[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-April-05, 16:45, said:

I would suggest that I play 2-3 hands of an average session in the presence of meaningful UI from partner,

For me this is closer to 2-3 hands a year. The difference really surprises me; maybe it's because I try not to look at or pay attention to my partners, which stops me from picking up things.

EDIT: I do sometimes know when my partners have more than one card in a suit.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-05, 17:09, said:

For me this is closer to 2-3 hands a year. The difference really surprises me; maybe it's because I try not to look at or pay attention to my partners, which stops me from picking up things.

The test in Law 16 isn't whether you notice the UI, but whether it's available to you. Even if you don't notice it, you're still playing in the presence of UI.

Mycroft's 2-3 times a session sounds about right to me, if he means situations where we have to at least consider the implications of the UI. I find myself actually choosing an action partly on the basis of Law-16 obligations about once every few sessions.

[FrancesHinden]

I notice UI is available at the table on maybe 1 hand in 4 or 5, sometimes more. The vast majority of the time it is irrelevant. RHO opens 1NT. LHO bids 3NT very slowly. RHO has UI that his partner doesn't have a normal 3NT bid. He has no LA to pass, and we fairly quickly discover why it was slow because it's about to hit in dummy. Or declarer is in 4S, and dummy has KQxxx in a side suit. He wins the lead and plays the side suit. LHO thinks for a while before playing low. RHO has UI that LHO has the ace, but when declarer wins the king in dummy and plays a second one to the jack and ace, so what?

[iviehoff]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-06, 14:39, said:

I notice UI is available at the table on maybe 1 hand in 4 or 5, sometimes more. The vast majority of the time it is irrelevant. RHO opens 1NT. LHO bids 3NT very slowly. RHO has UI that his partner doesn't have a normal 3NT bid. He has no LA to pass, and we fairly quickly discover why it was slow because it's about to hit in dummy. Or declarer is in 4S, and dummy has KQxxx in a side suit. He wins the lead and plays the side suit. LHO thinks for a while before playing low. RHO has UI that LHO has the ace, but when declarer wins the king in dummy and plays a second one to the jack and ace, so what?

And the UI from the fact that your partner made an IB or COOT may often be just as so what as that.

[gnasher]

Last weekend, in the course of 45 boards (the first half of the Young Chelsea Marathon), there were five occasions when I had to think about the consequences of UI from my partner.

In the same period there was one occasion where he led out of turn during the play. The card he played was a card I already knew he had. The fact that he intended to play this card would be UI under the current rules anyway.

I know this is a small sample, but it seems to support the belief that Iviehoff's suggestion won't greatly increase the burden of UI.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-04, 04:34, said:

Some people have expressed distaste at the randomising effects that can occur when the rather draconian penalties for calls out of turn (COOTs) and insufficient bids (IBs) are applied, or at least when a player makes a jump in the dark due to partner being barred from calling. Further, all these mechanical restrictions are rather complicated, and in particular the new laws on rectifying IBs are very troublesome for the director to administer.

So, as a vast simplification in the law, I propose that whenever a COOT or IB is withdrawn, all withdrawn actions are Unauthorised Information for the offending side, and AI for the non-offending side. And then bid as normal. Probably require some further detail I haven't thought about.

In several posts over the years I have suggested this for IBs. Many IBs make little difference anyway. At top level TDs are used to dealing with UI. In clubs they ignore UI matters. I think it would work.

Calls out of turn disrupt in a much more meaningful way, and I think this rule just means that people who cannot even be bothered to call in turn escape punishment. I dislike this idea.

iviehoff, on 2013-April-05, 04:55, said:

The correspondent argued that the general approach of trying to recover a normal auction where possible following infractions like COOTs and IBs is an entirely wrong idea. Rather they should be seen as such significant departures from proper procedure that they are inherently disruptive in nature, and thus deserve some very harsh consequences, and procedural consequences are very simple. (By "mechanical", I indeed meant "procedural" as Mycroft very nicely described it.)

Absolutely. There is too much pressure these days to allow rule-breakers not to suffer. Why should they not spoil the game for others and get away unpunished?

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 09:06, said:

Absolutely. There is too much pressure these days to allow rule-breakers not to suffer. Why should they not spoil the game for others and get away unpunished?

But sometimes these rule-breakers do get away unpunished, because the effect of the current rules is random. A much better way to punish rule-breaking and game-spoiling is to impose a procedural penalty.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-April-18, 09:20, said:

But sometimes these rule-breakers do get away unpunished, because the effect of the current rules is random. A much better way to punish rule-breaking and game-spoiling is to impose a procedural penalty.

But there is still the problem of implementing your proposed law at the club level. It is true that a solution might be for the lawbook to offer a choice, and maybe this suggestion should be made to the drafting committee; but I wouldn't hold my breath. If there has to be one law for all, then surely it ought to be the one that can be enforced at all levels (which we don't even have at present in the case of IBs).

[nige1]

I think iviehof's proposals are an improvement on current law. In the "agreements over an infraction" thread, Vampyr asked me

Vampyr, on 2013-April-24, 07:42, said:

How would you rewrite rules on IBs and COOTs without giving the next player options?

