[ahydra]

Brighton swiss teams, session 4. Sitting East I pick up

Scoring: IMP

---

After North passes I bid 1♣ and South doubles. North responds 1♥ and I bid 2♣. South bids 2♥ which is passed round to me; I opt to put in 3♣ and this ends the auction.

Dummy has ♠109xx ♥xxx ♦QJx ♣Qxx or similar. The defence gets off to a good start and I even misguess clubs completely resulting in 2 club tricks for the defence, but they fail to get diamonds going and instead play spades which allows me to make the contract.

What's the problem then? Well, partner had hesitated for around 7 seconds longer than his usual tempo after the 2♥ bid. As a result the director was called and the 3♣ bid was disallowed, with the score rewound to 2♥+1 for NS.

This got me rather mad at the time (until I found out we won the match 20-0 anyway) - and this is simply because of the very poor way (IMO) in which the UI laws are designed in these situations. I have no fewer than six points which I wish to put forward here, and of course would like to hear other people's views on this topic - with a view to considering whether the laws should be revamped. Note that some of this will almost definitely apply to other kinds of UI (asking about alerts, etc) as well.

1) A hesitation doesn't necessarily imply anything at all.
Sure, most of the time (when partner wasn't just half-asleep) it would imply partner had "something to think about" - in particular, whether to bid or not bid. But that's purely assumption - he might be thinking about what to have for dinner when he gets home, or the previous board, or what to lead, or how high the opps can get before he starts doubling, or... You get the point anyway - to what extent is it justified to assume partner is specifically thinking about some particular topic without asking him?

2) An LA for one person isn't necessarily an LA for another.
This results in a slight lottery when the ruling is made - if you get a set of directors whose bidding style is different from yours, you're almost guaranteed a ruling against you. Polling several players is a good way to compensate for this but the poll sizes are far too small to be statistically significant (this is, of course, a matter of practicality; not much can be done, but see below).

3) Lots of factors, all AI, are overlooked.
In the above case the director told me he took into account "the strength - on my left - and the vulnerability, which is against me". Fair enough - the bid is a little optimistic, but then again I'm an optimistic kind of guy. A conservative player would definitely pass - but the kind of player I am hasn't been taken into account here. This is particularly important in the situations where part of the ruling is "it runs the risk of partner raising to 6 (or whatever) which will be a disaster" - partner has knowledge of my bidding style, so the level of risk may be very different from what the Directors judge it to be.

Table feel is also overlooked - you may have picked up on something, for example if North had hovered near the Stop or 2♥ bidding card before bidding 1♥, you might infer he had extra values. Or the opponents might be like me who think out loud (very quietly though ofc!) and you may have overheard "2's making but 3 isn't". Or you might have accidentally been shown the ♣A in South, or whatever.

Most importantly IMO there isn't any consideration as to why I bid 3♣. Here despite having agreed partner's hesitation I judged it was worth a shot as it only needed 2 queens (the spade and club Q) opposite to make - this wasn't even too unlikely on the bidding as the opps hadn't tried for game or anything. Then there's the possibility partner would have the ♦K. South having not made any particularly encouraging noises implied North had some values (so I may end up guessing spades correctly). Finally I figured neither would have a good reason to double, and there's no chance I'm beating 2♥ so there's no harm in going -100 in the (likely) worst case.

4) Opponents get a "shield" against bad results.
Take the above case - opps didn't bid 3♥, didn't double 3♣ (it should be down), didn't defend 3♣ correctly and didn't have to make 9 tricks in hearts themselves, but come out with +140 (par on the board). I guess the Directors should take into account if there's a tricky squeeze or whatever for the 9th trick (and possibly award a split score) but even here, if the would-be declarer is of low calibre he's getting a small added bonus for a squeeze he'd almost never find.

On the flip side of the coin, if 3♣ had been doubled and gone for 800, the opps would happily keep silent...

So almost every time someone bids after their partner hesitates, the opps can simply call the director - and after that they need not really try to play good bridge! They can rest assured that, 90% of the time, they'll get a good score on the board anyway.

