[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2011-January-02, 15:45, said:

You do not consider that protecting misinformers ("the guilty")?

If you would not put that responsibility on the "experienced player", the misinformer would get to keep a bad result and, in case of a good result, he will see the TD at the table, his good score will be taken from him through an AS and he risks a PP.

When you do put that responsibility on the "experienced player", the misinformer walks.

You are still misquoting me, deliberately I fancy. Of course it is always fun to use emotive words like "the guilty" so that people will not see the lack of argument behind what you are saying.

You still have produced no argument whatever to suggest that the regulators are deliberately trying to help people breaking the rules rather than just clarifying the Law.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 17:26, said:

You are still misquoting me, deliberately I fancy. Of course it is always fun to use emotive words like "the guilty" so that people will not see the lack of argument behind what you are saying.

You still have produced no argument whatever to suggest that the regulators are deliberately trying to help people breaking the rules rather than just clarifying the Law.

I have quoted you, using the "reply" function. Please enlighten me, where I have misquoted you and this misunderstanding can be solved, because I certainly do not have any intention to misquote you or to misunderstand you.

I am not sure whether that is mutual. You now want me to produce an argument that the regulators are helping people breaking the rules. I have never claimed that regulators helped people breaking the rules.

I claimed, and I believe quite clearly so, that regulators -in an attempt to protect people who already have broken the rules, typically by failing to alert- take the risk of putting a non offending side between a rock and a hard place.

They do this by requiring this non offending side to choose between:
1) doing nothing and take the risk of a bad result when there was MI from the opponents. On top of that they can expect a remark from the TD that they should have protected themselves
2) protecting themselves and run the risk that there was no MI (i.e. the opponents actually play that the bid was natural and not alertable). In that case, they will invariably give their partner UI, which will put their side at a disadvantage.

In this actual case, I believe there would have been plenty of TDs in the EBU who would have told East that he should have protected himself if he wouldn't have asked. I know that, you know that and East knew it too. Therefore, he asked. And as a result West had UI.

The fact is that West wouldn't have had UI if East could have just passed without needing to protect himself.

Rik

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2011-January-03, 08:03, said:

I have quoted you, using the "reply" function. Please enlighten me, where I have misquoted you and this misunderstanding can be solved, because I certainly do not have any intention to misquote you or to misunderstand you.
I am not sure whether that is mutual. You now want me to produce an argument that the regulators are helping people breaking the rules. I have never claimed that regulators helped people breaking the rules.
I claimed, and I believe quite clearly so, that regulators -in an attempt to protect people who already have broken the rules, typically by failing to alert- take the risk of putting a non offending side between a rock and a hard place.
They do this by requiring this non offending side to choose between:
1) doing nothing and take the risk of a bad result when there was MI from the opponents. On top of that they can expect a remark from the TD that they should have protected themselves
2) protecting themselves and run the risk that there was no MI (i.e. the opponents actually play that the bid was natural and not alertable). In that case, they will invariably give their partner UI, which will put their side at a disadvantage.
In this actual case, I believe there would have been plenty of TDs in the EBU who would have told East that he should have protected himself if he wouldn't have asked. I know that, you know that and East knew it too. Therefore, he asked. And as a result West had UI.
The fact is that West wouldn't have had UI if East could have just passed without needing to protect himself.

I suspect that Bluejak's real problem in arguing with Trinidad is that, like many players, both are in fundamental agreement that "protect-yourself" rules are fatally flawed. IMO, they should be scrapped. If disclosure rules were simplified, the law could place all the onus on the disclosers.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2011-January-03, 08:11, said:

I suspect that Bluejak's real problem in arguing with Trinidad is that, like many players, both are in fundamental agreement that "protect-yourself" rules are fatally flawed. IMO, they should be scrapped. If disclosure rules were simplified, the law could place all the onus on the disclosers.

That sums it up. I don't know why it took me so much text to write just that.

Rik

[bluejak]

I am not interested in this case as to whether the rules are good, bad, indifferent or fatally flawed. It is Trinidad's assertion that the reason for them is for the purpose of helping people break the rules I find so galling. He says the regulators have brought these regulations in to make life easier for the players who break the rules, and that is just not true. What the effect of these rules it is not relevant tot this assertion: it is the statement of the purpose I dislike.