Some Scottish players discussed this recently and concluded that the gist of a simple new rule for dealing with illegal calls might be:

• The illegal call is cancelled. It is unauthorised information to the offender's partner. If damage results to the innocent side then "could have known" rules may apply.
• You should not attempt to condone an opponent's illegal call with another illegal call (e.g. an insufficient bid with another insufficient bid; or a call out of turn with another call out of turn).

• The auction reverts to the correct caller. The offending side must pass for the rest of the auction
• Alternatively, "Equity" advocates may prefer: the auction reverts to the correct caller, who may make any legal call and the auction proceeds normally

IMO (1) would result in players taking more care, simpler rulings, and a fairer game but (2) would be OK.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 09:06, said:

Calls out of turn disrupt in a much more meaningful way, and I think this rule just means that people who cannot even be bothered to call in turn escape punishment. I dislike this idea.

I don't think very many COOTs are from people who can't be bothered to call in turn, I think they are mainly from people who have suffered a misapprehension that it is actually their turn to call, a misapprehension that they will suffer however draconian the penalty.

I don't think a ruling that you are in possession of UI is "escaping punishment", at least in a good game where people take notice of UI. Frequently, possessing UI does require one to make the less promising action, quite clearly in some cases. It may not be effective in the kind of clubs where you can blatantly abuse UI, a significant proportion of players see nothing wrong about that, and no one does anything about it. But then you could hardly rely upon a COOT ruling being correctly read from the book in such a club, so what's the difference?

I do agree that for revokes "a fixed penalty or equity + 1 trick if that isn't enough" is a more rational rule than "a fixed number of tricks or equity if that isn't enough". But I think that for reasons of avoiding a randomising effect, rather than for reasons of maximising deterrence. But if one is happy with fairly draconian penalties, one can devise alternative penalties for COOTs and IBs that are simpler to apply and more reliably draconian in their impact. At the moment there has been an ad hoc approach to reducing penalties for specific cases of these irregularities, which is rather inconsistent in its effect.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-29, 03:59, said:

I don't think a ruling that you are in possession of UI is "escaping punishment", at least in a good game where people take notice of UI. Frequently, possessing UI does require one to make the less promising action, quite clearly in some cases. It may not be effective in the kind of clubs where you can blatantly abuse UI, a significant proportion of players see nothing wrong about that, and no one does anything about it. But then you could hardly rely upon a COOT ruling being correctly read from the book in such a club, so what's the difference?

I don't think a ruling that you are in possession of UI is punishment in any way.

The difference is that with luck, someday, enough people will be properly educated about the rules of this game that we won't have clubs where the rules are ignored in the way of which you speak.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-29, 09:05, said:

I don't think a ruling that you are in possession of UI is punishment in any way.

I don't think a ruling that you are in possession of UI is a ruling; but, I understand what you were saying, anyway.

[mycroft]

Well, opening calls out of turn with the set of boards we play with on occasion in the club simply mean you're over 40 and your eyes are starting to go. Could we spend $10 for a set of stickers to cover the no-longer-black on pink writing? What's an "ALER"?

(Oh, and this is the same set that doesn't have vulnerability inserts, and yeah, the VUL markers are about as faded as the rest of the board. I've more than once bid white-on-white preempts that went -2 for 500...)

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-29, 09:16, said:

I don't think a ruling that you are in possession of UI is a ruling; but, I understand what you were saying, anyway.

I guess we understand the word "ruling" differently.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me a business has an obligation to its customers to replace or repair fading or damaged equipment. If the business is not going to do that, perhaps the customers should quit paying.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-29, 13:35, said:

I guess we understand the word "ruling" differently.

Probably. I thought a ruling was a decision reqarding the result of a hand or regarding some type of penalty, and a determination whether UI exists...plus a determination whether that UI was used are mere parts of the process.

[blackshoe]

Quote

ruling |ˈro͞oliNG|
noun
an authoritative decision or pronouncement, esp. one made by a judge.

If a TD ("judge") says a player has received UI, that is an authoritative pronouncement and hence, a ruling.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-29, 09:05, said:

I don't think a ruling that you are in possession of UI is punishment in any way.

The consequence of being ruled to be in possession of UI is that you may have to do something which was not what you wanted to do; it is on average likely to result in a worse score than doing what you would have done if you didn't have the information. Thus people who break the law in this way, are ruled to be in possession of UI, and comply with the laws on UI, will obtain worse scores than on average than if the original offence had never occurred. You can argue as to whether that is a punishment or not, but it is certainly not free from negative consequences, in a well-run game.

[blackshoe]

Punishment, according to my dictionary, is "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense". First, as we all know, giving (or receiving) UI is not an offense. Second, I see no retribution in reminding a player of his obligations when in receipt of UI, nor in establishing in law what those obligations are.

I think the game would be better off if people would stop thinking of "any negative consequence" as punishment.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-30, 07:21, said:

Punishment, according to my dictionary, is "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense". First, as we all know, giving (or receiving) UI is not an offense.

I agree, it is better to use the word "disadvantage". Hesitating is not illegal, and it is not penalised. But knowledge of your partner's hesitation is UI, and possession of that UI can be disadvantageous to you. I am proposing that IBs and COOTs are handled in the same way as hesitations and other revealing mannerisms. They will be resolved without penalty, but knowledge of them is likely to be disadvantageous to your partner, through being UI to your side and AI to the other side. Law 23 may also apply.