Slow double

[awm]

Here is an interesting part of an editorial in the Bridge World from April 2005:

 

My partner's tempo broadcast unauthorized information that suggested I bid six spades rather than pass five spades. I would have bid six without the huddle, but relative to the field I judged this to be only a "60 percent action" and the appeals committee had announced that an action must be "75 percent" to be permitted in such a situation. Assuming that I had judged these percentages correctly, if I bid six spades I would score 680 if it makes or minus 100 when it doesn't. I could maximize my score by passing five spades, but that would be taking advantage of the unauthorized information, albeit not in the way most people think of "taking advantage." What should I have done?

 

Bid six (it is a legal requirement to take your normal action; that is, not to be influenced by the unauthorized information) and hope that you are wrong about those percentages.

 

Anyway it seems I am not the only one who thinks this. The point is that the manner in which ethical players are instructed to act when in possession of UI and the approach a director should use when determining whether to adjust in a UI situation need not and perhaps should not be the same thing. Obviously Bluejak is correct that players may easily judge incorrectly what would be their action without the UI, and may take advantage of the UI to obtain a better result (intentionally or, more likely, inadvertently). No one is saying that all (or even most) players will be infallible in this regard. The problem is that by instructing players to "bend over backward" to avoid the UI, we are creating issues like the one in this thread or the one from the Bridge World editorial, where the UI has a very definite effect on the player's action (causing them to make a call they would never ordinarily make, because their usual call is made more appealing by the UI). This creates weird "inverted UI" instances (where a player takes an action he would never take without UI, that might not ordinarily even be deemed a logical alternative, so as to avoid taking advantage of the UI), and "second level UI" situations where you have to ask whether the player who created the UI now has additional information that his partner would modify his normal call so as not to take advantage of the UI, etc. It is much simpler and seemingly more sensible to instruct players to simply ignore the UI and make their normal call. This eliminates the "inverted" and "second level" UI situations, and also removes the ridiculous situation where a player is forced to determine what "the field" would do in a particular situation to gauge LAs (without the benefit of the poll which a good director would use).

 

Of course, the director must still determine whether a player's action might have been influenced (perhaps subconsciously) by the UI... and does this by taking a poll, judging LAs, and so forth as set out in the laws.

[AlexJonson]

Here is an interesting part of an editorial in the Bridge World from April 2005:

 

 

 

Anyway it seems I am not the only one who thinks this. The point is that the manner in which ethical players are instructed to act when in possession of UI and the approach a director should use when determining whether to adjust in a UI situation need not and perhaps should not be the same thing. Obviously Bluejak is correct that players may easily judge incorrectly what would be their action without the UI, and may take advantage of the UI to obtain a better result (intentionally or, more likely, inadvertently). No one is saying that all (or even most) players will be infallible in this regard. The problem is that by instructing players to "bend over backward" to avoid the UI, we are creating issues like the one in this thread or the one from the Bridge World editorial, where the UI has a very definite effect on the player's action (causing them to make a call they would never ordinarily make, because their usual call is made more appealing by the UI). This creates weird "inverted UI" instances (where a player takes an action he would never take without UI, that might not ordinarily even be deemed a logical alternative, so as to avoid taking advantage of the UI), and "second level UI" situations where you have to ask whether the player who created the UI now has additional information that his partner would modify his normal call so as not to take advantage of the UI, etc. It is much simpler and seemingly more sensible to instruct players to simply ignore the UI and make their normal call. This eliminates the "inverted" and "second level" UI situations, and also removes the ridiculous situation where a player is forced to determine what "the field" would do in a particular situation to gauge LAs (without the benefit of the poll which a good director would use).

 

Of course, the director must still determine whether a player's action might have been influenced (perhaps subconsciously) by the UI... and does this by taking a poll, judging LAs, and so forth as set out in the laws.

 

I think you have not had a reply and you should have. I'm sure you would have preferred something from a senior TD, but it is me.

