[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-29, 13:32, said:

What was the significant UI? That RR didn't have a singleton in the suit led? That he didn't have a singleton in any suit? Something else?

And does this mean that any slow lead to a suit contract suggests that the leader doesn't have a side suit singleton, which a lightning-fast lead is a singleton?

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-November-29, 13:31, said:

I continue to object to SB's extremely broad interpretation of "could have been aware", since it essentially allows punishing any infraction that happens to gain.

blackshoe, on 2018-November-29, 13:33, said:

I don't generally do "me too" posts, but... me too. :-)

And me.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-November-29, 13:31, said:

I continue to object to SB's extremely broad interpretation of "could have been aware", since it essentially allows punishing any infraction that happens to gain.

I continue to be perplexed that there is a sport where people are worried about punishing any infraction, let alone any infraction that happens to gain

If I go to a regional or national running race and do not wear my club singlet, my club gets fined cash by the federation and might well fine or punish me. It probably happened because I forgot to check that I had my club singlet with me, and I won't gain in the race because I was wearing the wrong singlet. Those are the rules and nobody complains.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-November-29, 13:35, said:

And does this mean that any slow lead to a suit contract suggests that the leader doesn't have a side suit singleton, which a lightning-fast lead is a singleton?

Any time someone leads more slowly without a singleton than they previously had done with a singleton, as here, they risked being ruled against by a TD who understands what a break in tempo means, and what UI it conveys. It does not matter one iota if RR could have been aware that his BIT would damage the non-offenders. We are ruling here under 16B.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2018-November-29, 15:53, said:

I continue to be perplexed that there is a sport where people are worried about punishing any infraction, let alone any infraction that happens to gain

If I go to a regional or national running race and do not wear my club singlet, my club gets fined cash by the federation and might well fine or punish me. It probably happened because I forgot to check that I had my club singlet with me, and I won't gain in the race because I was wearing the wrong singlet. Those are the rules and nobody complains.

Bridge is considered a sport for Gentlemen and fair Ladies, i.e. people with certain ethical standards.

The laws of Bridge explicitly state:

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2017 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE said:

.....
The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling.
.....

I feel worried about the seemingly increasing number of people who apparently do not understand this.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-November-29, 15:53, said:

I continue to be perplexed that there is a sport where people are worried about punishing any infraction, let alone any infraction that happens to gain

The problem is that some of these things are not really infractions, but SB wants to punish them anyway. Transmitting UI is not in itself an infraction, taking advantage of the UI is. SB would like to treat any situation where there's UI and the result is favorable to that side as if they'd taken advantage of the UI.

SB regularly asks us to rule against the hapless RR for "could have been aware" situations when he's barely aware of what the contract is.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-December-01, 15:05, said:

The problem is that some of these things are not really infractions, but SB wants to punish them anyway. Transmitting UI is not in itself an infraction, taking advantage of the UI is. SB would like to treat any situation where there's UI and the result is favorable to that side as if they'd taken advantage of the UI.

SB regularly asks us to rule against the hapless RR for "could have been aware" situations when he's barely aware of what the contract is.

On this hand, SB is claiming that ChCh used the UI that RR was far less likely to have a singleton club, as he took some time to lead. He had a clear logical alternative to ducking the opening lead, and that was less successful.

This is a very common situation in bridge, and one that TDs seem reluctant to act on because it implies that the opening leader is "communicating" by the speed of the lead. I can certainly remember having to decide whether the lead is a singleton before, and I have always carefully avoided using any UI. Ruling against SB here is truly awful.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-December-03, 04:34, said:

On this hand, SB is claiming that ChCh used the UI that RR was far less likely to have a singleton club, as he took some time to lead. He had a clear logical alternative to ducking the opening lead, and that was less successful.

This is a very common situation in bridge, and one that TDs seem reluctant to act on because it implies that the opening leader is "communicating" by the speed of the lead. I can certainly remember having to decide whether the lead is a singleton before, and I have always carefully avoided using any UI. Ruling against SB here is truly awful.

If OO determines that there was a BIT then it is very hard not to rule in favour of SB. Players should be taught to always try and play in tempo even when the play is obvious. If they are taught this while learning then they won't feel (unjustifiably) annoyed if the TD rules against them on 16B 73C and 73D when they enter the real world.

[pran]

There is in my opinion a very simple solution to the difficulties with RR in this club:

Whoever in charge should politely (if possible) tell him that he apparently does not fit in this club and suggest that he finds another club more suitable to his level as bridge player.

Harsh? Yes, but if you cannot live with his manners and are unable to "educate" him then get rid of him.

In the clubs where I play we are anxious to have players feel welcome, and we do whatever possible to achieve this. That includes telling possible SBs to behave and friendly education when needed.

[lamford]

pran, on 2018-December-03, 06:34, said:

There is in my opinion a very simple solution to the difficulties with RR in this club:

Whoever in charge should politely (if possible) tell him that he apparently does not fit in this club and suggest that he finds another club more suitable to his level as bridge player.

Harsh? Yes, but if you cannot live with his manners and are unable to "educate" him then get rid of him.

In the clubs where I play we are anxious to have players feel welcome, and we do whatever possible to achieve this. That includes telling possible SBs to behave and friendly education when needed.

RR averages around 51%, although many think he is incredibly lucky when he lands on his feet after a ridiculous action; if TDs like you also ruled in his favour, he would do even better. If you exclude him, you would be excluding over half of the club, many of whom average around 45%.

And the last committee meeting decided to post Laws 74A and B (Proper Conduct and Etiquette) on the noticeboard, and warn SB that he will get a DP for each breach. He is quite happy with that, and thinks that 10% of a top is well worth it, despite it being a "should" Law.

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-December-03, 07:31, said:

And the last committee meeting decided to post Laws 74A and B (Proper Conduct and Etiquette) on the noticeboard, and warn SB that he will get a DP for each breach. He is quite happy with that, and thinks that 10% of a top is well worth it, despite it being a "should" Law.

Fine!

[RMB1]

Quote

... a DP for each breach. He is quite happy with that, and thinks that 10% of a top is well worth it, ...

In EBU events, a DP is 50% top.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2018-December-04, 13:29, said:

In EBU events, a DP is 50% top.

That is better!

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-December-03, 04:34, said:

Ruling against SB here is truly awful.

You may be right, though my first thought was "how can ruling against SB be that bad?"

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2018-December-04, 13:29, said:

In EBU events, a DP is 50% top.

Indeed, the White Book states that they are normally "twice the standard penalty", but the committee decided that the standard PP for breaches, in general, of "must" or "may not" laws was 25%, so there was no logic in punishing the miscreant so heavily for a breach of a "should" law, which is described in the introduction as "not normally punished". The committee decided not to adopt the recommendations in the White Book, as they would also have to fine RR 50% of a top as a disciplinary penalty every time he breached 74B1. Last night that was on 24 separate occasions, and he would have ended up with a score of -1% (his actual 49% less 24 DPs of 50%). We therefore decided that for breaches of Law 74, 10% was the maximum, and this was unanimous.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2018-December-03, 06:34, said:

There is in my opinion a very simple solution to the difficulties with RR in this club:

Whoever in charge should politely (if possible) tell him that he apparently does not fit in this club and suggest that he finds another club more suitable to his level as bridge player.

Harsh? Yes, but if you cannot live with his manners and are unable to "educate" him then get rid of him.

In the clubs where I play we are anxious to have players feel welcome, and we do whatever possible to achieve this. That includes telling possible SBs to behave and friendly education when needed.

Where? There are only two players in London as 'good' as RR - that makes 3 - hardly enough for a single table.