5) Bridge is a mind sport - thinking is a part of the game.
I'm not sure if there's a better method - I'd be grateful for any suggestions - but when I have to weigh up whether to make a bid or not, I use two things: my past experiences, and a quick simulation (construct a few hands consistent with partner's bidding, put them opposite mine, look at how many tricks are made taking into account opponents' bidding). Now I've only been playing the game 5 years and not very frequently at that, so my "past experiences" database isn't particularly large - hence I use the simulations a lot. But to do these simulations can take anywhere between 5 and 60 seconds (I lose track of possible points when partner opens 2♣ ).

Even if all players at the table are experts (perhaps even more so!), you can't expect people to be able to judge instantly whether to bid. Hesitations should be expected (and even "encouraged" in the sense that people should think about the best course of action rather than playing lazily). To put nasty restrictions on partner after a hesitation thus seems counterintuitive.

As a result of the above, a pair of novice players who didn't know about this law will be rather annoyed when they find themselves thinking a lot (since they're new), then told they're not allowed to think without penalty. In particular:

6) Gambling is a part of bridge too - and you should always be allowed to play bridge.
After reading the above you may be thinking I've forgotten to take into account that if my bid is clear-cut, I've nothing to worry about. The thing is, in competitive auctions especially this is rare. Bridge is a game of luck as well as skill; for example, you bid 38% VUL games at teams because that way it's going to pay off in the long run. Any one particular case is just a gamble (eg which player has a particular king). In the above example the expert (Jeff someone, to whom I offer my thanks once again for his advice) described my 3♣ bid as "a gamble that's likely to win". So why, just because partner has hesitated, can I no longer gamble? It's an integral part of the game and should always reasonably be allowed no matter what's happened before.

Go back to those new players I mentioned above - they may well gamble a lot more since they're inexperienced, and often be penalised rather harshly when their gamble works out well.

What I'm proposing is that the law be changed to not look at logical alternatives but whether the action chosen is a logical possibility based on the AI factors available to the player at the time. I bear in mind the interesting 6♦ bid mentioned in another forum - of course one must guard against people cheating blatantly (I'll admit to passing a little judgement on that bid here btw) by taking advantage of UI. But surely the law should be written in an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of way, and take into account the factors above. So (broadly speaking) if the bidder can justify his bid after the hesitation, it should be allowed; and if it's a gamble that pays off, the result should stand. Unfortunately these judgement rulings are always a bit wishy-washy, so 10 bonus points to the person that comes up with a good test!

Sorry for the long post; I hope you find this topic of interest.

ahydra

[peachy]

This case is not difficult to rule and the ruling was correct and legal IMO. The UI laws IMO are not in need of repair.

Responder's long hesitation could have been a for a number of reasons, but none of them is "nothing to think about". If he was thinking about "who is giving me a ride home after the game", then the timing of that thought was bad and he should have been paying attention to the game. Without ability to read minds, the TD will judge that he was thinking *if* and *what call* he should make, which in turn indicates he had some values he has not been able to convey yet. UI. What remains is for TD to figure out the LA's for opener and rule accordingly.

[dburn]

I don't know what your partner was thinking about either - he had a pretty clear 3♣ bid himself.

But why should he do that when he can show those values with less risk by passing slowly, just in case you didn't have your previous bidding?

[jeremy69]

Quote

1) A hesitation doesn't necessarily imply anything at all.

I think it usually does. Of course it is possible that partner is thinking of which restaurant to go to for dinner. If so he should concentrate a bit harder but more often than not he is letting you know that he has a problem and often you can work out what the problem is.
Say it goes 1NT No 3NT and partner takes 38 seconds to pass. If you now lead a short suit I think most directors and appeal committees would imagine you had taken advantage of UI and all the protestations about what it might have been (bridge or nor bridge related) will fall on deaf ears. Personally I think this is a good thing.