And what rules is he talking about? Simply ones that clarify the Laws. But instead of treating them as clarification [whether good, bad, indifferent or flawed] he asserts their purpose is to help people who break the Laws. It is a shocking assertion.

But it is very difficult to argue with it in detail because he produces no backing for this assertion, nothing to disagree with, even though it is such an awful thing to say.

[alphatango]

The regulation:

Orange Book 3A3 said:

It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

If I understand correctly, Trinidad argues that 1) the regulation as written is of essentially null effect, but 2) this is not the case in practice due to previous and current directors' rulings (rather, the effect is to disadvantage the NOS), and 3) further, the regulators would not have written a regulation intending it to be of null effect, so 4) the regulators must have intended the actual effect.

bluejak counters that the regulation is indeed intended to be of null effect (a clarification rather than a modification) and therefore that the implication about the motives of the regulators is improper.

Expressing no opinion about the merits of that argument, can someone explain to me why directors are ruling incorrectly, leading to point 2? (Or is that under dispute?) Have relevant appeals been considered by the L&EC? (Links to any cases would be appreciated.)

[bluejak]

First, I do not believe it is of null effect.

Second, I do not believe that the effect of the regulation has relevance to why the regulators wrote it.

Third, I do not understand why you say TDs are ruling wrong - nothing to do with my argument with Trinidad, but another strange assertion in my view, though not one with the same feelings behind it.

[alphatango]

1. It seemed that Trinidad was arguing that one can almost never ask without giving UI which may restrict partner (in the words of the regulation, "putting their side's interests at risk). That seems to me to be a plausible viewpoint. Clearly, you disagree -- could you provide an example of a situation where one can ask without passing UI?

2. From the discussion, I understand that there have been cases in which directors have ruled that the NOS in a misinformation case could and should have asked questions, and were denied redress on that basis. It is not clear to me what those situations would be, and I'd appreciate an example (or a case writeup).

(Comments for clarity: By "null effect" I meant that rulings should be the same under the law with and without the regulation. By "directors ruling incorrectly" I meant that they must be so doing if they are ruling that the NOS must protect themselves even when they "put their side's interests at risk" by asking.)

[campboy]

alphatango, on 2011-January-04, 05:48, said:

1. It seemed that Trinidad was arguing that one can almost never ask without giving UI which may restrict partner (in the words of the regulation, "putting their side's interests at risk). That seems to me to be a plausible viewpoint. Clearly, you disagree -- could you provide an example of a situation where one can ask without passing UI?

When one is declarer.

[alphatango]

campboy, on 2011-January-04, 07:30, said:

When one is declarer.

*grins* Noted. Also, I suppose, if you can convince the director that in a particular situation you always ask or randomly ask. But I am thinking of the particular case of an unalerted bid (and where you cannot so convince the director).

[nige1]

The question of law-makers "intentions" is somewhat academic: Bluejak is right that directors can't be sure of the intentions of law-makers. (Nor, IMO, can they be sure of the intentions of law-breakers). It is overwhelmingly likely, however, that law-makers have benign general intentions. Unfortunately, good intentions don't necessarily entail good outcomes. Anyway, some of the specific intentions of law-makers seem to be questionable. As a matter of policy they prefer so-called "Equity" to simple deterrence. The practical effect of "Equity" legislation is to guarantee a long-term profit for some infractions. SEWOG and "protect yourself" legislation make that bad situation worse.

[campboy]

alphatango, on 2011-January-04, 08:37, said:

*grins* Noted. Also, I suppose, if you can convince the director that in a particular situation you always ask or randomly ask. But I am thinking of the particular case of an unalerted bid (and where you cannot so convince the director).

I suspect the distinction is between explanations that are implausible taken in isolation and those which are merely implausible because of what you hold. In the latter case asking for confirmation is always going to give meaningful information about your hand; in the former it needn't.

[bluejak]

alphatango, on 2011-January-04, 05:48, said:

1. It seemed that Trinidad was arguing that one can almost never ask without giving UI which may restrict partner (in the words of the regulation, "putting their side's interests at risk). That seems to me to be a plausible viewpoint. Clearly, you disagree -- could you provide an example of a situation where one can ask without passing UI?

I disagree with Trinidad that the purpose of the regulators was to cause law-breakers to gain. Trinidad did not argue the effect of the regulation, nor do I.