 

There will be many, probably a large majority of situations (IMO), where your proposition that you cannot as a player

work out percentage actions and do virtual polls, will be true, and you have to do pretty much do what you always do in that situation - L73 v L16 as you say.

 

Unfortunately there are some common situations where you have to pay attention to L16.

 

The classic slow double - I pulled because pard wasn't sure.

 

The classic slow sign off - I bid game/slam because partner wasn't sure it was wrong.

 

So the legal experts will not agree that a player can ignore L16 and just bid what he intended 'under L73', because that will not always be true.

 

(Please note that I am not an adherent of the Lamford/dburn extremism on L73 - and that I have never seen that extreme position in an adjustment)

[awm]

In my opinion law 16 is somewhat self-contradictory.... both indicating that players should not use information derived from unauthorized sources, then later stating that when a player has unauthorized information, he must "avoid taking advantage" (in other words, avoid calls he otherwise would make).

 

Take the example in the bridge world... the player knows that he would normally bid on, but doesn't believe a substantial enough majority of his peers would. Consider the following situations:

 

(1) He chooses to bid on anyway and slam makes. The director then takes a poll, adjusts the board, etc... do we say this player is "less than ethical"? After all, he took the action suggested by the UI when there was another logical alternative. Maybe he should get a PP for violating law 16?

 

(2) He chooses to bid on anyway and slam makes. The director then takes a poll, but it turns out all of this players peers also bid on so the table result stands. Now I guess this player was perfectly ethical, because there was no logical alternative? Now his PP from (1) goes away? Does being ethical require that you are good at guessing what your peers will do?

 

(3) He chooses not to bid on, but slam makes. It turns out that all of the player's peers actually would bid on without the UI (i.e. passing was not a LA). Do we applaud this player's ethics? Or did he make a silly mistake by not bidding on when it was obvious to do so?

 

(4) He chooses not to bid on, and slam fails. It turns out that all of the player's peers actually would bid on without the UI. Now the player in question has a great result on the board, because he took an action he (and his peers) would never have considered without the UI! Is this a triumph of ethics, or has something fishy occurred? What if the slow signoff was actually by a partner whose hand is so bad that he has no business even considering any alternative action? Do we now need to take another poll to determine whether the BIT was legitimate or a violation of law?

[bluejak]

Anyway it seems I am not the only one who thinks this. The point is that the manner in which ethical players are instructed to act when in possession of UI and the approach a director should use when determining whether to adjust in a UI situation need not and perhaps should not be the same thing. Obviously Bluejak is correct that players may easily judge incorrectly what would be their action without the UI, and may take advantage of the UI to obtain a better result (intentionally or, more likely, inadvertently). No one is saying that all (or even most) players will be infallible in this regard. The problem is that by instructing players to "bend over backward" to avoid the UI, we are creating issues like the one in this thread or the one from the Bridge World editorial, where the UI has a very definite effect on the player's action (causing them to make a call they would never ordinarily make, because their usual call is made more appealing by the UI). This creates weird "inverted UI" instances (where a player takes an action he would never take without UI, that might not ordinarily even be deemed a logical alternative, so as to avoid taking advantage of the UI), and "second level UI" situations where you have to ask whether the player who created the UI now has additional information that his partner would modify his normal call so as not to take advantage of the UI, etc. It is much simpler and seemingly more sensible to instruct players to simply ignore the UI and make their normal call. This eliminates the "inverted" and "second level" UI situations, and also removes the ridiculous situation where a player is forced to determine what "the field" would do in a particular situation to gauge LAs (without the benefit of the poll which a good director would use).

No doubt there will always be problems whatever we do. But think of a normal situation where a player has two obvious choices, one suggested by the UI, one not. Ethical players under the current Law will choose the one not suggested, thus avoiding a myriad of UI rulings and making the game pleasanter for everyone.

 

Changing it as you would wish it means that the common choice will be the one suggested by the UI because people convince themselves very easily this is what they would do. Thus there will be far more use of UI leading to more rulings and more dissatisfaction. I think that this is very bad as a solution to odd uncommon problems.

