[rona_]

Quote

Depends on tourney settings, it may be possible.

You are right, the TD has the option to allow dummy to see all four hands. I haven't come across it in paying tournaments though.

[candybar]

Sheesh! ANOTHER new rule!

TD: " ... Failure to alert will mean an Average Minus."

I wonder if anyone ever told him that DAMAGE has to occur before an alert failure matters.

[jillybean]

candybar, on Aug 16 2005, 06:49 PM, said:

Sheesh! ANOTHER new rule!

TD: " ... Failure to alert will mean an Average Minus."

I wonder if anyone ever told him that DAMAGE has to occur before an alert failure matters.

You're just choosing all the wrong tournaments to play in !

[shoeless]

When dummy speaks in such ways about the play of the hand - I simply but directly advise them that it is unethical to do so and ask them not to do it again. i am not likely to change these entrenched behaviours on BBO but i believe I am responsibler to encourage better ethics when and where I can. Most times the player who does this has no idea what they in effect may be telling their pard. when they don't they usually ask "What's the matter with that and I tell them politely"

[mycroft]

candybar, on Aug 16 2005, 07:49 PM, said:

TD:  " ... Failure to alert will mean an Average Minus."

I wonder if anyone ever told him that DAMAGE has to occur before an alert failure matters.

No, an Alert failure is an irregularity, and the TD can assign disciplinary penalties for any irregularity that "...delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure..." (Law 90A). Doesn't have to; may choose to make it a warning instead of a score penalty; but the TD always *can*, it's in the Book.

If failure to Alert Alertable bids is something that causes the other contestants enough grief that their (valid) complaints cause the TD grief or unduly keep the TD from other, more pressing duties (or slow down the rounds), it is well within the sponsoring organization's right to make it clear to the TD that penalties are to be imposed for such failure - even, as it frequently is on BBO, when the TD and the SO are the same person.

You are half right, however - the TD can't assign a score unless damage results (Law 21 or 47), and certainly cannot award an Artificial Adjusted score (the A+/A-) unless "no result can be obtained" (Law 12A2, Law 12C1). The proper thing to do is to look for damage, assign a (real, not Average) score if there was, and award a Procedural Penalty to the side that failed to Alert as the TD sees fit under Law 90 - said penalty to not accrue to the non-offending side.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that BBO currently has the mechanism to award such asynchronous PPs.

An Alert Failure *ALWAYS* matters. Failing to Alert causes problems, even if the problems are minor or get cancelled out by later information. Habitually failing to follow the Sponsoring Organization's Alerting Procedure - and many people do habitually "not care" and just do what they always do, even in RL - shows contempt for the SO, the TD, and the other contestants, and happens a lot less when legal, but Draconian, punishments exist, are made clear to all contestants, and awarded liberally. Of course, said Draconian punishments tend to annoy the contestants, especially those that forget once, or failed to alert a reasonably arguably non-Alertable bid, or get hit the first time they fail to Alert something that isn't Alertable "at home", but is in this tournament, or...

The sponsoring organization's toughest job is to determine where these sorts of lines get drawn between being too lenient about X, and having annoyed customers leave, and being too strict about X, and having the annoyed punished customers leave. I don't envy them those decisions (especially when I happen to disagree where a lot of my RL SO's lines are drawn).

Michael.

[candybar]

mycroft, on Aug 17 2005, 03:58 PM, said:

it is well within the sponsoring organization's right to make it clear to the TD that penalties are to be imposed for such failure - even, as it frequently is on BBO, when the TD and the SO are the same person...

Failing to Alert ... happens a lot less when legal, but Draconian, punishments exist, are made clear to all contestants, and awarded liberally. 

You may be correct that the Sponsoring Org can be draconian if they wish. I am from an ACBL background and under that procedure, damage must be shown to come from the failure to alert, before an adjusted score can be assigned.

In addition, I would like to point out the Scope of the Laws, the very first paragraph in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge:

Scope of The Laws
The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

The primary job of the TD is to RESTORE EQUITY, not punish. I hope people with draconian approaches try to remember that.

[Walddk]

candybar, on Aug 18 2005, 01:14 AM, said:

The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

The primary job of the TD is to RESTORE EQUITY not punish. I hope people with draconian approaches try to remember that.

I couldn't agree more, because that is what it says in the Objects Clause of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

However, it is a contradiction when you, in f2f bridge, actually do punish people for revokes even if they don't matter for the result. One would assume that the lawmakers must be able to do better than this if the laws are not designed to punish people.

Roland

[geller]

Quote

However, it is a contradiction when you, in f2f bridge, actually do punish people for revokes even if they don't matter for the result. One would assume that the lawmakers must be able to do better than this if the laws are not designed to punish people.

The Laws were originally written for rubber bridge, where there is no Director, so it was presumably believed that the revoke penalty would restore equity on average.