[alphatango]

Fair enough. Apologies if I misrepresented your position.

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2011-January-04, 07:30, said:

When one is declarer.

Good point and very sharp.
However, I suppose that the regulators would have written "when he is declaring", rather than "when he is not putting his side's interests at risk" if they really meant "when he is declaring".

Rik

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2011-January-04, 10:13, said:

I disagree with Trinidad that the purpose of the regulators was to cause law-breakers to gain. Trinidad did not argue the effect of the regulation, nor do I.

That is absurd. I have argued the effect of the regulation all along. Weren't we discussing an actual case where the effect of the regulation had a clear impact? In my very first post on this subject used the phrase " 'Self protecting' leads to...", just to argue the effect of the regulation.

Quote

This example is like so many others. "Self protecting" leads to a mess because TDs do not protect the "self protectors" when they should. Let's get rid of the whole "self protecting" right now and let the missinformers just pay for their irregularities, in accordance with the Laws. Because, as it is now, "self protecting" is in fact "missinformer protecting" and "selfinflicting".

The whole disussion was about the effect of he regulation on an actual case. I am not interested in the regulators' motives for writing the regulation, for the simple fact that I am 100% sure that their intentions were good. (I presume that the purpose was to prevent experienced players from exploiting small inaccuracies in aunt Millie's explanations where they should know better. That would be a noble intent.)

The effect of the way the regulation is written, however, is that experienced players need to protect themselves, even when they play against pairs of similar strength or against Meckwell for that matter. And there can't be any doubt that this requirement has the effect that it puts innocent players in a pickle while letting misinformers off the hook.

Rik

[FrancesHinden]

You (Trinidad) are making a number of assumptions (or guesses, to be fair, as you've asked about them) which I believe to be invalid.

You've given a couple of sample rulings which I don't believe would happen at the table, within the EBU at least. After an auction starting 1H (2C) 3S not alerted, any TD would rule that 4th seat is entitled to assume 3S is natural and would rule in their favour if it turned out to be, by agreement, a splinter.

I am not aware of any rulings within the EBU (where I keep track of them) that have come to the attention of the L&E, where the TD has failed to give an MI adjustment because someone should have 'protected themself' and anyone thought it even marginal. In fact, I can only think of one example of such a ruling. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact auction, but it involved a double by the partner of a pre-emptor that was obviously penalties, but was (incorrectly) not alerted. The next hand was an experienced player who knew that double is played as penalties by 99.9% of players here, had a good idea from looking at his hand that it was penalties, and should have asked.

You ask for examples of when you can ask about potential MI without putting your partner under UI constraints and without waking the opponents up. The most common situation is when it appears that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call. The most blatant example is an unannounced and unalerted 2C response to 1NT. Another one which has come up at the table is when an explanation as given makes no sense (the explainer has had a slip of the tongue). But you are perfectly entitled to assume that an unalerted 2-red suit response to 1NT is natural; or that a 2minor overcall of 1NT is natural, or that a double-jump response at the 3-level is natural.

[Trinidad]

Thank you (Frances) for this information. It is very helpful.

Maybe I should provide some background why I immediately believed Nige1 that East was supposed to protect himself in this situation.

For starters, the East player actually did ask. Presumably he did that because he assumed that he was supposed to protect himself. You say that he didn't need to, but it is pretty clear that East wasn't aware of that. Apparently, it is also not that unlikely that you meet opponents who will play 3♠ on this auction as a splinter. After all, at least the North player seems to think that it is a good idea.

Now for the background:
I play in The Netherlands and we have a very similar regulation. Here the requirement to protect yourself really means something. If someone forgets to alert a cuebid in the suit where an opponent made a weak jump overcall, then it is fairly obvious that the alert was forgotten. I don't have a real problem that you are expected to ask, rather than let things get out of hand and force some kind of AS on the board, but it is the start of a slippery slope. In The Netherlands we already went a lot further down that slope:

You are supposed to ask when (1NT)-Pass-(2♦) is not alerted. After all, Jacoby transfers are alertable but extremely popular and they have only been alertable since 2009. You are also supposed to ask about (1NT)-Dbl-(2♦). In this case, the Jacoby transfer has always been alertable. But the experienced player knows that so many players play it and don't alert, so he is supposed to protect himself. The same goes for (to name a few):
- a bid in the fourth suit (which some play as entirely conventional and others as semi-natural),
- a jump overcall of 3♣ (which many play as Ghestem, showing both majors, unless they have forgotten ),
- pretty much every double, since conventional doubles have only been alertable for the past year,
- every redouble. Despite the fact that conventional redoubles have always been alertable, everybody thought that they were not since conventional doubles were not alertable. And a redouble is also a double... kind of... isn't it?
- a 2♦ opening. After all, "everybody" plays Multi.