Quote

So almost every time someone bids after their partner hesitates, the opps can simply call the director

Yes they can but if you have not taken advantage of the UI given to you they won't get very far and sometimes you will have a hand that is completely clear to bid on even if partner has held up a big sign saying "I don't know what to do but it maybe right to bid on"

[ahydra]

jeremy69, on Aug 23 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

Quote

1) A hesitation doesn't necessarily imply anything at all.

I think it usually does. Of course it is possible that partner is thinking of which restaurant to go to for dinner. If so he should concentrate a bit harder but more often than not he is letting you know that he has a problem and often you can work out what the problem is.
Say it goes 1NT No 3NT and partner takes 38 seconds to pass. If you now lead a short suit I think most directors and appeal committees would imagine you had taken advantage of UI and all the protestations about what it might have been (bridge or nor bridge related) will fall on deaf ears. Personally I think this is a good thing.

Quote

So almost every time someone bids after their partner hesitates, the opps can simply call the director

Yes they can but if you have not taken advantage of the UI given to you they won't get very far and sometimes you will have a hand that is completely clear to bid on even if partner has held up a big sign saying "I don't know what to do but it maybe right to bid on"

@dburn:
Jeff the expert agrees that partner should have bid 3♣. But to say "he has less risk by passing slowly" is pretty much implying he's thinking to convey UI, not thinking to make a decision. I believe in this case he weighed up whether 3♣ would make/be a good sac and decided against it based on the vulnerability. Given two high-level players have agreed he should have bid, is his pass not the result of inexperience rather than a desire to "cheat"?

@peachy:
If it goes 1NT-3NT and partner stares off into space for ages before passing, I'd (or more likely one of the opps would) be like "wake up partner" or "have you passed yet?" etc. I'd have no idea what he was asking for. And it'd be a little unfair IMO to be penalised for leading a spade from

xx
Jxxx
AQxx
KJx

in a hope to make a safe lead / find an entry in partner's hand so he can play a diamond or club.

On the other hand if he'd been staring pointedly at his cards or me for ages, that's different (unusual behaviour). I did have a partner once who would play his cards very markedly (holding them out further than usual and playing them with force) when he wanted me to take notice of a particular discard :/ I have no qualms with this kind of behaviour being ruled harshly against.

As for your second point, my post was mainly oriented towards cases where an element of gambling is involved - the bid is not clear-cut. It may be a partscore case like mine or it may be a decision to bid 7♠ instead of 6♠ after some RKC-ing and partner hesitates before bidding 5NT simply because there's a chance it'll make and we're down 30 in the match. Unfortunately a large quantity of bids in bridge are not clear-cut.

Notice here I made my 3♣ bid based on bridge factors - partner's hesitation did not come in to my decision apart from a niggling voice in the back of my head saying "this is going to get adjusted anyways" - and look what happened

ahydra

[mjj29]

jeremy69, on Aug 23 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

... even if partner has held up a big sign saying "I don't know what to do but it maybe right to bid on"

I'm totally going to do that at the next congress

[bluejak]

Quote

1) A hesitation doesn't necessarily imply anything at all.
Sure, most of the time (when partner wasn't just half-asleep) it would imply partner had "something to think about" - in particular, whether to bid or not bid. But that's purely assumption - he might be thinking about what to have for dinner when he gets home, or the previous board, or what to lead, or how high the opps can get before he starts doubling, or... You get the point anyway - to what extent is it justified to assume partner is specifically thinking about some particular topic without asking him?

Does your partner not know the Laws of bridge, well, specifically the UI Laws? If he is going to think in a tempo sensitive situation, ie he is going to think what to have for dinner tomorrow when it is his turn to call in a situation where you may have a decision, then I believe you should be blaming him and not the UI Laws.

Quote

Table feel is also overlooked - you may have picked up on something, for example if North had hovered near the Stop or 2♥ bidding card before bidding 1♥, you might infer he had extra values. Or the opponents might be like me who think out loud (very quietly though ofc!) and you may have overheard "2's making but 3 isn't". Or you might have accidentally been shown the ♣A in South, or whatever.

