[McBruce]

A new type of Director call is becoming more frequent online and I wanted to warn you all against it with a rather egregious example. We've seen this offline from good players who can work out the hand after the play is complete and know how to present selected details that point to their innocence and the opponents' devious cunning. The online world, where we get to see the hand record once the deal is over, extends this to the not-quite-so-good players. This particular cherry pick has several attributes to watch for:

--there is an infraction by an opponent that is minor and apparent to most even if uncorrected
--the aggrieved player claims to have fallen for the rather unlikely natural meaning indicated
--the Director is not called until well after the end of the deal
--there are blindingly obvious clues that things are not as the aggrieved player pictures them, or claims to have pictured them, but none of these causes a Director call
--in reporting the infraction, the aggrieved player will omit details that derail his case
--another reason for the bad score, unrelated to the infraction, often exists in the ensuing cardplay
--it soon becomes apparent that viewing the hand record is the catalyst, that the aggrieved player decides he was damaged, looks for the most advantageous bid not made, and convinces himself that with correct information that bid would have been made

I'm going to give you the latest example without all the pertinent details, as part of the exercise. (I tried to avoid pronouns until I got tired of writing 'the aggrieved player' and checking that my spelling of aggrieved agreed with the last time I typed it, so please accept he or his as being sexist but not necessarily indicative of the actual player....)

♠ 98
♥ T73
♦ AQT84
♣ Q64

Partner opens 1♠, RHO overcalls 1NT, and after you double, LHO bids 2♦ with no alert. Partner passes, RHO bids 2♥, and with LHO showing diamonds you decide not to compete further. 2♥ becomes the final contract and ten tricks are made, resulting in a very bad score. Our hero, as the auction in the next deal comes to a close, calls the Director with the helpful message "Unalerted transfer, I would have bid 2♠ with an alert."

It doesn't take long to find more holes in this argument than in a good piece of Swiss cheese:

--Partner had opened 1♠ in third seat, at favourable vulnerability. This pair's convention card showed that they played Reverse Drury and that in this position this could be a four-card spade suit. Coming in was potential suicide, especially after doubling the 1NT overcall with only eight points. Partner had a decent minimum opener that would be made in first seat and would probably raise, and certainly compete over a 3♥ call, after hearing this 2♠ call from a partner who had previously doubled the 1NT overcall.
--The 2♥ contract was defeatable after a spade to partner's ace, a spade back to the notrumper's king, a trump to dummy's queen and partner's ace (from ace-jack doubleton) and a spade ruffed by our hero. At this point a diamond lead would catch partner with Kx. A diamond ruff with the jack of trumps on the third round would be the sixth trick for the defense, and now a fourth round of spades would promote the ten of hearts to become the seventh trick for +200 and a near top. Even ace and a second small diamond to the king works, for a spade comes back for the same promotion; if declarer ruffs high with the declaring hand's final trump, you pitch your third club and declarer cannot get to dummy without allowing two more tricks to high ruffs. Unfortunately, partner, when in with the ace of trumps, lazily led a small spade for the trick four ruff when any spade would have had equal effect, and this indicated a disastrous club return, which led to two overtricks and a near bottom.
--The aggrieved player must have noticed after the opening lead that dummy, who had bid 2♦ apparently naturally, had six hearts and two diamonds. Table history shows that he did, comments were made. But if bidding 2♠ over a transfer completion was in the mind of our victim, it did not occur to the aggrieved player to call the Director until perusal of a deal record and some wishful thinking indicated that it would work.

Much of your skill as a Director is revealed in how you handle calls such as this. I learned what not to do from more than one club director who would loudly and conspicuously take the player's head and several other appendages and figuratively force the Swiss cheese upon them, advertising the details of the deal to the rest of the room. Entertaining perhaps, but not helpful. The much better way is to let the player know that you will have a good look and get them to continue play on the following deals, even if the whole thing screams of inanity. Very occasionally online you get a player who demands an immediate ruling and will not play until he gets one. That's easy. You simply tell him that you've always wanted to get the chance to play a few hands with his partner and that this is perilously close to happening.

The difficulty is in avoiding the temptation to clearly say what you know has happened: the player has gotten a bad result, looked at the hands and convinced himself that since 2♠ will make, he would have bid it with correct and timely information and everyone would have conveniently passed.

