[Fluffy]

Opponent makes a classic mistake such as revoke, or passing not realicing partner has opened

if you let the opponent change the card without penalty, or change the pass to something else, (sadly common in many clubs), I have had some dreadul experiences with opponents later making blatant use of Information from the penalty card or the previous pass.

Is this considered UI?

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-11, 08:47, said:

Opponent makes a classic mistake such as revoke, or passing not realicing partner has opened

I have had some dreadul experiences with opponents later making blatant use of Information from the penalty card or the previous pass.

Is this considered UI?

Your dreadful experiences are AI. Platitudes come to mind, such as "give 'em an inch...", "made your bed...", etc. But, the fact is we all have let things slide; and we all have made our own judgements to not call the TD to our later dismay.

We eat it, and make a mental note that we were stupid; then we do it again.

In the Bridgewinners article, Michael Rosenberg states what many have known: that he often lets things like this go. He does so in protest of current rules, and I am not sure that is a good motive for doing things. Nor is it a likely good example to set for clients.

Is the action we let be changed without applying the rules UI? We decided they didn't occur, and are at the mercy of those who decided whether to use the information. IMO, it is too late to be concerned about whether it is UI.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-11, 09:56, said:

But, the fact is we all have let things slide; and we all have made our own judgements to not call the TD to our later dismay.

I think that "all" is putting rather too fine a point on it. In fact I am certain that the majority of people posting in this forum do not "let things slide"; they let the director sort it out.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-11, 10:01, said:

I think that "all" is putting rather too fine a point on it. In fact I am certain that the majority of people posting in this forum do not "let things slide"; they let the director sort it out.

"We all" is a common useage for what human beings have done or experienced in common. I would never presume to know what you or all other people have done (or would do) and whether they would do the same things every time. Nor would I know how to word my feelings on the OP's subject for the highly literal.

Edit: I just figured out how I should have put it: "Been there, done that; those who haven't been there and/or done that, please disregard."

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-November-11, 10:46

[Mbodell]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-11, 10:01, said:

I think that "all" is putting rather too fine a point on it. In fact I am certain that the majority of people posting in this forum do not "let things slide"; they let the director sort it out.

I'd be pretty shocked if most of the people posting here didn't let things slide depending on opponents, importance of event, and what the thing is. The most common thing to let slide IME is when club player hesitates and the other player may have used it. A lot of folks don't always call the director on that. A number of people might well forgive things like bids out of turns or revokes without a director call, especially against less experienced players where it is unlikely to impact things (I.e., a revoke when you have all the rest of the tricks anyways, or your LHO when it is your turn to bid, but you were going to pass anyways).

[blackshoe]

One of the problems is that our "letting things slide" is unlikely to be consistent, even if we think it is. The best way, IMO, to ensure consistency* is to call the TD when there's an irregularity and let him sort it out. If you think it appropriate, you have every right to ask the TD to waive rectification; you do not have the right to waive it on your own.

*I do not want to get into "TD's don't make consistent rulings" here. That's another discussion entirely.

[bluejak]

I have often let things slide. But my regular partner and I discussed it after twice running, after letting something go, our opponents took advantage. As a result we call the TD much more now.

Stef: I too would be surprised if the vast majority of people reading this have not on occasion let things go: but the question is where is the line, and it probably differs from person to person. But where someone is elderly, infirm, or a novice, most people let some things go.

[mycroft]

I'm sure the vast majority - maybe all but one person, say - have let a L25A correction go without calling the TD to make the obvious judgement.

I'm sure the vast majority - maybe all but one person, say - have let a question out of turn go without bringing the TD in for UI considerations (by "it's not your lead", or "I'll tell you when it's your turn", at least).

I'm sure the vast majority - maybe all but one person, say - have allowed MI by partner to be corrected by declarer (obvious failed Alerts, or "he's thinking of a different auction, it's what you both thought", say) without calling the TD, as nobody was doing anything anyway.

And that's not mentioning all the claims that are disputed and are resolved by "yeah, you get your trick, of course."

I assume we're talking legitimate issues that people "let slide" here, but technically - all is probably correct.

[axman]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-11, 08:47, said:

Opponent makes a classic mistake such as revoke, or passing not realicing partner has opened

if you let the opponent change the card without penalty, or change the pass to something else, (sadly common in many clubs), I have had some dreadul experiences with opponents later making blatant use of Information from the penalty card or the previous pass.

Is this considered UI?

I could say a substantial bit on the subject but will leave it with this:

The practice often has the effect of engendering an unwarranted sense that the receiver must find some way to reciprocate the forgiveness- which often manifests itself by increasing the pressure so high that the player cracks under the strain. And, far more likely, the ‘gift’ carries with it the expectation that it to be returned with interest….to wit:

In October of 1999 the Bridge World gave some ink and trees to the case during the Team trials where team A exposed a card to a trick and then exposed a second card after returning the first to his hand. The ruling was [properly] that the second card was a PC which in the end moved two tricks originally destined to ‘A’ over to ‘B’.

Well, it seems that earlier B had received liberties from ‘A’ when he had claimed and now ‘A’ expected to get his reciprocation [not call the TD and thus no PC]. The result, as reported by TBW was that WW3 erupted.