TDs and ACs work on the evidence given to them. If your call is based on table feel, did you tell the TD that? When he decides on what LAs there are, he will be doing so for someone in the same situation as you, ie someone with the same table feel - but only if you tell him.

Quote

Most importantly IMO there isn't any consideration as to why I bid 3♣. Here despite having agreed partner's hesitation I judged it was worth a shot as it only needed 2 queens (the spade and club Q) opposite to make - this wasn't even too unlikely on the bidding as the opps hadn't tried for game or anything. Then there's the possibility partner would have the ♦K. South having not made any particularly encouraging noises implied North had some values (so I may end up guessing spades correctly). Finally I figured neither would have a good reason to double, and there's no chance I'm beating 2♥ so there's no harm in going -100 in the (likely) worst case.

Same comment: LAs are based on others in the same situation. There is no reason why a TD should ignore your reasons for your bid as part of the evidence so long as you tell him.

Quote

So almost every time someone bids after their partner hesitates, the opps can simply call the director - and after that they need not really try to play good bridge! They can rest assured that, 90% of the time, they'll get a good score on the board anyway.

That simply is not true. If the call after the hesitation is not illegal there will be no adjustment. This is the old 'shoot the non-offender' thing: play to the rules, and do not object if a player gets a better board from the TD if his opponents break the rules.



The UI rules are probably not perfect, though I have rarely seen any real alternative I think better [apart from slight alterations to the actual wording]. But they are to stop people having an unfair advantage.

Generally speaking, there are three sorts of player.

• First, those who make a great effort to avoid gaining from UI from partner. They are the really ethical types, and if we are not careful they will be put at a disadvantage for being ethical.
  
• Second, the players who do not use UI deliberately, but do not make an enormous effort to avoid using it. They may be the majority, and they have an unfair advantage over the ethical players but for the UI Laws, even though they may not be trying for such an unfair advantage.
  
• Third, players who deliberately use UI. They are cheats.

If we change the UI rules there is a danger that the third group will benefit most and the first group will suffer most.

I would not have bid 3♣ with your hand after partner hesitated. My partner would apologise profusely afterwards if she had been thinking of something else.

[Codo]

You adressed several basic issues:

Quote

1) A hesitation doesn't necessarily imply anything at all

You are right. But IF partner thoughts about the dinner or the last board, it is his responsibility to communicate this to the table. And he should avoid that these thoughts influence his bidding tempo.

A hesitation in his situation normaly (not always) has the message: I have a weak raise but I am afraid to bid 3 club myself. So it makes 3 ♣ from you a MUCH safer "gambling" then it would be without this UI.

Quote

An LA for one person isn't necessarily an LA for another.

You are right. This is why the TD should look for peers. But if he does not found them, he must use his own judgement.

Quote

Lots of factors, all AI, are overlooked.

Not really. Nobody disputes that 3 club is a LA in the pass out seat.
But - with 2 club you already showed a hand with 6 clubs and above average point count for an opening. You have nothing to add, so pass is surely LA.
Especially table feal is MUCH easier when you can read partner. And reading partner is MUCH easier then reading opps.

Quote

Opponents get a "shield" against bad results.

Whenever you or your partner make mistakes, opps get better results.
These things happen. "Slow pass" often is a mistake.

Quote

) Bridge is a mind sport - thinking is a part of the game.

YES, so I hate all "faster please!!!" in the mbc. But sorry, partner needs to learn to use his time properly next time.
It is not too hard to think about the next round of bidding just after it started with 1♣ (1♥) pass. Now he had a lot of time to decide what to do in some of the most usual cases (F.E. you double, you bid 1 NT, you bid 2 Club). Then he can decide quicker when it is his part to bid again.

Quote

Gambling is a part of bridge too - and you should always be allowed to play bridge.

Yes, and this is why you are entirely allowed to bid 3 ♣ without any UI. But whith the UI it is not such a big gambling anymore.

