[jillybean]

---

MP

[Bad_Wolf]

You don't mention the scoring. I know people who would have opened 5♦. I might do it myself if the mood takes me.

[jillybean]

MP

[shyams]

I pass.

Partner can reasonably infer that our side isn't making more than one diamond trick. Yet partner has chosen to double; in my view, the 8-card diamond is no reason to overrule.

[pescetom]

Somebody is messing around, hopefully not partner. I pass.

[jillybean]

---

Never mind, I ran a poll on the other site and the overwhelming response, there is a LA to pass by East.
I am sorry to say it but this is Condoned Cheating.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-September-09, 05:56, said:

---

Never mind, I ran a poll on the other site and the overwhelming response, there is a LA to pass by East.
I am sorry to say it but this is Condoned Cheating.

Can you explain the problem ? It's not clear that the UI from the slow 2♣ suggests anything in particular.

Is the issue that the rapid double of 3♠ suggests it's penalties when system suggests otherwise ?

Also polling is awkward as the first question should be "Would you open 1♦" and if not you move on to somebody else.

[pescetom]

South bid his hand twice and now he's whining about the consequences?

If the tempo variations were gross and intentional, they merit punishment, but I struggle to see an LA to pass. I'll check out the other site tonight to see what goes on.

[mycroft]

There are two problems with "polling the Other Site". First, you don't get anything but "what's your call with this hand", including "are you happy with your bidding so far" and "what are your agreements about your bidding so far". Second, you have no idea about the peer nature of the answerers, but if I was to guess, it would be "on average, solid Flight A or a little below". My guess is that the pros don't do many polls, the "serious students" do those that seem interesting, and the "wannabe As" do all they see.

Now, if you're looking at that as "peers of my non-sanctioned 20 table game", I have questions. If you're looking at it as peers of my "favourite pair" up here, I'd be quite comfortable.

If you're polling me (I answered myself before reading more than the OP), I wouldn't like it, but I pass, at least at MPs. I've told partner what I have (maybe one fewer diamond, and that might be the difference, but still), and partner is warning me of a misfit with defensive tricks (my agreement is that, barring specific rules, double at the 3 level is DSI). Yes, obviously I seriously consider bidding - who wouldn't? But I believe partner, 4♦ is going negative, and there's a chance we set 3♠, especially with the bad trump break they likely have.

Oh, 2♣ was slow? Did anybody mention it earlier? When they did mention it (I assume either after the fast double - how fast? or after the pass. Maybe only after we saw the 8-1 diamond break?) what was the fight over it (I would be shocked if we didn't get disagreement about how long it took to bid 2♣)?

And I would very much like to remind everybody that allegations of that word are *very serious* and have at least as many consequences (at least in the ACBL) if found baseless as those if it is proven. Also that raising to that level requires *intent*, not just successfully reading partner and not being called on it often enough to be paying attention to 73C1.

Complain as much as you want about imProper behaviour, or about the directors not punishing people enough to make people reflect, or about "games that don't follow the Laws, at least not the ones in the Book". But just because the <other country> defence works, doesn't get to C-. And we all do it sometimes. Really. Even me (I can think of two cases in the last two weeks where it was arguable, at least. Probably nobody would call me on it, and they weren't obvious enough for me to call myself, but, well, it's me). And when I do it, I assume that everyone believes me when I explain that I thought there wasn't an alternative at the time; I see there is one now; obviously I accept the ruling, director, and I'm sorry, I should have seen it. And apart from the Regular Game-Players, I accept it from the people I rule against, and even my opponents without question as well. Because it's true.

Now the ones who say "but it's obvious, and I never would have used the UI (or had any UI), and I can't believe you'd expect a Player to get this anything but perfect, did you ask anyone who could play?" Well, that's why we poll - and that's why we get good at figuring out who to poll (and learn from our mistakes). So we can say "well, three people of [X level] that I took it too didn't [do the "obvious" thing], and in fact said there was no alternative to [less successful option not suggested by the UI]." In other words, "you argue that, and you might even believe it, at least right now, but I have evidence it's not true, and the Law requires this adjustment." With a good side of "train your partner not to spread UI left and right, and when you show yourself as brilliant as you claim you are, there won't be any issues."

Oh, and keep calling when this happens. Even when it happens and you're the (potentially) offending side. I agree, nothing will change, and the ones who don't notice the "little help" they get will continue in that vein, if you don't. But if you make it a personal crusade, or if every "little help" is Clear Evidence of Cheating, the game will roll right over you and not even notice.

[akwoo]

This is an impossible problem. I want to know your agreement on double, including the implicit agreement. I've had partners who treated it as penalty, partners who treated it as takeout, and probably every gradation in between. In most cases, the precise degree of penalty/takeout or the range of hands it would be made on wasn't even discussed; just learned through a dozen or more sessions of experience.

I bid 4♦ as East. But I don't double as West - the hand is too penalty-oriented for my interpretation of this DSI double. I'm sure many partnerships play this DSI double as more penalty-oriented than I play it, in which case this is a perfectly good double and perfectly good pass. I'm happy to adapt to partner.

[jillybean]

Mycroft, this was in a sanctioned, 10 table game.

Sanctioned Cheating; the laws say you shouldn’t but many players do, there is no penalty for doing so, it can only work to your advantage and very few opponents get their knickers in a knot when you do it.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-September-09, 15:30, said:

Mycroft, this was in a sanctioned, 10 table game.

