[PhilKing]

 gnasher, on 2014-April-07, 06:10, said:

Why do you believe that no proper official investigation was started long ago?


It seems quite likely that their code and method of communication have varied over the years, and that they didn't use it all of the time. If they usually refrained from using it when they thought they were being watched, that might explain why they weren't caught earlier.

I am pretty certain the Doctors played "straight" against us in Beijing after set 2 (and I only saw one dodgy lead in that set), but they may have known they were being closely watched - certainly by us, but also, as I mentioned, by the WBF officials.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2014-April-07, 06:10, said:

Why do you believe that no proper official investigation was started long ago? It seems quite likely that their code and method of communication have varied over the years, and that they didn't use it all of the time. If they usually refrained from using it when they thought they were being watched, that might explain why they weren't caught earlier.

Or they might not have been cheating at all. Although, on BLML, Henk Uijterwaal relates an incident, long ago, where one of them was banned.

The doctors were playing in the final of a world-championship. They knew they were being video-taped. The alleged coughing method of cheating seems stupid and crude. It's possible that their previous methods (if any) were more subtle and clever. But unlikely.

Over the years, players, including PhilKing, told directors of their concerns about the doctors. WBF officials told PhilKing that the pair were under observation. At Bali, however, to begin with, the US team's concerns were ignored. I also believe Cascade that when he reported cheating by other players, nothing was done about it.

IMO, Cheating is a "hot potato" that nobody wants to grasp. When a Bridge-law is broken, the "Equity" principle is geared to restoring the status quo, eschewing harsh deterrent penalties, minimising hurt to anybody's feelings, and, in general, avoiding any hassle. There's little incentive for a director to instigate a proper cheating investigation with unpleasant repercussions.

If there had been a thorough official investigation into cheating allegations against the doctors, earlier, then you would expect its findings to be mentioned in the WBF committee report.

On this topic, everything I write relies on hearsay. I know no cheats. I haven't met the doctors. I've no first-hand evidence about whether they cheated at Bali. Or in any previous event.

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2014-April-07, 13:42, said:

IMO, Cheating is a "hot potato" that nobody wants to grasp. When a Bridge-law is broken, the "Equity" principle is geared to restoring the status quo, eschewing harsh deterrent penalties, minimising hurt to anybody's feelings, and, in general, avoiding any hassle.

I cannot stress this enough:

Breaking a bridge law is not cheating. There is a huge difference between leading out of turn (an honest mistake) and communication through secret messages (cheating).

After an honest mistake, we try to repair the damage (equity) and move on.

After a case of cheating, we nail the $0&$. They get banned for 10 years, which in the case of E-W is pretty much the rest of their life.

Yes, I do think that we have gone a little too far when it comes to equity. I think non-offenders should get a little more credit and offenders a little less. But that question doesn't belong in a cheating discussion. Cheaters should not get any credit at all for a looong time.

Rik

[gwnn]

For David Mitchell fans: http://www.theguardi...-david-mitchell

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-08, 05:02, said:

I cannot stress this enough: Breaking a bridge law is not cheating.

But cheating is breaking bridge law

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-08, 05:02, said:

There is a huge difference between leading out of turn (an honest mistake) and communication through secret messages (cheating). After an honest mistake, we try to repair the damage (equity) and move on. After a case of cheating, we nail the $0&$. They get banned for 10 years, which in the case of E-W is pretty much the rest of their life. Yes, I do think that we have gone a little too far when it comes to equity. I think non-offenders should get a little more credit and offenders a little less. But that question doesn't belong in a cheating discussion. Cheaters should not get any credit at all for a looong time.

IMO there's less practical difference than Trinidad thinks. In another topic, Trinidad objected to my attempt to define terms. I hope, however, for the purposes of this argument, we can agree to define cheating as deliberately and knowingly breaking the law in the hope of personal gain. Complex rules don't help ...

