[blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Marvin French:

>UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
>
>This is a discussion of the current Laws of Duplicate
>Contract Bridge regarding unauthorized information (UI),
>which (for the purpose of this discussion) is
>information received by a player from his partner other
>than what is communicated by legal bids and plays.
>Another term for it is "extraneous information" (EI),
>which seems to be synonymous with UI, the more common
>term.
>
>The discussion draws heavily from Edgar Kaplan's series
>of articles entitled "Appeals Committee" in The Bridge
>World (BW) magazine, 1982-1984. All 18 articles are
>obtainable from BW in the form of two small booklets.
>Kaplan was editor of that magazine, served on the World
>Bridge Federation (WBF) drafting committees for new
>versions of the laws, and was a member of the WBF Laws
>Commission, serving as chairman of that body and co-
>chairman of the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL)
>Laws Commission.

Richard Hills:

It is true that Edgar Kaplan was the Greatest Of All
Time drafter of the Lawbook.  But since he wrote those
"Appeals Committee" articles the Lawbook was revised
twice, in 1987 and 1997.  Furthermore, since 1997 the
WBF Laws Committee has (re)interpreted the Laws, with
some of those ideas possibly causing Edgar to roll over
in his grave.  And, of course, Marv's article may need
redrafting when the forthcoming decennial update of the
fabulous Lawbook is unveiled.

Marvin French:

>The Applicable Laws and Official Interpretations
>
>Law 9B1(a)
>...the Director must be summoned immediately when
>attention is called to an irregularity.
>
>Discussion: This doesn't say one must call attention to
>an irregularity. It is entirely proper to ignore a minor
>irregularity by an inexperienced player,

Richard Hills:

It is entirely proper to fail to draw attention to a very
major irregularity by a very experienced player.  The
Scope and Interpretation of the Laws specifically states:

"When these Laws say that a player 'may' do something
('any player may call attention to an irregularity during
the auction'), the failure to do it is not wrong."

Marvin French:

>but if attention is drawn to it the tournament Director
>(TD) must be called. One reason is that a player who
>commits an irregularity is entitled to an explanation of
>the applicable law(s) at the time of the irregularity.
>That knowledge may enable him to ameliorate any self-
>damage (by judicious choice of later actions) incurred
>by the irregularity.
>
>Law 12C2 Assigned Score
>
>When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in
>place of a result actually obtained after an
>irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side,
>the most favorable result that was likely had the
>irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the
>most unfavorable result that was at all probable.
>
>Discussion: The belief that "had the irregularity not
>occurred" is to be understood for the offenders is
>incorrect. If anything is to be understood it is "in any
>event".
>
>WBF Laws Commission Interpretation at Lille, 1998:
>
>3. Procedures for awarding adjusted scores [per Law 12C2]
>Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage
>gained by an offender, provided it is related to the
>infraction...shall be construed as an advantage in the
>table score whether consequent or subsequent [my
>emphasis] to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending
>side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress
is to be given in an adjusted score. The Committee
>remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending
>side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment in
>the subsequent action but only by an action that is
>evidently irrational, wild, or gambling.
>
>Law 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
>
>Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on
>information from legal calls and plays, and from
>mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other
>extraneous information may be an infraction of law.
>
>Law 16A Extraneous Information from Partner
>
>After a player makes available to his partner extraneous
>information that may suggest a call or play, as by means
>of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by
>unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis,
>tone, gesture, movement, mannerism, or the like, the
>partner may not choose from among logical alternative
>actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested
>over another by the extraneous information.
>
>Discussion: The writer now changes nomenclature from
>"unauthorized information" (UI) to "extraneous
>information" (EI), which are apparently synonymous..

Richard Hills:

The art of periphrasis, elegantly using synonyms rather
than inelegantly repeating identical words, is highly
recommended in novels and Bridge World articles.  But such
artistry is a huge disadvantage when writing an instruction
manual, as unnecessary ambiguity is created when confusion
is caused by synonyms being misinterpreted as conveying
slightly different concepts.  (Another example of ambiguity
is caused by Law 40 using the word "understanding" and Law
75 using the almost synonym or actual synonym "agreement".)

