An amusing case of opponents using UI badly

[CSGibson]

So I was playing in the Seaside regional fast pairs Sunday when this amusing hand came up:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s5h82dakjt6cakt95&n=sqj4hj63d53cq8742&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1hp2h3c3h4c4h5cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

So the opening leader lays down the ace of hearts, commenting "I bet this gets ruffed", and then comments again when seeing dummy "yeah, that's too many hearts, its getting ruffed", and then expresses surprise when I follow suit. She promptly switches to a spade, and her partner tries to cash the AK instead of switching back to a heart. Justice was done (by the way, 4 spades is making, and 4 hearts can be made, there was a club void in one of the hands).

 

Quick question, though - if they had used UI correctly (ie, I had 1 heart and 2 spades), at what point do I call the director? At the point they give UI with their chatter, or at the point they use the UI, or at the end of the hand?

[barmar]

Law 16B2:

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

 

I assume you're playing in ACBL territory, and they have not elected to prohibit "reserving rights". So when the player makes the comments about being ruffed or "too many hearts", you you may state that you think his comments were improper and you reserve the right to call the director later.

 

Law 16B3:

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**.

 

If you think they used the UI, you call the TD at the end of the hand.

 

I wonder if your East was being extremely ethical by not returning a heart because the UI suggests it.

[CSGibson]

Barry, the UI clearly suggests that lefty expects that a 2nd heart won't cash. If its the case that they need to cash out (and it is; diamonds are 3-3, so there are 2 pitches in whichever major suit), then they are potentially taking advantage of UI in NOT returning a heart.

[barmar]

What I assume is actually going on is that East raised with only 2 hearts. The UI tells East that West has 6 hearts, because West expects 3-card support and thinks they have a combined 9 hearts. But East knows that their combined holding is less than West is expecting, so that the 2nd heart might actually cash.

 

But I see where you're coming from. West's comment could actually suggest that he has 7 hearts (although he presumably doesn't). So your question is how would we handle it if his hand actually did match his remarks, and East took the correct action? In that case, you follow 16B3 -- call the TD at the end of the hand.

 

This makes it seem like East is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't -- if he figures out the correct defense, the good result can be taken away from them. However, we can also argue that if either of the above interpretations of the remark is possible, neither action is "demonstrably suggested" over the other.

 

This is not the only time this comes up. Consider a hesitation followed by an invitation: the player could have been deciding between passing and inviting, or between inviting and forcing to game. So the hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest what to do with a borderline hand.

[SteveMoe]

I think calling attention to the UI immediately is best.

Here I would have called the Director anyway. I am looking for some helpful "behavior modification" to ensure the rest of the field is not mistreated in some similar fashion in a later round by this pair. The Spade play smacks of UI abuse IMHO. The irony of the result is palpable, but doing nothing after the hand is done is not an option.

[CSGibson]

To be fair - I've told the story of a Montana pair that used stolen bid doubles in auctions like 1♣-(1♥)-X*

 

*would have bid 1♥ in an uncontested auction

 

to help sort out whether they have stoppers for NT (despite the fact that X does not guarentee anything other than 4 hearts and 6+ points :)). Anyway, this was my second meeting with the pair, and I couldn't bring myself to call - it didn't negatively effect this hand, and they were exactly the sort of pair that would have been offended and had their joy sapped by a director call. You're probably right that I should have called anyway.

[mikestar13]

To be fair - I've told the story of a Montana pair that used stolen bid doubles in auctions like 1♣-(1♥)-X*

 

*would have bid 1♥ in an uncontested auction)

 

to help sort out whether they have stoppers for NT (despite the fact that X does not guarentee anything other than 4 hearts and 6+ points :)). Anyway, this was my second meeting with the pair, and I couldn't bring myself to call - it didn't negatively effect this hand, and they were exactly the sort of pair that would have been offended and had their joy sapped by a director call. You're probably right that I should have called anyway.

 

Yeah, you should. If West had said "the next heart won't cash, please switch", no one could doubt that a director call would be appropriate, and here West said precisely that, using slightly different words. If West is really that inexperienced, he badly needs teaching; and if he is not so inexperienced, he knows better, and the intentional UI needs to be noted and punished. The fact that the UI was used badly is only relevant to restoring equity (not applicable here, no damage) but not relevant to whether the intentional sending of UI should be punished. Attempted murder is still a crime, though the victim didn't die.

[ggwhiz]

Poor east just did the normal and ethical thing. After the A♥ lead they don't appear to be playing "signals" (as in I tell my pard how many I have) so I don't think any thoughts of malice on their part are called for.

 

The leaders switch at trick 2 said the second heart is not cashing period. If this defence had worked I would rule no damage but tell west to button it.

[blackshoe]

I am looking for some helpful "behavior modification"

Good luck with that.

[Vampyr]

This makes it seem like East is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't -- if he figures out the correct defense, the good result can be taken away from them. However, we can also argue that if either of the above interpretations of the remark is possible, neither action is "demonstrably suggested" over the other.