• It's hard to ascertain whether the suspect knows the rules. Many are familiar with the words of the law but It's a moot point whether anybody understands its meaning. Top directors are confused about the meaning of bridge rules and often argue about them in on-line discussions like this. Among ordinary players, ignorance and incomprehension is the norm. For example, the ACBL directors handbook said that after partner's huddle, players are well-advised to make the bid they would have made anyway. In a Bridge-winners poll, more than half the members said that when in receipt of unauthorised information, they would just select the action they would have taken without the UI. Presumably, if such a player sometimes takes a suggested action when there is a non-suggested logical alternative, we would categorise such an action as deliberate. Should we classify all these people as chronic cheats?
• Some rules are rarely enforced, so fall into disrepute. Should we classify a declarer as a habitual cheat who often designates dummy's card by saying "low", although he is aware that this might annoy punctilious opponents?
• In general, equity rules reward law-breaking, so they encourage rationalisation and carelessness. You would need to be a mind-reader to work out when and if such behaviour becomes deliberate cheating.

[Cascade]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-08, 05:02, said:

I cannot stress this enough:

Breaking a bridge law is not cheating. There is a huge difference between leading out of turn (an honest mistake) and communication through secret messages (cheating).

After an honest mistake, we try to repair the damage (equity) and move on.

After a case of cheating, we nail the $0&$. They get banned for 10 years, which in the case of E-W is pretty much the rest of their life.

Yes, I do think that we have gone a little too far when it comes to equity. I think non-offenders should get a little more credit and offenders a little less. But that question doesn't belong in a cheating discussion. Cheaters should not get any credit at all for a looong time.

Rik

When a bridge law is broken and a ruling sought in almost all cases the ruling is based on the equity flawed laws whether or not the law was broken deliberately. Further even when the laws suggest that penalties be applied more often than not, for example when a player fails to do that which "must" be done in my experience director's are very reluctant to impose penalties. That environment encourages unscrupulous 'cheats' who have close to zero chance of being found to be deliberately breaking the law and therefore benefit significantly from their law breaking even when caught as the presumption is that it was not deliberate.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2014-April-08, 06:17, said:

But cheating is breaking bridge law IMO there's less practical difference than Trinidad thinks. In another topic, Trinidad objected to my attempt to define terms. I hope, however, for the purposes of this argument, we can agree to define cheating as deliberately and knowingly breaking the law in the hope of personal gain.

The last part about "in the hope of personal gain", is important. I sometimes knowingly violate the proper procedure for using bidding boxes (I'll sometimes just pick up my bidding cards to indicate that I'm making the final pass, rather than pulling out the pass card first), but I (and I expect everyone else who makes this common mistake) do this because I have no expectation that it will make a difference. If it really were likely to confer an advantage to the perpetrator, I don't think it would ever have become common because opponents would object.

But some things are so obvious that it's not even necessary to reference the laws. It's intuitively obvious to any player of the game that information should only be exchanged by bidding and card play. This is fundamental to the whole exercise, and violation of this is clearly one of the most blatant forms of cheating. There is an explicit law about it, but even if there weren't I think we would all know it.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2014-April-08, 06:17, said:

I hope, however, for the purposes of this argument, we can agree to define cheating as deliberately and knowingly breaking the law in the hope of personal gain.

Quote

In a Bridge-winners poll, more than half the members said that when in receipt of unauthorised information, they would just select the action they would have taken without the UI. Presumably, if such a player sometimes takes a suggested action when there is a non-suggested logical alternative, we would categorise such an action as deliberate. Should we classify all these people as chronic cheats?

No, because it doesn't meet your own definition of cheating: they're not trying to gain, and they probably don't even know that they're breaking the rules.

Quote

Should we classify a declarer as a habitual cheat who often designates dummy's card by saying "low", although he is aware that this might annoy punctilious opponents?

Only if he does so in the hope of improving his score.

[mycroft]

 barmar, on 2014-April-08, 09:16, said:

But some things are so obvious that it's not even necessary to reference the laws. It's intuitively obvious to any player of the game that information should only be exchanged by bidding and card play. This is fundamental to the whole exercise, and violation of this is clearly one of the most blatant forms of cheating. There is an explicit law about it, but even if there weren't I think we would all know it.

