[mycroft]

Sure, and I agree. I even said that, in my first point where I said "I think there was a reason to think here, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise". But anyone capable of making that play in the Camrose with a real partner is capable, and frankly should be expected, of doing that thinking in the previous 5 tricks. It's not like it's not screamingly obvious (to that level of player) that it's coming. But also as I said, it's irrelevant in this case, because that phrase only protects declarer from his own misguesses.

Argue passing of UI, and potential use of UI, and there is a very interesting question here. Which I, again, am not going to attempt, without consultation or being paid for it. It would be fun to consult.

Argue "it is simple to deliberately violate the proprieties [once] in ways that are impossible to rule against", and I'm right there with you. It's why the penalties for exhibiting a pattern of such behaviour have to be so strong.

Unfortunately, the side-effect of that is that the proof required to exercise those penalties also has to be so strong, because landsharks trump ethics, even when you're in the right and you win. Which means that people exhibiting a low-grade pattern of this kind of behaviour get away with it for a very long time, with only social controls. And in my experience, those who exhibit this kind of behaviour are also those for whom social opprobium washes off like water off ducks. In this case, the Private Club (in the London sense of the word, not just the EBU sense) has an advantage over where you and I (or even the WBF) play.

As I have said before, all players will get the correct (or as correct as I can deliver) rulings from me, no matter their behaviour elsewhere or my personal opinion of them. Some rulings are just much more satisfying to give than others, that's all.

[barmar]

Quote

ChCh could see what was coming.

ChCh is good enough to have seen this problem when dummy came down. He shouldn't wait until SB leads a heart to start thinking about what to play.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2021-May-08, 09:32, said:

ChCh is good enough to have seen this problem when dummy came down. He shouldn't wait until SB leads a heart to start thinking about what to play.

He didn't know his partner had both red aces and no king of spades at that point. Even when declarer drew the second round of trumps he would not have known the layout which became clearer when declarer cashed the queen of diamonds. On the previous tricks he did not have a problem what to play.

[mycroft]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that ChCh would be "disappointed" if he couldn't find the Q play in the Camrose *in tempo* and also say he has to think playing "against" the Rabbit. Either he's good enough to see this coming or he isn't.

Again, not that it matters here. Either there is UI or there isn't; either it was used or it wasn't; either this was done deliberately, in which case eventually the Griffins Club Ethics committee will have an unusual meeting or it wasn't (or he only does it the once, and gets away with it, but people whose tactics like this win don't stop doing it, as we knew before 2020 but have been proven in spades since). Either way, it should be recorded in case there's a pattern that gives more credence to "deliberate" (remember, one of the "joys" of private London clubs is that they need not prove anything, simply declare "conduct unsuitable for our members").

[barmar]

For purposes of ruling at the table, it doesn't matter if use of UI was deliberate. The relevant laws are worded in terms of whether UI was transmitted and how that impacts the choice among logical alternatives; they deliberately (I assume) avoid requiring the Director to read the mind of the player in question.

Deliberately violating laws only comes up in later ethics proceedings. And as you say, recording suspicious instances provides useful evidence in these proceedings.

[mycroft]

But I believe that is Lamford's point with this exercise; that it is very possible to do "ethically suspect" (straight up cheating) things in bridge, IRL or online, and not even be ruled against at the table.

Given the "could have known, (but we're explicitly not saying you did know)" ruling structure and the "any cheating at all REQUIRES a lifetime ban from the game, for MY safety" attitude shown by a fair number of high-level players (who, frankly, have been pushed there by the "now, now, don't worry your pretty little heads about this, it's Being Taken Care Of" attitude of certain regulators for decades, and constant having to play against people they *knew* were cheating, but couldn't *prove*) - there's no middle ground between "we're not accusing you of cheating, we're just ruling you did something a cheater would also do" and "this had better be lawyer-proof, because it's going to the lawyers".

That means that all the things that would be in that middle ground, players will continue to get away with, because

Quote

landsharks trump ethics, even when you're in the right *and* you win.

Now if there was a way to do the kind of things the ACBL allows clubs to do (and, I'm sure, BBO allows itself to do) and say "sorry, you're not welcome here for three months. I assume you understand it's just suspicion, but that suspicion in our players is causing them to not show up if they would have to play you. When you come back, not only will you have to *be* ethical (which of course you are, right?), you will have to take care to *look* ethical as well" - which is currently not possible at the NBO level for at least three reasons - we could see if actual slaps on the wrist would help the problem.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2021-May-15, 09:24, said:

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that ChCh would be "disappointed" if he couldn't find the Q play in the Camrose *in tempo*

There is no need to play or not play the queen of hearts "in tempo". Thinking of playing the queen of hearts is a demonstrable bridge reason, and one can think as long as one wants with a demonstrable bridge reason. Whether you play low or the queen gives UI to RR if you break tempo, but it cannot deceive SB as he draws the inference at his peril. There is no evidence that RR used UI, or any other I for that matter. He never does.

[mycroft]

Nice circular.

First you're telling us that the chimp realized that taking a bunch of time here would make it more likely that the rabbit would work out what to do, and now you're saying that taking the time won't pass any thought to the rabbit at all.

The latter, of course, is hogswaddle. Of course giving any player, even the Rabbit, time to think, especially seeing that his partner believes there's something to think about, might trigger said thought. UI sent, UI received. Proving it is a whole different kettle of fish, of course; luckily we don't have to. Being able to do what we must to give an adverse ruling is also difficult, and as I said, congratulations on finding a cute cheating method that will be hard to penalize (if the cheater only does it rarely. One of the things that make bridge policing work at all, of course, is that they never "only do it rarely", not when it works and they don't get caught).

I reiterate that I haven't made a ruling on the UI in this thread, nor have I even given my opinion to the director-consulting. Nor will I - that's a nasty trap I don't need to go down.

Having said that, if "working out if the Q is the right play opposite Lamford" is a demonstrable bridge reason, "working out if the Q is the right play opposite Mycroft", or "the Rabbit" is an identical demonstrable bridge reason. And deciding "yes" in the Camrose and "no" at the Griffins (or "no" partnering RR and "yes" partnering Papa) doesn't change anything. But as you said, and as I said, that's irrelevant, because SB can't be deceived by the pause (not even "at his peril", there's nothing to deceive. No matter what SB does, either RR returns the right suit and sets the contract; or not, and lets it make.)

[pilowsky]

Interesting problem.
Can I think about it?
For how long?
If the TD takes too long to think does that mean s/he favours one pair over another?
Is there a maximum/minimum amount of TD thinking time?