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

[gnasher]

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.

 

In my innocence, I thought that screens were introduced because receiving UI was disadvantageous to the recipient, regardless of whether it was identifiable by anyone else.

[RMB1]

In my innocence, I thought that screens were introduced because receiving UI was disadvantageous to the recipient, regardless of whether it was identifiable by anyone else.

 

In my lack-of-innocence (cynicism) I thought screens were introduced to stop cheating: deliberate communication between partners (e.g. finger signals). The original screens (1976?) were extended to the floor after "foot tapping" cheating allegations.

[barmar]

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

I don't think that's the only issue. I think the point was that even when the TD is called, it's rare that the rectification will be a "penalty", it will usually just restore equity to what is likely without the offense. So there's not enough downside to act as a deterrent.

 

It's as if the only penalty in the real world for robbing a bank were that you had to give the money back, not risk jail time.

[blackshoe]

In a rational society, if you robbed a bank, you'd not only have to give the money back, you'd have to pay for any costs to anyone else associated with your actions.

[aguahombre]

So, the prisons would only be for people whose crimes are not reimbursable or who can't repay. In this rational society, and in the alleged rational Bridge world, penalties should never occur if equity can be attained. If you get caught you break even; if you don't get caught you gain, and someone loses.

[Trinidad]

This bank robbery comparison is well ... err ... not very good.

 

Most cases of use of UI are not crimes, they are mistakes. And these mistakes cause damage. The person who made the mistake is liable for this damage.

 

If I play ball with my kids and a ball flies accidentally through my neighbor's window, I will have to restore equity by paying for the window. If I pick up a brick and throw it through my neighbor's window, I will have to pay for the window and face some punishment.

 

The reasoning that is suggested here is that a person who accidentally breaks a window, will have to pay for the window and either:

- be punished because the laws say so

- pay a penalty to the community because he probably has broken windows before but wasn't caught

 

Now, the drawback in this comparison is that the person who breaks the window doesnot gain any advantage of it. In bridge, the offending side often does gain advantage because the opponent's damage leads to advantage for the offending side. So, let's give another example:

 

I have a contractor working on my house for remodeling. Suppose he works 12 hours and, because of some miscommunication somewhere in the company, they bill me for 12 days instead. Now, I am damaged and the offending side is getting an advantage. I discover the error and I can chose what to do:

 

- I can call the contractor, resolve the misunderstanding and get a new, correct bill and pay the new bill.

- I can file a police report for fraud, get a correct bill and see that the contractor gets penalized.

 

My argument for the first would be that it is an honest mistake that needs to be fixed. My arguments for the second could be: Mistakes should not go unpunished and "I am probably not the only one with whom he has tried this". The point is that -as long as I am convinced that this was an honest mistake- I will do the first.

 

Now, there are certainly some frauds among the bridge players. But they are a tiny minority. Most players who go wrong in a UI case do that without evil or fraudulent intentions: They don't commit crimes, they just make mistakes.

 

So:

1) fix the mistake

2) try to decrease the probability that they will make this mistake again

3) move on

 

The AS takes care of 1). In many cases, a conversation with the players is more effective at 2) than a penalty (even if accompanied by a conversation with the players).

 

And yes, there is a small category of players who should be penalized right away. This category of players is easy to identify because they will also make "mistakes" that they do have control over (e.g. in full disclosure). Good TDs can spot these people pretty fast (i.e. they may get away with a few times, but not more). But, as I said, this is a small minority.

 

Rik

[Cascade]

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.

 

Maybe in theory. In practice my experience is that often enough the offenders do not get the worst of it.

 

I prefer the US approach of giving the most favorable result that was at all likely.

[gnasher]

In my lack-of-innocence (cynicism) I thought screens were introduced to stop cheating: deliberate communication between partners (e.g. finger signals). The original screens (1976?) were extended to the floor after "foot tapping" cheating allegations.

I expect you're right about the original reason, but if you ask a top player today what he likes about playing with screens, I bet the first thing he will say is "less UI", not "less cheating".

[barmar]

This bank robbery comparison is well ... err ... not very good.

 

Most cases of use of UI are not crimes, they are mistakes. And these mistakes cause damage. The person who made the mistake is liable for this damage.