[paulg]

I have a lot of sympathy for less experienced players who always seem to come out worst in UI rulings at national events. I think there are a number of reasons why they tend to feel that there is one rule for them and another for 'known experts'.

Firstly UI is rife at club bridge and no-one ever does anything about it. We all known Mr & Mrs X who always seem to know when a double is takeout and when it is penalty. It is tolerated because people do not know better, the stronger players do not care and few know the rules. Naturally this is a self-sustaining state. Most are there just for an evening out.

When players migrate to county (district) events, the situation is slightly different. UI is still rife but the top players will tend to point out the more extreme cases. There is also a number of bridge lawyers, typically only intermediates, who like to get a good score by bullying the newer players and UI is a good stick. Good directors at county events are limited and rulings tend to play to the strength of the players, or their personalities, rather than the facts and hands.

All this means that less experienced players turn up for national events with little understanding of the UI laws and then have to face highly experienced opponents with top-class directors.

Experts have a fine understanding of 'tempo sensitive' auctions. A hesitation of two seconds can be very noticeable at times, whereas in others they take 60 seconds to make a bid. Less experienced players clearly will not have developed this skill and will be disadvantaged because of it. But it is important to learn it.

Finally, the amount of UI created when you hesitate and pass is generally far greater than a hesitation and bid. It is in this situation when an ethical (law abiding) player will try his hardest to avoid taking advantage.

I'd love to be able to say that the top players in the world are all saints in this regard, but this would be far from the truth. Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss set high standards that most fail to achieve whereas ***** <filters at work> set the bar a lot lower.

[gwnn]

Ignorantia juris non excusat

[hotShot]

When I was still an inexperienced player a law "expert" gave me the following advice:
If you can't decide between bidding and passing in tempo, then bid.
Your hesitations will be harder to notice, and if they are noticeable, usually passing applies more restrictions to partner than bidding.

[ahydra]

@bluejak:

Unfortunately the TD concerned did ignore my question "am I not allowed to say why I bid 3C" when he was called back to the table after the hand.

I'm guessing the UI rules have been around a while? But that and the fact that it may benefit cheaters shouldn't stop us trying to improve them. If after drafting something we look at it and find it exploitable by cheaters, we go back to the drawing board.

My attempt at the angle to come at it from would be to look at whether the bid made is a "logical possibility" rather than "whether there are LAs". So you take all the AI available to the player at the time, plus what kind of level of player he and his partner are, and ask the player why he acted the way he did. You then ask a few people whether they agree that the reasons given are sound bridge arguments taking into account the information at hand, and if the general consensus is that they're fine then you allow the bid. If say 50-60%+ disagree then you adjust. (And of course if UI is given as a reason at any point, you adjust. )

@codo:
A key point is that it's not written anywhere (outside of some hints in the White Book, for example that declarer and 3rd hand should think about the whole hand at trick one) as to what one is entitled to think about when. So we still don't know what partner's thinking about, though as you said there is a meaning to a pause which is indeed correct in most cases.

What I'm saying is that just because a gamble has been made (apparently) safer shouldn't immediately make it illegal. You mention 3C is a LA - well in that case it should be legal [not under these laws, but "ideal" laws]? And slow passing isn't the mistake, passing is. Thinking [about the hand!] can never be an error.

As for "using time properly", sometimes there simply isn't a way to fit 30 sec of thinking into 8 sec (or even less, when opps call quickly) as that's all the time you have between seeing partner's bid and the end of your "in-tempo" turn to bid. Yes you should be paying attention throughout the hand, but even then it will often not be enough, particularly for non-experts.

The UI laws are a particularly nasty example when it comes to "make a mistake and opps get better results" as this outcome is pretty much guaranteed in these close cases. For example, it's a more gross error, IMO, to make an insufficient bid - but even with partner barred the rest of the auction, one can blast a game or slam as the final contract, get lucky and make it, and there's nothing the opponents can do.

