The Bridge World Sampler
EDITORIAL
In the past, readers have sometimes voted the Bridge World Editorial column the magazine's most popular feature, surpassing even the renown Master Solvers' Club. The editorials themselves present timely and controversial topics, discussed candidly, with behind-the-scenes reports of what's happening in the world of bridge. Thus, the department does more than merely put forth the staff's views on current topics; it keeps readers informed. Correspondents, especially those who disagree with an editorial viewpoint, are often given the opportunity to join a debate.
The range of topics in Editorials is broad. The selection here gives samples of three major categories: the news in depth plus a viewpoint, an introduction to something that is new or gaining popularity, and an opinion on a ruling.
"What, Again?"
That's the reaction of most bridge players to the disturbing
news that sets of computer deals played at the Fall Nationals at Minneapolis
repeated those used in earlier events. How could this happen, you
wonder? We know nothing whatever of the logistics of the ACBL's computer-deal
generation, so we are well placed to hazard some guesses. Two possibilities
stand out.
The first idea, more likely to seem right to those who have
to battle with computers in their daily lives, is technological foul-up:
computer miscalculation (wildly unlikely, the current fiasco surrounding
Intel's Pentium chips notwithstanding), programming error--an inappropriate
algorithm perhaps (a better shot, but still unlikely; most programmers
are much more competent than computer output would lead one to believe,
and a bug leading to regeneration would not usually exhibit itself
in this manner), or management error. In the absence of hard evidence,
this last possible cause is the only credible one in this category.
Deal generation is based on pseudo-random number generation, and each
group of pseudo-random numbers is generated from a so-called seed
number. Use a different seed number and the cards will be dealt in
a different order; but if you use the same seed number as you did
once before . . .
Our second theory, which will perhaps be favored by people
who have to cope frequently with the ACBL, is that someone tried to
save a few bucks. Consider this scenario: Deals had been generated
for use at the Summer Nationals at San Diego, but not all of the printed
copies had been distributed. A few unused envelopes filled with used
deals were lying around. Aha! Here's a chance to save a little money.
Use the leftover envelopes at the Fall Nationals at Minneapolis. Probably
no one will play the same deals, and if they do they might not notice.
And if anyone does notice, maybe they will keep quiet to their own
advantage. Alas, in a rerun some deals generated for the Women's Knockout
Team Championship at San Diego showed up in a qualifying round of
the Women's Board-a-Match Team Championship at Minneapolis. Our spies
claim that no fewer than 20 players were exposed to the same deals
in this particular incident. Someone noticed, and spoke up. How many
sets of deals may have been used over again in this way from time
to time remains a matter of speculation. Since the ACBL has already
said, repeatedly, that redealing cannot possibly happen, and every
time it does happen that it cannot possibly happen again, it is unlikely
anyone will believe any denials the League issues. Of course, lack
of League credibility doesn't make the scenario true.Although
each succeeding redealing incident creates greater embarrassment,
in Minneapolis the ACBL's Board of Directors, trying to cope with
the mess, had the advantage of the knowing some of the results of
earlier, similar disasters. After a previous episode of the same sort,
the National Laws Commission had ruled that the reused deals had not
been properly dealt under the Laws. So, there was no choice but to
throw out the deals of the Board-a-Match event in which the generation
error had been revealed. The Board's decision to cancel all
qualifying scores for the event, thus partly erasing the results of
a "clean" session, is not what we would have done. However,
it would be wrong to be distracted by what was at worst a minor misjudgment
in a weird position. In fact, there was no really good way to resolve
the situation once a session had been played with illegal deals. The
important questions involve the redealing, not the resolution of a
fundamentally unresolvable problem. By the way, the same team would
have won whether there had been carryover from the qualifying or not.
So it happened. And it keeps happening. What should be done?
Sooner or later, the ACBL has to change its tack. It might as well
be sooner. A good start would be to investigate the most recent duplication
incidents and tell members the truth about why and how they happened.
