[Rain]

What does everyone think of imposing harsher punishments (or at least being less tolerant) for those who are self rated advanced/expert or above?

Hypothetical case like this :

A and B playing. A is self rated beginner, B is rated Expert. A asks B what a bid means, B refuses to answer. A asks again, B said "Its a pass!" A complains to bbo about rude people.

Now reverse the situation, and have B ask A what A's pass means.

OK. Now, suppose each infraction causes some demerit points to be assigned. Should we assign the same demerit points to both A and B? Or give B more demerits because he is supposed to be "Expert" and should know better?

-------------

I see this as one way of guiding people towards their real skill level. People who know that they may be held more responsible for their action if they overrate their ability perhaps would have second thoughts before so doing.

Other ramifications of course, but this is one of the main points.

Rain

[JRG]

Yes to your basic question.

The hypothetical case though is a problem. Since you are not supposed to tell your partner what your bids mean, then the "expert" is correct in not answering. However, if the opponents say "Go ahead and answer if you want", then not answering a beginner's question is, in fact, rude as you suggested and should be treated as rude behaviour.

Several times playing against opponents who had not played together before, I have said in the chat, "Go ahead and explain".

[mrdct]

In online bridge players alert and describe their own bids, similar to playing with screens. Screen-play is slightly different in that players alert and describe both their partner's bids and their own bids. It takes a little bit of getting used to, but it's easy to get the hang of it after a few hands.

You can answer questions directly to the person who asked (by clicking on the arrow pointing to that player), to both opps (by clicking on the arrow pointing left & right) or in the box that appears when you click on your own bid (thereby recording the answer in the LIN file for the hand); by any of those means your partner will not see that answer so there will be no unauthorised information.

In all forms of bridge it is a game of full disclosure and there is never a situation where a player (expert or otherwise) can refuse to answer a question. If it is a silly or obvious question, then give a silly or obvious answer such as "my pass idicates that I have a hand with inadequate values and/or inappropriate distribution to make a bid at this time but may hold a hand that intends to take a later action".

I got quite upset with a self-proclaimed expert in a recent BBO tournament who refused to answer a question about a bid he didn't make (i.e. "what would it have meant if you bid 2♠ instead of 3♠?" or "what other ways could you have raised ♠s in that situation?"). Unfortunately the director refused to help (possibly through ignorance of the laws) and made quite a rude and condescending comment to me. I refused to play-on without an answer to my question (which at the time I felt was critical to getting my defence right).

[keylime]

Rain,

I'm all for that concept of a higher plane of standard for responsible disclosure and conduct to those who seem to resist their "real" skill level instead of their "true" skill level.

Also, I think that there must be a lot less tolerance to those that insist on infringing basic social norms and decorums of the game.

All in all, ditto here from a scorching BC.

[1eyedjack]

JRG, on Jun 21 2004, 07:41 PM, said:

The hypothetical case though is a problem. Since you are not supposed to tell your partner what your bids mean, then the "expert" is correct in not answering.

I don't understand this. The software permits both the questions and answers to be entirely private between the addressor and addressee. Neither's partner need be aware of the exchange.

[mink]

I think here is not clear if A and B are partners or opps. JRG obviously asumed they are partners, and the others asumed they were opps. I am not sure what Rain meant them to be. Rain, maybe you could clarify this? ty

Karl

[Rain]

opps

[hotShot]

Hi Rain!

You are right, Experts should know better, and can be treated that way.
The same thing applies to experienced partnerships.

But how do you tell if you have a true beginner or expert playing?
If in trouble, they just change their skill level to beginner before the TD arrives,
and they are save.

But maybe a technical solution can help here.

Have a nice day
hotShot

[jillybean]

Call me paranoid but I think by having Novice/Beginner/Intermediate on your prolfile you get a higher number of non-alerted bids, incorrect or incomplete explanations.
To compound the problem, unless I am playing with an Adv/Expert I am often unaware that a bid should have been alerted or that it was incorrectly explained.

I think it is largely self-policing, there are always going to be unscrupulous players. If I do have an incident with a player I will make a note on their profile and pay special attention next time I play against them.

Advanced/Expert kibitzers could help by bringing obvious bidding anomalies to the TD’s attention.

jillybean2

[1eyedjack]

I am concerned that the suggestion might give rise to an incentive to understate your self-certified ability, on the grounds that you may expect preferential treatment in a disputed ruling, or be given undeserved lattitude in such circumstances.

I think I would just prefer a level playing field with equal treatment for all regardless of self-certified ratings.

[Rain]

I didn't mean bridge rulings, but bbo disciplinary type rulings. So if my example occurs in a tourney, the TD should rule according to bridge law.

But suppose my example is an example of a disciplinery infraction, where bridge skill is relevant too. If 2 parties commit the same offence, should we hold the party rated advanced or above to a higher standard than a party rated beginner/novice, and hence subject him to a sterner punishment for a similar offence?


Rain

[mink]

Hi Rain,

I would first ask the player who did not explain if he was aware that he should have explained anything he agreed on with his partner that is relvant in this context. I doubt that there is any player who did not explain but answers yes here. If such an unaware player was advanced and above, I would additionally ask how it is possible that he is advanced but doesn't know. Maybe there is some good explanation about living in a remote countryside where such issues were never discussed. Or he knew about it but thougt it would not apply in this special case. As I could not prove anything else, I would believe him and instruct him to mind the laws in future.

But if there is no explaination or a rude answer, I think it is time to award him some of your demerit points.

Karl

[JRG]

Rain, on Jun 22 2004, 07:11 AM, said:

opps

OH. Sorry, I clearly misunderstood.

If an opponent does not answer a query about the meaning of a call (no matter how obvious anyone thinks it should be), then he is being rude and should be penalized in some manner.

I've been in the other situation (and this is what I was discussing), where one partner asks the other (basically), "what does that mean?" (or, after a 4NT bid, "do you play 14-30?"). I think in a friendly game, especially if the pair is a new partnership (or maybe ONLY if they are a new partnership), allowing an answer is perfectly OK.

[EarlPurple]

I'd rather get a bad result by misinterpreting partner's bid than have to resort to unauthorised information. It's part of the game if you play with pick-up partners, like in individuals. Learning not to make ambiguous bids, that is.

Try playing cut-for-partners rubber bridge for money... At least on BBO all you lose are IMPs/matchpoints.