Should there be a penalty for blatant use of UI?

[Lorne]

Should directors have the power to add a penalty (as well as resetting the
contract) when a player makes blatant use of UI?

Here is the hand that made me think about it, the player being an
international:

AK7543
AJ65
10
K5

Playing teams love all in 4th the bidding is:
2H 3C 3H 3S
P 4S P 4N
P 5D P 5H
P 5S P ?

5S took 30 seconds. Since you know an ace (5D=1 keycard) is missing 5H
clearly states you intend to be in slam only opposite the trump Q. The
pause suggest no Q but extra length and at the table 6S was bid but reversed
to 5S when the trumps broke 2-1.

You do have some penalty in that you keep your score when 6S fails so my
question is whether that is enough when the player is experienced and the UI
so obvious or should the director have the power to add (say) a 6 IMP
penalty or take some more drastic action?

[Stu Goodgold]

Directors do have the power to impose a procedural penalty if a player has made a clear violation of the laws of bridge, including those that deal with proprieties.
Typically a PP is 3 IMPs or 1/4 of a board.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Thomas Dehn]

On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Lorne wrote:
> Should directors have the power to add a penalty (as well as resetting
> the contract) when a player makes blatant use of UI?

The director has that power. L90, L91.


Thomas

[dak...@aol.com]

Should a director have to decide "blatant"?
UI occurred. That should be enough.!
I want my beloved bridge to have
NOTHING BUT BRIDGE IN ANY COMPETITION.

[Hank Youngerman]

The director can indeed impose a procedural penalty. Further,
repeated instances can result in disciplinary action.

This does seem pretty blatant.

[Frances]

The Director has the power. Sitting on ACs I've imposed such
penalties. I once won a KO match when the referee, on appeal, not
only awarded an adjusted score but added a 6 IMP penalty for blatant
use of UI.

[rhm]

Blatant use of UI is hard to prove and should not be assumed unless
the accused has been given a chance to explain his motives.
Take your example, which you consider "blatant". The international
could argue:
While the bidding continued he got aware that the 5H bid itself was
an error in the first place. .
I would agree with this assessment.
A heart lead is sufficiently likely, after which I would like my
chances in 6S with or without the trump queen.
Convention overuse is very common.mistake.

Rainer Herrmann

[OldPalooka]

He should also know he cannot win in any hesitation KC situation
regardless of his realization. Yes, 5H could have been realized
instantaneously as an error, but it does not matter, he knew he had UI
and Pass was a LA under the circumstances.

It is hard to imagine any 'international' would believe he could bid
on in spite of UI from a Keycard hesitation and get a slam bonus. I
do not play in any serious competition, yet I know there are cases now
going back close to twenty years where grands were rolled back to six
after a 5NT continuation followed by a BIT and sign off. I believe in
several cases the players had a point about seeking 7NT, but they
could not count 13 tricks in a suit if partner signed off, so they
were not allowed to bid on the expectation of a good but not laydown
contract.

[Hank Youngerman]

I agree that the accused should be given a chance to explain his
motives. I'm not sure of the exact rules on PP's. For example, if
you wander outside the room between rounds and get into a conversation
with someone in the bar, and forget to come back and play bridge, the
director can assess a PP for slowing the game, and this probably
cannot be appealed. I'm not sure about a PP for a bridge infraction.

However, it has been well established that even if your intentions
were otherwise, or even if you realized that a prior bid was an error,
that partner's break in tempo will often bar you. In fact, consider
this hand and auction:

KJxx
Qx
KQJxx
xx

1S - 3S
4N - 5C
(huddle) 5S - "Oops, I forgot we are playing 3014, I have a key card I
haven't shown, 6S"

Most bridge authorities at this point lean to disallowing the 6S bid
even though you realize your 5C bid was an error.

The answer is quite simple, "If you want to give your partner the
chance to be brilliant, bid in tempo."

If the player in the original hand was at the lower end of the
experience scale (whatever that means) education would usually be
preferred to a PP. But for an interntionalist, I would really want to
know what he was thinking, he clearly should know better.

[Frances]

RHO's lack of a double of 5D, combined with his likely weak heart
holding, might be an indication that partner's keycard is in diamonds
in which case slam will be on a 2-2 spade break.

> Convention overuse is very common.mistake.
>

The reason I don't rule in the 'international' 's favour is because he
is now able to play the following system:

Keycard and ask for the queen of trumps, then partner:
- bids slam (or whatever is systemic) with the queen of trumps
- signs off quickly with a bad hand (xxx - AKxx QJ10xxx)
- signs off slowly with a good hand (xxxx x Kx AQJxxx)

and suddenly he has more precision in his bidding.

If all he has to do is say "oh I should have bid slam last round" when
it makes, then he has an absolute sure-fire way of cheating.
In general, we don't rule on the assumption that a player had a
brainstorm and misbid the previous round, and then suddenly realises
he misbid when partner acts slowly. If you want, I'll just say that
partner's slow action gives the player UI that he might have misbid
the previous round.


> Rainer Herrmann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dave Flower]

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

One has only to look at Master Solver's Club to see that different
players have different ideas as to what the correct action is, so I
would be reluctant to impose a procedural penalty.

