[jeremy69]

Quote

Maybe it just doesn't get publicised, but I only know of one player in the UK that got done for flat out cheating in the last few years.

If there is a case that comes before the EBU and there is a guilty verdict then the result is published in English Bridge unless the guilty party is under 18. As Bluejak and RMB1 have said there have been others.

[cloa513]

Shouldn't the laws say claim a pause as UI immediately -call director right then or leave it.

[PeterE]

No, for (at least) two reasons:

1. If you call a TD every time there is a pause you'll need 1 TD for every 3 tables - maybe more

2. If there's agreement about the pause the TD can do nothing more than establish this agreed pause - perhaps advise partners of pausers not to use UI - and leave the table - hoping never to be called back again

It was a deliberate decision of the WBFLC to introduce the sentence "he should summon the TD when play ends" to show what they thought to be the right moment.

[Free]

ahydra, on Aug 27 2010, 01:26 PM, said:

And you do gamble on every hand - eg when you open 1NT (12-14) you're trusting partner to not have a balanced 0-7 count, and when you open 3x you're hoping partner has the two or three missing tricks, and when you lead Q from QJ you're hoping partner has the K or 10, etc. (Of course, this never happens and dummy always has K10 and declarer the ace ) Most gambles are pretty safe, eg if you bid game with a combined 27count it's almost certainly going to make. But it's still a gamble. [Even apparently cold grands are still a gamble partner bid correctly ]

No, you do not gamble on every hand! You consider going down a losing result, but it's not. If you're down 3 and everyone else is down 4 (or gets doubled) then you still have a good result.
Also, if you open 3x then most of the other pairs will also open 3x (unless you have deviating agreements to standard), so you're no better or worse of than before. Gambling is doing something that the rest of the field probably won't, like bidding 3♣ on your example hand.

There is no such thing as a safe gamble. If it's safe, it's normal. It's like "an easy shortcut": it doesn't exist, otherwise it would just be the way...

[ahydra]

Quote

No, you do not gamble on every hand! You consider going down a losing result, but it's not. If you're down 3 and everyone else is down 4 (or gets doubled) then you still have a good result.
Also, if you open 3x then most of the other pairs will also open 3x (unless you have deviating agreements to standard), so you're no better or worse of than before. Gambling is doing something that the rest of the field probably won't, like bidding 3♣ on your example hand.

Not if this is rubber bridge And what if everyone else only goes 2 off (you gambled on a finesse to try and get -1, say?) Bridge is very much a risk-taking game, though when you have a (strong) field that does smooth things out a bit.

Quote

There is no such thing as a safe gamble.

What about one that's likely to win? For example, if Man United were matched up against Seaford FC (my local town, who are probably in division 100+) you'd bet on Man United to win because that's by far the most likely outcome. Yes no gamble is 100% safe, but that's just the definition of "gamble"...

Can we get back on topic? At some point I should really take a hard look at the current UI laws in the law book - unfortunately been very busy with all sorts of things recently.

ahydra

[mjj29]

The term 'gamble' here is a little misleading. Yes, you always take actions in bridge which are not 100%, but that is not what is meant here.

Instead consider whether you took the percentage action or the anti-percentage action. The latter would be considered a gamble - at least in the sense of "Serious error (...), wild or gambling action".

For UI the thresholds are set in terms of what actions your peers would select - with considerable weighting towards the NOS to avoid people getting away with too much - rather than absolute probabilities.

[Vampyr]

I think that a number of posts in this thread have been a bit misleading. When one is ruled against in a situation in which UI has been available, the ruling does NOT suggest that the UI was "used", consciously or not. I think that it is important to remember this.

Anyway, the case in the OP was clearcut, but others aren't, and TDs and ACs alike get rulings wrong with depressing regularity. However, I do not think that the Laws pertaining to the matter and the EBU regulations as to a logical alternative are faulty. I think that they are pretty much right, or at least the best that can be done.

What would help, though, is if we introduced a regulation like they have in many places in Europe, where the STOP card is used not just for skip bids, but also for bids in competitive auctions.

[Free]

mjj29, on Sep 2 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

The term 'gamble' here is a little misleading. Yes, you always take actions in bridge which are not 100%, but that is not what is meant here.

Instead consider whether you took the percentage action or the anti-percentage action. The latter would be considered a gamble - at least in the sense of "Serious error (...), wild or gambling action".

For UI the thresholds are set in terms of what actions your peers would select - with considerable weighting towards the NOS to avoid people getting away with too much - rather than absolute probabilities.

You explain it so much better than I do.

Question to ahydra: does ManU always win? No, sometimes they draw and sometimes they lose. And the rates you're gaining when they win will never be enough to compensate for your losses when they don't win. Calculate it and you'll see! So guess what, betting on ManU winning is a losing option in the long run. This cannot be said about following a percentage line in bridge. But you can compare it with following an anti-percentage line in bridge...

[ahydra]

Free, on Sep 3 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

Question to ahydra: does ManU always win? No, sometimes they draw and sometimes they lose. And the rates you're gaining when they win will never be enough to compensate for your losses when they don't win. Calculate it and you'll see! So guess what, betting on ManU winning is a losing option in the long run. This cannot be said about following a percentage line in bridge. But you can compare it with following an anti-percentage line in bridge...

I was referring to them playing one particular match... :/ And the only reason that "always betting on them winning" wouldn't work is because the bookies set the odds to allow them to make a profit of people doing things like that. In bridge the "odds" are the scoring and then the MP or IMP scales which are a lot more favourable to the gambler than a bookie (here I mean "gambler" in the sense of person who takes a chance, not a SEWoG-type gamble), eg why you can afford to go 2 off doubled vs a game and still get a good score (or gamble further that they won't double, and go off several undoubled).

Vampyr: can you describe how the STOP regulations work in competitive auctions (e.g. are they required for all bids?) That may help with thinking time, but it'd slow down play a lot (and people rarely use the STOP cards properly anyway -.- although they would at top-level competitions, so I guess that's not really a concern)

In a similar vein to STOP-card usage, how about just using a more proactive approach to hesitating in general? Particularly with screens, the players could slow the tempo (by ~3-4 sec/call) in competitive situations (defined as being pretty much anything where both sides have bid on the last round/two rounds). Then you'd have a little more time overall to think.

ahydra