Hesitation nearly always means bad score?

[NickRW]

Change

the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information

to "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested over another by the extraneous information" for a start.

Sounds good to me. No doubt we shall now be treated to a long list of things about how such an idea is the most awful thing in the whole of christendom.

[bluejak]

The ferocity of penalising people has simply led to nobody admitting hesitations, including a pair of internationals who hesitated for 30 seconds (I had a clock on it) then claimed to have been perfectly in tempo.

This is total rubbish. Lots of players admit hesitations. In my experience far more do than do not. And why should not they? Most people in the groups in which I play do not want to gain unfairly.

 

:P

 

Sounds good to me.  No doubt we shall now be treated to a long list of things about how such an idea is the most awful thing in the whole of christendom.

Oh? Why?

[NickRW]

Sounds good to me.  No doubt we shall now be treated to a long list of things about how such an idea is the most awful thing in the whole of christendom.

Oh? Why?

Because that is the sort of reaction I usually get.

 

Nick

[bluejak]

The reaction you get depends on what you say. If you say something that there are several objections to, you get a list of objections. In this case, you are suggesting a small change in wording. If you read some of my other posts you will see that while I approve in general of the UI approach, some change in wording may be desirable.

[NickRW]

Well, fair enough. I suppose the current thing with the laws in general is that the TD should tend to err on the side of the non offending side in situations of doubt - but the UI laws seem to go one step further in effectively assuming guilt. It doesn't say that in so many words - and perhaps that isn't the intention - but it seems to be upshot anyhow - certainly that is how inexperienced players often react. We need some way of reigning that in ever so slightly.

 

Nick

[ahydra]

Well, fair enough. I suppose the current thing with the laws in general is that the TD should tend to err on the side of the non offending side in situations of doubt - but the UI laws seem to go one step further in effectively assuming guilt. It doesn't say that in so many words - and perhaps that isn't the intention - but it seems to be upshot anyhow - certainly that is how inexperienced players often react. We need some way of reigning that in ever so slightly.

 

Nick

Yes, this is the main problem I was getting at in the OP (admittedly slightly over-dramaticised due to my being misinformed/misguided about the laws from past experiences). When you've got UI and AI pointing the same way, but other possibilities too, you're not allowed to pick the one that UI suggests even if you've got very good reasons for doing so.

 

The change suggested above is a good start but I guess will make little practical difference?

 

@mjj29: I was informed by Jeff that "the play in 3C doesn't matter as supposedly we're playing in 2H [since the 3C bid was disallowed]". If I was a TD I imagine I wouldn't class the defence to 3C as a SEWoG or whatever, but should the directors have at least looked at the table result? Or was it that in this case the difference is so negligible - suppose the opps had (badly) misdefended 4S with no contract on their way, I imagine it'd be an entirely different kettle of fish?

 

ahydra

[mjj29]

@mjj29: I was informed by Jeff that "the play in 3C doesn't matter as supposedly we're playing in 2H [since the 3C bid was disallowed]". If I was a TD I imagine I wouldn't class the defence to 3C as a SEWoG or whatever, but should the directors have at least looked at the table result? Or was it that in this case the difference is so negligible - suppose the opps had (badly) misdefended 4S with no contract on their way, I imagine it'd be an entirely different kettle of fish?

The table result might matter in three situations:

- if it's better for the NOS than the adjustment (after weighting), table result stands

- if the NOS have commited a SEWoG action, then they may keep all or part of the table result

- if the contract could have been reached via another auction that does not involve the call which is being disallowed.

 

In this case none of those seem to be true, but there are cases where it might be.

[Free]

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.

 

~snip~

 

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.

I disagree that the law should be written in an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of way. There's no point in taking every decision to a judge to decide if the player was allowed to do what he did. It's pretty much impossible to prove anything at the bridge table.

 

At the moment you could say it's written in a "reasonable doubt" kind of way, which is imo pretty perfect.

 

Your partner didn't pass immediately. Yes, he could be thinking about some fishing trip or whatever. But what are the chances? Most of the time he's just thinking about the hand. So there's reasonable doubt that he has some values, which creates possible UI. This doubt is later verified by the fact that he holds 4♠s, ♣ support, and 5HCP. If partner had a 3-4-3-3 with 0HCP there wouldn't be a problem since the reasonable doubt (and UI) is considered invalid.

Now it's your turn. There's possible UI in play. If you had ♣AKQxxxx and out, nobody would mind you bidding 3♣ because your action can't possibly be influenced by partner's hesitation. However, if you have a crappy 6 card suit you might have taken advantage of the UI. Nobody says you did, nobody can prove this, you also can't prove you didn't,... but the possibility exists.

 

Also, look at it from another perspective. What if we'd follow your advice and only punish people if they're proven guilty. There would be tons of cheating accusations, false and correct ones. But since nothing can be proven, nobody would be punished and nobody would like to play against nobody since we think they cheat. Would you really like that?

 

Imo you use lots of arguments that are irrelevant.

 

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

True, but most of the time it does. Partner seems to have something to think about, so he either has values or some shape. If you look at the hands later on, and there's no reason to hesitate, then there also isn't any UI and your bid would be accepted. But if he has a reason to hesitate, it's considered UI.

 

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

True, and that's taken into account. Btw, you claim that poll sizes are too small. The more people you include in your poll, the more chance you get that pass is considered a LA. Strictly speaking, you only need 1 poll member to say "pass is a LA" to change the score.