[awm]

While weird cases like the one in this thread are rare, I think the following sequence of events is actually very common:

 

(1) Player has UI, "ethically" avoids action suggested by the UI and does something else.

(2) All his peers would take the action suggested by the UI; i.e. there is no LA. Director would never adjust.

(3) Player gets a lousy result because he was "ethical"; his normal action would get a better result.

 

So we are routinely saddling the "ethical" players with lousy results that they would not have gotten had they been "less ethical" and just ignored the UI. This has already happened to me multiple times and surely happens much more often to full-time players (at least the ethical ones). Each time a player realizes that this has happened to him he is more and more tempted to be "unethical" the next time around and take his chances with the director. I don't think this is really better for the game than my alternative (which does create somewhat more rulings/adjustments, as Bluejack says).

[Cascade]

Here is an interesting part of an editorial in the Bridge World from April 2005:

 

My partner's tempo broadcast unauthorized information that suggested I bid six spades rather than pass five spades. I would have bid six without the huddle, but relative to the field I judged this to be only a "60 percent action" and the appeals committee had announced that an action must be "75 percent" to be permitted in such a situation. Assuming that I had judged these percentages correctly, if I bid six spades I would score 680 if it makes or minus 100 when it doesn't. I could maximize my score by passing five spades, but that would be taking advantage of the unauthorized information, albeit not in the way most people think of "taking advantage." What should I have done?

 

Bid six (it is a legal requirement to take your normal action; that is, not to be influenced by the unauthorized information) and hope that you are wrong about those percentages.

 

Anyway it seems I am not the only one who thinks this. The point is that the manner in which ethical players are instructed to act when in possession of UI and the approach a director should use when determining whether to adjust in a UI situation need not and perhaps should not be the same thing. Obviously Bluejak is correct that players may easily judge incorrectly what would be their action without the UI, and may take advantage of the UI to obtain a better result (intentionally or, more likely, inadvertently). No one is saying that all (or even most) players will be infallible in this regard. The problem is that by instructing players to "bend over backward" to avoid the UI, we are creating issues like the one in this thread or the one from the Bridge World editorial, where the UI has a very definite effect on the player's action (causing them to make a call they would never ordinarily make, because their usual call is made more appealing by the UI). This creates weird "inverted UI" instances (where a player takes an action he would never take without UI, that might not ordinarily even be deemed a logical alternative, so as to avoid taking advantage of the UI), and "second level UI" situations where you have to ask whether the player who created the UI now has additional information that his partner would modify his normal call so as not to take advantage of the UI, etc. It is much simpler and seemingly more sensible to instruct players to simply ignore the UI and make their normal call. This eliminates the "inverted" and "second level" UI situations, and also removes the ridiculous situation where a player is forced to determine what "the field" would do in a particular situation to gauge LAs (without the benefit of the poll which a good director would use).

 

Of course, the director must still determine whether a player's action might have been influenced (perhaps subconsciously) by the UI... and does this by taking a poll, judging LAs, and so forth as set out in the laws.

 

I think the Bridge World Editorial is wrong.

 

The laws of bridge clearly imply that in some situations it is unlawful for a player to make their normal action. If there are logical alternatives and one is suggested by unauthorized information in the first instance it is completely irrelevant to consider your normal action you may not choose the logical alternative that is suggested by the unauthorized information whether or not this is your normal action.

 

If you make your normal action in these situations you clearly gain an advantage over a player who attempts to comply with the laws in that not every opponent will call the director and get a ruling so sometimes when you have deliberately chosen an illegal alternative you will get away with your misdemenour.

 

For me this is not what the laws require or how the game should be played.

[gnasher]

While weird cases like the one in this thread are rare, I think the following sequence of events is actually very common:

 

(1) Player has UI, "ethically" avoids action suggested by the UI and does something else.

(2) All his peers would take the action suggested by the UI; i.e. there is no LA. Director would never adjust.

(3) Player gets a lousy result because he was "ethical"; his normal action would get a better result.

