[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-July-13, 03:19, said:

As I understand it, the EBU's rule is justified like this:
- EW appear to have a CPU that 2♠ is two-way, either spades or Michaels.
- The act of using the CPU is a breach of Law 40A3 and 40C1.
- Therefore "equity" means an auction where West doesn't bid 2♠.
- In all such auctions, the possibiities are not obvious, so an artificial adjusted score is appropriate.

I can think of several suitable words to describe this argument.

My description would be "assumed facts not in evidence".

If the above "justification" should be correct it is completely incomprehensible why East/West were not given a substantial PP for using CPU.

(My suspicion is that we have a case of MI and that 2♠ was indeed Michaels showing hearts and a minor. I do however, have a problem with the MI in that situation.)

[blackshoe]

Does it matter, practically speaking, to the TD at the table, whether the regulation is legal?

Quote

Law 81B2: The Director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

It seems to me a director who believes this regulation is illegal has to either apply it, or quit directing, as MadDog Probst used to do periodically. Once he's agreed to direct a game, though, he's stuck with it.

The ACBL doesn't have any "illegal" regulations, afaik, but if it did, and an ACBL Tournament level Director (all of whom are ACBL employees) refused to apply it, I expect he would be fired.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-13, 13:04, said:

Does it matter, practically speaking, to the TD at the table, whether the regulation is legal?

A most astonishing question. Of course it must matter.
Hopefully we shall not see many regulations that are in conflict with the laws, I am really surprised discovering any at all.

blackshoe, on 2013-July-13, 13:04, said:

It seems to me a director who believes this regulation is illegal has to either apply it, or quit directing, as MadDog Probst used to do periodically. Once he's agreed to direct a game, though, he's stuck with it.
The ACBL doesn't have any "illegal" regulations, afaik, but if it did, and an ACBL Tournament level Director (all of whom are ACBL employees) refused to apply it, I expect he would be fired.

I should refuse to rule according to a regulation that I can show is in conflict with the Laws and I will never accept any engangement as TD where I know that I shall be expected to make such rulings.
However I do know for certain that we have no such regulation in Norway so the problem is not relevant here.

Law 12 C 1 a said:

When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

"He does so" - he ignores any regulation that says different because:

Law 80 B 2 said:

The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
[...]
f. to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

(My enhancements in both quotations.)

[blackshoe]

<shrug> Take it up with the EBU.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-13, 16:14, said:

<shrug> Take it up with the EBU.

So long as I am happy with the Norwegian NCBO I don't see why I should care?

[blackshoe]

I don't either, but you certainly seem to.

[barmar]

pran, on 2013-July-13, 15:58, said:

"He does so" - he ignores any regulation that says different because:

Law 80 B 2 said:

The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
[...]
f. to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

(My enhancements in both quotations.)

That means the TD can't create regulations in conflict with the Laws. But the Laws explicitly authorize RAs to create regulations that interpret the Laws, and these regulations are incorporated by reference, so the TD has to follow them.

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-July-13, 23:42, said:

That means the TD can't create regulations in conflict with the Laws. But the Laws explicitly authorize RAs to create regulations that interpret the Laws, and these regulations are incorporated by reference, so the TD has to follow them.

Are you sure that you do not mix:
Law 80 which applies to The Regulating Authority and Tournament Organizer
with
Law 81 which applies to THE DIRECTOR ?

The authorization in Law 80 explicitly forbids creation of regulations that are in conflict with the Laws.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-13, 17:36, said:

I don't either, but you certainly seem to.

Frankly I do wonder if we have been given an incorrect or incomplete quotation of the EBU regulation in question.
However, without any easy access to the actual text I quit here. You might say that I "blew the whistle".

[campboy]

Which bit of the EBU's justification do you actually disagree with, pran? So far the only point of gnasher's post you have explicitly objected to is the first, but that is not the EBU's position, that is the AC's opinion.

I don't think this particular case was a fielded misbid, but the EBU's justification of applying 12C1d whenever a misbid is fielded seems plausible to me.

In any case, I agree with Blackshoe that agreeing to direct for an RA requires you to accept their interpretation of law. Whether a regulation is legal or not the worst possible situation is if some TDs follow it and others don't.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2013-July-14, 01:48, said:

Frankly I do wonder if we have been given an incorrect or incomplete quotation of the EBU regulation in question.
However, without any easy access to the actual text I quit here.

