Re: Non-weighted adjustments
Matthias Berghaus <Ziffbridge <at> t-online.de>
2016-03-31 07:06:34 GMT
Am 31.03.2016 um 01:33 schrieb Nigel Guthrie:
> [Timothy N HILL]
> “The Laws ... are primarily designed not as punishment for
> irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where
> non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.” [Intro] “The objective of a
> score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to
> take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its
> infraction.” [12B1] “In order to do equity ... an assigned adjusted
> score may be weighted ....” [12C1c]
> That‘s the nub of the problem. In many cases, especially when UI is
> used, the law-breaker would have had a worse result had he complied
> with the law. Few infractions are noticed, reported, or ruled against.
> On the rare occasions when a director rules against a habitual
> law-breaker, equity mitigates deterrence. In the long term, his
> “carelessness” is rewarded. Often victims complain that that the
> derisory redress wasn’t worth the hassle of calling the director,
> especially in the confusion of “protect yourself”, SEWOG, and weighed
> rulings (Incidentally, the latter pointless and unnecessary rules
> should just be dropped)
> [Timothy N HILL]
> If you feel that a player who should have known better should be
> “punished” for violating 16B1/73C, assess a procedural  or
> disciplinary  penalty, but adjust the result to “rectify damage”
> and “do equity” [12C].
> In practice, directors rarely and inconsistently impose procedural or
> disciplinary penalties.
Seems that you know other directors than I do.
> I asked a director with decades of top-level experience about them.
> He told me that players resent them.
Well, who wouldn`t? But the crux of the matter often lies in hiw you
sell your decision. Players should not resent the decision, they should
realize they did something wrong. If you don`t make them realize that,
they are not going to understand why they are handed a PP, and then it
is the director`s fault.
> They regard them as tantamount to an accusation of cheating.
You may observe that Tim began his last sentence above with " should
have known better...". How would you call that? If that is someone who
often plays in your game it shouldn`t come to that, some measures should
have been taken if said player has violated _that_ rule a couple of
times before. Yes, we have penalized players, we have banned players
(temporarily) from our club games, which always had a healthy effect.
All came back (except the one who died, sad to say), and all showed much
better behaviour afterwards.
> The director has never imposed one. Far better to include an element
> deterrence in basic rulings.
This is your moment. Show us how an element of deterrence is put into
basic rulings. Tell us how the job is done. Please.
> [Herman De Wael]
> There are no weighted scores after use of UI. So get this one out of
> your head, Nigel.
> [Timothy N HILL]
> Sure there are. If the table result stemmed from a violation of
> 16B1/73C, you have to use 12C1c to assign an adjusted score. What you
> can’t do is give a non-zero weight to any result that, given the UI,
> could be achieved only by violating 16B1/73C (including the table result).
> Thus, top directors cannot agree on how the law applies to simple
> basic cases with agreed facts.
Thus, top directors do not speak the same mother language. If you had
read Herman`s mails you would have noticed that he himself noted that
his wording was not correct. He meant to express that in UI rulings
there can be no part of a disallowed action in a weighted ruling (except
in quite unusual circumstances where an allowed action may lead to the
same contract reached by disallowed means, which is so rare usually to
be reported on BLML, in other words nearly non-existent.
> When laws are incomprehensible,
What, in the name of all saints, does that mean?
> and non-deterrent,
I usually manage to deter players all right, and I am not known for
being overly harsh....
> would-be honest players become frustrated,
Not where I play or direct, not that I know of.
With what? Their level of play? Happens all the time. The directors?
Again, not where I play, but I am willling to admit that in my neck of
the woods we have a multitude of good directors. So have you, I believe.
I wonder why you are so afflicted?
> and paranoid.
Hmm. Am I answering a mail by such a person, I wonder?
You are very big in asserting things, but less so with offering proof of
those assertions. Asserting something over and over again does not make
it more true. Show us a player who started to cheat because of the laws,
who quit Bridge because of the laws, even one who developed a problem
because of the laws. I started playing 30 years ago ( more, in fact, but
near enough), and I haven`t met such a person. Not one. I know a few
people who quit Bridge. The laws where no factor, and most of them came
back to Bridge when the problem that kept them away was solved.
In an earlier mail I asked you to show us proof, to show us cases that
support your assertions. Silence.... Little wonder, you have none. Now
the ACBL, after having refused to implement weighted scores for a long
time, is about to do so. Only idiots on the other side of the water? Or
rather people who gathered information from the NBOs that used them, and
reasessed their position?
Announcements, long time in use in England and other NBOs, have been
introduced as of January 1st in my country. What prophets we had, all of
a sudden. The end of the world i s near, and, more important, the end of
Bridge. Did it happen? Neither, curiously. I wonder why....
> Cheating is never justified but when the rules are a mess, it becomes
> more understandable.
There are a couple of cheating cases in the focus of interest in the
last few months. So, show us where the messy laws made them cheaters. Go
on, I am really interested to know how those people where made to cheat
by our actual laws, (or even by the laws in use then, if you can do
_that_ ) even though some of them where suspected 30 years ago.
Chronological misorientation? Time-travelling suggestions? Let me remind
you that half of a famous English pair had a history in other card
games, too. All the fault of our current rules, I suppose. It can`t be
otherwise, UI, weighted scores and other messy things did not exist back
then. Fascinating thing, isn`t it? You may be in for a Nobel prize if
you can prove that our current rules are to blame for cheaters long ago.
Go on, I am rooting for you. I never communicated with a Nobel prize
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org