One way is to trot out that favorite of ACBL TDs, the 'experience or expertise' clause in the Alert procedure, 'Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.' Another is the 'knows or suspects' clause, 'An opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.' It's pretty clear from this that our hero should have called when dummy hit.

In this case, my choice was to simply point out to him that had he called when dummy appeared, I could have asked him at that point what he would have done, forcing him to answer before seeing the other 26 cards. This appeared to make the point quite nicely and no further argument came back. If it had, I would have told him that 2♠ would probably lead to more bidding, even quite possibly from partner, and I’d have pointed out partner's elementary defensive lapse that led to the bad score.

So what shall we call this type of director call? The Cherry Pick? The Holey Moley? The Printout Problem? The Captain's Complaint (since the aggrieved party morphs from Captain Oblivious to Captain Obvious as the hand record makes it clear what he would have done)? Respond with a better name if you come up with one!

I think it is great that players see the deals after the play if they wish, I don't want that to change. I do hope that we TDs will watch for this particular ploy and make sure we don't fall for it.

[FelicityR]

I don't know how true this is but this type of director call probably occurs when a better player is playing lesser opponents and gets a bad result. It is a sort of intimidation that if practised frequently could result in players giving up the game.

Thankfully there are rules and regulations in place, but the biggest asset for all Directors is using common sense. Thank goodness I wasn't the opponent this player tried to intimidate because I would have told him where to go.

Edit: The name for this type of Director call? (Pardon my language) How about 'I f***** up now sort it out' director call?

[sfi]

Even online you can simply poll other players to find out what they would have done. If you don't know people online at the moment, surely you have someone you can ring up to ask.

I will basically always say I'll look at it and ask them to continue playing. I've never had anyone refuse, but I would have even less compunction about removing them from the game than I would if they tried that in a face to face game.

On the actual hand I can't see any reason to bid 2S no matter what their continuations meant. So the score is going to stand unless they make a stronger case than they've done so thus far.

[nige1]

It would help if McBruce posted the full hand with auction and play. Concerns about some of the points he makes

• Offenders should call the director at the end of the auction, before the opening lead, to reveal their failure to alert.
• Without disclosure, even belated disclosure, It is reasonable for opponents to believe an unalerted bid.
• If players suspect a wheel has come off, the law recommends that they "protect themselves" although that can disadvantage them when opponent's bid was natural or opponents have forgotten a convention.
• When dummy appeared and attention was drawn to the infraction, all 4 players had a duty to call the director.
• In any case, if victims of an infraction feel that they might have been damaged, they should call the director to sort things out. This is far better than seething in silence and complaining after the game.
• If offenders deem that the aggrieved party has omitted pertinent details, they are free to give their own version of events.
• The director can conduct a poll to confirm his judgement about damage.
• If the victims' poor score is due to their own egregious errors then the director should also take that into account. A matter of judgement -- but defenders' mistakes don't seem egregious.
• Perhaps, in the OP context, the name of the director-call is "Obligatory".

[Vampyr]

I have an idea! How about people alert their alertable calls!

Problem solved.

[mycroft]

I wish this was new, McBruce, but this is another one that I have lots of experience with, from at least two positions (hopefully not too often from the third), in real life.

• odd auction
  
• which would make sense if a call was Alerted properly, also a common occurrence
  
• stronger player playing weaker players they suspect don't know 100% the Alerting rules
  
• nothing said until dummy comes down, at which point they gripe about the rules, but don't seem to care except to belittle the opponents
  
• at the end of the hand (misdefence or no), player reviews the hand in their head (which is why it's "stronger player" above) and realizes they can make game (or +140, or ...) and *now* claims they would do something different.
  
• Stronger player of course knows exactly how the bidding would have gone if they had been told properly to get to their correct result.

I think what you're seeing here is more and more egregious versions of this, with more common misdefence (and more common misdefences), because instead of having to wait until the hand records and the wine at dinner come out, they can see the hands right away. So you don't have to be as strong a "stronger player" to have the attitude and raise the argument any more.