In Duplicate there is a Director and a Committee, so each individual revoke could be treated by adjudicating to restore equity, but presumably the lawmakers feel that there should be some penalty for revokes inasmuch as they disrupt the game, so in addition to restoring equity people should be punished for not paying attention. (It is less clear why the non-offending side should get a bonus in excess of equity......) If there were no revoke penalties there would be much less incentive not to revoke and directors and committees would beeven busier than they are now having to adjudicate each case. So the present system of revoke penalties seems like a reasonable "practical compromise."

[candybar]

I wouldn't call the revoke penalties punishment.

When a revoke occurs, the entire line of play is affected, and it is very difficult to reestablish what really would or should have happened. Many club directors are simply not good enough players to do this fairly, but even worse, many players would argue forever about what they 'would have done', so I have always looked at the revoke penalty as a way to protect the director.

Notice that if the offending side did not win any more tricks, there is no penalty at all, so it cannot be called punishment in that case. Punishment would require punishing the offense, not affected by when it occurred.

When the offending side has won later tricks, the penalty is very moderate and reasonable, not draconian. The non-offending side still has the right to show that the line of play in process would have produced more, thus making this into a 'restore equity' penalty, at least in my humble opinion.

In addition, the director is not allowed to cancel the penalty nor penalize more, even though he can use his discretion with other things like procedural penalties. A punishment would allow him to increase the penalty for multiple violations, etc.

Fortunately, we don't have to deal with this in online bridge

[barmar]

[quote name='Walddk' date='Aug 17 2005, 10:38 PM'] [quote name='candybar' date='Aug 18 2005, 01:14 AM'] The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.
...
However, it is a contradiction when you, in f2f bridge, actually do punish people for revokes even if they don't matter for the result. One would assume that the lawmakers must be able to do better than this if the laws are not designed to punish people.

Roland [/quote]
Note that the Law book says "primarily". While the primary goal of the laws is to restore equity and redress damage, penalizing misbehavior is a secondary goal. Ideally you'd only want to penalize intentional misbehavior, but it can be difficult to judge intentions (and when you can determine this, other laws come into play). Also, by penalizing unintentional irregularities, it's encouraging players to pay more attention to what they're doing (most revokes, bids out of turn, insufficient bids, etc. are due to lapses in attention, not deliberate attempts to deceive).

[mycroft]

candybar, on Aug 17 2005, 05:14 PM, said:

You may be correct that the Sponsoring Org can be draconian if they wish.  I am from an ACBL background and under that procedure, damage must be shown to come from the failure to alert, before an adjusted score can be assigned.

Which, of course, I said in part of the post you snipped. Assigned scores are not to be used to punish; that's what Procedural and Disciplinary penalties are for. BBO didn't have the ability to do that before - do we have it now?

Quote

In addition, I would like to point out the Scope of the Laws, the very first paragraph in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge:

Scope of The Laws
The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director.  The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

I will emphasize a different point in that wonderful guide to form (note; the Scope is not "part of the Laws" for ruling purposes, nor are the headers): "to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure."

And in fact the laws make clear that the TDs latitude in determining the severity of that remedy, if legal, is pretty wide.

Quote

The primary job of the TD is to RESTORE EQUITY, not punish. I hope people with draconian approaches try to remember that.

Totally wrong. The primary job of the *Laws* is to restore equity; the primary job of the *TD* is to make sure the game runs well, with the most enjoyment of the aggregate of its participants, subject of course to the Laws. If that means that a few habitual offenders get disciplined out of the game; if it means that more enjoyment for the aggregate comes from knowing that even the odd misalert will be punished (with no benefit to the non-offenders, unless there has been damage); if it means that hearing, *every tournament*, the laundry list of "don't dos" that disrupts at least my concentration; then it does. If the TD's judgement of most good for the most in the tournament is wrong, then people will vote with their feet. If the TD breaks the Laws trying to do "good", it'll probably get posted here :-).

I disagree with the stances that the TDs in this thread have taken; but it's not my game. I have, however, frequently given penalties for failure to Alert or inadequate disclosure; reported hands where "deviations" seem to have been caught to the Recorder (and abuse@); and will do so again, when I deem it necessary. I have given *many more* warnings than penalties; and a great deal more education than warnings.

Frankly, I'm surprised that more TDs aren't hated - because they have to do a very hard job, one that frequently puts them into a position where at least somebody will be upset - and joy-of-joys, some situations where *everybody* will be upset, and they have to do it because it's right. They have to rule against their friends and partners, they have to continually push the same players to hurry up (because otherwise they'll end up *two* rounds behind), they have to decide how badly someone who is a *much better player* than they are would possibly play, and then convince said much better player that yes, they can be that stupid, they have to decide when enough is enough and this person's money isn't worth the pain they're causing the rest of the people (and when they personally don't think much of the offender, they still have to be polite),...

But we do it, and we keep doing it, and for some reason, the punters still talk to us.
Michael.

[candybar]

RATS! We seem to be regressing again.

Today, in a BBOLAND pay tournament, with NO indication in the description or rules, the TD posted:

!s!h!c!d NO pshyo bids on 1st or 2nd hand !d!c!H!s

I thought it was made clear here that all pay tournaments were required to follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

When are we going to set some standards? AT LEAST force TDs to post their homegrown "rules"?