Then, devise procedures that not only will reduce to negligible the
chance of further deal repetitions but also will convince tournament
players they enjoy certain fundamental protections when they rearrange
their lives to attend a major tournament.
(April, 1995)
A Movable Silence
Conducting auctions without speaking is a good idea. The chance of inadvertently passing illegal information to one's partner, through variations in tempo or tone, is greatly reduced. Golden silence has an even greater effect when it accumulates. Conducting auctions without words eliminates virtually all table-to-table communications, helps concentration, speeds up play, reduces irregularities, eliminates the need for reviews. To be sure, while certain problems disappear others may be introduced by the mechanics of the device used to conduct the auction. Still, when the plusses and minuses are added and weighed, silent auctions come up a very big winner.
The advantages of silent auctions have long been recognized. The question has been how to achieve them in a pleasant and economical way. By far, the most popular solution has been some form of ``bidding boxes,'' which have long been used in important championship events. Unfortunately, models that have to be screwed or clamped onto the table are annoying. However, mah tournaments are using boxes that sit on the table, which have been proven entirely satisfactory. The only problems are initial expense, storage, and, alas, pilferage.
There is a better way, and it works equally well for one table or one thousand. Using what we call ``personal boxes,'' there is no permanent equipment. Each player maintains his own small box, which sits sturdily on the table in a position chosen for that individual's convenience. Almost all problems disappear. Personal boxes allow the advantages of silent auctions with virtually no downside. With each player maintaining his own box there is no need for the tournament organizers to manage or store additional equipment--it is already enough work to cope with boards, cards, table signs and scoring equipment--or make a large investment for sets of permanent boxes to supply entire sections.
Personal bidding boxes is an idea whose time has come. Even when boxes are not required, you can make your bridge events better by using your own box. As more and more players see the advantages of these boxes in action, they will become standard. A BYOB tournament will be one where you Bring Your Own Box.
(August, 1995)
Rules and Interpretations
After years of rulings, appeals, explanations, and education,
just when it appeared that the tournament-bridge-playing public was
beginning to understand the basis for decisions in cases of unauthorized
information (typically, one player hesitates markedly during the auction
and his partner then takes a possibly doubtful action), the National
Laws Commission adjusted a fundamental guideline. This adjustment
took place in 1992, and the impact of the change has by now been felt
widely.
Briefly, under the old, pre-1992, interpretation of the law
on unauthorized information, a player was not entitled to take an
action suggested by the extralegal activity if as many as one in four
comparable players in an identical position would choose some alternative.
This "25% guideline" was often turned around in informal parlance
into the "75% rule." Since this misplaced the enmphasis, the
Commission, in 1992, revised the guideline for a logical alternative
to, "an action that some number of your peers would seriously
consider in a vacuum."
This adjustment has solved some problems, but not everyone
is happy with it.
TO THE EDITOR:
Law 16A states that in cases of unauthorized information (UI)
obtained from partner, one may not choose from "among logical
alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested
over another by the extraneous information." What exactly is a
logical alternative has been the subject of debate for many years;
perhaps the most illuminating discussion of this topic appeared in
the "Appeals Committee" articles in The Bridge World
years ago.
I have been given to understand that appeals committees have
recently been instructed to interpret "logical alternative"
to mean "any action a number of the player's peers would seriously
consider." I have several objections to this interpretation. "A
number of . . . peers" is vague. How many? What portion? Is one
enough? How about zero? ("Zero" is a number.) Two or three?
Most?
From a player's standpoint, this rule is hard to use. It is
hard enough to evaluate what other players in my shoes will actually
do with my cards. To try to guess what they might "seriously consider"
is pretty much impossible.
What exactly is to "seriously consider?" Clearly,
it is not necessary for any of one's peers actually to choose the
action in question. In a Masters Solvers' Club context, a logical
alternative need not get any votes at all. Is a possible alternative
one that gets a mention from a panelist? From a few? One that gets
a 20 score? 50? Certainly, one that gets "some number" of
votes is a logical alternative, but what about actions that get none?