 

So we are routinely saddling the "ethical" players with lousy results that they would not have gotten had they been "less ethical" and just ignored the UI. This has already happened to me multiple times and surely happens much more often to full-time players (at least the ethical ones). Each time a player realizes that this has happened to him he is more and more tempted to be "unethical" the next time around and take his chances with the director. I don't think this is really better for the game than my alternative (which does create somewhat more rulings/adjustments, as Bluejack says).

 

We're not saddling these players with lousy results. They obtain those results through their own poor judgement. Deciding what the logical alternatives are is a bridge skill.

 

And erring in the other direction also has disadvantages. If you choose an action that the director later decides was illegal, his adjustment will tend to assume reasonable play by the opponents, so you lose your chance to gain by their mistakes.

[awm]

We're not saddling these players with lousy results. They obtain those results through their own poor judgement. Deciding what the logical alternatives are is a bridge skill.

 

And erring in the other direction also has disadvantages. If you choose an action that the director later decides was illegal, his adjustment will tend to assume reasonable play by the opponents, so you lose your chance to gain by their mistakes.

I strongly disagree with the first statement. Often these decisions as to what is an LA are close and somewhat arbitrary even when directors have access to a poll. I don't think that guessing what other people will do in the same situation is really a bridge skill. Certainly it is not a bridge skill that comes up other than in UI type cases.

 

As for the second statement, this is often not true. For example, if I play in 3NT and director adjusts to 2NT, often the number of tricks I made in 3NT will be the number of tricks I am given in 2NT... unless a really strong case can be made that the hand would've been played/defended differently.

[nigel_k]

While weird cases like the one in this thread are rare, I think the following sequence of events is actually very common:

 

(1) Player has UI, "ethically" avoids action suggested by the UI and does something else.

(2) All his peers would take the action suggested by the UI; i.e. there is no LA. Director would never adjust.

(3) Player gets a lousy result because he was "ethical"; his normal action would get a better result.

 

So we are routinely saddling the "ethical" players with lousy results that they would not have gotten had they been "less ethical" and just ignored the UI.

I'm with gnasher on this. I don't accept that "ethical" in the bridge sense can sensibly be preceded by "more" or "less" at all. A player either meets their ethical obligations or they don't.

 

The ethical obligation is to avoid choosing an action suggested by the UI if there is a logical alternative not suggested by the UI. The laws describe, albeit somewhat vaguely, what is and is not a logical alternative. In the above example it is perfectly ethical to choose the action suggested by the UI. The idea that is is somehow "more ethical" to choose an illogical alternative is just a misunderstanding of the laws and ethics of the game, though it is a very common one.

 

Of course it can be difficult to work out whether an alternative is logical. But even if the result is adjusted, as long as the player chose an action suggested by UI in the honest belief that no other action was logical then they acted ethically, and should not be regarded as "less ethical" than if they did something else.

[gnasher]

I strongly disagree with the first statement. Often these decisions as to what is an LA are close and somewhat arbitrary even when directors have access to a poll.

I thought you were talking about situations where "All his peers would take the action suggested by the UI; i.e. there is no LA. Director would never adjust." That doesn't sound like a close decision, or a situation where the director's decision might be arbitrary.

 

I don't think that guessing what other people will do in the same situation is really a bridge skill. Certainly it is not a bridge skill that comes up other than in UI type cases.

I agree that answering the exact question "What would my peers do?" doesn't occur elsewhere, but sometimes we have to decide "What will the field do?" or "What will my counterpart at the other table do?"

[gordontd]

I thought this a very interesting question and find it sad that so few replies are on point. If you do not like the example, why not change it to one that suits? Personally I thought the example was fine. The question is whether if a player doubles slowly with a hand very suitable for a really solid penalty double and if partner passes because the double was slow in an apparent attempt to be ethical there is any legal basis for adjusting.

73D1 (second sentence), leading to 12A1?

[blackshoe]

73D1 (second sentence), leading to 12A1?

 

I do not see how 73D1 can apply here.