I'm having a discussion locally right now, because our local clubs playing online are allowing the BBO "standard" "you don't have to announce 15-17" (which is going to get them into trouble at the sectionals-at-home, but that's neither here nor there). Because they've "won" that one, they also believe that they don't have to announce their transfer bids as well (which is always fun when they hit H-G, who play weak NT and 2-way Stayman). Of course, they did that IRL as well, and would stare at H-G for a while (and me, when I still played 2-way) "expecting" them to say something, and getting righteously annoyed when they don't. Or they'd just assume 2♥ was a transfer and be shocked that their next action was the opening lead.

I absolutely agree we need to have our BS-meters out in these cases - and thank you for the useful warning that this is on the rise. I am very happy to do as you said (and as our trainer says), and "Yes, they must Announce transfers, even in this auction. Please do so in future, [opps] However, you didn't seem to have an issue with it when you found out."

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't take these calls seriously; if the case rings immediately true, go and do the polling, and adjust if it turns out your BS-meter is calibrated high today. Also, if *this pair* wasn't damaged (or was only damaged in hindsight, or "yes, of course you would have done that. Because everybody pulls a potential 200 for a negative score if opener's hearts and clubs were switched", or...) but either the non-Alerting pair definitely should have known better (failed to Announce a 10-13 NT until after the auction, playing variable NT in a "real A" game, to take a totally random example :-) or the potential for damage was actually very high, or they've been warned about this several times and just don't seem to care, I see no reason to not issue a penalty even though we leave the table score intact.

[pescetom]

I'm in the odd company of nige1 and vampyr here. The alert rules are at least clear and workable (self-protection requirement aside) and the TD's priority should be to enforce them.

[peterb001]

McBruce, on 2020-July-05, 02:48, said:

One way is to trot out that favorite of ACBL TDs, the 'experience or expertise' clause in the Alert procedure, 'Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.' Another is the 'knows or suspects' clause, 'An opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.' It's pretty clear from this that our hero should have called when dummy hit.

BBO has an even better option where you can click on the bid made, which asks the bidder to explain the bid as if they had alerted it at the time. So players can protect themselves, without the bidder's partner being any the wiser, and without having to call the director. So the first question to the aggrieved person should be why they didn't 'ask' for an explanation when the bid was made.

[mythdoc]

pescetom, on 2020-July-05, 10:17, said:

I'm in the odd company of nige1 and vampyr here. The alert rules are at least clear and workable (self-protection requirement aside) and the TD's priority should be to enforce them.

The failure to alert rules do not call for a top for the other team regardless of circumstances. In this case the dummy comes down and the director is not immediately called. After that it gets messy, and part of the fault for it getting messy has to be laid at the feet of the player who kept his silence, played out the hand, and then still wanted to get relief. That is the point of the original post. And the counter arguments I am reading in the thread all dance around this basic point with practiced sophistry.

That’s my proposed name: “the call of the advanced sophist“

[ahydra]

Hah, this reminds me of a time the TD was called to adjust for damage after my partner had failed to alert one of my bids. The opps claimed they would make a very lucrative, but not at all obvious, penalty double and the TD bought it. We appealed and got the double taken off. If it's not an obvious action the TD really needs to poll it.

One problem here with the law about correcting MI at the end of the auction (for the declaring side) is the fact this is played online. Suppose the player making the unalerted transfer was N. N isn't aware the transfer requires an alert; S may be, but he isn't aware his partner hasn't alerted it! The same thing happens when there is a forgotten convention. So in these cases, questions need to be asked after the dummy comes down, and the TD called if necessary. It seems like the first of these steps was done but not the more important second step.

One could argue the point about players protecting themselves in this situation since 1NT-2D unalerted; 2H is 99% of the time an unalerted transfer, but I'm happy to give the NOS the benefit of the doubt on that one. However I don't buy the argument they'd have bid 2S, so unless a poll can convince me otherwise that the auction would be different, I'm not going to change the score here.

The most important aspect here is to ensure the players are educated both in following the Alert regulations (including "if even a tiny bit in doubt, alert it", since this is online play), and in calling the TD in a timely manner, namely when dummy was displayed.

ahydra

[barmar]

peterb001, on 2020-July-05, 15:41, said:

BBO has an even better option where you can click on the bid made, which asks the bidder to explain the bid as if they had alerted it at the time. So players can protect themselves, without the bidder's partner being any the wiser, and without having to call the director. So the first question to the aggrieved person should be why they didn't 'ask' for an explanation when the bid was made.

That's what I always do.