For example I had the following hand last night:

Match ponts, vul: none:

K
10 9 7 2
A K 10 8 4 3
K 5

And the bidding went:

1NT(12-14) pass(slow) pass ?

I elected to bid 2D, but am uncertain as to whether pass was a LA.

Perhaps we should have a situation where, at the end of the hand, any
player who made a questionable decision announces it, displaying their
full hand.

Dave Flower

PS On the hand in question, pass was the winning decision as the only
making 2-level contract was 2S by opponents

[Adam Beneschan]

Well, I'd rule that it isn't, especially at this vulnerability. In
fact, I can't imagine anyone passing unless they're trying to create a
swing.

Furthermore, it's not clear that the hesitation suggests bidding over
passing, depending on the players' level of experience and whether a
direct double would be penalty. Inexperienced players may pass with
values ("I have an opening hand, what do I do?"), but I don't think an
experienced player would hesitate with a good balanced hand, if not
playing penalty doubles. In a case like that, a hesitation may show a
hand with a suit that the hesitator is dubious about showing. And
that could actually suggest passing over bidding, since it suggests a
possible misfit. This may be a thin argument. But my main point is
that bending over backwards to avoid an action suggested by a slow
pass doesn't always mean leaning toward passing. Sometimes a slow
pass could suggest passing and sometimes what a slow pass suggests
isn't clear at all.

So I have at least one and a half reasons for ruling that 2D is OK.

> Perhaps we should have a situation where, at the end of the hand, any
> player who made a questionable decision announces it, displaying their
> full hand.

I assume you mean if there is UI involved. If I had to announce every
time I made a questionable decision, it would slow the game way down.
And that's not counting my partner's questionable decisions.

-- Adam

[rhm]

The difference is, I never assume that somebody wants to cheat unless
the evidence looks convincing to me and there are certainly much more
effective ways of cheating than using long hesitations in the bidding.
It is also my impression that there is much more paranoia about
cheating than incidences of actual cheating.
I agree that the result should be rolled back in the afore mentioned
case.
But this was not the question raised here.

Rainer Herrmann

[Dave Flower]

>                                  -- Adam- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

By questionable, I meant in reference to UI as you thought.

On the hand in question, my partner was inexperienced; as you did, I
felt that 2D was ethically OK, but would have willingly accepted an
adjusted score if other thought differently, but would not be happy
with a PP. My point is that there are hands where different players
have different opinions, and it is impossible to predict what others
would think.

Dave Flower

[blackshoe]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:48:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Youngerman wrote:
> I agree that the accused should be given a chance to explain his
> motives.

So do I. :-)

> I'm not sure of the exact rules on PP's.

The issuance of PPs is solely at the discretion of the TD. Law 90

> For example, if you wander outside the room between rounds and get
> into a conversation with someone in the bar, and forget to come back
> and play bridge, the director can assess a PP for slowing the game,

Yes, he can.

> and this probably cannot be appealed.

Yes, it can. OTOH, a disciplinary penalty (Law 91) cannot be overturned on appeal.

> I'm not sure about a PP for a bridge infraction.

There are many infractions that would not normally draw a PP (usually when the law says a player "should" do something, and he doesn't). Conversely, there are some infractions that should probably draw a PP far more often than they do (in particular, when the law says a player "must" do something, and he doesn't).

[snip]

> If the player in the original hand was at the lower end of the
> experience scale (whatever that means) education would usually be
> preferred to a PP.

Certainly. One might also, for a lesser offense (say of a "should" law), issue what's commonly called a PP(W), meaning that the TD warns the player that what he's done (or failed to do) is an infraction, and repetition of it will draw a PP in MPs or IMPs. Of course, the TD should follow up on that, and actually issue a PP when the player repeats the infraction — but TDs often don't.

[David Stevenson]

Lorne wrote

>Should directors have the power to add a penalty (as well as resetting
>the contract) when a player makes blatant use of UI?

Regardless of whether they should, they do.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

rhm wrote

>Blatant use of UI is hard to prove and should not be assumed unless
>the accused has been given a chance to explain his motives.

I do not know how many times we have to keep saying on this NG:

TDs do not make decisions on a basis of *proof*, but on a
*preponderance of evidence*.

Furthermore, no judgement decision by a TD is ever taken [excluding
actions by totally incompetent TDs] without finding out all the facts,
which obviously includes explanations from anyone who has been accused
of anything.

====================================================================
Hank Youngerman wrote
>I agree that the accused should be given a chance to explain his
>motives. I'm not sure of the exact rules on PP's. For example, if

>you wander outside the room between rounds and get into a conversation
>with someone in the bar, and forget to come back and play bridge, the

>director can assess a PP for slowing the game, and this probably
>cannot be appealed. I'm not sure about a PP for a bridge infraction.

All PPs can be appealed as a matter of Law. Certainly, some are less
likely to be overturned than others.

Where behaviour is involved a DP is often issued [a standard DP in
England is twice a standard PP, which seems a very sensible approach].
While these can be appealed, an AC may not overturn the TD's decision,
but may suggest he change it. Most TDs would do so in such
circumstances.