In other words, if a bid has an alertable meaning which is common, you have to protect yourself. As you may have noticed, a lot of these situations are not about an opponent forgetting to alert. Most of them occur because players can't be bothered studying 1 A4 of alert rules. They don't know which of their bids are alertable, they never will and they don't care because the self protecting regulation takes care of things.

I hope you understand my rant against "self protecting" rules. I would like to see a clear stop to "self protecting" requirements. I don't want to be on the slippery slope, even if that means that every now and then there will be an artificially awarded score since someone didn't alert a cuebid where everyone with half a brain would know that it required an alert.

I am usually not a black or white guy but for me the question is "Who do you give the problem: the non alerter or his opponent?".

Rik

[alphatango]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-04, 15:52, said:

I am not aware of any rulings within the EBU (where I keep track of them) that have come to the attention of the L&E, where the TD has failed to give an MI adjustment because someone should have 'protected themself' and anyone thought it even marginal. In fact, I can only think of one example of such a ruling. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact auction, but it involved a double by the partner of a pre-emptor that was obviously penalties, but was (incorrectly) not alerted. The next hand was an experienced player who knew that double is played as penalties by 99.9% of players here, had a good idea from looking at his hand that it was penalties, and should have asked.

I took some time to search through the EBU Appeals Books from 2005-2008. My only criterion was to look for the word "protect", and ignored results where the word did not refer to this principle of "protecting oneself".

I came up with the following: 2005 (2), 2006 (6, 12), 2007 (19, 24), 2008 (2, 22, 27). Of these, only 2007 #19 came anywhere near the situation I was thinking about (needing to ask about an unalerted call). In that situation, a player holding 92-void-KT987-AKJT93 heard the auction:

P  1D 1S 2H (NFB)
P  3C P  3D
X  P  P  P

and claimed damage from a failure to alert the X as penalties (would run to 4C). The player did not ask at his turn to call, did ask at the end of the auction, and heard (quoting from the writeup): "'Good question, we are not a regular partnership, I would double for penalties in that situation but I know my partner plays more takeout doubles than I do' (paraphrase)."

I note that the director ruled against the player based on a failure to ask ("details of ruling"), although he did note the regulation relating to "general bridge inferences" under his comments. It was not clear to me why he commented in the same section that the player had an opportunity to ask "without putting his side's interest at risk". (The player claimed in the appeal that he could not ask during the auction without potentially alerting up the opponents to a possible misunderstanding about the double.)

The AC upheld the ruling solely on the basis of a failure to "protect himself". I don't see why both rulings were based on a failure to ask rather than "general bridge inference", as the latter seems to be a far more solid argument to me. The commentators all seemed to focus on this as well. Frances, you were apparently on the AC -- would you be able to provide any insight?

FrancesHinden said:

The most common situation is when it appears that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call. The most blatant example is an unannounced and unalerted 2C response to 1NT.

I agree with these examples (and the rest that I have not quoted). But ISTM that it can only "appear that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call" if that call would be alertable regardless of the meaning. But if there are any such situations, the alert would be somewhat useless. (However, one can safely ask about a missing announcement where is always either an announcement or an alert, as in your example.)

[mjj29]

alphatango, on 2011-January-04, 22:21, said:

I agree with these examples (and the rest that I have not quoted). But ISTM that it can only "appear that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call" if that call would be alertable regardless of the meaning. But if there are any such situations, the alert would be somewhat useless. (However, one can safely ask about a missing announcement where is always either an announcement or an alert, as in your example.)

Actually, a 2C response to 1NT is neither alertable nor annoucable if it is natural and to play. It's just that such a vanishingly small set of people play it like that in tournaments that it's much more likely the alert/announcement was forgotten and you should protect yourself rather than assuming they actually play it as a weak takeout in clubs.