Did I use UI?

[paulg]

Was I accused of cheating somewhere?

 

Absolutely not, you've shown a commendable desire to understand the laws in a difficult area and started an interesting thread.

[Cyberyeti]

I think this is an excellent reply, and manages not to mention the word 'cheating'.

 

Personally I think it is mostly undesirable to accuse fellow posters of cheating, whether or not prefixed by 'Probst'.

Somebody hasn't actually read the posts and doesn't understand the issues.

 

Nobody accused anybody of cheating.

 

What was said was that bidding 2♣ with a hand that is suitable for both a natural 2♣ and a Drury bid, with the intention of deciding what 2♣ meant based on whether partner alerted would be cheating. This is not what happened here.

 

A Probst cheat is a construct used in rulings and accuses nobody of anything unethical. In a nutshell it says that if for whatever reason you do what a cheat would do, you have to be ruled against, it makes no presumptions about intent.

[blackshoe]

Some players will, when the TD utters the word "cheat", block out everything else said in their umbrage at "being accused of cheating". :( :blink:

[RMB1]

Some players will, when the TD utters the word "cheat",

 

I am sure no TD would use the word "cheat" (in any combination) to a player at the table or in relation to a ruling affecting that player. I suppose I might use the word when consulting a player about a ruling as long as I hadn't identified the players involved.

 

Even if someone else at the table uses the word then I will not repeat it.

 

Player: "Are you accusing me of cheating?"

TD: "At the moment I'm not accusing anyone of anything."

 

Player: "He call me a cheat?"

TD (to other player): "What did you say, did you use that word?"

 

Player gives a detailed description of strange goings on, clearly suggesting that opponents are cheating.

YD: "I agree that appears strange, I think I understand your concerns."

[blackshoe]

IN describing the "Probst cheat", my understanding is that John would say something like "I do not think you are a cheat, but you have done what a cheat would do, and the laws require me to rule against you". My point was that given that statement, an awful lot of people will hear the word "cheat", and block out everything else.

 

Of course, if no TD ever uses the word, the point is irrelevant. B-)

[Vampyr]

IN describing the "Probst cheat", my understanding is that John would say something like "I do not think you are a cheat, but you have done what a cheat would do, and the laws require me to rule against you".

 

The "actual" imaginary Probst cheat does it on purpose, I believe. I will find out for sure.

[bluejak]

Some players will, when the TD utters the word "cheat", block out everything else said in their umbrage at "being accused of cheating". :( :blink:

That's true but not really relevant. If you are trying to explain that they are doing something wrong, people of that sort do not listen to your arguments whatever you say.

[aguahombre]

The "actual" imaginary Probst cheat does it on purpose, I believe. I will find out for sure.

The term itself, although catchy, is unfortunate. My understanding is that someone who does it on purpose is a just plain cheat. A Probst ruling does not imply that the person/pair being ruled against cheated --only that what occurred would also have been done by someone unethical.

 

Perhaps, "Probst adjustment", or something should have been coined.

[blackshoe]

That's true but not really relevant. If you are trying to explain that they are doing something wrong, people of that sort do not listen to your arguments whatever you say.

 

Good point.

[RMB1]

The term itself, although catchy, is unfortunate. My understanding is that someone who does it on purpose is a just plain cheat. A Probst ruling does not imply that the person/pair being ruled against cheated --only that what occurred would also have been done by someone unethical.

 

I don't think that "Probst cheat" was coined to explain how to make a particular ruling, but to explain why the laws (in particular laws 16, 23, 73) are as they are.

 

I don't think you can give a ruling to a player by saying "I have to rule against you because you did something a cheat would do". Instead you need to explain your ruling using the words "could have known" or "logical alternative not [demonstrably] suggested"

[AlexJonson]

Somebody hasn't actually read the posts and doesn't understand the issues.

 

Nobody accused anybody of cheating.

 

What was said was that bidding 2♣ with a hand that is suitable for both a natural 2♣ and a Drury bid, with the intention of deciding what 2♣ meant based on whether partner alerted would be cheating. This is not what happened here.

 

A Probst cheat is a construct used in rulings and accuses nobody of anything unethical. In a nutshell it says that if for whatever reason you do what a cheat would do, you have to be ruled against, it makes no presumptions about intent.

 

Cyberyeti

 

I understand everything that you said and the posts and their point.

 

I was, perhaps inadvisably, suggesting that you do not ever join in discussion of cheating, Probst or otherwise, with posters (or anyone else in my opinion, publicly, unless it's serious and intended).

 

I apologise if I offended you.

 

There are several very well informed posters who talk about cheating en passant. I think they ought (IMHO) to just stop doing it.

 

This is a slight deviation from Antrax post, but of course you can see from what I say, that of course I am not accusing Antrax of anything.