EBU Orange Book 6B & 6D.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-13, 13:04, said:

The ACBL doesn't have any "illegal" regulations, afaik,

Remind me, how does the ACBL tell you to score a board that's unable to be played because the players were slow?

[DaveB]

The EBU medium for publishing Regulations is the Orange Book

Here is the extract (sorry for the length)


6 B Fielding
6 B 1 The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions
by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore
illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche.
The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say
intent will not be taken into account.
6 B 2 As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably
upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and his partner
takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.
6 B 3 A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an
unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle (see 6 D). This
is classified as a Red psyche.
6 B 4 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is
not sufficient, of itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber
psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then a classification of
at least Amber is likely to be justified.
6 B 5 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green
psyche.
6 B 6 A TD may use evidence from a partnership’s actions on two or more boards to assess
a partnership’s actions. Whilst a single instance may not provide sufficient evidence of
an unauthorised understanding to warrant a score adjustment, a repetition reinforces
the conclusion that an unauthorised understanding exists. In other words, if two
psyches are classified as Amber, the classification of both automatically becomes Red,
and the score on all such boards is adjusted accordingly.
6 B 7 A partnership’s actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised
understanding, but they are less likely to do so than after a psyche. As with psyches,
deviations may be classified as Red, Amber or Green.
6 PSYCHIC BIDDING
31
6 B 8 A partnership’s actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised
understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead.
As with psyches, misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green.
6 B 9 Because of the difference between the player’s understanding of his call and any alerts
and answers to questions by his partner it is quite common for unauthorised
information problems to be present.
6 C Reporting and Recording
6 C 1 Psychic bids do not have to be reported but a player may request the TD to record
them if he wishes. To do so is not to accuse the opponents of malpractice. The TD may
record any hand if he thinks fit.
6 C 2 Players whose partners have taken an unusual action such as a psyche, misbid or
deviation which has been reported are given the chance to explain their actions in
writing. This is because it is that player whose subsequent bidding and play is being
looked at. Such players who do not explain their actions must realise that failure to do
so might lead to unfortunate conclusions. Notably, players who fail to raise partner in
such circumstances and do not explain their actions must expect their actions to be
adjudged as fielding.
6 D Scoring a Fielded Psyche, Misbid or Deviation
6 D 1 If the TD judges a psyche, misbid or deviation Is Amber or Green, then there is no
adjustment, unless there are two Amber cases, see 6 B 6.
6 D 2 If the TD judges a psyche, misbid or deviation Is Red, then the board is completed. If
their opponents have a 60% score or better, or have gained 3 imps or more, the result
stands unchanged. Otherwise, the result is cancelled, and the board re-scored as
Average Plus to the opponents, Average Minus to the pair. Normally this translates as
3 imps, or 60%/40%.
6 D 3 If it is a Red psyche then an additional Procedural Penalty will be applied. Normally it
will be the minimum standard though a TD may increase this. In a Victory Point event,
the normal penalty is 0.5 VP. Otherwise it is 10% or 2 imps, so the board is generally
scored as 60%/30% or 5 imps.

[gnasher]

campboy, on 2013-July-14, 02:31, said:

So far the only point of gnasher's post you have explicitly objected to is the first, but that is not the EBU's position, that is the AC's opinion.

I don't think that's strictly true. The EBU's regulations instruct the director or AC to "judge actions objectively by the standards of a player's peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account." This may require the AC to determine that a CPU existed even though they do not believe this to be true.

Quote

the EBU's justification of applying 12C1d whenever a misbid is fielded seems plausible to me.

It doesn't to me. In some auctions the possibilities are few or obvious, so the score should be adjusted as normal. In other cases, all the possibilities fall on the same side of average plus, so the artificial adjustment is demonstrably inequitable.

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2013-July-14, 02:31, said:

I don't think this particular case was a fielded misbid, but the EBU's justification of applying 12C1d whenever a misbid is fielded seems plausible to me.

The plausibility of the using L12C1d is undermined a bit by the fact that the regulation is much older than L12C1d, and there was less justtification in earlier law books.