I would disagree with this on the face. There are millions who play, like Barry Rigal's Grandmother (from his Precision book), "a club", "one club", and "I'll start with a club" (obviously less obvious with bidding boxes, but think of all the kitchens!) There are those who believe in the face of the Law that they are not only entitled to use partner's questions (or lack thereof) and their answers to the opponent's questions (and the questions the opponents ask), but that it would be insane not to. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Secret Bridge Olympics or the CryptoClub, nor to Adjective Bridge or bridge played as poker. It's just that the game grew up saying that that wasn't the way it was played; people are introduced to the concept very early as a "basic mores of bridge"; and it gets to the point where "it's so obvious it's not necessary to reference the Laws". But I guarantee, like the rest of the Proprieties (which used to not be Law, just "proper behaviour we assume that everybody will follow", and before that weren't even written down, just "known by all gentlemen") and many laws in other games and sports that are codifications of "what oughtta be", that there was a reason why it was moved from "it oughtta be" to Law, and it wasn't because "[we] all know it".

In other words, yes, it's "so obvious", but it's only "so obvious" because it's present from day 1, and while it may not be said straight up, all the things that come from that *are* said.

In passing, I see that person of note (in my area, at least) has made a significant achievement in the last little while. I hope he's run out of "Oh, I didn't know that wasn't approved of" ploys by now (he moved away, to great "dismay", a few years ago, so I wouldn't know). It sure was fun pointing them out to him, and watching that less-Proper behaviour stop, only to be replaced by something he hadn't been told was imProper yet.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2014-April-08, 11:04, said:

No, because it doesn't meet your own definition of cheating: they're not trying to gain, and they probably don't even know that they're breaking the rules.

If gnasher doesn't like that definition, he can suggest another. I don't know if Bridgewinners, who always do what they would have done without UI, know the rules. Some might know the rules and might be aware that choosing a suggested action over a non-suggested logical alternative will sometimes gain. I agree that it's hard to tell whether any do. They might know whether they cheat. For an observer, it's a grey area. (FWIW, I don't think they cheat).

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2014-April-08, 17:37, said:

If gnasher doesn't like that definition, he can suggest another. I don't know if Bridgewinners, who always do what they would have done without UI, know the rules. Some might know the rules and might be aware that choosing a suggested action over a non-suggested logical alternative will sometimes gain. I agree that it's hard to tell whether any do. They might know whether they cheat. I don't think they cheat but, for an observer, it's a grey area.

Following the UI laws is difficult. You need to establish at each decision that you have to make:
- what your logical alternatives are
- which of these logical alternatives are made more attractive the others by the UI

and then you need to chose one of the alternatives that hasn't been made more attractive. At the same time, you will have to try and play winning bridge.

Some cases are fairly straightforward, but there are also cases where -for the vast majority of the players (and a surprising amount of TDs)- this is just too hard to do. At some decision, somewhere in the auction or play, the UI will mix with the AI. It is much easier (though it is also hard) to "just forget" the UI.

So, if you are simply not able to follow the UI rules literally, you will have to do the best you can. "Forgetting the UI" and do what you were going to do without the UI, and let the TD sort it out later, is second best.

People who work to the best of their ability to follow the rules are not cheaters. They are not in a grey area either. They do not deserve PPs. You might call them "victims of their partner's". But they did break the laws and a good TD will correct that by adjusting the score.

It is inappropriate to hand out PPs to people who try their best to follow the rules in a complex situation. But I think that in awarding adjusted scores, the non offending side should get more of the benefit of the doubt than they are currently getting. As a result, the offenders get less. You may see that as a deterrent, or better, as an encouragement to try to follow the UI laws even better.