@cardsharp: I must be lucky to have decent directors at the county events I go to then I agree with what you say, attending Brighton for the first time was a major leap in skill level compared to what I'm used to (both of the bridge players and the directors).

@gwnn: While correct, you're missing the point completely. I'm not moaning about this particular ruling, but asking whether the laws themselves could do with an upgrade.

ahydra

[aguahombre]

The hand in the OP would be a better example to use if trying to change UI laws so that (absent any discernable table action) the bid itself is enough to rule UI must have been present and adjust.

How many times does opener get to show a decent opening bid with 6 clubs? He already did it once. With the BIT, this was an easy ruling.

[mjj29]

ahydra, on Aug 23 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

My attempt at the angle to come at it from would be to look at whether the bid made is a "logical possibility" rather than "whether there are LAs". So you take all the AI available to the player at the time, plus what kind of level of player he and his partner are, and ask the player why he acted the way he did. You then ask a few people whether they agree that the reasons given are sound bridge arguments taking into account the information at hand, and if the general consensus is that they're fine then you allow the bid. If say 50-60%+ disagree then you adjust. (And of course if UI is given as a reason at any point, you adjust. )

The problem here is not the blatant cases. You take an action after some UI has been passed (of whatever sort). You poll some players and some of them say they would bid on, some say they would pass, some aren't sure - it could go either way, depending whether they were on decaffinated or not today. In this case, the declarer did bid on - and it worked! Another similar situation, without a hesitation (or maybe with a very quick pass!) he did not - and that also worked. With your proposition this would be fine. Now, I'm not saying that in any of these situations declarer is deliberately cheating, far from it. However, without thinking about it you'll be more likely to bid or not bid, depending on how partner is acting.

Hence, we raise the bar a little. We give the benefit of the doubt to the other side, so require you to have the poll 60/40 in your favour, or 70/30, or whatever - in order to make sure that you really were going to bid on, it's not this subconcious effect tipping your judgement to the winning action.

Actually, the criteria the laws now have (and it is a harder one to meet than the 97 laws) is "... amond the class of players in question ... would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it". This is agreed to actually be 80/20. This does mean that there are some borderline actions that you probably would have chosen, which you now can't chose - but this is because the TD cannot know. The law is such to protect the other side from losing out.

Now, I totally agree that the standard and methods of the player should be taken into account - law 16B1( says so, in fact - I can't say what was the case here, but it is what we are trained to do, but you cannot say "because it's a plausible bid to make, he would have always made it without the UI" - which is what we want to establish. Otherwise everyone would always be taking the slightly risky push exactly when partner has the extra king needed to make, but doesn't have the bid to show it and how is that fair to the opponents?

Quote

@codo:
A key point is that it's not written anywhere (outside of some hints in the White Book, for example that declarer and 3rd hand should think about the whole hand at trick one) as to what one is entitled to think about when. So we still don't know what partner's thinking about, though as you said there is a meaning to a pause which is indeed correct in most cases.

Actually, the law does say something about tempo variations - 73D1 says, among other things, "However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side"

Quote

What I'm saying is that just because a gamble has been made (apparently) safer shouldn't immediately make it illegal. You mention 3C is a LA - well in that case it should be legal [not under these laws, but "ideal" laws]? And slow passing isn't the mistake, passing is. Thinking [about the hand!] can never be an error.

Actually, that's precisely why it is illegal - because it's not (as much of) a gamble any more. You get to a point in the auction where from your hand and the bidding it's a 50/50 shot whether bidding will work out better than passing. You're entitled to take your best shot at that 50/50 chance. If, however, your partner has hesitated, those odds have shifted one way or the other. Now you are looking at a 70/30 shot - much better odds - all because your partner hesitated. The opponents, they were also entitled to that 50/50 shot, but now it's 30/70 against them - again, because your partner hesitated. So now, we don't let you take that 70% option if it works. Sure, you may have got it right without the hesitation, but you also might have got it wrong - and denying your oppo that chance is wrong.