Marvin French:

>The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) Laws Commission
>(LC) has defined "logical alternative" (LA) as an action
>that a significant number of the player's peers would
>seriously consider, and some would actually take, in the
>absence of the UI. While there is no mention of "peers" in
>L16A, the LC claims that the "level of player" term used
>in other Laws applies to this law. The definition of "LA"
>has changed over the years. Before 1992 it was an action
>that at least 25% of a player's peers would take in the
>absence of the UI.
>
>Two examples from Kaplan's writings show how the ACBLLC
>attitude has changed. In both examples first seat, not
>vulnerable, opens 4H, next hand markedly hesitates before
>passing, and after two passes fourth seat, vulnerable,
>bids 4S with:
>(1) S Q108743 H 3 D 6 C AK1075. In "Appeals Committee"
>(early 1980s) Kaplan wrote that a 4S bid should be allowed
>because certainly at least three out of four players would
>bid it, meaning that passing is not an LA.
>(2) S KQ10763 H 4 D K7 C QJ82. In a BW editorial
>(November, 1995) Kaplan wrote that a 4S bid should not be
>allowed, because "it would not be obviously foolish to
>pass, an egregious error, absurd". Evidently he believed
>that "logical" means objectively logical.
>
>The current LC criterion would seem to allow (2). It is
>doubtful that any Appeals Committee would disallow it, but
>(1) might be disallowed.

Richard Hills:

No, I think Marv has misinterpreted current ACBL policy
(and previous ACBL policy).  It has never been a Law 16
requirement to decide whether or not a suggested action is
logical.  Rather, the question has been whether an action
which is _not_ demonstrably suggested - in the above two
examples the action of Pass - is a logical alternative.

Therefore, if I was an ACBL TD, I would rule that 4S was an
infraction of the current ACBL interpretation of Law 16 on
both example (1) and also example (2).

Marvin French:

>An ACBL TD is supposed to poll some of the player's peers
>to determine whether an action is an LA. It would be
>better for a TD to judge that for himself, perhaps after
>consulting other TDs. Polls with small sample sizes are
>nearly meaningless, and no player has an identical peer.

Richard Hills:

If this document is meant to be a helpful guide for ACBL
novice directors, it is not useful to include personal
opinions directly contrary to current ACBL policy.

Plus it is ridiculous to suggest that a small sample size
can be improved by using an even smaller sample of merely a
single director.  Indeed, careful perusing of ACBL and EBU
casebooks has shown that single directors - even highly
capable ones such as David Stevenson - occasionally make
egregious errors when they single-handedly assess logical
alternatives.

Marvin French:

>If a pair's system makes some action mandatory, then it is
>logical even if no peer would take it (but proof had
>better be on hand).

Richard Hills:

Yes, the obvious "mandatory by system" reduction of logical
alternatives to just one possibility is included in the WBF
Code of Practice version of logical alternative:

"A 'logical alternative' is a different action that,
amongst the class of players in question **and using the
methods of the partnership**, would be given serious
consideration by a significant proportion of such players,
of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it."

Marvin French:

>We can assume a virtual peer, however: a fictitious
>typical player in the event. If rulings treat everyone the
>same, the result is identical rulings for identical
>irregularities (absent some system effect). Call it equal
>treatment under the law, a precious democratic principle.
>If I were a TD I would treat every reference in the Laws to
>"the class of player involved" to mean this virtual peer.
>Otherwise the known expert will get much benefit of doubt,
>the known novice little benefit of doubt, and the unknown
>is left in limbo. What benefit of doubt will he get? Better
>to treat all three the same.

Richard Hills:

In his short story "Harrison Bergeron", Kurt Vonnegut wrote:

"Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out
some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking
unfair advantage of their brains...."

Furthermore, it is not the case that current ACBL policy on
"peers" means that experts always gain the benefit of Law
16 rulings vis-a-vis novices.  It is just as likely that a
novice may gain, as for that novice a demonstrably suggested
action of showing your 23-count a second time may be the
only logical alternative, while for an expert an additional
logical alternative of a second-round pessimistic pass may
exist.

Marvin French:

>As it stands, TDs must be allowed flexibility in using
>their best judgment for each situation rather than being
>restricted by some constantly-changing arbitrary rule.

[big snip - to be continued in part two]

Richard Hills:

So because Marv deems that ACBL rules are "ever-changing"
and "arbitrary" he is launching the revolution and telling
novice ACBL directors to listen to him and not Memphis?

But this Marvish idea of liberty, equality and fraternity
in writing ACBL rules is self-defeating, since merely by
creating his own personalised variant on ACBL rules he is
making the ACBL rules even more ever-changing and arbitrary.

Plus if Marv, the new "French" Danton, does storm the Memphis
Bastille, then the precedent is set for Robespierre Hills to
also write his own variants of incredibly ever-changing and
arbitrary ACBL rules.  Indeed that would be a Reign of
Terror (although I like to think of it as a War on Error).

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6225 6285

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited.
DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.
The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department’s
website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm