Taking ill-advantage of UI, How would you rule?

[Cascade]

Your example is very different: There was UI and the person with the UI took an active action (which is even the action that is most suggested by the UI). Your opponent cannot possibly have tried to do it right, hence a penalty is appropriate (unless your opponents don't know what UI is).

 

In the case of the OP, South did not take any action (which was suggested by the UI for those who understand UI laws): he passed. Passing is a very common reflex for people who don't understand UI laws when they are trying to do the right thing (but it happens to be wrong).

 

The difference is between trying to get it right and not succeeding (no punishment) and not trying to get it right (punishment).

 

Rik

 

I think your approach is very generous to the offender.

 

Without further evidence I would bet that the player was trying to get out of a mess into a playable contract. Almost no one with a maximum for their previous action and four card support for a suit that partner is introducing would pass and almost everyone would raise to game. That is this situation has a very clear action that is not suggested by any UI. There is nothing in pass that is remotely trying to avoid taking advantage of the UI. To pass is at best misguided and at worst a clear and deliberate attempt to gain an advantage. I don't see any problem in imposing a penalty. Further I feel that:

 

A penalty will much better emphasize the correct approach.

 

A penalty is likely to be better remembered than some education.

 

A penalty does not prohibit education and can be used to reinforce the education.

 

A penalty may not even matter much to the pair's score. In a pairs tournament such a penalty is likely to only has a significant affect on pairs in contention.

 

Education simply has not worked in decades. In this environment players who repeatedly take advantage of UI prosper, as they do not have all of their good results rolled back for various reasons. On the contrary players that go out of their way not to take advantage place themselves at a disadvantage to those (unethical) players.

 

Overall your approach provides a disincentive for following the rules.

[blackshoe]

As I've already pointed out this isn't even a cuebid by the definition in the alert procedure, so we don't have to worry about which meanings are highly unusual.

This is an interesting point. We have been treating it as a cue bid, and it seems clear North thought it was a cue bid, but you're right, technically it's not.

 

I asked myself "what would I do, with South's hand, absent any alert or explanation, if North bid 2♠ over my natural 2♦ bid?" The answer I came up with is "bid 4♠". B-)

[Trinidad]

Education simply has not worked in decades.

That is an interesting statement... Do you have evidence to back it up? (You may want to think where we would be without education.)

 

It's a scientific fact that positive reinforcement (encouragement, reward) works better than negative reinforcement (punishment) to change behavior.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

That is an interesting statement... Do you have evidence to back it up? (You may want to think where we would be without education.)

 

It's a scientific fact that positive reinforcement (encouragement, reward) works better than negative reinforcement (punishment) to change behavior.

Is a "scientific" fact somehow better than some other kind of fact? What other kinds are there?

 

It's also a fact, scientific or otherwise, that simply telling someone "don't do that" over and over again does not work to change their behavior.

 

How, as the TD called to the table who finds that someone took advantage of UI, would you, within the laws, encourage them not to do that? How would you do it differently the second time with the same player? How would you do it differently the twenty-second time? Would you do something outside the ruling situation (mini-lessons, perhaps)? How often?

[Zelandakh]

I think Rik may be on to something here. We could make it part of the Laws that any possible incidence of UI, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, must be reported to the TD. Whenever the TD judges that their partner made an ethical call or play later in the hand, the TD should reqard that player with a lollipop. Within a year or so, all lollipop-loving bridge players will understand the UI rules perfectly and we can move on to the small group of lollipop-haters.

[barmar]

As I've already pointed out this isn't even a cuebid by the definition in the alert procedure, so we don't have to worry about which meanings are highly unusual.

I thought there was a more general requirement to alert highly unusual or unexpected meanings, not specific to cue bids. But I just checked and the language is only used in two places: cue bids and doubles.

[Cascade]

That is an interesting statement... Do you have evidence to back it up? (You may want to think where we would be without education.)

 

It's a scientific fact that positive reinforcement (encouragement, reward) works better than negative reinforcement (punishment) to change behavior.

 

Rik

 

Exactly. These people have learnt that by taking advantage of the UI they get a reward - better scores than if they act according to the laws of the game.

 

Perhaps if we rewarded those who played according to the laws then these ethics would be cleaned up. Instead we reward those who break the laws and we have a mess where the average bridge player, including many very experienced ones, completely disregard their obligations when they receive unauthorised information.

 

My statement was in a context where there has been education but no, or at most very few, penalties imposed. I am not calling for there to be no education but for the education to be supplemented by the penalties that the law seems to clearly require. This is not an either or situation, one can penalise and educate.

[axman]

Exactly. These people have learnt that by taking advantage of the UI they get a reward - better scores than if they act according to the laws of the game.

 

Perhaps if we rewarded those who played according to the laws then these ethics would be cleaned up. Instead we reward those who break the laws and we have a mess where the average bridge player, including many very experienced ones, completely disregard their obligations when they receive unauthorised information.

 

My statement was in a context where there has been education but no, or at most very few, penalties imposed. I am not calling for there to be no education but for the education to be supplemented by the penalties that the law seems to clearly require. This is not an either or situation, one can penalise and educate.

 

Wayne,

 

To have a valid expectation that the rules be followed in the main…… by necessity the rules must be right-headed.

 

The current state of affairs is that the rules are wrong-headed; and if rulings were made in accordance with the rules then most would not show up. The norm is that rulings are not in accordance with the rules with two dominant effects [1] more show up than would be expected and [2] it is the unwritten rules that are 'learned' to the exclusion of the written rules.

[Zelandakh]

The current state of affairs is that the rules are wrong-headed;

Not sure what you mean here. I do not find an expectation that bridge players abide by the rules wrong-headed.

[Vampyr]

To have a valid expectation that the rules be followed in the main…… by necessity the rules must be right-headed.

 

The current state of affairs is that the rules are wrong-headed; and if rulings were made in accordance with the rules then most would not show up. The norm is that rulings are not in accordance with the rules with two dominant effects [1] more show up than would be expected and [2] it is the unwritten rules that are 'learned' to the exclusion of the written rules.

 

I don't understand what you are saying. Where I play the Laws and regulations are followed, and there are no "unwritten" rules that people follow instead. Or are you talking specifically about Spain?

[helene_t]

I think -1100 rather than -400 is a realistic result.

 

I generally agree with Rik but I am not so sure about the scientific facts. Source? OK of course we could find a pile of papers showing just that but maybe we could find a similar-size pile showing the opposite.

[mycroft]

I think there should be a difference between a score adjustment and a penalty.

 

I am not penalizing South for failing to carefully avoid using the UI (or panicking and passing in his last playable contract); I am ruling that he did violate L73C, and adjusting the score as I am required to by Law 12. Calling that a penalty - even if it results in a poorer score - makes it more difficult to educate, not less.

 

Choosing whether to penalize South as well is a separate judgement, based on my belief of his culpability - does he understand the UI Laws, is he trying to take the "everyone knows that auction means partner thought it was takeout" tack or the "you can't expect me to hang myself" tack, has he said to me in the bar that not only does he listen and use what his partner says in his bidding, it would be insane not to; or is he befuddled and didn't know what to do, and panic-passed (or was told that UI forces pass by somebody)?

[blackshoe]

Well said, Mycroft.

[barmar]

I think there should be a difference between a score adjustment and a penalty.

I think the general term the Laws use for the former is "rectification".

 

But if a rectification goes beyon just restoring equity, such as the automatic transfer of a trick as a result of a revoke, it feels punitive.

[mycroft]

Yes, but there are rectifications that are mandated when there is an infraction (including Law 12 score adjustments), and there are rectifications that are penalties (via Laws 90 and 91).

 

Yes, some people find the required adjustments, or trick re-assignments, punitive. By and large, they're not (although sometimes even I say "penalty enough"). Even the revoke rectification is primarily equity, even if there is a mandated adjustment before the equity check; most of the issues with the revoke Law at the moment are the "but he revoked and all we got was what we would have, but when I did it, the TD put me down in a cold contract" ones - the "why didn't *he* get punished" issue. And I sympathize.

 

But that doesn't change the issue that I would phrase it the way I said above; because there's a difference between "if you had followed what Law 73C requires, you would have raised, probably to game; so the Laws require us to award what should have happened in the first place" and "you know you're not allowed to act on what you've heard from partner, and you've told me in public that you don't care. Maybe you'll start caring when you start getting *worse* scores than your Law-abiding competitors."

[Cascade]

Maybe you'll start caring when you start getting *worse* scores than your Law-abiding competitors."

 

The current state if one doesn't follow the UI laws in the vast majority of cases where the offending side benefits:

 

1. If someone notices then the score might be adjusted 'to restore equity'. That is, if there is an adjustment, I will get an estimate of the long run average score that I would have got had I followed the laws.

 

2. If no one notices (or for some other reason the score is not adjusted), then I will get a better score than what I got had I followed the laws.

 

The net affect of this is that those that unlawfully take advantage of UI get an improved score over those that follow the UI laws.

 

Clearly this is wrong.

 

Hence, in my opinion, the Law 73 mandate needs to be taken seriously and the normal action by a director should be to penalise the player who does not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. This penalty to be additional to any score adjustment.

 

This is the only way that the UI 'cheats' will not benefit from their repeated infractions.

