[sanst]

I don't think E deserves a penalty. From the poll it's clear that more than half the players consider 2♣, so there's no blatant use of UI. Besides, E knows without the UI that W must have 'something'. Just tell the players why you don't allow the bid and make sure both understand what you're telling them.

[mycroft]

• East had a LA of pass (from the polling). 1♥-1 is better than 2♥-2. Damage. E-W: +50, and some explanations. Given who these people are, *very careful* explanations, hopefully from someone who isn't in the "don't let near the novices" camp (but if I'm the Director, sorry BB. I'm better now, really).
  
• My guess is that N-S are equally inexperienced (North passes 1♥ with that hand? South rebids that ratty 5-card suit into what he also should think is either "13 with some hearts" or "15 with no stopper"? (as opposed to the "obvious to me" pass, or at least "I can support all the suits" double. But then again, that's dangerous opposite what he knows North is like, I guess). Does 2♥ (as opposed to the other options, again) veer into 12C1e territory? It certainly would were I South - seems like a pretty classic "heads I win, tails I get the director to return me to 1♥" situation. But I think it should be a very high bar to cross ("gambling action, which if unsuccessful...") and this looks like novice judgement, not advanced gambling.
  
• And 3♣ should lose the obvious 4 tricks - with North's shape, none of the low trumps see daylight. So even -100 is better than -110.

All of which sfi said. Sure, rule 1♥-1 both ways (look at if, if only trying to make 7 tricks, South would succeed, I guess. I haven't).

But what if West now wakes up and, not trusting that she has already shown her values with the tank, decides to double? -300 is worse against -110. What if West does look for game? Played from West's side, at this table, it would not surprise me if 3NT makes (playing 3NT against good - but not DD - defence looks like an interesting puzzle in itself). What about that?

I've already "assumed" that South is inexperienced enough that this isn't a gambling action, just a bad one. But it's worth going through the motions of 12C1e2 for practise:

Well, first we have to look at what might have happened if South passes 2♣ (or doubles). If West drives 2♣-(2♥) to game, they'd probably do it over 2♣-pass. So, it doesn't look like the call itself was responsible for -600. If West doubles 2♥, maybe they wouldn't have, don't know. So maybe there is. The self-inflicted damage is -300 into -110 some fraction of the time, -300 into -600 some fraction of the time (-300 into +50 some fraction of the time?).

Wow, it gets complicated quickly. I'm really glad I'm expecting to rule "Enough peers of East passed this auction that it is a LA. You can't take a call suggested by the UI when there's an LA not so suggested that does worse. 1♥-1."

After that, a discussion with West about why you have to learn to pass those hands "in tempo" because of the problems it can cause your partner (and the assistance you're giving the opponents). "Yes, I know you want to do something with 15, but there isn't anything to do, so pass and see where it goes. It doesn't show weakness, just nothing to bid. You will come to realize this quickly; the sooner you can, the fewer issues like this will happen. This isn't a criticism of you; everybody had to learn this sometime."

And a discussion with East, who probably is shocked that "but I'd always bid 2♣" (with, depending on experience, some or all of the logic in my previous). Either that, or trying to respond to the "accusation of C-" it sounded like (quoting Law 73, and the difference between it and Law 16, frequently helps here).

And a discussion with South, after "taking my director hat off", as to why the ruling took so long, querying about "gambling action". Starting with "and this is why rebidding 5 card suits, especially bad 5 card suits you've already shown, is Bad Bridge." And yeah, if South is actually one of the A pairs that "occasionally tries something, and is shocked that they could be thought of as anything but ethical", well, maybe "that's an awful call, and you know it. I'm sure you didn't make it knowing that if it didn't work, it would get rolled back, but some would, and the Law says..." may be sufficient to say "sure, keep playing like that, if you have to. Just not in my game, eh?"

[blackshoe]

Has this case become sufficiently not simple that it no longer belongs in "Simple Rulings"?

[sfi]

 blackshoe, on 2024-March-19, 16:18, said:

Has this case become sufficiently not simple that it no longer belongs in "Simple Rulings"?

I'm not sure it's the case that became not simple - anything can be made convoluted if one tries hard enough.

[jillybean]

It should be simple but often club Directors are reluctant to, or are unsure how to rule on these infractions. I think it is unlikely that they will poll players or make any adjustment.

East at the table was the Director, N/S objected to the 2C bid, feeling it was suggested by West's indecisive action. The Director simply said "I had my bid" and moved on.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2024-March-19, 10:27, said:

And a discussion with South, after "taking my director hat off", as to why the ruling took so long, querying about "gambling action". Starting with "and this is why rebidding 5 card suits, especially bad 5 card suits you've already shown, is Bad Bridge." And yeah, if South is actually one of the A pairs that "occasionally tries something, and is shocked that they could be thought of as anything but ethical", well, maybe "that's an awful call, and you know it. I'm sure you didn't make it knowing that if it didn't work, it would get rolled back, but some would, and the Law says..." may be sufficient to say "sure, keep playing like that, if you have to. Just not in my game, eh?"