Of course, the player being described in the OP doesn't have any incentive to do this, they want to be able to fein innocence.

The problem is that since the pandemic there are LOTS of players who are new to online bridge, and no matter how many times you remind them they can't get the hang of the self-alert system. And then there are plenty of unscrupulous players happy to take advantage of them.

[mycroft]

As I have said before, I am primarily on the same side as Vampyr and Nigel. In an ideal world, the Alert procedure is easy to understand and remember and there aren't many blurry edges; in an ideal world, players even at the C level know what they play and know what they play is Alertable. In an ideal world, the attitude to the Law is "that's a violation, here's the penalty", and they may claim that it's a bad call (and they may be right!), but they don't whine that "this is such a minor violation, why is it the same as that critical one?".

But it's not, and it's not, and there are (maybe less so in EBU than ACBL, but the LC are actually working on clarity (not on simplicity, unfortunately)). Player adjustment is going to be a thing, and as I said in the other thread, I think that it won't happen when frankly, you and me and Vampyr aren't going away, but if we starting "being mean" to the rank-and-file, the 2%/year drop in players will become 10%. That doesn't mean that it's not the right path to go down - just not to Burnian levels.

But football players flop, and offensive linemen hold, and basketball players travel, and bridge players "would obviously do the right thing if they had been informed properly" (after seeing the hand). Referees don't catch all of it, and don't get all of it right, but the answer isn't either "let it all go" or "call every single technical case'.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2020-July-06, 11:23, said:

As I have said before, I am primarily on the same side as Vampyr and Nigel. In an ideal world, the Alert procedure is easy to understand and remember and there aren't many blurry edges; in an ideal world, players even at the C level know what they play and know what they play is Alertable. In an ideal world, the attitude to the Law is "that's a violation, here's the penalty", and they may claim that it's a bad call (and they may be right!), but they don't whine that "this is such a minor violation, why is it the same as that critical one?".

But it's not, and it's not, and there are (maybe less so in EBU than ACBL, but the LC are actually working on clarity (not on simplicity, unfortunately). Player adjustment is going to be a thing, and as I said in the other thread, I think that it won't happen when frankly, you and me and Vampyr aren't going away, but if we starting "being mean" to the rank-and-file, the 2%/year drop in players will become 10%. That doesn't mean that it's not the right path to go down - just not to Burnian levels.

But football players flop, and offensive lineman hold, and basketball players travel, and bridge players "would obviously do the right thing if they had been informed properly" (after seeing the hand). Referees don't catch all of it, and don't get all of it right, but the answer isn't either "let it all go" or "call every single technical case'.

I agree to a point - I have less fear than you of the Burnian path. If bridge is to survive it needs new players, not retention of the old, and my experience is that new players expect to find clear rules and to be penalised when they disobey them. It's the old players who are used to and pretend a substantial anarchy with the referee as a tacit accomplice.

[McBruce]

How surprising it is to find so many General Dreedles among us. General Dreedle was a character in Catch-22, played by Orson Welles in the film version in a great cameo, who addressed the bomber squadron of Colonel Cathcart and encountered resistance in the form of men moaning at the sight of his gorgeous secretary, so he ordered them to stop. The next item on the agenda was the synching of watches and when this too was botched, the Major in charge of the synching moaned and General Dreedle ordered him taken out and shot.

Somehow I think this is not the paradigm for success for bridge games. If someone wants to start the General Dreedle Bridge Club on BBO, have at it. Before long I am sure you'll be the talk of the town.

[nige1]

McBruce, on 2020-July-06, 16:15, said:

How surprising it is to find so many General Dreedles among us. General Dreedle was a character in Catch-22, played by Orson Welles in the film version in a great cameo, who addressed the bomber squadron of Colonel Cathcart and encountered resistance in the form of men moaning at the sight of his gorgeous secretary, so he ordered them to stop. The next item on the agenda was the synching of watches and when this too was botched, the Major in charge of the synching moaned and General Dreedle ordered him taken out and shot. Somehow I think this is not the paradigm for success for bridge games. If someone wants to start the General Dreedle Bridge Club on BBO, have at it. Before long I am sure you'll be the talk of the town.

