[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2013-June-30, 17:16, said:

In my view the state of ethics, which to me is simply following the rules, is very poor. Further I believe the responsibility for this lies with directors, teachers and officials who do little to promote ethical (law abiding) play.

Just yesterday we bid to 4♠, on the contested auction 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 4♠, my opponent paused after 4♠ for a considerable time after I had removed a stop card, she then passed and her partner found a double on ♠ Jx ♥ Kxxx ♦ Axxx ♣ xxx - hardly a defensive rock. If all these players get when they do not carefully avoid taking advantage of UI is the score wound back and some friendly advice then they are unlikely to change their ethics. Certainly the evidence that I see is that little has changed in this regard for years. Aside from anything else, a player who behaves in this way will not always have the score wound back and so will in the long run benefit from their unethical play. The only way to counter this benefit while the unethical play continues is to penalise frequently. Which is what seems to be required by the wording of Law 73.

Your example is very different: There was UI and the person with the UI took an active action (which is even the action that is most suggested by the UI). Your opponent cannot possibly have tried to do it right, hence a penalty is appropriate (unless your opponents don't know what UI is).

In the case of the OP, South did not take any action (which was suggested by the UI for those who understand UI laws): he passed. Passing is a very common reflex for people who don't understand UI laws when they are trying to do the right thing (but it happens to be wrong).

The difference is between trying to get it right and not succeeding (no punishment) and not trying to get it right (punishment).

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-01, 07:33, said:

In the case of the OP, South did not take any action (which was suggested by the UI for those who understand UI laws): he passed. Passing is a very common reflex for people who don't understand UI laws when they are trying to do the right thing (but it happens to be wrong).

Quite true. How many times have we heard players say something like "You shouldn't tank and pass, because it bars me"?

[jeffford76]

I don't believe 2♦ showing diamonds requires an alert in this auction. It's not highly unusual, and in general cue bids aren't alerted. The example of a cue bid showing the suit being an alert is for a direct cue-bid, not a sandwich cue bid.

[barmar]

The problem with trying to punish players for violating ACBL's alert procedures is that so many of them are vague, often relying on subjective judgements of "highly unusual and unexpected". In common auctions it's usually well understood what is alertable and what isn't, but cornder cases like this are harder.

[campboy]

As I've already pointed out this isn't even a cuebid by the definition in the alert procedure, so we don't have to worry about which meanings are highly unusual.

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-01, 07:33, said:

Your example is very different: There was UI and the person with the UI took an active action (which is even the action that is most suggested by the UI). Your opponent cannot possibly have tried to do it right, hence a penalty is appropriate (unless your opponents don't know what UI is).

In the case of the OP, South did not take any action (which was suggested by the UI for those who understand UI laws): he passed. Passing is a very common reflex for people who don't understand UI laws when they are trying to do the right thing (but it happens to be wrong).

The difference is between trying to get it right and not succeeding (no punishment) and not trying to get it right (punishment).

Rik

I think your approach is very generous to the offender.

Without further evidence I would bet that the player was trying to get out of a mess into a playable contract. Almost no one with a maximum for their previous action and four card support for a suit that partner is introducing would pass and almost everyone would raise to game. That is this situation has a very clear action that is not suggested by any UI. There is nothing in pass that is remotely trying to avoid taking advantage of the UI. To pass is at best misguided and at worst a clear and deliberate attempt to gain an advantage. I don't see any problem in imposing a penalty. Further I feel that:

A penalty will much better emphasize the correct approach.

A penalty is likely to be better remembered than some education.

A penalty does not prohibit education and can be used to reinforce the education.

A penalty may not even matter much to the pair's score. In a pairs tournament such a penalty is likely to only has a significant affect on pairs in contention.

Education simply has not worked in decades. In this environment players who repeatedly take advantage of UI prosper, as they do not have all of their good results rolled back for various reasons. On the contrary players that go out of their way not to take advantage place themselves at a disadvantage to those (unethical) players.

Overall your approach provides a disincentive for following the rules.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2013-July-01, 14:25, said:

As I've already pointed out this isn't even a cuebid by the definition in the alert procedure, so we don't have to worry about which meanings are highly unusual.

This is an interesting point. We have been treating it as a cue bid, and it seems clear North thought it was a cue bid, but you're right, technically it's not.

I asked myself "what would I do, with South's hand, absent any alert or explanation, if North bid 2♠ over my natural 2♦ bid?" The answer I came up with is "bid 4♠".

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2013-July-01, 15:45, said:

Education simply has not worked in decades.

That is an interesting statement... Do you have evidence to back it up? (You may want to think where we would be without education.)

It's a scientific fact that positive reinforcement (encouragement, reward) works better than negative reinforcement (punishment) to change behavior.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-02, 03:02, said:

That is an interesting statement... Do you have evidence to back it up? (You may want to think where we would be without education.)

It's a scientific fact that positive reinforcement (encouragement, reward) works better than negative reinforcement (punishment) to change behavior.

Is a "scientific" fact somehow better than some other kind of fact? What other kinds are there?

It's also a fact, scientific or otherwise, that simply telling someone "don't do that" over and over again does not work to change their behavior.

How, as the TD called to the table who finds that someone took advantage of UI, would you, within the laws, encourage them not to do that? How would you do it differently the second time with the same player? How would you do it differently the twenty-second time? Would you do something outside the ruling situation (mini-lessons, perhaps)? How often?

