and define fairness in terms of the new law. You are allowed to have opinions on laws, you know, based on your inherent sense of fairness and justice.

I don't think my argument is teleological but we're both entitled to our opinions about what is fair in a game.

[jeffford76]

 VixTD, on 2013-December-11, 07:50, said:

If the pro is certain he'll get a favourable ruling which will net him, say, 10 IMPs, do you think it's fair that he should be allowed to try a wild action that will net him 16 IMPs if it works, with the fall-back that he'll still keep the 10 IMP adjustment if it fails?

I think it's fair whether it's a pro or not, and I think you're using the word "pro" instead of "player" to try to generate sympathy for your side of the argument.

[blackshoe]

I think Nigel should rewrite the law book to his satisfaction, and then submit it here so we can tear it apart.

[barmar]

 VixTD, on 2013-December-11, 11:13, said:

This is a teleological argument.

ITYM "tautological".

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2013-December-11, 10:03, said:

Good advice, VixTD, but in my experience, club TDs don't consult with more experienced TDs.

In my club they do all the time, and it is not unusual for us to ring up a referee to help with UI or MI cases when it is impossible to conduct a poll.

[Oof Arted]

 iviehoff, on 2013-October-04, 08:08, said:

Would any of these players who think they would bid 3H not have bid it on the previous round? What have you learned that makes it more attractive to bid now?

That your partner's 'Tank' has suggested it is worth it ???