Rik

[rhm]

 mycroft, on 2014-April-08, 16:40, said:

I would disagree with this on the face. There are millions who play, like Barry Rigal's Grandmother (from his Precision book), "a club", "one club", and "I'll start with a club" (obviously less obvious with bidding boxes, but think of all the kitchens!) There are those who believe in the face of the Law that they are not only entitled to use partner's questions (or lack thereof) and their answers to the opponent's questions (and the questions the opponents ask), but that it would be insane not to. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Secret Bridge Olympics or the CryptoClub, nor to Adjective Bridge or bridge played as poker. It's just that the game grew up saying that that wasn't the way it was played; people are introduced to the concept very early as a "basic mores of bridge"; and it gets to the point where "it's so obvious it's not necessary to reference the Laws". But I guarantee, like the rest of the Proprieties (which used to not be Law, just "proper behaviour we assume that everybody will follow", and before that weren't even written down, just "known by all gentlemen") and many laws in other games and sports that are codifications of "what oughtta be", that there was a reason why it was moved from "it oughtta be" to Law, and it wasn't because "[we] all know it".

In other words, yes, it's "so obvious", but it's only "so obvious" because it's present from day 1, and while it may not be said straight up, all the things that come from that *are* said.

In passing, I see that person of note (in my area, at least) has made a significant achievement in the last little while. I hope he's run out of "Oh, I didn't know that wasn't approved of" ploys by now (he moved away, to great "dismay", a few years ago, so I wouldn't know). It sure was fun pointing them out to him, and watching that less-Proper behaviour stop, only to be replaced by something he hadn't been told was imProper yet.

I see a certain arrogance and high handedness here against less experienced players.
With experience and better levels of bridge comes a better understanding, how important it is not to transfer and use unauthorized information.
I dislike arrogance against inexperienced players of low skill and I also think one needs to be patient and more lenient against them. Over time they will understand and get better.
Even if they violate rules it is important not to lecture them in an arrogant way.
I at least are more tolerant against them than I would be against known experts. Hesitating from novices is not cheating, even if it helps their partners to find better bids.
Of course I will not tolerate everything even from weak and inexperienced players.
Cheating starts when people understand the issue well and deliberately violate the rules.

In that sense grandmother Bridge is not cheating. It is Bridge at a different level.
If you can not tolerate it, do not play at this level.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cascade]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-09, 03:18, said:

Following the UI laws is difficult. You need to establish at each decision that you have to make:
- what your logical alternatives are
- which of these logical alternatives are made more attractive the others by the UI

and then you need to chose one of the alternatives that hasn't been made more attractive. At the same time, you will have to try and play winning bridge.

Some cases are fairly straightforward, but there are also cases where -for the vast majority of the players (and a surprising amount of TDs)- this is just too hard to do. At some decision, somewhere in the auction or play, the UI will mix with the AI. It is much easier (though it is also hard) to "just forget" the UI.

So, if you are simply not able to follow the UI rules literally, you will have to do the best you can. "Forgetting the UI" and do what you were going to do without the UI, and let the TD sort it out later, is second best.

People who work to the best of their ability to follow the rules are not cheaters. They are not in a grey area either. They do not deserve PPs. You might call them "victims of their partner's". But they did break the laws and a good TD will correct that by adjusting the score.

It is inappropriate to hand out PPs to people who try their best to follow the rules in a complex situation. But I think that in awarding adjusted scores, the non offending side should get more of the benefit of the doubt than they are currently getting. As a result, the offenders get less. You may see that as a deterrent, or better, as an encouragement to try to follow the UI laws even better.

Rik

I don't get the attitude they don't deserve penalties. Games typically have penalties when you are judged to have broken the rules. Intent is not important. 'But Ref I tried to stay onside I didn't intend to cross the line' or similar wouldn't work as an excuse. For some reason there is a strong resistance to penalising people at the bridge table. This in spite of the laws saying penalties should be more often than not in some situations.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2014-April-08, 17:37, said:

If gnasher doesn't like that definition, he can suggest another. I don't know if Bridgewinners, who always do what they would have done without UI, know the rules. Some might know the rules and might be aware that choosing a suggested action over a non-suggested logical alternative will sometimes gain. I agree that it's hard to tell whether any do. They might know whether they cheat. I don't think they cheat but, for an observer, it's a grey area.