[aguahombre]

I do not see how 73D1 can apply here.

I believe Gordon is suggesting that the slow double itself might be judged by the director to have violated the second sentence of 73D1. If that is so judged, it would not matter if his partner had perfect ethical intent when he passed, and the Director would be making a discretionary adjustment.

 

Anyway, it made sense to me.

[AlexJonson]

With the recent obsession with L12A1, there is a clear and present danger of L73 replacing

most of the law book. After which there would be little point in this forum.

[nige1]

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

I think South's explanation for why his double was slow is a bit fishy. Surely 5♦ cannot be making (he has three sure tricks in his hand). Regardless of whether pass is forcing, North is surely more likely to compete to 5♠ over South's pass than he is to do so over South's double. While I understand that figuring out if this is a forcing auction might be non-trivial, that appears to have nothing to do with South's decision at the table. Certainly South might be aware that a slow double has the effect of making it more difficult for partner to pull

73D1 (second sentence), leading to 12A1?

I agree with awm and gordontd that South could have known that his hesitation might inhibit North from removing his double, so the director should serioulsy consider penalizing him.

[nige1]

While weird cases like the one in this thread are rare, I think the following sequence of events is actually very common:

 

(1) Player has UI, "ethically" avoids action suggested by the UI and does something else.

(2) All his peers would take the action suggested by the UI; i.e. there is no LA. Director would never adjust.

(3) Player gets a lousy result because he was "ethical"; his normal action would get a better result.

 

So we are routinely saddling the "ethical" players with lousy results that they would not have gotten had they been "less ethical" and just ignored the UI. This has already happened to me multiple times and surely happens much more often to full-time players (at least the ethical ones). Each time a player realizes that this has happened to him he is more and more tempted to be "unethical" the next time around and take his chances with the director. I don't think this is really better for the game than my alternative (which does create somewhat more rulings/adjustments, as Bluejack says).

IMO, Cascade is right. I also agree with Awm that a major problem is that many players rationalize using UI through ignorance or carelessness: They convince themselves "I took the action that I was going to take anyway. I leave the judgement about suggested LAs to the director." They often get away with this because

• Sometimes, opponents do not notice or can't be bothered calling the director.
• Sometimes there is no damage, so no reason to call the director
• Often the director cannot determine what logical alternative was suggested by the UI (although that is almost always obvious to UI-recipients in experienced partnerships)
• If, in spite of all this, the director's rules against the law-breakers, the "equity law" result is usually no worse than they would have achieved by complying with the law.

[gordontd]

I do not see how 73D1 can apply here.

 

73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady

tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly

careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise...

The player has not maintained steady tempo. This is a situation where it could be known that this might work to his benefit. He has not been particularly careful in that situation, and his side has gained from it.

 

There is no specific remedy given in this law, so we turn to L12A1 instead.

[blackshoe]

Other than the fact that anyone who has played bridge for more than a week "could know" that an irregularity could work to his benefit, how is this a "could have known" situation?

 

Maybe I'm being too easy, but this strikes me as an example of the old Kaplan idea, now deprecated, of deciding what you want to do, and then finding a law to support it.

[gordontd]

Other than the fact that anyone who has played bridge for more than a week "could know" that an irregularity could work to his benefit, how is this a "could have known" situation?

 

Let's think about this from the point of view of a Probst Cheat*:

 

What would an ethically-challenged player do if he was afraid that his partner might pull his penalty double and wanted to stop him from doing so? Making a slow double seems the standout action.

 

 

* This is the concept used by the London TD John Probst (now happily improving and playing bridge again, after a stroke a couple of years ago) to consider whether an adjustment should be given: if an innocent player takes the same action that would be deliberately taken by a cheat, then we adjust without in any way doubting the ethics of the innocent player.

[blackshoe]

Glad to hear John is doing better. :)

 

I understand the Probst cheat, but I don't see how it applies to "could have known". It does not seem to me to follow from "a cheat could have known" that "an ethical player could have known".