 

If I play ball with my kids and a ball flies accidentally through my neighbor's window, I will have to restore equity by paying for the window. If I pick up a brick and throw it through my neighbor's window, I will have to pay for the window and face some punishment.

In the real world, it's usually easy to tell the difference between accidents and intentional behavior, and make the punishment fit the crime. Although we also give harsher punishments for accidents due to "negligence", the idea being that we want to use punishment as an incentive for people to be more careful in dangerous situations.

 

But in the bridge world, it can be difficult to distinguish. There's no equivalent to the "brick" in your scenario -- the window is always broken by a ball. You have to figure out whether it happened because someone just has bad aim or they intentionally threw it at the window. Since it can be difficult to tell, the rules sometimes require us to assume the worst -- in order to disincentivize throwing the ball at the window, we punish kids who accidentally break the window.

[Trinidad]

in order to disincentivize throwing the ball at the window, we punish kids who accidentally break the window.

We do?!?

 

I don't know about you, but my kids will not get punished for mistakes they make in good faith. They will get to learn that they made a mistake, get some kind of analysis of how and why what went wrong, will have to figure out what damage they caused and they will (if needed with the help of me, my wife, their teachers, my insurance or my bank account) work to a solution to repair the damage. But they will not get punished. And my kids (10 and 12 years) do know the difference between fixing damage and punishment.

 

From the other viewpoint, I honestly can't recall that I have ever been punished for honest mistakes I made. I have suffered some of the consequences of those mistakes, but I haven't been punished.

 

I have been punished for bad things I did.

I have been punished for bad things that I didn't do but my parents thought I had done (parents aren't perfect).

I have never been punished for things that I did in good faith and with good intentions, but that ended up going wrong because of something that was not under my control (yet).

 

I suppose I am very lucky.

 

Rik

[iviehoff]

I expect you're right about the original reason, but if you ask a top player today what he likes about playing with screens, I bet the first thing he will say is "less UI", not "less cheating".

But it amounts to the same thing. Your partner's mannerisms are UI and reading them is cheating, and it is very difficult to avoid reading your partner's mannerisms if you have played with him for a long time. It's a long way short of deliberately cheating by way of finger signals, but it's still cheating, even though euphemisms like "table presence" were used to describe it, even laud it - after all reading the opponents is fair game: but your partner is the source of much useful information and experience makes him much easier to read. Maybe when he says "less UI" he may mean many "fewer rulings related to hesitations and explanation inconsistencies". But most UI is in mannerisms which are not objectively identifiable enough to call the TD over, and maybe not even noticed. The Azzuri were suddenly a lot less unbeatable when screens came in.

[Zelandakh]

I suppose I am very lucky.

You certainly are. I still get #3 regularly as an adult. As for your children, if they break somebody else's window and the police get involved then they could easily get punished. If they break a window at school they will almost certainly be punished. By analogy with bridge, it is not your partner or NPC that decides what the punishment should be.

[gnasher]

But it amounts to the same thing. Your partner's mannerisms are UI and reading them is cheating, and it is very difficult to avoid reading your partner's mannerisms if you have played with him for a long time. It's a long way short of deliberately cheating by way of finger signals, but it's still cheating, even though euphemisms like "table presence" were used to describe it, even laud it - after all reading the opponents is fair game: but your partner is the source of much useful information and experience makes him much easier to read. Maybe when he says "less UI" he may mean many "fewer rulings related to hesitations and explanation inconsistencies". But most UI is in mannerisms which are not objectively identifiable enough to call the TD over, and maybe not even noticed. The Azzuri were suddenly a lot less unbeatable when screens came in.

When I said "less UI" I meant "less UI". That is, fewer occasions when one is legally obliged to not choose from amongst logical alternatives an action that was suggested by the UI. I think that most top players would regard that as the most important benefit of screens.

[blackshoe]

But it amounts to the same thing. Your partner's mannerisms are UI and reading them is cheating, and it is very difficult to avoid reading your partner's mannerisms if you have played with him for a long time. It's a long way short of deliberately cheating by way of finger signals, but it's still cheating, even though euphemisms like "table presence" were used to describe it, even laud it - after all reading the opponents is fair game: but your partner is the source of much useful information and experience makes him much easier to read. Maybe when he says "less UI" he may mean many "fewer rulings related to hesitations and explanation inconsistencies". But most UI is in mannerisms which are not objectively identifiable enough to call the TD over, and maybe not even noticed. The Azzuri were suddenly a lot less unbeatable when screens came in.

