[Vampyr]

This has been making an appearance lately, and I am curious...

For example... in a high-level competitive auction, partner makes a slow double, and you leave it in. You would have pulled an in-tempo double, but you feel that you have an ethical obligation to pass. This turns out to be the correct action. We are not discussing a case where a nefarious partner hesitated to stop you from bidding on.

Once my partner thought that I had hesitated in an auction, and took a really silly action (I hadn't noticed the hesitation, so it would have been minor), and the action didn't work out, but suppose it had...

I have always felt that "bending over backwards" is taking an action that is influenced by UI, and that gaining from it is wrong. A ruling is rarely requested in this kind of case, and I wonder how it should be ruled. I am interested in getting opinions in cases where the suggested action has no logical alternatives, or if it does but the "bending" action is not one of them, and also when the "bending" action is a logical alternative (either the only one or not) to the suggested action.

[Cascade]

If the suggested action has no logical alternative then you are free to take that action. Doing something silly because of some misguided thought that you are being ethical is just silly like lots of other mistakes. Of course when you do something silly occasionally you will benefit and that is just rub of the green.

Similarly if the 'bending action' is not a logical alternative then it is just a silly mistake. Again occasionally you may benefit from that but usually not.

If the bending action is a logical alternative but not suggested by the unauthorized information then you are free to take that action whether or not there are other logical alternatives not suggested by the unauthorized information.

[barmar]

The problem with ruling against someone when they attempted NOT to gain from the UI, but it ended up working out, is that it leaves them totally stuck. Does it really make sense that they're not allowed to do what the UI suggests, and also not allowed to do the opposite of that? What else is left?

If the player does the ethically correct thing, but it managed to work out in their favor, this is "rub of the green" and they get to keep their good result.

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-April-10, 23:46, said:

The problem with ruling against someone when they attempted NOT to gain from the UI, but it ended up working out, is that it leaves them totally stuck. Does it really make sense that they're not allowed to do what the UI suggests, and also not allowed to do the opposite of that? What else is left?

If the player does the ethically correct thing, but it managed to work out in their favor, this is "rub of the green" and they get to keep their good result.

Whether or not an action "could have been demonstrably suggested by UI" is, and must always be a matter of judgement.

I have (both as TD and as member of AC) at times found that the selected action was not suggested, or even if it was suggested that no other LA existed, and thus was legitimate and aceptable - result stands.

[iviehoff]

I think Stef raises an area of more concern than other posters have been willing to give it.

Consider the following case. You have shown spades and partner makes an invitational raise to 3♠, but in a hesitant manner that tends to suggest, on balance, that he was considering going straight to game. Plainly it is now illegal for you to raise to game unless the decision is a no-brainer; you should pass. But there have been cases this forum, or its predecessor, has considered where opener instead raises to 6♠. This looks ridiculous, but, with a little help from the defence, it makes. This has been found to be illegal also. The UI suggests that 3♠ is likely a terrible score (probably MP for this to make sense), so you punt 6♠ to try and rescue a top.

Consider the auction now starts 1♠-2♠, and for opener at least inviting game is a no-brainer. With some hesitation from partner suggesting partner is heavy for their call, it would be illegal either to jump straight to game, or to bid game after partner refuses your invitation. By analogy with the previous case, are either or both of a making a slam try, or just passing out at 2S (gambling the breaks are horrendous) illegal? They are both judgments that the legal call is likely a poor score, and thus potentially an attempt to squeeze a top out of it. Of course the legal route, stopping below game when partner refuses the inviation might also be the best score, but backed up with a clear legal basis.

It does seem that any off-the-wall bid that is not even a LA, if successful, is at risk of being ruled illegal, as Stef says, because it looks like a potential route to a good score by avoiding the likely dreary result of the known legal call. Some of us have difficulties in restricting our choices of bid to logical alternatives even without UI. There is annoyance but no disgrace in making a bona fide attempt to comply with the restrictions of UI, but being judged to have failed to do so: it really is just like making any other poor decision.

I think in general in making UI decisions, directors should care to have in mind what is the legal call with the UI. Ask themselves, if the call they think is the legal call had been made and had been successful, would they be ruling against it? If it is a close call, that is, perhaps, a message that the UI didn't actually suggest anything.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2011-April-11, 02:23, said:

I think Stef raises an area of more concern than other posters have been willing to give it.

Consider the following case. You have shown spades and partner makes an invitational raise to 3♠, but in a hesitant manner that tends to suggest, on balance, that he was considering going straight to game. Plainly it is now illegal for you to raise to game unless the decision is a no-brainer; you should pass. But there have been cases this forum, or its predecessor, has considered where opener instead raises to 6♠. This looks ridiculous, but, with a little help from the defence, it makes. This has been found to be illegal also. The UI suggests that 3♠ is likely a terrible score (probably MP for this to make sense), so you punt 6♠ to try and rescue a top.