What makes you think I don't like your definition of cheating? I think your definition is fine.

You defined cheating. Then you described a behaviour which falls outside that definition. Then you asked if it was cheating.

Obviously the answer is "No".

[billw55]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-09, 03:18, said:

Following the UI laws is difficult. You need to establish at each decision that you have to make:
- what your logical alternatives are
- which of these logical alternatives are made more attractive the others by the UI

and then you need to chose one of the alternatives that hasn't been made more attractive. At the same time, you will have to try and play winning bridge.

Some cases are fairly straightforward, but there are also cases where -for the vast majority of the players (and a surprising amount of TDs)- this is just too hard to do. At some decision, somewhere in the auction or play, the UI will mix with the AI. It is much easier (though it is also hard) to "just forget" the UI.

So, if you are simply not able to follow the UI rules literally, you will have to do the best you can. "Forgetting the UI" and do what you were going to do without the UI, and let the TD sort it out later, is second best.

People who work to the best of their ability to follow the rules are not cheaters. They are not in a grey area either. They do not deserve PPs. You might call them "victims of their partner's". But they did break the laws and a good TD will correct that by adjusting the score.

It is inappropriate to hand out PPs to people who try their best to follow the rules in a complex situation. But I think that in awarding adjusted scores, the non offending side should get more of the benefit of the doubt than they are currently getting. As a result, the offenders get less. You may see that as a deterrent, or better, as an encouragement to try to follow the UI laws even better.

Rik

Agree. This is pretty much how I feel about it, and how I often operate. I try to set aside whatever potential UI there has been, and just take the correct bridge action. Often, thinking up the LAs and what is or is not suggested is too difficult, and might only distort the situation further. It feels like trying to sort this all out amounts to making my own ruling, which I know I am not supposed to do. So I make the call I think is right, and let the director sort out the correct ruling if one is needed.

Once at a national pairs event, I had such an incident. The ops seemed perturbed after the hand was done, so I suggested myself that we call the director. Ops accepted, and the director ultimately ruled against us and adjusted the score. I thanked him and went on to the next round. This seemed like the optimal outcome, a correct ruling determined by someone who actually knows how to do so.

Of course in some cases, the suggested action is obvious, and it is easy to do the correct thing. But in more complex situations, I just let the director do her job.

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-09, 03:18, said:

Following the UI laws is difficult. You need to establish at each decision that you have to make:
- what your logical alternatives are
- which of these logical alternatives are made more attractive the others by the UI
and then you need to chose one of the alternatives that hasn't been made more attractive. At the same time, you will have to try and play winning bridge.
Some cases are fairly straightforward, but there are also cases where -for the vast majority of the players (and a surprising amount of TDs)- this is just too hard to do. At some decision, somewhere in the auction or play, the UI will mix with the AI. It is much easier (though it is also hard) to "just forget" the UI. So, if you are simply not able to follow the UI rules literally, you will have to do the best you can. "Forgetting the UI" and do what you were going to do without the UI, and let the TD sort it out later, is second best. People who work to the best of their ability to follow the rules are not cheaters. They are not in a grey area either. They do not deserve PPs. You might call them "victims of their partner's". But they did break the laws and a good TD will correct that by adjusting the score.
It is inappropriate to hand out PPs to people who try their best to follow the rules in a complex situation. But I think that in awarding adjusted scores, the non offending side should get more of the benefit of the doubt than they are currently getting. As a result, the offenders get less. You may see that as a deterrent, or better, as an encouragement to try to follow the UI laws even better.