This is the most painful discussion, in my limited experience, because while almost any player is ready to be told by Director what the rules are, not that many are ready to be told that they played Bad Bridge, even if (or especially if) they recognize it is a diplomatic way of pointing out that they were not ethical.

For the rest, I'm happy with the poll and the adjustment.

[jillybean]

All four players could have left the table learning something from this hand.
West - a reminder to spend the time between picking up your cards and your first bid by evaluating your hand and possible auctions
North - Michael thinks N should not pass 1H, I'm not sure what bid they have, something for me to learn here too.
East - there is a difference between "having your bid" and having your bid after receiving UI from partner's break in tempo.
South - if you know the player you will know if this is bad bridge or unethical, or both. Even with that knowledge I wouldn't want to go there.

Unfortunately what happened here is West went away with a erroneous understanding of tempo and restrictions after UI
East's action and "ruling" go unchallenged.
North and South leave frustrated at what they think is a blatant violation of the Laws.

Guess how E/W are going to respond to the next instance of a break in tempo?
And on it goes.

[axman]

 jillybean, on 2024-March-19, 23:58, said:

, N/S objected to the 2C bid, feeling it was suggested by West's indecisive action.

It seems to me that if S wants the score for declaring 1H it is necessary to explain successfully why it is deserved. I am thinking the impossibility of success traces to having raised freely the auction to 2H in the face of two strong bidding opponents coupled with partner's announced worthless cards.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2024-March-19, 04:10, said:

That East has the values shown by his bid is UI? Since when? Have we arrived at "anything the putative offending side does in the presence of UI is illegal"?

I think the logic is this:

W knows he hesitated, which passed UI to E.

Assuming E is an ethical player, he will follow Law 73 and carefully avoid making use of this UI.

Since the UI suggests bidding, he would only bid if his bid is clearcut, in this case holding a maximum pass. And since he bid, that's what he must have.

Then, since W has at enough to invite opposite a 9-11 HCP hand, he must be doing something wrong if he passes here.

But I've never liked the idea of second-order UI effects like this, it leads to mad regressions. Is it really UI that partner will follow L73?

[mycroft]

I think that most people would still suggest you respond to an opener with 6 HCP, especially if 5 of them are KQxxx. I think that there's no great response (1NT is standard and pretty much the only option), but if you don't do it, and south has the 19-21 point hand she can have, 1H+3 is going to look pretty bare on the scoreboard.

No, I don't think this isn't a "simple ruling" - as sfi says, any ruling can be made complicated. It's just that this one is actually "close to" a lot of those complications, and I wanted to point them out - that they need to be thought about even if decided against immediately, and what the director needs to think about should it be a player who we don't "decide against immediately".

Yes, the rulings where you have to tell players they bid badly and that it (could have) affected the ruling are hard. But with newer players it's easier, because they *know* they bid badly; and you're showing them how to bid better. With more advanced players, it can frequently help them understand the ruling if you show them how bad their "obvious bid" was "from the other side"; if the light bulb goes on, they're usually much more comfortable with "yeah, guess I was influenced".

I really try to make it clear that "you are allowed to think. But when you make it obvious, you put your partner under some restrictions..." to try to avoid the "wrong way to understand UI" problem. But yes, it's very hard (I heard a (former) director say that her bad score was a result of partner's tank-pass leading to a ruling. No, it was *your call* after partner's tank-pass that was the infraction).

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2024-March-21, 21:07, said:

Is it really UI that partner will follow L73?

I don't think so. I hope not.

While there are caveats around a lot of Law 16A, it seems pretty clear to me that the provisions of the laws and regulations, the actual auction, and things a player knew before he sat down are generally authorized.

Else we get into "my partner knows I'm ethical, so he has UI, but then I know he's ethical, so I have UI too". Pretty soon you're in what computer geeks call an infinite loop. Guess what happens then?

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2024-March-22, 10:46, said:

I don't think so. I hope not.

While there are caveats around a lot of Law 16A, it seems pretty clear to me that the provisions of the laws and regulations, the actual auction, and things a player knew before he sat down are generally authorized.

Else we get into "my partner knows I'm ethical, so he has UI, but then I know he's ethical, so I have UI too". Pretty soon you're in what computer geeks call an infinite loop. Guess what happens then?

You cease being ethical and forget the Laws?

[blackshoe]

Your brain explodes, leaving a mess all over the table.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2024-March-22, 10:46, said:

I don't think so. I hope not.

While there are caveats around a lot of Law 16A, it seems pretty clear to me that the provisions of the laws and regulations, the actual auction, and things a player knew before he sat down are generally authorized.

Else we get into "my partner knows I'm ethical, so he has UI, but then I know he's ethical, so I have UI too". Pretty soon you're in what computer geeks call an infinite loop. Guess what happens then?

"Norman, coordinate!"

You'll only get the joke if you're a Star Trek geek.