[Zelandakh]

I think Rik may be on to something here. We could make it part of the Laws that any possible incidence of UI, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, must be reported to the TD. Whenever the TD judges that their partner made an ethical call or play later in the hand, the TD should reqard that player with a lollipop. Within a year or so, all lollipop-loving bridge players will understand the UI rules perfectly and we can move on to the small group of lollipop-haters.

[barmar]

campboy, on 2013-July-01, 14:25, said:

As I've already pointed out this isn't even a cuebid by the definition in the alert procedure, so we don't have to worry about which meanings are highly unusual.

I thought there was a more general requirement to alert highly unusual or unexpected meanings, not specific to cue bids. But I just checked and the language is only used in two places: cue bids and doubles.

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on 2013-July-02, 03:02, said:

That is an interesting statement... Do you have evidence to back it up? (You may want to think where we would be without education.)

It's a scientific fact that positive reinforcement (encouragement, reward) works better than negative reinforcement (punishment) to change behavior.

Rik

Exactly. These people have learnt that by taking advantage of the UI they get a reward - better scores than if they act according to the laws of the game.

Perhaps if we rewarded those who played according to the laws then these ethics would be cleaned up. Instead we reward those who break the laws and we have a mess where the average bridge player, including many very experienced ones, completely disregard their obligations when they receive unauthorised information.

My statement was in a context where there has been education but no, or at most very few, penalties imposed. I am not calling for there to be no education but for the education to be supplemented by the penalties that the law seems to clearly require. This is not an either or situation, one can penalise and educate.

[axman]

Cascade, on 2013-July-02, 16:19, said:

Exactly. These people have learnt that by taking advantage of the UI they get a reward - better scores than if they act according to the laws of the game.

Perhaps if we rewarded those who played according to the laws then these ethics would be cleaned up. Instead we reward those who break the laws and we have a mess where the average bridge player, including many very experienced ones, completely disregard their obligations when they receive unauthorised information.

My statement was in a context where there has been education but no, or at most very few, penalties imposed. I am not calling for there to be no education but for the education to be supplemented by the penalties that the law seems to clearly require. This is not an either or situation, one can penalise and educate.

Wayne,

To have a valid expectation that the rules be followed in the main…… by necessity the rules must be right-headed.

The current state of affairs is that the rules are wrong-headed; and if rulings were made in accordance with the rules then most would not show up. The norm is that rulings are not in accordance with the rules with two dominant effects [1] more show up than would be expected and [2] it is the unwritten rules that are 'learned' to the exclusion of the written rules.

[Zelandakh]

axman, on 2013-July-02, 19:39, said:

The current state of affairs is that the rules are wrong-headed;

Not sure what you mean here. I do not find an expectation that bridge players abide by the rules wrong-headed.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2013-July-02, 19:39, said:

To have a valid expectation that the rules be followed in the main…… by necessity the rules must be right-headed.

The current state of affairs is that the rules are wrong-headed; and if rulings were made in accordance with the rules then most would not show up. The norm is that rulings are not in accordance with the rules with two dominant effects [1] more show up than would be expected and [2] it is the unwritten rules that are 'learned' to the exclusion of the written rules.

I don't understand what you are saying. Where I play the Laws and regulations are followed, and there are no "unwritten" rules that people follow instead. Or are you talking specifically about Spain?

[helene_t]

I think -1100 rather than -400 is a realistic result.

I generally agree with Rik but I am not so sure about the scientific facts. Source? OK of course we could find a pile of papers showing just that but maybe we could find a similar-size pile showing the opposite.

[mycroft]

I think there should be a difference between a score adjustment and a penalty.

I am not penalizing South for failing to carefully avoid using the UI (or panicking and passing in his last playable contract); I am ruling that he did violate L73C, and adjusting the score as I am required to by Law 12. Calling that a penalty - even if it results in a poorer score - makes it more difficult to educate, not less.

Choosing whether to penalize South as well is a separate judgement, based on my belief of his culpability - does he understand the UI Laws, is he trying to take the "everyone knows that auction means partner thought it was takeout" tack or the "you can't expect me to hang myself" tack, has he said to me in the bar that not only does he listen and use what his partner says in his bidding, it would be insane not to; or is he befuddled and didn't know what to do, and panic-passed (or was told that UI forces pass by somebody)?

[blackshoe]

Well said, Mycroft.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2013-July-08, 14:01, said:

I think there should be a difference between a score adjustment and a penalty.

I think the general term the Laws use for the former is "rectification".

But if a rectification goes beyon just restoring equity, such as the automatic transfer of a trick as a result of a revoke, it feels punitive.

[mycroft]

Yes, but there are rectifications that are mandated when there is an infraction (including Law 12 score adjustments), and there are rectifications that are penalties (via Laws 90 and 91).

Yes, some people find the required adjustments, or trick re-assignments, punitive. By and large, they're not (although sometimes even I say "penalty enough"). Even the revoke rectification is primarily equity, even if there is a mandated adjustment before the equity check; most of the issues with the revoke Law at the moment are the "but he revoked and all we got was what we would have, but when I did it, the TD put me down in a cold contract" ones - the "why didn't *he* get punished" issue. And I sympathize.

But that doesn't change the issue that I would phrase it the way I said above; because there's a difference between "if you had followed what Law 73C requires, you would have raised, probably to game; so the Laws require us to award what should have happened in the first place" and "you know you're not allowed to act on what you've heard from partner, and you've told me in public that you don't care. Maybe you'll start caring when you start getting *worse* scores than your Law-abiding competitors."