[mycroft]

I think that there are many perennial UI abusers who shouldn't get hit with penalties; they should get hit with score adjustments and education. I don't put them in the category of *intentional* abusers. UI and the laws around it aren't the easiest thing in the world to understand; there are people (at least one :-) who have spent years hanging around directors and still couldn't work out until the third explanation: a) that the producer of the UI has no restrictions, even if he guesses "right" as to partner's misbid; b) that action X is the one that can't be taken, because it's the one based on what partner said (even if it's the weaker, or pass, action).

 

I think that a lot of, and the most effective, work could be done outside the legal, in the game, structure; through education. Of course, how we're going to convince people to take a class in UI is an exercise for the reader. But by far the majority of UI abuse is done by people who don't really know what's going on when the TD comes back and explains that there's a score adjustment - never mind the "I did what I always would have" and "just bid normally" (oh, and the "he hesitated; [she has|I have] to pass" canards, which are at least as prevalent in the populace than the words in Law 73C). It's only the ones who do what they do knowing its wrong that I want to penalize; the rest a zero and a reason why you're not getting the chance to get a couple of matchpoints should suffice.

 

And I do take a bit of an issue with your 1) almost always, if the TD has to invoke Law 12C1 (e at least, c is "weighted this way" but less so), the offender is getting the worst of possible "equities"; likely worse than what *would* have happened if he'd just done the right thing in the first place (and in the L12C1e regulated world at least, should never be *better*). That doesn't invalidate your argument at all, however, especially given the frequency of 2) over 1).

[Vampyr]

I think the general term the Laws use for the former is "rectification".

 

I think that it is unfortunate that the Drafting Committee chose this word. It sounds pretty off-colour.

[aguahombre]

I am sure there are players we all would like to rectify.

[WellSpyder]

I am sure there are players we all would like to rectify.

Maybe even some TDs?

[iviehoff]

The current state if one doesn't follow the UI laws in the vast majority of cases where the offending side benefits:

1. If someone notices then the score might be adjusted 'to restore equity'. That is, if there is an adjustment, I will get an estimate of the long run average score that I would have got had I followed the laws.

2. If no one notices (or for some other reason the score is not adjusted), then I will get a better score than what I got had I followed the laws.

The net affect of this is that those that unlawfully take advantage of UI get an improved score over those that follow the UI laws.

Your assertion (1) is not correct. The "equity" adjustment is calculated by resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders, and one of the doubtful points is how well you will play. So actual "equity" adjustments work are on the assumption that the offending side doesn't play very well. This is quite explicit in ACBL where there is no weighted adjustment, and one chooses an outcome that is disadvantageous among the range of likely outcomes. But even where weighted adjustments are used, one errs on the side of making sure that it is not generous to the offenders in making ones percentages.

[StevenG]

But even where weighted adjustments are used, one errs on the side of making sure that it is not generous to the offenders in making ones percentages.

But surely not by nearly enough to compensate also for the times when the TD is not called.

[iviehoff]

But surely not by nearly enough to compensate also for the times when the TD is not called.

In the highest levels of bridge they had to bring in screens because the UI from being able see one's (regular) partner's mannerisms was highly profitable and not objectively identifiable by the opposition/TD to be able rectify against it much of the time. At the level of bridge where there aren't screens, most people "learn a lesson" from suffering an adjustment, which generally feels adverse, and try to comply with the rules, even if a sociopath could calculate that continuing to break the rule would be profitable in the long run. If a few sociopaths decide that they'd like to play the odds and like that, well if it is a fairly serious club they'll start incurring PPs and complaints. If it isn't, well it isn't a very serious club, and they are presumably consenting adults.

[Trinidad]

But surely not by nearly enough to compensate also for the times when the TD is not called.

Maybe not. But why blame the TDs / the Laws / the system for the fact that players don't call the TD?

 

Or do you want the TDs to compensate for all_these_other_infractions_that_these_players_must_have_committed_when_opponents_failed_to_call_the_TD (ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD)?

 

And how large would you like this ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD tax to be? It should clearly depend on jurisdiction: At the club, where players are hesitant to call the TD the ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD tax should be gigantic (may be several boards) whereas in the Bermuda Bowl (where players will call the TD) the ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD should be very close to zero.

 

I think it is a good idea to handle the infraction that was brought to the attention of the TD: With a rectification (e.g. in the form of an AS) and with a penalty when it will serve a purpose and leave ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD out of the equation.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Or do you want the TDs to compensate for all_these_other_infractions_that_these_players_must_have_committed_when_opponents_failed_to_call_the_TD (ATOITTPMHCWOFTCTTD)?

 

Be careful not to offend the inhabitants of the Welsh town which this is quite likely to be the name of!