Consider the auction now starts 1♠-2♠, and for opener at least inviting game is a no-brainer. With some hesitation from partner suggesting partner is heavy for their call, it would be illegal either to jump straight to game, or to bid game after partner refuses your invitation. By analogy with the previous case, are either or both of a making a slam try, or just passing out at 2S (gambling the breaks are horrendous) illegal? They are both judgments that the legal call is likely a poor score, and thus potentially an attempt to squeeze a top out of it. Of course the legal route, stopping below game when partner refuses the inviation might also be the best score, but backed up with a clear legal basis.

It does seem that any off-the-wall bid that is not even a LA, if successful, is at risk of being ruled illegal, as Stef says, because it looks like a potential route to a good score by avoiding the likely dreary result of the known legal call. Some of us have difficulties in restricting our choices of bid to logical alternatives even without UI. There is annoyance but no disgrace in making a bona fide attempt to comply with the restrictions of UI, but being judged to have failed to do so: it really is just like making any other poor decision.

I think in general in making UI decisions, directors should care to have in mind what is the legal call with the UI. Ask themselves, if the call they think is the legal call had been made and had been successful, would they be ruling against it? If it is a close call, that is, perhaps, a message that the UI didn't actually suggest anything.

This appears to be a question involving SEWoG, although by OS rather than by NOS.

The question is interesting: How shall we rule if a player in possession of UI takes a gambling action that definitely could not have been suggested by the UI, and this gambling action leads to success?

I don't see any legal reason for adjustment unless we rule that the (gambling) action taken, although definitely not suggested by the UI as such, could demonstrably have been suggested by the fact that the player was restrained from possession of UI.


PS. (On an entirely different matter:) Multiquote no longer works for me. Instead of allowing "multiple quotes" it immediately opens a reply window with the first "multiquoted" post only.

[jallerton]

pran, on 2011-April-11, 00:17, said:

Whether or not an action "could have been demonstrably suggested by UI" is, and must always be a matter of judgement.

I have (both as TD and as member of AC) at times found that the selected action was not suggested, or even if it was suggested that no other LA existed, and thus was legitimate and aceptable - result stands.

Players throughout Norway will be relieved to know that a TD call does not lead to an automatic adjustment!

pran, on 2011-April-11, 03:08, said:

PS. (On an entirely different matter:) Multiquote no longer works for me. Instead of allowing "multiple quotes" it immediately opens a reply window with the first "multiquoted" post only.

It still works for me.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2011-April-11, 15:17, said:

Players throughout Norway will be relieved to know that a TD call does not lead to an automatic adjustment!

Quote

PS. (On an entirely different matter:) Multiquote no longer works for me. Instead of allowing "multiple quotes" it immediately opens a reply window with the first "multiquoted" post only.

It still works for me.

I reported it on another forum. Apparently the changed functioning of "multiquote" is caused by upgrading from IE8 to IE9. BBO people are looking into the matter now.

[campboy]

iviehoff, on 2011-April-11, 02:23, said:

Consider the following case. You have shown spades and partner makes an invitational raise to 3♠, but in a hesitant manner that tends to suggest, on balance, that he was considering going straight to game. Plainly it is now illegal for you to raise to game unless the decision is a no-brainer; you should pass. But there have been cases this forum, or its predecessor, has considered where opener instead raises to 6♠. This looks ridiculous, but, with a little help from the defence, it makes. This has been found to be illegal also. The UI suggests that 3♠ is likely a terrible score (probably MP for this to make sense), so you punt 6♠ to try and rescue a top.

I think this is illegal too, but not for the reason you do. The fact that 6♠ is still an underdog is irrelevant; it is suggested for the simple reason that the knowledge from the UI (that partner is likely to have a better hand than normal) increases the chance that 6♠ will make.

[mjj29]

campboy, on 2011-April-12, 06:00, said:

I think this is illegal too, but not for the reason you do. The fact that 6♠ is still an underdog is irrelevant; it is suggested for the simple reason that the knowledge from the UI (that partner is likely to have a better hand than normal) increases the chance that 6♠ will make.

Indeed, but I think the thread as a whole makes a good point. What I don't like about the various 'reverse UI' and similar threads that have been posted recently is that they suggest we might always adjust no matter what action the OS took, if it lead to a good score. If I'm in possession of UI that bidding will be more successful than passing, and it is, then adjusting the score if I bid on is obvious. However, if I don't bid, and that in fact turns out to have been the winning action through some freak distribution (or merely all the finesses being off), then we cannot adjust the score - in effect, the moment my partner hesitates I am doomed to the worst possible score on any layout.

Yes, deliberately hesitating to stop partner bidding on should be punished and yes, if I bid on and it is judged to be the only LA then we obviously don't adjust, but please don't punish people for being ethical in all the other cases. If it hesitates, you don't always get to shoot it.

Matt

[barmar]

Where does it end? The UI suggests that you should go to game, so you don't do that. And memory of discussions like this suggest that jumping to 6♠ and luckily making it will also be ruled against, so you don't do that, either. So how about jumping to 6NT or 7♠?