[gordontd]

I understand the Probst cheat, but I don't see how it applies to "could have known". It does not seem to me to follow from "a cheat could have known" that "an ethical player could have known".

Really? Cheats have better powers of analysis than ethical players?

[aguahombre]

It does not seem to me to follow from "a cheat could have known" that "an ethical player could have known".

 

What follows is that when we determine a player (ethical or not) could have known (73D1 2nd sentence), we have not called anyone a cheat, merely excercized the powers of 12A1.

 

We know North was trying to be a good citizen if he passed the double, although his previous bidding was woefully unprepared. We don't have to judge South's intent, only that he was not careful to avoid the 73D1 issue.

[mycroft]

Blackshoe, the idea of the Probst Cheat test is:

 

• If a Probst Cheat would know, and
  
• if it would be effective enough that a Probst Cheat would try it, then
  
• this is a position where a non-beginner, non-Probst Cheat "could have known", so
  
• if the player at the table did the same thing, then we have to rule under "could have known" (whether or not the player actually did know).
  

 

I tend to explain it to the player that "I'm sure you didn't do this with that purpose; I don't even believe that you knew that this would be a problem; but someone *trying to cheat* would do the same thing you did, and the Laws are written such that I have to rule against you. I don't have a choice; the Laws force me. I am *not* implying anything about what you did." I'll go on to explain *why* the Laws are written that way, after the game or some other time, if I'm asked, or if the player still believes that there's some implication, or if I think it will help them understand in general.

[aguahombre]

Mycroft, 2 things:

 

1--Since 12A1 allows adjustment at the discretion of the director, I don't think you should be telling them you are forced to do it.

2--I believe "Probst Cheat" refers to the other guy, not to the one who would have really had evil intent. A Probst Cheat is not really a cheat at all, just one who did the same thing a true cheat would have done --unfortunate label.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Aqua — any time a TD is using his judgment, he is not "forced" to any particular conclusion.

 

I think the "Probst Cheat test" is this: if a cheat would have done a certain thing (e.g., hesitate before playing a card) with the intent of cheating, then if a non-cheat does that thing, he should be ruled against. I don't know how, or even if, John would apply his test to "could have known". The only thing the test, as I understand it, says about "could have known" is that the cheat will have known, and that's only implicit in the assumption of "intent of cheating". I think it's incumbent on the TD who is going to rule a player "could have known" something that he demonstrate how the player could have known it. I don't believe that broad generalization (anyone could have known), or blanket assertion (obviously he could have known), or reference to someone else (the cheat could have known/did know) cuts the mustard. There has to be something specific that leads the player in question to have a reason to know whatever it is.

 

I do disagree with Aqua's "we have merely exercised the powers in Law 12A1". There has to be a legal route to 12A1. That law reads

Law 12A1: The director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

So there has to be a violation of law (some law other than 12A1), and that law has to fail to provide indemnity for the offense. So if you start talking about 73D1, then go to 12A1, you're saying there has been a violation of 73D1. It isn't sufficient to assert "there has been an infraction". You have to show how there has been an infraction. 73D1 involves "could have known", so the TD has to demonstrate how the player could have known that (in the case at hand) hesitating might lead to problems. "Could have known" is not "did know", so the TD would not be saying "clearly, you thought of this at the time", but rather more "clearly, based on <whatever it's based on>, if this thought had occurred to you (as it will have occurred to a cheat) then you could have known..."

 

Actually, 73D1 doesn't saying anything in itself about "could have known". That's in

Law 73F: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

This is the law that leads to Law 12 — we don't need 12A1 at all. This law has several parts: there must have been a violation of an earlier provision of Law 73 (73D1, in our case), there must have been damage to "an innocent opponent" (whatever that means :unsure:), an innocent player must have drawn a false inference, and the offender "could have known…" All of those parts have to be demonstrated.

 

I also think that given Law 73F, Law 12B2 precludes simply jumping from 73D1 to 12A1. 73F provides rectification for a violation of 73D1 (when the criteria of 73F are met). We apply that rectification, or none.