 

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

This is not true. If you can make a good case with valid arguments to prove you didn't use/need UI to come to your decision, then there won't be an issue. Table feel however isn't something you can prove, so you can hardly expect anyone to believe in your supernatural powers. It's your job to eliminate the "reasonable doubt", not everyone's job to prove you used UI. Again, if you had ♣AKQxxxx there wouldn't be any problem.

 

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

If there's reasonable doubt that UI has been used, then there are basically 2 situations:

- the offenders get a good result: the auction would change back and the UI will not be used this time. Opps will likely get a better result.

- the offenders get a poor result: this is considered their penalty for taking advantage of UI. Hope they learn next time. If they haven't used UI, then they've made a poor gamble, so why would anyone need to change that?

 

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

True. But thinking implies we have a reason to think. It would be great if we were all able to bend space and time so we can think all we want and nobody would notice any change in tempo. Perhaps this is the future for bridge? ;)

 

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

Bridge can be seen as a gambling game from time to time, but you don't gamble on every hand. Just accept that if partner creates possible UI, your gambles won't be successful for sure. So save your gambling for another deal.

[ahydra]

@Free: You need to rewrite your post slightly as if there's reasonable doubt I used the UI then it should be ruled as if I hadn't :) I know what you mean though.

 

Don't forget that if opps didn't bid game partner must have something - this is Brighton we're talking about, not a club game. Our opps might not have been experts but they weren't going to miss even the fairly dodgy games.

 

I don't understand the bit about "if we only punish people if they're proven guilty, there'll be tons of cheating accusations". That'd be pretty BM for a start, and the directors can always hand out PPs/DPs to those who make repeated flimsy accusations if things really did get that bad.

 

I gave 4 arguments which formed the basis of my decision to bid 3♣ at the table and would have been happy to tell the director about these if he had asked. He didn't ask, so is the only way I can try to eliminate the "reasonable doubt" to appeal? I'm not happy to risk a sum of money to have a bunch of people not believe what I'm saying (see Cyberyeti's post).

 

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 :ph34r:) 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 :D]

 

---

 

To whoever it was who mentioned people hiding various copies of system files in order to pick the one that supports their argument: aren't players required to register their system files before start of play at major events these days? If not, that may be worth consideration.

 

TBH I'm getting tired of defending my not-very-well-written-to-start-with post and putting similar arguments across several times over. Perhaps this thread should be closed and another spawned from it dedicated purely to discussing possible ways to improve the UI laws. Anyone who can come up with a new, better method for handling UI will probably be famous for years to come in the laws and ethics world, so let's get to it! :)

 

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

To whoever it was who mentioned people hiding various copies of system files in order to pick the one that supports their argument: aren't players required to register their system files before start of play at major events these days? If not, that may be worth consideration.

 

 

This may happen in really top flight events precisely to prevent this, but never in anything I've played in.

 

I was suggesting it as what you would do if you wished to cheat, rather than as a serious suggestion, and as a reason the current laws get the innocent and don't get the really guilty.

[blackshoe]

It is true the "really guilty", what few there are, don't necessarily get caught the first few times they try something, but eventually, they always will. Why? Because they get greedy, or complacent, or arrogant, or all three. They push the envelope, and sooner or later, their shenanigans get noticed. Then the hammer falls.

[Cyberyeti]

It is true the "really guilty", what few there are, don't necessarily get caught the first few times they try something, but eventually, they always will. Why? Because they get greedy, or complacent, or arrogant, or all three. They push the envelope, and sooner or later, their shenanigans get noticed. Then the hammer falls.

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.

 

He had a hand that he introduced into swiss teams congresses where you deal your own boards, which required a really deep safety play to make 4♠ IIRC.

[peachy]

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.

ahydra was answering jdonn and wrote the above.

 

If I understand correctly what ahydra is saying, someone who answers TD's question "What was your reason for bidding 3C?" in something like "I bid that because partner nearly put his hand in the bidding box, then thought a long time, and then passed, so I knew he was thinking of bidding" gets both an adjustment and a PP issued. In contrast to someone who gives poor reasoning for the bid who only gets an adjustment; the reason for the giving of poor reasoning being that he knows using UI is illegal and therefore did not want to admit that he used UI.

 

Gimme a break...

 

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the honest player who does not know the laws should get a PP while the dishonest player who has learned enough about laws to know that his own interests are best served if he denies having used UI, should _not_ be given a PP.

 

I am satisfied with the way UI laws are written in general and that the law treats everyone equally. Or at least that is the intent, of that I am absolutely certain. Nobody needs to be accused of hiding behind anything. Ignorance of the UI laws is not an excuse from adjustment but it certainly is not a reason for PP either.

[RMB1]

It was several hands, all requiring tricksy play (some taken from Ottik&Kelsey), and it was in several events. The offender has recently completed his 10 year ban and is playing national level bridge.

 

There have been two players convicted of altering travellers and given suspensions.

[bluejak]

There have been a few other cases in England over the years [the one referred to was in Wales]. Someone cheated in a friendly match between two clubs: so impressed with everyone when he bid and made a grand on 23 points with a hand he had brought that he went into the toilet at half-time and constructed a 22 point grand for the second half!

[jeremy69]

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]

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]

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 :D 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.

 

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]

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]

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