Sanctioned Cheating; the laws say you shouldn’t but many players do, there is no penalty for doing so, it can only work to your advantage and very few opponents get their knickers in a knot when you do it.

I somehow don't think you read him carefully enough this time.
Would peers of this East (not KW and sfi, whatever agreements they are used to) following EW agreements (or the lack of) have seriously considered - and some of them actually bid - more diamonds rather than Pass?
Was it acknowledged or proven that the double was slow [edit: fast]?
Those are key questions prior to intervention and even thinking about cheating, IMO.

Of course the problem of sanctioned cheating that you denounce exists to some extent (whether or not on this occasion) but I suggest we should deal with it more directly anyway: let's use electronic play to hide tempo and body language, or at very least video-record to expose it.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2024-September-09, 16:17, said:

Was it acknowledged or proven that the double was slow?

Cyberyeti's post shows that double as being fast, not slow, and the 2♣ bid was slow. I'm going to look for that poll.

[thepossum]

Not confident of a double so I bid 4D

Remarkable the way the hands actually are though but I didn't know that

[Cyberyeti]

johnu, on 2024-September-09, 17:04, said:

Cyberyeti's post shows that double as being fast, not slow, and the 2♣ bid was slow. I'm going to look for that poll.

Click on Jillybean's post of the hand, it shows it on the yellow boxes there

[mw64ahw]

Coming to this one late
3N look like a reasonable call instead of the X given the 3♦ call and West's ♠ holding.
As West I would be counting on East being good for [6♦ with my Q♦ plus an outside trick, which combined with A♣ And K♠ makes 9.
However, judging whether the opponents will be 1 down or more in a X contract is a touch harder, but if you use the ol' classic Rule of 9 then you may be cautious.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti,
I did reply to your questions upthread earlier, I didn't realize my reply never appeared.

2C slow, which is the normal tempo for this player followed by a fast X clearly suggests that the double is penalty and should be left in.
I don't believe system agreements this pair has regarding the X has any bearing on cases involving UI.
You don't get to say "that's our system, I was always going to..."

[mycroft]

so, a normal (for this player) 2♣ call followed by a [n allegedly] fast double of 3♠.

I believe you. Let me start off with that.

Without *serious* evidence, which should be not reported here, but to the owners of the club or to the tournament, that this is not in fact a one-off but consistent for this pair or person, all we have here is a "oh, goody, they bid high enough that I can" double. Which, yes, might be quicker than "hmm, is this hand quite good enough for 2♣, or should I show something else, or..."

Absolutely, yes, call it. I'd be happy to see more "immediate action" UI calls (as opposed to the hesitation ones).
Absolutely, yes, make your case.
Absolutely, yes, record it - you can do so here.

Without evidence that it was *deliberate*, and *intended to* pass the information you claim was passed, all it is, and all it can be, is "unintentional UI transmission" and, potentially, "failing to take sufficient care to avoid UI".

And yes, it happens a lot. And yes, frequently it isn't punished. And yes, frequently it'll seem obvious to you the opponent, and not be adjusted by the director even if called. And yes, as you become a director and see how the gears work, you will see more of it than you did before (it was always there, and it was worse before). And yes, as a director, you will be on more of a knife edge as the dreaded "bridge lawyer" term gets bandied about.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2024-September-10, 06:45, said:

I believe you. Let me start off with that.

Thank you!

I didn't call the Director, didn't flinch, or say anything at all. I didn't even glare at my RHO.
I know this is the opposite of what I preach. I was playing with a partner at his first ever sanctioned game.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the BIT was unintentional, my RHO was not deliberately telling their partner to leave this X in.
The tempo was careless.

Thanks for the reporting link, I don't know if or when I would use it but it is good to know that an option exists.

[mikeh]

Jb: I’m not the best person to suggest learning more tolerance. Historically I’ve been prone to suspecting bad intentions or, even when I was sure the violation was innocent, calling the TD.I’m mellowing somewhat these days.

Most people who violate tempo simply don’t know any better. And at least some of those whose actions were arguably affected by partner’s tempo honestly claim either that they didn’t notice it or that they’d always make the call they did.

At our local sectional last weekend I held xxx x xxx QJxxxx in 3rd seat, favourable. In my preferred style this is a routine 3C bid, so that’s what I bid. LHO (at best an intermediate player, but she helps out running a local club…not as a director) bid 3H at the speed of light…I was still holding my 3C card when she reached into the bidding box.

I didn’t call the TD (I did say I’m mellowing) but I did (politely) tell her that it’s a good habit to pause for apparent thought over a jump bid so that partner doesn’t know whether one’s bid was obvious or difficult.

Her reaction? Puzzlement. ‘But I already knew what I was going to do!’

Obviously untrue….she couldn’t have known I was bidding 3C, and she completely missed the point, as did her partner. He held Qxx in hearts..something like Jxx Qxx AJxx xxx….a clear 4H bid even after an appropriate pause over 3C….he passed, but not because he was being ethical. He said that he wanted to bid but thought she’d play him for a better hand, lol.

Neither one seemed to understand that (a) insta bidding conveys illegal information and (b) it’s wrong to take advantage of it and © the way to avoid or minimize this is to always pause.

In a club game, these days, it just doesn’t pay to get upset over these tempo issues, unless you think that the pair not only does this but also bases actions on tempo. In that case, I suggest not calling the TD, but instead asking for a moment with the TD after the game to express (tactfully….attributing the bad behaviour to ignorance rather than cheating) the situation and suggesting that he/she have a quiet word with the offenders, explaining the issue.