Many experts, whom I've asked, go even further than Trinidad. They say that they always take the action that they would have chosen without UI. They explain that it is always too hard to work out what the LAs are and which the UI suggests. If an opponent complains and calls the director, they're prepared to accept his ruling without complaint. I've always argued that this is the wrong attitude but I suppose this is another area of legal disagreement.

 rhm, on 2014-April-09, 03:55, said:

I see a certain arrogance and high handedness here against less experienced players. With experience and better levels of bridge comes a better understanding, how important it is not to transfer and use unauthorized information. I dislike arrogance against inexperienced players of low skill and I also think one needs to be patient and more lenient against them. Over time they will understand and get better. Even if they violate rules it is important not to lecture them in an arrogant way. I at least are more tolerant against them than I would be against known experts. Hesitating from novices is not cheating, even if it helps their partners to find better bids. Of course I will not tolerate everything even from weak and inexperienced players. Cheating starts when people understand the issue well and deliberately violate the rules.
In that sense grandmother Bridge is not cheating. It is Bridge at a different level. If you can not tolerate it, do not play at this level.

If you change the rules of a game, you are playing a different game. It seems patronising and demeaning to bend the rules for the poorer players, who are taking part in a competition. You might make exceptions for disabled players (but, IMO, that should be the prerogative of their opponents rather than a director).

 Cascade, on 2014-April-09, 04:33, said:

I don't get the attitude they don't deserve penalties. Games typically have penalties when you are judged to have broken the rules. Intent is not important. 'But Ref I tried to stay onside I didn't intend to cross the line' or similar wouldn't work as an excuse. For some reason there is a strong resistance to penalising people at the bridge table. This in spite of the laws saying penalties should be more often than not in some situations.

I agree with Cascade, that decisions shouldn't over-rely on mind-reading. Unfortunately, with current Bridge rules, in practice, they do. IMO, when a player breaks the rules, the law should put as little weight as possible on the answers to questions like ...

• How experienced or skilled is the player?
• Does he know relevant rules?
• Can he divine the (currently and locally fashionable) meaning of those rules?
• Is he capable of applying those rules to this complex situation?
• Was his action deliberate (is he even capable of insight into his own motives)?
• Did he rationalise his action?
• Did he break the law in the hope of gain?
• Has he a previous history of this kind of infraction?

[Trinidad]

 Cascade, on 2014-April-09, 04:33, said:

I don't get the attitude they don't deserve penalties. Games typically have penalties when you are judged to have broken the rules. Intent is not important. 'But Ref I tried to stay onside I didn't intend to cross the line' or similar wouldn't work as an excuse. For some reason there is a strong resistance to penalising people at the bridge table. This in spite of the laws saying penalties should be more often than not in some situations.

Has any soccer player ever gotten a yellow card for being off side? Has any hockey player ever been sent off for skating off side?

The free kick (or face off) is not a penalty. It is the adjustment: Your side failed to follow the rules. To compensate the opponents for the damage, they will get the ball (or the puck is moved to your side of the ice).

In soccer* there is a clear distinction between inadvertent fouls and intentional fouls. The inadvertent ones (off side, getting the ball on your arm) are "adjusted" with an indirect free kick. Intentional technical fouls (playing the ball intentionally with your hand) are "adjusted" with a direct free kick and sometimes penalized with a card.

Bridge Laws follow a simple assumption: Bridge players do not commit intentional fouls. Hence, intentional fouls, though they may occur, essentially fall outside the scope of the bridge laws. They are dealt with separately. The organizers deal with those people who are as horrible to intentionally commit fouls. Typically, the consequences have a (much) larger scope than the hand that is played: Players are often suspended.

So, the bridge Laws, with a few exceptions, basically deal with fouls that are inadvertent and the scope is limited to the hand in play.

Rik

* For the non-soccerists:
A direct free kick is a free kick from which the kicker is allowed to score directly. An indirect free kick is a free kick where a goal only counts if the ball has been touched by an other player first. (The referee will have his arm up to signal this.)

[mycroft]

 rhm, on 2014-April-09, 03:55, said:

I see a certain arrogance and high handedness here against less experienced players.