 

This is not the only time this comes up. Consider a hesitation followed by an invitation: the player could have been deciding between passing and inviting, or between inviting and forcing to game. So the hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest what to do with a borderline hand.

 

This is not the same thing, though. The remark is rather more blatant than a hesitation. So in a case like this where it could (possibly) be taken one way or another I am perfectly happy to not allow East to get it right.

[phil_20686]

1348521076[/url]' post='669039']

Barry, the UI clearly suggests that lefty expects that a 2nd heart won't cash. If its the case that they need to cash out (and it is; diamonds are 3-3, so there are 2 pitches in whichever major suit), then they are potentially taking advantage of UI in NOT returning a heart.

 

If only someone had invented a way to give west AI about the number of hearts east held. Perhaps someone should ddo that. We could call it a 'count signal'.

[phil_20686]

1348524730[/url]' post='669059']

I think calling attention to the UI immediately is best.

Here I would have called the Director anyway. I am looking for some helpful "behavior modification" to ensure the rest of the field is not mistreated in some similar fashion in a later round by this pair. The Spade play smacks of UI abuse IMHO. The irony of the result is palpable, but doing nothing after the hand is done is not an option.

 

For 29.99 you can buy a cattle prod. Not recommended for those with weak hearts.

[CSGibson]

If only someone had invented a way to give west AI about the number of hearts east held. Perhaps someone should ddo that. We could call it a 'count signal'.

 

You signal count in this situation. Not everyone has that agreement, even when it is clearly better on hands like this; in fact, I would wager that the majority of ACBL players of this caliber would just give their normal attitude signal. I'm not saying its right to have those agreements, but I am saying that the UI is not insignificant.

[Zelandakh]

The remark is rather more blatant than a hesitation.

 

 

If only someone had invented a way to give west AI about the number of hearts east held. Perhaps someone should ddo that. We could call it a 'count signal'.

 

We could combine these ideas quite nicely. An immediate card is count. Playing a card after a 2 second pause is attitude. Playing a card after a 5 second pause is suit preference. Alternatively, opening leader can request a count signal by banging their ace down hard or an attitude signal by leading it softly. If opening leader decides they want a suit preference signal after seeing Dummy then a suitable remark should do the trick: "Oh dear, a singleton." Perhaps we could call this Combine Carding. It seems this method would fit in and work very well in most clubs.

[MrAce]

So I was playing in the Seaside regional fast pairs Sunday when this amusing hand came up:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s5h82dakjt6cakt95&n=sqj4hj63d53cq8742&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1hp2h3c3h4c4h5cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

So the opening leader lays down the ace of hearts, commenting "I bet this gets ruffed", and then comments again when seeing dummy "yeah, that's too many hearts, its getting ruffed", and then expresses surprise when I follow suit. She promptly switches to a spade, and her partner tries to cash the AK instead of switching back to a heart. Justice was done (by the way, 4 spades is making, and 4 hearts can be made, there was a club void in one of the hands).

 

Quick question, though - if they had used UI correctly (ie, I had 1 heart and 2 spades), at what point do I call the director? At the point they give UI with their chatter, or at the point they use the UI, or at the end of the hand?

 

I think they are way too weak to do things intentionally and i doubt East had any clue about which card he/she plays will be the ethical one. Unless you believe they do due to knowing them, i will take your word on it. Otoh i think you should call TD, if not immediately after the hand definetely. Think about this way, they will be called TD eventually, it is better for them to face a TD decision in a board where they failed miserably instead of a board where they gained the board. This will also protect their future victims, who may not be as lucky as you with the outcome and their UI may not be as obvious as the one that happened at your table.

[kenberg]

A couple of comments:

About :damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" True but it's appropriate. In some hesitation situations I have great sympathy because the hesitation was a natural event, couldn't be helped. He needed to think, he thought, it put partner in a tough place. But here, no one required E to say anything. Once such an unforced comment is made, I am fine with forbidding the winning play at trick 3, whatever that winning play might be, unless it is at least 100% obvious.

About behavior modification: As mentioned, a cattle prod might work.

What I would do: I think I would wait until the end of the hand, then summon the director, and then describe the events in as calm a voice as I could manage. I would take the position that perhaps my opponents were unaware of the impropriety. I don't really believe this, no one is that stupid, but I would say my piece and let the director handle it from there.

[ggwhiz]

I can't think of a really good comeback in this situation but a friend of mine once played against a couple of kitchen bridge players in a regional pairs and they blatantly coffeehoused their way into a 2♠ balance.

 

She called the Director (for what was probably the 4th time in 5 rounds) and calmly explained the circumstances.

 

He walked around the table, said "Double and lead trumps" and left.

[WellSpyder]

I can't think of a really good comeback in this situation but a friend of mine once played against a couple of kitchen bridge players in a regional pairs and they blatantly coffeehoused their way into a 2♠ balance.

 

She called the Director (for what was probably the 4th time in 5 rounds) and calmly explained the circumstances.

 

He walked around the table, said "Double and lead trumps" and left.

Finally, a good reason for calling the TD when you think UI has been used, rather than waiting until the end of the hand!