Now, this may seem harsh and unfair - you didn't bid 3C because your partner hesitated, but the director can't know that and in a lot of cases, it'll affect your thinking and you won't realise it, it's just an instinctive thing. One of the things to learn, just with any other aspect of bridge, is when you can think and when you should have done your thinking already. People who can do that will score better, just as someone who can play squeezes will score better than those who can't.

[bluejak]

ahydra, on Aug 23 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

I'm guessing the UI rules have been around a while? But that and the fact that it may benefit cheaters shouldn't stop us trying to improve them. If after drafting something we look at it and find it exploitable by cheaters, we go back to the drawing board.

My attempt at the angle to come at it from would be to look at whether the bid made is a "logical possibility" rather than "whether there are LAs". So you take all the AI available to the player at the time, plus what kind of level of player he and his partner are, and ask the player why he acted the way he did. You then ask a few people whether they agree that the reasons given are sound bridge arguments taking into account the information at hand, and if the general consensus is that they're fine then you allow the bid. If say 50-60%+ disagree then you adjust. (And of course if UI is given as a reason at any point, you adjust. )

What you are suggesting is rules to make life better for cheats. If there are two possibilities, currently you are allowed the one not suggested by th UI. But you want to allow bids suggested by UI if they are reasonable, allowing cheats to take advantage of UI. Sure, better Laws are better, but you are suggesting making the Laws worse so as to encourage people to take advantage of UI.

ahydra, on Aug 23 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

The UI laws are a particularly nasty example when it comes to "make a mistake and opps get better results" as this outcome is pretty much guaranteed in these close cases. For example, it's a more gross error, IMO, to make an insufficient bid - but even with partner barred the rest of the auction, one can blast a game or slam as the final contract, get lucky and make it, and there's nothing the opponents can do.

Not at all. Ethical players do all right, less than ethical players get ruled against. Sounds a good approach to me. Sure, people who are ethical but misjudge lose out - so what? We all lose out when we misjudge hands!

[dburn]

In simple terms, when we say "you did this, but we will adjust as if you hadn't done this", we are not saying "you are a cheat". Rather, we are saying "you did what you would have done if you were a cheat, and because we can't have actual cheats in the game we must rule against you".

[jdonn]

ahydra, on Aug 22 2010, 11:15 PM, said:

1) A hesitation doesn't necessarily imply anything at all.

The laws take that into account, only dealing with hesitations which demonstrably suggest an action.

Quote

2) An LA for one person isn't necessarily an LA for another.

The laws take that into account, only dealing with logical alternatives for the class of player involved.

Quote

3) Lots of factors, all AI, are overlooked.

The laws take that into account, dealing with logical alternatives that are created by all available AI.

Quote

4) Opponents get a "shield" against bad results.

Only bad results that may have been caused by opponents taking advantage of unauthorized information. As they should get.

Quote

5) Bridge is a mind sport - thinking is a part of the game.

UI is not part of the game.

Quote

6) Gambling is a part of bridge too - and you should always be allowed to play bridge.

I have no idea what this means, other than to repeat my last point and substitute "playing bridge" for "the game".

You have chosen a very untrue thread title. Had you passed 3♣ the hesitation would not have led to a bad score! If you point out that you would indeed have achieved a bad score had you passed, I will point out that it was caused by partner's silly pass over 2♥ and nothing else.

[ahydra]

@mjj29:

The hand is fixed - so if 3C goes +110 or -800, it was always going to be that way. Since we're only looking at this one hand, if I make a judgement (based on AI and bridge reasoning alone, not the UI) it's a gamble worth taking then whether there's UI or not hasn't changed the eventual outcome. I'm not allowed to let it affect what I think the odds are, and that's why I'm suggesting a test of "needs solid bridge reasons".

I see what you're saying about "he'll take the push if partner has the extra king", but that's exactly why the player should be asked for his reasoning behind the bid.

@bluejak: While I respect your status, could you please provide an argument that shows how my suggestion makes life better for cheats? It's only a vague attempt anyway and will no doubt need much refining.