There's a law that says you're supposed to play to win. But once you're in possession of UI, it seems like you can't obey that law.

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-April-14, 20:15, said:

Where does it end? The UI suggests that you should go to game, so you don't do that. And memory of discussions like this suggest that jumping to 6♠ and luckily making it will also be ruled against, so you don't do that, either. So how about jumping to 6NT or 7♠?

There's a law that says you're supposed to play to win. But once you're in possession of UI, it seems like you can't obey that law.

It ends with the (after the fact) judgement by TD and (in case) AC.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2011-April-14, 20:15, said:

There's a law that says you're supposed to play to win. But once you're in possession of UI, it seems like you can't obey that law.

That's not quite what it says. The law in question is 72A:

Quote

[...] The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-April-14, 20:15, said:

Where does it end? The UI suggests that you should go to game, so you don't do that. And memory of discussions like this suggest that jumping to 6♠ and luckily making it will also be ruled against, so you don't do that, either. So how about jumping to 6NT or 7♠?

There's a law that says you're supposed to play to win. But once you're in possession of UI, it seems like you can't obey that law.

The bidding has gone 1♠ - 2♠ and you have UI that suggest partner is very strong for this bid. You have an obvious game try but believe game will now make because of the UI. What do you do?

You make a game try, and if he signs off you stop. If you do not do that, and you understand UI principles, then you are trying to win by illegal methods: is that how you really want to play bridge?

Maybe you get a bad board. Well, if you cannot take one bad board so as to play a fair, ethical and legal game, why on earth are you playing bridge?

Of course cheating improves your chances of winning: but do you suggest that people should cheat?

[AlexJonson]

Do we want to introduce the idea of cheating as a regular and distinguishing feature in this particular forum?

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-April-16, 13:09, said:

The bidding has gone 1♠ - 2♠ and you have UI that suggest partner is very strong for this bid. You have an obvious game try but believe game will now make because of the UI. What do you do?

You make a game try, and if he signs off you stop. If you do not do that, and you understand UI principles, then you are trying to win by illegal methods: is that how you really want to play bridge?

I don't understand this example. If he's strong for his bid, as the UI suggests, then he's probably going to accept any game try. So there's little difference between making a game try and just bidding game directly, although the latter is a blatant use of UI, while the former is less clear. If most players would invite with your hand, then passing may not be a LA, so you're OK. But if it's a borderline hand then pasing and trying are LAs; the UI suggests trying, so you shouldn't.

[Free]

Vampyr, on 2011-April-10, 00:19, said:

in a high-level competitive auction, partner makes a slow double, and you leave it in. You would have pulled an in-tempo double, but you feel that you have an ethical obligation to pass.

Isn't it unethical to change your mind based on the hesitation? Normally you would've pulled, so why won't you pull now?

I always thought you should act as if there's a screen in the middle and nothing noticably happened. You'd pull when you wouldn't be aware of the hesitation, so with the hesitation you should still pull.

Apparently I really don't get this...

[blackshoe]

When you have UI, you have to "carefully avoid taking advantage" of it. Doing what you were "always" going to do doesn't necessarily avoid taking advantage of the UI. If the UI suggests you should pull, then you should not pull, even if you were "always" going to pull without the UI. If you do pull, it will look like you took advantage of the UI, pulling because the UI suggested you pull, and no amount of arguing "I was always going to pull" will change that.

If you pull, and you get a bad score, you'll get to keep it. If you get a good score, the TD will adjust to a bad score. If you pass, you get to keep your score whatever happens.

[bluejak]

Free, on 2011-April-20, 01:29, said:

Isn't it unethical to change your mind based on the hesitation? Normally you would've pulled, so why won't you pull now?

I always thought you should act as if there's a screen in the middle and nothing noticably happened. You'd pull when you wouldn't be aware of the hesitation, so with the hesitation you should still pull.

Apparently I really don't get this...

Do you ever think before you make a call?

Of course there will be times when your call is obvious and no alternative occurs. Fine, go on, make your call, no problem.

But in many many cases you have a decision what to call. At such times, if your partner has given you UI, your choice is not free: certain choices become illegal.

[Free]

bluejak, on 2011-April-20, 06:22, said:

Do you ever think before you make a call?

Yes, and so does my partner, OP's partner and many other partners. Especially at high level auctions.

bluejak, on 2011-April-20, 06:22, said:

Of course there will be times when your call is obvious and no alternative occurs. Fine, go on, make your call, no problem.

But in many many cases you have a decision what to call. At such times, if your partner has given you UI, your choice is not free: certain choices become illegal.

I understand this. What I don't always understand is how UI sometimes suggests one action over another and the implications.

Here for example, according to OP the Dbl seems to suggest to bid on. So ok, when you have some borderline hand you're ethically obligated to pass. But I understand that if you have a clear bid to make, you're still allowed to make it, right?

On the other hand, suppose a Dbl suggests you should pass (in a forcing pass situation for example) and partner hesitates before Doubling. Does it also mean that if you don't have a clear pass you should pull?