McBruce appears to speak for the majority of players. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, here is a (probably minority) opposing view:

Some directors try to enforce Bridge rules and some players attempt to comply with them. Other directors and players seemingly can't be bothered to learn the rules. Anyway they pick and choose which rules should be obeyed. Typically, the latter group have trouble with ...

• Unauthorised information (giving and using it) -- "I was always going to make that call".
• System regulations and Disclosure -- "We don't have a clear agreement" and "I psyched" are popular mantras among longstanding regular partnerships.
• Claims -- "Of course I would draw the last trump and discard the blocking diamonds."
  
• "I made a mechanical error" -- they seem to find it hard to distinguish slips of the mind from slips of the hand.
• Director calls. Even when the law obliges them to call the director because of partner's failure to alert, they won't do so. When opponents have to call the director, they take umbrage.

These players definitely aren't cheats and would never regard themselves as such. Gradually, they rationalise careless habits, often indulged by sympathetic directors. But they enjoy a significant advantage over fuddyduddies who handicap themselves by trying to play by the rules. Their success can tempt less discriminating players to choose other rules to break e.g. those against self-kibitzing.

Attitudes are also shaped by popular spectator sports like football and cricket where cheating is rife and expected. Referees who attempt to enforce rules are "General Dreedles" or worse.

Admittedly. many bridge rules are complex, over-subjective, stupid, and unnecessary. We should all campaign for their simplification, clarification, and unification. Meanwhile, IMO, "A game is its rules". Bridge is fairer and more fun if players do their best to play by the current rules, however flawed.

[mycroft]

We as a community have decided that we are not following the hockey/football/football model of "these are the rules, these are the penalties, referee calls all they see whether it matters or not." That ship has sailed long ago.

Barring some people who think that anybody that isn't American their friend will cheat if there is any reasonable possibility they could, so some (usually non-bridge) rules have to be draconian and religiously applied (cell phones, anyone?), the bridge model is basically that of the preface to the Laws (2007, as it's phrased better for my argument. Note: "have decided" - it's been a while):

Quote

They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

Given that decision, "come on, you had to at least suspect there was something going on, you weren't damaged" follows (as opposed to "you didn't Alert an Alertable bid, penalty shot [oops, wrong game] minus 1100 opps get resulter bidding and double-dummy play after").

There are some people who, when their auction doesn't exactly match their explanations, "have good judgement; It's Just Bridge that you sometimes have to bid differently than the explanation. If the opponents were good players, they'd know that; if you were a good player, you'd be playing instead of directing" (some of the above is silent, depending on whether these people are trying to avoid a ruling against them, or complaining about it after). Some of these people also, as soon as there's a [even just technical] fault of the opponents, suddenly lose all bridge judgement whatever, and feel that they're entitled to trust the opponents implicitly, in the face of all evidence (or worse yet, "Why should I have to wake them up?"). While I have sympathy for them (Secretary Bird and all, Following The Rules Even When They're Stupid is my mantra), that's not the way we as a community have decided the game will work.

Anyone who things the Bridge Laws and regulations are too complicated are encouraged to take up Magic: The Gathering or possibly even Association Football. Anyone who thinks the Bridge Laws are too long are encouraged to take up Advanced Squad Leader (or compare them to their full, complete system notes for any of their regular partners, for that matter. Of course, 95% of that is not written down anywhere).

[mycroft]

I do really like the M:TG concept of Rules Enforcement Levels (Nigel won't, more "it's different at X than at Y"). I'm told that golf is basically played that way (with people griping about people who don't follow the rules in Club Championships because they don't have to for their regular hit-arounds, and the penalties even at Club Championships being less draconian than on the Tour - "it is your responsibility to know and correctly apply the rules. Failure to do so results in disqualification").

I know we certainly do something like that informally (me less often than most, because I Don't Know How™). Club rulings will be less "technically accurate" and more "get the game moving"; there will be more explanation and less "them's the Law" in the x99er game than in Flight A, in the same Sectional; some rules will be applied much more clearly in the Spingold than in the regional side game next door (even if it gets the response of "why should I, a Name Pro, be penalized for a technical violation of the rules?").

It might be nice to have REL in bridge, and be able to explain to players that "yes, this is a violation. It didn't matter much here, so we're just going to put things right and keep going. But you shouldn't do it, you need to do [that] instead, and if it comes up in a tournament, the ruling will be harsher, so take it as a learning experience."