[blackshoe]

If a player habitually hesitates to deceive, I trust that sooner or later he'll be found out, and that when that happens he'll have the book thrown at him.

As to what I want, I want players to understand their ethical obligations. Generally speaking, I trust that players who do understand them will not hesitate to deceive, so if an educated (as to the ethics of this situation) player does hesitate, your item 2 will come into play. You seem to take the opposite view - that if a player hesitates when you're specifically trying to get a read on something, he's cheating. That, unfortunately, is the attitude of many players, especially when they take a wrong view and lose a trick - and perhaps the contract. To me, that's just wrong.

It boils down to this: we need to make sure our players are educated as to the ethics of the game. That, IMO, is where clubs fall down.

[pran]

(Cant we give a split score with 100% of 12 tricks for EW, and some weighted score for NS?)

 jallerton, on 2014-July-16, 14:50, said:

It would be nice if the Law allowed us to do this, but I don't think it does. Law 12C1C states that "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". It's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores.

Nothing in Law 12 prevents the Director from applying different weights for the two sides when assigning weighted scores. In fact I have noticed just that having been done in some cases. (But the weights must of course be varied for a reason, the Director may not just assign arbitrarily weighted scores.)

[blackshoe]

jallerton says "it's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores". Sven Pran replies "Nothing in Law 12 prevents the Director from applying different weights for the two sides". Sven, that doesn't really address Jeffrey's point. It may be true that nothing specifically prevents it, but that doesn't make doing it inconsistent with Law 12C1{c}. Also, the fact that you've seen different weightings in some cases doesn't make that a correct approach. Perhaps whoever issued those rulings made a mistake.

FWIW, I agree with Jeffrey — in weighting the scores, the goal is to arrive at the best estimate of average equity around the table according to "the probabilities of a number of potential results". I don't see how it's possible to fit different weightings for different sides into that goal.

[gordontd]

 Aardv, on 2014-July-16, 16:14, said:

f the magic formula "I wasn't thinking about this trick" automatically avoids penalty under 73F, then a player who has considered whether to cover a J with Qxx can use it to conceal his holding, and to make that work he can hesitate then use the formula sometimes with xx also.

I can see how you've been given that impression by one poster here, but I don't think that's true.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 09:02, said:

If the game of bridge is such that players, particularly in these days of an aging demographic, can't make little mistakes like falling asleep or losing concentration, without having "could have known" thrown at them, then those players will quit playing. Is that what we want?

That, of course, is the wrong question. The right question is whether we require the aging demographic to follow bridge laws. The answer is "yes". If the consequence of that is that they quit bridge that is unfortunate, but not a reason to let them play by different rules.

Rik

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 18:08, said:

jallerton says "it's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores". Sven Pran replies "Nothing in Law 12 prevents the Director from applying different weights for the two sides". Sven, that doesn't really address Jeffrey's point. It may be true that nothing specifically prevents it, but that doesn't make doing it inconsistent with Law 12C1{c}. Also, the fact that you've seen different weightings in some cases doesn't make that a correct approach. Perhaps whoever issued those rulings made a mistake.

FWIW, I agree with Jeffrey — in weighting the scores, the goal is to arrive at the best estimate of average equity around the table according to "the probabilities of a number of potential results". I don't see how it's possible to fit different weightings for different sides into that goal.

I have no problem with the possibility (in special situations) that the estimated probability for a particular line of play is different for the two sides.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-July-17, 01:15, said:

I have no problem with the possibility (in special situations) that the estimated probability for a particular line of play is different for the two sides.

It's obvious that you don't.

[PeterAlan]

 pran, on 2014-July-17, 01:15, said:

I have no problem with the possibility (in special situations) that the estimated probability for a particular line of play is different for the two sides.

If E/W and N/S are at the same table, then a line of play for one side is also the line of play for the other. What are the circumstances that you have in mind?

[VixTD]

I think the only situations that call for non-balancing scores are those in which both sides are non-offending (e.g. in a case of an error by the TD or other outside agency) in which both sides get the benefit of a generous weighting, and those in which both sides are offending (including where the otherwise innocent party has taken wild or gambling action).

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 16:50, said:

If a player habitually hesitates to deceive, I trust that sooner or later he'll be found out, and that when that happens he'll have the book thrown at him.

As to what I want, I want players to understand their ethical obligations. Generally speaking, I trust that players who do understand them will not hesitate to deceive, so if an educated (as to the ethics of this situation) player does hesitate, your item 2 will come into play. You seem to take the opposite view - that if a player hesitates when you're specifically trying to get a read on something, he's cheating. That, unfortunately, is the attitude of many players, especially when they take a wrong view and lose a trick - and perhaps the contract. To me, that's just wrong.

It boils down to this: we need to make sure our players are educated as to the ethics of the game. That, IMO, is where clubs fall down.

I'm with you. I like to base my interpretation and application of the Laws on the assumption that most players are honest. If they say "I wasn't thinking about this trick", I usually accept that.

[Aardv]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 16:50, said:

...Generally speaking, I trust that players who do understand them will not hesitate to deceive...You seem to take the opposite view - that if a player hesitates when you're specifically trying to get a read on something, he's cheating. That, unfortunately, is the attitude of many players, especially when they take a wrong view and lose a trick - and perhaps the contract. To me, that's just wrong.

So why do you want to penalize a player who hesitates in a position, as in the hand at the top of this thread, where he can't possibly be thinking about which card to play? By all means offer the defender advice on his ethical obligations, if you think he needs it, but why use the Laws to reward declarer for having picked up this essentially meaningless hesitation?

[blackshoe]

 Aardv, on 2014-July-18, 01:16, said:

So why do you want to penalize a player who hesitates in a position, as in the hand at the top of this thread, where he can't possibly be thinking about which card to play? By all means offer the defender advice on his ethical obligations, if you think he needs it, but why use the Laws to reward declarer for having picked up this essentially meaningless hesitation?

Nowhere in this thread have I said anything at all like that.

I don't use the laws to "reward" anybody. I rectify irregularities, and may sometimes issue procedural or disciplinary penalties.