I feel that the "seriously consider" guideline is
too strict. I agree that the "25% rule" guideline was too
lax; perhaps some figure closer to 10% would be better, but the "seriously
consider" rule is much much stricter than that. It is stricter
than a 0% rule.
JEFF GOLDSMITH
Pasadena, CA
The Laws Commission noticed that, under the old "75%
Rule" (a player could take an action suggested by unauthorized
information only if that action would be chosen by three-quarters
of his peers), many suggested actions were allowed by committees when
the Commission would prefer them to be barred. A typical example,
K Q 10 7 6 3
4
K 7
Q J 8 2.
LHO opens four hearts, nonvulnerable versus vulnerable; partner
takes 25 seconds to pass; after RHO passes, you balance with four
spades: plus 650.
A committee member, like most bridge players, believes that
he would come up with the winning action, which, invariably, is the
one made at the table (otherwise the case would never have come to
committee). So, the verdict is likely to be that "all good players"
would reopen--the result stands.
What the Commission tried to do with its new guideline was
to redirect the committee's attention: away from the successful action,
to the losing alternative. Would it have been obviously foolish to
pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be
right quite often. Thus, the score should be adjusted to that for
four hearts passed out.
If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades,
huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame
partner. Let him act in tempo, next time.
*
Even when it does not apply, the new Law 16 interpretation
has added to the usual confusion over the different issues involved
in unauthorized-information situations. To understand the Laws and
their application, it is vital not only to distinguish the different
questions but also their priorities in determining the correct ruling.
In a recent case from a Masters' Pairs that generated considerable
controversy, with sides both vulnerable a player overcalled a one-club
opening with one diamond holding,
9 5
J 3
A K Q 10 4 2
9 7 6.
The bidding continued pass on his left, one heart (forcing)
by partner, one spade on his right, two diamonds by him, two spades
on his left, then a marked hesitation by partner. After trancing,
advancer bid three hearts. Overcaller carried this to four, an action
that we are sure would receive scant support in the Master Solvers'
Club. As it happened, four hearts was the normal contract (it was
partner's sequence that was abnormal) and it made. Eventually, the
case came to committee as a matter of unauthorized information. The
committee allowed the result to stand. One of the players who objected
most vociferously to this outcome was an MSC panelist:
TO THE EDITOR:
I strongly disagree with the tournament appeal ruling [in
the above case]. When there is a hesitation, one should bend over
backwards to do the "normal" thing. Having made a vulnerable
overcall and rebid, there is no excuse whatsoever for raising partner's
nonforcing three-heart rebid. If partner had been too weak for his
bid, three hearts might be in serious trouble. So, bidding is definitely
taking advantage of the hesitation and, while not guaranteed to be
the winning action, could have more to gain than to lose.
Appeals committee members should not outthink themselves.
What over happened to the 75% rule?
ROBERT LIPSITZ
Annandale, VA
The so-called "75% Rule," like the new "seriously
consider" guideline, is irrelevant here. A player's options are
restricted only when partner has given him unauthorized information
that suggests one option over another. If the tempo of three
hearts conveys no such message, partner is free to make any decision
he thinks will win.
We are not at all sure that we agree with the Committee as
to whether there was a suggestion that four hearts would win--we
would have to hear testimony about the tone and manner of the three-heart
bid. But if there was no such suggestion, then the score should
indeed stand.
(November, 1995)
Subscribe to The Bridge World
Click here to subscribe to The Bridge World, the magazine that no serious bridge player should be without.
Copyright © 1996-1998 Bridge World Magazine, Inc. Reprinting of contents without permission is prohibited. All Rights Reserved.
The Bridge World, 717 White Plains Rd. Suite 106, Scarsdale, NY 10583-5009 USA
Telephone: (914) 725-6712 Fax: (914) 725-6713 Internet: www.bridgeworld.com E-mail: mail@bridgeworld.com