====================================================================
Dave Flower wrote

>One has only to look at Master Solver's Club to see that different
>players have different ideas as to what the correct action is, so I
>would be reluctant to impose a procedural penalty.

Hands in the MSC are specifically chosen to be problems with no easy
solution. Many UI cases occur when the solution is blindingly obvious.

====================================================================
rhm wrote

>The difference is, I never assume that somebody wants to cheat unless
>the evidence looks convincing to me and there are certainly much more
>effective ways of cheating than using long hesitations in the bidding.
>It is also my impression that there is much more paranoia about
>cheating than incidences of actual cheating.
>I agree that the result should be rolled back in the afore mentioned
>case.
>But this was not the question raised here.

Cheating is rare: paranoia about cheating is geographical, so most
places have no such paranoia.

But failure to follow UI rules even amongst experienced players is not
cheating. Even so, such players need to be taught: in my view the game
would benefit from more PPs in UI situations.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <MSY8BRGT...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> rhm wrote
> >Blatant use of UI is hard to prove and should not be assumed unless
> >the accused has been given a chance to explain his motives.
>
> I do not know how many times we have to keep saying on this NG:
>
> TDs do not make decisions on a basis of *proof*, but on a
> *preponderance of evidence*.

People posting in this forum are not generally lawyers. I think they
usually mean that when they say proof, and I'm getting tired of
responses that feel the need to pick this nit.

Outside of mathematics, there really is no such thing as a true proof.
Everything that's called a proof is actually just a preponderance of
evidence, just some are more convincing than others.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[David Stevenson]

Barry Margolin wrote

Proof is overwhelming evidence, subject to completely convincing the
subject, whether you are a lawyer, or just someone who watches TV. There
is an enormous difference between proof and a slight preponderance of
evidence, which is all that is required in a bipolar decision.

I really think that any people who have ever watched anything on TV
where proof is required, whether it be Law & Order, the News, or a
anything similar, understands proof. You may assume that people who
write proof here are just being stupid: I do not, I think they have
misunderstood what is required.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <barmar-05A65B....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
...

>Outside of mathematics, there really is no such thing as a true proof.
>Everything that's called a proof is actually just a preponderance of
>evidence, just some are more convincing than others.

Excellent post! I have often felt like posting exactly that, on any
number of Usenet groups.

However, having said that, two (possibly inconsistent with the above) points
do come to mind:
1) Proof is only possibly in mathematics because mathematics is all
definitional. I.e., you can define things to be true.
2) David's point seems to be that there is a "common sense" (aka, "real
world") sense of meaning to the word "proof" that is distinct from
the true, mathematical definition. And that meaning is something
akin to "pretty sure". Or, "more than just a preponderance of
evidence".

--
But the Bush apologists hope that you won't remember all that. And they
also have a theory, which I've been hearing more and more - namely,
that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the
2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future
policies, and that's what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.

(Paul Krugman - Addicted to Bush)

[David Stevenson]

Kenny McCormack wrote

>In article <barmar-05A65B....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>...
>>Outside of mathematics, there really is no such thing as a true proof.
>>Everything that's called a proof is actually just a preponderance of
>>evidence, just some are more convincing than others.
>
>Excellent post! I have often felt like posting exactly that, on any
>number of Usenet groups.
>
>However, having said that, two (possibly inconsistent with the above) points
>do come to mind:
> 1) Proof is only possibly in mathematics because mathematics is all
> definitional. I.e., you can define things to be true.
> 2) David's point seems to be that there is a "common sense" (aka, "real
> world") sense of meaning to the word "proof" that is distinct from
> the true, mathematical definition. And that meaning is something
> akin to "pretty sure". Or, "more than just a preponderance of
> evidence".

Perhaps I might add to what I have said previously.

If you are accused of burglary, you will be found guilty if it is
proved: that involves a pretty high level of compelling evidence, though
short of mathematical proof.

If you go into a court where you and another person are suing each
other in a civil case, judgement will go to the more compelling case,
even if it is only slightly more compelling. Nothing like the proof in
a criminal court is required.

When a TD or AC makes a judgement decision it is like the civil court:
there is no requirement for proof, just the evidence supports one view
or the other, even if only slightly.

Only really if there is a hearing where you are accused of something
serious does the level of proof in a criminal court compare.

So to me when someone uses the word proof they mean the level expected
in a criminal court, but that is not what is required in either a bridge
ruling nor a civil court.

I also believe that that is what most people understand by the word
proof and from reading many many articles in this NG and other forums
believe that the people who write proof do mean this but misunderstand
the workings of bridge Laws. It is to correct this misunderstanding
that I post rebuttals when the word proof is used inappropriately.

[Stu Goodgold]

No, proofs are not just only in mathematics. I'll bet a bottle of scotch and prove otherwise!

[HoneyMonster]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:06:09 -0800, Stu Goodgold wrote:

> No, proofs are not just only in mathematics. I'll bet a bottle of scotch
> and prove otherwise!

Would you be referring to Glenfarclas? The proof on that is 105.