But as someone trying to finalise 'EBU White Book 2013' where these regulations now live, I would like to think they are wonderful regulations not one word of which should be changed.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2013-July-14, 02:33, said:

EBU Orange Book 6B & 6D.

Thanks for the references.
I find:

6D2 said:

If the TD judges a psyche, misbid or deviation Is Red, then the board is completed. If
their opponents have a 60% score or better, or have gained 3 imps or more, the result
stands unchanged. Otherwise, the result is cancelled, and the board re-scored as
Average Plus to the opponents, Average Minus to the pair. Normally this translates as
3 imps, or 60%/40%.

directly in conflict with the laws for the reasons I have already stated previously in this thread.

Now according to 6D2:
If NOS obtained a table result on the board equivalent to Ave+ or better the regulation says that this table result stands unchanged even if they show (beyond doubt) that they would have made a far better result on the board absent the irregularity. (Who would be satisfied with a 3 IMP win on a Board if they can show that they would have won 20 IMPS absent the irregularity?)

This is a consequence that I cannot in my wildest imagination believe was intentional.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-July-14, 03:36, said:

Quote

the EBU's justification of applying 12C1d whenever a misbid is fielded seems plausible to me.

It doesn't to me. In some auctions the possibilities are few or obvious, so the score should be adjusted as normal. In other cases, all the possibilities fall on the same side of average plus, so the artificial adjustment is demonstrably inequitable.

That is exactly the point:

Whenever the Director is empowered to award an adjusted score he must first of all establish "equity" and determine if NOS has been damaged.

He is only empowered to award an artificial adjusted score in two distinct situations:
1: If he is unable to establish equity, usually because the board has been fouled or not played at all so that there is no other result to compare with.
2: If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, but don't overlook:

Law 12C1c said:

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.

Weighted scores (where allowed) will in most cases take care of any problem with numerous or not obvious possibilities.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2013-July-14, 02:36, said:

Remind me, how does the ACBL tell you to score a board that's unable to be played because the players were slow?

Club TDs here use "not played". They base doing so on past telephone conversations with, primarily, Butch Campbell, who no longer works for the ACBL. There is no written ACBL regulation that says to do this, as far as I know.

[jallerton]

pran, on 2013-July-12, 16:35, said:

Noted.

But I cannot help feeling that this is an illegal regulation because of conflict with Law 12 (see Law 80B2{f} ).

In addition to establishing that there was an irregularity the Director shall judge whether (in his opinion) NOS has been damaged by the irregularity. The laws do not allow him to just establish that there was an irregularity and then award an adjusted score.

And more important: The regulation instructs the Director to give NOS Ave+ unless the non-offending side has done better than Ave+. How will the Director apply this regulation when NOS has done less than Ave+ but shows that they could well have done (much) more than Ave+ ???

"I give you Ave+, you must be satisfied with that!" ?

It doesn't quite work like that. The current EBU White Book explains:

EBU White Book said:

10.2 Damage in various ways
Suppose as in the last section there is apparently damage from both misinformation and unauthorised information, and the TD decides to adjust. Under which does he adjust? If the non-offending side would do better under one adjustment than the other, the TD should pick that one, ie the one that gives the non-offenders the better score.
Similarly, suppose there is a fielded misbid, which would give the non-offenders Ave+, and damage from unauthorised information. He should calculate what adjustment he would give from the unauthorised information, and then see whether that is better. If so, he adjusts that way: if not, he gives them Ave+ for the fielded misbid.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2013-July-14, 15:20, said:

It doesn't quite work like that. The current EBU White Book explains:

EBU White Book said:

10.2 Damage in various ways
Suppose as in the last section there is apparently damage from both misinformation and unauthorised information, and the TD decides to adjust. Under which does he adjust? If the non-offending side would do better under one adjustment than the other, the TD should pick that one, ie the one that gives the non-offenders the better score.
Similarly, suppose there is a fielded misbid, which would give the non-offenders Ave+, and damage from unauthorised information. He should calculate what adjustment he would give from the unauthorised information, and then see whether that is better. If so, he adjusts that way: if not, he gives them Ave+ for the fielded misbid.

How does EBU WB 10.2 enter the Picture? Is there an implication that one cannot have a fielded misbid without at the same time having illegal use of UI? If that is the case (which I doubt) it should be explicitly mentioned in 6D2.

I am only concerned about 6D2 as such.