Quote

You want to allow bids suggested by UI

This isn't true. I'm only allowing bids suggested by AI and bridge logic. And the logic has to be good enough that a high proportion of other players of the same calibre would agree with it (I figured 60% would be a bit low actually, perhaps we should start with the 80% mjj29 mentioned).

@jdonn: Yes, UI isn't part of the game. Hence why we should ask the player for his reasoning behind the bid, and look at that together with AI. If any UI is given as a reason for his action then we adjust (and probably issue PPs). If the reasoning isn't sound, we know he's hiding the fact he used UI also and we adjust. But if it is, you've no evidence UI was used at all - as if the players were individually frozen in time except for the one whose turn it currently is to call. It's this situation that is tried to be created by screens, and IMO is the way these situations should be analysed to start with.

---

Have the L&E people at some point in the past considered two-way scores for UI situations (that is, one score for NS and a different one for EW)? This would help against the "shield" thing I mentioned where the opps didn't have to try very hard to defend 3C correctly (not saying this is what happened) since they were confident it would be adjusted. Nor did they consider that 3H would make. So what about assigning -140 for us (disallow the 3C bid because of the UI, since the laws say you have to - score reset to 2H+1 NS) and -110 for them (you had options to do better in defending/by bidding over 3C but failed to take them)?

Was the TD in error in not asking me why I made the bid / ignoring my question "am I not allowed to say why I bid 3C"? Perhaps someone can tell us the current laws regarding what the TD should be asking.

ahydra

[awm]

The issue is that normally people have valid bridge reasons for their calls. The vast majority of players are not intentionally cheating. The problem is that there are often valid bridge reasons for alternative calls as well.

For example, on the hand you gave one could easily make arguments such as: opponents failure to try for game limits their values and marks partner with some cards, allowing opponents to play in a good fit at the two-level is rarely a good score, you might bid 2♣ with a "less-prime" hand, etc. However, you could also make bridge arguments for pass, such as partner having passed the opening, the fact that partner didn't choose to raise you over 2♥ so you probably don't have a club fit, and so forth.

You seem to be arguing that since there are valid bridge reasons for either bidding or passing, you should be able to do whichever you like without any risk of adjustment. However, this ignores the fact that there is a huge non-bridge reason for bidding: partner's hesitation! This allows you to make the right decision (bidding) and eliminates the risk.

Sure, you're not trying to cheat. Maybe you would've bid 3♣ anyway because of the various bridge arguments for the call. But maybe you wouldn't. Further, it's not clear that you're able to assess all your reasons for choosing the call -- you even indicated that some of it is "table presence." Well, table presence is all fine and good when you're reading the opponents but it's not so good when you're reading partner. And again, most players aren't totally aware of where their "table feel" comes from... so they can be bidding on partner's tempo without even realizing it.

If the substantial majority of players of your perceived level would make the same call you did, then (by current law) there should be no adjustment. But it has to be a substantial majority, not just "some of them" -- at least in cases like this where it seems clear what partner's hesitation "means."

[TimG]

ahydra, on Aug 23 2010, 06:51 AM, said:

@dburn:
Jeff the expert agrees that partner should have bid 3♣. But to say "he has less risk by passing slowly" is pretty much implying he's thinking to convey UI, not thinking to make a decision. I believe in this case he weighed up whether 3♣ would make/be a good sac and decided against it based on the vulnerability. Given two high-level players have agreed he should have bid, is his pass not the result of inexperience rather than a desire to "cheat"?

The point is that changing the laws to allow for this sort of hesitation would add an extra bid to the bidding box or move us closer to adjective bridge. In this case, your partner doesn't have to risk 3C, he can simply make a slow pass to let you know he has something and leave the final decision to you while with nothing he can pass in tempo.

This is effectively what your partner did on this hand. It may have been unintentional, but he none-the-less conveyed the information.

The real answer to all your concerns is to call in tempo.