Reading partner's mannerisms is not cheating. Using knowledge gained from partner's mannerisms, knowing that it is illegal, is cheating. Most people who use UI aren't aware they received it, or aren't aware they are using it, or both. They're a PITA, but they're not cheats.

[nige1]

Reading partner's mannerisms is not cheating. Using knowledge gained from partner's mannerisms, knowing that it is illegal, is cheating. Most people who use UI aren't aware they received it, or aren't aware they are using it, or both. They're a PITA, but they're not cheats.

Agree with Blackshoe.

Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle.

Lots of players follow that advice. Most echo Internationals on Bridgewinners, who explain that, if opponents complain, they are happy to accept an adverse ruling. Like other "Equity" laws that emphasise rectification, the laws on using UI seem to broadcast the wrong message: They penalize law-abiders and reward law-breakers. The problem would be reduced if procedural and disciplinary were the norm. Unfortunately, they entail an unnecessary extra layer of subjective judgement and are rarely and capriciously enforced. Better would be to introduce deterrence into basic law. If law-makers baulk at that, they could consider fudges like classifying more information as authorised (e.g. alerts and partner's answers to questions).

[barmar]

We do?!?

 

I don't know about you, but my kids will not get punished for mistakes they make in good faith.

Sorry, I meant "in bridge we punish the analogous kids", for the reasons I explained earlier in the post.

From the other viewpoint, I honestly can't recall that I have ever been punished for honest mistakes I made. I have suffered some of the consequences of those mistakes, but I haven't been punished.

If you forget to latch the gate surrounding a swimming pool, and a child wanders in and drowns in the pool, you could be punished severely for your negligence.

 

That's an extreme case, I know. Most mistakes don't have such dire consequences, so we don't need to punish them aggressively.

[blackshoe]

I find it interesting that the DA with original jurisdiction over the Zimmerman case felt there wasn't enough to warrant an arrest, much less a trial. Apparently he felt so strongly about it that they brought in an outside prosecutor to try the case. That person has made some very questionable (to my mind) decisions in the course of the trial - like the references to Zimmerman having taken a course about Florida's self-defense law, as if that should matter in a trial like this. It's as if, having agreed to prosecute, he's desperate to get a conviction, rather than objectively sticking to the rule of law. It'll be interesting to see what the jury says.

[Vampyr]

I find it interesting that the DA with original jurisdiction over the Zimmerman case felt there wasn't enough to warrant an arrest, much less a trial. Apparently he felt so strongly about it that they brought in an outside prosecutor to try the case. That person has made some very questionable (to my mind) decisions in the course of the trial - like the references to Zimmerman having taken a course about Florida's self-defense law, as if that should matter in a trial like this. It's as if, having agreed to prosecute, he's desperate to get a conviction, rather than objectively sticking to the rule of law. It'll be interesting to see what the jury says.

 

Just looked up a news story on this case. It appears that Mr Zimmerman's life was not in danger; apparently he left his car to chase the victim down?

 

Certainly looks like murder, but Florida's gun laws should also spend life in prison. If the murderer hadn't been carrying (despite having a record of violence) a gun, he would be facing conviction of, at most, aggravated assault, and much more importantly, a teenager would still be alive.

[blackshoe]

Just looked up a news story on this case. It appears that Mr Zimmerman's life was not in danger; apparently he left his car to chase the victim down?

 

Certainly looks like murder, but Florida's gun laws should also spend life in prison. If the murderer hadn't been carrying (despite having a record of violence) a gun, he would be facing conviction of, at most, aggravated assault, and much more importantly, a teenager would still be alive.

There's a lot of misinformation on the net about this. The legal question is whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life when he shot Martin. Since Z was on the ground, with Martin on top of him and pounding his head into the pavement, that certainly seems likely. How they got in that position is another question. We'll see what the jury has to say.

[Vampyr]

How they got in that position is another question.

 

I'm not sure it is "another question" if by this you mean that it is not relevant. When you chase a man, catch him and attack him, and then shoot him when you are losing the fight, "self-defense" seems pretty far-fetched.

[blackshoe]

This is not the place to discuss the Zimmerman trial, and I should not have brought it up here. My apologies to all. Stephanie, I'll reply via PM, in case you want to continue.