I'd like you to explain where, because that was totally not my intent. Barmar's argument was that Bridge isn't played with deliberate transmission of information other than the calls and plays, and that it's so inherently obvious that it doesn't really need to be stated (but it is so we can punish the cheaters). I disagreed, and pointed out that there are huge numbers of counterexamples. Yes, that's with less-experienced players (usually), but the point was "it's obvious on its face" dies on the sword of "less-experienced players routinely don't follow it, because to them it's *not* obvious".

Quote

With experience and better levels of bridge comes a better understanding, how important it is not to transfer and use unauthorized information.

Interestingly enough the two specific examples I quoted are plenty experienced and at least think they play at better levels. I referenced them because they *do* know better, and either choose to flaunt the Law or choose to very carefully avoid learning enough to know what they're doing is wrong.

rest trimmed (because I can't see how my statement and this response are at all related), except for the fact that it is only with education - which means not being "more lenient against them" that they learn, "will understand and get better". Certainly the Laws allow for different adjustments for the same action based on the skill of the player (think "for this person the hesitation meant 'I've never seen anyone overcall 2♣ before'" rulings), but letting this kind of behaviour slide completely teaches something - that it's acceptable. Which means that when people do start thinking "they should know better by now" and start calling out this behaviour - they have no idea it's wrong.

Side note [certainly not aimed at rhm, or anyone here, really - we all know this] that it should still be the TD that does the education, please? Not "I could get this rolled back, but I won't, because..." from the high horse of the A player? That trick never works.

Quote

In that sense grandmother Bridge is not cheating. It is Bridge at a different level.

Which was, in fact, my point. It could even be *legal and proper*, had the evolution of the game gone that way.

[MrAce]

 nige1, on 2014-April-08, 06:17, said:

. Among ordinary players, ignorance and incomprehension is the norm. For example, the ACBL directors handbook said that after partner's huddle, players are well-advised to make the bid they would have made anyway. In a Bridge-winners poll, more than half the members said that when in receipt of unauthorised information, they would just select the action they would have taken without the UI. Presumably, if such a player sometimes takes a suggested action when there is a non-suggested logical alternative, we would categorise such an action as deliberate. Should we classify all these people as chronic cheats

I have a question. How can we be sure what is suggested and what not from an UI?


For example if a hesitation followed by pass is considered as "UI which suggests to bid" then players can just simply reverse it to gain advantage Thus, someone can hesitate in order to suggest passing (as oppose to bidding or doubling), and the other one can defend himself, after passing with a borderline decision "hey, pd hesitated, I had a borderline decision, so I was merely trying to the right thing by refusing to choose the suggested action by UI" .Bottom line is, it is not as clear as people think of it, what was suggested and what not, unless we naively believe that no one will do such a thing. Imho it is better to bid as if UI did not exist, as objective as you can be, and leave it to TD or appeal to sort it out, had they complained.

You do not even have to be an evil person to do that. Look at the topics in BBF or arguments between players in some auctions.One may argue that player A has an auto pass, while another argues player A has an auto cuebid, while another one argues player A should just bid the slam, in a contested auction.

This is where I am having hard time to decide which one is right.... Is it to just bid as if UI did not exist (which may be something considered as "suggested action" upto some people) or try to figure out what was actually suggested and choose one of the other L.A ? What if one of them is manipulating the other one (or manipulating everyone at the table in that context)?

[gordontd]

 MrAce, on 2014-April-09, 10:20, said:

For example if a hesitation followed by pass is considered as "UI which suggests to bid" then players can just simply reverse it to gain advantage Thus, someone can hesitate in order to suggest passing (as oppose to bidding or doubling), and the other one can defend himself, after passing with a borderline decision "hey, pd hesitated, I had a borderline decision, so I was merely trying to the right thing by refusing to choose the suggested action by UI" .

This would require that players have perfect control over their tempo. They don't - they could deliberately pause when they don't have a problem, but they can't deliberately not pause when they do have a problem - which is why hesitations do suggest something.